• 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!

Two students shot at Salvador Castro Middle School, one in critical condition.[W:116]

camlok said:
And I guess jet fuel can melt/vaporize structural steel.
Click to expand...

Why yes, it can.

Glad you are so willing to demonstrate your "grasp of reality"..relieves me of the need to refute.
 
WCH said:
Our gun ownership not going to change. The adult(s) who own the firearm will have to deal with the laws covering access to minors.

Turns out she just dropped the bag containing the weapon causing it to discharge.
Click to expand...

Looks like they may be backing off from that claim now. I cant find a current article that includes it.

Which is good because it's bull****. (not your post, the claim the media made)

Modern semi-autos have internal drop safeties. They dont 'go off' when dropped. And its extremely unlikely to hit FOUR people with one shot if they did (Head shots no less!) :doh

Not to mention that loaded semi-autos are pretty heavy...nothing like a plastic toy.
 
And I guess jet fuel can melt/vaporize structural steel.

Lursa said:
Why yes, it can.

Glad you are so willing to demonstrate your "grasp of reality"..relieves me of the need to refute.
Click to expand...

You believe that "jet fuel can melt/vaporize structural steel" and you are questioning others grasp of reality?! Amazing.
 
camlok said:
And I guess jet fuel can melt/vaporize structural steel.



You believe that "jet fuel can melt/vaporize structural steel" and you are questioning others grasp of reality?! Amazing.
Click to expand...

Off-topic.
 
blackjack50 said:
So you can snap your fingers and make all guns disappear from the planet?

And how was life before guns? Oh yea. Than man on the horse with the lance was king. No wonder eurotrash have a problem with guns. They don’t like that individuals can defend themselves. Man individualism is scary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Such binary thinking disadvantages what meagre argument you might have.
 
Lursa said:
Off-topic.
Click to expand...

My comparison just illustrated that your statement was as ludicrous as someone thinking that jet fuel can melt structural steel and you actually said you believed it can.
 
camlok said:
The totally crazy notion is that Americans are under the silly impression that guns can be used to "defend themselves".

Ruby Ridge, Waco, ... .
fuel.
Click to expand...

Yea. It only happens all the time and is reported on and there are only dozens of videos on YouTube of such incidents.
:roll:

Yea. Ignore.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So, we have one person here who is consistent: hand grenades should be legal to purchase. And, in fact, they are, in a technical sense: you have to pay a $200 tax, and apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -- a long process which apparently no one has ever succeeded in doing. And of course you'll go right on an FBI watch list if you even apply.

Now surely this is an intolerable restriction on our freedoms. Hand grenades (and 20 mm cannons, HE shells, 500 kg bombs, you name it) are just inanimate objects, like ladders and automobiles.

No one thinks we should have to pay a huge tax and get permission from the Federal Government to own a ladder ... and many of the people posting here would be outraged if, to buy a Glock .40 or an AR15, they had to get permission from the Federal Government ... so I ask again ...

Why shouldn't hand grenades, simple inanimate objects, be purchasable over the counter at Walmarts -- okay, with a short background check to make sure you're not a felon -- just like .22 rifles? Why shouldn't a non-criminal freeborn American citizen be able to buy any inanimate object he wants -- dynamite, hand grenades, ladders, bombs, machine guns, automobiles, the components for making sarin, knives, 12 kg of Uranium 235, shoelaces, -- just by walking into Walmart, having a simple background check in some cases, and returning a few days later and walking out with as many of these innocent inanimate objects as he can afford?

After all, they're just inanimate objects!!!!!

Surely we can all agree on this! All inanimate objects should be purchasable with no more than a simple background check to make sure you're not a felon.

Don't we all agree? (Except for you wimpy sissy liberals.)
 
Manc Skipper said:
Such binary thinking disadvantages what meagre argument you might have.
Click to expand...

There is no arguing with you. You want to ban guns. You believe that the individual’s right to self defense is less important than the “greater good.” It is less important than “public safety.” While you may get a warm fuzzy feeling about your “noble” position...you are ignoring that the “greater” good isn’t so great when you are the one being fed to the wolves.

Now. Can you tell me. How do you expect a small young woman to defend herself in her home if she lives in a remote mountainous area? How about maybe some rural farmland? Or a beach in a small town where the police are 15-30 minutes away? Or in a town where the police try not to patrol that neighborhood?

I will do whatever it takes to protect my family. And that includes fighting for access to the tools that give me the leverage to win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
There is no arguing with you. You want to ban guns. You believe that the individual’s right to self defense is less important than the “greater good.” It is less important than “public safety.” While you may get a warm fuzzy feeling about your “noble” position...you are ignoring that the “greater” good isn’t so great when you are the one being fed to the wolves.

Now. Can you tell me. How do you expect a small young woman to defend herself in her home if she lives in a remote mountainous area? How about maybe some rural farmland? Or a beach in a small town where the police are 15-30 minutes away? Or in a town where the police try not to patrol that neighborhood?

I will do whatever it takes to protect my family. And that includes fighting for access to the tools that give me the leverage to win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You assume to know more about my desires than I do, while braying the fact that you want unlimited access to guns, no matter the harm it does to society. How many children must needlessly die so you can satisfy your lust?
 
blackjack50 said:
We are in the least violent point in American history actually. In fact...world history. Your argument there really doesn’t make any sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Crime is down, yes, but people are still shooting each other aren't they.
 
camlok said:
The totally crazy notion is that Americans are under the silly impression that guns can be used to "defend themselves".

Ruby Ridge, Waco, ... .

These are the same kind of delusional people who think that Arabs can melt and vaporize steel with jet fuel.
Click to expand...

So because a gun can’t protect you in ALL situations that means it can’t protect you in ANY situations? The reality of the matter is that sometimes having a gun can save your life and sometimes having a gun won’t save your life. I have been witness to both situations.
 
TurtleDude said:
when I was growing up, several kids on a given day had firearms in their cars in the school parking lot because many kids at my HS belonged either to the adjacent country club (with a skeet range) or the village gun club a 4 minute drive away. no one ever got shot. Half the boys carried a pocket knife-one fellow a swiss made switchblade. no one ever got stabbed.
Click to expand...

Majority of kids I knew in school smoked cigarettes. Does that make it okay?
 
Moderator's Warning:
This thread is not about 9/11 CT. Stick to the topic. Posts made before this in thread warning may still be subject to moderation.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
So because a gun can’t protect you in ALL situations that means it can’t protect you in ANY situations? The reality of the matter is that sometimes having a gun can save your life and sometimes having a gun won’t save your life. I have been witness to both situations.
Click to expand...

why get a flu or polio vaccine? it won't keep you from getting colon cancer or a broken bone if you get hit by a car? same sort of mentality from some
 
Bucky said:
Majority of kids I knew in school smoked cigarettes. Does that make it okay?
Click to expand...

I guess you cannot understand that guns used PROPERLY don't hurt the users. Cigarettes- not so much.
 
TurtleDude said:
why get a flu or polio vaccine? it won't keep you from getting colon cancer or a broken bone if you get hit by a car? same sort of mentality from some
Click to expand...

Or it is like scoffing at someone for wearing a seatbelt because it won’t protect them if they are hit by a semi-truck head-on at 60 mph.
 
jet57 said:
Crime is down, yes, but people are still shooting each other aren't they.
Click to expand...

If you got rid of guns, they would use knives. If you got rid of knives, they would use rocks. If you got rid of rocks - wait, you can't do that because we live on a rock.

The issue is people and their actions, not the tools.

Firearms are a tool. They can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. Do not punish the responsible people for the actions of the irresponsible.
 
Bucky said:
Majority of kids I knew in school smoked cigarettes. Does that make it okay?
Click to expand...

I committed a crime as soon as I turned 18. A 17 year old gave me money to buy cigarettes for him and I went to the store and did it.
 
Indian Giver said:
I committed a crime as soon as I turned 18. A 17 year old gave me money to buy cigarettes for him and I went to the store and did it.
Click to expand...

I committed one last night when I took two of my wifes sleeping pills.

I committed at least three more a few hours ago going back and forth to the cinema to see I.Tonya ....HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

We are going to play some of our erotic games later, I would not want to hazard a guess how many crimes I will rack up there.... what ever the number it will be more in a few years to be sure given where the Feminists are taking us, with the full cooperation of the corrupt state.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Bob said:
So because a gun can’t protect you in ALL situations that means it can’t protect you in ANY situations? The reality of the matter is that sometimes having a gun can save your life and sometimes having a gun won’t save your life. I have been witness to both situations.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If guns arent any good for self-defense, why do cops and soldiers carry them?

:doh There's some really limited thinking out there...get a notion in their head and nothing else...even reality...sinks in.
 
Manc Skipper said:
You assume to know more about my desires than I do, while braying the fact that you want unlimited access to guns
Click to expand...

Are you saying you ARE NOT for total bans? Because the fact is...your argument is self defeating. IF you think it is ok for people to own “some” guns...then all you are saying is that you don’t care IF they are killed by a gun. Just what type of gun. Because your argument is based upon the idea that their ACCESS is what determines they are killing people. So if you take their access to one type...then you aren’t taking away their access. Period.

Further. If your argument is that background checks will do anything...then you don’t understand the flaw in the background check. What are you checking for? Do you think potential murderers or mass shooters will have something written down on them by be government? HELLO! These people already show warning signs and have previous history of behaviors. And the government didn’t do anything before. If you are suggesting we need to add more to the do not purchase list...then you aren’t discussing gun control. You are discussing due process rights remove of those with criminal records. Which doesn’t require doing anything to law abiding gun owners.

So yes. I’m assuming your position because your position has 0 logical follow through. Have you ever purchased a firearm legally or privately in America? I have.

, no matter the harm it does to society. How many children must needlessly die so you can satisfy your lust?
Click to expand...

Your argument is that gun control is going to “save the children.” Ah the emotional argument because you can’t win the normal one. How about this. Would you rather sacrifice the safety of your kid or someone else’s?
 
jet57 said:
Crime is down, yes, but people are still shooting each other aren't they.
Click to expand...

In less numbers. Seems like something was done right that didn’t involve gun control since we have been trending down regardless of all those “fake spec ops guys” with their guns and their stickers.

Lmao.

Me and my scary assault rifle 9mm pistol with polymer that can get through airport metal detectors and has an automatic zeroing sight that aims for kids.

Oh wait. No. It is just a 13 round mag 9mm semi auto no different than what most cops carry. Just a shorter barrel. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom