• 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:268] [W:288]More Senseless Gun Violence

Chase Morgan said:
A couple more blown-away in gun-lovin’ texas, eh

This time at a soccer game, no less…

“I’m just surprised things happen like this. You don’t really expect it at a soccer game,” Guerrero said.

Gun tragedies “like this” happen almost exclusively in Murr-ca, Guerrero.

Thanks to the filthy rotten gun-lusters, you’re living in a VERY dangerous state, my friend...
Click to expand...
do you have any proof that "filthy rotten gun-lusters" had anything to do with the shooting, or do you call anyone who owns a gun a "filthy rotten gun-luster? Lots of anti gun people actually own guns-DiAnne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, the late Howard Metzenbaum and Kamala Harris all own guns and have carried them in public.
 
Chase Morgan said:
A couple more blown-away in gun-lovin’ texas, eh

This time at a soccer game, no less…

“I’m just surprised things happen like this. You don’t really expect it at a soccer game,” Guerrero said.

Gun tragedies “like this” happen almost exclusively in Murr-ca, Guerrero.

Thanks to the filthy rotten gun-lusters, you’re living in a VERY dangerous state, my friend...
Click to expand...
A pregnant woman and her boyfriend were shot by her ex, he could've just as easily ran them over with a truck.
 
DebateChallenge said:
A pregnant woman and her boyfriend were shot by her ex, he could've just as easily ran them over with a truck.
Click to expand...
But, he didn't. He shot them.

Maybe this will sink in someday. However, I tend to doubt it.
 
calamity said:
But, he didn't. He shot them.

Maybe this will sink in someday. However, I tend to doubt it.
Click to expand...
What difference does it make if he shoots them or he runs them over? Either way they're dead.

Once again you demonstrate that you don't care about people being killed as long as it isn't done with guns.
 
DebateChallenge said:
A pregnant woman and her boyfriend were shot by her ex, he could've just as easily ran them over with a truck.
Click to expand...
the people trying to pretend this incident is a valid attack on gun rights have yet to tell us if the person was a legal gun owner-where he got the gun etc. One thing is certain-someone who commits suicide was beyond deterrence with the threat of punishment
 
TurtleDude said:
how many real nazis do you think actually exist in the USA?
Click to expand...

"Nazi" is properly only used to describe totalitarian government, in Germany, during the mid 1930's - end of WWII
However, the term is used as a euphemism to describe the extreme politics of the RW in the USA today - as personified by the fascism of Trump and his supporters

If you find the term offensive, ask why you never take other posters to task who describe President Biden and his fellow Democrats as "communist fifth".

I think you'll find you're exercising double standards.
 
Rich2018 said:
"Nazi" is properly only used to describe totalitarian government, in Germany, during the mid 1930's - end of WWII
However, the term is used as a euphemism to describe the extreme politics of the RW in the USA today - as personified by the fascism of Trump and his supporters

If you find the term offensive, ask why you never take other posters to task who describe President Biden and his fellow Democrats as "communist fifth".

I think you'll find you're exercising double standards.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
TurtleDude said:
who is that twit and why should we give a damn about what she wants. None of what she wants will do anything to stop crime
Click to expand...
She’s a person who doesn’t want herself her loved ones or total strangers to get shot because it’s too easy to get guns.
 
uptower said:
She’s a person who doesn’t want herself her loved ones or total strangers to get shot because it’s too easy to get guns.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And neither does anyone from the gun control lobby.

However gun lovers cant deal with perfectly sensible objective of gun control as it is too challenging for them
You'd have more luck persuading a Jehovah's Witness to study DND test results or geological rock samples proving the Earth is > 6,000 years old

Instead the do what many evangelist Christians do, the demonize them and invent foul motivations that they can easily defeat and dismiss
Like:
"Gun banners just want to disarm the law abiding"
"Gun banners just want their buddies in criminal society to have an edge in a home invasion"
Or my favorite
"Gun banners just want to ban guns so the can declare a socialist/communist dictatorship"

You can't declare a dictatorship (not a communist one anyway) in the USA if law abiding citizens have the Colt .45's.
 
Rich2018 said:
Indeed. And neither does anyone from the gun control lobby.

However gun lovers cant deal with perfectly sensible objective of gun control as it is too challenging for them
You'd have more luck persuading a Jehovah's Witness to study DND test results or geological rock samples proving the Earth is > 6,000 years old

Instead the do what many evangelist Christians do, the demonize them and invent foul motivations that they can easily defeat and dismiss
Like:
"Gun banners just want to disarm the law abiding"
"Gun banners just want their buddies in criminal society to have an edge in a home invasion"
Or my favorite
"Gun banners just want to ban guns so the can declare a socialist/communist dictatorship"

You can't declare a dictatorship (not a communist one anyway) in the USA if law abiding citizens have the Colt .45's.
Click to expand...
Failing to successfully refute actual gun rights supporters' positions, you decided to invent some?
 
DebateChallenge said:
What difference does it make if he shoots them or he runs them over? Either way they're dead.

Once again you demonstrate that you don't care about people being killed as long as it isn't done with guns.
Click to expand...

Because he didn't run them over with a truck, he shot them.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Its illegal to bring guns into a school zone or even a school function outside a school zone. Regardless of the Constitutional carry law that is now in effect.
Click to expand...

And in the vast majority of domestic murders, that was the last action of a man that was a long-ime abuser that the police and criminal jusice system was well aware of. If more info comes out we will probably see that the guy was forbidden to own a gun because of a domestic violnce conviction, thus the new concealed carry law was not an issue (in addition to the illegal carry on school grounds).
 
Willie Orwontee said:
And in the vast majority of domestic murders, that was the last action of a man that was a long-ime abuser that the police and criminal jusice system was well aware of. If more info comes out we will probably see that the guy was forbidden to own a gun because of a domestic violnce conviction, thus the new concealed carry law was not an issue (in addition to the illegal carry on school grounds).
Click to expand...

If that was the case, it just goes to show that laws prohibiting some people to have guns are worthless, and America's gun supply system feeds the lawful and lawless equally.

So by allowing the lawful to have guns, you De Facto allow the lawless to have them too.
 
Rich2018 said:
If that was the case, it just goes to show that laws prohibiting some people to have guns are worthless, and America's gun supply system feeds the lawful and lawless equally.

So by allowing the lawful to have guns, you De Facto allow the lawless to have them too.
Click to expand...
but banning the lawful from having guns means only the criminals and murderers will be armed. Given the two choices-ours is most beneficial to good people. Your desired scenario is favored by the criminals
 
Rich2018 said:
Indeed. And neither does anyone from the gun control lobby.

However gun lovers cant deal with perfectly sensible objective of gun control as it is too challenging for them
You'd have more luck persuading a Jehovah's Witness to study DND test results or geological rock samples proving the Earth is > 6,000 years old

Instead the do what many evangelist Christians do, the demonize them and invent foul motivations that they can easily defeat and dismiss
Like:
"Gun banners just want to disarm the law abiding"
"Gun banners just want their buddies in criminal society to have an edge in a home invasion"
Or my favorite
"Gun banners just want to ban guns so the can declare a socialist/communist dictatorship"

You can't declare a dictatorship (not a communist one anyway) in the USA if law abiding citizens have the Colt .45's.
Click to expand...
you admit you want to disarm honest people
You admit that criminals will have guns long after the the honest have been disarmed
You thus want criminals to have a safe working environment
 
TurtleDude said:
but banning the lawful from having guns means only the criminals and murderers will be armed. Given the two choices-ours is most beneficial to good people. Your desired scenario is favored by the criminals
Click to expand...

1. I think by now, you know I don't propose disarming people of ALL guns
To persist with the straw-man is just another example of what I've just been accusing you of

2. By allowing the lawful to have guns, you De Facto allow the lawless to have the same guns

3. By shutting off supply, you will start to "drain the swamp" and gradually the lawless are disarmed as their guns are seized and not replaced.

you admit you want to disarm honest people
You admit that criminals will have guns long after the the honest have been disarmed
You thus want criminals to have a safe working environment
Click to expand...

QED: more of your dishonest straw-man "arguments".

See above.


And no, I don't want to ban guns to ensure the a socialist/communist dictatorship is installed either.
 
Rich2018 said:
1. I think by now, you know I don't propose disarming people of ALL guns
To persist with the straw-man is just another example of what I've just been accusing you of

2. By allowing the lawful to have guns, you De Facto allow the lawless to have the same guns

3. By shutting off supply, you will start to "drain the swamp" and gradually the lawless are disarmed as their guns are seized and not replaced.



QED: more of your dishonest straw-man "arguments".

See above.


And no, I don't want to ban guns to ensure the a socialist/communist dictatorship is installed either.
Click to expand...
You want a law that bans all guns. The second part of your uncommonly stupid plan would have some limited number of specific models allowed by presidential decree.

You are on record as saying that if those few models of guns are involved in further killings, then they would be removed from the allowed list.

The funniest part of all this, is that you imagine giving all this power to the president, and further imagine that power will be used exactly as you have spelled out in your fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom