Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Gun debate hypocrisy

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 3:59:16 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
As some one who comes from a we don't allow guns nation, I though I would point out some what I see as bullsh*t form both sides of the american gun debate.

1) The case where some gun control senator tells says people should not have guns, while his personal body guards are packing high grade military hardware. It is pointed out oh so it's okey for him to have such gun protection but not the average citizen.

2) The care where some guns for all, if everyone has guns it's better for safety mayor who signs such a law, except an exemption in the law where he works that people just can't enter who have guns (presumably to make his work place safer for him)

Trump ? if some terrorist was to enter here, if we all had guns we could shoot that f*cker down, see guns are good for safety. (Said at meeting where people could not enter if they had a gun)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 5:25:05 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

I can hold a gun however I want 'cause.... 2nd 'menment.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 6:15:27 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Damn straight! When Jesus said "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also" what he actually meant by that was, shoot that fvcker's cheek off.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 10:17:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 6:15:27 AM, stealspell wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Damn straight! When Jesus said "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also" what he actually meant by that was, shoot that sucker's cheek off.

Don't call me un-Christian when you yourself said an un-Christian word. Jesus said turn the other cheek (which is a insult not assault) not give the other limb.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
mc9
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 1:24:53 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Because that will infringe the right to keep and bear arms who can't afford the time or money. I leave it up to the individual to get the training. If something goes wrong then they have a heavy price to pay like the funeral. Some people can only afford the gun and ammo on the day they but it. It might be awhile before they can afford the training.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
mc9
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 1:30:23 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 1:24:53 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Because that will infringe the right to keep and bear arms who can't afford the time or money. I leave it up to the individual to get the training. If something goes wrong then they have a heavy price to pay like the funeral. Some people can only afford the gun and ammo on the day they but it. It might be awhile before they can afford the training.

Why would the training have to cost anything to the gun buyer?

And if you're going to buy a deadly weapon, you should be willing to take some time out of your day to learn to use it.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 1:34:26 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 1:30:23 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:24:53 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Because that will infringe the right to keep and bear arms who can't afford the time or money. I leave it up to the individual to get the training. If something goes wrong then they have a heavy price to pay like the funeral. Some people can only afford the gun and ammo on the day they but it. It might be awhile before they can afford the training.

Why would the training have to cost anything to the gun buyer?

Same reason you have to pay for a driver's lisence.

And if you're going to buy a deadly weapon, you should be willing to take some time out of your day to learn to use it.
I agree, I just don't want to force it on anyone.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
mc9
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 1:58:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 1:34:26 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:30:23 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:24:53 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Because that will infringe the right to keep and bear arms who can't afford the time or money. I leave it up to the individual to get the training. If something goes wrong then they have a heavy price to pay like the funeral. Some people can only afford the gun and ammo on the day they but it. It might be awhile before they can afford the training.

Why would the training have to cost anything to the gun buyer?

Same reason you have to pay for a driver's lisence.

And if you're going to buy a deadly weapon, you should be willing to take some time out of your day to learn to use it.
I agree, I just don't want to force it on anyone.

even if the US couldn't pay for the background checks which they can, I f you can afford it don't buy a gun.

Why don't you want to make it mandatory, it's not a horrible thing for someone to have to be trained in using a deadly weapon if you are going to use it.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 2:06:20 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 1:58:19 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:34:26 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:30:23 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:24:53 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Because that will infringe the right to keep and bear arms who can't afford the time or money. I leave it up to the individual to get the training. If something goes wrong then they have a heavy price to pay like the funeral. Some people can only afford the gun and ammo on the day they but it. It might be awhile before they can afford the training.

Why would the training have to cost anything to the gun buyer?

Same reason you have to pay for a driver's lisence.

And if you're going to buy a deadly weapon, you should be willing to take some time out of your day to learn to use it.
I agree, I just don't want to force it on anyone.

even if the US couldn't pay for the background checks which they can, I f you can afford it don't buy a gun.

They have to get the money from somewhere, and they get it out of your wallet. Do you really want to pay for someone toting a gun right next to you?

Why don't you want to make it mandatory, it's not a horrible thing for someone to have to be trained in using a deadly weapon if you are going to use it.

Because its against the constitution to mandate a level of skills to exercise the right you already have. Plus it's going to be on the taxpayer's back to pay for all those who want the gun but have to train for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
mc9
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 2:08:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 2:06:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:58:19 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:34:26 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:30:23 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:24:53 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Because that will infringe the right to keep and bear arms who can't afford the time or money. I leave it up to the individual to get the training. If something goes wrong then they have a heavy price to pay like the funeral. Some people can only afford the gun and ammo on the day they but it. It might be awhile before they can afford the training.

Why would the training have to cost anything to the gun buyer?

Same reason you have to pay for a driver's lisence.

And if you're going to buy a deadly weapon, you should be willing to take some time out of your day to learn to use it.
I agree, I just don't want to force it on anyone.

even if the US couldn't pay for the background checks which they can, I f you can afford it don't buy a gun.

They have to get the money from somewhere, and they get it out of your wallet. Do you really want to pay for someone toting a gun right next to you?

Why don't you want to make it mandatory, it's not a horrible thing for someone to have to be trained in using a deadly weapon if you are going to use it.

Because its against the constitution to mandate a level of skills to exercise the right you already have. Plus it's going to be on the taxpayer's back to pay for all those who want the gun but have to train for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

America can take some money from its excessive military budget and the constitution isn't infallible.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 2:13:12 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 2:08:18 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:06:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:58:19 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:34:26 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:30:23 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:24:53 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Because that will infringe the right to keep and bear arms who can't afford the time or money. I leave it up to the individual to get the training. If something goes wrong then they have a heavy price to pay like the funeral. Some people can only afford the gun and ammo on the day they but it. It might be awhile before they can afford the training.

Why would the training have to cost anything to the gun buyer?

Same reason you have to pay for a driver's lisence.

And if you're going to buy a deadly weapon, you should be willing to take some time out of your day to learn to use it.
I agree, I just don't want to force it on anyone.

even if the US couldn't pay for the background checks which they can, I f you can afford it don't buy a gun.

They have to get the money from somewhere, and they get it out of your wallet. Do you really want to pay for someone toting a gun right next to you?

Why don't you want to make it mandatory, it's not a horrible thing for someone to have to be trained in using a deadly weapon if you are going to use it.

Because its against the constitution to mandate a level of skills to exercise the right you already have. Plus it's going to be on the taxpayer's back to pay for all those who want the gun but have to train for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

America can take some money from its excessive military budget and the constitution isn't infallible.
The constitution doesn't give you rights it just list them.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
mc9
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 2:17:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 2:13:12 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:08:18 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:06:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:58:19 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:34:26 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:30:23 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:24:53 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Because that will infringe the right to keep and bear arms who can't afford the time or money. I leave it up to the individual to get the training. If something goes wrong then they have a heavy price to pay like the funeral. Some people can only afford the gun and ammo on the day they but it. It might be awhile before they can afford the training.

Why would the training have to cost anything to the gun buyer?

Same reason you have to pay for a driver's lisence.

And if you're going to buy a deadly weapon, you should be willing to take some time out of your day to learn to use it.
I agree, I just don't want to force it on anyone.

even if the US couldn't pay for the background checks which they can, I f you can afford it don't buy a gun.

They have to get the money from somewhere, and they get it out of your wallet. Do you really want to pay for someone toting a gun right next to you?

Why don't you want to make it mandatory, it's not a horrible thing for someone to have to be trained in using a deadly weapon if you are going to use it.

Because its against the constitution to mandate a level of skills to exercise the right you already have. Plus it's going to be on the taxpayer's back to pay for all those who want the gun but have to train for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

America can take some money from its excessive military budget and the constitution isn't infallible.
The constitution doesn't give you rights it just list them.

You didn't refute my first point and what does the constitution just listing rights doesn't change anything.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 2:22:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
The government RARELY take from something like the military and give it to something else. But why the military? Why not health care and welfare?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 5:27:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 2:13:12 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:08:18 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:06:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:58:19 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:34:26 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:30:23 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:24:53 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Because that will infringe the right to keep and bear arms who can't afford the time or money. I leave it up to the individual to get the training. If something goes wrong then they have a heavy price to pay like the funeral. Some people can only afford the gun and ammo on the day they but it. It might be awhile before they can afford the training.

Why would the training have to cost anything to the gun buyer?

Same reason you have to pay for a driver's lisence.

And if you're going to buy a deadly weapon, you should be willing to take some time out of your day to learn to use it.
I agree, I just don't want to force it on anyone.

even if the US couldn't pay for the background checks which they can, I f you can afford it don't buy a gun.

They have to get the money from somewhere, and they get it out of your wallet. Do you really want to pay for someone toting a gun right next to you?

Why don't you want to make it mandatory, it's not a horrible thing for someone to have to be trained in using a deadly weapon if you are going to use it.

Because its against the constitution to mandate a level of skills to exercise the right you already have. Plus it's going to be on the taxpayer's back to pay for all those who want the gun but have to train for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

America can take some money from its excessive military budget and the constitution isn't infallible.
The constitution doesn't give you rights it just list them.

+1
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 10:47:33 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 5:27:41 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:13:12 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:08:18 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:06:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:58:19 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:34:26 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:30:23 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:24:53 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Because that will infringe the right to keep and bear arms who can't afford the time or money. I leave it up to the individual to get the training. If something goes wrong then they have a heavy price to pay like the funeral. Some people can only afford the gun and ammo on the day they but it. It might be awhile before they can afford the training.

Why would the training have to cost anything to the gun buyer?

Same reason you have to pay for a driver's lisence.

And if you're going to buy a deadly weapon, you should be willing to take some time out of your day to learn to use it.
I agree, I just don't want to force it on anyone.

even if the US couldn't pay for the background checks which they can, I f you can afford it don't buy a gun.

They have to get the money from somewhere, and they get it out of your wallet. Do you really want to pay for someone toting a gun right next to you?

Why don't you want to make it mandatory, it's not a horrible thing for someone to have to be trained in using a deadly weapon if you are going to use it.

Because its against the constitution to mandate a level of skills to exercise the right you already have. Plus it's going to be on the taxpayer's back to pay for all those who want the gun but have to train for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

America can take some money from its excessive military budget and the constitution isn't infallible.
The constitution doesn't give you rights it just list them.

+1

I have a right, we have a right, I have a God given right to assault rife with infrared scope........

George Carlin on rights..."In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps.

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're priveledges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY priviledges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter."
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 6:49:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 10:47:33 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:27:41 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:13:12 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:08:18 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:06:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:58:19 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:34:26 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:30:23 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:24:53 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Because that will infringe the right to keep and bear arms who can't afford the time or money. I leave it up to the individual to get the training. If something goes wrong then they have a heavy price to pay like the funeral. Some people can only afford the gun and ammo on the day they but it. It might be awhile before they can afford the training.

Why would the training have to cost anything to the gun buyer?

Same reason you have to pay for a driver's lisence.

And if you're going to buy a deadly weapon, you should be willing to take some time out of your day to learn to use it.
I agree, I just don't want to force it on anyone.

even if the US couldn't pay for the background checks which they can, I f you can afford it don't buy a gun.

They have to get the money from somewhere, and they get it out of your wallet. Do you really want to pay for someone toting a gun right next to you?

Why don't you want to make it mandatory, it's not a horrible thing for someone to have to be trained in using a deadly weapon if you are going to use it.

Because its against the constitution to mandate a level of skills to exercise the right you already have. Plus it's going to be on the taxpayer's back to pay for all those who want the gun but have to train for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

America can take some money from its excessive military budget and the constitution isn't infallible.
The constitution doesn't give you rights it just list them.

+1

I have a right, we have a right, I have a God given right to assault rife with infrared scope........

George Carlin on rights..."In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps.

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're priveledges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY priviledges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter."

George Carlin was an idiot, a clown, an entertainer and the only people who are bigger fvcking morons than he was are the people who think his political satires had any REAL merit.

It took many years but the government finally admitted that it had VIOLATED the rights of Asian American citizens and as lame and as late as it was, the government tried to make restitution for the violations of their rights.

If the government shared YOUR view and Carlin's, they would have held that NO rights were ever violated at all.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 2:59:22 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 6:49:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:47:33 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:27:41 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:13:12 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:08:18 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:06:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:58:19 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:34:26 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:30:23 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:24:53 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Because that will infringe the right to keep and bear arms who can't afford the time or money. I leave it up to the individual to get the training. If something goes wrong then they have a heavy price to pay like the funeral. Some people can only afford the gun and ammo on the day they but it. It might be awhile before they can afford the training.

Why would the training have to cost anything to the gun buyer?

Same reason you have to pay for a driver's lisence.

And if you're going to buy a deadly weapon, you should be willing to take some time out of your day to learn to use it.
I agree, I just don't want to force it on anyone.

even if the US couldn't pay for the background checks which they can, I f you can afford it don't buy a gun.

They have to get the money from somewhere, and they get it out of your wallet. Do you really want to pay for someone toting a gun right next to you?

Why don't you want to make it mandatory, it's not a horrible thing for someone to have to be trained in using a deadly weapon if you are going to use it.

Because its against the constitution to mandate a level of skills to exercise the right you already have. Plus it's going to be on the taxpayer's back to pay for all those who want the gun but have to train for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

America can take some money from its excessive military budget and the constitution isn't infallible.
The constitution doesn't give you rights it just list them.

+1

I have a right, we have a right, I have a God given right to assault rife with infrared scope........

George Carlin on rights..."In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps.

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're priveledges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY priviledges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter."

George Carlin was an idiot, a clown, an entertainer and the only people who are bigger fvcking morons than he was are the people who think his political satires had any REAL merit.

It took many years but the government finally admitted that it had VIOLATED the rights of Asian American citizens and as lame and as late as it was, the government tried to make restitution for the violations of their rights.

If the government shared YOUR view and Carlin's, they would have held that NO rights were ever violated at all.

Insult, insult, insult, rant, the government says.............

Allow me to draw you attention to a central claim here made by George, that being they are not rights if they can be taken away from you, they are privileges.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 3:14:44 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 2:59:22 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/24/2016 6:49:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:47:33 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/24/2016 5:27:41 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:13:12 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:08:18 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 2:06:20 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:58:19 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:34:26 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:30:23 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 1:24:53 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 10:52:59 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 6:02:37 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:40:18 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:38:48 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:18:53 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 5:11:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:20:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:14:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2016 4:06:31 AM, imabench wrote:
I was surprised myself when I found out that just about every state legislature, no matter how conservative the state leans, has a complete gun ban on city-hall and other government buildings where officials actually spend their time working.

Which raises the question why would they do that ? I would suspect cause they view having such a ban makes the place safer.

No chance. It takes the security seconds, if not minutes to respond to a shooter. It would be much better if untrained civilians got to fire deadly weaponry at people.

Your talking as if people with guns don't even know which end of the gun to hold.

Lol.

Say there's an active shooter in a building...where is he going to position himself - in the corner where there's a clear shot at him with no possibility of an accidental death from a likely misfire?

No but most likely he'll be the only one standing.

Doubtful, if everyone is so confident in their .44 Colt.

Look, I'm for the training of law abiding armed citizens, I just don't want to force people to do so. It's up to the individual to take it upon himself to get adequate self defense training, but if he refuses to do so and shoot someone accidentally in a mass shooting then its on his head for not taking that responsibility to train himself. If he has enough money to get a gun then he should get the mine for good training.

Why not make it mandatory for people to get training for a deadly weapon upon buying it?
Because that will infringe the right to keep and bear arms who can't afford the time or money. I leave it up to the individual to get the training. If something goes wrong then they have a heavy price to pay like the funeral. Some people can only afford the gun and ammo on the day they but it. It might be awhile before they can afford the training.

Why would the training have to cost anything to the gun buyer?

Same reason you have to pay for a driver's lisence.

And if you're going to buy a deadly weapon, you should be willing to take some time out of your day to learn to use it.
I agree, I just don't want to force it on anyone.

even if the US couldn't pay for the background checks which they can, I f you can afford it don't buy a gun.

They have to get the money from somewhere, and they get it out of your wallet. Do you really want to pay for someone toting a gun right next to you?

Why don't you want to make it mandatory, it's not a horrible thing for someone to have to be trained in using a deadly weapon if you are going to use it.

Because its against the constitution to mandate a level of skills to exercise the right you already have. Plus it's going to be on the taxpayer's back to pay for all those who want the gun but have to train for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

America can take some money from its excessive military budget and the constitution isn't infallible.
The constitution doesn't give you rights it just list them.

+1

I have a right, we have a right, I have a God given right to assault rife with infrared scope........

George Carlin on rights..."In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps.

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're priveledges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY priviledges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter."

George Carlin was an idiot, a clown, an entertainer and the only people who are bigger fvcking morons than he was are the people who think his political satires had any REAL merit.

It took many years but the government finally admitted that it had VIOLATED the rights of Asian American citizens and as lame and as late as it was, the government tried to make restitution for the violations of their rights.

If the government shared YOUR view and Carlin's, they would have held that NO rights were ever violated at all.

Insult, insult, insult, rant, the government says.............

Allow me to draw you attention to a central claim here made by George, that being they are not rights if they can be taken away from you, they are privileges.

You are so blinded by your cluelessness, I kind of feel pity for you.

If we don't have rights then they can't be violated nor upheld. If they can not be violated or upheld, then there would be no basis for Constitutional challenges such as the Heller case which ruled in FAVOR of individual "rights."
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 1:48:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 6:49:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:47:33 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're priveledges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY priviledges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter."

George Carlin was an idiot, a clown, an entertainer and the only people who are bigger fvcking morons than he was are the people who think his political satires had any REAL merit.

It took many years but the government finally admitted that it had VIOLATED the rights of Asian American citizens and as lame and as late as it was, the government tried to make restitution for the violations of their rights.

If the government shared YOUR view and Carlin's, they would have held that NO rights were ever violated at all.

Jimmy Carter opened the investigation, ironically another democrat.

wait wasn't Franklin D. Roosevelt a democrat?
President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the deportation and incarceration with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942
https://en.wikipedia.org...
think this has added to the distrust over the constitution?

some government buildings have metal detectors and secured entrances, way before they even thought about doing that for our schools, and those buildings still have better security than schools so.....
Yes our government officials are very concerned about saving their own a$$'s but don't do the same for the children. All government is hypocrisy.