• 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!

Armed citizens capture escaped murderers in Georgia

jet57 said:
Right; that's exactly why you responded: to make a personal attack.
Click to expand...

your posts on gun issues are invariably dishonest, lacking substance and poorly reasoned. why are you complaining?
 
jet57 said:
Right; that's exactly why you responded: to make a personal attack.
Click to expand...
No, I attacked your pathetic excuse of reasoning in most of your posts. The fact that you can't see that may explain why you repeatedly show in post after post that you fail to grasp common sense.

For example, you jump into this thread spouting off that they didn't need to use guns because some 35 years ago you were able to subdue a guy with just your bare hands. Your story has absolutely nothing to do with the story in the OP and isn't relevant in any remote way. Your "experience" means absolutely jack **** to the topic at hand. You do this repeatedly and it's a pattern with you.

You've shown in post after post over the years that you don't grasp the topic at hand, let alone the multitude of reasons why the 2a exists. You don't think that law abiding citizens need guns and that there's something wrong with them if they need to carry to protect themselves. You just don't get it.

If you can't tell the difference between debate and a personal attack then maybe a political forum isn't your cup of tea. I've made personal attacks before and this isn't even close to one.

So, are you going to address the topic in a reasoned and logical way and stop interjection random stories that have nothing to do with the topic or are you going to waste more time complaining about something that isn't happening?
 
RedAkston said:
No, I attacked your pathetic excuse of reasoning in most of your posts. The fact that you can't see that may explain why you repeatedly show in post after post that you fail to grasp common sense.

For example, you jump into this thread spouting off that they didn't need to use guns because some 35 years ago you were able to subdue a guy with just your bare hands. Your story has absolutely nothing to do with the story in the OP and isn't relevant in any remote way. Your "experience" means absolutely jack **** to the topic at hand. You do this repeatedly and it's a pattern with you.

You've shown in post after post over the years that you don't grasp the topic at hand, let alone the multitude of reasons why the 2a exists. You don't think that law abiding citizens need guns and that there's something wrong with them if they need to carry to protect themselves. You just don't get it.

If you can't tell the difference between debate and a personal attack then maybe a political forum isn't your cup of tea. I've made personal attacks before and this isn't even close to one.

So, are you going to address the topic in a reasoned and logical way and stop interjection random stories that have nothing to do with the topic or are you going to waste more time complaining about something that isn't happening?
Click to expand...

So, someone who doesn't need a gun is not as important as someone who does...

Interesting.

My story has absolutely everything to do with the OP as a counter experience. It refutes the necessity for guns in order to do the right thing.

I have shown in post after post - for years - that I know exactly what I'm talking about with respect to the subject, this thread being no different and - yet - you keep failing to prove me wrong. THAT is funny. All you can do, just like now is personalize the subject with ad-hom and "lectures" that bring you no closer to proving me wring than a month ago when you couldn't prove me wrong.

So RedAkston; how about taking the bull by the horns and actually going out and working for some substantial credible material that will at least ONCE say something intelligent and actually do something to advance your opinions.
 
jet57 said:
So, someone who doesn't need a gun is not as important as someone who does...

Interesting.

My story has absolutely everything to do with the OP as a counter experience. It refutes the necessity for guns in order to do the right thing.

I have shown in post after post - for years - that I know exactly what I'm talking about with respect to the subject, this thread being no different and - yet - you keep failing to prove me wrong. THAT is funny. All you can do, just like now is personalize the subject with ad-hom and "lectures" that bring you no closer to proving me wring than a month ago when you couldn't prove me wrong.

So RedAkston; how about taking the bull by the horns and actually going out and working for some substantial credible material that will at least ONCE say something intelligent and actually do something to advance your opinions.
Click to expand...

All you do is claim to have won these arguments:roll:
 
Slingshot Bob said:
All you do is claim to have won these arguments:roll:
Click to expand...

Because I keep producing material that nobody can refute. All you guys do is keep saying I'm wrong , but you can never prove it.

So what does that says about the argument?

It'd be great if people like RedAkston and Turtledude and BrtJ and Rucker61 and other could actually go out get material that says I'm absolutely wrong, but they never can. How'bout yourself? Is it - wrong - that a person does not need a gun to do the right thing? Show me the evidence that says that I'm wrong on that?
 
jet57 said:
Because I keep producing material that nobody can refute. All you guys do is keep saying I'm wrong , but you can never prove it.

