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

Intelligent people want gun control.

You're being redundant, again.

'Fraid so.

Chase that tail fido!

They should lie to counter all the b s lies you and Glenn spout on the gun nut sites.

No, the status quo will reach a breaking point where the people will say enough and implement much needed regulatory weapons laws, even to the point of amending the Constitution if necessary.

M'hm. Your break with reality is increasingly unsettling. Seek professional help.

Quote:

Entertain yourself chasing your straw man argument. I decline to participate.

Oh you're not going to be let off the hook that easily. You created a new term to serve your agenda, and now you're going to have to answer for it. So, tell us why an animal-hunting rifle can't also function as a human-hunting rifle.

I don't think I'm going to let you be done participating.

Quote:

Intelligent people want gun control.

Sure. I'm not against background checks and a limit on magazine size.

Quote:

You're being redundant, again.

Is that your new go-to phrase for when someone asks you to explain your reasoning behind your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire? You can either retract that nonsensical claim, or you can continue pushing it without proving it. If you continue pushing it, you can expect to be asked to explain your reasoning behind the claim.

Quote:

'Fraid so.

The fact is, you've been asked to back up your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. It is not conjecture on my part that you cry "strawman argument" when asked to support your claim. You actually do that!

Quote:

Chase that tail fido!

The chase is over. I have your tail well in hand. You lost it when you were unable to tell me the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher, or the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a flash suppressor, or the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a bayonet mount, and the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a pistol-grip? You understand quite well that your answers to those questions will invalidate your claims and highlight your hysteria.

It seems that they were describing weapons like the AR-15—whose manufacture was specifically banned—but were not specifically named, in at least some of the features that defined the term assault weapon in the act

That's your straw man argument. Not mine.

So, you're giving up these redundant straw man arguments

I find that assault weapons should have been banned for any gun having just those two features.

I am ONLY concerned with big clips n rapid fire, PERIOD.

Quote:

That's your straw man argument. Not mine.

I see. When you call one gun a human-hunting rifle, asking you whether or not an animal-hunting rifle can double as a human-hunting rifle is out of bounds because asking you to explain the difference between the two is a strawman argument.

So, is there anything you say that we can question or challenge without you pleading the 5th?

Quote:

So, you're giving up these redundant straw man arguments

Oh I wasn't arguing. I was asking you to tell me the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher, or a flash suppressor, or a bayonet mount, or a barrel shroud, or a pistol-grip.

If you cannot come up with any instance in which someone fell victim to a rifle because it had any of those items, just say so. Or, if you can produce something to that effect, just say so.