• 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!

One year after Parkland...1100 children killed

Fearandloathing said:
Which "rights"?


The right to keep and bear arms belongs solely to Americans.

We in the sane world would never allow such a corruptible law; no one should have the right to carry a lethal weapon for "protection". I have a sword made in the style of the Afghans of the 15th century. It is 52 " long. No where, no where in the wold will let me carry that sword around -- FFS US customs goofs **** their pants just looking at it.

If Americans can carry assault rifles, why is my 15th century sword so scary to you people?

The reason is the gun culture has resulted in a culture of violence, an extension of American politics, hate your neighbor and carry a gun "in case"
"some one" tries "something"

In answer to your question, yes. If and when anyone's "right" interfere with another's "right" (the right of life) of course the gun totin', Bible thumping Bubba is going to have to do without his soother temporarily.

Now, you tell me. When someone violates the law and has served his time should he STILL have rights?

That's why it's only the USA that's slaughtering children, the only place on earth where classrooms are dangerous for kids.
Click to expand...

But... they really like guns!
 
A Florida charter school principal isn’t waiting to protect the kids trusted to his care:

School Hires Combat Vets With Rifles To ‘Put Down’ Active Shooters – CBS Miami

“If someone walks onto this campus, they’re going to be shot and killed,” Jones told The Bradenton Herald. “We’re not going to talk with them. We’re not going to negotiate. We are going to put them down, as quickly as possible.”

If the state won’t do it’s job enforcing gun laws to keep kids safe, Principle Jones will. :applaud
 
Fearandloathing said:
Which "rights"?
Click to expand...
That doesn't matter, does it? Once you cross the Rubicon and allow the government to ignore Constitutionally protected rights to protect citizens, there are no longer any limits.

The right to keep and bear arms belongs solely to Americans.
Click to expand...

And Mexicans and Guatemalans, to be accurate.

We in the sane world would never allow such a corruptible law; no one should have the right to carry a lethal weapon for "protection". I have a sword made in the style of the Afghans of the 15th century. It is 52 " long. No where, no where in the wold will let me carry that sword around -- FFS US customs goofs **** their pants just looking at it.


If Americans can carry assault rifles, why is my 15th century sword so scary to you people?
Click to expand...
No idea. I don't understand a lot of fears out there. I do remember a trustafarian weight-lifter dude in Seattle who frequented the bike shop I worked at. He rode his bike around town with a broadsword over his back, and that never seemed to be a problem to the cops there. Called himself 'Conan'.

There are no length limits on open carry of blades in Colorado. Your sword would be fine here.
The reason is the gun culture has resulted in a culture of violence, an extension of American politics, hate your neighbor and carry a gun "in case"
"some one" tries "something"
Click to expand...
Enough people "try something" that it's seemingly justified. In 2017 there were 17,000 murders, 138,000 forcible rapes, 319,000 robberies and 810,000 aggravate assaults.

In answer to your question, yes. If and when anyone's "right" interfere with another's "right" (the right of life) of course the gun totin', Bible thumping Bubba is going to have to do without his soother temporarily.
Click to expand...
There is no Constitutional right to life. If the government is empowered to restrict anyone's rights and privileges so that no one's life is endangered, you've entered a police state. If someone murders someone, by whatever means, that's a crime, not a rights violation.
Now, you tell me. When someone violates the law and has served his time should he STILL have rights?
Click to expand...
Yes. We can debate about how long his "time" should be. If someone is considered too dangerous to own a gun, why do we allow them in public at all? Knives and clubs are still lethal weapons and nearly wholly unrestricted.
That's why it's only the USA that's slaughtering children, the only place on earth where classrooms are dangerous for kids.
Click to expand...
Our classrooms are still the safest place in the US for kids. Even getting them to and from school is an order of magnitude more dangerous than school shooters.
 
Threegoofs said:
Sometimes one must sacrifice something to minimize tragic deaths.

Sorry for the lesson.
Click to expand...

Liberals are always ready to sacrifice other peoples' rights so they can pretend they have done something worthwhile
 
Threegoofs said:
But... they really like guns!
Click to expand...

We like freedom. And stop pretending your desires to restrict our rights are motivated by a public safety angle
 
TurtleDude said:
We like freedom. And stop pretending your desires to restrict our rights are motivated by a public safety angle
Click to expand...

Yes.

1200 dead children are just a red herring.

Besides, they were probably going to grow up to be criminals anyway, amirite?
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes.

1200 dead children are just a red herring.

Besides, they were probably going to grow up to be criminals anyway, amirite?
Click to expand...

Nothing you have ever proposed has any legitimate hope of changing those deaths. In fact, have you ever proposed anything that is both constitutional and actually has a track record of helping? I doubt it since your main goal is obviously based on a desire to harass honest people rather than impede people who already disobey laws.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes.

1200 dead children are just a red herring.

Besides, they were probably going to grow up to be criminals anyway, amirite?
Click to expand...

What rights would you give up to protect children?
 
Rucker61 said:
What rights would you give up to protect children?
Click to expand...

Left-wingers are well known for sacrificing the rights of people they don't like or don't care about in order to pretend they have done something. Example-Jimmy Carter preventing our olympians from attending the 80 games so Carter could pretend he "did something" about Soviet Aggression in Afghanistan. He ruined the dreams of several hundred of our best athletes, and achieved NOTHING other than pretending he did something. At least Carter wasn't doing it because he hated the athletes. But gun restrictionists pretend they want to prevent violence when most of them are motivated by a desire to harass gun owners.

When you point out that their schemes don't impede criminals but harass honest gun owners, they don't care because that is EXACTLY what they intended to do
 
Rucker61 said:
That doesn't matter, does it? Once you cross the Rubicon and allow the government to ignore Constitutionally protected rights to protect citizens, there are no longer any limits.



And Mexicans and Guatemalans, to be accurate.


No idea. I don't understand a lot of fears out there. I do remember a trustafarian weight-lifter dude in Seattle who frequented the bike shop I worked at. He rode his bike around town with a broadsword over his back, and that never seemed to be a problem to the cops there. Called himself 'Conan'.

There are no length limits on open carry of blades in Colorado. Your sword would be fine here.

Enough people "try something" that it's seemingly justified. In 2017 there were 17,000 murders, 138,000 forcible rapes, 319,000 robberies and 810,000 aggravate assaults.


There is no Constitutional right to life. If the government is empowered to restrict anyone's rights and privileges so that no one's life is endangered, you've entered a police state. If someone murders someone, by whatever means, that's a crime, not a rights violation.

Yes. We can debate about how long his "time" should be. If someone is considered too dangerous to own a gun, why do we allow them in public at all? Knives and clubs are still lethal weapons and nearly wholly unrestricted.

Our classrooms are still the safest place in the US for kids. Even getting them to and from school is an order of magnitude more dangerous than school shooters.
Click to expand...



I am sorry to have misled you into thinking I wanted a debate with you.

I don't. I have been listening to this bull**** for seven ****ing decades and in each set, more of your children are slaughtered. I suggest such a mindset is not worth debating, you obviously do not believe the right to life.

Further it would be a waste of time as I DO NOT accept that carrying a lethal weapon is a RIGHT!

Good bye.

We will not speak again in this lifetime, but I look forward to our encounter in the afterlife
 
Fearandloathing said:
I am sorry to have misled you into thinking I wanted a debate with you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you posted in a debate forum. Easy for me to misunderstand your intent.

I don't. I have been listening to this bull**** for seven ****ing decades and in each set, more of your children are slaughtered. I suggest such a mindset is not worth debating, you obviously do not believe the right to life.

Further it would be a waste of time as I DO NOT accept that carrying a lethal weapon is a RIGHT!
Click to expand...

Your acceptance or not doesn't change reality, and your hands and feet are lethal weapons, you know.

Good bye.

We will not speak again in this lifetime, but I look forward to our encounter in the afterlife
Click to expand...

No, you don't. I don't believe in an afterlife, so if there is one, and we meet, you'll likely not be where you thought you'd be.
 
Threegoofs said:
Not bad! Only three a day!

Lois Beckett on Twitter: "1,100 American kids have been killed with guns since Parkland. There were more than:

40 college-bound seniors: [url]https://t.co/OACdcwbSfV

80 infants/toddlers: https://sinceparkland.com/categories/infants-and-toddlers/

30 artists: https://sinceparkland.com/categories/artists/

40 community volunteers: https://t.co/BqSQJxaJqB… https://t.co/951MqEKwEy"[/url]

I look forward to hearing how they all really deserved it because they are criminals, or they don’t count because they’re suicides/have stupid parents/blah blah blah.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we really should do something about these gangs. They are such horrible shots. Criminals with guns has always had a problem. They're a problem even if they don't have a gun.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So...you posted 5 links all to the same twitter page/msg. And we all know twitter is known for its factual reporting.........:roll:
Click to expand...

If you dig past the twitter stuff, you will see these shootings are of innocent bystanders by gangs. Many of them simply wandered into a known bad part of town. The problem is the gangs, not the gun.
 
Rucker61 said:
No, it isn't data. It's unsupported claims. As CDC has only just released 2017 data, where did this data come from?



Then there's this: "I look forward to hearing how they all really deserved it because they are criminals, or they don’t count because they’re suicides/have stupid parents/blah blah blah.".

That editorializing.
Click to expand...

True. It is editorializing. Many of these kids were innocent bystanders when shot by gang activity in the area. Until something is done about the gangs, this sort of thing will continue.
 
Threegoofs said:
First, dispute the data.

Then, when that fails, point fingers in another direction.

Sad.
Click to expand...

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is pointing fingers in another direction. No lawful gun owner killed any of these kids. They were all killed by criminals. To blame lawful gun owners IS pointing fingers in another direction.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I am sorry to have misled you into thinking I wanted a debate with you.

I don't. I have been listening to this bull**** for seven ****ing decades and in each set, more of your children are slaughtered. I suggest such a mindset is not worth debating, you obviously do not believe the right to life.

Further it would be a waste of time as I DO NOT accept that carrying a lethal weapon is a RIGHT!

Good bye.

We will not speak again in this lifetime, but I look forward to our encounter in the afterlife
Click to expand...

Carrying a lethal weapon is a natural right. The right to self defense is a natural right. YOU don't get to dictate that. You want to save these children? Do something about the gangs. They don't give a **** about gun laws.
 
I find it interesting that the OP won't answer any of the clarifying questions that have been asked. Seems more interested in Trolling than solving or debate.

That aside, It is always horrible when children are killed no matter the method. I don't believe that banning guns would do anything at this point but make matters worse. The problem with all of these shootings generally lie in different areas, Mental health, Upbringing, overcrowding, that just banning guns wouldn't fix. Not only that but the only people that would no longer have guns are the people that would only shoot someone in defense. You would have such an uptick in shootings that people would start screaming to give all the guns back. There are plenty of laws on the books right now that if they were fully enforced you would have less shootings and the mass shootings would drop by half. (just a guess no actual data)

Mostly I believe the major debate about guns is more about political leverage than it is really about the guns. If people were so worried about those who died they would focus more on things that kill more people. Tobacco kills more people, Alcohol kills more people, malpractice and bad Rx drugs kill at least as many if not more.
 
daeler said:
I find it interesting that the OP won't answer any of the clarifying questions that have been asked. Seems more interested in Trolling than solving or debate.

That aside, It is always horrible when children are killed no matter the method. I don't believe that banning guns would do anything at this point but make matters worse. The problem with all of these shootings generally lie in different areas, Mental health, Upbringing, overcrowding, that just banning guns wouldn't fix. Not only that but the only people that would no longer have guns are the people that would only shoot someone in defense. You would have such an uptick in shootings that people would start screaming to give all the guns back. There are plenty of laws on the books right now that if they were fully enforced you would have less shootings and the mass shootings would drop by half. (just a guess no actual data)

Mostly I believe the major debate about guns is more about political leverage than it is really about the guns. If people were so worried about those who died they would focus more on things that kill more people. Tobacco kills more people, Alcohol kills more people, malpractice and bad Rx drugs kill at least as many if not more.
Click to expand...

Odd that you think people can only be concerned about one thing at a time.

Even odder that you think restricting guns wouldn’t have an impact. I mean... virtually every single other developed country in the world proves you wrong.
 
Threegoofs said:
Odd that you think people can only be concerned about one thing at a time.

Even odder that you think restricting guns wouldn’t have an impact. I mean... virtually every single other developed country in the world proves you wrong.
Click to expand...

None of those other countries have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
 
Threegoofs said:
Hmm. Are you beginning to catch on to the problem?

Nah. You’ll just start yelping about your ‘sacred rights’.
Click to expand...

Find a recent red/blue map of the states. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

At least you've acknowledged that with the 2A in place that none of those ideas from other countries will work here.
 
Threegoofs said:
Odd that you think people can only be concerned about one thing at a time.

Even odder that you think restricting guns wouldn’t have an impact. I mean... virtually every single other developed country in the world proves you wrong.
Click to expand...
That is BS. NO other country is anything like the USA when it comes to the culture and the number of firearms in circulation. Trying to pretend the laws of bannerrhoid nations would work in the USA is specious nonsense
 
Rucker61 said:
Find a recent red/blue map of the states. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

At least you've acknowledged that with the 2A in place that none of those ideas from other countries will work here.
Click to expand...

What political gun haters like Threegoofs fail to understand is this. If the USSC laid down a massive ass kicking of state governments that try to limit our second amendment rights, it would actually help the dems in the long run. If gun rights were no longer a political football, there would be no reason for the NRA and other pro gun groups to mobilize against the Democrats. True, the Democrats wouldn't be able to pander to the slow witted voters who are actually stupid enough to believe things like waiting periods or magazine limits would stop mass murderers. But I suspect the Dems have lost more elections-they should have won-then they have won elections they should have lost-over gun issues.
 
TurtleDude said:
That is BS. NO other country is anything like the USA when it comes to the culture and the number of firearms in circulation. Trying to pretend the laws of bannerrhoid nations would work in the USA is specious nonsense
Click to expand...

Yeah.
Let’s change the culture.

Let’s make gun nuttery uncool.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yeah.
Let’s change the culture.

Let’s make gun nuttery uncool.
Click to expand...

I have a much better idea-lets treat gun banners for what they really are

1) criminal enablers

2) haters of our constitutional rights

3) (and if they took an oath to support the Constitution)-traitors.

Let us also decree that NO politician can be protected by guards bearing weapons that the politician would prevent private citizens from owning. And that any firearm civilian police or law enforcement agencies may have access to-then private citizens living in that jurisdiction may freely own and acquire the same weaponry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom