18
   

WHY DO SOME OPPOSE ANALYSES OF GUN DEATH DATA BY NIH??

 
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 04:20 am
@oralloy,
None of your alleged "facts" constitute history. Your tortured claim about Hamilton's contribution to the Federalist papers is a wonderful example of your distortions.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 04:25 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
This is hilarious. You write of the framers with a capital "F" as though they were some body of magical, mystical guardians of good governance, as though you were invoking the Name of God.

Or maybe as though the word was a proper noun.


Setanta wrote:
How many of the delegates of the constitutional convention were still alive in 1815? Were they looking down on us from heaven with Washington at their head? How many delegates to the convention were in positions of trust in the government in 1815, capable of making policy decisions about the nation's military affairs?

Don't know. Does it matter? The government was still being run by some of the original leaders.


Setanta wrote:
You have no business invoking history, as you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

As usual, all my facts are in order.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 04:28 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
None of your alleged "facts" constitute history.

That is incorrect. Facts about what happened in the past is exactly what history is.


Setanta wrote:
Your tortured claim about Hamilton's contribution to the Federalist papers is a wonderful example of your distortions.

I summed up the intent of Federalist 29 quite accurately.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 04:30 am
@oralloy,
No, none of what you allege to be facts are actually facts. I see you have abandoned framers for the term leaders. That certainly makes it easier for you to construct your "facts." It matters because you claimed that the framers made a decision about United States military policy after the War of 1812. Another one of your fantasy "facts."
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 04:45 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
No, none of what you allege to be facts are actually facts.

Yes they are.


Setanta wrote:
I see you have abandoned framers for the term leaders.

They were Framers when they drafted the Constitution. They were leaders some years later when they were in charge of the government.


Setanta wrote:
That certainly makes it easier for you to construct your "facts."

I've always found that facts don't need construction. They just exist naturally of their own accord. All I need to do is take notice of them and point them out.


Setanta wrote:
It matters because you claimed that the framers made a decision about United States military policy after the War of 1812. Another one of your fantasy "facts."

Hardly a fantasy. They were quite disappointed in how the militia performed in the War of 1812. It led to them shifting gears and placing much more emphasis on the standing army.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 04:50 am
@oralloy,
You're just making it up again. It's pointless to attempt to talk to you about actual history. You have not stated how many of the delegates to convention were sill alive in 1815. You have not stated how many were in positions of responsibility in 1815. You will need to provide evidence for you silly claims about whether or not they were disappointed in the militia even if you provide that information.

Don't attempt to waste any more of my time with your silly claims unless and until you come up with evidence in support of your claims.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 05:23 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You're just making it up again.

No, as always, my facts are all in order.


Setanta wrote:
It's pointless to attempt to talk to you about actual history.

Depends on how eager someone is to learn.


Setanta wrote:
You have not stated how many of the delegates to convention were sill alive in 1815.

So?


Setanta wrote:
You have not stated how many were in positions of responsibility in 1815.

So?


Setanta wrote:
You will need to provide evidence for you silly claims about whether or not they were disappointed in the militia even if you provide that information.

"The poor performance of several US militia units, particularly during the 1812–13 invasions of Canada and the 1814 defense of Washington, convinced the US government of the need to move away from its Revolutionary-era reliance on militia and focus on creating a more professional regular force."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

"The militia, occasionally competent, was never dependable, and in the nationalistic period that followed the war when the exploits of the Regulars were justly celebrated, an ardent young Secretary of War, John Calhoun, would be able to convince Congress and the nation that the first line of defense should be a standing army."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/militia-1812.htm


Setanta wrote:
Don't attempt to waste any more of my time with your silly claims unless and until you come up with evidence in support of your claims.

Generally evidence is only supplied when requested. It would be rather tedious to supply documentation for every single word written on the internet.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 05:28 am
Neither of your sources authorizes a claim that the framers were responsible for that decision. John Calhoun was all of five years old when the constitutional convention convened. Once again, you have failed to support your claim. It is not a fact that the framers made that decision.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 05:57 am
@Setanta,
James Madison was one of the most influential drafters of the Constitution AND one of the most influential drafters of the Bill of Rights. And he was President of the United States from March 4, 1809 until March 4, 1817.

James Monroe, who was subsequently president (until March 4, 1825) was a prominent Anti-Federalist.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 06:10 am
It's a shame that you need such simple things pointed out to you. Framers is plural. Monroe was not a delegate to the constitutional convention. Which leaves you with Madison. The single example you provide is the president, who, while influential, cannot legislate. Presidents propose, Congress disposes. You have utterly failed to support your silly claim about the framers' response to the performance of the militia in the War of 1812. Like the great majority of what you allege to be historical fact, it was not fact at all.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 07:54 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
It's a shame that you need such simple things pointed out to you.

I am already fully aware of the facts. There is no need to point anything out to me.


Setanta wrote:
Framers is plural.

So?


Setanta wrote:
Monroe was not a delegate to the constitutional convention.

Of course. He was an Anti-Federalist.


Setanta wrote:
Which leaves you with Madison.

I claim Monroe too. Even though he was an Anti-Federalist, he was still one of our founding leaders. He had the same anti-tyranny hopes for the militia that the Federalists had, and I doubt he was impressed by the performance of the militia in the War of 1812.


Setanta wrote:
The single example you provide is the president, who, while influential, cannot legislate. Presidents propose, Congress disposes.

Just that one example would be more than enough.


Setanta wrote:
You have utterly failed to support your silly claim about the framers' response to the performance of the militia in the War of 1812.

Nothing silly about pointing out facts.

And I did in fact provide a couple links showing the dissatisfaction that people had had with the performance of the militia.


Setanta wrote:
Like the great majority of what you allege to be historical fact, it was not fact at all.

No, as always, my facts were all in order.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 09:52 am
@Setanta,
This is gold. I want to frame this exchange and hang it on the wall.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 09:55 am
@edgarblythe,
Just check'n,
who do you think was right?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 10:31 am
@Baldimo,
SO you are arguing you don't know ****. OK.. I can agree with that.

A picture of 2 guns was presented. I claimed they could not both fire 100 rounds in the same time frame. You pulled all kinds of **** out about rate of fire and other stuff that had nothing to do with the 2 guns in question. Who is it that doesn't know **** about guns? You wanted to attack me because I was right and you were wrong. If you want to admit you didn't stick to the actual argument but took us off on a red herring, then go ahead.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 11:17 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

"Given the speed at which magazines can be changed, I would not expect a dramatic decrease in firing speed using smaller magazines."


Sure, because magazines just magically appear in your hand when it comes time to change them out. You guys kill me as you make arguments that make me wonder how out of touch with reality you are.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 12:47 pm
@oralloy,
When you get your ass kicked, you move the goal posts. I'm not surprised. You have not dealt in facts, you have just babbled an argument. So long, sucker.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 04:41 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
When you get your ass kicked, you move the goal posts.

Hard to know how I'd react, as such a thing has never happened.


Setanta wrote:
You have not dealt in facts,

Yes I have.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 04:45 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
Just check'n,
who do you think was right?

The Left always sides against freedom and against facts.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 06:37 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
The Left always sides against freedom and against facts.
Just amazed that some folks fall for loud talk over the facts.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2016 12:09 pm
@parados,
Rate of fire had everything to do with the 2 guns. You started talking about guns like you know what you are talking about when you prove all the time you don't understand anything about guns, just like the politicians you support. The guns in question do indeed operate the same, and that was my point. You later, when talking to someone decided to focus in on the mags afterwards. That was your pathetic attempt to score points, which failed. As I noted, if you want to sorely focus on the mags, which is what most pathetic anti-gunners have done around the country, then we can do that. The very same semi-auto guns will fire 100 rounds differently if they have different mags. So what? The picture in question though was talking about the actual rifles and not their mags.

Why don't you admit it. You know nothing about guns except what your anti-gun media has told you about them. I'm sure you still think you can buy a full auto rifle on the internet and get it delivered to your house...
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 03:47:59