• 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!

Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

Alvin T. Grey said:
The assault weapon is for national defense, not sport or personal security. Believe it or not its not as easy to get a personal firearm in Switzerland as people think.
And they are not the kind of weapon that you have to stretch the deffinition of "Assault" in order to fit. AFIK they currently issue the SG500 (550?).
Click to expand...

What the hell is an assault weapon?
 
1984 said:
What the hell is an assault weapon?
Click to expand...
Whatever sort a gun that a liberal thinks is too scarey-looking for law-abiding citizens to own.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Things like making fun of someone who doesn't call you a racist just brings that issue out, and lowers the civility you are trying to encourage in other people. If you're going to be a concern troll, troll yourself first.
Click to expand...


So for the months of "teabagger" you kept your mouth shut, now you decide to open it?


Please forgive me if I disregard your advice on this. I tried the nice way, Now it's thier way.


And it worked. There are 1 maybe two mouth foamers left using the term "teabagger".... So I think uhm, It's been a resounding success.


If you have a complaint about it, don't take it up with me. Take it up with the teabagged crowd, as you won't see me pre-emptivly calling anyone "teabagged" or a "teabagee"...


But thank you for your concern. :thumbs:
 
liblady said:
i hope they are arrested. this is going to far.
Click to expand...

I hope war protesters get arrested for providing aid and comfort to our enemies. They should be tried as traitors.
 
liblady said:
i hope they are arrested. this is going to far.
Click to expand...

Arrested for what? Exercising their constitutional rights? Working with the Oklahoma state legislature?
 
VanceMack said:
Arrested for what? Exercising their constitutional rights? Working with the Oklahoma state legislature?
Click to expand...

They committed a cardinal sin - disagreeing with a liberal.
 
VanceMack said:
Arrested for what? Exercising their constitutional rights? Working with the Oklahoma state legislature?
Click to expand...
I asked the same questions.
Like me, you should not expect an answer.
 
Z3n said:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Hardly call them well regulated or necessary to security of a free State(they in fact incite violence?) :2wave:
Click to expand...

I think the determination of necessity of the militia is really up to the state. And if the legislature passes a law creating a militia, I'd say that makes them well regulated.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Things like making fun of someone who doesn't call you a racist just brings that issue out, and lowers the civility you are trying to encourage in other people. If you're going to be a concern troll, troll yourself first.
Click to expand...




Oh and one more thing. As part of the Tea Party, he's called me racist, homophobe, and far worse things. :shrug:
 
Moon said:
I think the determination of necessity of the militia is really up to the state. And if the legislature passes a law creating a militia, I'd say that makes them well regulated.
Click to expand...

Well at least you can defend your gun advocacy! :cool:

I have no problem with sane individuals owning weaponry. What I do have a problem with is the amount of violence when the amount of guns carried publicly goes up. It's just statistically inevitable that guns per square yard or whatever going up increases probability of violence.
 
Z3n said:
Well at least you can defend your gun advocacy! :cool:

I have no problem with sane individuals owning weaponry. What I do have a problem with is the amount of violence when the amount of guns carried publicly goes up. It's just statistically inevitable that guns per square yard or whatever going up increases probability of violence.
Click to expand...
The fact that the number of guns ioncreases every year while the yearly crime rates fluctuate within a very narrow range negates this idea.
 
Goobieman said:
The fact that the number of guns ioncreases every year while the yearly crime rates fluctuate within a very narrow range negates this idea.
Click to expand...

number of guns per year also increases a very narrow range every year as well :p
 
Z3n said:
number of guns per year also increases a very narrow range every year as well
Click to expand...
But the -fact- is that is the number of guns goes up every single year -- and crime does not. Crime now is lower than in the early 90s; since then the number of guns in the US has increased by as many as 40 million.

If more guns = more crime, then as the number of guns rises so too must crime. if crime goes down when the number of guns goes up then more guns = more crime must be false.
 
Goobieman said:
But the -fact- is that is the number of guns goes up every single year -- and crime does not. Crime now is lower than in the early 90s; since then the number of guns in the US has increased by as many as 40 million.

If more guns = more crime, then as the number of guns rises so too must crime. if crime goes down when the number of guns goes up then more guns = more crime must be false.
Click to expand...

im going to need to see some research and I still don't believe that as gun ownership increases, crime rate(however minimally) will go up as a correlation
 
Z3n said:
im going to need to see some research
Click to expand...
Have at it.

and I still don't believe that as gun ownership increases, crime rate(however minimally) will go up as a correlation
Click to expand...
Its YOUR claim that it does:

It's just statistically inevitable that guns per square yard or whatever going up increases probability of violence
Click to expand...
 
Goobieman said:
Have at it.


Its YOUR claim that it does:
Click to expand...

Sorry I meant to say "do believe"

Long day

And I want you to post research that refutes that
 
Z3n said:
Sorry I meant to say "do believe"
Long day
And I want you to post research that refutes that
Click to expand...
Ok... lets look at a 15 year-range (just becaiuse I can get the numbers easily) where viiolent crime fell 25%

Violent crimes reported, as per the FBI:

2008: 1,382,012
Violent Crime - Crime in the United States 2008

1994: 1,857,670
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/95crime2.pdf

Thus, the nuimber of crimes has gone down.
Not just the crime rate, but the raw number of crimes.

Now, according to the USDOJ, in 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million
firearms, 65 million of which were handguns.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

The BATF notes that ther were 108,000,000 NICS checks for gun transfers, the majority of which were for new guns. Assume that only half this number were for new guns, and you get 54,000,000 new guns (1999-2009).
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nics_checks_total.pdf

So, using just that low estimate and ingoring the 5 years not covered by the data, the number of guns in the US increased 28% 1994-2009.

So, 1994-2009
Crime down 25%
Number of guns up >28%

Thus:
More guns does not equal more crime.
 
Z3n said:
Well at least you can defend your gun advocacy! :cool:

I have no problem with sane individuals owning weaponry. What I do have a problem with is the amount of violence when the amount of guns carried publicly goes up. It's just statistically inevitable that guns per square yard or whatever going up increases probability of violence.
Click to expand...

I guess your stats teacher forgot to tell you that "I say so" isn't a legitimate form of statistical analysis.
 
Last edited:
Z3n said:
Well at least you can defend your gun advocacy! :cool:

I have no problem with sane individuals owning weaponry. What I do have a problem with is the amount of violence when the amount of guns carried publicly goes up. It's just statistically inevitable that guns per square yard or whatever going up increases probability of violence.
Click to expand...


Really? You sure about that? Lets see your "evidence" :lamo
 
Z3n said:
Well at least you can defend your gun advocacy! :cool:
Click to expand...

It's not advocacy, it's called the Constitution.

Z3n said:
I have no problem with sane individuals owning weaponry. What I do have a problem with is the amount of violence when the amount of guns carried publicly goes up. It's just statistically inevitable that guns per square yard or whatever going up increases probability of violence.
Click to expand...

The facts are against you on this one. Since you make a claim of statistical inevitability, I'm sure you won't have any problems supporting your point.
 
Z3n said:
Sorry I meant to say "do believe"

Long day

And I want you to post research that refutes that
Click to expand...

You haven't posted anything to support your opinion, and yet you want someone else to do research to refute it? :doh
 
Moon said:
You haven't posted anything to support your opinion, and yet you want someone else to do research to refute it? :doh
Click to expand...

It would make logical sense that as gun ownership increases, the probability of crime increases...

I want to know where boogie is getting his information that shows no correlation
 
Z3n said:
It would make logical sense that as gun ownership increases, the probability of crime increases...

I want to know where boogie is getting his information that shows no correlation
Click to expand...



So before when you made this claim. You were speculating and actually have no idea of the facts and no evidence to back up you claim. Noted
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So before when you made this claim. You were speculating and actually have no idea of the facts and no evidence to back up you claim. Noted
Click to expand...

bleh its like 5 v 1. Dont really care lol
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So for the months of "teabagger" you kept your mouth shut, now you decide to open it?


Please forgive me if I disregard your advice on this. I tried the nice way, Now it's thier way.


And it worked. There are 1 maybe two mouth foamers left using the term "teabagger".... So I think uhm, It's been a resounding success.


If you have a complaint about it, don't take it up with me. Take it up with the teabagged crowd, as you won't see me pre-emptivly calling anyone "teabagged" or a "teabagee"...


But thank you for your concern. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

What does the teabagger thing have to do with you accusing people of playing the race card? None that I can see. I never told you to stop your little PC crusade, I just asked that if you're going to insist people be PC, you stop accusing them of implying racism, or ridiculing them for not calling you racist.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Oh and one more thing. As part of the Tea Party, he's called me racist, homophobe, and far worse things. :shrug:
Click to expand...

He specifically said you were a racist or a homophobe? Or did he say that there were racists and homophobes in the tea party? Because I don't see how anyone can deny that certain members of the tea parties happen to be bigots. A lady I was counter-demonstrating with today was called a nigger lover, for crying out loud.

also, didn't your mom ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? how old are you, 8?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom