• 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!

21 million guns sold in 2020, up 60%, women, blacks top buyers

So me having a gun instantly turns me into a guerrilla warfare specialist does it?
I don't like killing spiders, I'm not going to shoot someone and again what's stopping the invading forces from just rounding people up and jailing or killing them in retaliation for my actions?

I think people like you have a very romanticized view of what being invaded would be like.
They will take away your guns or they will just jail or shoot you and you and a few friends going Rambo is not going to help.
I don't like killing spiders, I'm not going to shoot someone


Sounds to me, you'll just be one that dies forsure

I think people like you have a very romanticized view of what being invaded would be like.

No, just historical point of view. Also, the invading force could be your own Government
 
You don't have to be a Rambo.

The British troops were completely demoralized by Francis Marion's hit and run tactics. Marion never won a major battle.

His success was built on plinking off a few soldiers here and there, and then disappearing. This did a real head job on the British troops as they were in constant fear of the unknown every time they left the fort.

A lot mental health doctors and Psychologists treating soldiers with PTSD, relate the constant stress & fear of patrolling over long periods of time...................... as more damaging than actual combat.


But before the war ventured south, British troops din't like to go out into the New England countryside for a reason
 
Why would we set gun policy as if we're about to be invaded?
We're not.

Yep, folks are rarely confronted by a criminal or personal enemy intent on causing them harm without a police officer (or friendly soldier) nearby to help defend (save?) them. ;)
 
Yet.

Can you predict the future?

Nope, but I can see that the UK is an important part of NATO and at the moment has no real aggression towards it.
What would be the point of invading the UK and occupying us as it would be way more hassle than it's worth. If you're going to invade a NATO member you may as well invade the US as you guys aren't going to sit by and watch the UK, France or Germany be occupied as you have so many military bases and just Americans living or holidaying here.
 
Yep, folks are rarely confronted by a criminal or personal enemy intent on causing them harm without a police officer nearby to help defend (save?) them. ;)

We've managed so far.
 
Nope, but I can see that the UK is an important part of NATO and at the moment has no real aggression towards it.
What would be the point of invading the UK and occupying us as it would be way more hassle than it's worth. If you're going to invade a NATO member you may as well invade the US as you guys aren't going to sit by and watch the UK, France or Germany be occupied as you have so many military bases and just Americans living or holidaying here.

Can you predict the world in 20 years?

Could the native Americans predict small pox?

Could Japan predict a nuclear bomb before they decided to ravage China and the rest of Asia?
 
Yep, folks are rarely confronted by a criminal or personal enemy intent on causing them harm without a police officer (or friendly soldier) nearby to help defend (save?) them. ;)


Perhaps this is where the saying "Where's the cops when you need them" came from?(LOL)
 
Then put your energy in trying to solve it(wink)
There is no solution. Husbands and boyfriends and exes will continue to blow the brains out of their wives and girlfriends.

This is the United States. Guns will go nowhere and neither will violence.
 
How would you know?


As you said, that's been happening for years?

You see, the left wing Black live matter etc... protests in Portland , Seattle and Minneapolis is a new phenomenon

You know the one where they shut down a portion of town and have total politician support?(wink)

Oh my...
 
As you said, that's been happening for years?

You see, the left wing Black live matter etc... protests in Portland , Seattle and Minneapolis is a new phenomenon

You know the one where they shut down a portion of town and have total politician support?(wink)

Oh my...
Set my point was about women being blown away by their husbands boyfriends and exes and you change the subject to that.

Figures.
 
There is no solution. Husbands and boyfriends and exes will continue to blow the brains out of their wives and girlfriends.

This is the United States. Guns will go nowhere and neither will violence.


There is no solution.

What? A leftwing "Debbie Downer"?

Husbands and boyfriends and exes will continue to blow the brains out of their wives and girlfriends.

And you think that is done by majority FIREARMS(Women abuse)?

I would ban fists if I were you(wink)
 
What? A leftwing "Debbie Downer"?



And you think that is done by majority FIREARMS(Women abuse)?

I would ban fists if I were you(wink)
You seem really confused this morning. I talk about one thing, say there is no solution for it because there isn't, and then you change the subject and babble on.

Try saying something that I can respond to.
 
So you guys want to set gun policy based on fear of crime and invasion?

I'm still happy living in a country with almost no guns. We don't need them and there's no call for them.
It's not a political issue here with any traction and no party will gain votes advocating for looser gun laws.
 
There is no solution. Husbands and boyfriends and exes will continue to blow the brains out of their wives and girlfriends.

This is the United States. Guns will go nowhere and neither will violence.
a lie you continue to post without any supporting data.
 
a lie you continue to post without any supporting data.

The idea that allowing tool access (possession?) causes tool abuse is apparently all the “supporting data” one needs to make such an assertion. Why that “logic” does not apply to other tools like knives or hammers which may aid someone in committing violent criminal acts is never really explained, other than some silly assertion that they have other purposes (as if the primary purpose of gun possession was to commit crime). If one assumes (accepts?) that the purpose of the 2A is to allow more criminal acts such as domestic abuse, car jacking or gang warfare then it is futile to argue with them.
 
The idea that allowing tool access (possession?) causes tool abuse is apparently all the “supporting data” one needs to make such an assertion. Why that “logic” does not apply to other tools like knives or hammers which may aid someone in committing violent criminal acts is never really explained, other than some silly assertion that they have other purposes (as if the primary purpose of gun possession was to commit crime). If one assumes (accepts?) that the purpose of the 2A is to allow more criminal acts such as domestic abuse, car jacking or gang warfare then it is futile to argue with them.
Then I should not be denied tool access on a plane, at the super bowl, at a presidential rally or in a courtroom
 
Then I should not be denied tool access on a plane, at the super bowl, at a presidential rally or in a courtroom

How exactly does that pertain to domestic violence with a gun? Is your argument that since guns can be banned at the Super Bowl then they can also be banned in your home?
 
How exactly does that pertain to domestic violence with a gun? Is your argument that since guns can be banned at the Super Bowl then they can also be banned in your home?
You argued this

The idea that allowing tool access (possession?) causes tool abuse is apparently all the “supporting data” one needs to make such an assertion.

How is my possession of a tool at those times all the supporting data one needs to make the assertion that such possession should not be allowed?
 
You argued this

The idea that allowing tool access (possession?) causes tool abuse is apparently all the “supporting data” one needs to make such an assertion.

How is my possession of a tool at those times all the supporting data one needs to make the assertion that such possession should not be allowed?

What is the alleged tool abuse (specific criminal act)? You seem to be equating tool possession which tool abuse.
 
Back
Top Bottom