So what does that says about the argument?

It'd be great if people like RedAkston and Turtledude and BrtJ and Rucker61 and other could actually go out get material that says I'm absolutely wrong, but they never can. How'bout yourself? Is it - wrong - that a person does not need a gun to do the right thing? Show me the evidence that says that I'm wrong on that?
Click to expand...

Need a gun to do the right thing? What does that even mean? I do many right things every day, my guns sit unloaded at my house....:roll:
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Need a gun to do the right thing? What does that even mean? I do many right things every day, my guns sit unloaded at my house....:roll:
Click to expand...

It means exactly what I said it does. If you're having difficulty understanding it, then I suggest you go back through the thread and acquaint yourself with the dialogue.
 
jet57 said:
So, someone who doesn't need a gun is not as important as someone who does...

Interesting.

My story has absolutely everything to do with the OP as a counter experience. It refutes the necessity for guns in order to do the right thing.

I have shown in post after post - for years - that I know exactly what I'm talking about with respect to the subject, this thread being no different and - yet - you keep failing to prove me wrong. THAT is funny. All you can do, just like now is personalize the subject with ad-hom and "lectures" that bring you no closer to proving me wring than a month ago when you couldn't prove me wrong.

So RedAkston; how about taking the bull by the horns and actually going out and working for some substantial credible material that will at least ONCE say something intelligent and actually do something to advance your opinions.
Click to expand...

It took you 6 days to come back at me with this garbage? Let me break this down for you in hopes that it sinks in at some point.

"So, someone who doesn't need a gun is not as important as someone who does...

Interesting."

Since I never said that, it is interesting. Interesting at how you came to that conclusion. Strike 1

"My story has absolutely everything to do with the OP as a counter experience. It refutes the necessity for guns in order to do the right thing."

Your story is completely different than the story from the OP. This is "your story":

"I helped a cop capture a criminal once; downtown on Samsome Street, 'bout 1982. It was a physical tussle that took us all into the bushes; we got him cuffed, I was unarmed."

In your story, you helped a cop and it was a "physical tussle" and some bushes. There was one cop and one 'alleged' criminal in your story. Now let's look at the story from the OP shall we and then we can compare.

Two men who had recently escaped from state corrections custody and then had allegedly:

- stolen five vehicles
- robbed two homes
- tied up and terrorized an elderly couple
- led police on a chase in speeds of more than 100 MPH

So your story in no way even remotely resembles what happened in the story from the OP. There are also conflicting reports as to whether guns were even drawn on the two suspects by anyone other than the police if you read the article. Strike 2

"I have shown in post after post - for years - that I know exactly what I'm talking about with respect to the subject, this thread being no different and - yet - you keep failing to prove me wrong. THAT is funny. All you can do, just like now is personalize the subject with ad-hom and "lectures" that bring you no closer to proving me wring than a month ago when you couldn't prove me wrong."

No jet, you have repeatedly shown for years that you don't have a clue what you're talking about with respect to the subject. I don't really prove you wrong so much as I point out, using your own words, that you are wrong. You typically end up right where you did here, shooting yourself in your own foot (pun somewhat intended). I don't know what you are referring to when you speak of this "month ago" thing but proving you wrong can easily be done with one hand tied behind my back, standing on one leg, blindfolded and reciting the alphabet while feeding the dog. Strike 3

"So RedAkston; how about taking the bull by the horns and actually going out and working for some substantial credible material that will at least ONCE say something intelligent and actually do something to advance your opinions."

Any time credible material is show to you it is dismissed by you. Your opinions and your experiences rarely, if ever, bear any resemblance to being even remotely relevant to the topic at hand - take this very thread as Exhibit 'A'. As for someone not saying anything intelligent, you seem to have the market cornered on that and I would have to remove all logic and reasoning from my posts in order to be able to compete with your failure at making a coherent point.
 
RedAkston said:
It took you 6 days to come back at me with this garbage? Let me break this down for you in hopes that it sinks in at some point.

"So, someone who doesn't need a gun is not as important as someone who does...

Interesting."

Since I never said that, it is interesting. Interesting at how you came to that conclusion. Strike 1

"My story has absolutely everything to do with the OP as a counter experience. It refutes the necessity for guns in order to do the right thing."

