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

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

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.

That is incorrect. The italicized quote was your one and only reply when I asked about those mythical "deeper points" that you were pretending existed.

vikorr wrote:

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.

That is incorrect. My link is to your post. You have not responded to your own post.

What you quoted there was later post of yours where you spouted a lot of silly falsehoods.

vikorr wrote:

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.

You cannot point out anything slipshod about my posts.

You cannot point out anyplace where I've gotten the order of posts wrong.

You cannot point out anyplace where I have complained about the wrong replies.

vikorr wrote:

Almost the whole conversation we've had?

You cannot point out anything that I've failed to comprehend in any conversation.

vikorr wrote:

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.

Wrong again. I fully comprehended everything you said.

vikorr wrote:

Perhaps you thought they were unrelated points, rather than all parts of the same overall point.

They were in fact unrelated points. And I openly said so when you brought them up.

vikorr wrote:

I'm actually surprised this conversation has gone on so long over what, to me, seems easy enough to understand.

You should expect people to challenge your untrue claims when you spout falsehoods.

vikorr wrote:

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

I'm right.

vikorr wrote:

(that is, yours and no one else's),

No. It's not "my" reality. It's just reality.

vikorr wrote:

that you're smarter than high court judges, etc. These too only show low level comprehension.

No they don't. Your appeals to imaginary authority say nothing about me. They say quite a bit about you however.

The fact that you are resorting to appeals to authority shows that you can't back up your position using fact or logic.

The fact that you are appealing to the authority of imaginary judges shows that your posts are just plain nonsense.

vikorr wrote:

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.

Leftist phony outrage is pretty goofy.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

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.

No he doesn't. His example is perfect.

vikorr wrote:

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

All battlegrounds on this issue are equally as easy for us.

vikorr wrote:

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.

That is incorrect. It is exactly what is being fought over.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Precisely. One side's actual fight is for any ways to save lives by gun control legislation.

Nonsense. The only thing that your side is trying to do is violate people's civil liberties for fun.

snood wrote:

The other side ultimately cares about gun ownership, so it carries on an empty semantics argument

Not letting you use fraudulent definitions as a weapon against our civil liberties is hardly an empty argument.

snood wrote:

just to ensure nothing moves.

Wrong. Just to ensure you don't violate our civil liberties.

The fact that your silly quest to violate civil liberties for fun torpedoes the entire rest of the gun control agenda is pretty funny though.

snood wrote:

Again I say, theirs is NOT a good faith argument.

Wrong again. We genuinely care about preventing you from violating our civil liberties.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

That is incorrect. The italicized quote was your one and only reply when I asked about those mythical "deeper points" that you were pretending existed.

You do realise that this forum actually tracks what you reply to?

This is your post

This is my reply - even quoting your post. And anyone clicking on 'oralloy' located in the top left of my post, will link directly back to your post I replied to

All your lengthy post after that, with you complaining that your own slipshod quoting isn't slipshod at all, doesn't change the evidence / reality / facts contained in those links. Your quoting was factually incorrect - slipshod. That you then stuck to your slipshod quote without even checking, exacerbates the slipshod nature of your claim.

Quote:

You cannot point out anything that I've failed to comprehend in any conversation.

Do want us to run over this whole conversation again? As most each and every step through it, you've failed to comprehend. What would it achieve, requoting everything? Failure to comprehend your failure to comprehend? Going around in circles? Because that's where it's shown to go so far - around in circles, with little to no comprehension on your part.

The only way forward would be for you to write something that shows you even somewhat comprehend the nature of language, particularly as relates to semantics (which is what started this conversation). You haven't done so yet. You're better off actually doing some research for yourself. It's easy enough to tell you haven't.

1 Reply

So, who get institutionalized? Those who amass more than 2 weapons? 5? 10? 100? What about ammo? Will that be cause to be "hospitalized? I guess Trump just doesn't care about civil liberties anymore.

Trump on guns: 'We do have a lot of background checks right now'
By Nikki Carvajal and Paul LeBlanc, CNN

Updated 7:16 PM ET, Sun August 18, 2019

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump on Sunday emphasized a need for the country to focus on "a very big mental health problem" in the wake of two mass shootings in one weekend that left 32 people dead earlier this month as he appeared to defend current US gun control measures, stating "we do have a lot of background checks right now."

"It's the people that pull the trigger, not the gun that pulls the trigger so we have a very, very big mental health problem and Congress is working on various things and I will be looking at it," Trump told reporters on the tarmac before heading back to Washington after a vacation at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

The White House, Trump said, is "very much involved" in the discussions Congress is having to address gun violence and while "a lot of things are happening on the gun level" he said "the concept of mental institutions" must be addressed.

"These are people that have to be in institutions for help, I'm not talking about as a form of a prison, I'm saying for help and I think it's something we have to really look at, the whole concept of mental institutions," he said. "I remember growing up we had mental institutions, then they were closed -- in New York, I'm talking about -- they were, many of them closed. A lot of them were closed and all of those people were put out on the street."

"So I think the concept of mental institutions has to be looked at," he said.

Guns in America

Trump's comments Sunday mark an increased focus from the President on mental health measures over gun control legislation to address gun violence as lawmakers remain skeptical gun control legislation could pass a divided Congress.

Trump, who has previously expressed support for tighter gun restrictions only to back off under pressure from the National Rifle Association, added Sunday that he's "very concerned about the Second Amendment."

Meanwhile, two gun control groups mobilized to increase the pressure on senators to pass legislation in the wake of the two mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas.

Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action held rallies across the country this weekend after announcing Thursday that they would spend nearly $1 million on ads against a handful of Republican lawmakers.

The effort from Everytown and Moms Demand comes as the NRA, its biggest adversary, has been noticeably absent from applying pressure on Capitol Hill allies to hold fast against strong forces for gun reform.

Support for background checks

The Democrat-controlled House passed a universal background check bill in February, but the measure has not been considered by the Republican-led Senate. Trump last week expressed an openness to background checks.

Speaking to a Kentucky radio station last week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the Senate will put the issues of background check legislation in addition to "red flag" laws "front and center" when the body reconvenes after its summer recess, but it will not return early as Democrats are demanding.

Trump backs 'red flag' gun laws. What do they actually do?

A mid-July NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that 89% of Americans considered it a "good idea" to implement background checks for gun purchases at gun shows or other private sales, with a nearly nonexistent partisan divide: 96% of Democrats, 89% of independents and 84% of Republicans called it a good idea.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

You need to come up with a better example.

No. Your argument amounts to declaring that if a car is built and shaped exactly like a Maserati, but has a six cylinder engine, it should still be considered as powerful as a real Maserati. And we know that that's just silly.

The real issue is magazine-size.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

The real issue is magazine-size.

The real issue is...People are dead.

Dead by the hands of men that have lots of guns and ammo who aren't afraid to mow down lots of people. Dead.

So, while you argue about what style a gun may be or how much ammunition a magazine can fit, people are dead.

People are dead.

Lots of them.

Dead.

Quit arguing. Help solve how people don't die from mass shootings.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

https://able2know.org/topic/131081-265#post-6884264

Baldimo wrote:

Lacking a very destictive feature isn't a technicality,

vikorr wrote:

If you say so. Let me make up a definition:

- a hand held bullet using weapon, with a long barrel, that is capable of killing multiple people in a short frame of time (Someone might come up with a different definition.)
- That's the important bits. Now to the technical details...

This is the general idea. So for a race car: a car with top end engine power and handling, capable of competing with other manufacturers top end cars on a racetrack (again, made up off the top of my head)

Where in such a definition would paint allow, or not allow it to be a race car? The answer is - it doesn't affect the primary traits at all. It's not a technicality. A technicality (for a race) would be: under 400kW, or under 1,300kg, or naturally-aspirated, or with under 100L fuel tank, or manufactured since 2018, or some such.

Your example doesn't provide argument based on a technicality - which is why you need a better example.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

His example perfectly matches what the left is trying to do with gun legislation, which is why his example is perfect as it already is.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

You do realise that this forum actually tracks what you reply to?

Yes.

vikorr wrote:

This is your post

That is the post where I responded to your failure to list any of the fake "deeper points" that you fraudulently claimed I was overlooking.

It is not the post where I asked you to list those supposed "deeper points".

It is not the post where you responded to my query by failing to list those supposed "deeper points".

vikorr wrote:

This is my reply - even quoting your post. And anyone clicking on 'oralloy' located in the top left of my post, will link directly back to your post I replied to

That is a later post where you spouted a lot of goofy falsehoods and fabricated claims.

It is not your reply to my request for you to name the supposed "deeper points".

Your reply when I asked about the supposed "deeper points" is here:

"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

As everyone can see, you did not list any of those supposed "deeper points". That is because you fabricated the entire claim.

vikorr wrote:

All your lengthy post after that, with you complaining that your own slipshod quoting isn't slipshod at all,

You cannot point out anything slipshod in any of my posts.

vikorr wrote:

doesn't change the evidence / reality / facts contained in those links.

I'm not the person here who tries to deny reality.

vikorr wrote:

Your quoting was factually incorrect - slipshod.

No it wasn't.

vikorr wrote:

That you then stuck to your slipshod quote

You cannot show anything slipshod about any of my posts.

vikorr wrote:

without even checking,

Wrong again. I really shouldn't have bothered, since the odds of me screwing up something like that are practically zero, but I did.

As expected, all of my quotes and links had perfect accuracy.

vikorr wrote:

exacerbates the slipshod nature of your claim.

You cannot show anything slipshod about any of my posts.

vikorr wrote:

Do want us to run over this whole conversation again?

Meh. All you ever do is fabricate claims about imaginary nonsense.

vikorr wrote:

As most each and every step through it, you've failed to comprehend.

You cannot give any example of me ever failing to comprehend something.

vikorr wrote:

What would it achieve, requoting everything?

It would give you an opportunity to fabricate some more claims.

Perhaps you could fabricate something more about those imaginary judges and their imaginary disagreement with me.

vikorr wrote:

Failure to comprehend your failure to comprehend? Going around in circles? Because that's where it's shown to go so far - around in circles, with little to no comprehension on your part.

You cannot give any example of me ever failing to comprehend something.

vikorr wrote:

The only way forward would be for you to write something that shows you even somewhat comprehend the nature of language, particularly as relates to semantics (which is what started this conversation). You haven't done so yet.

Sorry. I'm not interested in going off on a tangent about language.

vikorr wrote:

You're better off actually doing some research for yourself. It's easy enough to tell you haven't.

You cannot point out a single fact that I am wrong about.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

The real issue is...People are dead.
Dead by the hands of men that have lots of guns and ammo who aren't afraid to mow down lots of people. Dead.
So, while you argue about what style a gun may be or how much ammunition a magazine can fit, people are dead.
People are dead.
Lots of them.
Dead.
Quit arguing.

So long as the left insists on violating our civil liberties, we are going to defend our civil liberties.

neptuneblue wrote:

Help solve how people don't die from mass shootings.

He just pointed out something that might help. You just ignored the solution and told him to quit arguing.

Perhaps you should go tell the left to stop trying to violate people's civil liberties for fun and actually try to address the problem.

And maybe pay a bit of attention yourself when someone points out a solution.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Are you being deliberately dense? The below posts are in chronological post order. Your POST D links to your post B, claiming that POST A, posted prior to POST B, is replying to POST B.

It is impossible for POST A to be the reply to POST B, and so is factually incorrect, with POST C being the actual response...which you somehow continue to deny. So incredibly slipshod.

POST A:
Vikorr wrote: 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.

POST B:
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.

POST C
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.

POST D
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

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You argue about violating civil rights for fun. It's been pointed out ad nausea there's something terribly wrong with your argument. As much as you want to flaunt your intelligence on the matter, it hasn't kept people from dying.

YOU need to help find a solution instead of arguing leftists do things for fun. YOU do not seek solutions. YOU point fingers and create chaos while disregarding the FACT people are dead because of mass shootings.

What have YOU done, Oralloy? Besides run pages upon pages about how much "fun" it is to get shot at?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

You said I gave a bad analogy. So I gave you one that didn't involve paint, but rather one that involved engine size. Now do you get it?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

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.

No. At the heart of this conversation is the difference between a semiautomatic gun and an automatic gun. You're trying to magically remove the distinction between two distinct things so that every semiautomatic gun is an assault weapon.

Again, your issue is with magazine size.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

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?

These definitions, in regard to regulatory jurisdictions and their laws, are verily relevant.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I'm not getting what you're trying to do here.

People are dead. That's the issue. You're arguing over magazine size and for what? Ok, it's the magazine size. Feel better now? Can you make a suggestion that does not violate the 2nd Amendment that doesn't allow for mass shootings in our schools, bars, shopping malls?

What IS your game plan here?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

"So it would be better if the nuts would turn to home made bombs and away from firearms?"

When it comes to doing others harm people can be very creative. It would be better work at creating a less violent and disciplined society. After all, there are enough guns in private hands in this country to last a hundred years or more.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

You argue about violating civil rights for fun.

I don't like having my civil liberties violated. When people try to violate them, I'm going to argue.

neptuneblue wrote:

It's been pointed out ad nausea there's something terribly wrong with your argument.

It hasn't been pointed out, actually.

My argument is just fine.

neptuneblue wrote:

As much as you want to flaunt your intelligence on the matter, it hasn't kept people from dying.
YOU need to help find a solution instead of arguing leftists do things for fun.

a) I've already pointed out solutions. So has Glennn. You don't even notice when people point out solutions.

b) Actually I don't need to do that. I am able to oppose every single solution if I feel like it. And to be perfectly frank, right now I feel like it.

neptuneblue wrote:

YOU do not seek solutions.

Perhaps. But under the proper circumstances I would be willing to not oppose them.

neptuneblue wrote:

YOU point fingers and create chaos while disregarding the FACT people are dead because of mass shootings.

I defend civil liberties from leftists who like to violate civil liberties for fun.

neptuneblue wrote:

What have YOU done, Oralloy?

At the moment I'm undermining leftist efforts to violate civil liberties for fun.

neptuneblue wrote:

Besides run pages upon pages about how much "fun" it is to get shot at?

I've never said anything of the sort.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

If the only contentious issue is what we call them, why can't we come up with some other names. I would never call them peace-keepers, but really every weapon is a self defense instrument or an assault instrument. The only difference in my mind between semi-automatic and fully automatic is one weapon is really fast and the other is mind boggling lightening fast. (well and the difference between rapidly pulling the trigger or just holding it down and emptying the clip). Over the decades various weapons have been given nicknames, right now assault seems to be the word that inflames people. There are no good or bad weapons and perhaps it's time to stop obsessing over what people consider the 'authentic' name because in another 10 years they will be given another moniker.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know