• 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!

Gun in Home Kills Loved ones and Owner

Glitch said:
Let's put it this way. The last time fascist scum tried to take firearms away from Americans it began the American Revolution in 1775. The Battle at Concord in 1775 has been heralded as "The Shot Heard Around the World." It is a lesson to all future wanna-be fascists.
Click to expand...

No. The Declaration of Independence is considered the shot that was heard around the world before you lecture me learn your history lol
 
zsu2357 said:
Who do you think makes up the bulk of that 100 million. That's right law abiding citizens that are related to the LEOs.
Click to expand...

Not according to turtle dude. to him they are vengeful potential Killers of anybody who wants to deny them their right to have a
 
zsu2357 said:
So your fine with the fact it was an Aussie that did the shooting?
Click to expand...

Yes of course if an Aussie kills people it's totally cool the more they kill the better that is an absolutely great comprehension you have their Aussies kill people = awesome
 
zsu2357 said:
Wait a minute! You don't know what he had and you don't care either? What are you doing meddling in our affairs? When you could care less what goes on in you own corner of the world. I don't think your qualified on the subject except too troll.
Click to expand...

You are really really Clueless I don't care because guns should not be legal at least not semi automatic or fully automatic weapons so I'm not going to get caught up in the minutiae of what he had and get bogged down and stupid gun loving nutter arguments about what should be legal and what isn't legal and why it should be legal and that you have your right to own a gun that's designed to kill people I don't care about all that f****** bul**** I don't care about hearing your ****en stupid arguments
 
Bodhisattva said:
You are really really Clueless I don't care because guns should not be legal at least not semi automatic or fully automatic weapons so I'm not going to get caught up in the minutiae of what he had and get bogged down and stupid gun loving nutter arguments about what should be legal and what isn't legal and why it should be legal and that you have your right to own a gun that's designed to kill people I don't care about all that f****** bul**** I don't care about hearing your ****en stupid arguments
Click to expand...

Cute tantrum. [emoji849]
 
Aberration said:
Why does the subject not match the articles title?

And which is it, because only one can be true. And the other is nearly impossible.
Click to expand...

Do you really need it explained? :roll:
 
Chillfolks said:
The biggest difference if this man had used a knife, bat, gas, or any other means of killing his family would be the anti freedom crowd wouldn't of started a thread on the murders. They only want to exploit those killings that reinforce the "guns are bad" mantra.
Click to expand...

Guns are bad. Fact.
 
Lursa said:
THey are factually deaths caused by guns.

That's not the point I was making, I clarified it as well.

They are gun deaths that are irrelevant to gun control/laws/restrictions *unless* the poster believes in repealing the 2A and that confiscating all the guns in the US is possible.
Click to expand...

It’s reasonable to conclude most police shootings involved gun-armed criminals.

Now, watch as zealots post links to cops shooting a moron waving a baseball bat.
 
calamity said:
It’s reasonable to conclude most police shootings involved gun-armed criminals.

Now, watch as zealots post links to cops shooting a moron waving a baseball bat.
Click to expand...

Why is that conclusion reasonable?
 
Bodhisattva said:
No. The Declaration of Independence is considered the shot that was heard around the world before you lecture me learn your history lol
Click to expand...

As if you had a clue.

"The shot heard round the world" is a phrase that refers to the opening shot of the Battle of Concord in 1775, which began the American Revolutionary War and led to the creation of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Shot heard round the world - Wikipedia
 
Glitch said:
Gun control only works in nations that have absolutely no respect for the rights of their citizens, like NZ, Australia, Japan, UK, India, Italy and so many other countries. The US is unique in that regard.

There have been 116 Session of Congress, and not one of them ever introduced any legislation that would have altered the Second Amendment, much less ever reach the floor for a vote. It would be political suicide. Even Senators Feinstein and Schumer (the most rabid anti-American leftist scum in the Senate today) aren't that dumb.
Click to expand...

1 Thank you. You have just clarified for me gun control does work. You said it. If it works in those countries it can work in the USA through adaptation and amendments.....It has never been tried, so assuming it won't work is assumptive and not proven.

Your points are quite brave I must admit, you are insulting the good decisions of governments of over 2 billion people. Bold bold statement. Have you ever travelled outside the USA?

2 The morals in your statement are very contorted. I would ensure your morals don't get trodden on by the need to maintain and win a debate.

I WILL JUST CLARIFY WHAT YOU HAVE SAID.....You dispute taking a gun from a murderer and how can you justify this?

By the way my aim in this instance was to disarm a murderer, I don't advocate like you do for murderers to keep their firearms

The question has nothing to do with alternatives, you just used that to enhance your point. Also you have very little knowledge on one of the largest shootings in the US, it was not 'they' it was a 'he' Stephen Paddock.

3 No need to victimise yourself. I never said or implied it did.

Just to clarify....you do live in the US right? I am quoting from the US Supreme Court " The U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech". And I suppose you are going to come back and call the Supreme Court fake, false, wrong, anti-firearm, hurl insults at them.....you are wrong. Provide accurate facts not ones that suit your purpose and deny logic and the truth.

4 But you have to be accountable for what you say....and in this case I am asking a valid question to ensure you are accountable. If I misread or misinterpreted what you said I would suggest you correct me and explain what you actually meant. If you don't like answering questions or being accountable for what you say I would suggest you don't use a debate forum. Ironically your comments go against the principles of a debate forum.

Never said you had to agree with what I state....that is why asked the question. Isn't that the purpose of a question to elicit a response not force a view or make you think a certain way?

Once again your playing the victim card......we and I am not fascist. You unfortunately need to find a better word to describe this side of politics. In fact even better how about before you do that you start a rally and go march on Washington to try to impeach the fascist left....good luck with getting many supporters and trying to actually get that through.

I really do hope the Democrats win this next election....they have a good strong hold in traditional Republican seats. You only need to look as far as Lousiana.

5 I will stand up for gun control and violate the US Constitution in your eyes. I will happily take it on any day....I stand up what for what I believe in. That fascist thing is actually starting to get real catchy (forget what I said before)....how about you go take that to Trump. I am sure will be able to get a few supporters. Unfortunately your claims are falling on deaf ears at the moment.

6 It is a pity common sense gun control doesn't appeal to your moral senses. I will keep on it. I will keep that belief. And continue hurling the insults at me calling me every name under the sun while I maintain a genuine level of maturity and rationality to this debate.

7 What proof does this Grandpa have that liberalism is a mental disorder....at least prove that?

8 There we go again. You called me a fascist.....make sure you take that to Washington with all of your supporters. Proves nothing around gun control but everything about the kind of character you are.

9 The irony. You said 'not once has anyone ever even suggested modifying the amendment much less repealing it'. Whilst you never mentioned Congress was I magically supposed to assume you mean't Congress.

It is clear you are back stepping trying to cover up the flaw in the argument. It has been mentioned. It is not a new principle. It has been debated and the argument exists whether you like it or not.
 
TurtleDude said:
the change that has to occur is the courts striking down the idiotic federal violations of the second amendment. and more idiotic gun bans by the states. Lets hammer those who harm others with firearms illegally
Click to expand...

Firstly.....the courts rulings are not going to deter criminals. Only a fool would think so. Anyone who is going to conduct criminal and have a firearm is not going be deterred by jail time or a fine.

Secondly.....it is about the availability of weapons and the sheer number. There are more weapons than people, I can go do my food shopping and along with the ice cream for desert can go get a shotgun.

Thus...the courts do not deter criminals it is reducing the availability and sheer number that will curb criminals access to the. They are not idiotic, they are sensible and justified.

Your approach is not proven, not working and will never work.
 
calamity said:
Guns are bad. Fact.
Click to expand...

Guns are neither good nor bad. They are inanimate objects. The person using the tool is the one who is either using it for good or bad.

Calamity adds another post that is boarder line trolling. FACT.
 
TurtleDude said:
is a suicide facilitated by a large magazine or a semi auto firearm? does a bolt action rifle or a single barrel shotgun work as well? Are bolt action rifles or single shot shotguns still easy to get in Australia?
Click to expand...

I provided the statistics and answered your question. It is not the type of firearm that is the problem, it is the fact a firearm was even prevalent. The type of weapon does not change the fact a death occurred. One that could have been prevented.

To your second question...at least be somewhat mature and understanding of the sensitivity of this topic. Absolutely appalling. To answer your disgraceful question....I don't know and hope I never have to know.

No I would say not.
 
goldkam said:
I provided the statistics and answered your question. It is not the type of firearm that is the problem, it is the fact a firearm was even prevalent. The type of weapon does not change the fact a death occurred. One that could have been prevented.

To your second question...at least be somewhat mature and understanding of the sensitivity of this topic. Absolutely appalling. To answer your disgraceful question....I don't know and hope I never have to know.

No I would say not.
Click to expand...

your posts appear to be based on massive ignorance, and since you want to take away the rights of millions-that is what is appalling. The fact is-the Australian gun ban did not take the firearms most used for suicides
 
goldkam said:
Firstly.....the courts rulings are not going to deter criminals. Only a fool would think so. Anyone who is going to conduct criminal and have a firearm is not going be deterred by jail time or a fine.

Secondly.....it is about the availability of weapons and the sheer number. There are more weapons than people, I can go do my food shopping and along with the ice cream for desert can go get a shotgun.

Thus...the courts do not deter criminals it is reducing the availability and sheer number that will curb criminals access to the. They are not idiotic, they are sensible and justified.

Your approach is not proven, not working and will never work.
Click to expand...

The only thing gun bans or more restrictions are proven to do, are harass honest gun owners-which is the reason why those who lead the anti gun movement push laws designed to so harass.
 
goldkam said:
5 I will stand up for gun control and violate the US Constitution in your eyes.
Click to expand...
In case you hadn't noticed. You've already lost. The Supreme Court has tossed not just the anti-American fascist feds, but also the anti-American fascist States into the trash and identified the "right to keep and bear arms" as an individual right that cannot be infringed. All of the anti-American fascist left's dreams for universal background checks were tossed by the Supreme Court, as were the goals by anti-American fascist leftist to slaughter more children.

Every attempt by the anti-American fascist left to kill Americans and deprive them of their liberties for the last 30 years has been thwarted by the Supreme Court. You have no hope.

You have to know by know that the more you scream and foam at the mouth about depriving Americans of their constitutionally protected rights, the more you are selling firearms in the US. It is precisely because of people like you for the reason why there are more than 300 million privately owned firearms in the US. So by all means, continue to spew your anti-American hatred of liberty that you call "common sense." You are only helping sell more firearms.

goldkam said:
6 It is a pity common sense gun control doesn't appeal to your moral senses. I will keep on it. I will keep that belief. And continue hurling the insults at me calling me every name under the sun while I maintain a genuine level of maturity and rationality to this debate.
Click to expand...
Why is it the anti-American fascist left always consider depriving others of their liberty as "common sense?" Mao considered his "Great Leap Forward" to be "common sense" as well and it resulted in 45 million deaths. How many millions do you want to kill for your so-called "common sense" gun control?

goldkam said:
7 What proof does this Grandpa have that liberalism is a mental disorder....at least prove that?
Click to expand...
Buy his book and get a clue.

goldkam said:
9 The irony. You said 'not once has anyone ever even suggested modifying the amendment much less repealing it'. Whilst you never mentioned Congress was I magically supposed to assume you mean't Congress.

It is clear you are back stepping trying to cover up the flaw in the argument. It has been mentioned. It is not a new principle. It has been debated and the argument exists whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...
I assumed you had a grasp of basic civics and understood how amendments to the US Constitution can be changed or repealed. I obviously won't be making that mistake in the future since you clearly think the New York Times and other anti-American fascist propaganda sources somehow amends the US Constitution. That tells me precisely the level of your education, or rather the lack thereof.
 
zsu2357 said:
You do know that I was referring to calamity when he said a death is a death. Yes these deaths (legal shootings by LEOs)are irrelevant,but yet the banners just love counting them along with other DGUs and yes accidents. That's my point.
Click to expand...

Got there later, sorreh.
 
calamity said:
It’s reasonable to conclude most police shootings involved gun-armed criminals.

Now, watch as zealots post links to cops shooting a moron waving a baseball bat.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with the point I was making.
 
zsu2357 said:
Wait a minute! You don't know what he had and you don't care either? What are you doing meddling in our affairs? When you could care less what goes on in you own corner of the world. I don't think your qualified on the subject except too troll.
Click to expand...

Because the point is not the type of weapon that he had... the semantics... the point is the fact that it is a gun.
 
Glitch said:
As if you had a clue.



Shot heard round the world - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Not the actual phrase, shot heard round the world. What was heard around the world was the Declaration that people were free to choose whom lead them and how... that is why the Declaration was censored for a while and why monarchs in Europe were wary of it. The actual "shots" were of small little battles in places that nobody around the world had ever heard of... what was heard around the world was the Declaration of Independence.

The rulers feared that their subjects would see the American action not as a rebellion against a rightful monarch in his own territories—there had been plenty of rebellions against European sovereigns—but as the proclamation of a revolutionary doctrine of universal application, as the Declaration indeed announced it to be.

The Shot Heard Round The World | The New Republic

Global Influence - Declaration of Independence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom