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

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I pointed out quite a lot of problems

Wrong. When I invited you to bring up these supposed deeper points that were being overlooked (because I thought it would be interesting to talk about them), your only response was:

"No surprise I guess, but your reality at times appears so very far removed from even a semblance of reality. Understanding is in a number of areas, even more lacking."
http://able2know.org/topic/131081-268#post-6884509

By the way, notice how I can back up my characterizations of your posts by actually linking to your posts? Since you'll never be able to back up your characterizations of my posts, I thought I'd draw attention to what it looks like when somebody actually does it. 😎

vikorr wrote:

...unfortunately, you showed little to no comprehension of what I was talking about.

Wrong. The reason why I saw no unaddressed deeper points listed in your reply is because your silly little "unaddressed deeper points" don't exist.

You can't link to any post where you've listed them previously, and you can't list them directly in any future post either.

You're just spouting vague references to imaginary points to try to distract from the fact that your claims are baseless.

vikorr wrote:

Apparently, in your mind, if you can't comprehend it - the other person isn't pointing anything out.

You cannot point out any place where I've failed to comprehend anything that you said.

But I'm sure that you will spout a lot of empty gibberish to try to explain away your inability to point out any of these alleged occurrences.

vikorr wrote:

By the way - your behaviour relating to the survivors is quite disgusting - even disagreeing with what they were trying to achieve doesn't excuse such ugly behaviour.

Spare me the virtue signaling. It's pathetic.

vikorr wrote:

And your delusion that you understand your constitution better than High Court Judges is mind bogglingly ridiculous.

Appeals to authority are one of the last refuges of people whose position has utterly failed.

But this was pretty weak even as an appeal to authority. Which high court judges are we even talking about? And how are they supposed to differ from me?

Your vague nonsense aside though, if a high court judge showed no comprehension of a legal concept and if I did comprehend it, it would be neither delusional nor ridiculous for me to say that I understand that legal concept better.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

If you put a racing stripe on your car, you can say that it's a race style car, but that doesn't make it a race car, does it? The race stripe didn't change the engine into a more powerful one or give you more gears. Likewise, you can put a flash suppressor or pistol grip on your weapon, but that doesn't change it into an assault weapon, does it? Do you know why the AR-15 is called an assault style weapon? It's because it cannot honestly be called an assault weapon. So they added the word style to the name in order to keep the word assault because they know that that word appeals to the emotions and fools people like you into equating a semiautomatic gun with an automatic one.

Of course, you can redeem yourself here right now by giving a coherent explanation as to how a flash suppressor or pistol grip makes the AR-15 as dangerous as actual assault weapon. But we both know that you can't do that. Nevertheless, I'm going to hound you until you admit it. It's the magazine size that you're obsessing on. You just don't know it.

4 Replies

@Glennn,

You can offer redemption now??????? Wow, that’s pretty impressive.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Semantics. A Simi auto gun with a 50 round magazine can kill 30 or 40 people in 20 seconds. That is an assault weapon no matter what the gun nuts say.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glenn wrote:

Of course, you can redeem yourself here right now by giving a coherent explanation as to how a flash suppressor or pistol grip makes the AR-15 as dangerous as actual assault weapon.

An AR-15 is an assault weapon as defined by the US' Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) and was regulated as such thereby. Your argument, in regard to the term "assault weapon" as used by certain regulatory jurisdictions is irrelevant.

Your inability to grasp that fact is irredeemable.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

Quote:

You can offer redemption now?

There are things about me that I've been keeping secret . . . mainly because I don't like hanging on crosses. But I guess the cat's out of the bag now.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Well then let's take those accessories that you believe turn the AR-15 in to an assault weapon one at a time to see if your beliefs are redeemable. Tell me why you believe that a flash suppressor is dangerous. And when that belief is found to be unwarranted, we can move on to the next accessory you have an unwarranted issue with.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

One day it will dawn on you that it's the magazine size you're obsessed with. I have no problem with limiting the size of magazines.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Like I said, irredeemable.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Good. I'll take that as your admission that you cannot come up with a rationale for your belief that flash suppressors are dangerous.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Irredeemable with another strawman to boot!

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Semantics.

Semantics that you are completely wrong about.

RABEL222 wrote:

A Simi auto gun with a 50 round magazine can kill 30 or 40 people in 20 seconds.

A lever or pump gun with a 50 round magazine can kill just as fast as a semi-auto with a 50 round magazine.

RABEL222 wrote:

That is an assault weapon

No it isn't. An assault weapon has the ability to fire either full auto or three-shot bursts.

RABEL222 wrote:

no matter what the gun nuts say.

Name-calling will not change the reality that you are using the wrong word.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

An AR-15 is an assault weapon as defined by the US' Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) and was regulated as such thereby. Your argument, in regard to the term "assault weapon" as used by certain regulatory jurisdictions is irrelevant.

Speaking of relevance, what is the relevance of these fraudulent definitions written into law that you keep referring to?

Or are you just posting random trivia?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

One day it will dawn on you that it's the magazine size you're obsessed with.

It will never dawn on him.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Wrong. When I invited you to bring up these supposed deeper points that were being overlooked (because I thought it would be interesting to talk about them), your only response was:

"No surprise I guess, but your reality at times appears so very far removed from even a semblance of reality. Understanding is in a number of areas, even more lacking."
http://able2know.org/topic/131081-268#post-6884509

Oh dear, this is a bit embarrassing for you - the italicised part of the above quote aren't my response - it is what you responded to, in your linked post.

My response to your linked post (put in full below for reference), which this forum keeps track of (in the top left hand corner of each post) was:

oralloy wrote:

So I guess your nonsense about missing deeper problem-solving points was just nonsense.

Your inability to point out anything that I'm wrong about speaks for itself.

vikorr wrote:

I pointed out quite a lot of problems...unfortunately, you showed little to no comprehension of what I was talking about. Apparently, in your mind, if you can't comprehend it - the other person isn't pointing anything out.

By the way - your behaviour relating to the survivors is quite disgusting - even disagreeing with what they were trying to achieve doesn't excuse such ugly behaviour. And your delusion that you understand your constitution better than High Court Judges is mind bogglingly ridiculous.

-------------

oralloy wrote:

By the way, notice how I can back up my characterizations of your posts by actually linking to your posts? Since you'll never be able to back up your characterizations of my posts, I thought I'd draw attention to what it looks like when somebody actually does it.

More than happy for you to do so. Everyone should be able to do so. I just hope your future attempts aren't as slipshod as the above attempt, getting the order of posts wrong and then complaining about the wrong replies.

Quote:

You cannot point out any place where I've failed to comprehend anything that you said.

Almost the whole conversation we've had?

There are two things at the heart of this conversation:
- the ulterior motives for the semantic arguments (which you understand, and so little has been said); and
- the nature of language: How it is formed; how it changes; how it evolves; why words change and evolve, why the same words can have different meanings, why many words are subjective, why some are difficult to define, why dictionaries differ (usually just slight technicalities) etc.

The last is what you show little to no comprehension of - right throughout our conversation. Perhaps you thought they were unrelated points, rather than all parts of the same overall point. I'm actually surprised this conversation has gone on so long over what, to me, seems easy enough to understand.

Then there is the side track issues - you believing there's only one truth (which is different but related to the language issue), one reality (that is, yours and no one else's), that you're smarter than high court judges, etc. These too only show low level comprehension.

It appears to be why you believe in just black and white.

Quote:

Spare me the virtue signaling. It's pathetic.

Well, I didn't think you had any remorse for your gloating over peoples grief & pain, but it's worth pointing out ugly behaviour when it rears it's head.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

If you put a racing stripe on your car, you can say that it's a race style car, but that doesn't make it a race car, does it? The race stripe didn't change the engine into a more powerful one or give you more gears

We quite agree. As I said, come up with the broad definition, and if the item does that, then all you are left with is technicalities. No broad definition of a racing car will in anyway enable 'car paint' to become a technical issue - as to whether or not the car is a race car. I doubt you'd even call it a race style car. 'lookalike', immitation'? Many would use must less nice descriptors for such.

You need to come up with a better example.

Quote:

Of course, you can redeem yourself here right now by giving a coherent explanation as to how a flash suppressor or pistol grip makes the AR-15 as dangerous as actual assault weapon.

It's worth repeating this - I don't care what your laws classify as an assault weapon or not.

You've been arguing 'it shouldn't be classed as an assault weapon'....the people who classified it as one are really arguing 'it shouldn't be allowed on the streets'. That's your 'fight'. If it wasn't classed as an assault weapon, they'd want create a new category, that still didn't allow it on the streets. But currently, as the definition of assault rifle is the easiest battle ground - you aren't going to convince them that their definition is wrong, nor they you.

It's why this semantics argument is pointless. Maybe...maybe short term useful. But it's not actually what's being fought over in this forum, or elsewhere.

3 Replies

@Glennn,

Oh good. Do away with 50 round magazines. Then we can argue about people who use 5 10 round magazines to kill 20 to 30 people in 40 seconds.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Vikorr wrote:

Quote:

If it wasn't classed as an assault weapon, they'd want create a new category, that still didn't allow it on the streets. But currently, as the definition of assault rifle is the easiest battle ground - you aren't going to convince them that their definition is wrong, nor they you.

It's why this semantics argument is pointless. Maybe...maybe short term useful. But it's not actually what's being fought over in this forum, or elsewhere.

Precisely. One side’s actual fight is for any ways to save lives by gun control legislation. The other side ultimately cares about gun ownership, so it carries on an empty semantics argument just to ensure nothing moves. Again I say, theirs is NOT a good faith argument.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know