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

@oralloy,

oralloy says:

Quote:

t our freedom is worth any amount of death

sociopathy incarnate.

@MontereyJack,

No. I'm just a standard American who loves freedom.

The real sociopath is you for not wanting to ban cars. Think of all the accident victims who would be saved if cars were outlawed.

You won't even press for a law to mandate that all cars be gray colored to show how much you care about drunk driving.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

What you claim is reality is only in your mind, certainly not outside you.

That is incorrect. Reality is everywhere.

I'm not responsible for reality. I'm just reporting what the facts are.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You do not report reaslity. you are not in touch with reality. all hyou report is your own opinion, which to be frank, sucks.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

stupic, as isual. every day anothger gun atrocity, and you maintain it's all about pistol grips. No, it's about [people murdered with legally purchased guns, and you don't give a ****.the country does, but you don't.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

No, you repeated your false assertion that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban does not address assault weapons in any way whatsoever—after I refuted it.

Mindless repetition of your fallacious averment doesn't make it any less fallacious.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Assault weapons by definition have either full-auto or burst-fire capability.

The law in question does not address any weapon with either full-auto or burst-fire capability.

Weapons with either full-auto or burst-fire capability were banned nearly 90 years ago in 1934.

I know, there are a few out there that are still legal. But they are extremely expensive collectors' items that are out of reach to the general public.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

stupid, as usual.

Not nearly as bad as progressives relentlessly focusing on pistol grips.

MontereyJack wrote:

every day another gun atrocity, and you maintain it's all about pistol grips.

Laws against pistol grips are indeed about pistol grips.

MontereyJack wrote:

No, it's about people murdered with legally purchased guns,

Laws against pistol grips are about pistol grips.

MontereyJack wrote:

and you don't give a ****. the country does, but you don't.

The pistol grips did not contribute to the murders in any way.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You do not report reality.

You can't back that up with evidence of any untrue statements in my posts.

MontereyJack wrote:

you are not in touch with reality.

You can't back that up with evidence of any untrue statements in my posts.

MontereyJack wrote:

all you report is your own opinion,

Wrong. It is a fact that packing the courts means expanding the number of judges.

It is a fact that Mr. Trump did not pack the courts.

It is a fact that Republican judges uphold the law and the Constitution.

It is a fact that Democratic judges disregard the law and the Constitution.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

those sren't facts, they're only your own opinions, no matter how firmly you may believe them, facts they are not. for one thing, pack,ing scoktus by excpanding the number of justices is only one way to doi it. Given the lifetime tenure of justices, it's usually the simplest way to do it, However trump had the unprercedented opportunity of ap[pointing three justices in four years, and he packed the court and shifted the balance by the unprecedented appointment of kthree far-right justices,

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Historical accident (i.e. justice deaths) made it possible for trump to pack the court in a way not available to FDR. you're dogmatic as usual but wrong as usual.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Wrong. You're confusing assault rifles with assault weapons as defined by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

You're confused about what the law in question does address, and are conflating terms therefrom.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I am not confused about anything. I have a natural immunity to confusion.

The definition provided in the law is fraudulent. "Assault weapons as defined by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban" are not actually assault weapons, and therefore should not be referred to as assault weapons.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Historical accident (i.e. justice deaths) made it possible for trump to pack the court in a way not available to FDR.

Filling vacancies isn't packing the court.

MontereyJack wrote:

you're dogmatic as usual but wrong as usual.

I am seldom wrong.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

those aren't facts, they're only your own opinions, no matter how firmly you may believe them, facts they are not.

That is incorrect. They are facts.

MontereyJack wrote:

for one thing, packing scotus by expanding the number of justices is only one way to do it.

That is incorrect. Packing the courts means expanding the number of judges.

MontereyJack wrote:

Given the lifetime tenure of justices, it's usually the simplest way to do it, However trump had the unprecedented opportunity of appointing three justices in four years, and he packed the court and shifted the balance by the unprecedented appointment of three far-right justices,

That's not packing the courts.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Yes, you are confused.

For the purposes of the law the definition provided of assault weapons is true and genuine.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

, cfvNope. hyper-partisan opinion projecting your political ideology on the world as if it were the only truth, when it isn't erven gtrjuth, just in yoour mind.
it was trump packing the court with an unprecedented three far right conservatives on an unwilling public. and running roughshod over their own prevus words to do it. And ironicsally they did it to ensure trumps;w s win in court if he lost the vote, which he did, and his reaction was so egregious that they wouldn't even sujpport him in hisattempt to steal the election.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Nope. hyper-partisan opinion projecting your political ideology on the world as if it were the only truth, when it isn't even truth, just in your mind.

That is incorrect. It's the truth.

MontereyJack wrote:

it was trump packing the court with an unprecedented three far right conservatives on an unwilling public.

That is incorrect. Mr. Trump did not expand the number of judges on the court.

I doubt that the public objects to the appointment of judges. However, it is appropriate to appoint judges even if the public does object.

MontereyJack wrote:

and running roughshod over their own previous words to do it. And ironically they did it to ensure trump's win in court if he lost the vote, which he did, and his reaction was so egregious that they wouldn't even support him in his attempt to steal the election.

Who are we talking about? Who does "they" refer to??

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Yes, you are confused.

No I'm not. I am naturally immune to confusion.

InfraBlue wrote:

For the purposes of the law the definition provided of assault weapons is true and genuine.

When there is a conflict between "the law" and "facts and reality", I much prefer to take the side of facts and reality.

If the Democrats pass a law defining the sky as being yellow colored, I will continue saying that the sky is blue.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Yes, you are confused.

The definition of assault weapon in the law are facts and reality for the purposes of the law.

Sometimes the sky is yellow, a law would be correct in pointing that out regardless of who passed it.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know