• 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!

Ron Paul: Bring back private pirate hunters

WillRockwell said:
you really are slow, aren't you.
I DON'T CARE WHAT WEAPONS YOU OWN
Click to expand...




So the answer is yes. You support the right of the people to own "assault weapons".


Let me bookmark this so when you go off on your next hoplophobic rant we can reference this.


Thanks. :2wave:
 
Why again did all you republicans vote for McCain, Huckabee, and Romney over Ron Paul?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So the answer is yes. You support the right of the people to own "assault weapons".


Let me bookmark this so when you go off on your next hoplophobic rant we can reference this.


Thanks. :2wave:
Click to expand...

NP, now tell me how you personally have contributed to the effort to keep these assault weapons out of the hands of those who would use them to murder?
 
WillRockwell said:
NP, now tell me how you personally have contributed to the effort to keep these assault weapons out of the hands of those who would use them to murder?
Click to expand...




Not my problem.


We already have 20,000 gun laws on the books. What additional law would you like?
 
WillRockwell said:
The point I was making in that thread...several times....was that firearms enthusiasts should take the lead in figuring out how to keep guns out of the hands of deranged individuals. Is that too complex for you, that the only choices you have are "anti-gun" or "pro-gun"?
Click to expand...

Your premise here is a joke. To put the onus on gun enthusiasts to somehow keep guns out of the hands of the deranged, in itself, is deranged thinking.

WillRockwell said:
NP, now tell me how you personally have contributed to the effort to keep these assault weapons out of the hands of those who would use them to murder?
Click to expand...

Again, you put the onus on a gun enthusiast, this time to determine who might committ murder.

Now take your bizarre rationale and apply it here:

NP, now tell me how you personally have contributed to the effort to keep these knives out of the hands of those who would use them to murder?

NP, now tell me how you personally have contributed to the effort to keep these baseball bats out of the hands of those who would use them to murder?

NP, now tell me how you personally have contributed to the effort to keep these bows out of the hands of those who would use them to murder?

NP, now tell me how you personally have contributed to the effort to keep these slingshots out of the hands of those who would use them to murder?

NP, now tell me how you personally have contributed to the effort to keep these rocks out of the hands of those who would use them to murder?

NP, now tell me how you personally have contributed to the effort to keep these broken bottle out of the hands of those who would use them to murder?

People who committ crimes, are going to committ crimes, regardless of the weapon.
 
All we ever heard from alot of people, regarding the use of mercenaries in Iraq, was that it was wrong. Several times in fact, people bitched about the use of mercenaries. So why is it ok now, in this instance, on the seas, but when its on ground all of the sudden its a travesty?

I'm not necessarily against the idea myself. I never have been. I'm just wondering where the difference lies?
 
WillRockwell said:
demonstrating your ignorance again, when did I say I was anti-gun?:2wave:
Click to expand...
All of your posts on the gun-related threads illustrate that quite clearly.
 
winston53660 said:
Oh now backing up your claims is irrelevant.:doh
Click to expand...



The exact number is irrelevant, I can show you 20 sites that say the number is true, You can show me 20 websites that claim its made up. you are obfuscating and avoiding my question.


Tell me what additional law would you like. And how will it reduce gun crime.



I await your answer.
 
There isn't a person on that list I wouldn't vote for before I voted for Ron Paul.

In fact, despite our disagreements on religion and moral issues, I find myself admiring Governor Huckabee more and more.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Drop the gun argument, and please get back on topic. If you would like to continue your gun argument, please create a new thread
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
The exact number is irrelevant, I can show you 20 sites that say the number is true, You can show me 20 websites that claim its made up. you are obfuscating and avoiding my question.


Tell me what additional law would you like. And how will it reduce gun crime.



I await your answer.
Click to expand...

You won't get one.
 
Last edited:
WillRockwell said:
The point I was making in that thread...several times....was that firearms enthusiasts should take the lead in figuring out how to keep guns out of the hands of deranged individuals.
Click to expand...
You're STILL going on with this drivel?

:rofl

Your position here has been debunked.
If you disagree, feel free to return to the time and place of said debunking, and respond to those that tore your argument down.
 
WI Crippler said:
All we ever heard from alot of people, regarding the use of mercenaries in Iraq, was that it was wrong. Several times in fact, people bitched about the use of mercenaries. So why is it ok now, in this instance, on the seas, but when its on ground all of the sudden its a travesty?

I'm not necessarily against the idea myself. I never have been. I'm just wondering where the difference lies?
Click to expand...

I'm reposting this, as it might get buried in that gun talk on the other page. I would like to know the answer to this.....
 
WI Crippler said:
All we ever heard from alot of people, regarding the use of mercenaries in Iraq, was that it was wrong. Several times in fact, people bitched about the use of mercenaries. So why is it ok now, in this instance, on the seas, but when its on ground all of the sudden its a travesty?
Click to expand...
In the case of protecting merchant ships, how does "armed private security" get turned into "mercenary"?

:confused:

Clearly, the pirates thrive because they know they can operate with impunity -- no one will shoot back.
Shooting back will change this.
 
WI Crippler said:
Moderator's Warning:
Drop the gun argument, and please get back on topic. If you would like to continue your gun argument, please create a new thread
Click to expand...
Didnt see this before I posted.
 
winston53660 said:
You won't get one.
Click to expand...



Oh look how shocked I am. look up I started a thread on the topic. Come by when you want to engage instead of bait..... :roll:




Anyway as requested, What do you think about privateers, do you think that this is the right solution?


I support Obama and the admin's position that this may be the right thing to do.... However like Crip is alluding to, I'd like to expand:



"On Monday, Obama struck back. "Now, let me be clear: I actually introduced legislation in the Senate before Senator Clinton even mentioned this that said we had to crack down on private contractors like Blackwater because I don't believe that they should be able to run amok and put our own troops in danger, get paid three or four times or ten times what our soldiers are getting paid. I am the one who has been opposed to those operators. Senator Clinton is a late comer to that. But you know this is what happens during political season and I understand it."

Jeremy Scahill: Hillary vs. Obama: Who Is Better on Blackwater?


So contractors are now good? Don't get me wrong, I applaud the admin in suggesting thier use, but isn't this divergent from his position on contractors?
 
WI Crippler said:
All we ever heard from alot of people, regarding the use of mercenaries in Iraq, was that it was wrong. Several times in fact, people bitched about the use of mercenaries. So why is it ok now, in this instance, on the seas, but when its on ground all of the sudden its a travesty?

I'm not necessarily against the idea myself. I never have been. I'm just wondering where the difference lies?
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure it is ok, except that it would fit in well with my plans to be a pirate. Privateer is legal pirate. It's true that some of the bigger loss of civilian life in Iraq came at the hands of the hired mercenaries we have there. Now isn't much different I would say. Privateers were used heavily in the Revolutionary war and subsequent engagements because of lack of man power. The navy was fully committed elsewhere and couldn't respond. Privateers were hired to go out and basically be pirates against other country's (notably England) ships. They attacked a lot of merchant ships and took the valuables. The Navy could still engage where it was needed, and supplies and funding could be disrupted from the homeland by use of privateer.

We're not currently in this situation for 2 reasons. 1 is that we aren't at our limitation for our military. We've still got enough resources to use our military instead of hiring out. 2 is that the pirates don't have ****. So instead of looting, the privateers will have to collect bounty paid out by the US government.

There's a part of me that definitely likes this solution because we get to use letters of marque and reprisal and do stuff like we did back in revolutionary times. But there's a part of me that's thinking this isn't going to be the best of ideas. Privateers can get a lot of other people caught up in their mess too. Mercenaries tend to live by sloppier rules and aren't as disciplined as our military. That part also thinks the government would like this solution because then the problem can be "addressed" without them dirtying their hands. And considering we're still going at it in Iraq and Afghanistan, they probably want to drop this issue completely.
 
Last edited:
WI Crippler said:
I'm reposting this, as it might get buried in that gun talk on the other page. I would like to know the answer to this.....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why there'd be a difference. personally, I'm all for using private militaries to handle certain situations.

Look at the effectiveness of Executive Outcomes in cleaning out Sierra Leone.

To me, private, smaller quick strike units make more sense than deploying our armed forces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom