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

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

If the only contentious issue is what we call them, why can't we come up with some other names.

The left won't like that idea very much. The fraudulent name that the left has applied to them is the left's only justification for trying to ban them.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

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

I'm sure the price of tea in China is relevant to Chinese tea drinkers.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

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

He was pointing out a solution.

neptuneblue wrote:

People are dead. That's the issue. You're arguing over magazine size and for what?

Because he's pointing out the fact that large magazines are what allows a crazed murderer to shoot so many people.

Why it matters that they are "shot" versus "killed some other way" is beyond me, but large magazines are the key to large shooting sprees.

neptuneblue wrote:

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 was wrong with his magazine size suggestion?

neptuneblue wrote:

What IS your game plan here?

I'm just speculating (I can't read his mind) but I suspect that he objects to leftists trying to violate his civil liberties for fun.

I know that's what I object to.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Are you being deliberately dense?

Feel free to try to point out a single thing that I am wrong about.

vikorr wrote:

The below posts are in chronological post order.

True.

vikorr wrote:

Your POST D links to your post B,

That is incorrect. My POST D links to your POST A.

vikorr wrote:

claiming that POST A, posted prior to POST B, is replying to POST B.

No such claim was ever made.

POST A is a reply to a different post, that you did not link to here, where I had asked you to name supposed deeper points that you claimed that I missed.

vikorr wrote:

It is impossible for POST A to be the reply to POST B,

True.

But POST A is a reply to an earlier post, where I had asked about deeper points that you claimed that I supposedly missed.

Needless to say, POST A did not name any of those supposed deeper points (they never existed).

vikorr wrote:

and so is factually incorrect, with POST C being the actual response...which you somehow continue to deny. So incredibly slipshod.

I've never denied that POST C replied to POST B.

So, do you have anything more about those imaginary judges and their imaginary disagreement with me?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

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

I'm sure the price of tea in China is relevant to Chinese tea drinkers.

Sure.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

What was wrong with his magazine size suggestion?

Absolutely nothing is wrong with this suggestion.

Let's get the legislation passed and quit stonewalling gun reform.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

First things first. We need to eliminate all remaining laws against pistol grips and flash suppressors. Then we need to force the left to pay massive compensation to everyone whose rights they've violated over the years.

Then, and only then, we can talk about new gun laws.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

It's becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously when you keep moving the goal post. I'd say I could get beyond an argument of eliminating laws that banned pistol grips and flash suppressors. If that's what it would take to get common sense gun reform on the books, then it is what it is.

But as it is, you'll make some ridiculous claim like you just did. Something that's so far-fetched, something you know that would inflame a reasonable person like me. And it all falls apart.

You've spoken the truth, you will never vote for any measure to keep our citizens safe from mass murders. My only hope is that you never get that call from the police department telling you something happened to any one you love because of a mass shooting.

As for me, I'll keep applying pressure to my elected officials to get this and other deterring methods into law.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

It's becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously when you keep moving the goal post.

So I changed my mind. That's a reasonable thing for me to do when I see thugs gloating about violating people's civil liberties for fun.

neptuneblue wrote:

But as it is, you'll make some ridiculous claim like you just did. Something that's so far-fetched, something you know that would inflame a reasonable person like me. And it all falls apart.

Civil liberties are neither ridiculous nor far fetched. It is important that the violations end and the victims all be compensated.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I'm certainly not a thug. No gloating here.

What there is, however, exasperation at your attempt to keep gun reform from happening.

It's happening, sweetheart.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Damn me. Right, I've read what it linked incorrectly, and apologise for the nonsense I spouted relating to what was replied to what. Mind, I did answer your question (though not with examples, which by now has proven pointless), and there was a series of short posts when the link popped up - which is what lead me to believe you were linking to. But as I said, you have my apologies.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

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?

I understood your analogy. Including the engine size. They were both problematic. Though saying it was a poor example, saying so is of no real consequence - it was just an observation on the quality of the example. Perhaps if I had added in "A vehicle dedicated to racing, with an engine (or power:weight) and handling sufficient to compete with the engine and handling of other vehicles dedicate to racing" it would have given you a better idea why your examples were problematic - neither example you provided shows a technicality that would or wouldn't admit the car as a race car.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Apology accepted.

I am not aware of you explaining any deeper "problem solving" points that I am supposed to have missed, and am still intrigued and curious about them if an explanation is available.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

But his examples are perfect. The ridiculousness of pretending that paint color makes a car into a race car is exactly what the left is trying to do with their fraudulent assault weapons laws.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

I'm certainly not a thug. No gloating here.

True. You were not the one who was gloating over violating people's civil liberties.

Nonetheless, I am incensed by the callous posts of the thugs who did post such gloating.

neptuneblue wrote:

What there is, however, exasperation at your attempt to keep gun reform from happening.

It is reasonable for me to oppose it under the current conditions.

neptuneblue wrote:

It's happening, sweetheart.

Good luck.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

By now, I'm not sure explanation is available. As I said, you'd be better off reading some books on semantics and the evolution of and changes in language - it's no where near to as clear cut as you think. I used to think things were quite black and white (with some grey). But there have been plenty of things I've encountered over time that I went 'I doubt that exists'....until I started reading into it.

In relation to language, I found that studying another language also helps. It helps clarify some of the very loose ways we use language, and definitions. And you helps us understand how words really just represent concepts, and some of those concepts are hard to pin down (obviously many are easier to define).

But all of that could be nebulous. A book has enough space to dedicate example after example, with lengthy explanations.

I could look at either of your definitions and find little to argue about...other than because of the repercussions of the definition. Does magazine size really come into it ? Someone draws a line in the sand and says it's 25...so a manufacturer makes the same rifle with a 24 mag attachment...a technicality.

As I mentioned though, the real battle, or motivation behind the semantic argument, is whether or not they should be on the street. That's really why it's futile (except, maybe, as a short term measure). If they can't get it blocked as an assault rifle (which I'm guessing is currently the easiest battle ground), they'll look at creating a new category that will still result in it being banned.

It doesn't achieve anything in this forum to argue it. Perhaps to refine your arguments...but if it's not making headway, then is it really achieving anything? I don't think so, though you are welcome to disagree.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

But his examples are perfect. The ridiculousness of pretending that paint color makes a car into a race car is exactly what the left is trying to do with their fraudulent assault weapons laws.

I couldn't say what the left is doing. My comment was on the quality in relation to technicalities placing an object (that has broad character traits) into a given category, or not. Being mechanical, a Racing car could be used as a a very good example.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Minus the large capacity magazine, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic gun. Limit the magazine size, and you should have no complaints unless you want to ban all semiautomatic guns.

If you want to focus on the pistol grip or flash suppressor, you'll have to explain the problem you have with them. If not, then we're good.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Does magazine size really come into it ?

Yes. Ammo capacity matters. If someone can shoot a bunch of times then they can kill a bunch of people.

However, people have the right to have a level of weaponry that is adequate for self defense, so there does need to be a certain minimal degree of ammo capacity.

Before I got angry and decided to oppose all new gun laws, I was suggesting restrictions on detachable rifle magazines that can hold over five rounds, and restrictions on anything that can hold more than ten rounds.

Under my old proposal, people would be able to get larger capacity magazines if they paid a $200 tax and got permission from their chief of police (tax and permission required for every individual magazine), but they would no longer be commonly available.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

vikorr wrote:
Does magazine size really come into it ?

Yes. Ammo capacity matters. If someone can shoot a bunch of times then they can kill a bunch of people.

However, people have the right to have a level of weaponry that is adequate for self defense, so there does need to be a certain minimal degree of ammo capacity.

Before I got angry and decided to oppose all new gun laws, I was suggesting restrictions on detachable rifle magazines that can hold over five rounds, and restrictions on anything that can hold more than ten rounds.

Under my old proposal, people would be able to get larger capacity magazines if they paid a $200 tax and got permission from their chief of police (tax and permission required for every individual magazine), but they would no longer be commonly available.

Speaking just hypothetically, in regards to your old proposal, exactly what kind of rationalization for having a hundred-round capacity magazine do you think would be sufficient for a police chief to authorize it?

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know