• 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!

White House to Push Gun Control

That reminds me. Ever notice videos from Britain when a criminal was plowing his car into civillians?

The police were trying to stop the car with batons.

Cheers.

Nope. Never saw it. But two things come to mind.

1. Never said police shouldn't be armed.

2. Not sure a gun would stop a car.
 
Did you know pepper spray is banned in London? Er, I mean UK?

Since ideologies tend to trickle from the UK to America, if you're wise enough to notice, one would reasonable think pepper spray may next be targeted after guns have been banned.

As to your last sentence, don't you dare presume to speak for everyone. Ever. Don't even try to tell people they must consider other ways to protect themselves. Apparently you don't even think about the frail or elderly.

Don't care about the UK at all. That is their business. Slippery slope arguments are often called a fallacy for a reason. Guns are not going to be banned here.

As to your last sentence, not sure the frail or the elderly are any better off armed. It does take some mental and physical ability to properly control and use a gun. It is a tool after all.

However, you may well reread what I wrote. You didn't seem to understand it.
 
Nope. Never saw it. But two things come to mind.

1. Never said police shouldn't be armed.

2. Not sure a gun would stop a car.

So the police can wield guns, but not law-abiding citizens?

A gun might stop the driver, ergo, the car.
 
OMG.... Seriously, anecdotal nonsense now?



Accidents (six causes)

Falls 13,322
Poison (solid, liquid) 12,757
Choking on food or other object 4,313
Drowning 4,313
Fires, flames 3,402
Firearms 776



GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET (2004) - Gun Owners Of America



nationwide there are less than 1000 accidental shootings every year. How many did you see again., cowboy? :lamo

Just like you rev, bring up useless stats that don't speak to what I said at all. You have to show more people protect themselves with guns than shoot themselves accidently. No other grouping matters to my point. :coffeepap
 
So the police can wield guns, but not law-abiding citizens?

A gun might stop the driver, ergo, the car.

Didn't say that either. And no, a gun might kill the driver, who leans on the pedal, and continues to go through the crowd.

But please try to grasp exactly what I am saying. I have made no call to ban any guns. Only noted an overexaggeration.
 
Just like you rev, bring up useless stats that don't speak to what I said at all. You have to show more people protect themselves with guns than shoot themselves accidently. No other grouping matters to my point. :coffeepap

...How obtuse.

I sincerely suspect a troll.
 
I have not made any such demand. Nor would I. I only responded to Rev's girlish overraction. An AK47 to patrol his property? Common, that's not needed. I won't stop him, but I won't trust him either.

Why? Nothing really different in dying from an AK or dying from a .22, the end result is still dead.

If the Rev. feels like he is more comfortable with an AK to defend his property then so be it. It is a legal weapon.

j-mac
 
I personally wouldn't arm myself at all.

oh?

fascinating

do tell more

about YOURSELF

LOL!

If you can't protect yourself without a gun, you can't do it with one.

really?

what else did the fortune cookie say?

gotta LINK to it?

Guns are not magic. They're just a tool.

a tool for what, grasshopper?
 
I have not made any such demand. Nor would I. I only responded to Rev's girlish overraction. An AK47 to patrol his property? Common, that's not needed. I won't stop him, but I won't trust him either.



Troll much? Your profound ignorance is staggering. You really shouldn't be calling others "girlish" as i'd wager i'm far less "girly" than you hero.

The AK served its purpose. Just becausy you are a whiny hoplophobe doesnt mean you need to get mouthy and dishonest with me, hero.
 
Troll much? Your profound ignorance is staggering. You really shouldn't be calling others "girlish" as i'd wager i'm far less "girly" than you hero.

The AK served its purpose. Just becausy you are a whiny hoplophobe doesnt mean you need to get mouthy and dishonest with me, hero.

You might lose that wager. ;)
 
Why? Nothing really different in dying from an AK or dying from a .22, the end result is still dead.

If the Rev. feels like he is more comfortable with an AK to defend his property then so be it. It is a legal weapon.

j-mac

Over kill. Someone might feel more comfortable with a tank, but I wouldn't care to see everyone with one.
 
Why? Nothing really different in dying from an AK or dying from a .22, the end result is still dead.

If the Rev. feels like he is more comfortable with an AK to defend his property then so be it. It is a legal weapon.

j-mac


Wasnt my property. I was hired to patrol a 300 acre ranch and chase off poachers. The previous employees had thier atv jacked and were shot at.

I prepared for the job accordingly. Boo just wants to run his mouth like he has a clue about the job and its tasks. He's ignored my links, my evidence and history in order to troll this thread with his hoplophobic hysterics.....
 
[GOOGLE][/GOOGLE]



Doubtful, you have theory, i have experience.... You practiced for what i "did", peacetime.


:shrug:

What makes you think I don't have experience? Experience at what? You make far too many leaps based on next to nothing.