Your story is completely different than the story from the OP. This is "your story":

"I helped a cop capture a criminal once; downtown on Samsome Street, 'bout 1982. It was a physical tussle that took us all into the bushes; we got him cuffed, I was unarmed."

In your story, you helped a cop and it was a "physical tussle" and some bushes. There was one cop and one 'alleged' criminal in your story. Now let's look at the story from the OP shall we and then we can compare.

Two men who had recently escaped from state corrections custody and then had allegedly:

- stolen five vehicles
- robbed two homes
- tied up and terrorized an elderly couple
- led police on a chase in speeds of more than 100 MPH

So your story in no way even remotely resembles what happened in the story from the OP. There are also conflicting reports as to whether guns were even drawn on the two suspects by anyone other than the police if you read the article. Strike 2

"I have shown in post after post - for years - that I know exactly what I'm talking about with respect to the subject, this thread being no different and - yet - you keep failing to prove me wrong. THAT is funny. All you can do, just like now is personalize the subject with ad-hom and "lectures" that bring you no closer to proving me wring than a month ago when you couldn't prove me wrong."

No jet, you have repeatedly shown for years that you don't have a clue what you're talking about with respect to the subject. I don't really prove you wrong so much as I point out, using your own words, that you are wrong. You typically end up right where you did here, shooting yourself in your own foot (pun somewhat intended). I don't know what you are referring to when you speak of this "month ago" thing but proving you wrong can easily be done with one hand tied behind my back, standing on one leg, blindfolded and reciting the alphabet while feeding the dog. Strike 3

"So RedAkston; how about taking the bull by the horns and actually going out and working for some substantial credible material that will at least ONCE say something intelligent and actually do something to advance your opinions."

Any time credible material is show to you it is dismissed by you. Your opinions and your experiences rarely, if ever, bear any resemblance to being even remotely relevant to the topic at hand - take this very thread as Exhibit 'A'. As for someone not saying anything intelligent, you seem to have the market cornered on that and I would have to remove all logic and reasoning from my posts in order to be able to compete with your failure at making a coherent point.
Click to expand...

Well, number one; I never referred to you, so you lose there. Not having to use a gun for the same police assistance is definitely a legal and fair argument in such a thread in order to counter the OP.


And, once again RedAkston, nothing in your post even remotely disproves anything I've ever said on the subject of guns, so as always, you're just personalizing your entire exchange with me.
 
jet57 said:
Well, number one; I never referred to you, so you lose there.
Click to expand...
What on earth are you talking about? Your statement here makes no sense whatsoever, which based on the majority of your posts makes perfect sense.

jet57 said:
Not having to use a gun for the same police assistance is definitely a legal and fair argument in such a thread in order to counter the OP.
Click to expand...
The two situations are completely different. Everyone but you can clearly see that. It's like someone saying that they caught a line drive foul ball at the Dodgers game and they were glad they brought their mitt and you responding with "Yeah but back in 1980-whatever I caught a pop-up foul ball at my nephew's little league game and I didn't need a mitt to do so." Just because you keep saying that the two situations are the same doesn't make your fantasy true in any way, shape or form in the real world.

jet57 said:
And, once again RedAkston, nothing in your post even remotely disproves anything I've ever said on the subject of guns, so as always, you're just personalizing your entire exchange with me.
Click to expand...

You appear to be in denial and have been for a very, very, very long time. I just disproved what you said on the subject of guns in a different thread just a few minutes ago. It's like shooting dead fish in a barrel with you - every...single...time. I almost feel bad debating with you because it never ends well for you.

So I'll eagerly await your response which I'm sure will provide a good laugh as it always does.
 
RedAkston said:
What on earth are you talking about? Your statement here makes no sense whatsoever, which based on the majority of your posts makes perfect sense.


The two situations are completely different. Everyone but you can clearly see that. It's like someone saying that they caught a line drive foul ball at the Dodgers game and they were glad they brought their mitt and you responding with "Yeah but back in 1980-whatever I caught a pop-up foul ball at my nephew's little league game and I didn't need a mitt to do so." Just because you keep saying that the two situations are the same doesn't make your fantasy true in any way, shape or form in the real world.



You appear to be in denial and have been for a very, very, very long time. I just disproved what you said on the subject of guns in a different thread just a few minutes ago. It's like shooting dead fish in a barrel with you - every...single...time. I almost feel bad debating with you because it never ends well for you.

So I'll eagerly await your response which I'm sure will provide a good laugh as it always does.
Click to expand...

Since I never said that, it is interesting. Interesting at how you came to that conclusion
Click to expand...

As I said, I wasn't referring to you.

The two situations are exactly the same: two bystanders; one gets his gun, one doesn't need to get a gun.


And you've disproved nothing RedAkston.
 
jet57 said:
As I said, I wasn't referring to you.

The two situations are exactly the same: two bystanders; one gets his gun, one doesn't need to get a gun.


And you've disproved nothing RedAkston.
Click to expand...

You didn't let me down, I did get a good chuckle out of your response!

I proved you wrong again, just as I always do. If you think your experience was the exact same as the one in the OP and you ignored all the facts that prove they are completely different, then debating with you is a waste of time because you prove repeatedly that you are unable to grasp reality. It's almost like beating on a dead horse with you at this point because your argument is invalid before you even make it. But please go ahead and respond one more time, I enjoy laughing at your posts.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Would of saved a lot of tax $ if they just shot both. They could both say they lunged at em and they feared for their life and shot, that would likely have been the extent of the investigation, case closed!
Click to expand...

Even if they deserve it, taking another person's life isn't something most sane people actually want to do. For most people, killing another person takes a toll on their psyche.
 
RedAkston said:
You didn't let me down, I did get a good chuckle out of your response!

I proved you wrong again, just as I always do. If you think your experience was the exact same as the one in the OP and you ignored all the facts that prove they are completely different, then debating with you is a waste of time because you prove repeatedly that you are unable to grasp reality. It's almost like beating on a dead horse with you at this point because your argument is invalid before you even make it. But please go ahead and respond one more time, I enjoy laughing at your posts.
Click to expand...

Once again: no proof at all.

This is too easy.
 
jet57 said:
Once again: no proof at all.

This is too easy.
Click to expand...
Already proven well beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's not my problem you can't see that, it's clearly your problem.
 
TurtleDude said:
Georgia fugitives captured by homeowners - CNN.com

apparently, other reports are saying at least one of the homeowners used an AR 15 to help apprehend these escaped murderers
The homeowner was alerted somehow, he looked outside and saw the suspects trying to steal his vehicle," Lt. Bill Miller from the Tennessee Highway Patrol said late Friday.
The homeowner called his neighbor and both men, each armed with a gun, confronted the fugitives.
Click to expand...



well, al I can say is, it is a good theing there were not LEOs around because WE ALL KNOW THEY WOULD HAVE NO DOUBT ****ED IT UP ..............
 
RedAkston said:
Already proven well beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's not my problem you can't see that, it's clearly your problem.
Click to expand...

I just had a squamous cell carcinoma removed from my hand by MOHS surgery. I did not need chemo or radiation because the microscopic analysis of the malignancy suggests that the surgeon completely removed the harmful mass and that the margins were clean. So chemo and/r radiation were not indicated Now using Jet's analogy, no one should ever need chemo or radiation to treat a malignancy because in this case-I didn't need it.

its the same when he claims because someone manages to fight off an armed or violent attacker without the use of a firearm, no one needs a firearm EVER to survive a violent attack
 
redakston said:
you haven't posted anything closely related to common sense since you've been here and you've been here for more than 5 years. Just because you would have handled this situation differently doesn't mean that you were right and they were wrong. But your underlying theme is that people shouldn't need guns to protect themselves, or stop someone trying to steal their vehicle. And let's not forget that the homeowner and the neighbor would have been outnumbered. Maybe you should try to use some common sense before you comment on a situation like this in the future?
Click to expand...

I have personally taken some folks to bits with my hands but if the cause ever requires a firearm I would certainly have no qualms blasting some one's ass to Hell with a nice revolver, or whatever is in my hands at the moment ...........
 
cuban smokes said:
well, al I can say is, it is a good theing there were not LEOs around because WE ALL KNOW THEY WOULD HAVE NO DOUBT ****ED IT UP ..............
Click to expand...

actually i suggest that the two mopes might well have been dead if the LEOs had found them first
 
RedAkston said:
Already proven well beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's not my problem you can't see that, it's clearly your problem.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I see no source evidence for that claim.

This is why you get beat in argumentation RedAkston; you have no proof for assertions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom