Crispin
Silver Member
- Jun 26, 2012
- 3,584
- 2,856
- Detector(s) used
- Coinmaster Pro, Sand Shark
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Okay, like most of you, I come on here at night time to unwind from the day's stress. Where is everybody tonight? No hot threads...no body getting into an argument. Where is my entertainment? This better not happen tomorrow night. Bevo: get us a good race going again, you did an awesome job last week. However, I realize I need to put fourth a little more effort as well. So...I know you've all been waiting for it...holding your breath at night, keeping your fingers crossed, waking up first thing in the morning to see if it is there. Wait no longer, the moment has arrived! I challenge stockpicker to a debate!
Here are my rules:
1. No circular arguments.
2. No infallible statements.
3. No statistics.
4. General, global sweeping statements are legal and encouraged.
5. Nonspecific slights get bonus points if slyly crafted.
6. No slippery slope.
Stocky: Feel free to add your own rules.
Point of Debate: Second amendment rights.
Crispin's point of debate: There should be no restrictions on firearm access to civilians.
Stocky's point of debate: Restrictions to guns are necessary.
Alternative option: I'll take any debate that involves the medical field.
Participants' rules: Everybody else is encouraged to join in. However, please make a statement at the start of each post on which side you are on. You are allowed to change sides as much as you want.
Opening point from Crispin: The second amendment clearly states, "shall not be infringed." There is no difference between murder with a handgun, murder with a shot gun, and murder with an assault rifle. Putting restrictions of firearms is futile unless we ban all of them. Neither one of us wants to ban all firearms.
Okay, take it away Stocky,
Crispin
Ps. I have to go to bed soon, so don't get carried away without me.
Here are my rules:
1. No circular arguments.
2. No infallible statements.
3. No statistics.
4. General, global sweeping statements are legal and encouraged.
5. Nonspecific slights get bonus points if slyly crafted.
6. No slippery slope.
Stocky: Feel free to add your own rules.
Point of Debate: Second amendment rights.
Crispin's point of debate: There should be no restrictions on firearm access to civilians.
Stocky's point of debate: Restrictions to guns are necessary.
Alternative option: I'll take any debate that involves the medical field.
Participants' rules: Everybody else is encouraged to join in. However, please make a statement at the start of each post on which side you are on. You are allowed to change sides as much as you want.
Opening point from Crispin: The second amendment clearly states, "shall not be infringed." There is no difference between murder with a handgun, murder with a shot gun, and murder with an assault rifle. Putting restrictions of firearms is futile unless we ban all of them. Neither one of us wants to ban all firearms.
Okay, take it away Stocky,
Crispin
Ps. I have to go to bed soon, so don't get carried away without me.