CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Using Truck instead of Gun proves the problem is not the weapon but the "Ideology"
I have said this on twitter do u agree ? I say it affirmative purely because there's no excuse in saying so, since that's the case-Muslims have problems with Christians in West, Hindus and Buddhists in East and Jews in Middle-East- they have to be eradicated that's what I think affirmatively
I agree, to an extent. It is the cause of the problem, but all the same, sometimes you have to address the symptoms of a problem (like the abuse of access to certain weapons) to mitigate the extent of damage.
I'm waiting for people on the Left to stop cherry picking guns and start admitting that they never worry of addressing the symptoms of other problems (like the abuse of access to automobiles) to mitigate the extent of damage, as you were trying to say about guns. Why do we only hear about guns? Cars kill just as many or more from drunk driving, accidents, etc.
If it's the weapon and not the person choosing to drink and drive, you must go after the car! According to fools on the Left, it is not the killer, or the terrorist, IT IS THE GUN that is the problem.
More people are killed with hammers then assault rifles! Did you know this? Do you or those on the Left care? No, you care about one thing and one thing alone.... banning guns as has Europe.
You will lie how you don't want to ban all guns but rather just banning those evil assault rifles. Have you ever listened to the definition of assualt rifles from the Left?
New York State's "Safe Act" tried to ban all hunting rifles that held more than seven rounds!
Democrat's ultimate goal is to take our guns one step at a time. They will never admit it until they can make it happen in the courts. They are already denying people the right to carry a conceiled weapon for protection. It matters not that Hillary and the Hollywood eletes have body gaurds carryng conceiled weapons for their protection.
This is why Hillary's supreme court appointees would be devestating to our freedoms. We can not allow these extremist Democrats to appoint any more activist Justices such as Ruth Beta Ginsburg who is actually jumping into politics and attacking Trump!
Yeh, she really cares about the intent of our constituton.
Any religion which can spawn so much death, suffering and misery must be inherently evil. Rudyard Kipling got it right when he coined the phrase, East is East and West is West and ne'er the t'wain shall meet. Everyone, including the dogs in the street know this, but this glaring and self evident truth seems to have gone over the heads of our woefully stupid politicians. In the meantime we, our children and grandchildren will have to pay the terrible price for the shortsightedness of our low life politicians, just as the French population are paying the price for the utter folly of past liberal politicians.
After the Orlando shooting, people on the left used the incident as a device to blame the Right for going for lesser gun restrictions, now the dynamics have changed in Nice-I even heard some on the left saying the truck was "WHITE", now tell me what is that guy implying #WhitePrivilege ? We really need to address the fact that many of the Muslim clerics and Imams preach the religion in a divisive and malevolent way often highlighting more on barbarity than peace-that's the reason France had 3 terror attacks in 18 months- rather than being the #MuslimApologeticLeftWing, US should go and build the #wall
I think it's incontrovertible proof as well as all the other incidences, but somehow, the left just can't acknowledge reality. They seem to think doing so will hurt the terrorists itty bitty feelings and the last thing they want is a terrorist with a complex. Go figure.
Out of curiosity, have you ever once in your life tried to actually think about the root cause of terrorism?
Now remember, I mean terrorism, not a specific type of terrorism, not terrorism done by a specific religious or ethnic group, but terrorism as a whole, from a modern and historical perspective.
Re:"Out of curiosity, have you ever once in your life tried to actually think about the root cause of terrorism?"
Yes, the root cause is lack of employment as propounded the the Obama admin:
Jobs for Jihadis -
State Department under fire for saying finding 'jobs' for jihadis - not 'killing them' - is the only way to defeat ISIS, as White House avoids saying latest beheading victims were Christian
I'm waiting for people on the Left to stop cherry picking guns and start admitting that they never worry about addressing the symptoms of other problems (like the abuse of access to automobiles) to mitigate the extent of damage. Why do we only hear about guns? Cars kill just as many or more from drunk driving, accidents, etc.
If it's the weapon and not the person choosing to drink and drive, you must go after the car! According to fools on the Left, it is not the killer, or the terrorist, IT IS THE GUN that is the problem.
More people are killed with hammers then assault rifles! Did you know this? Do those on the Left care? No, you care about one thing and one thing alone.... banning guns as has Europe.
You will lie how you don't want to ban all guns but rather just banning those evil assault rifles. Have you ever listened to the definition of assualt rifles from the Left?
New York State's "Safe Act" tried to ban all hunting rifles that held more than seven rounds!
Democrat's ultimate goal is to take our guns one step at a time. They will never admit it until they can make it happen in the courts. They are already denying people the right to carry a conceiled weapon for protection. It matters not that Hillary and the Hollywood eletes have body gaurds carryng conceiled weapons for their protection.
This is why Hillary's supreme court appointees would be devestating to our freedoms. We can not allow these extremist Democrats to appoint any more activist Justices such as Ruth Beta Ginsburg who is actually jumping into politics and attacking Trump!
Yeh, she really cares about the intent of our constituton.
I'm waiting for people on the Left to stop cherry picking guns and start admitting that they never worry about addressing the symptoms of other problems (like the abuse of access to automobiles) to mitigate the extent of damage. Why do we only hear about guns? Cars kill just as many or more from drunk driving, accidents, etc.
Because mass shootings make national news and car accidents make local news, maybe.
Also, the keyword is car ACCIDENTS. These are not intentional events. Someone who shouldnt have a gun getting access to one and shooting a bunch of people is not an accident its an intentional crime.
Also, we do address drunk driving and car crashes. Hence why vehicles have crash test regulations that must be met to be street legal. Hence why a blood alcohol level of .08 is a crime and gets you arrested.
If it's the weapon and not the person choosing to drink and drive, you must go after the car!
Nobody is saying its the weapon. Nobody. I have literally never heard even one person blame the gun for shooting someone. Obviously its the person who shot the gun that is at fault.
What we blame is gun LAWS that are far too LAX. What we blame is poor public policy and poor regulation of guns that allow them all too often to be accessed by children, mentally unstable people, and anyone else who shouldnt own one.
According to fools on the Left, it is not the killer, or the terrorist, IT IS THE GUN that is the problem.
No. According to YOU that is what the left says. What the left ACTUALLY says is that it is the gun LAWS that are a problem. Hence why we try to pass new ones.
More people are killed with hammers then assault rifles! Did you know this? Do those on the Left care? No, you care about one thing and one thing alone.... banning guns as has Europe.
And? Hammers are not indended to be used as weapons. They are intended to be used as tools. Guns however ARE intended to kill their target. In that case of handguns and assault weapons those targets are PEOPLE.
Its obvious that guns need to be regulated accordingly and hammers fucking dont. You cant mow down a room full of people with a hammer.
You will lie how you don't want to ban all guns but rather just banning those evil assault rifles.
As you lie about how we do wanna ban all guns.
Please, if democrats want to ban all guns then find me one piece of legislation that has been proposed in the past 3 years that would effectively ban guns. Please cite the democratic party platform position on gun legislation and show me where they say they want to ban guns. I'll gladly wait.
Because to this very day the only democrat i have heard even suggest banning guns is Dianne Feinstein who thinks that is a good idea. And she recently proposed legislation to the senate and not even that legislation says to ban guns! She proposed banning assault style weapons, high capacity mags, and allow the attourney general to have some power over gun regulation. That was it. And many democrats criticized it for being far too extreme.
The idea that even the minority of democrats want to ban guns is fucking absurd let alone the idea that its some how the consensus of the entire party.
Have you ever listened to the definition of assualt rifles from the Left?
Have you ever actually listened to anything the left actually says or proposes? Or do you just listen to what republican sources SAY that the democrats said?
New York State's "Safe Act" tried to ban all hunting rifles that held more than seven rounds!
Okay, AND?? What the fuck does that have to do with the definition of assault rifles? And does this have anything to do with banning ALL guns? No. This is a simple regulation. The rifle makers are free to make a model rifle that has no more than 7 rounds and sell it.
Also id like to know why any hunter actually needs a rifle with more than 7 rounds. What the fuck do they need to kill, a rhinoceros? You dont need 7 rifle rounds for 99% of anything you would hunt. Also theres thing thing called reloading. They can have as much ammo as they want and just reload the clip.
Youre throwing a hissy fit over the most simple, petty, utterly pointless gun legislation.
Democrat's ultimate goal is to take our guns one step at a time.
You have never once actually supported this idea. And i have very clearly dismanteled it. No they dont wanna ban guns. The 2nd amendment clearly exists. Nobody has proposed any kind of policy youre claiming they support.
They will never admit it until they can make it happen in the courts. They are already denying people the right to carry a conceiled weapon for protection.
In some states. And in others you can have conceiled carry. Some democratic states ban it. Some democratic states (like Mass) allow it.
So now i ask you, if the democrats all want to ban guns and theyre all in consensus that this is their supreme ultimate goal, how come so many democratic states disagree with eachother on what gun reform to pass? How come mass allows conceiled carry if theyre banning it in other blue states? How does that line up in any way with your narrative that they want to ban guns? Doesnt look like mass is putting very much effort into that.
It matters not that Hillary and the Hollywood eletes have body gaurds carryng conceiled weapons for their protection.
This is why Hillary's supreme court appointees would be devestating to our freedoms. We can not allow these extremist Democrats to appoint any more activist Justices such as Ruth Beta Ginsburg who is actually jumping into politics and attacking Trump!
Shes a supreme court justice and shes just now jumping into politics? She IS politics. Shes been in it since before trump stuck his tiny hands in the door.
Yeh, she really cares about the intent of our constituton.
Oh but the republicans who support the patriot act which totally throws the 14th amendment out the window, theyre okay?
And the republicans who support guantanamo bay, and extrajudicial prison which clearly violates the 8th amendment, they totally care about our freedoms right?
You just perfecty showed why it is a total waste of time debating people on the Left. THEY ARE TOTAL LIARS who will change their words when being shown their lies.
I just gave you an example of how Democrats DO ban our guns, such as in New York State, with the "Safe Act", when with one piece of gun control legislation, they tried to make all hunting rifles in our homes ILLEGAL by making it against the law to have a gun holding more than seven rounds.
If a home owner ever protected his family from an intruder with one of these illegal hunting rifles, he could go to jail when the cops saw the gun!
Every gun owner would have to get rid of his guns and buy the new political correct guns!
What was your pathetic response? You instantly changed your rhetoric. You said...
"This is a simple regulation. The rifle makers are free to make a model rifle that has no more than 7 rounds and sell it.
Also id like to know why any hunter actually needs a rifle with more than 7 rounds."
LOLOLOLOLOLOL, YOU TOTAL DECEPTIVE LIAR AND FOOL! AS ALWAYS!!!!! THIS IS WHY I BAN SOME FOOLS ON THIS SITE. THEY ARE A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME TO DEBATE!
If an intruder broke into my house, I WOULD WANT TO HAVE MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS! Guns are not just for hunting you fool!
So all of a sudden instead of spewing your lies of how Democrats do not want to ban our guns, as they did in New York with guns that WERE NOT ASSAULT RIFLES, you instantly twist your lies and say "This is a simple regulation". LOL, I guess this is not banning guns even though those hunting rifles in your homes would now be BANNED! YOU TOTAL DECEPTIVE FOOL!
Ok, now I get it.... Democrats do not want to ban our guns, they just want to regulate our guns. FOOL!
As I said, no Democrat is going to admit their goal is to ban our guns as they did in Europe. They will simply ban, I mean "regulate" our guns one step at a time.
You just said.....
"In some states. And in others you can have conceiled carry. Some democratic states ban it. Some democratic states (like Mass) allow it. If the democrats all want to ban guns and theyre all in consensus that this is their supreme ultimate goal, how come so many democratic states disagree with each other on what gun reform to pass? How come mass allows conceiled carry if theyre banning it in other blue states? How does that line up in any way with your narrative that they want to ban guns?"
Now I want you to remember back a few years when people like myself were giving the truth of how those on the Left wanted to force every state in America to change their marriage laws.
I want you to replace the wording of how some Blue States did not ban conceiled weapons, and replace those words with how some Blue States did not support changing their marriage laws.
DO YOU GET IT NOW? Liars and deceivers will never admit their ultimate goal! Using your deception, the Left did not want to force all states to change their marriage laws!
WHAT HAPPENED! The Democrat party has loaded the supreme court with activist Justices and FORCED every state to change their marriage laws!
The same thing that will hapen with our freedoms to own guns and to have conceiled weapons. You know it to be true and the sick part is you could care less!
In your sick twisted world of double standards, it is ok to ban things you don't like, but if anyone tries to ban something you like, you would be screaming louder than anyone. HYPOCRITE!
I never said ALL Democrats want to ban our guns. I said the vast majority of Democrat politicians controlling our Government and appointing Justices. They will never admit it you total fool! Democrats like Hillary will appoint acitivst Justices who will one day ban our guns as they tried to start doing in New York.
I will not waste another second responding you your total deception.
You just perfecty showed why it is a total waste of time debating people on the Left. THEY ARE TOTAL LIARS who will change their words when being shown their lies.
Then show where i lied and why it was a lie instead of just crying about it.
I just gave you an example of how Democrats DO ban our guns, such as in New York State, with the "Safe Act", when with one piece of gun control legislation, they tried to make all hunting rifles in our homes ILLEGAL by making it against the law to have a gun holding more than seven rounds.
No no no no no.
Your claim is that democrats want to ban ALL guns across the board. Then you cite one piece of legislation that banned one type of gun. It didnt even ban hunting rifles! it just banned only hunting rifles with more than 7 rounds.
That isnt evidence of democrats wanting to ban all guns. That is an example of democrats REGULATING which guns you can buy.
People are still free to buy hunting rifles. Gun manufacturers can still sell hunting rifles. Nothing except magazine capacity was restricted.
If a home owner ever protected his family from an intruder with one of these illegal hunting rifles, he could go to jail when the cops saw the gun!
Yeah because owning a rifle with 7 or more rounds is against the law. He broke the law he has to pay for it regardless of what purpose the gun served. He could easily get rid of the rifle with 7 rounds and buy another rifle with less rounds. or a shotgun or a pistol or most anything else.
Every gun owner would have to get rid of his guns and buy the new political correct guns!
Correct. Notice how guns are still available and not banned in any way. Only CERTAIN guns are banned.
What was your pathetic response? You instantly changed your rhetoric. You said...
"This is a simple regulation. The rifle makers are free to make a model rifle that has no more than 7 rounds and sell it.
Also id like to know why any hunter actually needs a rifle with more than 7 rounds."
LOLOLOLOLOLOL, YOU TOTAL DECEPTIVE LIAR AND FOOL! AS ALWAYS!!!!! THIS IS WHY I BAN SOME FOOLS ON THIS SITE. THEY ARE A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME TO DEBATE!
If an intruder broke into my house, I WOULD WANT TO HAVE MORE THAN SEVEN ROUNDS! Guns are not just for hunting you fool!
Hunting rifles are. And that is what this legislation regulated. Hunting rifles. If i were defending my home i would want a shotgun or pistol not a fucking hunting rifle. These rifles that were regulated are not even for home defense.
So all of a sudden instead of spewing your lies of how Democrats do not want to ban our guns, as they did in New York with guns that WERE NOT ASSAULT RIFLES, you instantly twist your lies and say "This is a simple regulation".
I didnt twist anything. Its still a simple regulation of magazine size. Thats it. And it isnt in any way evidence that democrats want to ban ALL guns. You still have yet to demonstrate that in any way.
LOL, I guess this is not banning guns even though those hunting rifles in your homes would now be BANNED! YOU TOTAL DECEPTIVE FOOL!
I never fucking said democrats dont want to ban CERTAIN guns. Some democrats want to ban assault weapons. Some want to ban guns with certain magazine sizes. But NO democrats want to ban ALL guns. That is the claim youre making and that is the claim you have YET to support.
Ok, now I get it.... Democrats do not want to ban our guns, they just want to regulate our guns. FOOL!
EXACTLY.
As I said, no Democrat is going to admit their goal is to ban our guns as they did in Europe. They will simply ban, I mean "regulate" our guns one step at a time.
Now youre just claiming a slippery slope argument which is a giant fallacy.
Thats like saying "because republicans want to ban abortions eventually they will mandate that every woman must get pregnant and bear children!"
Slippery slope arguments dont fucking work. You have ZERO evidence that democrats banning one type of gun will lead to banning all guns. You just assert that out of your ass
You just said.....
"In some states. And in others you can have conceiled carry. Some democratic states ban it. Some democratic states (like Mass) allow it. If the democrats all want to ban guns and theyre all in consensus that this is their supreme ultimate goal, how come so many democratic states disagree with each other on what gun reform to pass? How come mass allows conceiled carry if theyre banning it in other blue states? How does that line up in any way with your narrative that they want to ban guns?"
Now I want you to remember back a few years when people like myself were giving the truth of how those on the Left wanted to force every state in America to change their marriage laws.
I want you to replace the wording of how some Blue States did not ban conceiled weapons, and replace those words with how some Blue States did not support changing their marriage laws.
DO YOU GET IT NOW? Liars and deceivers will never admit their ultimate goal! Using your deception, the Left did not want to force all states to change their marriage laws!
Heres the fucking difference you retard:
The VAST majority of the country supported gay marriage. And state by state the courts were striking down gay marriage bans as unconstitutional. Eventually it reached the supreme court whos job it is to determine if laws are constitutional or not. They found gay marriage to be protected under the 14th amendment.
How the fuck is that in any way related to democrats in state legislatures passing gun legislation?
Also with gay marriage, it was fucking OBVIOUS that the goal was country wide gay marriage. EVERYONE knew that that was the goal. Gay rights groups were very vocal about the goal and democrats were very vocal that that was the goal.
It is NOT obvious that democrats want to ban all guns. Nobody says that that is the goal. Nobody talks about it like a serious proposal. Nobody has put forward legislation to ban guns.
Way to make the worst false equivalence i have ever seen in my life.
WHAT HAPPENED! The Democrat party has loaded the supreme court with activist Justices and FORCED every state to change their marriage laws!
The court was balanced with 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and the cheif justice who leans neither way. It was not stacked with liberals you fucking liar. Maybe it had everything to do with that fact that gay marriage is obviously protected under the 14th amendment. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that over 60% of the country was in favor of gay marriage.
The same thing that will hapen with our freedoms to own guns and to have conceiled weapons. You know it to be true and the sick part is you could care less!
No because it isnt true. It isnt similar to the gay marriage ruling in any way. You have yet to demonstrate that democrats want to ban all guns.
The only thing youve demonstrated is that democrats want to ban SOME guns. Which i couldve fucking told you in the first place.
In your sick twisted world of double standards, it is ok to ban things you don't like, but if anyone tries to ban something you like, you would be screaming louder than anyone. HYPOCRITE!
No. In my world i look at what is being discussed and decide what the upsides and downsides are to banning it. And then i decide accordingly.
You seem to be under the assumption that I want to ban guns. I dont want to ban guns. There are very few things i want banned. I want all drugs legalized for instance. But id guarantee you want to keep all drugs banned. So now ill refer you to your own above statement.
I never said ALL Democrats want to ban our guns.
Yes you fucking did. You said it is the goal of the democratic party to ban guns. Youre fucking lying when you say that is not what you said. Thats what youve said over and over again. Its just you know it isnt fucking true and you know you cant prove it in any way so now youre backpeddaling.
I said the vast majority of Democrat politicians controlling our Government and appointing Justices.
And not even that is true. Denise Feinstein is the only democrat i know of who openly wants all guns banned. She proposed gun legislation recently. The legislation called for a ban on assault weapons and gave the attorney general more power over deciding if people get access to certain guns in certain cases. The legislation was met with opposition from her own fucking party. The vast majority of democrats who read it said it was "too strict".
This legislation didnt even say ban all guns! It just banned assault weapons and the democrats rejected it! So how the fuck can you say the vast majority of democrats want to ban all guns when not even half of democrats got behind this considerably weaker legislation?
They will never admit it you total fool!
probably because it isnt fucking true
Democrats like Hillary will appoint acitivst Justices who will one day ban our guns as they tried to start doing in New York.
I will not waste another second responding you your total deception.
Right and its not like republicans would ever appoint justices to overturn the gay marriage ruling.
When destroying a cancerous tumour some healthy cells have to be sacrificed for the overall good of the patient. In this instance the ''means definitely justifies the end''. ''If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out''. A line must be drawn in the sand to the Islamization of the west, enough is enough. Muslim terrorists have caused slaughter on the streets of America, almost every country in Europe, Australia, and canada, not to mention the carnage they have inflicted on the African continent. We cannot rely on our weak kneed, white livered politicians to do what needs to be done. The people's of the west must vote for right wing politicians who can recognize what's happening and have the will and moral fibre to stamp on the head of the snake.
Right wing politicians don't even have the will and moral fiber to attempt being in office. How are they supposed to stop terrorism? Look at America: right wing politicians couldn't even win against just right wing candidates. Then look at England: the Brexit vote was a success and all the right wing politicians decide to not even try to be prime minister.
Andrea Leadsom was a ''remain campaigner'' but was beaten by Theresa May. For your information please note that the U.K, consists of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England, not just England. Britain consists of Scotland, England and Wales but not Northern Ireland. As a union, the U.K, voted to leave the inward looking, ''going nowhere'' corrupt Mafioso family, otherwise known as the European Union. The success of the leave campaigners was largely due to the ''open borders'' policies and an over lenient approach to illegal immigrants. These loonie left wing policies has led to the rise of the extreme right, and has been responsible for a massive increase in neo-Nazi groups. The wasters and criminals of the failed Muslim nations of the near and middle east have swamped Europe and have sponged off their benefits system including free housing, free hospital treatment, free education, unemployment payments. All this whilst the indigenous populations go to the back of the queue. Brexit means that the U.K, will soon regain control of it's own borders and be free to make trade deals with the rest of the world whilst negotiating a ''free trade ONLY'' arrangement with the E.U. No one has the answer to terrorism in their back pocket but a robust start must be made. Once free of the shackles of the left's disastrous policies the U.K can start deporting known terrorists and convicted criminals, seal their borders tight as a drum and require all legitimate citizens to carry identity cards. All these intrusive and troublesome security measures are exclusively as a consequence of the loonie lefties creating the problem in the first place and then being unwilling to address, never mind resolve, the Muslim problem which was of their making. Muslims are the reason for the massive expense involved in security surveillance and all the other highly expensive counter terrorism measures. As well as having to suffer the endless atrocities of the Muslims the ordinary law abiding citizens cannot travel by air without being subjected to the indignity and inconvenience of body searches, X-ray scans, having the personal belongings in their luggage rummaged through by security staff. All this due to MUSLIMS, who were introduced into the west by the policies of the treacherous left wing politician's liberal policies. The sooner the the long and arduous process of the removal of all Muslims from North America and Europe commences the sooner the Muslim problem will be resolved.
I am extremely disappointed in the stupidity you have displayed in your response and my opinion of you has dropped to virtual zero. I'm sure your reply will be that you couldn't give a tinker's damn about my opinion, but then the response of a resentful old codger like you is predictable. You ask why the hell was Theresa may running? Well, why to the hell shouldn't she? She was a cabinet minister for eleven years and is respected as an honest and hardworking politician. Those Tories who held opposing views on membership of the E.U, have the maturity to put all that behind them and to go forward on a united front for the benefit of the country. Before resigning Farage was the leader of the minor ''United Kingdom Independence Party'', U.K.I.P, and was never any more than a charismatic narcissist who was on a personal crusade to prise the U.K out of the E.U. Yes, Farage did jump ship, just as rats normally do and Boris the Buffoon probably took a dose of the shits when he discovered Brexit had won. His strategy was based on the wrong assumption that the 'remain' camp would win by a narrow margin when he intended to declare that due to the closeness of the vote a new Prime Minister should be appointed and he would then make a bid for the Tory leadership. However, when this didn't happen he was left wrong footed and without the remotest idea in which direction to run so he, along with most of the Brexiteers soiled their trunks and hid under the bed, metaphorically speaking. The Buffoon Boris and Farage both had the cheek to ask what contingency plans the ''Remain'' supporters had made in the event of a positive Brexit vote. They were the ones who were bellowing on about leaving Europe but didn't, and still haven't a clue what the next move should be. We're in uncharted waters and the best course to take hasn't quite been fine tuned yet. Fortunately Prime Minister May has shown her leadership qualities by outlining her initial strategy to meet the challenges which Brexit will create. Elections and referendums in the U.K are based on a collective basis and not on that of any one of the nations which go to make up the United Kingdom. The referendum was a United Kingdom and complied with all the rules, both legally and morally of a democratic vote. Wales and England voted to leave whereas Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. However, the latter two provinces will have to abide by the democratic vote of the United Kingdom just as England would have had to do if the tables had been turned. You really are an incorrigible shithead who should always carry a roll of toilet tissue with which to wipe wipe your mouth every time you express your embarrassingly juvenile opinions.
I'm sure your reply will be that you couldn't give a tinker's damn about my opinion
Why? I actually respond to what you write.
Well, why to the hell shouldn't she?
Because Farage and Johnson were the leaders of the Brexit vote. They should be the ones who step up to run things. I already mentioned this. You had no reason to ask this question.
Yes, Farage did jump ship, just as rats normally do and Boris the Buffoon probably took a dose of the shits when he discovered Brexit had won.
So, you have no response to my fully accurate statement in my first argument.
You really are an incorrigible shithead who should always carry a roll of toilet tissue with which to wipe wipe your mouth every time you express your embarrassingly juvenile opinions.
Johnson and Farage belong to two different political parties. The only thing they have in common is that they both ran like rabbits when faced with the task of having to explain what their plans were to meet the challenges created by the consequences of the Brexit vote. I'm not sure exactly what you're on about but to repeat myself, Farage cut and ran like a whimp, whilst the Buffoon went into a silent huff until he was appointed Foreign Secretary by Theresa May!!! You have a strange way of expressing your agreement with other viewpoints. Never apply for a position with the diplomatic corps, you could start WW3 even when all the while you thought you were concurring pleasantly with your opposite numbers. The nuclear armed missiles would be flying and you would be frozen in a state of wide eyed innocence saying, what'd I say, what'd I say?
In many cases, as with combating the filth, ( Muslims), a choice has to be made between the lesser of two evils so ''right'' can prevail and triumph, as was the case in the dropping the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki . Throughout history the means has so often justified the end, and the removal of the filth and their slaughter of civilians from the nations of the west is one of those situations.
You have engineered a straw man argument there shithead. At no point did I ever argue, or even vaguely suggest that Muslims should be killed. I do not for one second believe they should, nor has such a barbaric thought ever crossed my mind. The ''repatriation of known and suspected terrorists is not committing genocide. Repatriating all long term unemployed Muslim immigrants with a residency of less than 15 years, regardless of their declared political views, is not committing genocide. Imposing an embargo on further Muslim immigrants is not committing genocide. Were you always a thick bastard or did you fall on your head recently? Please recognize that it is you who has mad dog's shit for brains and have it syringed at your nearest clinic. Inform the medical staff that they'll need a large supply of oversized buckets.
Practically anything can be a weapon. The stem on a birds feather that could be made into a weapon. How about a baby's diaper that can be wrapped around someone's throat. Apparently even water itself (I believe the term is called waterboarding).
It boils down to what is the purpose of the item we are using, cars can be used to kill but where they designed to do so? Broken glass can kill but is it designed to do so? What are rifles, guns designed to do?
That comment guns don't kill people do [I have yet to see a human being travel towards another human being at 300 feet per second]
Guns indended use is to put bullets into their target, killing or injuring it. Whether that be an animal, or in the case of handguns and AR-15s, a human being.
A truck's intended use is to safely transport people and material goods from one location to another.
They are not the same. You are not clever by saying "durrr what are you gonna do now? Ban trucks?"
What I mean by the title of the debate is that the weapon is the choice of the murderer/mass-slaughterer but in all instances it's the radicalization and malicious-driven motive which is the real tragedy-so the Left should not have used the Orlando incident to bash the conservatives for going for lesser gun restrictions
REMEMBER: Guns don't pull trigger, it's the people who do it
Improvisation is always an option with those intent on mass murder. In this case the ''armed'' Muslim decided that a truck was going to be the more effective means by which to murder civilians. French police now say that he had planned the route of his death ride days before the incident, so he wasn't the drugged up, deranged simpleton some lefties try to make out. He was a calculating and cold blooded Muslim terrorist who should never been in France. The sinister and spine chilling feature about this atrocity is that it will highlight the increased efficiency of a heavy goods vehicle over a firearm in order to cause maximum fatalities and injuries. If this does spark a spate of Muslims using commercial vehicles to cause carnage the authorities may well have to look at restricting such forms of transport in built up areas during busy times or festivals. If this does happen it will be another graphic illustration of the spinless western government treating the symptoms instead of tackling the disease.
You don't have to design a 2 ton object that can move 50 mph to kill in order for it to be easy to kill with. All drunk driving deaths involve an object that isn't designed to kill.
I was in this case drawing a distinction between accidents and intended homicide, as it is generally easier to point and hit someone with a small object moving 1,700mph with the intent to kill than it is to drive a vehicle off the road and into a person. In this case, there was a crowd who was distracted. As I side, in that scenario, it is indeed easier to kill a group of people with a truck than it would be with a semi-automatic rifle. It would be easier to kill said group of people with an automatic rifle, and it would be easier to kill any of those individuals with just about any kind of modern firearm, however.
86 people would need to be killed by 86 bullets at least. It is way easier to just floor it in a truck than it is to fire 86 bullets. The Orlando shooter needed to keep people stuck in the night club to pull off all those deaths.
One can definitely get their hands on automatic weaponry. All it takes is a small amount of research into 3-D printing machines then either grab a VPN and download the schematics for an automatic receiver (which you then install into a base frame that lacks the receiver) or you buy said automatic receiver which still needs some manual work (which you can do legally without the VPN).
The amount of research it would take to be able to do this would span a day or two if someone was determined (as the person clearly was considering what was located inside of his truck).
Again, that is only more deadly in very specific circumstances. The gun can be just as deadly (if not more) in that particular circumstance, and is more deadly in just about every other circumstance.
False. You have made it very clear that the gun is the one that is more deadly in very specific circumstances.
No, the gun is more deadly in the majority of circumstances. I should have said that the truck has the potential to be close to as deadly in specific circumstances. My mistake.
No it can't. You need an automatic weapon and belt fed so that you don't have to switch out magazines.
Not really. You can either go the "ghetto" approach of taping two mags together with feeds at opposite points to switch them out in seconds (would only work for the first mag, of course), and keep other mags on your person. It takes an incredibly short amount of time to switch out magazines. We are talking seconds.
Except when you are drunk. Then the car is more deadly.
I'd argue that a drunk person in a crowd with a gun is just as deadly.
Except it isn't. You have only had to create special circumstances for the gun to be more deadly than the car.
What? No I didn't. The standard basis is that the gun is more deadly than the car, because of course it is. With a car, you've basically got a single track you must go on, with copious obstructions. It requires a very specific circumstance to be very deadly. With a gun, the same circumstances can allow it to be more deadly, and in just about all other circumstances, the gun has the potential to be more deadly.
I should have said that the truck has the potential to be close to as deadly in specific circumstances.
But, you would be lying.
I'd argue that a drunk person in a crowd with a gun is just as deadly.
And, you would still be wrong.
Cartman, don't be hyperbolic. You know what the word lying means, and you know I wasn't. You started conflating a comparison of hypothetical individuals who set out with the intent to kill, with national level statistics on accidents. That simply doesn't work.
The standard basis is that the gun is more deadly than the car, because of course it is.
2 tons of steel moving at fast speeds is more deadly by default.
It requires a very specific circumstance to be very deadly.
Uh, nope. Being drunk allows you to kill very easily. No special circumstances.
With a gun, the same circumstances can allow it to be more deadly, and in just about all other circumstances, the gun has the potential to be more deadly
Indoors is the only time a gun is more deadly, but everyone has to go outside at some point.
Cartman, don't be hyperbolic.
Fuck you. Your scenario involved Rambo.
You know what the word lying means, and you know I wasn't.
You weren't lying because you didn't use the words that would make you a liar. A truck is more deadly. People are not able to withstand the force of 2 tons of steel hitting them.
You started conflating a comparison of hypothetical individuals who set out with the intent to kill, with national level statistics on accidents. That simply doesn't work.
Sorry pal, but the object that kills more easily is the object that is deadlier. That's how it works. Guns have to be used in a very specific manner with intent and skill in order to be deadly. Cars just have to be driven. You don't even have to try and you can kill someone. That makes it far more deadly.
In Orlando a person who was investigated by the FBI multiple times got access to a gun. Its totally reasonable to assess our gun laws after something like that. Our gun laws allow people on no fly lists and fbi watch lists to get guns easily. That is a problem . that doesn't mean we can't also address the scorge of Islamic radicalisation .
Yes but he was investigated twice before and cleared both times. Either way, people who are currently under watch and on no fly lists are not barred from gun purchases.
I recognize that, but it would be difficult to constitutionally justify denying one's rights to someone simply for being on one of these lists, let alone denying said rights because they were previously on one of the lists.
Oh im not saying that he shouldntve been able to buy a gun. i mean, he was cleared. But as long as theres some kind of due process for getting placed on the list then yes i can be used to revoke a right. Convicted felons lose their voting rights. Theres a multitude of other situations in which your rights can be restricted or revoked. They just have to be very clear and specific terms.
But the problem is that there generally isn't Due Process for these lists. One often can't find out if they are on a list, and if they are, often don't have any method of getting off of it. That's like the text book example of a lack of Due Process.
Convicted felons lose their voting rights because they are convicted, which means they go through Due Process. People on these lists are often on there for things like having the same last name as a terrorist, or having a google search with a suspicious series of trigger words. That doesn't pass the constitutional muster of Due Process.
I agree. There isnt much due process for these lists. However i would also say that of all the people on said lists there are not many who are put there for no good reason. Nonetheless, if these lists were to be used as a means to revoke 2nd amendment rights then there would have to be some kind of process for being placed on the list. I would also say there should be some kind of appeal process as well.
Yes convicted felons lose their rights from going through due process. Which is why if these no fly lists and terror watch lists had due process then you could use them to revoke 2nd amendment rights. However yes in their current state they should not be reason to revoke 2nd amendment rights.
However, i would say that it should be up to gun dealers whether they sell these guns to people or not. They should be able to refuse service if they do a background check and the person theyre going business with is on a terror watch list.
I agree that with more regulation regarding Due Process protections then using these lists wouldn't be particularly problematic. It's not that I have an inherent issue with using the lists at all. I simply do not yet know how they would be able to implement sufficient Due Process protections.
Truck, bomb, biologic, gun. The only one we could do much about would be the gun. So we should ignore it??
I'm for reasonable gun control, not gun confiscation, I have my own! Making assault weapons illegal (once again), would be reasonable! It didn't destroy the Second the first time, and we had fewer "mass" killings!