• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI arrests Ohio teen for online threats and finds 25 firearms, 10,000 rounds of ammo

Moderate Right said:
But that's just it. These people have already done enough to be arrested. Most of them have already been arrested and let go and terroristic threatening is against the law. They HAVE done things to arrest them for or kept jailed for what they have already done. I'm not advocating for being the thought police but if you do terroristic threatening you have already broken the law. We just need stronger sentencing guidelines for these kinds of crimes. Letting them back out in two years is stupid.
Click to expand...

I agree with the idea that VIOLENT offenders should be treated with a differing, higher degree of scrutiny.

But drugs and crazy talk?

Not a criminal issue.
 
RedSunRising said:
Since you answered several days after our last exchange, I'm not inclined to go remember what upset you. I'm quite sure that I told you that "current" jurisprudence is wrong, based on a long and durable record. And I explained it to you. Your refusal to accept my response does not indicate that I refused to give one to you.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. The *only* thing you said, I quoted in my last post. You didn't reference any "record," at all.


Since I see you're seeing playing games because you understimate my ability to deal with you, let me remind you that the BoR involves individual rights and not collective rights, so that weak trap was ineffective.

Finally, let me try to be as clear as your dry and thoughtless posts indicate that you require. The 2A did not contemplate our current circumstances. Interpretation of that brief text is as ambiguous as the text itself. As someone as learned as you purport to be, I will assume that you understand my meaning. You think you're right. That's super. I think I'm right. Ah, the joys of debating.
Click to expand...

In no place here is an argument, and to any extent there was one, all you're saying is "it is so because I say it's so." Which isn't an argument.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
It appears that those who are castigating the government for "moving on a potential threat which might never actually happen" in this case are the same people who are castigating the government for NOT "moving on a potential threat which might never actually happen" with respect to the WTC/Pentagon mass murders.

I could be wrong, but if so there is certainly a lot of overlap (to say nothing whatsoever about hypocrisy) involved.
Click to expand...

None of that has a thing to do anything you quoted. I mean, literally nothing.
 
Harshaw said:
None of that has a thing to do anything you quoted. I mean, literally nothing.
Click to expand...

It's also correct and is also something that would occur to anyone who is capable of holding more than one thought in their mind at the same time.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
It's also correct and is also something that would occur to anyone who is capable of holding more than one thought in their mind at the same time.
Click to expand...

Then tell it to someone who argued otherwise. No idea in the world why you chose to say it to me. Nothing I posted warranted it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom