Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Seriuosly, you're doggedly chasing semantics?

Well, it's a relevant issue. People are using the fact that they have mislabeled a gun as an assault weapon as an argument in favor of banning that gun.

Such a ban is a grave violation of our civil liberties, and thus we oppose it. Our civil liberties are important to us.

Since their misuse of the English language is the core pillar of their argument in favor of their illegitimate ban, combating their misuse of the English language undermines their argument.

Leftists do the same thing with ammo. If they are trying to ban a given type of ammo, they always refer to that ammo as "cop killer ammo". Combating their misuse of the English language is important in those arguments as well.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

When I was a teenager, I owned a semi-auto .22 (well, my brother did, but we used it equally as much) . I doubt anyone would ever have called it an assault rifle.

If someone did start calling it an assault rifle, would the fact that they had labeled it thusly be a good reason for outlawing your gun?

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Laws get amended all the time, particularly when new problems arise. What has always been, has frequently found need to change, as the world around it changes. Those States that perceive a new change as a problem, amend their laws (in this case, the definition of an Assault Rifle).

These laws are not designed to address problems. They are designed to violate our civil liberties for the entertainment of leftists.

vikorr wrote:

I was commenting on the futility of arguing against a definition a person is using - when that persons definition is written in law.

It's not futile at all though. When someone's misuse of the English language is the core pillar of their argument in favor of a law, combating their misuse of the English language undermines their argument for that law.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Ummm...actually, that was only the starter question - the least meaningful, but necessary in order to pose the two questions that followed. You failed to answer the 2 much more important questions that followed. I'm presuming you omitted doing so on purpose, as answering them would admit the futility of arguing semantics?

Here you go. Consider them answered.

vikorr wrote:

- What makes your source more valid than a States law?

The fact that the source is actually correct makes it more valid. The fact that leftists write fraudulent definitions into law does not give those definitions any validity.

vikorr wrote:

- how does your source change the reality of laws that define an AR-15 as an assault rifle?

People who enjoy violating our civil liberties try to use their fraudulent definitions to argue in favor such laws. By combating their use of fraudulent definitions, we undermine their arguments in favor of those laws.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

My first husband had an M-16 he took (stolen) from an armory in Towson, Maryland. He was reserve Army Airborne during the VietNam era and decided to give himself a going away present when his hitch was up. It was fully automatic, but I don't know who modified it.

As it was stolen from a military armory, probably nobody modified it.

0 Replies

2 Replies

@Region Philbis,

I'm unsure why it matters whether someone is killed with a gun versus with some other weapon, but making bullets expensive would be a civil rights violation. People have the right to have ammo that is effective for self defense.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The fact that the source is actually correct makes it more valid.

Valid & Correct are interchangeable in my question. I could have phrased it 'what makes your source's definition more correct than the law". You're essentially answering 'why is it more valid? with "X is more valid, because it's more valid"

Quote:

People who enjoy violating our civil liberties try to use their fraudulent definitions to argue in favor such laws. By combating their use of fraudulent definitions, we undermine their arguments in favor of those laws.

This didn't answer the question "how does your source('s definition) change the reality of laws that define an AR-15 as an assault rifle?. "

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Well, it's a relevant issue. People are using the fact that they have mislabeled a gun as an assault weapon as an argument in favor of banning that gun.

Fair enough as a behavioural observation, although in the argument this discussion relates to - the law was already in place.

1 Reply

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

Raising the price of anything just stimulates more marketing of it, and for some reason marketing is really effective at getting people to spend/waste money on things that are harmful to themselves and others.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Yes because people are always wasting money on insulin they don't need.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Valid & Correct are interchangeable in my question. I could have phrased it 'what makes your source's definition more correct than the law". You're essentially answering 'why is it more valid? with "X is more valid, because it's more valid"

Words have accepted meanings because that is how language works.

The actual definition of a word is more valid than a fraudulent definition of a word because it is the actual definition.

vikorr wrote:

oralloy wrote:
People who enjoy violating our civil liberties try to use their fraudulent definitions to argue in favor such laws. By combating their use of fraudulent definitions, we undermine their arguments in favor of those laws.

This didn't answer the question "how does your source('s definition) change the reality of laws that define an AR-15 as an assault rifle?."

Undermining arguments in favor of a law can change the reality of that law by getting it either repealed by the legislature or struck down by the courts.

Note also that this is not entirely about established laws. This is also about the left's desire to enact new laws. Most of America does not currently suffer under such a law.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Fair enough as a behavioural observation, although in the argument this discussion relates to - the law was already in place.

Such a law can be either repealed by the legislature or struck down by the courts when it is made clear that there is no justification for the law.

Much of America does not suffer under such an outrageous law, so it isn't in place for most of us.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

If we're going to talk about most of America, most of America wants such a law. And does not regard it as suffering. Most of Americ does regard us as suffering from out of control gun violence on the other hand.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Too bad for most of America. They are not allowed to violate people's civil liberties.

The Constitution says no, and the NRA enforces the Constitution.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Words have accepted meanings because that is how language works.

- why do English definitions vary from dictionary to dictionary?
- does gay mean happy, or homosexual?
- is a 'thong' a type of underwear, or footwear?
- care to explain what love means?
- what does a 'long time' mean?

Language is both constantly evolving (eg. gay meant happy, but now means homosexual), and the same language can have definitions that vary from place to place (like a 'thong' is a type of underwear in the US, but a type of footwear in Australia), and often subjective.

Quote:

The actual definition of a word is more valid than a fraudulent definition of a word because it is the actual definition.

So you admit the only answer you've got to why it is more valid, is 'because it is more valid'. Ie. you have no reasoning whatsoever to justify why it is more valid. You could try:
- the first weapon declared an assault rifle was:
- the term was first coined when:
- the term was used for XX years in:
- Right up until ###, it was accepted as X, but for %%% reasons (etc)

Even then, words are still subject to change. Perhaps an article like https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/english-changing would help

Quote:

Undermining arguments in favor of a law can change the reality of that law by getting it either repealed by the legislature or struck down by the courts

True enough. Doesn't change the current reality.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

If we're going to talk about most of America, most of America wants such a law. And does not regard it as suffering. Most of Americ does regard us as suffering from out of control gun violence on the other hand.

Most of America has been told a lie about what an "assault weapon/rifle" is and therefore do not have the proper information in which to agree or disagree with a law. When people are informed properly on things, they make much better decisions.

There are lots of video's on youtube of pro-gun people taking anti-gun people to the gun range to get them that proper education on firearms, it is almost 100% guaranteed that when they are done with they range session, they have a different opinion on guns. They realize the MSM and anti-gun crowd has been lying to them about AR-15's and other such guns.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

- why do English definitions vary from dictionary to dictionary?

I find that in good dictionaries, definitions don't vary very much at all.

That's not to say that good dictionaries copy each other word for word. But they all convey the same concepts.

vikorr wrote:

- does gay mean happy, or homosexual?

Both.

vikorr wrote:

- is a 'thong' a type of underwear, or footwear?

Both.

vikorr wrote:

- care to explain what love means?

Not in the time that I'm allotting myself to write this post.

vikorr wrote:

- what does a 'long time' mean?

A great length of time.

vikorr wrote:

Language is both constantly evolving (eg. gay meant happy, but now means homosexual), and the same language can have definitions that vary from place to place (like a 'thong' is a type of underwear in the US, but a type of footwear in Australia), and often subjective.

That does not mean that we should accept fraudulent and misleading definitions.

vikorr wrote:

So you admit the only answer you've got to why it is more valid, is 'because it is more valid'. Ie. you have no reasoning whatsoever to justify why it is more valid.

I don't perceive a need for any more reasoning than that. You may as well be asking why is the color "blue" blue.

That is the actual definition because it is the actual definition.

vikorr wrote:

You could try:
- the first weapon declared an assault rifle was:
- the term was first coined when:
- the term was used for XX years in:
- Right up until ###, it was accepted as X, but for %%% reasons (etc)

I thought that Glennn already made a satisfactory post to that effect.

It seems to me like you are mainly asking why we can't change the meaning of words to whatever we want them to mean at a given moment. So that was the point that I focused on in my answers.

vikorr wrote:

Even then, words are still subject to change.

So if I define "nuclear weapon" to mean "any harmless device" and then push to legalize private ownership of nuclear weapons based on the fact that they are harmless, would people be wrong to try to argue that nuclear weapons are not harmless?

Should anyone who is opposed to private ownership of nuclear weapons just accept my definition that they are harmless devices and not speak out against legalizing them?

Or should people who are opposed to private ownership of nuclear weapons point out that I am using a fraudulent definition and that in reality nuclear weapons are extremely harmful?

vikorr wrote:

True enough. Doesn't change the current reality.

The current reality is that most of America does not suffer under such a law.

But if we did suffer under such a law, getting the legislature to overturn the law or the courts to strike it down would very much change that reality.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

You keep pushing the same line. For ome thing the pro gun people are onmly gonna post agreement. Its anevdotal.And remember marco rubios townhall in fla. He was talking about a proposed action and tI old tthe crowd if enacted it would actually ban all semi auto guns thinking theyd find that an awful consequence. Instead they erupted in raucous approval of that. As he admitted that was not what he expectred. The public knows more than you think snd gun x
Zealotry is not where the country is at.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

The Constitution still says no, and the NRA still enforces the Constitution.

These people will have to get their fun some other way. They are not going to be allowed to violate our civil liberties.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know