• 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!

A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

Would this compromise be acceptable?

  • Yes. This isn’t perfect, but no compromise is.

    Votes: 11 14.7%

  • No. I don’t mind some compromise, but this still takes away too much.

    Votes: 10 13.3%

  • No. We should never compromise our gun rights.

    Votes: 49 65.3%

  • No. This still gives too many gun ownership privileges.

    Votes: 3 4.0%

  • I can hit a target 400 yards away with my eyes closed.

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • Total voters
    75
Boo Radley said:
No. You're assertion as best I can tell is that it is reasonable for people to have large clips, that they are needed. Quit diverting to me, and try to demonstrate the need, support your assertion.
Click to expand...

You know it's crap that you've got him in that position to begin with. You're not debating the topic. You know well enough that it is not necessary to prove "need" in the prevention of the infringement of rights.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. You're assertion as best I can tell is that it is reasonable for people to have large clips, that they are needed. Quit diverting to me, and try to demonstrate the need, support your assertion.
Click to expand...

I don't need to support what I want. You have to prove that I am less entitled to them than other civilians and you have to prove that I will NEVER NEED ONE

since our civilian police have determined that they need them I am relying on that

and you labor under the delusion that law abiding citizens who are not cops are somehow less trustworthy than those who are

you need to stick to determining what YOU NEED and stop pretending you have any clue what others need And rights are not about NEED. Your entire posting strategy is a sanctimonious suggestive attack on others that pretends you know more than they do

you do not

you do not know near as much about the use if firearms for self defense in a civilian environment than i do

You do not know nearly as much about the laws of self defense as they apply to civilians cops and others as I do

and I know you aren't anywhere near as skilled in shooting as I am

so its time for you to stop pretending anything you say to me and others as to what we need has any value whatsoever
 
If You REALLY Were In
You Were Probably Only Long Enough To Get Your Picture Taken
So Your Mommy Could Play Proud To Her Section Eight
 
Dammitboy! said:
It's been demonstrated repeatedly. Only the brain dead would have trouble seeing that.

One more time: If the police think they need them - then I need them. We face the same criminal element.
Click to expand...

the best these anti gun fanatics can claim is the statist worshipping rot that the cops are more valuable than you are.
 
Dammitboy! said:
So how do you plan to control what criminals do? How do you know what criminals will do? How do you know how many criminals will try to break in your home?

Wouldn't an effective strategy to be prepared for worst case scenarios? I remember my neighbors used to laugh and joke that I was a "prepper" for having 3 weeks worth of food, water, and supplies in my home - until we got hit by Katrina. Now they all have emergency supplies.
Click to expand...

Lived inner city most my life. Lived rural as well. Have never laced a door, never had a gun, never been mugged or robbed. And haven't had a fight since my early twenties. Of course, I do have dogs. Shepherds. Well trained. Kids love em.

But, I'm open to you showing actual need.
 
karpenter said:
So Your Mommy Could Play Proud To Her Section Eight
Click to expand...

Have you heard of 'The Basement' (Debate Politics Extras). There, you can post stuff like that. Here (main forum, "upstairs"), not so much.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, it is best to not get into accidents. I take those steps and not drive a tank. Again, you have the right to have a gun. You have the right to self defense. This is not the issue. Why do you need more than the job requires?
Click to expand...

this will be my last post to you on this subject because you have intentionally ignored what i and others have told you many times-apparently you think that asking the same silly question over and over is a substitute for a valid argument

1) we citizens don't start fights-others do and we cannot choose who and how many may attack us

2) our local law enforcement officers are less likely to be attacked than we are yet they have determined they need certain sized magazines to fight the same criminals (often on the cops' terms) we are in danger of being attacked by

3) based on that it is an objective standard for us civilians to buy the same stuff our tax dollars supply our police officers to deal with the same criminals
 
ecofarm said:
You know it's crap that you've got him in that position to begin with. You're not debating the topic. You know well enough that it is not necessary to prove "need" in the prevention of the infringement of rights.
Click to expand...

Different issue. The right to regulate us well established. If he wants to go down that track, we skip defense and look at law concerning regulation. However, he liked it to his need to defend himself. I try to stay where we are, but if he wants to leave this one and switch the topic, I'm game.
 
Boo Radley said:
Different issue... I try to stay where we are, but if he wants to leave this one and switch the topic, I'm game.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I would also like to see his explanation of need.
 
TurtleDude said:
this will be my last post to you on this subject because you have intentionally ignored what i and others have told you many times-apparently you think that asking the same silly question over and over is a substitute for a valid argument

1) we citizens don't start fights-others do and we cannot choose who and how many may attack us

2) our local law enforcement officers are less likely to be attacked than we are yet they have determined they need certain sized magazines to fight the same criminals (often on the cops' terms) we are in danger of being attacked by

3) based on that it is an objective standard for us civilians to buy the same stuff our tax dollars supply our police officers to deal with the same criminals
Click to expand...

I haven't ignored it. I'm unconvinced by those arguments. Police are called to enter into situations, you are not.
 
ecofarm said:
Fair enough. I would also like to see his explanation of need.
Click to expand...

need is never a valid argument when dealing with rights

why do cops NEED a certain weapon

and if so-you have your answer

Boo has to prove that honest citizens are a hazard to others-more than cops

I doubt he can show that
 
TurtleDude said:
need is never a valid argument when dealing with rights
Click to expand...

But that's not the point (and I noted that, to Boo, already). As Boo noted, "different argument". We want to see what he says.
 
ecofarm said:
But that's not the point (and I noted that, to Boo, already). As Boo noted, "different argument". We want to see what he says.
Click to expand...

I have already stated the argument hundreds of times and Boo plays dumb. his crap that cops are called to a situation PROVES MY POINT
when they confront criminals its because they have been warned and informed

not so a homeowner who has somebody or a group kicking down their door at the middle of the night or a shopkeeper who has 4 armed thugs run into his store

Night
 
TurtleDude said:
...you really have no business or expertise in telling me what I need
Click to expand...

(But...But, Boo Hoo Is Army AIRBORN VETERAN Don't C'ha Know)

Ooo, Underscores His Veracity
But Then, Frank Murtha Was A Genuine Jar-Head Colonel
So Ya Just Never Know
 
TurtleDude said:
need is never a valid argument when dealing with rights

why do cops NEED a certain weapon

and if so-you have your answer

Boo has to prove that honest citizens are a hazard to others-more than cops

I doubt he can show that
Click to expand...

If we're going that route, I think the standard s legal purpose. This is what allowed a sawedoff shotgun to be banned. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.
 
Boo Radley said:
If we're going that route, I think the standard s legal purpose. This is what allowed a sawedoff shotgun to be banned. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

WRONG. Sawed-off shotguns were restricted because the courts said they could find no Military purpose for them.
 
TurtleDude said:
I have already stated the argument hundreds of times and Boo plays dumb.
Click to expand...

I noted that as well ("you know well enough..."). Why do you keep pointing out what I already have? We just wanna see what the dude says anyway.
 
Dammitboy! said:
WRONG. Sawed-off shotguns were restricted because the courts said they could find no Military purpose for them.
Click to expand...


You have any proof of that being the reason, or just made that up too?
 
TurtleDude said:
I have already stated the argument hundreds of times and Boo plays dumb. his crap that cops are called to a situation PROVES MY POINT
when they confront criminals its because they have been warned and informed

not so a homeowner who has somebody or a group kicking down their door at the middle of the night or a shopkeeper who has 4 armed thugs run into his store

Night
Click to expand...
o

And you are allowed to have a gun and protect yourself. How many do you think you will face? If it is need, then do you think is the only situation a police officer might face? That LA shoot out with bank robbers we talked about for example. Isn't that much different than what you will ver face?
 
Dammitboy! said:
WRONG. Sawed-off shotguns were restricted because the courts said they could find no Military purpose for them.
Click to expand...

1939 I believe, and the military was discussed then, too be sure. A less than clear verdict. More recently handguns were allowed as they held a legal purpose. Logically, the reverse would hold true.
 
karpenter said:
(But...But, Boo Hoo Is Army AIRBORN VETERAN Don't C'ha Know)
Click to expand...

I'm not tryin' to be a grammar Nazi or anything, but airborne is with an 'e' at the end.


- D Co. 3/505th PIR 82nd Abn '90-'94
 
Boo Radley said:
Lived inner city most my life.
Click to expand...

Me Too. Had Fights, Threats Of Extortion, Shake Downs Or Flee From Groups As A Daily Routine.
Clawed My Way Out Of That Hell-Hole And Hope To Never Look Back.

The Neighborhood I Live In Now
Doesn't Have Bars Over Their Bottom Floor Windows
And Many Of Us Are Sport Shooters, And Everyone Knows People Like Us Live Here
It's A Real Uneventful Area

Because Everyone Knows Folks Have GUNS !!
So Nobody Comes In And F**KS Around
Because Everyone Knows Folks Have GUNS !!

This Is NOT A 'Gun Free Zone'
 
karpenter said:
Me Too. Had Fights, Threats Of Extortion, Shake Downs Or Flee From Groups As A Daily Routine.
Clawed My Way Out Of That Hell-Hole And Hope To Never Look Back.

The Neighborhood I Live In Now
Doesn't Have Bars Over Their Bottom Floor Windows
And Many Of Us Are Sport Shooters, And Everyone Knows People Like Us Live Here
It's A Real Uneventful Area

Because Everyone Knows Folks Have GUNS !!
So Nobody Comes In And F**KS Around
Because Everyone Knows Folks Have GUNS !!

This Is NOT A 'Gun Free Zone'
Click to expand...

Is it possible you just think that s the reason?
 
eco farm said:
Have you heard of 'The Basement' (Debate Politics Extras). There, you can post stuff like that. Here (main forum, "upstairs"), not so much.
Click to expand...

I've Personally Known The Kind I'm Talking About (3 To Be Exact)
And After Listening To Tale After Tale, They Did Turn Out To Be A Picture & A General

I Also Work With A Young Man With A Bronze Star On His License Plate
I Have Short Shrift With Unproven Self Badges That Anyone Can Just Plaster Because It's The Internet

That Said, I Wanted Boo To Know He Fools No One
But Then, Frank Murtha WAS A Marine Corps Colonel
So You Never Know

I Won't Have To Get That Off My Chest With Him Again
He Can Pretend He's King Of Slobovia For All I Care
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom