• 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!

Moms Demand Action Has No Business Existing

This topic shows a huge difference between US and UK forums.

If a similar topic was posted on a UK forum you'd simply be having a bunch of people tell DebateChallenge to F-Off and leave it at that.
Yes, you'd have the odd person try and debate this madness but it would be a short lived topic and full of rather colourful expletives and slurs.

This topic has no right to exist.
 
That should be a lesson for you........but likely will not be.

The uselessness of your statements are a great lesson to me...and others. Please continue making useless statements.
 
Perhaps you've heard of this thing called The US Constitution, the whole thing contains more than the 2nd Amendment, in this case that pesky 1st Amendment where people have several rights allowing groups to form up and go toe-to-toe with another organization that has the exact same rights and via the exact same 1st Amendment. That would be the NRA.

So go on and tell us what you would do to get rid of this group that "has no business even being in existence?"

What would you do to them, be specific.
Tell me you're not suggesting that this group that "has no business even being in existence" because you think it's so? You must have some reasonable reason not stated, right?
 

Moms Demand Action Has No Business Existing

Wah Wah Wah :cry:

Taking it up with them, your grievance, that is my recommendation.

Moms Demand Action
 
No. I think their stupidity should be on full display for the world to see. They promote themselves as “gun safety” organization but don’t teach any gun safety at all. All they do is screech for gun control.

For example, they supposedly distribute gun locks. But what they did was take gun locks provided by the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) and stapled their own cards on them. Millions from Bloomberg but they can’t actually spend money on true gun safety measures. They steal the locks and pass them off as their own. Note where it says Project Childsafe on the lock. That is the NSSF program.





:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
Not just mothers but all women.

Not stripped of their 1st Amendment rights, except they shouldn't have a voice in the gun debate if they're against guns, that's all.
Disgusting. And so un-American.
 
Please consider being an advocate for the Gun Control Industry. They have no current shortage of idiotic ideas, but can probably always use someone to sweep up.
1734813559160.webp
 
Ironically, the NRA used to support gun control that they now oppose. If I remember correctly, the organization panicked a bit at legislation that was proposed in the late 1960s after the King and RFK murders.
They changed from that after a racist murderer took over.
 

So dripping with emotion and dishonestly bereft of rationality.

But I ask you...what sort of person depends on murder as a subject for "humorous" cartoons he draws for a living?

Understandable that what are supposed to represent bereaved parents come out looking like ghouls. That's where the cartoonist's thoughts reside.
 
They changed from that after a racist murderer took over.

Ironically, he is referring to the spate of gun control that was initially a reaction to the Black Panther Party and their policy of arming themselves for protection against the police who were oppressing black citizens.
 
What happens when a child picks up a loaded weapon
Depends on the child and the situation in which they picked it up.
or when a homeowner mistakes their spouse for an intruder
That's where the second rule of safe firearm handling comes in, keep your finger off the trigger until you're completely sure of your target and ready to shoot.
or when a severely depressed male has access to a firearm?
That depends on the severely depressed person (male or female) and how they would act in such a situation.
 
Those "some people" are known as gun owners.
That's true about some gun owners but not all. Just because somebody is a gun owner doesn't mean they live in the middle of nowhere where they have to hunt for food because they can't buy it, although that's true about some gun owners.
Trouble is they're also an excellent and extremely effective means of homicide, and particular mass homicide (mass shootings).
There are many other things that are excellent and effective means of homicide and mass homicide, we've been over this before.
Excuse#3.1:

3.1 There are too many guns in circulation even for a country as powerful as the USA to collect
If it is an excuse you have yet to explain why it's an excuse and until you do your claim that it is an excuse is meaningless.
An assertion without any evidence
Indeed, the empirical evidence is that gun owners would meekly hand over their guns upon request.
No evidence that would happen in the USA, especially if American gun owners, according to you, would rather see the world burn than turn in their guns.
 
The firearm reduction program worked in Australia after Port Arthur because gun sales were restricted AND gun were bought back.
It only worked because there were never that many guns in Australia in the first place.
In some ways the firearm violence problem resembles the homeless problem. It is cheaper to pay for housing than to pay for police response, emergency interventions, and emergency room healthcare, but society cannot understand that calculation. For firearms, society just cannot see a benefit to reduction in firearm prevalence even though it would save lives and treasure.
A big difference, doing what you suggest would violate the rights of millions of Americans, specifically the right to keep and bear arms as defined by the 2A.
 
I would be happy to see a dramatic reduction in production of, and access to, handguns.
If people want handguns and they don't have access to handguns all they need is long guns and hacksaws.
 
So dripping with emotion and dishonestly bereft of rationality.

But I ask you...what sort of person depends on murder as a subject for "humorous" cartoons he draws for a living?

Understandable that what are supposed to represent bereaved parents come out looking like ghouls. That's where the cartoonist's thoughts reside.
1734818895129.webp
 
How is it un-American?

It's a violation of women's First Amendment rights. People have told you this. We still have not seen any rational basis for your misogynistic view.
 
Depends on the child and the situation in which they picked it up.

That's where the second rule of safe firearm handling comes in, keep your finger off the trigger until you're completely sure of your target and ready to shoot.

That depends on the severely depressed person (male or female) and how they would act in such a situation.
all those situations resulted in firearm violence, that is the point. Excuses do not change the risk.
 
Back
Top Bottom