• 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!

This is why we need more Scalias on the Supreme Court

jet57 said:
Nonsense, unless you're going with the state militia option.
Click to expand...

He's going with the Miller holding but since civilian cops have fully auto weapons and they are closer to a militia than the national guard, obviously other civilians need said weapons as well.
 
jet57 said:
Nope: you're not paying attention. My objection is with capability and evidence of mass killings and terrorist attacks directly related to that capability.

So, in the future, when you reply, please make sure to not go over old ground with intentional misinterpretation.

I'll just ignore it.
Click to expand...

So which guns make somebody a terrorist and how do these guns and not others manage this task? That seems to me the only logical reason for not allowing people to own certain guns.

Now this is at the core of your argument so I suggest you supply the answers or :2wave:
 
jet57 said:
Nonsense, unless you're going with the state militia option.
Click to expand...

Please quote from the constitution where this option you claim is. An exact citation or quotation is needed.

This is required to prove your unevidenced assertion or :2wave:
 
jet57 said:
The Titan II's always been popular.
Click to expand...

Though nitpicking, it only has 1 warhead vs 10. 1 exceptionally large warhead mind you. Had to disassemble several (the warhead) ....
 
jet57 said:
Nonsense, unless you're going with the state militia option.
Click to expand...

What frigging state militia option? Please quote this from the constitution.

Can you keep your responses to what is actually there not the demented delusional version you keep repeating without any evidence of validity/
 
BretJ said:
Though nitpicking, it only has 1 warhead vs 10. 1 exceptionally large warhead mind you. Had to disassemble several (the warhead) ....
Click to expand...

Well; I mean, how much fire power does one need to take out an unarmed guy who obviously poses a threat to life and limb?
 
BretJ said:
Though nitpicking, it only has 1 warhead vs 10. 1 exceptionally large warhead mind you. Had to disassemble several (the warhead) ....
Click to expand...
That's ok, though. Jet only cares that you not have more than 10 warheads. Having only 1 warhead is fine with Jet even if the 1 is of a type more powerful than the 10 of another type combined.

Oh and your silo can't look tactical, you have to plant a flower guardan on it or something :)
 
Even if you can only abort a pregnancy resulting from rape after getting 2 doctors to sign off on the medical nicety, your right to abortion is not infringed.

Oops, wrong thread [emoji14]
 
jet57 said:
Well; I mean, how much fire power does one need to take out an unarmed guy who obviously poses a threat to life and limb?
Click to expand...

Don't know Jet. How much firepower do I "need"? Personally, I would say, as much as a cop would need to defend themselves.
 
BretJ said:
Don't know Jet. How much firepower do I "need"? Personally, I would say, as much as a cop would need to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Well, then you should the new "pocket ICBM" by Ronco.
 
BretJ said:
Don't know Jet. How much firepower do I "need"? Personally, I would say, as much as a cop would need to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

its really idiotic for a government unit-federal or state-to issue defensive firearms to its civilian employees for self defense in an urban civilian area and then claim there is no possible reason for citizens in that area to even own in their own home the same weapons
 
BretJ said:
Silly Jet. Cops don't carry nukes.
Click to expand...

members of the BM never are able to address honestly or logically this easy question

If a weapon is determined to be both suitable and necessary by government for their CIVILIAN law enforcement officers to carry on our streets for self defense against criminals, how can that same government state that such firearms have NO LEGITIMATE USE in the hands of CIVILIANS who live in the same area?
 
TurtleDude said:
members of the BM never are able to address honestly or logically this easy question

If a weapon is determined to be both suitable and necessary by government for their CIVILIAN law enforcement officers to carry on our streets for self defense against criminals, how can that same government state that such firearms have NO LEGITIMATE USE in the hands of CIVILIANS who live in the same area?
Click to expand...

Silly, it's because cops need the capability to "kill large amounts of people in a short time", which is the sole stated purpose for "assault weapons".
 
jet57 said:
Well; I mean, how much fire power does one need to take out an unarmed guy who obviously poses a threat to life and limb?
Click to expand...

Why is the perp unarmed? You have fire power for the worst case not the best case. What is the matter with your thinking? Now what would you suggest pepper spray? .25ACP......454 Casull...AR15....50BMG or the begging kneeling position gun control advocate favour.
 
jet57 said:
Well; I mean, how much fire power does one need to take out an unarmed guy who obviously poses a threat to life and limb?
Click to expand...

You don't need any firepower for someone who is no threat to life and limb. What about an unarmed guy who is a threat to life and limb?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom