• 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!

[W: #105] [#181] Ten killed in shooting near LA after Lunar New Year event

That will never happen...but lets assume for a second your wet dream came true a year ago, the shooter in this case registered and inmsured his weapons.

Then what?

Are any of the dead less dead? Are any of the wounded less wounded? the shooter himself would also be dead. Now...insurance companies would be left to cut a check...and they would pass on their costs to people like you that also carry policies with them, so everyones insurance skyrockets....

is THAT your goal?

Or would it be your goal that the cost of insurance is so high that no one would own a gun and you would impose a defacto ban?

The purpose for wanting insurance to exercise a constitutional right is to make it too expensive for the lower class to be able to.

democrats had their Jim Crow laws and poll taxes to stop the poor from voting. This is the same thing - by the same people. If owning a gun costs several thousand dollars a year - then the democrats can ensure that those on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale are denied this right.

Jim Crow 2.0 - brought to you by the same democrats who created the first one.
 
Register and require liability insurance on all guns capable of causing bodily injury.
Gun registries are both unconstitutional and completely unenforceable. The SCOTUS has already ruled that a person can not be charged with a crime for failing to register their firearm, under the 5h amendment. And no insurance company does or ever will cover intentional or criminal acts. Your homeowners insurance already covers you for liability for accidents or simple negligence, and you also can not require someone to purchase something in order to exercise a right. That is a violation of the constitution.
 
Actually, Schumer and Pelosi are controlling YOU, if you are wanting to address magazine size. The fact is, gun people will NOT sit down to negotiate this matter as long as Schumer and Pelosi are at the table.

If we've learned anything over the last century, it's that we don't negotiate civil rights. Concealed carry in all 50 states with a permit - open carry in all 50 states with no permit - this is our law, our constitution. Letting the anti-liberty left compromise our civil rights has done nothing to reduce violence.
 
If we've learned anything over the last century, it's that we don't negotiate civil rights. Concealed carry in all 50 states with a permit - open carry in all 50 states with no permit - this is our law, our constitution. Letting the anti-liberty left compromise our civil rights has done nothing to reduce violence.
That is an opinion.....certainly not a fact currently
 
We’ve tried that with three strikes legislation. Didn’t work out. When you have DA’s in a political position, mandatory sentencing guarantees abuses. Just look at how the death penalty has traditionally worked in the US. Let judges judge.
Three strikes laws drastically cut crime in American

It is not an abuse to throw a convict in prison for the term specified in the law. Judges (especially left ones) routinely allow irrelevant arguments like “this poor drive by shooter was abused as a child” to affect their judgment and give these dangerous people lighter sentences
 
Three strikes laws drastically cut crime in American

It is not an abuse to throw a convict in prison for the term specified in the law. Judges (especially left ones) routinely allow irrelevant arguments like “this poor drive by shooter was abused as a child” to affect their judgment and give these dangerous people lighter sentences
Republicans hate harsh sentences
 
Three killed in "random" Yakima, Washington shooting... The "well regulated" militia member didn't quite make the mass shooting category.
 
Three strikes laws drastically cut crime in American

It is not an abuse to throw a convict in prison for the term specified in the law. Judges (especially left ones) routinely allow irrelevant arguments like “this poor drive by shooter was abused as a child” to affect their judgment and give these dangerous people lighter sentences

Giving someone two more chances after committing the first violent felony is two chances too many. I would have executed them or, if I were feeling generous that day, handed out a life sentence after the first one. So we would never get to that point. Call it a "One Strike and You're Out" law.
 
Last edited:
Three killed in "random" Yakima, Washington shooting... The "well regulated" militia member didn't quite make the mass shooting category.

Dude, you're not going to stop lunatics bent on committing mass murder by attempting to disarm the larger populace whose freedom rests on a slippery slope. We already know you can kill hundreds or even thousands of people in a moment with only a truck or a box knife and a well-executed plan.
 
If we've learned anything over the last century, it's that we don't negotiate civil rights. Concealed carry in all 50 states with a permit - open carry in all 50 states with no permit - this is our law, our constitution. Letting the anti-liberty left compromise our civil rights has done nothing to reduce violence.
I also am against letting liberals nibble at the Constitution. However, we seemed to do OK with Tommy Guns being regulated. With an extended magazine and a Hellfire Switch, an AR15 is every bit as much a submachine gun, and more powerful.

I could do without Hellfire and 100 shot mags, if liberals would abolish Schumer and Pelosi et al as political figures.
 
Call the Christian God a "she" and watch how quickly Trumpers care about pronouns.

That's because they know how to read and understand the difference between male and female and the proper use of pronouns. I mean, duh! This ain't rocket science.

Genesis 1:27

New International Version
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

New Living Translation
So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

English Standard Version
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Berean Standard Bible
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

King James Bible
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

New King James Version
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

New American Standard Bible
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

NASB 1995
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

NASB 1977
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Legacy Standard Bible
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Amplified Bible
So God created man in His own image, in the image and likeness of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Christian Standard Bible
So God created man in his own image; he created him in the image of God; he created them male and female.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female.

American Standard Version
And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And God created Adam in his image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Brenton Septuagint Translation
And God made man, according to the image of God he made him, male and female he made them.

Contemporary English Version
So God created humans to be like himself; he made men and women.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

English Revised Version
And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.

Good News Translation
So God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female,

International Standard Version
So God created mankind in his own image; in his own image God created them; he created them male and female.

JPS Tanakh 1917
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
 
That's because they know how to read and understand the difference between male and female and the proper use of pronouns. I mean, duh! This ain't rocket science.

Genesis 1:27
The abrahamic god was revealed to mankind through prophets, a typical male role in a patriarchal society. Why wouldn't they create their god in their own image?

The abrahamic god
 
The abrahamic god was revealed to mankind through prophets, a typical male role in a patriarchal society. Why wouldn't they create their god in their own image?

The abrahamic god

One can only wonder what arc humanity would have taken if Adam had been gay or trans. 😉
 
“If I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you.” Buddha

I'm certainly not angry or trying to insult you.

I was just pointing out that your words are reflected in your own religion as well.
 
Had to recheck the tread title and subject to see if I read it wrong because of the quick turn it took.
 
Had to recheck the tread title and subject to see if I read it wrong because of the quick turn it took.
My apologies my friend. Sometimes my inner child gets the better of my inner Buddha. ;)
 
Had to recheck the tread title and subject to see if I read it wrong because of the quick turn it took.

Yeah, well, when the anti-Christian bigots show up I tend to get pissed off. And there’s never a moment when they can refrain from mentioning Trump, even though he’s been out of office for two years. Whether he runs or not in 2024, he’ll be the Republican nominee in their eyes. Better to run against a phantom than to actually defend your sorry record. Even Democrats hope Joe retires to Alaska and takes up salmon fishing as a hobby.
 
Didn't say you were, just pointing out the Buddha's thoughts on trolling. ☮️

Look beyond what you want to see.

Then the sermon becomes irrelevant noise.

Which it was, anyway.
 
Three strikes laws drastically cut crime in American

It is not an abuse to throw a convict in prison for the term specified in the law. Judges (especially left ones) routinely allow irrelevant arguments like “this poor drive by shooter was abused as a child” to affect their judgment and give these dangerous people lighter sentences
Judges are supposed to do what you complain about. “Judge” is to “form an opinion by carefully weighing evidence,” according to Webster.
 
Three killed in "random" Yakima, Washington shooting... The "well regulated" militia member didn't quite make the mass shooting category.

Neither did the "stateless Palestinian" suspect on a train bound for Hamburg make the "mass stabbing" category.

 
Back
Top Bottom