• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Guntopia

I've never been callous enough to say that driving has collateral damage.



Yeah, yeah, everybody knows that comedy routine.
How many people have died to increase miles per gallon? Lighter, smaller death traps.
Are you calling to ban Fords? One was used for mass murder in Waukesha.
 
I said state command.



Hence the presence of two of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The founders included stuff that was relevant to them at the time, and accordingly dates the Constitution to the 18th century.



Then what was the purpose of the militia if not to protect people ?
And what was the purpose of the night watch, sheriffs and constables ?

"As in England, the colonies established a system of night watch to guard cities against fire, crime, and disorder. In addition to night watch systems, there were sheriffs appointed by the governor and constables elected by the people. These individuals were responsible for maintaining order and providing other services."


Police: History - Early Policing In Colonial America
Back in the day every able-bodied man was expected to answer the call. Well regulated meant prepared. A gun not a pitch fork and or rocks.
 
How many people have died to increase miles per gallon? Lighter, smaller death traps.
Are you calling to ban Fords? One was used for mass murder in Waukesha.

I'll take "Weak Whataboutisms" for $64, Alex.
 
And he's a very good reason why guns should be banned.
Your arguments are a very good reason why the anti gun movement is dishonest
 
Or stroke his guns for an hour or two.
This is hilarious coming from a guy whose posts are essentially mental masturbation. ban guns-no ban some guns-no ban all guns but then allow some supreme director to unban some guns.
 
This is the problem: Gun rights supporters are quick to say no, mentally sick people should not have guns . . . but then they intentionally ignore me when I remind them about three mentally sick mass shooters. Asking questions results in getting dishonest replies.
you need to actually learn the law. For someone to be denied their constitutional rights, they have to be afforded DUE PROCESS-=both substantive and procedural due process. Mentally ill people cannot be stripped of their rights until they have been adjudicated mentally incompetent. People with Aspergers are generally not going to be adjudicated mentally incompetent.
 
Back in the day every able-bodied man was expected to answer the call. Well regulated meant prepared. A gun not a pitch fork and or rocks.

You didn't answer the questions, which were:

What was the purpose of the militia if not to protect people ?
And what was the purpose of the night watch, sheriffs and constables ?

And every able bodied male, of military age, was required to serve in the king's militia, was he not ?
 
Your arguments are a very good reason why the anti gun movement is dishonest

You speak of dishonesty, then immediately and deliberately erect a straw man, when discussing supporters of gun control, not least myself.


This is hilarious coming from a guy whose posts are essentially mental masturbation. ban guns-no ban some guns-no ban all guns but then allow some supreme director to unban some guns.

One can imagine how someone can base sexual gratification on guns, it's much harder to imagine basing such emotions on the absence of them.
 
You didn't answer the questions, which were:

What was the purpose of the militia if not to protect people ?
And what was the purpose of the night watch, sheriffs and constables ?

And every able bodied male, of military age, was required to serve in the king's militia, was he not ?
My town had a constable growing up. He did a better job than our current police force imo. Of course everyone had guns then. Now we have a flucking liberal prosecutor. Luckily we still have guns.
 
My town had a constable growing up. He did a better job than our current police force imo. Of course everyone had guns then. Now we have a flucking liberal prosecutor. Luckily we still have guns.

So what was the purpose of the night watch, sheriffs and constables ?
 
So what was the purpose of the night watch, sheriffs and constables ?
To protect the church, bars and brothels. The rest lived too far away for 1 if by land 2 if by sea. North America was largely agricultural. 100s of acres between citizens and 911.
 
To protect the church, bars and brothels. The rest lived too far away for 1 if by land 2 if by sea. North America was largely agricultural. 100s of acres between citizens and 911.

Er, what about those people who lived in towns ?
What evidence do you have that constables and sheriffs only protected churches and commercial establishments in the towns ?
 
Er, what about those people who lived in towns ?
What evidence do you have that constables and sheriffs only protected churches and commercial establishments in the towns ?
Not sure of your intended relevance? Are you saying because some of our population relied on the government for protection when we were England it negated the Constitution?
 
Not sure of your intended relevance? Are you saying because some of our population relied on the government for protection when we were England it negated the Constitution?

No, I'm contradicting your fallacious assertion that all colonists were expected to look after their own safety, when constables and sheriffs were either elected or appointed to do precisely that. Not to mention the town night watch.
 
"All" I specifically addressed "all". Most did not live in town. Constables then did what police do now; visit the scene of a crime. Lynching though on the public square was a better deterrence.
 
Last edited:
You speak of dishonesty, then immediately and deliberately erect a straw man, when discussing supporters of gun control, not least myself.




One can imagine how someone can base sexual gratification on guns, it's much harder to imagine basing such emotions on the absence of them.

You mean that you can imagine how someone can base serial gratification on guns, because here you are, imagining.
 
"All" I specifically addressed "all". Most did not live in town.

What evidence do you have for that claim ?
Most people in colonial America lived in towns:

"...the densest areas in 1775 had slightly over 40 inhabitants per square mile (although density would have been higher in cities), whereas the Boston–Washington Corridor today has a density of over 930 inhabitants per square mile and the entire country has an average density of 91 people per square mile..."


Constables then did what police do now; visit the scene of a crime. Lynching though on the public square was a better deference.

Strange, as you just said:
My town had a constable growing up. He did a better job than our current police force imo...

So constables were "bad", then got "good" for when you were growing up ?
How do you account for such an improvement between your perception of colonial America and your youth ?
 
What evidence do you have for that claim ?
Most people in colonial America lived in towns:

"...the densest areas in 1775 had slightly over 40 inhabitants per square mile (although density would have been higher in cities), whereas the Boston–Washington Corridor today has a density of over 930 inhabitants per square mile and the entire country has an average density of 91 people per square mile..."




Strange, as you just said:


So constables were "bad", then got "good" for when you were growing up ?
How do you account for such an improvement between your perception of colonial America and your youth ?

I'm not sure most people didn't live in towns; but where does your link prove they did?
 
What evidence do you have for that claim ?
Most people in colonial America lived in towns:

"...the densest areas in 1775 had slightly over 40 inhabitants per square mile (although density would have been higher in cities), whereas the Boston–Washington Corridor today has a density of over 930 inhabitants per square mile and the entire country has an average density of 91 people per square mile..."




Strange, as you just said:


So constables were "bad", then got "good" for when you were growing up ?
How do you account for such an improvement between your perception of colonial America and your youth ?
A Constable was better in my view in my small town....that is a long story and not really relevant. There is though a real distinction between local law enforcement and Federal.
 
I'm not sure most people didn't live in towns; but where does your link prove they did?
Back in that day living in town meant living within sight of the night watch. Think Daniel Boone in a stockade alert for raids.
 
Back in that day living in town meant living within sight of the night watch. Think Daniel Boone in a stockade alert for raids.
No night watch where my daughter lives, and where I spend a great deal of time these days. Sheriff's deputy is probably a half hour out unless you get real lucky. Night watch is up to me and my daughter, I guess.
Some people just have no idea, ensconced in their suburban illusion.
 
You speak of dishonesty, then immediately and deliberately erect a straw man, when discussing supporters of gun control, not least myself.




One can imagine how someone can base sexual gratification on guns, it's much harder to imagine basing such emotions on the absence of them.
gun banners constantly talk about gun fetishes, penises, and people stroking guns. Not us pro rights advocates.
 
Easier to be trite than address the argument.

The game of 'other things people die from' is very illogical, unless it's about weapons and murders that are similar enough to gun murders. Agree or disagree? If you disagree, then make a solid case.
 
Back
Top Bottom