Anyway, let's get back on something of substance if you can. :coffeepap
 
Over kill.

Not for you to decide.

Someone might feel more comfortable with a tank, but I wouldn't care to see everyone with one.

Why? What should you care? As long as that tank isn't pointed at you loaded, and ready to fire. If it is legal to own, it is just simply NOT your decision to tell someone else what they can own or not.

j-mac
 
Over kill. Someone might feel more comfortable with a tank, but I wouldn't care to see everyone with one.



Only a moron would have done that job without a carbine.

Like i said we have been shot at and had atv's jacked....

If you took your hero attiude out there you probably wouldnt have been effective..... :lol:
 
Not for you to decide.



Why? What should you care? As long as that tank isn't pointed at you loaded, and ready to fire. If it is legal to own, it is just simply NOT your decision to tell someone else what they can own or not.

j-mac

I think and vote, so it is for me to decide. We don't have absolute rights. The courts have allowed for regulation. But, as I breath and think, I can express my thoughts.

And I care, because stupidity all too often spills outside on one's own yard, and effects people around them. When that young man in Montana was allowed to buy a pistol, and he took it to a party and trwiled it like he was some cowboy trick shot artist and accidently shot a female by stander in the throat, kiling her, . . . well. his right reach right across the room and affected someone else. There is a line here, and when people overreact, and over arm, sooner or later someone who shouldn't is going to feel it.

But, I've called for no new law.
 
Only a moron would have done that job without a carbine.

Like i said we have been shot at and had atv's jacked....

If you took your hero attiude out there you probably wouldnt have been effective..... :lol:

Hope you won't mind if I don't take your word. ;)

But, that is neither here nor there.
 
What makes you think I don't have experience? Experience at what? You make far too many leaps based on next to nothing.

Anyway, let's get back on something of substance if you can. :coffeepap


Easy you never served in combat, you admitted to morbid obesity until
You got into shape by running..... You are not someone i'd consider a threat.

But please by all means stop running your mouth trolling me and i'll be happy to stop laughing at the spectacle you make of yourself. Sound fair? :pimpdaddy:
 
Easy you never served in combat, you admitted to morbid obesity until
You got into shape by running..... You are not someone i'd consider a threat.

But please by all means stop running your mouth trolling me and i'll be happy to stop laughing at the spectacle you make of yourself. Sound fair? :pimpdaddy:

At 350 pounds I ran four miles a day. My son, a 110 pound seventeen year old was shock when I caught him in a race. I've fought most my life.

But the fact is rev, you troll yourself. You seldom get the actual argument. You leap all over the place. You put up stats that have nothing to do with what is claimed. You name call, and act the fool. It's your call, but no one trolls you better than you do.

Now, do you have anything on content?
 
I think and vote, so it is for me to decide.

You ofcourse can cast your vote, however, it is but one vote. Are you suggesting that your vote counts more than mine?

We don't have absolute rights.

Where do our rights come from Joe?

The courts have allowed for regulation.

The courts can rule what they wish, they also overturn a good many decisions as well do they not?

But, as I breath and think, I can express my thoughts.

Does that mean someone has to listen?

And I care, because stupidity all too often spills outside on one's own yard, and effects people around them.

Hmmm....I see, so if I don't like what you have because it may effect me, then I can take away your right to own it?

When that young man in Montana was allowed to buy a pistol, and he took it to a party and trwiled it like he was some cowboy trick shot artist and accidently shot a female by stander in the throat, kiling her, . . . well. his right reach right across the room and affected someone else.

Do you think that all gun owners act like this young man?

There is a line here, and when people overreact, and over arm, sooner or later someone who shouldn't is going to feel it.

Who's making the determination that someone is as you put it, "over armed"?

But, I've called for no new law.

Good. We don't need them.

j-mac
 
You ofcourse can cast your vote, however, it is but one vote. Are you suggesting that your vote counts more than mine?

Don't be silly j.

Where do our rights come from Joe?

Don't you know? :coffeepap

Seriously, make your point.


The courts can rule what they wish, they also overturn a good many decisions as well do they not?

Whether they do or not is besides the point. The law is the law. And there is history of regulation.

Does that mean someone has to listen?

Have to? No. Never suggested you were forced to listen to me. But you respond all the same. ;)

Hmmm....I see, so if I don't like what you have because it may effect me, then I can take away your right to own it?

Have I advocated any taking away of any rights? But regulation is common. And it is usually because people have taken it out of their yard that spurred regulation. There is history, isn't there?

Do you think that all gun owners act like this young man?

Likely more today than in the past. There is a real reason why those who live in cities vote differently than those who live in rural areas.


Who's making the determination that someone is as you put it, "over armed"?

Would you concede that there is such a thing as an objective standard? If you can kill a deer with a rifle, would a nuke be overkill, or is that just an opinion?
 
Back
Top Bottom