• 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!

Because Outlaws Don't Obey Laws

soylentgreen said:
No, that sort of comment points out the absurdity of people like you always whinging about someone trying to take your toy away.

You could not put up a credible arguement for having a gun if you tried. All you can do is play the game of shout the loudest and the longest and try and drown out any intelligent arguement.

Noted your failurs once again to produce any evidence that i wish to ban guns.
Click to expand...

your arguments are idiotic and there is no intelligent arguments from foreigners whining about the rights of citizens in other countries. Calling guns toys is the sort of stupid arrogance that often characterizes those who want to insult the pro gun culture in this country.
 
soylentgreen said:
That's easy, it would be the society that still thought it had a right to kill people just because you own a gun to do so with. These gun groups only have power because they have the backing of many people .
Click to expand...
In other words anyone that has a gun has the right to kill? I don't belong to any gun group that has any power, but I do have more guns than god. But guess what,I don't feel I have the right to kill anyone
no matter how many I may have or what kind. So how DO I fit into this "society"?
 
=soylentgreen;1067747065]No, that sort of comment points out the absurdity of people like you always whinging about someone trying to take your toy away.
Click to expand...
I guess that makes me one of those absurd people like TD. But I feel in good company though. It's my guess you have never had any of those "toys" or if you did they were taken away from you. Did criminals hand them in?
You could not put up a credible arguement for having a gun if you tried.
Click to expand...
He has as I and every pro gun person here has,but you seem to prefer your own argument or those in agreement with it. But I would say an argument would be self defense.
All you can do is play the game of shout the loudest and the longest
Click to expand...
A lot of people do but I would hazard a guess we get out shouted.
and try and drown out any intelligent arguement.
Click to expand...
Then In your best opinion is it unintelligent or intelligent to assume all gun owners are mass shootings waiting to happen? We say unintelligent to assume that. Way unintelligent.

Noted your failurs once again to produce any evidence that i wish to ban guns.
Click to expand...
I would say your post 43 hints differently.
Originally Posted by soylentgreen
That's easy, it would be the society that still thought it had a right to kill people just because you own a gun to do so with. These gun groups only have power because they have the backing of many people .
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
your arguments are idiotic and there is no intelligent arguments from foreigners whining about the rights of citizens in other countries. Calling guns toys is the sort of stupid arrogance that often characterizes those who want to insult the pro gun culture in this country.
Click to expand...
And calling guns that also makes them more appealing to little hands. And before someone screams SEE,SEE leaving them where they can get a hold of them. Same applies to poison or medications etc.
 
LowDown said:
The only thing that will reduce the risk of gun crime to the extent that progressives want is to amend the constitution to make it possible for the government to confiscate all guns and do this by going into people's homes and other private spaces to find the guns and remove them.

Confiscation of guns will greatly reduce the most common forms of gun crime and death -- suicides, gang violence, family and acquaintance conflict. Big events like the mass murder in Las Vegas will still take place because people with the kind of determination shown by Stephen Paddock will find ways to get the guns. It's illegal for people to possess explosives, but terrorists still find ways to get them. It's the same with automatic weapons.
Click to expand...

So that's why we should forget about a ban on nuclear weapons for Iran and N. Korea, and should be selling them in Walmart instead. :roll:
 
Last edited:
zsu2357 said:
And the old nuclear weapon fallacy. Not surprised.
Click to expand...

No fallacy. It's the same logic.

Your only response to that has been that "well I don't wan't nuclear weapons, I only want semiautomatics with bump stocks". But that's just you. The Iranians and N. Koreans want the nukes. If you are going to say " Big events like the mass murder in Las Vegas will still take place because people with the kind of determination shown by Stephen Paddock will find ways to get the guns. It's illegal for people to possess explosives, but terrorists still find ways to get them. It's the same with automatic weapons", ....

...then we're going to have to find a way to stop infringing your rights to nuclear arms too by putting them on special at the local WalMart .
 
=ataraxia;1067747597]No fallacy. It's the same logic.
Your only response to that has been that "well I don't wan't nuclear weapons, I only want semiautomatics with bump stocks".
Click to expand...
When you say your,I'm not sure if you mean me or gun owners in general but either way we don't want to own them and why would I/we want a bump stock anything?
But that's just you. The Iranians and N. Koreans want the nukes.
Click to expand...
Not here to bandy Iran and N.K. around and what they want. You can.
If you are going to say " Big events like the mass murder in Las Vegas will still take place because people with the kind of determination shown by Stephen Paddock will find ways to get the guns. It's illegal for people to possess explosives, but terrorists still find ways to get them. It's the same with automatic weapons", ....
Click to expand...
Yes your right people like Paddock will get them, especially rich people like him.
...then we're going to have to find a way to stop infringing your rights to nuclear arms too by putting them on special at the local WalMart .
Click to expand...
9mm=discriminate,nuclear weapon=indiscriminate. Guess which one won't blow the neighborhood and beyond up. That's always your guys way to try to get us to give up the Second Amendment or severely curtail it where our only defense against those that would do harm is call 911 then throw the phone at them.
 
zsu2357 said:
And the old nuclear weapon fallacy. Not surprised.
Click to expand...

the nuclear "Option" permanently destroys the credibility of the gun haters who use it
 
LowDown said:
The only thing that will reduce the risk of gun crime to the extent that progressives want is to amend the constitution to make it possible for the government to confiscate all guns and do this by going into people's homes and other private spaces to find the guns and remove them.

Confiscation of guns will greatly reduce the most common forms of gun crime and death -- suicides, gang violence, family and acquaintance conflict. Big events like the mass murder in Las Vegas will still take place because people with the kind of determination shown by Stephen Paddock will find ways to get the guns. It's illegal for people to possess explosives, but terrorists still find ways to get them. It's the same with automatic weapons.
Click to expand...

More nonsense from the uninformed.
 
ataraxia said:
No fallacy. It's the same logic.

Your only response to that has been that "well I don't wan't nuclear weapons, I only want semiautomatics with bump stocks". But that's just you. The Iranians and N. Koreans want the nukes. If you are going to say " Big events like the mass murder in Las Vegas will still take place because people with the kind of determination shown by Stephen Paddock will find ways to get the guns. It's illegal for people to possess explosives, but terrorists still find ways to get them. It's the same with automatic weapons", ....

...then we're going to have to find a way to stop infringing your rights to nuclear arms too by putting them on special at the local WalMart .
Click to expand...

Nuclear weapons are better defined as ordnance. Explosives. Not arms. All arms are ordinance. Not all ordnance are arms. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
Nuclear weapons are better defined as ordnance. Explosives. Not arms. All arms are ordinance. Not all ordnance are arms. ;)


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

The SALT treaties with the former Soviet Union were an acronym for "Strategic ARMS Limitation Talks". The ARMS in the acronym is, of course, referring to nuclear weapons, including ordnances. The fact that you cannot own them privately is already an infringement on your right to arms as guaranteed you in the Constitution. Big bad liberal government already has you on that slippery slope, dog gone it!

Now go cry me a river.
 
zsu2357 said:
=ataraxia;1067747597]No fallacy. It's the same logic.

When you say your,I'm not sure if you mean me or gun owners in general but either way we don't want to own them and why would I/we want a bump stock anything?
Click to expand...

So you would be OK with a ban on bump stocks? Even if you personally don't, why would you want to infringe on the right of other law abiding Americans to own the arms of their choice? Like Paddock, leave them free, and then you can arrest them only if they break the law, right? Besides, rich people like Paddock will get them anyway. So bump stocks, fully auto, and yes, even nukes.... Leave them all free. That is the end result of your logic. Are you really prepared to go through with this?
 
TurtleDude said:
the nuclear "Option" permanently destroys the credibility of the gun haters who use it
Click to expand...
_____________

Why? Just taking your argument to its logical limits.
 
ataraxia said:
So you would be OK with a ban on bump stocks? Even if you personally don't, why would you want to infringe on the right of other law abiding Americans to own the arms of their choice? Like Paddock, leave them free, and then you can arrest them only if they break the law, right? Besides, rich people like Paddock will get them anyway. So bump stocks, fully auto, and yes, even nukes.... Leave them all free. That is the end result of your logic. Are you really prepared to go through with this?
Click to expand...

Are nuclear arms "in common use for lawful purposes"?

How would you go about banning "bump stocks"?
 
TurtleDude said:
your arguments are idiotic and there is no intelligent arguments from foreigners whining about the rights of citizens in other countries. Calling guns toys is the sort of stupid arrogance that often characterizes those who want to insult the pro gun culture in this country.
Click to expand...

Your best shot at disproving my arguements are that i am not an american. Rather than deal with what is argued all you can do is make silly claims about the person arguing. When you can deal with what i say then you will have something worth saying. Until then i could not care less about your opinion.
 
zsu2357 said:
In other words anyone that has a gun has the right to kill? I don't belong to any gun group that has any power, but I do have more guns than god. But guess what,I don't feel I have the right to kill anyone
no matter how many I may have or what kind. So how DO I fit into this "society"?
Click to expand...

How you managed to get that i said anyone who has a gun has a right to kill must be a stretch. You have a society in which many do think that. That you personally do not is not proof that no one does. Nor the fact that you claim you do not belong to a group is proof that groups do not exist. Are you going to claim the nra is as imaginary as this god you speak of?

And whether you feel like you have a right to kill or not is also irrelevent to the fact that many here argue on the basis that they do have the right to kill any who threaten them under the guise that they can defend themselves from crime.
This is an arguement about people not just one particular person such as you. Please put your ego in a box, try to think along the lines that it is not all about you and then argue what is happening around you rather than you are the centre of attention.
 
zsu2357 said:
I guess that makes me one of those absurd people like TD. But I feel in good company though. It's my guess you have never had any of those "toys" or if you did they were taken away from you. Did criminals hand them in?
Click to expand...
Until you start making petty claims that have nothing to do with the arguement because you lack the wit to actually deal with the arguement, then observation of yourself is yours personally not one i have made
He has as I and every pro gun person here has,but you seem to prefer your own argument or those in agreement with it. But I would say an argument would be self defense.
Click to expand...
No, he has not. All he can manage is to complain i am not an american.
And the self defense arguement is as i have said repeatedly is not something i am arguing against. Stupidity with guns bcausing the death of innocent people because of claims of self defense is. An absolute willingness to acxt as judge, jury and executioner is.
A lot of people do but I would hazard a guess we get out shouted.
Click to expand...
Right! because the nra are silent about the amount of money they use to bribe politicians with. There are many ways to shout loudly not all include making noise.
Then In your best opinion is it unintelligent or intelligent to assume all gun owners are mass shootings waiting to happen? We say unintelligent to assume that. Way unintelligent.
Click to expand...
Is hyperbole going to be your best shot? If it was a case that "all "gun owners showed the amount of stupidity with guns that makes america famous then you would "all "be dead. No, the point has been made that many people who have guns are quite safe with the, amd cause no incidents. But that does nothing to deny that it is a fact that america has many deaths due to someone acting stupidly with a gun, Do you think it is only a problem if everyone in america is killing each other?

I would say your post 43 hints differently.
Click to expand...
Then you would also be saying that you cannot find any such thing and in your desperation to what i have said is to make **** up. You will also find posts where i have directly said that the problem is not guns or owning guns. I do not care what gun or how many you own. That is just turtle being his usual inadequate debater.
 
Rucker61 said:
Are nuclear arms "in common use for lawful purposes"?
Click to expand...

Who are you quoting? Because I assure you it's not the Constitution. If you want arms to defend yourself against potential government tyranny (which was one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment anyway), you better have some strategic weapons. Those liberals have already taken that away from you. Why are you arguing so hard for your rights to be taken away? You are standing on the slippery slope and fighting hard to stay there. Are you even an American?


How would you go about banning "bump stocks"?
Click to expand...

Same way we ban hand grenades. Why?
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Are bump stocks "in common use for lawful purposes"?
Click to expand...

Good question. How many have been sold and presumably used by citizens for lawful purposes prior to vegas? I'd say that they would pass the "lawful purpose" point but numbers may be low enough to not qualify as "common use".

In any case, they are not a firearm. The proposed Feinstein bill, as worded, would ban them, and also ban rubber bands and belt loops.
 
soylentgreen said:
Your best shot at disproving my arguements are that i am not an american. Rather than deal with what is argued all you can do is make silly claims about the person arguing. When you can deal with what i say then you will have something worth saying. Until then i could not care less about your opinion.
Click to expand...

the compelling arguments against laws that only change the legal status for honest gun owners have been made dozens of times on this board. we wonder why foreigners are so agitated over American gun rights
 
ataraxia said:
_____________

Why? Just taking your argument to its logical limits.
Click to expand...

that's stupid because nuclear weapons are not

1) arms as the founders described them but rather ORDNANCE

2) nuclear arms are not something a citizen normally keeps and not something he could "bear"

3) nuclear weapons are not used by the infantry or individual infantrymen

4) nuclear weapons have no legitimate use for PERSONAL self defense
 
blackjack50 said:
Nuclear weapons are better defined as ordnance. Explosives. Not arms. All arms are ordinance. Not all ordnance are arms. ;)


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

don't know if that is true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom