• 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!

Dateline Florida: Guns Win Again

Rucker61 said:
What do we have to give up to qualify in your eyes as caring enough for kids?
Click to expand...

The fight for no restrictions on guns. Duh.
 
Rucker61 said:
What do we have to give up to qualify in your eyes as caring enough for kids?
Click to expand...


It's not about kids safety. It's about seeking revenge on a group of people, that historically support a different political philosophy. The " but the kids" routine is just a way to act like a vindictive simpleton while absurdly and falsely claiming to be above that activity.
 
Chillfolks said:
It's not about kids safety. It's about seeking revenge on a group of people, that historically support a different political philosophy. The " but the kids" routine is just a way to act like a vindictive simpleton while absurdly and falsely claiming to be above that activity.
Click to expand...

I guess it just also happens to be true that kids are getting shot in math class
 
calamity said:
The fight for no restrictions on guns. Duh.
Click to expand...

We have restrictions on guns. We just fight the ones that are unconstitutional, ineffective, unenforceable and unnecessary.

Since there is no law that can prevent all children from getting shot, the only result that will satisfy the "it's for the children" crown is no guns at all.
 
Rucker61 said:
We have restrictions on guns. We just fight the ones that are unconstitutional, ineffective, unenforceable and unnecessary.

Since there is no law that can prevent all children from getting shot, the only result that will satisfy the "it's for the children" crown is no guns at all.
Click to expand...
children are the last refuge of the collectivist
 
calamity said:
The fight for no restrictions on guns. Duh.
Click to expand...

another bald faced lie from Calamity. he tries to justify his hysterical baiting of gun owners by claiming we don't support ANY restrictions. Find me one poster who thinks felons in prison or 5 year old kids ought to be able to pack machine guns
 
Rucker61 said:
We have restrictions on guns. We just fight the ones that are unconstitutional, ineffective, unenforceable and unnecessary.

Since there is no law that can prevent all children from getting shot, the only result that will satisfy the "it's for the children" crown is no guns at all.
Click to expand...

Disingenuous argument. Thousands of children are being shot dead. Thousands. And the reason behind it is all the ****ing guns.

So, your strawman argument "no law that can prevent all children from getting shot" is garbage.
 
TurtleDude said:
another bald faced lie from Calamity. he tries to justify his hysterical baiting of gun owners by claiming we don't support ANY restrictions. Find me one poster who thinks felons in prison or 5 year old kids ought to be able to pack machine guns
Click to expand...

Your little buddies at the NRA would push for both.
 
calamity said:
Disingenuous argument. Thousands of children are being shot dead. Thousands. And the reason behind it is all the ****ing guns.

So, your strawman argument "no law that can prevent all children from getting shot" is garbage.
Click to expand...

Not thousands.

give us a statistic that shows thousands of kids a year are killed by guns...and keep in mind some of those, unfortunately, will be minor gang members.
 
calamity said:
Disingenuous argument. Thousands of children are being shot dead. Thousands. And the reason behind it is all the ****ing guns.

So, your strawman argument "no law that can prevent all children from getting shot" is garbage.
Click to expand...

if it's down to just hundreds, is that a satisfactory improvement to you?

Would even a single child being killed by someone with a gun each year mean we need stricter laws?
 
Lursa said:
Not thousands.

give us a statistic that shows thousands of kids a year are killed by guns...and keep in mind some of those, unfortunately, will be minor gang members.
Click to expand...

gun banning groups tried to pretend that children killed by guns include people up to the age of 25.
 
Rucker61 said:
if it's down to just hundreds, is that a satisfactory improvement to you?

Would even a single child being killed by someone with a gun each year mean we need stricter laws?
Click to expand...

you are assuming (perhaps for the sake of argument) that stopping the death of innocents is what really motivates the anti gun hysterics. Since it clearly DOES NOT, even if there were no deaths, he'd still push for laws to harass gun owners
 
Rucker61 said:
if it's down to just hundreds, is that a satisfactory improvement to you?

Would even a single child being killed by someone with a gun each year mean we need stricter laws?
Click to expand...
Silly argument
 
calamity said:
Silly argument
Click to expand...

you're right-your anti gun arguments are silly. even more silly is the crocodile tears you and others shed over dead children.
 
TurtleDude said:
you're right-your anti gun arguments are silly. even more silly is the crocodile tears you and others shed over dead children.
Click to expand...
Dead kids; by the thousand. Laugh it off. Go ahead.
 
Rucker61 said:
Is one too many?
Click to expand...

that's a tough question to real and faux gun banners

1) why do you support magazine limits?

because people with 20 round magazines kill too many

2) so you are ok with the same people killing a few less?

3) why ban semi automatics

Because they can shoot too fast meaning criminals can kill too many people

4) so them shooting slightly less with a pump shotgun or a lever action rifle or a non-Jerry Miculeck operated revolver is an acceptable number?


Bottom line-they support all gun bans if their argument is really consistent
 
TurtleDude said:
you are assuming (perhaps for the sake of argument) that stopping the death of innocents is what really motivates the anti gun hysterics. Since it clearly DOES NOT, even if there were no deaths, he'd still push for laws to harass gun owners
Click to expand...

Calamity is not an accurate representation of the pro gun control side. I have meet more than a few gun control supporters from both sides that truly do have reducing innocent deaths as their motivation.

There are also people, more than a fair amount on here, who are calling for limiting rights as a way to harass a large group they disagree with politically. That group more accurately describes what Calamity does.


That and sometimes it's fun to spin up random anonymous people on the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom