• 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!

Hate crime driving up minority gun ownership?

CLAX1911 said:
I don't feel like doing it you dismissed it the first time. If you can't take that for honesty that's a you problem.
False. I don't present hot air. if you're done be done you keep responding to me like you did just now.

you can quit responding to me anytime you want you choose to continue.


Oh how you got me I am so wounded.
Click to expand...

I'll keep responding to demonstrate just how poor your discussion skills and honesty are.
 
Which is why you answered with a false statement, never intending to back your lie up.
 
PoS said:
Im all for law abiding people having guns to defend themselves. When the cops arrive, its usually too late- this applies in just about any country in the world.
Click to expand...

Not really though...

gun-death-rates-chart.jpg
 
TurtleDude said:
that has zero relevance to the point he made. You do know that?
Click to expand...

I'll explain it for those who can't seem to grasp the concept. The cops can arrive late in Japan, and nobody will be murdered by a firearm.

And of course, then there's the absolute folly that a gun in the household is going to stop every bad guy. Hahaha... In many cases, that gun is going to cause more problems, and possibly lead to a worse confrontation, with more gun deaths.
 
Media_Truth said:
I'll explain it for those who can't seem to grasp the concept. The cops can arrive late in Japan, and nobody will be murdered by a firearm.

And of course, then there's the absolute folly that a gun in the household is going to stop every bad guy. Hahaha... In many cases, that gun is going to cause more problems, and possibly lead to a worse confrontation, with more gun deaths.
Click to expand...

First of all-I don't believe for a second that you, and other lefties, who constantly complain about guns, do so because you are trying to decrease crime

secondly, trying to compare Japan-where concepts such as a fourth amendment is foreign-is worthless

third-gun banners never ever acknowledge the millions of hours of enjoyment gun owners derive from the safe and legal uses of guns

Fourth-the politicalization of gun rights is solely due to the craven actions of the Democrat party-a party that tried to pretend it was doing something about the massive rise of street crime in the 60s, by passing gun control laws that hassled lawful gun owners.
 
TurtleDude said:
First of all-I don't believe for a second that you, and other lefties, who constantly complain about guns, do so because you are trying to decrease crime

secondly, trying to compare Japan-where concepts such as a fourth amendment is foreign-is worthless

third-gun banners never ever acknowledge the millions of hours of enjoyment gun owners derive from the safe and legal uses of guns

Fourth-the politicalization of gun rights is solely due to the craven actions of the Democrat party-a party that tried to pretend it was doing something about the massive rise of street crime in the 60s, by passing gun control laws that hassled lawful gun owners.
Click to expand...

Wrong! The Politicization of gun rights has started with the SCOTUS in 2008, when they started interfering with local gun laws. Big brother has started flexing his muscles, with their Libertarian NRA lawyers. What goes around comes around.
 
Media_Truth said:
Wrong! The Politicization of gun rights has started with the SCOTUS in 2008, when they started interfering with local gun laws. Big brother has started flexing his muscles, with their Libertarian NRA lawyers. What goes around comes around.
Click to expand...

That shows how stupid your position is- How did SCOTUS interfere with local laws in 2008. You must have Heller confused with McDonald. And are you upset with the incorporation of other parts of the bill of rights long before that?

And since you again whined about the NRA, you prove my point.
 
TurtleDude said:
That shows how stupid your position is- How did SCOTUS interfere with local laws in 2008. You must have Heller confused with McDonald. And are you upset with the incorporation of other parts of the bill of rights long before that?

And since you again whined about the NRA, you prove my point.
Click to expand...

Total non-sequitur...
 
Media_Truth said:
Total non-sequitur...
Click to expand...

Well lets examine the errors of your prior statement. What did the Supreme court do in 2008 to interfere with local laws?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom