• 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!

Feminists Should LOVE the Second Amendment

D

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
12,099
Reaction score
3,439
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Feminists should LOVE the second amendment, this makes lots of sense.

YouTube
 
DebateChallenge said:
Feminists should LOVE the second amendment, this makes lots of sense.

YouTube
Click to expand...

That means that you don't understand feminism. Feminism means advancing at others expense without earning it. Being accountable and self reliant has nothing to do with current feminists.
 
Bucky said:
Like I have said many many times, a gun is not likely to make you any safer.
Click to expand...

Cops, bodyguards and security guards should disarm
 
TurtleDude said:
Cops, bodyguards and security guards should disarm
Click to expand...

These people are trained officials that have the appropriate license and training to obtain a firearm.

Cops and soldiers in the military need a firearm to keep us safe.
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
These people are trained officials that have the appropriate license to obtain a firearm.
Click to expand...

How does having a license = the gun will increase your safety?

your argument is specious. BTW I have a license to carry a firearm. I used to have the authority to carry in courthouses.
 
TurtleDude said:
How does having a license = the gun will increase your safety?

your argument is specious. BTW I have a license to carry a firearm. I used to have the authority to carry in courthouses.
Click to expand...

It is completely irrelevant because cops and soldiers are REQUIRED to carry a firearm. A cop that refuses to carry a firearm will be terminated immediately. They do not have a choice.
 
Bucky said:
It is completely irrelevant because cops and soldiers are REQUIRED to carry a firearm. A cop that refuses to carry a firearm will be terminated immediately. They do not have a choice.
Click to expand...

So tell us-how do guns make them safe and make a grand master level professional shooter such as me "unsafe"?
 
TurtleDude said:
So tell us-how do guns make them safe and make a grandmaster level professional shooter such as me "unsafe"?
Click to expand...

I am not exactly sure how or even if guns make them safe. A policeman typically has more training than the average citizen. We do know cops have to pass an extensive criminal background check to even become cops.

The police and soldiers are faced with real criminals/enemies that are intending to harm them and civilians.

Also, only a true narcissist would refer to themselves as a 'grandmaster level professional shooter' If what you are saying is true, then I would suspect the FBI has a file on you because someone with that type of training and proficiency in firearms, is indeed a potential threat.
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
I am not exactly sure how or even if guns make them safe. than thA policeman typically has more training e average citizen. We do know cops have to pass an extensive criminal background check to even become cops.

The police and soldiers are faced with real criminals/enemies that are intending to harm them and civilians.

Also, only a true narcissist would refer to themselves as a 'grandmaster level professional shooter' If what you are saying is true, then I would suspect the FBI has a file on you because someone with that type of training and proficiency in firearms, is indeed a potential threat.
Click to expand...

You're spewing idiocy and lying yet again. I was an olympic class shooter. There are lots of really good shooters in the USA. The only reason the FBI would have a file on me is that I worked for the DOJ. I am telling the truth. People like me are not threats. The number of world class shooters who represented the USA in shooting competitions, who went rogue is about as common as members of the USA Karate or Tae Kwan Do teams who go and beat people up in bars.
 
Bucky said:
Like I have said many many times, a gun is not likely to make you any safer.
Click to expand...

And like I have said many many times, you're wrong. It depends on the person, whether or not a gun will make them any safer.
 
SDET said:
That means that you don't understand feminism. Feminism means advancing at others expense without earning it. Being accountable and self reliant has nothing to do with current feminists.
Click to expand...
So do you disagree with Susan B Anthony?
 
Bucky said:
These people are trained officials that have the appropriate license and training to obtain a firearm.

Cops and soldiers in the military need a firearm to keep us safe.
Click to expand...

And their training is all too often inadequate. I've got more firearms training than the average police officer.
 
DebateChallenge said:
And like I have said many many times, you're wrong. It depends on the person, whether or not a gun will make them any safer.
Click to expand...

Like I told one of your comrades here, by the time you can take out your gun out of your holster and shoot the "bad guy" you are most likely already dead.

If you are shooting someone in a large area with innocent bystanders, your bullet is most likely going to ricochet and hit an innocent bystander or even yourself.

Guns are a deterrent to prevent property crimes however in stopping another shooter, not so much.
 
DebateChallenge said:
And their training is all too often inadequate. I've got more firearms training than the average police officer.
Click to expand...

According to Bucky, that makes you a potential threat. Does the FBI have a file on you?
 
Bucky said:
Like I told one of your comrades here, by the time you can take out your gun out of your holster and shoot the "bad guy" you are most likely already dead.

If you are shooting someone in a large area with innocent bystanders, your bullet is most likely going to ricochet and hit an innocent bystander or even yourself.

Guns are a deterrent to prevent property crimes however in stopping another shooter, not so much.
Click to expand...

Why don't you leave this sort of speculation to people who actually understand the topic?
 
Bucky said:
Like I told one of your comrades here, by the time you can take out your gun out of your holster and shoot the "bad guy" you are most likely already dead.

If you are shooting someone in a large area with innocent bystanders, your bullet is most likely going to ricochet and hit an innocent bystander or even yourself.

Guns are a deterrent to prevent property crimes however in stopping another shooter, not so much.
Click to expand...

You obviously have not taken any firearm classes that involve shooting from the holster and shooting from concealment under time pressure. Therefore you don't understand such stuff and you don't know anything about what you're saying. I am a Distinguished Graduate with the handgun at the shooting school of Front Sight and to get that I had to shoot from the holster from concealment under time pressure from various distances. Before you make claims you should make sure you're at least as knowledgeable on the subject as the person you're making the claims to.
 
DebateChallenge said:
You obviously have not taken any firearm classes that involve shooting from the holster and shooting from concealment under time pressure. Therefore you don't understand such stuff and you don't know anything about what you're saying. I am a Distinguished Graduate with the handgun at the shooting school of Front Sight and to get that I had to shoot from the holster from concealment under time pressure from various distances. Before you make claims you should make sure you're at least as knowledgeable on the subject as the person you're making the claims to.
Click to expand...

If you were in vegas during the las vegas shooting you probably would have shot innocent bystanders. A gun wouldn't have helped you in that situation.
 
DebateChallenge said:
You obviously have not taken any firearm classes that involve shooting from the holster and shooting from concealment under time pressure. Therefore you don't understand such stuff and you don't know anything about what you're saying. I am a Distinguished Graduate with the handgun at the shooting school of Front Sight and to get that I had to shoot from the holster from concealment under time pressure from various distances. Before you make claims you should make sure you're at least as knowledgeable on the subject as the person you're making the claims to.
Click to expand...

Good facility.
 
Bucky said:
If you were in vegas during the las vegas shooting you probably would have shot innocent bystanders. A gun wouldn't have helped you in that situation.
Click to expand...

If I was one of the concert goers, not that I would be since I can't stand country music, but hypothetically if I was a concert goer than you're right. In the Las Vegas shooting even if all the concert goers had rifles they could not return fire without endangering innocent people in the hotel. However if the hotel had armed staff than perhaps Stephen Paddock could've been stopped before killing too many people. Also, in the Southerland Springs shooting in Texas the shooter was stopped by a good citizen with a rifle. In the New Zealand shooting which I saw the live video of despite how disturbing it is if some of the people at the mosque were armed they could've stopped the shooter. The Las Vegas shooting was unique in regards to the position the shooter was in and the situation.
 
DebateChallenge said:
If I was one of the concert goers, not that I would be since I can't stand country music, but hypothetically if I was a concert goer than you're right. In the Las Vegas shooting even if all the concert goers had rifles they could not return fire without endangering innocent people in the hotel. However if the hotel had armed staff than perhaps Stephen Paddock could've been stopped before killing too many people. Also, in the Southerland Springs shooting in Texas the shooter was stopped by a good citizen with a rifle. In the New Zealand shooting which I saw the live video of despite how disturbing it is if some of the people at the mosque were armed they could've stopped the shooter. The Las Vegas shooting was unique in regards to the position the shooter was in and the situation.
Click to expand...

It is pretty evident how to stop these shootings and the answer has nothing to do with arming more people.

As for the original topic of the thread, women in general compared to men do not like guns for the following reasons:

1. Men are more violent than women
2. Men are more aggressive than women
3. Men have less empathy than women
4. Men in distress are less likely to seek help compared to women.
 
Bucky said:
It is pretty evident how to stop these shootings and the answer has nothing to do with arming more people.
Click to expand...
Sure it does, it has to do with arming the right people.

Bucky said:
As for the original topic of the thread, women in general compared to men do not like guns for the following reasons:

1. Men are more violent than women
Click to expand...
All the more reason women should like guns, a woman can use a gun to stop a man who is being violent towards her.

Bucky said:
2. Men are more aggressive than women
Click to expand...
See above.

Bucky said:
3. Men have less empathy than women
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with it.

Bucky said:
4. Men in distress are less likely to seek help compared to women.
Click to expand...
That also has nothing to do with it.
 
DebateChallenge said:
If I was one of the concert goers, not that I would be since I can't stand country music, but hypothetically if I was a concert goer than you're right. In the Las Vegas shooting even if all the concert goers had rifles they could not return fire without endangering innocent people in the hotel. However if the hotel had armed staff than perhaps Stephen Paddock could've been stopped before killing too many people. Also, in the Southerland Springs shooting in Texas the shooter was stopped by a good citizen with a rifle. In the New Zealand shooting which I saw the live video of despite how disturbing it is if some of the people at the mosque were armed they could've stopped the shooter. The Las Vegas shooting was unique in regards to the position the shooter was in and the situation.
Click to expand...

Also, the most powerful weapon we have in stopping shooters is our mind. We need more skillful tactical negotiators trained in crisis negotiation.

Yes, sometimes shooters need to be killed but IMO many of the school shooters being done by kids that are non-political are much different.
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
I am not exactly sure how or even if guns make them safe. A policeman typically has more training than the average citizen. We do know cops have to pass an extensive criminal background check to even become cops.

The police and soldiers are faced with real criminals/enemies that are intending to harm them and civilians.

Also, only a true narcissist would refer to themselves as a 'grandmaster level professional shooter' If what you are saying is true, then I would suspect the FBI has a file on you because someone with that type of training and proficiency in firearms, is indeed a potential threat.
Click to expand...

And there we have it folks..

Another paranoid delusion from the anti gun crowd.

And folks wonder why we don't respect the anti gun crowd.. now my father, myself, and one of my children... need to "have a file at the FBI because anyone with that level of training is a threat"...

I want those that follow these threads that are "on the fence".. when it comes to firearms to look at the logic here.

We get told by anti gun people that they want "more training".. so that people can own firearms safely..

AND THEN WHEN THEY HAVE THAT TRAINING... THEY BECOME A THREAT!..

note that well...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom