• 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!

[W:446]Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

Lursa said:
What makes you think that she supports that?Not that that's wrong.**

You are wrong about that anyway...since those charges, when brought *by the states, never federal* are brought on behalf of the mother and/or the state...meaning the concern is the damages, the loss, to "the woman or the state."

States can charge people for killing pets and livestock too, those are also on behalf of others, in that case, owners. It's still a crime because the state recognizes that the unborn, the pet, the livestock *all have value to the woman or owners.*

And that makes perfect sense. A pregnant woman is someone who wants a her baby :doh and such a loss is huge to her/her husband/bf. It's sad that this needs to be explained.

**And that's why it's not hypocritical to support those laws...they recognize the pain and loss of mother/couple, people who obviously wanted the pregnancy and someday, a baby.
Click to expand...
Pets are live and have value. An unborn baby is worthless and any rando stranger could cause an abortion by punching a woman in the belly and by guilty of nothing more than simple assault...right?
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

VanceMack said:
Pets are live and have value. An unborn baby is worthless and any rando stranger could cause an abortion by punching a woman in the belly and by guilty of nothing more than simple assault...right?
Click to expand...

It depend on your POV of when a fetus becomes human.

I'm guess you subscribe to the biblical "breath of life" stance ?


If I'm wrong, please correct me.
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

Rich2018 said:
It depend on your POV of when a fetus becomes human.

I'm guess you subscribe to the biblical "breath of life" stance ?


If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Click to expand...
Its funny.

I GIVE YOU your point...and you piss yourselves. YOU dehumanize life. I ACCEPT your decision to dehumanize life and echo YOUR sentiment...and suddenly you people are struggling with YOUR position that dehumanizes life.
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

VanceMack said:
Its funny.

I GIVE YOU your point...and you piss yourselves. YOU dehumanize life. I ACCEPT your decision to dehumanize life and echo YOUR sentiment...and suddenly you people are struggling with YOUR position that dehumanizes life.
Click to expand...

Please explain dehumanization.
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

DebateChallenge said:
Go to any shooting class or gun range, I've been to many, and by far most of the people there won't be democrats. You might find a few democrats at such places but they are far and few between.
Click to expand...

Been to many. And many competitions.

You are wrong, as usual. I have worked at the Gates Foundation in Seattle, and one day, with 5 of us in a shuttle, 3 of us were discussing the new handguns we had bought.

You have no clue.
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

VanceMack said:
Pets are live and have value. An unborn baby is worthless and any rando stranger could cause an abortion by punching a woman in the belly and by guilty of nothing more than simple assault...right?
Click to expand...

Well, you are welcome to your opinion.

Certainly you are wrong about anything you attributed to me re: the unborn there. Nothing I wrote even implies my personal opinion...except where I pointed out others clear hypocrisy.

And I see, as usual, you had zero actual argument to refute mine.

Good.
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

Rich2018 said:
1. It would hurt

2. It would mark him

3. His DNA is under her fingernails
Click to expand...
And she would still end up getting raped. Even if he is marked and they're able to get his DNA from her fingernails the fact would remain that she was raped. What we want to do, or at least what I want to do, is to prevent rape in the first place. If you ask me identifying, arresting, and convicting a rapist is all fine and good but what's even better is to prevent the rape from even happening.

Rich2018 said:
Yes she can and well before that
Click to expand...
There was a case in a college dorm where a student was strangled to death by her ex boyfriend, she was obviously not able to scream for help.
A rapist will either strangle a woman or cover her mouth to prevent her from screaming and even if she is able to get out a scream there is no guarantee that anybody will hear it and/or come to her aid.

Rich2018 said:
It won't make much difference if a woman is attacked
Click to expand...
That depends on the situation.

Rich2018 said:
and making it easier for her to get guns, makes it for the rapist to get a gun.
Click to expand...
How many times do I have to spell it out to you? Rape is a felony. It is illegal for convicted felons to get guns. Making it easier for legal people to get guns is not going to make it any easier for people who are banned from getting guns to get them.

Rich2018 said:
Not an expert no, though I have worked with British armed police in my army days
Click to expand...
Well at least you admitted that you aren't an expert.

Rich2018 said:
Where did you learn about soldiering ?
Click to expand...
Multiple classes and programs in self defense and firearm schools and seminars where some or many of the instructors were former soldiers.
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

Lursa said:
Been to many. And many competitions.

You are wrong, as usual. I have worked at the Gates Foundation in Seattle, and one day, with 5 of us in a shuttle, 3 of us were discussing the new handguns we had bought.

You have no clue.
Click to expand...
So you and some of your liberal friends are into guns, that's fine and dandy. The fact is generally speaking liberals don't like guns.
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

Rich2018 said:
Please explain dehumanization.
Click to expand...
Dehumanize...refusing to identify an unborn child as an unborn child to feel better about your support for butchering it.
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

Lursa said:
Well, you are welcome to your opinion.

Certainly you are wrong about anything you attributed to me re: the unborn there. Nothing I wrote even implies my personal opinion...except where I pointed out others clear hypocrisy.

And I see, as usual, you had zero actual argument to refute mine.

Good.
Click to expand...
Of course it refutes your comment and position. States can charge people with killing pets because pets have value. You lot have dehumanized unborn children to justify your support of slaughtering them...they have no value to you. So...accepting YOUR position we need to ensure consistency.
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

Lursa said:
I dont have those answers...all I know is Wiki has a disclaimer that says your claim *is not proven and is under dispute.*

And of course only the gullible and indoctrinated believe something unproven ONLY because it conforms to their belief.
And I never wrote it cant be proven, I wrote that apparently, it hasnt been proven. I'd bet, as I wrote, those records still exist.
Click to expand...

You cannot prove or disprove the claim and yet you accuse others of believing something they cannot prove? Can you prove what you believe?
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

VanceMack said:
Im fine with that. But then you are going to have to have a little integrity with your position then. When someone other than the mother is responsible for killing an unborn child the worst they can get charged with is simple assault of the mother. And stop bleating on about pre-natal care...talk to us after the clump of cells is worth giving a **** over.
Click to expand...

The unborn growing inside the mother is still wanted by the mother.

The mother gets to decide if those clump of cells is worth giving a **** over because she is the one caring them, growing them.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

marke said:
I do struggle trying to love those who hate God and God Bless America and those who despise good Christian people everywhere.
Click to expand...
No. What you do is make assumptions on others, just as you have done in this comment, wrongly on your views and those who dont view things as you do and automatically make conclusions of "if person x does not believe exactly as I do or close enough/has a label I view as an indication of evil/bad, then person x must hate god and America and Christians", a conclusion that is highly biased and very faulty.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

marke said:
But that is you. You may rather have an guard like Parkwood's Scot Peterson protecting you in school but that does not mean you should refuse to allow other teachers to arm themselves for protection instead.
Click to expand...
Yes it does, since you cannot demonstrate that armed teachers whom would be more likely to shoot someone else other than a shooter in many situations would be better than armed guards who are trained, who have one responsibility, protecting everyone.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

VanceMack said:
Pets are live and have value. An unborn baby is worthless and any rando stranger could cause an abortion by punching a woman in the belly and by guilty of nothing more than simple assault...right?
Click to expand...
Property is not alive, but is still covered by laws if destroyed by someone other than the owner.

And vandalizing/destroying property is punished dependent in many cases on value of the property. So if someone kills an unborn child that the mother wanted, then it can easily be concluded that the value of that child is high.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

roguenuke said:
The unborn growing inside the mother is still wanted by the mother.

The mother gets to decide if those clump of cells is worth giving a **** over because she is the one caring them, growing them.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Couldnt give a **** if she wants that useless unborn clump of cells any more than she wants a new pair of shoes. Until it is born it is worthless.

I do so love you people and the ridiculous idiotic tap dance you do. Its MY baby...and I LOVE it and value it and you cant harm it and you have to help take care of it and its precious...until I decide its inconvenient and worthless and to have it chopped to pieces and sucked out like yesterdays trash.
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

VanceMack said:
Of course it refutes your comment and position. States can charge people with killing pets because pets have value. You lot have dehumanized unborn children to justify your support of slaughtering them...they have no value to you. So...accepting YOUR position we need to ensure consistency.
Click to expand...
Pets only have value to their owners, if others value them. It is perfectly legal to euthanize a pet or unwanted animal. Hunters kill animals legally, animals who were born and alive. An unborn child that a mother wants has value to that mother who has sole rights to the unborn child until their birth.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

DebateChallenge said:
So you and some of your liberal friends are into guns, that's fine and dandy. The fact is generally speaking liberals don't like guns.
Click to expand...

What makes other people at ranges and competing with firearms "my friends?"

Generally speaking, your assumptions about liberals not liking guns is wrong.
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

VanceMack said:
Couldnt give a **** if she wants that useless unborn clump of cells any more than she wants a new pair of shoes. Until it is born it is worthless.

I do so love you people and the ridiculous idiotic tap dance you do. Its MY baby...and I LOVE it and value it and you cant harm it and you have to help take care of it and its precious...until I decide its inconvenient and worthless and to have it chopped to pieces and sucked out like yesterdays trash.
Click to expand...
Those shoes have value to the owner that can in fact result in charges if you were to destroy or steal those shoes. That is how our law recognizes the situation. But you could also be the owner of those shoes and completely destroy them without legal consequences.

You are discussing two different people. A mother who wants her baby and another that doesnt. Heck even the one who is thinking about an abortion still has the right to make that decision, just as if someone who hears a woman talking about throwing away a pair of shoes or euthanizing a pet who is in pain cannot steal those shoes or kill the pet without potentially having charges brought against them because they are still owned by that person, decisions on disposition are still theirs to make.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

VanceMack said:
Of course it refutes your comment and position. States can charge people with killing pets because pets have value. You lot have dehumanized unborn children to justify your support of slaughtering them...they have no value to you. So...accepting YOUR position we need to ensure consistency.
Click to expand...

Who says pets have value? What kind of value? Please explain. Otherwise, it seems like BS.

Who says the unborn have value? What kind of value? Is that 'my opinion?' Nope. I have written many times that I do value the unborn but value all born people more. So, more unfounded BS from you.

Is it possible for you to actually argue facts and without your personal unfounded assumptions?

You just made a ridiculous post with speculation, knowing you were lying about my position, and drew an erroneous conclusion.

Guess you're done then?
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

marke said:
You cannot prove or disprove the claim and yet you accuse others of believing something they cannot prove? Can you prove what you believe?
Click to expand...

You made the claim, YOU cannot prove it, and therefore, esp. since it sounds like BS, I have no reason to believe it.
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

VanceMack said:
Couldnt give a **** if she wants that useless unborn clump of cells any more than she wants a new pair of shoes. Until it is born it is worthless.

I do so love you people and the ridiculous idiotic tap dance you do. Its MY baby...and I LOVE it and value it and you cant harm it and you have to help take care of it and its precious...until I decide its inconvenient and worthless and to have it chopped to pieces and sucked out like yesterdays trash.
Click to expand...

tapdancing? Our comments are founded on the law. :doh

And your ignorance of the elective abortion procedure is completely wrong...maybe you should put that on your bumper sticker..."Fantasize disturbing and inaccurate images of abortions for pleasure...works for VM, now you try!"
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

DebateChallenge said:
So you and some of your liberal friends are into guns, that's fine and dandy. The fact is generally speaking liberals don't like guns.
Click to expand...

Um, to reiterate:

What makes other people at ranges and competitions 'my friends.'

And:

Lursa said:
Been to many (ranges). And many competitions. And at least half are women!

You are wrong, as usual. I have worked at the Gates Foundation in Seattle, and one day, with 5 of us in a shuttle, 3 of us were discussing the new handguns we had bought. And they were 5 *random* people, not friends. Are you able to critically examine that ratio? 3 out of 5?

You have no clue.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

roguenuke said:
Yes it does, since you cannot demonstrate that armed teachers whom would be more likely to shoot someone else other than a shooter in many situations would be better than armed guards who are trained, who have one responsibility, protecting everyone.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why tell teachers today "You cannot carry a defensive weapon to school because you might shoot somebody" if they are only going to end up dead tomorrow at some school like Sandy Hook?
 
Re: Women Being Involved In The Gun Debate

Lovebug said:
Women can shoot, men can't have babies.
Click to expand...

Women can't have babies without men's Sperm(LOL)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom