• 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!

The Squad Wants More Security

code1211 said:
Is there anyone in the USA who cannot get healthcare?
Click to expand...

Millions of people who cannot afford it. The Republican party desperately wants to keep it that way.
 
CriticalThought said:
I am sure all their security will have unregistered firearms and none of them will have had proper background checks. Good job catching on the scheme. :roll:
Click to expand...

And heavily trained
 
It seems we should be looking into extra security for folks like Ted Cruz, Sarah Sanders, Kristin Nielsen etc. People who have been verbally and potentially physically attacked while simply trying to enjoy dinner.
 
Phys251 said:
Millions of people who cannot afford it. The Republican party desperately wants to keep it that way.
Click to expand...

This is not true.

There needs to be a concerted effort for both parties to come up with a solution. I don't see that happening any time soon given the hatred on the left towards Trump and the reciprocal feelings from the right. It's all about power right now instead of doing what is right.
 
Mongidig said:
This is not true.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. :) Your side of the aisle has been doing backflips to throw millions of Americans off of affordable healthcare. It took three brave Republican senators to stop you people. :thumbs:
 
CriticalThought said:
I am sure all their security will have unregistered firearms and none of them will have had proper background checks. Good job catching on the scheme. :roll:
Click to expand...

Good job missing the entire point. :lamo
 
vegas giants said:
Which one called for a ban of all guns?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The fact that any of them would want to ban any guns is enough to demonstrate their hypocrisy. "I should get to choose which guns are suitable for me, but commoners shouldn't get to choose which guns are suitable for them."
 
dogboy49 said:
Irrelevant. The fact that any of them would want to ban any guns is enough to demonstrate their hypocrisy. "I should get to choose which guns are suitable for me, but commoners shouldn't get to choose which guns are suitable for them."
Click to expand...

Which guns do they have protecting them are you not allowed to have?
 
 
apdst said:
If they succeed in disarming the population, the population will be easier to control.
Click to expand...

Gun nuts are easily controlled by fear of gun control. Its like ringing a bell.
 
Phys251 said:
Yes it is. :) Your side of the aisle has been doing backflips to throw millions of Americans off of affordable healthcare. It took three brave Republican senators to stop you people. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I don't belong to any side.

It would benefit all of us if everybody had health insurance. The question is how does this get paid for? I have no doubt that a reasonable agreement could be had between the two parties. This Government is broken. politicians are all about campaigning for an election that is a year and a half away instead of doing their job of governing.
 
Winston said:
precisely because nut jobs who can't get healthcare they need but can get guns they don't need, is why they need an armed detail.
Click to expand...

Nobody's telling anyone that they can't buy whatever healthcare they want, nor is anyone providing them with guns at everyone else's expense.
 
vegas giants said:
Which guns do they have protecting them are you not allowed to have?
Click to expand...

vegas giants said:
Which guns do they have protecting them are you not allowed to have?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Again.

Reread my statement, which is about choice. "The fact that any of them would want to ban any guns is enough to demonstrate their hypocrisy. 'I should get to choose which guns are suitable for me, but commoners shouldn't get to choose which guns are suitable for them.'
 
dogboy49 said:
Irrelevant. Again.

Reread my statement, which is about choice. "The fact that any of them would want to ban any guns is enough to demonstrate their hypocrisy. 'I should get to choose which guns are suitable for me, but commoners shouldn't get to choose which guns are suitable for them.'
Click to expand...

They dont get to choose which guns protect them. Which guns protect them are you not allowed to own?
 
vegas giants said:
They dont get to choose which guns protect them. Which guns protect them are you not allowed to own?
Click to expand...

The protection these congresspeople have requested will be supplied by on-duty Law Enforcement Officers. I suppose it might even contain members of the on-duty Secret Service. In general, on-duty LEOs are allowed to carry firearms in most locations where firearms are prohibited to be carried by non-LEO. If the detail was comprised of Secret Service Officers, they have even fewer restrictions in Washington DC.

Washington DC concealed carry restrictions for non-LEO below. Most states have similar lists. On-duty LEO/Secret Service, for all practical purposes, don't have to comply with these types of restrictions.
Prohibited Places to Carry a Concealed Firearm | mpdc

These congresspeople believe they should have the choice to have suitable firearms available for their self-defense, and I support them in this. Their hypocrisy is that they don't believe that the rest of us should be able to make the same choices. For instance, the infamous Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 contained a number of exemptions, one of which was LEO organizations. Current proposals, such as S.66, have the same exemptions.
S.66 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
 
apdst said:
Armed security, no doubt, but they don't want us to own guns. This further destroy's the Left's gun control logic.

Extra protection sought for certain lawmakers after Trump'''s comments about '''squad''' | Fox News
Click to expand...

Huh. I read on here all the time people own guns to protect themselves from criminals who own guns. However in your eyes if a democrat owns guns or is given armed security they're hypocrites. Is it possible they want armed security for their protection to protect themselves from criminals with guns?
 
dogboy49 said:
The protection these congresspeople have requested will be supplied by on-duty Law Enforcement Officers. I suppose it might even contain members of the on-duty Secret Service. In general, on-duty LEOs are allowed to carry firearms in most locations where firearms are prohibited to be carried by non-LEO. If the detail was comprised of Secret Service Officers, they have even fewer restrictions in Washington DC.

Washington DC concealed carry restrictions for non-LEO below. Most states have similar lists. On-duty LEO/Secret Service, for all practical purposes, don't have to comply with these types of restrictions.
Prohibited Places to Carry a Concealed Firearm | mpdc

These congresspeople believe they should have the choice to have suitable firearms available for their self-defense, and I support them in this. Their hypocrisy is that they don't believe that the rest of us should be able to make the same choices. For instance, the infamous Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 contained a number of exemptions, one of which was LEO organizations. Current proposals, such as S.66, have the same exemptions.
S.66 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Click to expand...

You go thru all the training and background investigations these protection people go thru and as far as I am concerned you can have whatever you want.


You want any moron to be able to carry anything
 
bongsaway said:
Huh. I read on here all the time people own guns to protect themselves from criminals who own guns. However in your eyes if a democrat owns guns or is given armed security they're hypocrites. Is it possible they want armed security for their protection to protect themselves from criminals with guns?
Click to expand...

I'm referring to Democrat politicians, who support anti-gun legislation.

Those same politicians who want to ban magazines that hold over ten rounds and want to ban "military grade weapons" are being protectex by military grade weapons, with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

I want to keep and bear arms to protect myself from a criminal carrying any kind of weapon. Their rights aren't more valuable than mine.
 
Last edited:
dogboy49 said:
The protection these congresspeople have requested will be supplied by on-duty Law Enforcement Officers. I suppose it might even contain members of the on-duty Secret Service. In general, on-duty LEOs are allowed to carry firearms in most locations where firearms are prohibited to be carried by non-LEO. If the detail was comprised of Secret Service Officers, they have even fewer restrictions in Washington DC.

Washington DC concealed carry restrictions for non-LEO below. Most states have similar lists. On-duty LEO/Secret Service, for all practical purposes, don't have to comply with these types of restrictions.
Prohibited Places to Carry a Concealed Firearm | mpdc

These congresspeople believe they should have the choice to have suitable firearms available for their self-defense, and I support them in this. Their hypocrisy is that they don't believe that the rest of us should be able to make the same choices. For instance, the infamous Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 contained a number of exemptions, one of which was LEO organizations. Current proposals, such as S.66, have the same exemptions.
S.66 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Click to expand...

there should be a constitutional amendment passed that prohibits civilian law enforcement from having access to any firearms that honest private citizens cannot freely buy and own. Or limit civilian law enforcement to such firearms. If it is TOO DANGEROUS for an honest citizen to keep it in his home and use it lawfully on proper ranges or for self defense, it is TOO DANGEROUS for civilian employees of various governmental units to carry such items on our streets and use them in our neighborhoods
 
apdst said:
I'm referring to Democrat politicians, who support anti-gun legislation.

Those same politicians who want to ban magazines that hold over ten rounds and want to ban "military grade weapons" are being protectex by military grade weapons, with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

I want to keep and bear arms to protect myself from a criminal carrying any kind of weapon. Their rights aren't more valuable than mine.
Click to expand...

These politicians are protected by the military as needed.

I want a patriot missile battery
 
apdst said:
Armed security, no doubt, but they don't want us to own guns. This further destroy's the Left's gun control logic.
Click to expand...

Glorious Trumpian Logic at display here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom