• 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!

[W:22:181]They ARE coming for our guns.

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

TurtleDude said:
no illegal weapons were found and the sex crimes was not ATF issues. none of the davidians were ever charged with murder. I find it interesting that those of us who are leery of government brutality and excess are seen as "obsessives" or defending nuts. I guess you don't believe the constitution should apply to people who are seen as different or even strange. The fact remains, there was no pressing need for a military style raid on the Davidians
Click to expand...

Gee, funny how well a massive fire does at conviently making all of that nasty inconvient stuff---and people---go away. Hmm.....I wonder why Koresh would have bragged about the fact if it wasn't true. Gee, maybe he was just trying to stick it to those damn libcommies, huh buddy? :roll:

"Leery of government brutality"

You have literally defended a man kicking off a full scale firefight with his family in the middle of it and getting them killed simply because he was too cowardly to show up to his trial.

That screams obessive.

No, I don't think child abusers should be treated extra special just because they love guns as much as you do. Deal with it.
 
Re: They ARE coming for our guns.

Black Dog said:
As I actually know someone who was robbed while home. You go ahead and depend on those walls after someone decides to come in, uninvited.



Trolling is such a waste of everyone's time.
Click to expand...

Because you always can go over, under or through walls. The protection they provide is illusionary.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

TurtleDude said:
why do you dishonestly try to pretend a BAN is the SAME as TAKING? and are you UNAWARE of the fact that California tried to make mere ownership of normal capacity magazines that had been legally owned for years ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...

Again, not "taking your guns".

And no, there is no obligation to keel something legal just because it had been in the past.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Rucker61 said:
Nowhere is the government given the authority to tell the people how many guns they can own, nor does owning a certain number of guns represent any danger to society. Blowing up buildings has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.



If we didn't have gun rights, they would come for the guns. Do you really think that if it wasn't for the 2nd Amendment that California wouldn't ban and confiscate all AR-15s in the state? They've already tried to ban and confiscate every magazine over 10 rounds in the state, magazines that are in common use for lawful purposes.
Click to expand...

Nowhere does it say one is entitled to blow up a bunch of little kids just because you think the government is plotting something or other.

The thugs who attacked OKC literally stated that their motive was to "get back" at the government for Waco and Ruby Ridge.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Tigerace117 said:
Nowhere does it say one is entitled to blow up a bunch of little kids just because you think the government is plotting something or other.

The thugs who attacked OKC literally stated that their motive was to "get back" at the government for Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Click to expand...

Is there any here supporting the right of those terrorists to blow up a government building full of people?
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Tigerace117 said:
Gee, funny how well a massive fire does at conviently making all of that nasty inconvient stuff---and people---go away. Hmm.....I wonder why Koresh would have bragged about the fact if it wasn't true. Gee, maybe he was just trying to stick it to those damn libcommies, huh buddy? :roll:

"Leery of government brutality"

You have literally defended a man kicking off a full scale firefight with his family in the middle of it and getting them killed simply because he was too cowardly to show up to his trial.

That screams obessive.

No, I don't think child abusers should be treated extra special just because they love guns as much as you do. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

translation-your arguments oppose constitutional rights for people who don't buy into your views. Koresh didn't start the firefight.

what was the NEED for the ATF to stage a made for TV raid on a compound where there was no evidence of violence being perpetrated?
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Rucker61 said:
Is there any here supporting the right of those terrorists to blow up a government building full of people?
Click to expand...

It is hyperbolic nonsense. No one has even hinted any support of that
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Tigerace117 said:
Except again, no one is "coming for your guns".
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. The left would like to do just that.


Tigerace117 said:
The entire point of the 2nd amendment was to provide protection for the United States of America during a time period when most of the world was pretty clearly hostile and the US was a fledgling state.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't. If that was the concern, they would have just maintained a standing army.


Tigerace117 said:
And no, there is no obligation to keel something legal just because it had been in the past.
Click to expand...
There is if the Constitution protects our right to have it.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

TurtleDude said:
translation-your arguments oppose constitutional rights for people who don't buy into your views. Koresh didn't start the firefight.

what was the NEED for the ATF to stage a made for TV raid on a compound where there was no evidence of violence being perpetrated?
Click to expand...

Translation---- you are willing to defend literally anything, up to and including someone taking child brides, if they have lots of guns.

Nobody put a gun to the heads of Koresh's cultists and made them keep shooting at law enforcement.

Nobody made Koresh's cultists get their own people killed.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Toggle Almendro said:
That is incorrect. The left would like to do just that.



No it wasn't. If that was the concern, they would have just maintained a standing army.



There is if the Constitution protects our right to have it.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that the Founding Fathers 1) didn't trust the idea of a standing army and 2) couldn't afford it.

Neither of which changed the perilous nature of the situation the US was in its early years.

Your fantasies about what the "left" wants are not evidence.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Tigerace117 said:
Translation---- you are willing to defend literally anything, up to and including someone taking child brides, if they have lots of guns.

Nobody put a gun to the heads of Koresh's cultists and made them keep shooting at law enforcement.

Nobody made Koresh's cultists get their own people killed.
Click to expand...

you keep talking about the Reno raid late in the siege vs the original raid by the ATF-which was a publicity stunt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom