WE WILL NEVER CREATE ENOUGH LAWS TO CONTROL EVIL - EVIL DOES NOT OBEY LAWS - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

WE WILL NEVER CREATE ENOUGH LAWS TO CONTROL EVIL - EVIL DOES NOT OBEY LAWS
in United States

By VaulkVaulk 639 Pts
As beautiful of an idea it is that we can somehow legislate bad, harmful, evil, horrible, atrocious, vile, despicable or nasty people out of control in our society...it's a pipe dream.

Throughout history we can easily find instances of evil in the hearts of Mankind, there's no shortage of Human Beings who have brought shame upon the rest of us through their acts of villainy.  This being a well known fact, what's seemingly forgotten about though is what it always took to effectively combat the scum of our societies.  NO ONE...EVER remembers that one guy who became a hero and went down in the history books as a savior because of some parchment that he wrote on...save for our founding fathers perhaps but they didn't legislate crime.  The reason why legislators are hardly ever remembered is because the vast majority of thinkers in society can realistically presume that legislators have VERY little to do with stopping injustice from happening.   

Now, I'm sure that each of us here can "Clickity clack" their keyboards with google and come up will all manners of historical figures that were prominent legislatures of their time who probably wrote something critically important in their respective society, my point isn't that they don't exist but is more of a focus on the fact that there is no way to accurately gauge the effect their legislation had on the lives of the people it affected.  How many lives have been saved as a result of the ban on assault weapons?  No one knows and moreover no one knows if there even was an effect.  Best guess has been "There was no discernible impact".  

NOW, there's no shortage of people in this world who are extraordinary at Bi*ching about problems (Cough BDKT), seems like everyone's pretty good at whining about something, so let's get to the solution.  There are a multitude of variables to account for in my hypothesis but in this case we're going to focus on the only variable that seemingly reoccurs in every case with the exception of cases that aren't ever reported (Which makes no impact anyway as there's no way to measure those).  We're going to focus on Law Enforcement.  Generally, speaking, in cases of unlawful behavior where one or more persons affect the freedom or livelihood of another person or persons, Law Enforcement is notified in order to rectify the situation by either stopping it or serving as the beginning of the chain in punishment for the offender(s).  It's no secret that police stop more crime by serving as a deterrent than they do by physically intervening Journal of Public Economics Study, intervention by law enforcement is reactive and only prevents crime in theory according to the Department of Justice.  So essentially while the Police have an effect on crime...they cannot stop it in any measurable way, the vast majority of responses to crime reports by the Police are AFTER the fact.

This is where the solution stands.  What if, in cases of crimes against persons, the "Would be" victim were able and ready to stop the perpetrator from harming them?  Let's use London as an example.  Stabbings are out of control in London, people live in fear of knife wielding assailants driving a blade into their neck or slashing their face with something designed to carve beef...what if people were able to stop someone from permanently disfiguring or killing them with a knife?  There's already no guns allowed...so this can't be an issue of firearm control, this is an issue of people control.  So what would you rather do, call the police assuming you survive the attack or have the ability to save yourself from being stabbed?  How about being beaten to death with hands and feet?  Would you rather pray that you don't bleed to death internally and call the police afterwards or just stop the attacker from hurting you in the first place?

This is an issue of equalization of violence.  Start with Cavemen if it makes it easier.  Jacob has a rock, Joshua doesn't have a rock but has food.  Jacob wants Joshua's food, Jacob smashes Joshua with the rock because Joshua has nothing that can do the same amount of damage as Jacob's rock and Jacob is confident that his rock beats Joshua's fists.  Now enter the written law, "No rocks allowed under penalty of death".  So let's run the scenario again.  Rocks are literally everywhere and there's no shortage of them, Jacob isn't allowed to have a rock but decides to carry one anyway, he just carries it under his loin cloth.  Jacob still decides to kill Joshua and because he knows that Joshua won't have any rocks because he follows the rules, he's still confident that he'll succeed in taking Joshua's food.  Of course the authorities might catch Jacob after he kills Joshua but all-in-all it's worth it because Jacob didn't have much going for him anyway and Joshua is still dead despite Jacob's eventual death penalty.

Now give Joshua a rock and see how differently things might happen.  At the very least...Joshua might stand a chance at saving his own life.

My proposed solution to the issue of firearm violence is violence equalization.  Humans are incredibly proficient at setting aside consequences with the thought that "Well, they might not happen and if they do...they'll happen much later" so that they can act now in a way that's unjustified.  From telling your boss to "#uck off" to hit and run scenarios...people are really good and convincing themselves that consequences can be considered later so long as they enjoy the moment.  This is why there's no way to accurately measure the effect of crime legislation.  I can respect the idea of "The death penalty" but because our attempts so far have been lackluster and have actually resulted in innocent people being put to death then I can't say with any good conscious that this is the answer.  The guilty going free is horrible but the innocent being put to death is absolutely unacceptable in any regards, anyone who disagrees is either selling something or can't properly imagine themselves being the victim of it. 

If a lightning bolt came down from the sky and struck someone every time they were about to murder someone with a firearm then that would be perfect.  Unfortunately we can't summon that type of technology just yet so in the meantime, arming yourself comes in at a close 2nd.
TKDB
  1. Live Poll

    Can Laws Control Evil?

    8 votes
    1. Yes
      25.00%
    2. No
      75.00%
"If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


About Persuade Me

Persuaded Arguments

  • Winning Argument ✓
    Dee said:

    But yet 2017 in the U S saw an increase in gun deaths , how do you accurately predict what would happen in a gun free society based on the American experience?


    2017 saw a decrease in firearms homicides.


    A society where citizens can go about their business without the need for constant protection , American’s tell us they need guns in the home for home protection , need a gun going about their daily business and need armed security in schools , that is the opposite of a society I wish to live in 

    There is no such place.  Shangri-La is imaginary, only found in story books. In the real world, criminals can always find firearms.  Convicts in prison have been able to make their own firearms.  If you can't keep firearms out of the hands of people who are literally have no freedom and are under constant surveillance when they're not locked in a cage, how do you propose to keep them out of a functioning society?

    Do you honestly feel that unsafe in your own country or is it just you have the right to carry and wish to excercise it? 


    If it’s for protection I would be asking why is my society so unsafe? 
    I have never needed to carry a weapon on any sort to feel safe and would not live in a country where I had to

    Every society is unsafe.  Criminals will always have the ability to obtain weapons.  I was going to say you'd have to be on Gilligan's Island, but even that isn't accurate.  I have never needed to carry a weapon either, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that I could have or that i someday will need one.  I have never needed a fire extinguisher, either, that doesn't mean I don't own one.
    VaulkTKDBDeeAlofRI
  • Winning Argument ✓
    Dee said:
    @CYDdharta


    2017 saw a rise in gun deaths overall


    Do you have a point?  Accidents are down as well as homicides, that leaves suicides as the only statistic that may have risen.  Surely you, of all people, aren't bothered by that.  After all, what someone does with his or her body is of no concern to anyone else.  Passing laws to reduce suicide is "basically saying they agree with governments telling [people] what they should do with their bodies".

    There is no such place peaceful society really? So how many times have you been attacked or threatened in your country?

    Criminals kill criminals with guns , every country has criminals with guns they have them in my country yet the majority of the police force remain  unarmed and who do criminals shoot and kill .....criminals

    Once again, do you have a point?  The vast majority (80%) of crime in the US is gang-related, AKA criminals who shoot and kill .....criminals.  It's amazing how closely the counties with the most murders;



    match the counties with the most gang members;



    If you cut out the worst 2% of counties, our murder rate would drop by 51%; dropping 5% of the worst counties would reduce murders by 68%.

    Every society has risks that’s life , I don’t need citizens carry guns or knives around me and how do you think that makes societies more peaceful? 

    Why are you so fixated on criminals. You don’t carry a weapon so you feel safe in your society it’s a great pity fellow Americans wouldn’t follow your example 



    Why would you think guns and knives make societies less peaceful?  They are inanimate objects, they do nothing on their own. 

    I fixate on criminals, as you put it, because criminals are the problem.  They are the ones who commit crimes, get it?  Criminals = crime.  In fact they are the definition of crime;

    criminal

    noun

    A person who has committed a crime.

    https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/criminal


    I'd much rather live in a society without criminals than one without weapons.


    I get it if you’re brought up with this mentality very few change views as it’s cultural and part of the American way ,and it’s remarkable most Americans cannot envision a society without guns and don’t even see the need for changes to be made and actually resist such

    This statement is more an acknowledgement of your own biases and prejudices that anything else.



    VaulkTKDB
  • Winning Argument ✓
    AlofRI said:
    The key word here is "control". How you interpret that word is highly relevant. 

    We cannot "control" auto accidents to the point where they don't happen, (full control), but we CAN control them to the point where we have FAR less of them. Without "laws" who among you thinks accidents would decrease?? Those raising their hand on that one would be a measure of the "mental illness" problem we hear so much about.

    Anyone that would vote for a lawless world would be on the extreme level of that illness. Some people are alive only because it's against the "law" to kill them. We need laws or the only one available would be the law of the jungle …. that is a human trait that MUST be controlled … by laws. The strong, in humanity, will always "control" the weak. Put a devastating weapon in the hands of an angry or hate-filled human and S/HE FEELS strong, in "control" of the moment. 

    We will NEVER completely stop mass shootings, but, if mass shooting weapons are hard, or, by "law" illegal to come by, we CAN reduce the death toll. Maybe it will be your wife, mother, sister, brother that the law saves. Think about it.

    Here come da snake. :yum:

    We already have laws, homicide rates are already dropping.  Why would we want to mess with what's working?  But you're right about one thing; gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.
    TKDBVaulkZombieguy1987
  • edited September 10 Winning Argument ✓
    Apparently, someone with a faulty grasp of the English language doesn't understand the meaning of "ignore".  For your edification;

    ignore

    verb

    [with object]

    1Refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.

    https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/ignore


    Having you on ignore means I can't see what you're posting, so replying to me is utterly useless.  I've done this because your posts were never worth reading in the first place.  You should be glad; I can't point out the fallacies of your posts if I can't see them.



    VaulkTKDB



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 9
    @Vaulk

    And there are, Police Officers who have been killed, just like citizens, by the gun violence crime, epidemic.

    "We're going to focus on Law Enforcement.  Generally, speaking, in cases of unlawful behavior where one or more persons affect the freedom or livelihood of another person or persons, Law Enforcement is notified in order to rectify the situation by either stopping it or serving as the beginning of the chain in punishment for the offender(s).  It's no secret that police stop more crime by serving as a deterrent than they do by physically intervening Journal of Public Economics Study, intervention by law enforcement is reactive and only prevents crime in theory according to the Department of Justice.  So essentially while the Police have an effect on crime...they cannot stop it in any measurable way, the vast majority of responses to crime reports by the Police are AFTER the fact."

    So when those Police Officers, and those citizens were killed by the first time offenders, with their legal guns, and by those offenders, and criminals, with their illegal guns,.. were those gun violence crimes, an example of those offenders, being pro family oriented, or pro Public safety oriented, or were they just pandering, to their individual needs, to be pro criminal, pro offender, and first time offender oriented towards themselves?

    It would be a landmark day, to see a revised Second Amendment, that provides equal, and fair Representation, towards those who own guns, and towards those who don't own a gun, equally, and fairly.

    This way, maybe a 17 month old toddler, in the backseat, of her families car, won't find herself, getting wounded in the mouth, by a Mass Shooters bullet, while his shooting spree was occurring? 

    "NOW, there's no shortage of people in this world who are extraordinary at Bi*ching about problems (Cough BDKT,) (you mean TKDB?) seems like everyone's pretty good at whining about something, so let's get to the solution."

    I'm not extraordinary, and I'm not complaining, either.

    Is it wrong, to be pro family safety, or pro Public safety, in the face of a Nationwide problem, or the epidemic problem, known commonly, as Gun violence?

    Both mass shooter oriented, or gun violence crime oriented as well? 

    So, you're viewing me, as apparently being wrong, according to how you view me, through your individual pro gun opinion, yes, or no? 

    The Second Amendment, as it's currently written, is a nationwide failure as a whole, whether some may not view it, that way or not? 

    You, and the NRA, and the GOP, and the DNC, could have a Nationwide conversation, over the Mass Shootings, and the gun violence crimes in general, and the Public, being victimized by the said shooters? 

    And the 4 of you, could come up with a Nationwide solution, that works fairly, and equally, and provides Representation for you, the NRA, the DNC, and the GOP, and the ENTIRE Public as a whole?

    Because it's way past time, for every Governor in the U.S., and the NRA, and the current POTUS, to do what's best for the country, and have that Nationwide conversation, don't the Four of you, think so? 

    Because three of the above are on Twitter, and you're on this website, so you could reach out to them, and suggest the above couldn't you @Vaulk?

    "I can respect the idea of "The death penalty" but because our attempts so far have been lackluster and have actually resulted in innocent people being put to death then I can't say with any good conscious that this is the answer.  The guilty going free is horrible but the innocent being put to death is absolutely unacceptable in any regards, anyone who disagrees is either selling something or can't properly imagine themselves being the victim of it. 

    If a lightning bolt came down from the sky and struck someone every time they were about to murder someone with a firearm then that would be perfect.  Unfortunately we can't summon that type of technology just yet so in the meantime, arming yourself comes in at a close 2nd."

    Would you be willing to put together, such a nationwide happening, and have that type of a conversation, before the eyes, of the entire Public, of the United States? 

    My guess is that there are millions of citizens, along with their families, who would tune in, to watch that type of a Gun Violence Resolution conference, don't you?

    If people, were both pro family oriented, and pro Public safety oriented, they would tune in, to watch, and to see the fruits, of that type of a Conference, could develop, before the entire Publics eyes? 
    ZeusAres42Zombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 703 Pts


    The situation in England has been studied  by academics and some of the findings are remarkable..........Knife crime is a symptom of the toxic environments that adults create around children, who then become both perpetrators and victims. It is created by politicians and by the politics of austerity. Stephen Case, professor of criminology, Loughborough University, and Kevin Haines, professor, University of Trinidad and Tobago
    • Homes, schools, neighbourhoods or recreational activities can become toxic environments for children, when their relationships and experiences fail to nurture them, protect them and help them to achieve their potential.

    • These toxic environments can leave children disaffected, fearful and vengeful. They are scared and provoked into carrying knives, joining gangs and committing violent acts.

    • It is no coincidence that the vast majority of knife crime takes place in neighbourhoods suffering from huge social disadvantage and disinvestment.

    Impact of austerity in numbers

    £422.3m: reduction in spending on services for young people in last six years

    3,500: number of youth service jobs lost (since 2010)

    600: number of youth centres closed (since 2010)

    130,000: number of places in youth centres eliminated (since 2010)


    If one feels their life is under threat in such societies the natural thing seems to be is to “tool up “ just to be safe but that creates more problems than it solves as it somehow normalizes the carrying of knives.


    Knives and guns are barred to the majority of citizens in my country and I live in the 4th most peaceful country in the world yet a sizable amount of Americans think this is a terrible abuse of my rights as a citizen yet not one of them can answer one simple question as in “ If citizens of my country were allowed to carry guns Would death and accident rates go up to down or maybe remain as is” also “ How is the introduction of weapons into an already peaceful society progressive regards maintaining such?”


    Societies with high rates of gun and knife crime have to address or at least attempt to address why the rates are so high and introduce policies that address such. I lived in L A for several years and not one of my American friends carried a gun or had a desire to do so.

    The main reason Americans give for owning a gun is home protection which is absolutely ridiculous as home alarms are most effective in the majority of cases , the other reason is the equally ridiculous notion of the government turning hostile and this romanticized vision of Americans with their assorted firearms taking on the might of the American military which Americans keep telling everyone is the best in the world. Two pretty poor excuses for keeping up this truly American narrative of the all American hero saving his family from assorted daily threats by his proficiency in the use of firearms 


    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartaAlofRI
  • VaulkVaulk 639 Pts
    edited September 9
    Dee said:

    Knives and guns are barred to the majority of citizens in my country and I live in the 4th most peaceful country in the world yet a sizable amount of Americans think this is a terrible abuse of my rights as a citizen yet not one of them can answer one simple question as in “ If citizens of my country were allowed to carry guns Would death and accident rates go up to down or maybe remain as is” also “ How is the introduction of weapons into an already peaceful society progressive regards maintaining such?”

    Alright, since "No one from America has been able to answer your question then allow me to.  The answer is: Death and accident rates would likely rise initially and then fall and continue to decline over time.  Murder rates would likely increase initially and then decline over time as they have been in the U.S, since 1963.

    The answer to your second question cannot be given until the parameters have been identified on what you're considering a "Peaceful society".  The reason it's necessary to specify is for the example of the U.S. dropping the Atomic bombs on Japan, we can easily say that Atomic warfare brought peace and it in fact did, but that's probably not what you're referring to when you're talking about progressive movements towards peace.

    Dee said:

    Societies with high rates of gun and knife crime have to address or at least attempt to address why the rates are so high and introduce policies that address such. I lived in L A for several years and not one of my American friends carried a gun or had a desire to do so.

    The main reason Americans give for owning a gun is home protection which is absolutely ridiculous as home alarms are most effective in the majority of cases , the other reason is the equally ridiculous notion of the government turning hostile and this romanticized vision of Americans with their assorted firearms taking on the might of the American military which Americans keep telling everyone is the best in the world. Two pretty poor excuses for keeping up this truly American narrative of the all American hero saving his family from assorted daily threats by his proficiency in the use of firearms 


    Indeed you're right, the underlying issues of gun and knife crime DO need to be addressed and I agree that policies SHOULD be written regarding those issues.  That being said I also know that no one can pull out a policy from their pocket and show it to a knife attacker to deter his/her assault with a knife or gun...it just doesn't work.  The violence equalization in the United States has very little to do with reducing overall numbers of violence, it's about the individual right to protect one's self.  More children are slaughtered each year in personally owned automobile accidents than by ANY other means and yet...no one rampages on about how people should be forced to use public transportation to solve the largest child fatality cause in the United States.  This is because people's individual right to choose their mode of transportation overrules any perceived grand statistic on what's killing the most amount of Children.  If we can apply this rule to automobiles then we can and DO apply it to firearms, the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the overall statistics of firearm related deaths, it's about individual rights.

    Lastly, we're so very fortunate that the 2nd amendment doesn't require us to provide an explanation or justification for our guns.  That said, you're absolutely wrong about the citizens of the United States not being able to overtake the U.S. Military.  Look at Vietnam where a bunch of rag tag rice patty farmers gave the might of the U.S. military such a run for their money that we had no effective answer for it.  We left after a failed peace treaty and the War raged on between the North and South for two more years and the Country STILL became a Communism.  This is an example of how a Country of less than 43 million turned our entire Military upside down on its head and sent us packing with no way to win.

    I spent 4.5 years in Iraq working to eliminate the insurgent presence within the Country and guess what?  It wasn't possible.  We did alot of damage during the invasion but afterwards we started taking heavy losses and continued to lose thousands of Service Members to jerry-rigged explosives made by people who were so poor that you could see their ribs through their shirt.  These people were so technologically stunted that parts of the Country had no idea that we invaded and threw Sadaam out of power even three years after it happened.  These people with almost zero water, electric, sewage or medical infrastructure again stood up to the combined might of the United States Military, gave us one hell of a run for our money and ultimately could not be defeated because they aren't a Military...there's no way to know exactly who they are, how many they are or where they were coming from.

    This is the issue with the popular but wrong idea that the U.S. Military could crush the citizens of the U.S. After over 12 years of Military Service I can tell you with supreme confidence that, firstly they would never try, but if for some crazy reason they did...the Military would lose to the Citizens and very quickly.  The U.S. Military makes up less than 1% of the total population of the United States.

    Lastly, the idea that it's ridiculous to be armed in case the government becomes tyrannical is defeated entirely with this one historic event: The Battle Of Athens Tennessee. Not only CAN the Government become corrupt and tyrannical, but it HAS been corrupt and tyrannical and it happened right here in the United States.  This is a PERFECT example of exactly why the U.S. citizens hold the power to keep and bear arms.  When the Government sends officers to the voting booth to murder people who vote against them...there's nothing short of an armed revolt that will solve that problem.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 9
    @Vaulk

    "Indeed you're right, the underlying issues of gun and knife crime DO need to be addressed and I agree that policies SHOULD be written regarding those issues.  That being said I also know that no one can pull out a policy from their pocket and show it to a knife attacker to deter his/her assault with a knife or gun...it just doesn't work.  The violence equalization in the United States has very little to do with reducing overall numbers of violence, it's about the individual right to protect one's self.  More children are slaughtered each year in personally owned automobile accidents than by ANY other means and yet...no one rampages on about how people should be forced to use public transportation to solve the largest child fatality cause in the United States.  This is because people's individual right to choose their mode of transportation overrules any perceived grand statistic on what's killing the most amount of Children.  If we can apply this rule to automobiles then we can and DO apply it to firearms, the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the overall statistics of firearm related deaths, it's about individual rights."

    Lastly, we're so very fortunate that the 2nd amendment doesn't require us to provide an explanation or justification for our guns.

    The Second Amendment as its currently written, is inadequate, when it comes to you, me, the NRA, the DNC, the GOP, and to the safety of the Public overall. 


    Zombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 703 Pts
    @Vaulk

    ******** Alright, since "No one from America has been able to answer your question then allow me to.  The answer is: Death and accident rates would likely rise initially and then fall and continue to decline over time.  Murder rates would likely increase initially and then decline over time as they have been in the U.S, since 1963.


    But yet 2017 in the U S saw an increase in gun deaths , how do you accurately predict what would happen in a gun free society based on the American experience?



    *********The answer to your second question cannot be given until the parameters have been identified on what you're considering a "Peaceful society".  


    A society where citizens can go about their business without the need for constant protection , American’s tell us they need guns in the home for home protection , need a gun going about their daily business and need armed security in schools , that is the opposite of a society I wish to live in 


    ********((The reason it's necessary to specify is for the example of the U.S. dropping the Atomic bombs on Japan, we can easily say that Atomic warfare brought peace and it in fact did, but that's probably not what you're referring to when you're talking about progressive movements towards peace.


    Necessary? I don’t believe that it was as necessary as many believe Japan was on its knees and the attack by them was the last sting of a dying wasp.Either way it’s a whole other debate and yes you’re right I’m on a different tack regards peace.


    ******* That being said I also know that no one can pull out a policy from their pocket and show it to a knife attacker to deter his/her assault with a knife or gun...it just doesn't work.  


    But would you suggest all people in these areas carry a knife for protection? It seems the next step would be to get a gun for additional protection, so if we have a high level of knife crime in these areas how would it not change to a high level of gun crime?


    ********The violence equalization in the United States has very little to do with reducing overall numbers of violence, it's about the individual right to protect one's self.  


    Do you honestly feel that unsafe in your own country or is it just you have the right to carry and wish to excercise it? 


    If it’s for protection I would be asking why is my society so unsafe? 


    I have never needed to carry a weapon on any sort to feel safe and would not live in a country where I had to


    ********More children are slaughtered each year in personally owned automobile accidents than by ANY other means and yet...no one rampages on about how people should be forced to use public transportation to solve the largest child fatality cause in the United States.  


    A car is used as a means of transportation it’s function is to convey people from A To B , a gun has only one function and that is to kill.


    Your driving test in the U S is an absolute joke even to most Americans that have sat the test in Europe , the standard of driving is appalling as my experiences in L A confirmed


    *********This is because people's individual right to choose their mode of transportation overrules any perceived grand statistic on what's killing the most amount of Children.  If we can apply this rule to automobiles then we can and DO apply it to firearms, the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the overall statistics of firearm related deaths, it's about individual rights.


    Guns in society guarantee more gun deaths and accidents this is obvious and doesn’t need pointing out , there is a huge price to pay for this right so many Americans enjoy having 




    *******This is the issue with the popular but wrong idea that the U.S. Military could crush the citizens of the U.S. After over 12 years of Military Service I can tell you with supreme confidence that, firstly they would never try, but if for some crazy reason they did...the Military would lose to the Citizens and very quickly.  The U.S. Military makes up less than 1% of the total population of the United States.



    You bring up several points regarding military intervention in foreign lands and a lot what you have to say I agree with. I often wonder how governments pick countries to give military aid to and how countries like North Korea where a former North Korean soldier said 1 and a half million died in famine  yet not even a hint of military intervention , and so it continues as leaders pick and choose where and when to intervene  




    *******  Lastly, the idea that it's ridiculous to be armed in case the government becomes tyrannical is defeated entirely with this one historic event: The Battle Of Athens Tennessee. Not only CAN the Government become corrupt and tyrannical, but it HAS been corrupt and tyrannical and it happened right here in the United States.  This is a PERFECT example of exactly why the U.S. citizens hold the power to keep and bear arms.  When the Government sends officers to the voting booth to murder people who vote against them...there's nothing short of an armed revolt that will solve that problem.



    Yet if the government became tyrannical they would surely insure they had the backing of a sizable percentage of the population before implementing any of their plans , isn’t this the case with so many tyrants?

    CYDdhartaAlofRI
  • WE WILL NEVER CREATE ENOUGH LAWS TO CONTROL EVIL - EVIL DOES NOT OBEY LAWS

    The failure is not due to the lack of obedience, or evil. The idea itself creates a crime of intelligence to know all law that never is written for the peoples benefit. 
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 10
    @Vaulk

    @CYDdharta

    @Plaffelvohfen

    While the Second Amendment, provides accommodations for an individual to bear arms, and that that right shall not be infringed on.

    The Second Amendment, provides ZERO accommodations for a criminal, or an offender, to bear illegal arms, and that that offenders, or criminals, illegal gun ownership, can be infringed on.

    Being that it's a loophole, created by there very language that the current Second Amendment is comprised of. 

    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 10
    @CYDdharta

    There should be ZERO gun violence homicides in the United States.

    "2017 saw a decrease in firearms homicides."

    "Every society is unsafe. Criminals will always have the ability to obtain weapons."

    While the Second Amendment, provides accommodations for an individual to bear arms, and that that right shall not be infringed on.

    The Second Amendment, provides ZERO accommodations for a criminal, or an offender, to bear illegal arms, and that that offenders, or criminals, illegal gun ownership, can be infringed on.

    Being that it's a loophole, created by there very language that the current Second Amendment is comprised of.  

    Therefore the criminals that you're alluding to, are making a mockery of the current Second Amendment, and are as well, making a mockery, to the deserved (Public safety) of the Public of the U.S. overall.

    IE their Rights, as granted by the Constitution itself.

    So the illegal gun sellers, and their illegal gun sales, are a making a mockery of Public, by placing an unfounded value on, the illegal guns themselves, over the Rights of the citizens of the U.S.
  • The key word here is "control". How you interpret that word is highly relevant. 

    We cannot "control" auto accidents to the point where they don't happen, (full control), but we CAN control them to the point where we have FAR less of them. Without "laws" who among you thinks accidents would decrease?? Those raising their hand on that one would be a measure of the "mental illness" problem we hear so much about.

    Anyone that would vote for a lawless world would be on the extreme level of that illness. Some people are alive only because it's against the "law" to kill them. We need laws or the only one available would be the law of the jungle …. that is a human trait that MUST be controlled … by laws. The strong, in humanity, will always "control" the weak. Put a devastating weapon in the hands of an angry or hate-filled human and S/HE FEELS strong, in "control" of the moment. 

    We will NEVER completely stop mass shootings, but, if mass shooting weapons are hard, or, by "law" illegal to come by, we CAN reduce the death toll. Maybe it will be your wife, mother, sister, brother that the law saves. Think about it.

    Here come da snake. :yum:
  • DeeDee 703 Pts
    edited September 10
    @CYDdharta

    2017 saw a decrease in firearms homicides


    2017 saw a rise in gun deaths overall 


    There is no such place.  Shangri-La is imaginary, only found in story books. In the real world, criminals can always find firearms.  Convicts in prison have been able to make their own firearms.  If you can't keep firearms out of the hands of people who are literally have no freedom and are under constant surveillance when they're not locked in a cage, how do you propose to keep them out of a functioning society?

    There is no such place peaceful society really? So how many times have you been attacked or threatened in your country?

    Criminals kill criminals with guns , every country has criminals with guns they have them in my country yet the majority of the police force remain  unarmed and who do criminals shoot and kill .....criminals 

    Every society is unsafe.  Criminals will always have the ability to obtain weapons.  I was going to say you'd have to be on Gilligan's Island, but even that isn't accurate.  I have never needed to carry a weapon either, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that I could have or that i someday will need one.  I have never needed a fire extinguisher, either, that doesn't mean I don't own one.


    Every society has risks that’s life , I don’t need citizens carry guns or knives around me and how do you think that makes societies more peaceful? 

    Why are you so fixated on criminals. You don’t carry a weapon so you feel safe in your society it’s a great pity fellow Americans wouldn’t follow your example 

    I get it if you’re brought up with this mentality very few change views as it’s cultural and part of the American way ,and it’s remarkable most Americans cannot envision a society without guns and don’t even see the need for changes to be made and actually resist such 

    TKDBCYDdharta
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 10
    @CYDdharta

    There should be ZERO gun violence homicides in the United States.

    "2017 saw a decrease in firearms homicides."

    Do you know who is in charge, of providing the country, with the 1000% Accountability for all of the guns that are currently in the United States?

    The legal, and the illegal ones?

    Or might that type of pertinent information, be viewed as probable bias, or prejudicial, by some of the pro gun extremists crowd?

    Who use the Second Amendment, as a defensive position, around their guns? 

    Should the criminals, and offenders, be able to use the Second Amendment, as a defensive position, around their illegal guns, as well?

    Or, are the illegal gun owners, maybe relying on the legal gun owners, to keep the Second Amendment, as its currently written, to help the criminals, and offenders, to exploit the Second Amendment, by taking advantage, of the flow of illegal guns, that are made available to them by illegal street gun dealers?

    That almost looks like a probable pattern, of availability, being made possible, by how the Second Amendment, is currently written? 

    Or maybe the pro gun extremists, will refuse to see that pattern? 

    And lament about the Second Amendment, and use it to defend their guns with?

    And, maybe, or apparently, will not be troubled over, the criminals, or the offenders, and they, being in possession of their illegal guns, when the Second Amendment doesnt provide any accommodations, for those illegal gun owners, to have their guns? 

    Because, I'm pro family, and pro Public safety, when it comes to some of those legal gun owners, who used their guns, to kill people with, along with the illegal gun owners, who used their guns to kill people, with as well? 

    Nicholas Cruz, Stephen Paddock, and Seth Ator


    But its confusing, to understand, where some of the pro gun extremists, positions are, in regards to being pro family, or pro Public safety, from their individual, pro gun extremists stances or positions? 




  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    Noticing how you argue.

    "Apparently, someone with a faulty grasp of the English language doesn't understand the meaning of "ignore".  For your edification;

    ignore

    Verb

    [with object]

    1Refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.

    https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/ignore


    Having you on ignore means I can't see what you're posting, so replying to me is utterly useless.  I've done this because your posts were never worth reading in the first place.  You should be glad; I can't point out the fallacies of your posts if I can't see them. "

    I'm pro family, and pro Public safety, in opposition to your pro gun position. 


  • AlofRI said:
    The key word here is "control". How you interpret that word is highly relevant. 

    We cannot "control" auto accidents to the point where they don't happen, (full control), but we CAN control them to the point where we have FAR less of them. Without "laws" who among you thinks accidents would decrease?? Those raising their hand on that one would be a measure of the "mental illness" problem we hear so much about.

    Anyone that would vote for a lawless world would be on the extreme level of that illness. Some people are alive only because it's against the "law" to kill them. We need laws or the only one available would be the law of the jungle …. that is a human trait that MUST be controlled … by laws. The strong, in humanity, will always "control" the weak. Put a devastating weapon in the hands of an angry or hate-filled human and S/HE FEELS strong, in "control" of the moment. 

    We will NEVER completely stop mass shootings, but, if mass shooting weapons are hard, or, by "law" illegal to come by, we CAN reduce the death toll. Maybe it will be your wife, mother, sister, brother that the law saves. Think about it.

    Here come da snake. :yum:
    I agree that IF firearms were hard to come by then it would likely affect the criminals ability to obtain one...unfortunately they aren't hard to come by and the reason they are so easy to get has absolutely nothing to do with our laws. 

    Take the speed limit for example.  Reducing the speed limit in certain areas by changing the law worked very well actually.  This is because most of the people who were traveling at an unsafe speed were law abiding citizens.  So when the speed limit was reduced and controlled, for the most part, people obeyed those laws and we saw a reduction in automotive fatality as a result of unsafe speeds.  This was GREAT!  But this wouldn't work for gun control as the VAST majority of gun violence (Excluding suicide) is committed by hardened criminals...people who won't follow the law no matter how many we make or how many we times we change them.  

    Also, what exactly is a "Mass shooting weapon"?  P L E A S E  tell me that it has something to do with the number of rounds you can shoot in a given period of time because it's absolutely common knowledge that ALL guns can be shot at a ridiculously fast pace if you know what you're doing.  Revolvers can shoot the same number of rounds in a given 60 second time frame as an AR-15.

    If we can't control the influx of drugs into this country...then we can't control the influx of firearms into this country.  Since we can't stop criminals from using them...then I refuse to obey laws that will restrict my ability to have one for defending myself.  I will not turn my back to a mass shooter and hope he doesn't slaughter me, my daughter or my wife as we try to run away, helpless against his weaponry.  I will carry an equalizer and take responsibility for my life and the lives of my family.  Any law made to control guns can only be targeted at those who are willing to follow it...therefor gun control laws are ONLY aimed at law abiding citizens....which account for the absolute minority of the problem with gun violence.

    We need to stop targeting law abiding citizens and start targeting criminals, and this isn't done by writing laws.
    CYDdhartaAlofRI
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • TKDB said:

    I'm pro family, and pro Public safety, in opposition to your pro gun position. 


    Erm, pro-deluded more likely. ;). I am only communicating with you right now because I am in need of a good laugh, and a great deal of your posts are comedy gold. Pity you don't know exactly how funny some ludicrous things you say are though.
    Plaffelvohfen

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 11
    @ZeusAres42

    Can you explain yourself?

    I'm pro-deluded, for being pro family, meaning that, I'm against gun violence crimes, towards any family members, or against any family, in general? 

    And I'm pro deluded, for being pro Public safety, when it comes to the citizens of the United States, meaning that, I'm against any more U.S. citizens, being victimized by, anymore gun violence? 

    So, are you suggesting that I should view your opinion, as being anti family, and as well, being anti Public safety, based on your below opinion? 

    What is the wink emoji for?

    Is that maybe, an attempt at satire by you?


    "Erm, pro-deluded more likely. ."

    "I am only communicating with you right now because I am in need of a good laugh, and a great deal of your posts are comedy gold.

    Pity you don't know exactly how funny some ludicrous things you say are though."

    Why do you find, my being pro family, and being pro Public safety, as being pitiful, or ludicrous to you?


    @ZeusAres42

    What is the truth behind your apparent opinion?

    Because I live in the United States, and you live in the United Kingdom, so what is the rationale behind, your opinion? 

    Please, what is the truth, behind your messaging? 


  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    @Vaulk

    What does your referencing of, "reducing the speed limit," have to do with the Second Amendment?

    "Take the speed limit for example.  Reducing the speed limit in certain areas by changing the law worked very well actually.  This is because most of the people who were traveling at an unsafe speed were law abiding citizens.  So when the speed limit was reduced and controlled, for the most part, people obeyed those laws and we saw a reduction in automotive fatality as a result of unsafe speeds.  This was GREAT!  But this wouldn't work for gun control as the VAST majority of gun violence (Excluding suicide) is committed by hardened criminals...people who won't follow the law no matter how many we make or how many we times we change them."

    And exactly where, does the Second Amendment, offer accommodations for a legal gun owner, to use, and treat, an AR-15, as a Mass shooting weapon, by murdering, 4 or more citizens, during a Mass shooters, gun violence crime? 

    "Also, what exactly is a "Mass shooting weapon"?  P L E A S E  tell me that it has something to do with the number of rounds you can shoot in a given period of time because it's absolutely common knowledge that ALL guns can be shot at a ridiculously fast pace if you know what you're doing.  Revolvers can shoot the same number of rounds in a given 60 second time frame as an AR-15."

    And what revolvers are you specifically talking about, that can fire the equal amount of rounds, in a given 60 second time frame, thus mirroring the AR-15's firing ability?

    Can you please provide, the website, that your researched, that was able to provide, that observed information, that you used, to create your opinion with? 

    AlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    @Vaulk


    "P L E A S E  tell me that it has something to do with the number of rounds you can shoot in a given period of time because it's absolutely common knowledge that ALL guns can be shot at a ridiculously fast pace if you know what you're doing.  Revolvers can shoot the same number of rounds in a given 60 second time frame as an AR-15."




    "AR15 or Revolvers shoot faster? Firing Rate Experiment"

    AlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 12
    @Vaulk

    @Plaffelvohfen : Why do you view the below information as a fallacy?

    @CYDdharta


    https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/7/buying-and-selling-firearms-part-6-straw-purchases/

    "Buying and Selling a Firearm: Straw Purchases"

    by Tom McHale, OutdoorHub.com - Wednesday, July 13, 2016 

    "Straw purchases are one of the main ways that criminals acquire firearms, they’re illegal, and you need to know what they are, so that you don’t become involved in one yourself.

    A straw purchase is one in which one Person “A” buys a firearm for Person “B”, at Person “B’s” request. They’re illegal, because criminals and other people who cannot pass a background check often get other people, who can pass a background check, to buy guns for them. Or, Person “A” may get Person “B” to buy the gun so that Person “A” won’t have his name alongside the make, model and serial number of a gun on the Federal Form 4473 that documents every firearm purchased from a federal licensed firearm dealer (FFL). "

    "The buyer must fill out a form called a Federal Firearms Transaction Record Part 1 – Over the Counter, otherwise known as an ATF Form 4473. Among other things, the 4473 requires the buyer to answer questions that verify the buyer’s eligibility to purchase a firearm. The first question, 11a, relates to straw purchases."


    "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b. "

    "If you answer “yes” to this question, the sale cannot proceed. If you answer “no,” you are stating under penalty of law that you are not buying the firearm for someone else, other than as a bona fide gift. Answering “yes” when the truthful answer is “no” is a federal felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine."

    "While gun control supporters claim that expanding the federal background check system will stop criminals from getting guns, ATF has said that nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms originate with straw purchasers, all of whom pass background checks."

    "If a person straw purchases a firearm for someone else, both the purchaser and the other person potentially violate numerous federal laws. The straw purchaser has violated the law by lying on the Form 4473. Furthermore, if the purchaser knows or has reason to believe that the person for whom the gun is being bought is a felon or otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, or if the purchaser knows or has reason to believe that the gun will be used in a crime, those are federal felonies, each punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine."

    "The person who ends up with the gun can be charged with conspiracy to violate federal law, because he or she orchestrated the illegal purchase. And he or she is a prohibited person, possession of the gun is another 10-year/$10,000 felony."

    "Even if a prohibited person is not involved in the transaction, it’s still illegal to buy a gun on behalf of another person in most circumstances. For example, in one case, someone bought a gun for a relative who lived in another state, because he could get a better price on the gun in his state. So that he didn’t violate the separate federal law against one non-FFL providing a gun to another non-FFL who lives in another state, he shipped the gun to a dealer in the other person’s state, so a background check could be conducted. Nevertheless, he was convicted of an illegal straw purchase, simply because he bought the gun on behalf of the other person."

    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 467 Pts
    edited September 11
    CYDdharta said:
    piloteer said:
    @TKDB

    Errrummmm why are you addressing me here? I didn't even comment on this thread, and I'm not a pro-gun person to begin with. I'm just anti-TKDB. Please turn your car on in a small garage while you sit in it.
    Probably for the same reason Debra has us both listed as Trump-leaning libertarians; today's AI's really aren't very intelligent. 
    I'm starting to think TKDB programmed Debra. 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • piloteer said:
    @TKDB

    Errrummmm why are you addressing me here? I didn't even comment on this thread, and I'm not a pro-gun person to begin with. I'm just anti-TKDB. Please turn your car on in a small garage while you sit in it.
    Probably for the same reason Debra has us both listed as Trump-leaning libertarians; today's AI's really aren't very intelligent. 
    ZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 12
    @piloteer

    "I'm just anti-TKDB."

    "Please turn your car on in a small garage while you sit in it."

    You're anti TKDB?

    How curious of a comment, by you, being that I'm not anti-piloteer.

    I'm pro @piloteer

    I'm pro @Plaffelvohfen

    I'm pro @Vaulk

    And I'm pro @CYDdharta

    And I'm pro family, and pro Public safety, in opposition to any gun violence crimes, that have victimized thousands of U.S. citizens.

    And why, would you want me to turn on my vehicle in a small garage while I sit in it?

    What are you trying to, pacifisively suggest, or imply?



    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • @TKDB

    Awww. You hit a soft spot TKDB. OK, I'm not anti-TKDB any longer. But still don't tag me in posts I have nothing to do with. And the comment about the car in the garage was a typo. It should have said to not do that under any circumstances ever. My keyboards been acting up lately.     
  • @Vaulk

    How were you able to create a debate where the title was all in capitals? It never lets me do that. Who do you know? 
  • piloteer said:
    @Vaulk

    How were you able to create a debate where the title was all in capitals? It never lets me do that. Who do you know? 
    Sorry for the delay, had a great deal of work to catch up on. I'm honestly not sure how it allowed me to do that. I've posted many debates here and it was the first one I decided to use caps on. I just hit the caps-lock and typed away. I can't say that I "Know" Aarong but I've spoken to him quite a bit and he has graciously accepted some of my ideas for the website. It might just be that my account is really old and hasn't been updated. I think the only people that have been here longer than me is @Cydharta and @ampersand.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 13
    @Vaulk

    @CYDdharta

    @Plaffelvohfen

    https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/us/el-paso-suspect-capital-murder.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#aoh=15683401024608&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/us/el-paso-suspect-capital-murder.html

    "El Paso Shooting Suspect Indicted on Capital Murder Charge"

    Prosecutors say they will be seeking the death penalty for the massacre that left 22 dead last month..

    "The suspect in the mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart that left 22 dead was indicted by a grand jury on Thursday on a charge of capital murder, according to the district attorney’s office. Prosecutors said they would be seeking the death penalty.

    When he was arrested minutes after the massacre, the suspect, Patrick Crusius of Allen, Tex., declared, “I’m the shooter,” the authorities have said. The suspect, who is white, also told the police that he had targeted Mexicans, according to the authorities.

    The massacre, on Aug. 3, was one of the deadliest mass shootings in United States history. Capital murder is the most severe charge in the state of Texas and can be punished by death or life in prison without parole.

    When asked about possible hate crime charges, Claudia Duran, project administrator for the El Paso County district attorney’s office said, “at this time we have only indicted on capital murder charges.” 

    "Nineteen minutes before the first 911 call alerted the authorities to a mass shooting, a hate-filled, anti-immigrant manifesto appeared online. The authorities have said that it was written by the suspect; it said he was carrying out the attack in “response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.” The deadliest attack to target Latinos in modern American history, the shooting in El Paso, a city that is 80 percent Hispanic, has deeply disturbed Latinos across the United States.

    The suspect told investigators soon after his arrest that after driving more than 10 hours from Allen to El Paso, he had become lost, and then drove to Walmart because he was hungry, according to court documents. He also told investigators that he had used an AK-47-style rifle and brought multiple magazines with him from Allen to carry out the killings.

    His mother had called the Allen Police Department in the weeks before the shooting, asking whether her son was mature enough to handle the rifle he had recently ordered. The police told her that, according to the law, her son was allowed to have the weapon, a lawyer for his family has said.

    A lawyer for Mr. Crusius could not be immediately reached for comment on Thursday. His court-appointed lawyer, Mark Stevens, has previously said that he would use “every legal tool available” to prevent his client from being executed. Mr. Crusius is being held without bond, the authorities said."


    From the NRA, on Twitter today.

    "NRA

    Beto: “Hell yes, I will ban your AR-15 and AK-47.” Banning commonly-owned rifles used lawfully by millions of Americans everyday is not the answer. Thankfully, he won’t be president — polling VERY low. #DemDebate #DemDebates
    9:21 PM · Sep 12, 2019·Twitter for iPhone
    Retweets
    Likes"


    Who, or what, is the most divisive?:

    The U.S. Constitution?

    The Bill of Rights?

    The Second Amendment?

    The Second Amendment, being utilized by the NRA?

    The NRA?

    The pro gun extremists?

    The Mass shooters, gun violence crimes?

    The Gun Violence crimes, in general?

    The DNC, or the GOP?

    Or those, who are pro family, and pro Public safety? 
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    From  Twitter:

    "NRA
    For anti-gun politicians, it's their way or the highway. They aren’t open to having a conversation about effective legislation that would keep communities safe without infringing on #2A. It is the destruction of #2A or nothing. is spot-on: This is unproductive."
    1:08
    9.9K views
    Embedded video
    8:47 PM · Sep 12, 2019·Twitter for iPhone
    Retweets
    Likes
    Replying to and
    Pot meet kettle The will not discuss any laws that might limit sales of guns - even to teens, crazies, and criminals. The NRA opposes: Federal universal background checks, Red Flag laws with due process, Raising the age to purchase some guns from 18 to 21 #NRAcorruption
    4
    This Tweet is unavailable
    Replying to and
    We already have legislation that would help. It's the lack of enforcement and inter-agency cooperation that's an issue. Enough with trying to add more laws and restrictions.
    2
    Replying to and
    threatened the life of a presidential candidate.. the exact reason why we need gun reform!
    1
    Replying to and
    It’s the NRA that’s saying my way or the highway. That (and incompetence) is why they’re in dire financial straits, under multiple investigations, and sidelined in the national conversation. Even corporate America has moved on without them. The status quo is unacceptable."
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    https://slate-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/beto-orourke-death-threat-debate-pledge-take-assault-style-weapons.amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#aoh=15683829233084&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/beto-orourke-death-threat-debate-pledge-take-assault-style-weapons.html

    THE SLATEST

    "Texas Lawmaker Issues Death Threat to Beto O’Rourke After Debate Pledge to Take Away Assault-Style Weapons"

    By ELLIOT HANNON

    "Beto O’Rourke was uniquely outspoken in his calls for gun control during Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Houston, Texas. The former Texas congressman, whose hometown of El Paso recently was the victim of a mass shooting at a Walmart, was asked if he’d take away assault-style weapons that are often used in mass shootings. “Hell yes,” O’Rourke responded. “We’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against a fellow American anymore.” 

    "It seemed inevitable that O’Rourke’s call to ban ownership of military-style weapons would rile up the guns=distilled liberty true believers online, but it was, perhaps predictably, an elected Republican official—from the state of Texas no less—that led the way over the cliff. Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain tweeted a not-so-thinly veiled threat at the presidential contender, tweeting “My AR is ready for you Robert Francis,” calling O’Rourke, whose nickname is Beto, by his first and middle names. 


    From Beto O'Rourke, on Twitter, and the commentary that followed afterwards:


    This is a death threat, Representative. Clearly, you shouldn't own an AR-15—and neither should anyone else.
    image
    12:02 AM · Sep 13, 2019·Twitter Web App
    Retweets
    Likes
    Replying to
    That’s not a death threat. Brandenburg v. Ohio,(1969) says that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
    293
    319
    3K
    “My AR is ready for you” Is not a threat. What if he meant it’s ready for you to take, given the context of the tweet he is quoting where you claim you are going to do so. You look like a petty, weak, and foolish man who has no clue what he is talking about. BETA
    356
    303
    3.2K
    Twitter removed the tweet too. What a joke. I’d love to know what rule violation happened here. The special rule where Francis Beta has his feelings hurt online?
    image
    152
    251
    2.1K
    I believe it was a rule against threatening to murder someone on line, sport.
    116
    77
    4.8K
    There is zero threat to murder anyone. Are people really this dumb? Can you not read or what?
    414
    71
    1.8K 
  • Yahwehs moral law was to show and prove man in sinful. No law makes anyone moral.

    Trust Yahweh Jesus Christ the King today Romans 10:9!
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    https://slate-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/beto-orourke-death-threat-debate-pledge-take-assault-style-weapons.amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#aoh=15683829233084&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/beto-orourke-death-threat-debate-pledge-take-assault-style-weapons.html

    THE SLATEST

    "Texas Lawmaker Issues Death Threat to Beto O’Rourke After Debate Pledge to Take Away Assault-Style Weapons"

    By ELLIOT HANNON

    "Beto O’Rourke was uniquely outspoken in his calls for gun control during Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Houston, Texas. The former Texas congressman, whose hometown of El Paso recently was the victim of a mass shooting at a Walmart, was asked if he’d take away assault-style weapons that are often used in mass shootings. “Hell yes,” O’Rourke responded. “We’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against a fellow American anymore.” 


    "It seemed inevitable that O’Rourke’s call to ban ownership of military-style weapons would rile up the guns=distilled liberty true believers online, but it was, perhaps predictably, an elected Republican official—from the state of Texas no less—that led the way over the cliff. Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain tweeted a not-so-thinly veiled threat at the presidential contender, tweeting “My AR is ready for you Robert Francis,” calling O’Rourke, whose nickname is Beto, by his first and middle names."


  • Did you know that Cancer and smoking kill millions more people every year than multiple causes of death combined? You say you're pro-family, pro-children, etc and yet you seem to more preoccupied with inanimate objects such as guns.

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 14
    @ZeusAres42

    Guns have killed kids, parents, grandparents, teenagers, students, toddlers, teachers, coaches, and police officers.

    "You say you're pro-family, pro-children, etc and yet you seem to more preoccupied with inanimate objects such as guns."

    Are you pro family, children, and pro Public safety?

    I'm curious, does the Second Amendment, have any language in it, in regards to Cancer, or smoking, killing people?

    No, it doesn't.

    So why would you, bother to use Cancer, or smoking, as an argument strategy?


  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    I don't care that you view guns as inanimate objects.

    Guns have killed kids, parents, grandparents, teenagers, students, toddlers, teachers, coaches, and police officers.

    "You say you're pro-family, pro-children, etc and yet you seem to more preoccupied with inanimate objects such as guns."

    Are you pro family, children, and pro Public safety?

    Absolutely, I am pro-family, children and public safety. What I want to know about you though is that why do you care more about guns than you do about the millions of people across the globe being affected by Cancer, and smoking related diseases? Why do you find guns being more of a concern than this when gun related violence incidence doesn't even come close to the amount of deaths that have occurred because of Cancer and smoking related diseases?

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 14
    @ZeusAres42

    Because your argument has nothing to do with the theme of this forum, does it?

    WE WILL NEVER CREATE ENOUGH LAWS TO CONTROL EVIL - EVIL DOES NOT OBEY LAWS


    I'm curious, does the Second Amendment, have any language in it, in regards to Cancer, or smoking, killing people?

    No, it doesn't.

    So why would you, bother to use Cancer, or smoking, as an argument strategy?
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    edited September 14
    @CYDdharta

    And it's a sickening shame, that some of humanity has allowed society, to become what it's become, because of their actions.

    "Every society is unsafe.  Criminals will always have the ability to obtain weapons.  I was going to say you'd have to be on Gilligan's Island, but even that isn't accurate.  I have never needed to carry a weapon either, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that I could have or that i someday will need one.  I have never needed a fire extinguisher, either, that doesn't mean I don't own one."

    Arsonists setting fire's, because they want to watch some of society, reduced down to the arsonists level?

    Mass shooters, committing their crimes, because they want to reduce society down to their level as well?

    Criminals have weapons, because they have criminals, who are selling those weapons to them.

    Criminals have weapons, because the Second Amendment, as it's written, doesn't have a deterrent written into the Second Amendment, to deter any gun violance crimes, at all does it?

     And its the NRA's fault, and it's those lawmakers faults, who both balk, at amending the Second Amendment, to suit the needs, wants, and desires, of their NRA follower/ constituents crowds?

    Basically its money, and politics, and influential power, that are given precedence over societies head, isn't it?

    Otherwise, why does the NRA, in a sense, stand in the way of those Lawmakers, who could, or would be willing to amend the Second Amendment, to where its fairly and equally representative, towards the Public safety as a whole?

    Society as a whole, is a direct reflection of how criminals, and their crimes, affects the rest of society, on a day by day basis.

    Think about it, a family, lost a family member, to gun violence yesterday, and we can, all go look, at what the NRA, is publicizing, what it will on, it's own Twitter feed?

    And you and I will See ZERO, being expressed over the gun violence crimes, that happened in the United States yesterday?
  • TKDBTKDB 266 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    Here's what the NRA, is currently lamenting over:

    (And you'll notice, not a single sentence about any gun violence crimes, being expressed? Zero mention.)


    "Read CEO and EVP Wayne LaPierre’s statement on NRA lawsuit against San Francisco: (1/2)
    image
    10:08 PM · Sep 9, 2019·Twitter Web App
    Retweets
    Likes
    Replying to
    "Put simply, the government cannot discriminate against citizens based on the viewpoint of their political speech." Read the rest of the suit here: http://bit.ly/NRASanFran (2/2)
    image
    56
    244
    859
    Replying to
    The beginning of the end
    3
    12
    No offense, but the beginning of the end for SF started long ago.
    2
    2
    22
    Prob true too unfortunately.
    3
    Replying to
    Exactly why I’m a proud member of the NRA
    7
    6
    21
    1 more reply
    Replying to
    Thank you NRA!!!!
    3
    7
    12
    1 more reply
    Replying to
    Since I am an endowment level member, I would like to sue for slander and defamation of character. I am certainly NOT a member of a terrorist organization.
    4
    7
    12
    1 more reply
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch