NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

Your silliness was non sequitur, O'Bill, because it doesn't matter what someone on a discussion forum uses for the definition of an assault rifle, and it doesn't matter what you happen to think makes sense for such a definition. What matters is what the definition is in any law which restricts gun ownership.

Yes, Maporche, i'm sure you do think otherwise. Joe's point is well taken--distinctions are made in such legislation, and all you are essentially arguing is that there should be no distinctions made. I see his response as a reasonable demonstration of the absurdity of your contention that magazine size doesn't matter.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

... size doesn't matter.

I thought size was desperately important to these gun freaks.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Your silliness was non sequitur, O'Bill, because it doesn't matter what someone on a discussion forum uses for the definition of an assault rifle, and it doesn't matter what you happen to think makes sense for such a definition. What matters is what the definition is in any law which restricts gun ownership.

Were I arguing otherwise, you might have a point... well, no, not really; even then you STILL wouldn't have a point. There is no reason not to debate the merits of any law... let alone one that's expired ( Laughing

) unless of course, you're a fool trying to cover up an idiotic accusation out of stubbornness. But that's not even what I was doing. I was trying to demonstrate the similarities between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle because some of the posters didn't seem to realize the working parts are essentially the same.

The latest addition to the Setanta rule-book has got to be about the dumbest one you've created out of desperation yet. Now anyone who discusses the details of law on A2K is guilty of a non-sequitur because there is a law? Laughing

(even though in this instance; the law in question expired Laughing

). You crack me up Set... and you may as well continue; it's not like you're going to surprise anyone by making a fool of yourself trying to justify a clearly erroneous charge that's already been unequivocally proven false. You are, after all, Setanta. Laughing

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Yes, Maporche, i'm sure you do think otherwise. Joe's point is well taken--distinctions are made in such legislation, and all you are essentially arguing is that there should be no distinctions made. I see his response as a reasonable demonstration of the absurdity of your contention that magazine size doesn't matter.

While normally I agree with you, in this instance I think you're completely off base, or have not fully thougth about the absurdity of your contentions.

100 rounds or 10 rounds, it is the shooter that matters, not the weapon. We should be discussing the merits of limiting who can own guns, the steps they must take to own a gun, the responsibility they take on by owning a gun, etc. We should not be quibbling over 10 rounds or 100 rounds. A crazy person is just as likely to kill someone with 10 10-round magazines as they are with 1 100-round magazine. An untrained person is just as likely to have an accident with a single shot rifle as they are with a fully automatic M16.

And your insistence on the fact that there IS a law does not defend my critique OF THAT law.

And as of today (well, probably 4 years ago), THERE IS NO LAW.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

How much of the definitions are built up around the ability to surprise a large group of people and cut them down quickly?

And how often does 'a large group of people' get 'cut down quickly'? Does it happen enough to nessecitate this absurd law?

The real issue here is that the same people who want to ban assult rifles, would have no problem banning ALL firearms from citizens. They pick on assult rifles because they think they can get a small win, followed by another win, followed by another.

Refer to my point about the simularites between anti-gun and pro-choice people.

Does it matter that it only happens every now and then? Only rarely are groups of people killed by explosives in America. Should we legalize them, then?

You discount the idea that the current restrictions are one of the reasons that it doesn't happen that often...

Your 'real issue' is untrue. I want to ban assualt rifles (and pistols), and I own two long rifles and a shotgun myself. You are lumping people together for no good reason, and also Appealing to Extremes; not a great argument to make.

Cycloptichorn

There is not currently a restriction.

And when has it happened? Show me examples where people have been cut down by a hundred round magazine.

You can buy a hundred-round magazine for a weapon here in the US?

No?

Then it seems there ARE currently restrictions, and I'll be hard-pressed to find evidence that a hundred-round magazine mowed down a bunch of people.

YES!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=100+round+drum+ar+15&spell=1

They're called DRUMS, but they are essentially the same thing.

I was half expecting Cycloptichorn to at least admit that he was wrong here.........maybe I was expecting too much.

0 Replies

I was?

A drum may be 'essentially' the same thing as a magazine, but it turns out that there are some differences such as size or weight, portability and concealability.

You cannot buy a hundred-round magazine in the US, sorry

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I was?

A drum may be 'essentially' the same thing as a magazine, but it turns out that there are some differences such as size or weight, portability and concealability.

You cannot buy a hundred-round magazine in the US, sorry

Cycloptichorn

Wow, what a stretch.

You're right, COMPLETELY different.

There are differences in a 10 round and a 40 round magizine too (size, weight, portability, concealability, etc), does that make them different.

0 Replies

Give him his due, Cyclops. A drum is a type of magazine.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimax_100]wikipedia[/url] wrote:

The Ultimax 100 is gas-operated, firing a 5.56 mm round from an open bolt. Rounds are fed from either a proprietary 100-round drum magazine, or from a modified M-16-type 30 round STANAG magazine.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I was?

A drum may be 'essentially' the same thing as a magazine, but it turns out that there are some differences such as size or weight, portability and concealability.

You cannot buy a hundred-round magazine in the US, sorry

Cycloptichorn

Hell if all that matters is what you call it then I don't own any rifles either. They are now called drum sticks.

I don't care if they operate the same way, perform the same function, shoot the exact same ammo, and are alike in all meaningful ways, according to Cyclopthichorn if I call it something else, then it is no longer the same thing.

I bet I can find some expired law that would prove me wrong here though, and I'm sure it would prove you wrong just the same Cyclo. Not that I would do that.

0 Replies

We agree on more than you'll ever know, Cycloptichorn, but this time you're really splitting hairs. If someone tells me they've got an eight round clip for his .45, I don't need to tell him it's really a magazine.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I was?

A drum may be 'essentially' the same thing as a magazine, but it turns out that there are some differences such as size or weight, portability and concealability.

You cannot buy a hundred-round magazine in the US, sorry

Cycloptichorn

Hell if all that matters is what you call it then I don't own any rifles either. They are now called drum sticks.

I don't care if they operate the same way, perform the same function, shoot the exact same ammo, and are alike in all meaningful ways, according to Cyclopthichorn if I call it something else, then it is no longer the same thing.

I bet I can find some expired law that would prove me wrong here though, and I'm sure it would prove you wrong just the same Cyclo.

You certainly seem to have your panties in a bunch today.

I see that Drums are a type of magazine, thanks Bill.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well done... and don't mention it.

0 Replies

O'Bill, as Parados demonstrated, that there are similarities in the working parts of assault rifles and hunting rifles means little, given that it is the distinctions between them which are the focus of legislation. Specifically, you and Maporsche were indulging in some back-slapping based on a contention that no one wanted to answer your question--and i simply pointed out that it does not follow that a law is not valid (and whether or not it has now expired is not relevant to this issue, although you're attempting to make another non-sequitur case about that) because someone can, or believes that they can, raise an objection to the bases for definitions within the law. If you are going to now laugh because the law is expired, by the way, get a mirror, because if it is not valid for me to refer to an expired piece of legislation, it is no more valid for you to quibble with the definitions in an expired piece of legislation. Hoist on your own petard.

Maporsche at least attempted to address specifics of why he objected to Congress' definition of an assault rifle. However, i believe that Joe has demonstrated both that there are valid distinctions in, in this example, the sizes of magazines, and that he has demonstrated that Maporsche's objection is to any limitation at all. Maporsche inferentially admits as much in his latest response to me:

Quote:

100 rounds or 10 rounds, it is the shooter that matters, not the weapon. We should be discussing the merits of limiting who can own guns, the steps they must take to own a gun, the responsibility they take on by owning a gun, etc. We should not be quibbling over 10 rounds or 100 rounds. A crazy person is just as likely to kill someone with 10 10-round magazines as they are with 1 100-round magazine. An untrained person is just as likely to have an accident with a single shot rifle as they are with a fully automatic M16. (emphasis added)

Now, although i do not disagree that particular attention should be paid to those who have access to firearms, it is an absurdity to suggest, especially in the American gun culture, that legislation which seeks to restrict types of weapons is meaningless. Someone having an accident with a single-action weapon is not going to accidentally spray the house or the street with high-velocity rounds. A maniac with a ten-round magazine and nine back-ups will be obliged to change magazines--and people can dive for cover, call 911, or even attempt to tackle the shooter while that happens. In fact, changing magazines becomes the subject of tactical doctrine in warfare. Standard current infantry doctrine has one shooter standing and one shooter prone. The standing shooter sprays the area to the front, while the prone shooter looks for specific targets. They switch positions as magazines are emptied. In the Second World War, GIs in Europe learned to operate in pairs, because when the magazine of the M1 empried, it was ejected with a distinctive "ping," and German nfantry would attempt to move up on the shooter when they heard that. GIs learned that they could both assure their safety by operating in pairs, and often pick off the Germans.

Magazine size could make quite a difference to a SWAT team that moves in on a shooter, and would make quite a difference in the probability of innocent bystander casualties in urban drive-by shootings. It was for consideration such as that that Congress adopted the language it used. I don't say that this bill was crafted in the most intelligent possible manner--i do say that quibbling about its contents after the fact is meaningless, since Congress is not restricted in its powers to so legislate. Objections such as you raise about magazines seems to me to be exactly what Joe described, an objection not the nature of the restriction, but to any restriction.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

O'Bill, as Parados demonstrated, that there are similarities in the working parts of assault rifles and hunting rifles means little, given that it is the distinctions between them which are the focus of legislation. Specifically, you and Maporsche were indulging in some back-slapping based on a contention that no one wanted to answer your question--and i simply pointed out that it does not follow that a law is not valid (and whether or not it has now expired is not relevant to this issue, although you're attempting to make another non-sequitur case about that) because someone can, or believes that they can, raise an objection to the bases for definitions within the law. If you are going to now laugh because the law is expired, by the way, get a mirror, because if it is not valid for me to refer to an expired piece of legislation, it is no more valid for you to quibble with the definitions in an expired piece of legislation. Hoist on your own petard.

Do you even read my responses? Discussion of laws, expired or no is not non sequitur... and I REPEAT that's NOT the reason I brought out the question. More words

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/7442/notequalce3.jpg

more compelling point. Nor would another baseless accusation. Laughing

0 Replies

Baseless accusation? You are attempting a polemical inference that you are being attacked? Are you now taking lessons in hysterical rhetorical technique from some one or more conservative ranters? To the question of whether or not an assault rifle were useful for hunting, you attempted to intrude a question of what makes an assault rifle an assault rifle. You were making that definition the center of the discussion, and that did not follow from the previous discussion--it was a non-sequitur. For the purposes of the discussion, the definition provided by Congress was sufficient. You and Maporsche attempted to make it seem that in ignoring your non sequitur of a question, others in the discussion gave evidence of a weak position. But, in fact, when you finally did throw a loud enough childish fit to get an answer, you were referred to the definition provided by Congress.

But you can't let go, so you have attempted to suggest that there are no material differences between hunting rifles and assault rifles; you have also attempted to cast scorn by pointing out that the legislation has expired, which is pretty damned silly, because it would beggar your argument as much as anyone elses.

Now you move on to a pathetic technique you have used increasingly lately, to imply that you are the target of a personal attack. Sure, Bill, sure.

0 Replies

Let me repeat Set, there is no such thing as an "assualt rifle". The spin and buzzwords of the antis are beyond belief.

I would be happy to hunt with an AK or AR. I don't want them full auto, I don't need them to be. They are simply highly accurate rifles, similar to a bolt action in accuracy yet requiring only one pull of the bolt to expend multiple rounds. Big deal - nothing to see here folks, move along now.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Now you move on to a pathetic technique you have used increasingly lately, to imply that you are the target of a personal attack. Sure, Bill, sure.

I have?

What the hell are you babbling about now? Go ahead and try to prove that newest ridiculous attempt at distraction.

Laughing

Not even a good try, Set. I haven't said anything about being attacked, nor implied it. I said your non sequitur charge was false (laughably so)(which would be an attack on my argument, not my person, just so you know :wink:)

Even if I were off topic, that wouldn't qualify as non sequitur anymore than members discussing laws though not being lawmakers is. Laughing

Do I need to get you a definition link? Or are you quite satisfied with the special Setanta-definitions?

Here's the original post of questions:

Quote:

Missing from this debate, and virtually everything I've dug up is a reasonable definition of "Assault Rifles". The century old technology of "semi-automatic" doesn't seem reasonable to me. This definition would be incredibly overbroad if the intention was to focus on "Assault Rifles". So, what constitutes an "Assault Rifle"? Fully automatic has already been addressed, so that doesn't fit. Large capacity clips are readily available for everything from .22 rabbit gun to Ak-47, and beyond so that doesn't fit. The only mechanical difference between an AK-47 and a standard Semi-Automatic deer rifle is it's "scary appearance." While it's true that "conversion kits" are more readily available for the AK; why would anyone assume the availability of "conversion kits" for standard Deer Rifles wouldn't increase to fill the gap? That would be like outlawing Chevy Camaro's to reduce drag racing, while leaving Pontiac Firebirds alone (basically, the same car with a different appearance.)

If the intention is to reduce the availability of Fully Automatic weapons, while not addressing hunting weapons; wouldn't the only logical course be to implement more stringent laws against Fully Automatic weapons and "conversion kits" for same? I challenge anyone to provide a definition for "Assault Rifle" that is reasonable. Without which; how could you reasonably regulate them?

No where do I suggest Congress doesn't have the power to restrict anything, and, in fact, pointed out restrictions that make more sense to me. The questions are neither irrelevant nor non sequitur in nature. You offered some commentary about the framers not specifying weapons, and therefore my question was non sequitur. Laughing

As if my questions contradicted that in any way. They didn't, so I pointed it out, and you've since been inventing new Setanta-definitions for non-sequitur and making a fool of yourself in the process. It was entertaining for a while, but you seem to be running out of imagination now, as well as logic.

Maporsche merely suggested that no one would answer the questions and when a couple pages went by and no one did, I agreed. Hardly a "childish fit" as you described it, but who knows what special Setanta-definition you have for "childish fit". Laughing

Both Parados and Thomas then offered definitions and there was some discussion over whether they were reasonable. Note; neither made any idiotic accusations about non existent non sequiturs, and neither did Joe or Cyclops for that matter. You conjured that foolishness up all by your lonesome and have since been quite entertaining with your made up definitions in feeble attempts to defend it. No matter how long of a mind numbing screed you write; it won't change the simple fact that there was no non sequitur in my very reasonable questions.

Ps.

Setanta wrote:

Are you now taking lessons in hysterical rhetorical technique from some one or more conservative ranters?

No need for that; should I ever have cause for such a thing, I've just quoted the master. 'Polemical inference that I am being attacked'... you're a hoot.

0 Replies

The differences between your average deer rifle and an assault rifle are not merely cosmetic in nature. They affect the way the weapon handles and can be used. An assualt rifle is designed to be controlled while fired on full automatic or controlled when fired from positions other than the shoulder. This information was on the first site I gave in answering the "reasonable" definition question.

Just changing a deer rifle to fully automatic will not give it the same effectiveness as a fully automatic assualt rifle. When a weapon is fired it recoils. An assault rifle is designed to reduce this recoil and allow the user better control to keep the barrel pointed at the target.

1 Reply

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Nor would another baseless accusation.

This is the polemical inference of being attacked to which i referred. Of what has you been accused, and how is it baseless.

As Parados points out, the differences between hunting rifles and assault rifles are not simply cosmetic. A dedicated hunting rifle cannot be quickly and easily converted to use as an assault rifle, and likely cannot be so converted at all. As for you, CJ, when i was trained with the M14 in the Army more than 30 years ago, the term assault rifle was in use, and it was not a bit of gun control propaganda. You are buying too far into the propaganda you spew yourself.

The gentleman who is the original subject of this thread understands the distinction, which is why he was the victim of this hysterical attack by the NRA and its lickspittle crew.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Nor would another baseless accusation.

This is the polemical inference of being attacked to which i referred. Of what has you been accused, and how is it baseless.

Well I guess I has been accused of non sequitur. But the fashion you did it in was indeed non sequitur; not ad hominem (that's the one for personal attacks :wink:). Those we've traded fairly and I'm way more amused than offended. You aren't making enough sense by half to be credible enough to be offensive.

Setanta wrote:

As Parados points out, the differences between hunting rifles and assault rifles are not simply cosmetic. A dedicated hunting rifle cannot be quickly and easily converted to use as an assault rifle, and likely cannot be so converted at all.

If you had any desire whatsoever to know what you were talking about, a 10 minute video was provided early on, and then linked back to, with a Police Officer converting a hunting rifle to an "assault rifle" in a matter of seconds (among other things). Go ahead and remain clueless if you prefer, but don't go thinking you're convincing to people who know better (which would be everyone who watched the video and then some).

0 Replies

NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know