• 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!

Trump Says Florida Students Should Have Done More To Prevent Deadly Shooting

MTAtech said:
Muslim does the same thing and we have to ban all Muslims, according to #45. If he was Hispanic, we have to build a wall to keep rapists and murders out.
Click to expand...

so if you believe your point that its bad to blame all Muslims for the small percentage who are active terrorists why do you support laws punishing or restricting millions of honest and lawful gun owners or an EVEN SMALLER percentage of those who use their guns to commit criminal harm?
 
TurtleDude said:
so if you believe your point that its bad to blame all Muslims for the small percentage who are active terrorists why do you support laws punishing or restricting millions of honest and lawful gun owners or an EVEN SMALLER percentage of those who use their guns to commit criminal harm?
Click to expand...
For the same reason that I support the restriction on the sale of ammonium nitrate, which is used to make bombs. The flaw in your argument is that you categorize gun owners as a class of people being "discriminated" against. Muslims, Hispanics and Christians are a class of people -- and as such, can't be targeted for discrimination. Gun buyers and ammonium nitrate buyers are merely consumers, without any special class that's protected.

Previous Supreme Courts have already decided that sawed off shotguns can legitimately be banned. The same logic can hold for types of war arms sold to the public.
 
Old Trapper said:
The only "limited thinking" is that of yours. Can you defend your home adequately with a "home security" shotgun, or not? If not then you have no business around any weapon. If a SWAT team can raid a building with one, there is no reason why any fool cannot defend his home with one.

How about a Glock 4? As was shown earlier semi-automatic pistols are used in mass killings twice as often as an AR-15. Why can't you defend your home, or your person, with one?

In any event, I would suggest you do some actual research on a topic before shooting off your mouth. The AR-15 is a toy for males who think it makes then feel like a man simply because of all the publicity surrounding it.
Click to expand...

So now you are deciding what level of training I or anyone else has? Or should have? Why should I train on weapons of YOUR choosing? I shoot the weapons I SHOOT best...the ones I like shooting are the ones I am encouraged to shoot and train on the most.

Can you protect your home adequately with an AR or not? For some people that's yes, for some no. It's not up to you to decide. And again: semi-auto and large cap mags are by no means limited to the trendy ARs...so like I wrote...you cant say that people cant just commit the same shootings with other firearms.

Your limited thinking is surpassed only by your severely misplaced superiority on the subject.
 
MTAtech said:
For the same reason that I support the restriction on the sale of ammonium nitrate, which is used to make bombs. The flaw in your argument is that you categorize gun owners as a class of people being "discriminated" against. Muslims, Hispanics and Christians are a class of people -- and as such, can't be targeted for discrimination. Gun buyers and ammonium nitrate buyers are merely consumers, without any special class that's protected.

Previous Supreme Courts have already decided that sawed off shotguns can legitimately be banned. The same logic can hold for types of war arms sold to the public.
Click to expand...

you completely ignore the point. you want to punish millions of gun owners with more restrictions due to the actions of a few but you whine about restricting millions of muslims due to the terrorist activities of some.

what exactly are war arms-muskets the British used against the rebels? Colt 1911 military issue side arms?
 
Old Trapper said:
School shootings, as is home invasions, are based on short distance targets due to the close quarters. Therefore what works in the home will work in the schools. As we have seen the AR-15 does its best work at longer distances which is what it as developed for. In reality, what makes it dangerous in close quarters is not the AR-15 itself, it is the capability to rapid fire with large magazines.

In addition to that, the argument for the ownership of such weapons is based on self defense, and protection of the home. My argument is that there are other weapons just as suitable for such use, and protection, and in most cases even more suitable.

If one wants to actually argue for the AR-15 why not argue for the use of the new sniper rifle that came out in Canada that can hit a target at over 2 miles away?
Click to expand...

And corvettes don't get as good of fuel economy as Honda civics, so ban them?
 
TurtleDude said:
you're really not making any sense now. I was a Firearms instructor for my DOJ component. You just make stuff up that has no relevance to real world issues. the AR 15 and weapons like it are the most versatile defensive firearm one can own
Click to expand...

With such immaturity and lack of control, it's hard to imagine a vet. And that displays a valid concern in the mental health part of the active shooter discussion.

One of the concerns in the mental health discussions is that it will unfairly target our vets who come back from service. If they believe they'll be denied their 2A rights, they may not seek help...even if it's just to deal with the disturbance and trauma of their service. So in that conversation, IMO, that needs to be addressed.
 
Lutherf said:
While you're there shaking your head another kid in another school is having comparable mental health issues and the people around him are doing nothing to help him.
Click to expand...

If this young man had been flagged by school authorities as potentially mentally ill, those 17 lives would have been spared, and the young man would be in therapy not jail.
 
Parrish said:
Good question. Anyone who hopes that it is nothing is done care to respond?
Click to expand...


Some people are so afraid they'll lose their guns they'll never support keeping them out of the hands of murderers.

That's a sad fact.

:doh
 
yankintx said:
If this young man had been flagged by school authorities as potentially mentally ill, those 17 lives would have been spared, and the young man would be in therapy not jail
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...


Some people might not like that result,but it's better than ending up with 17 dead people,eh?
 
TurtleDude said:
when you spew NRA hate and blame the NRA for this shooter (who passed six background checks) and then whine about wanting common sense gun control (I thought background checks were your common sense gun control dreams) I cannot find your claims to be honest. Your continued hysterical attacks on the NRA prove to me you don't care about stopping violent criminals but rather bashing the NRA
Click to expand...

I am not blaming the NRA--they don't write the gun laws in this country. Congress does, and since Republicans took over in 2010 there have been 9 mass shootings-and the only thing Republicans do is offer their sympathies and hold prayer vigils.

I think this country has had enough of that. Obviously if you want common sense gun regulations, you'll have to vote for DEMOCRATS this coming November. Don't vote, or vote for Republicans, expect more of the same. It's as simple as that.
'Thoughts and prayers' ? and fistfuls of NRA money: Why America can't control guns

RogerR20120424_low.jpg
 
Old Trapper said:
Thats ok asshat, when you say I posted an ignorant post you are saying I am ignorant. Sorry you are so stupid as to not be able to comprehend that. And it matters not to me what you believe about my military service since I could say the same about yours. I really doubt any asshole like you is really a veteran, however, you do with your anger, and obvious lack of social skills, demonstrate the qualities of one with PTSD. And so far all you have done is whine, and not show **** about my lack of knowledge of tactics, or guns. You have your opinion, and I have mine. We are not talking about urban warfare, we are talking about home invasions, self defense, and school shootings. Perhaps you lack the ability to understand the difference.
Click to expand...

:lamo:lamo
 
jet57 said:
Uh - right.

Vetts ARE limited.
Click to expand...

To a mere 650 hp, I know. They only go 200mph.

How about a veyron, then? Terrible fuel economy, no place for groceries, plus they're ugly.

They should be banned. What purpose do they serve?
 
KevinKohler said:
To a mere 650 hp, I know. They only go 200mph.

How about a veyron, then? Terrible fuel economy, no place for groceries, plus they're ugly.

They should be banned. What purpose do they serve?
Click to expand...

Yeah, just like the Audi Boxster was.


Oh, and 650 is nuuuuthing.


43555ad775c6953ccbb40c89596372c3.jpg

THAT'S horse power.
 
jet57 said:
They did: it can't be driven on the streets
Click to expand...

A zr1 can. A gumpart Apollo can. A Bugatti veyron can. Or a veyron GT.

That's over 4K hp, all totally useless on the street. We should ban it.

And who cares about streets? Ban that dragster, it's useless. It's only purpose is to break the speed limit.
 
Blaming victims is one of DJT's favorite arguments.
 
KevinKohler said:
A zr1 can. A gumpart Apollo can. A Bugatti veyron can. Or a veyron GT.

That's over 4K hp, all totally useless on the street. We should ban it.

And who cares about streets? Ban that dragster, it's useless. It's only purpose is to break the speed limit.
Click to expand...

It's only purpose is to win races: that's what it was originally designed to do.
 
jet57 said:
It's only purpose is to win races: that's what it was originally designed to do.
Click to expand...

No, it's a CAR, which was designed to transport people and goods with minimal effort.
 
KevinKohler said:
No, it's a CAR, which was designed to transport people and goods with minimal effort.
Click to expand...

Good, then you can go buy a 30.06 or 12 gauge; take your pick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom