• 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!

Fear and gun ownership.

Up to the individual to carry any weapon he wants ?
It would depend on how paranoid and gullible they are to the propaganda of fear by the pro gun crowd.
Physically and sometimes illegally they can carry any weapon they want. Morally and legally and using some intelligence it would be hard to justify such stupidity with a gun or any weapon.
 
yes, but if someone says they need an automatic 40MM grenade launcher or a triple A battery, I think at that point, the government has some legitimate power to say no.

So posters on here who say that whatever weapons the police or military have, they should have, are wrong
And I'm particularly referring to DebateChallenge who justified his need for any personal weapon the military has, by saying he might need it in the event of a SHTF apocalypse.
 
It would depend on how paranoid and gullible they are to the propaganda of fear by the pro gun crowd.
Physically and sometimes illegally they can carry any weapon they want. Morally and legally and using some intelligence it would be hard to justify such stupidity with a gun or any weapon.

Well a certain poster on here, justifies his need for any personal weapon the police/military have, by saying he might need it in the event of a SHTF apocalypse.
 
I had lots of experience with coyotes living in southern California. They are about half the size of an Alaskan Timber Wolf, but just as smart and as fast. They may not be able to take a large domestic dog, but coyotes could easily snatch up smaller dogs and/or cats. Coyotes also tend to be bolder around humans. It is rare to encounter a wolf in the wild in Alaska. There are no domestic dogs, no matter how big, that can take out an Alaskan Timber Wolf. Wolves, like coyotes, have to regularly kill to survive. Domestic dogs don't. That gives the wolf the edge.


You say what many people don't get. A wild animal is wild. A domestic dog is not. A big German Shepherd doesn't get the fight it is in as does a simple coyote. To think that your big dog will keep such animals away is wrong thinking. There are exceptions. An Argentinian Mastiff, being a Dogo Argentino, killed a cougar on a residential property in Argentina. The family discovered their dog lying injured when they went searching after the dog did not return. The dog was saved. That must have been sudden happenstance. The cougar must have been surprised and the fight immediately followed. Otherwise, the cat would normally run away.
 
Well a certain poster on here, justifies his need for any personal weapon the police/military have, by saying he might need it in the event of a SHTF apocalypse.
who is that, and prove it with quoting his posts
 
Well a certain poster on here, justifies his need for any personal weapon the police/military have, by saying he might need it in the event of a SHTF apocalypse.
These gun pro gun people are not original thinkers, or even very good at thinking. Creating a propaganda of fear is not original or exclusive to them. Your corrupt politicians and the powerful who bribe them also are well known to use fear to turn americans into sheeple.

No doubt he needs those guns and whatever for day the communists take over america or whatever crap he has bought into.

They call it freedom but all I see is fear.
 
These gun pro gun people are not original thinkers, or even very good at thinking. Creating a propaganda of fear is not original or exclusive to them. Your corrupt politicians and the powerful who bribe them also are well known to use fear to turn americans into sheeple.

No doubt he needs those guns and whatever for day the communists take over america or whatever crap he has bought into.

They call it freedom but all I see is fear.
I laugh at your insinuation that anti gun posters are original thinkers or good at thinking. Most of you all aren't even honest as to what causes your hatred of gun ownership
 
I laugh at your insinuation that anti gun posters are original thinkers or good at thinking. Most of you all aren't even honest as to what causes your hatred of gun ownership
No what you mean is that you failing to disprove that the pro gun crowd use fear as a motivator the best you can do is deny. Pathetic, but to be expected from the pro gun crowd.
 
These gun pro gun people are not original thinkers, or even very good at thinking. Creating a propaganda of fear is not original or exclusive to them. Your corrupt politicians and the powerful who bribe them also are well known to use fear to turn americans into sheeple.

No doubt he needs those guns and whatever for day the communists take over america or whatever crap he has bought into.

They call it freedom but all I see is fear.

Another good post, soy (y)

You clearly have an excellent understanding of the (very sick) gun culture in, as they say in drumpf country, Murr-ca.

Many Murr-kin gun cravers are basically hyper-paranoid losers who think they're gunna get jumped by scary black dudes (or some rogue gubbermint agent) every time they go to the f***in' grocery store.

Very sad and pathetic...
 
Another good post, soy (y)

You clearly have an excellent understanding of the (very sick) gun culture in, as they say in drumpf country, Murr-ca.

Many Murr-kin gun cravers are basically hyper-paranoid losers who think they're gunna get jumped by scary black dudes (or some rogue gubbermint agent) every time they go to the f***in' grocery store.

Very sad and pathetic...
Many anti gunners are basically trolls.
 
Many Murr-kin gun cravers are basically hyper-paranoid losers who think they're gunna get jumped by scary black dudes (or some rogue gubbermint agent) every time they go to the f***in' grocery store.

Very sad and pathetic...
This is projection of subconscious bias. Most of the crime from your "scary black dudes" live in liberal cities and states. These are the places where there is the most crime... especially when it comes from your "scary black dudes" as you like to call them. But, go on and tell us some more about those insecurities of going to the grocery store. You could always move to a less liberal part of the country and then you wouldn't have to worry anymore.
 
You say what many people don't get. A wild animal is wild. A domestic dog is not. A big German Shepherd doesn't get the fight it is in as does a simple coyote. To think that your big dog will keep such animals away is wrong thinking. There are exceptions. An Argentinian Mastiff, being a Dogo Argentino, killed a cougar on a residential property in Argentina. The family discovered their dog lying injured when they went searching after the dog did not return. The dog was saved. That must have been sudden happenstance. The cougar must have been surprised and the fight immediately followed. Otherwise, the cat would normally run away.
There are no exceptions. My last dog was a Boerboel (a.k.a. South African Mastiff) and he would have been no match for a wolf. Not even a 250 pound English Mastiff could deal with a single 150 pound Timber Wolf, but they are rarely ever alone. Typically you are dealing with a pack of four or more, even if you can't see them. Which is why I was always armed whenever I took him for walks during the Winter. During the Summers we don't have wolf problems, just during the Winter and even then only when the Winter is a bad one. During the Summers we have other potential problems that require even bigger firearms.

I don't think the cougar would have been able to run away. A dog can be just as fast, and if the dog was motivated the cougar may have found it difficult to disengage. In either case the domesticated dog was extremely lucky to survive the experience.
 
There are no exceptions. My last dog was a Boerboel (a.k.a. South African Mastiff) and he would have been no match for a wolf. Not even a 250 pound English Mastiff could deal with a single 150 pound Timber Wolf, but they are rarely ever alone. Typically you are dealing with a pack of four or more, even if you can't see them. Which is why I was always armed whenever I took him for walks during the Winter. During the Summers we don't have wolf problems, just during the Winter and even then only when the Winter is a bad one. During the Summers we have other potential problems that require even bigger firearms.

I don't think the cougar would have been able to run away. A dog can be just as fast, and if the dog was motivated the cougar may have found it difficult to disengage. In either case the domesticated dog was extremely lucky to survive the experience.

I largely agree with you but wild animals will run away if the fight is too tough. I've owned several German Shepherds and, IMO, they wouldn't run away if I or my family were threatened. They stand and fight and the bite force of a GSD is somewhat underestimated by many.
 
I largely agree with you but wild animals will run away if the fight is too tough. I've owned several German Shepherds and, IMO, they wouldn't run away if I or my family were threatened. They stand and fight and the bite force of a GSD is somewhat underestimated by many.
My South African Mastiff would also stand and fight to the death to protect me. That is what is what he was bred to do. However, both my Mastiff and your German Shepherd would lose, and lose badly. Wolves are like Piranha. They can completely rip apart a golden retriever and be gone within 10 seconds. At least that was how one lady who lost her dog described it. She said it was like a scene out of Jurassic Park. The only thing left of her dog was its collar. The pack took the carcass, in multiple pieces, and ran off.

Domesticated dogs, regardless of the breed, would not stand a chance against a large canine in the wild. That is the price they pay for domestication.
 
My South African Mastiff would also stand and fight to the death to protect me. That is what is what he was bred to do. However, both my Mastiff and your German Shepherd would lose, and lose badly. Wolves are like Piranha. They can completely rip apart a golden retriever and be gone within 10 seconds. At least that was how one lady who lost her dog described it. She said it was like a scene out of Jurassic Park. The only thing left of her dog was its collar. The pack took the carcass, in multiple pieces, and ran off.

Domesticated dogs, regardless of the breed, would not stand a chance against a large canine in the wild. That is the price they pay for domestication.

Well pitbulls are/were bred to fight bulls, but yes you're right - any domesticated dog is going to lose badly against a wolf.
 
So posters on here who say that whatever weapons the police or military have, they should have, are wrong
And I'm particularly referring to DebateChallenge who justified his need for any personal weapon the military has, by saying he might need it in the event of a SHTF apocalypse.
The underlying natural right for the Second amendment was self defense-so some military weapons are neither useful for self defense, nor weapons a citizen would normally keep and bear. Governmental prohibitions on such offensive weapons (usually designed for use against an area, such as fortress or a ship or a plane) are adjudicated under the tenth amendment, not the second. Police weapons, by definition, are for self defense. Once a civilian government or one of its agencies, has issued civilian police a certain type of weapon-that is a governmental "decree" that such a firearm is useful for self defense in a civilian area. The government should be estopped from claiming otherwise if non-governmental civilians seek to own this type of firearm
 
The underlying natural right for the Second amendment was self defense-so some military weapons are neither useful for self defense, nor weapons a citizen would normally keep and bear. Governmental prohibitions on such offensive weapons (usually designed for use against an area, such as fortress or a ship or a plane) are adjudicated under the tenth amendment, not the second. Police weapons, by definition, are for self defense. Once a civilian government or one of its agencies, has issued civilian police a certain type of weapon-that is a governmental "decree" that such a firearm is useful for self defense in a civilian area. The government should be estopped from claiming otherwise if non-governmental civilians seek to own this type of firearm
The underlying natural right behind the Second Amendment is broader than mere self-defense. It was not only encouraged that every freeman keep and bear arms, it was compulsory throughout England through most of the middle-ages. Freemen were required to practice with bows and other weapons so that they may be called forth by their rulers to form armies.

The individual right to keep and bear arms is not limited to a single purpose. Self-defense is certainly the most obvious, but for many living during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries arms were a necessity for survival. For some they still are, and it has nothing to do with defensive use of an arm.

Police weapons are not "by definition" for only self-defense. They can be, and are, also used as offensive weapons. I don't have a problem with that. Offensive raids to arrest potentially violent suspects helps keep the police safe because they are (hopefully) in control of the situation.

I do agree that absolute equity between the arms used by police and those used by civilians is a necessity. The police need to be as well armed as any criminal, and civilians should have the choice whether or not to be as well armed as any police officer. My choice is to be better armed than either of them.
 
The underlying natural right for the Second amendment was self defense-so some military weapons are neither useful for self defense, nor weapons a citizen would normally keep and bear. Governmental prohibitions on such offensive weapons (usually designed for use against an area, such as fortress or a ship or a plane) are adjudicated under the tenth amendment, not the second. Police weapons, by definition, are for self defense. Once a civilian government or one of its agencies, has issued civilian police a certain type of weapon-that is a governmental "decree" that such a firearm is useful for self defense in a civilian area. The government should be estopped from claiming otherwise if non-governmental civilians seek to own this type of firearm

No, the underlying motivation for the 2A was the maintenance of a militia.

No mention of self-defense is to be found in the Constitution.

The poster on here denies that there's no weapon unsuitable for self defense (personal weapon that is, not crew served).
 
No what you mean is that you failing to disprove that the pro gun crowd use fear as a motivator the best you can do is deny. Pathetic, but to be expected from the pro gun crowd.
I don't need to disprove it, because your lies that fear is what motivates the pro gun crowd, have never been proven as correct. You just make shit up and hope that someone will believe it
 
No, the underlying motivation for the 2A was the maintenance of a militia.

No mention of self-defense is to be found in the Constitution.

The poster on here denies that there's no weapon unsuitable for self defense (personal weapon that is, not crew served).
where does it say that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms

can you find any hint of federal gun control in Article One Section Eight?
 
where does it say that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms

The militia has no rights
Citizens have the right the have guns, in order that they might staff a militia.

can you find any hint of federal gun control in Article One Section Eight?

No, have I not said that a gun ban would require a Constitutional amendment - why do I keep having to repeat things to you ?
 
Why does every country on Earth want to buy as many guns as possible ? Why is it that the more prosperous the Country the bigger the guns. Why do Humans need guns by the millions ? Why is the faster the Missile the better the gun diplomacy. Why is Russia constantly threatening to use gun diplomacy. Why is China constantly threatening everything about the S. China Sea. Is it because they got a lot of Guns ? China can probably field a 1/2 billion man army. Wonder how many guns they actually have in Armories ? Actually what got us the Freedom, kept us free win or loose ! Is it just plain selfish greed of powerful men that causes most of the Worlds problems. Why not put all of them under the influence of a happy pill instead ?
Take this to other thoughts. Why in traffic is everyone got to get ahead of the vehicle in front of it, even if 10 MPH over the speed limit at least and why do most then immediately turn to the right of if left stop everyone behind them.. Why can't people just take their time with a happy pill instead of all the road hate ! Why do most all people hate standing in line any where. Why don't they take their happy pills !
Of course this is where the World needs to create international laws. Everyone must take their happy pills forever ! :cool:
 
Last edited:
Why does every country on Earth want to buy as many guns as possible ?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

Why is it that the more prosperous the Country the bigger the guns.

Is it ?

Why do Humans need guns by the millions ?

Ah, you were being sarcastic.

Why is Russia constantly threatening to use gun diplomacy.

You don't threaten to use it, you do or you don't.
It's often referred to as saber-rattling

Or did you mean "gun boat" diplomacy ?

Why is China constantly threatening everything about the S. China Sea. Is it because they got a lot of Guns ?

Proximity.

Is it just plain selfish greed of powerful men that causes most of the Worlds problems.

As the Bible says, the love of money is the root of all evil.

Why in traffic is everyone got to get ahead of the vehicle in front of it, even if 10 MPH over the speed limit at least and why do most then immediately turn to the right of if left stop everyone behind them..

Take heed: slower traffic, pull over to the right.

Why can't people just take their time with a happy pill instead of all the road hate !

And be like Jamaica:
"Love is all I bring
In m'khaki suit and ting
"

Why do most all people hate standing in line any where. Why don't they take their happy pills

I once read that we spend roughly 7 years just waiting.

Of course this is where the World needs to create international laws. Everyone must take their happy pills forever !

 
Back
Top Bottom