NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
There can be no "some gun control" in the debate. That is a stepping stone for those who want all guns banned. Look at England or Australia or even Canada and decide if those are the kind of rules you wish to live by, because if you don't choose to defend your 2A rights, you will wind up just like them. Unarmed, scared of their own shadow, and hopeful, very hopeful that the police and government will protect them at all times.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to your particular brand of fearmongering nor your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

I support my right to arm myself against foreign invasion or governmental oppression; but a long rifle is what is needed for such situations, not a rambo weapon or a grenade launcher or a 5' sniper rifle.

Slipperly slopes are poor arguments, and a logical fallacy.

Cycloptichorn

What about household invasion? Should I use the chef's knife and a baster? Would the wok make a good shield?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Ok, then how are MY questions irrelevant?

His post was a comment on something that no one here was advocating, it was irrelevant to any previous post or the discussion at hand.

My questions are attempting to understand your reasoning to try to see things from your point of view, in an attempt to change your mind. One of the tools to do that is asking questions.

Asking me if I've shot a gun has no bearing on anything. I can comment on gun laws even if I have never shot a gun, just as I can comment on military strategy even if I have never fought in a war. My comments are to be judged on their merits, not on my background. To do otherwise would be to engage in an ad hominem argument.

Similarly, asking if I would be in favor of a law banning all weapons is not relevant to a discussion on a law banning one weapon. More to the point, it is not relevant to a thread that is not directed at weapons bans at all, but at the reaction to one man's opinions about hunting with semi-automatic weapons.

0 Replies

CJ has expressed in a crude form, though, the "thin end of the wedge" argument which is central to NRA propaganda, heavily funded by firearms manufacturers. That is that any attempt to control firearms at all is just a cover for the attempt to ban them outright. It is used as an hysterical mantra to avoid the question on why anyone needs a hand gun, or why anyone needs ammunition which will penetrate a police officer's kevlar vest.

The point is to introduce the hysteria immediately, and avoid the necessity of providing a cogent argument for the need for such things as armor piercing ammunition or streetsweepers.

1 Reply

There you go again Joe-boy. "semi automatic" weapons my ass. You just disqualified yourself from the discussion.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

CJ has expressed in a crude form, though, the "thin end of the wedge" argument which is central to NRA propaganda, heavily funded by firearms manufacturers. That is that any attempt to control firearms at all is just a cover for the attempt to ban them outright. It is used as an hysterical mantra to avoid the question on why anyone needs a hand gun, or why anyone needs ammunition which will penetrate a police officer's kevlar vest.

The point is to introduce the hysteria immediately, and avoid the necessity of providing a cogent argument for the need for such things as armor piercing ammunition or streetsweepers.

And there you go again Set-dog. Any - and I mean any ammo used to hunt deer will penetrate a kevlar vest. Period.

You're disqualified.

0 Replies

Just an FYI, but the smallest caliber typically used for large game rifle hunting is the Winchester .243 - anything smaller is varmint ammo. The .243 has extremely high muzzle velocity and will easily penetrate kevlar. Kevlar vests worn by officers of the law are only meant to stop bullets from handguns which have much lower velocities. Perhaps you are speaking of SWAT teams or military gear.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

There you go again Joe-boy. "semi automatic" weapons my ass. You just disqualified yourself from the discussion.

Are you suggesting that Zumbo was referring only to fully automatic weapons when he talked about hunters using "military-style assault rifles?" Geez, even maporsche has conceded that he was talking about semi-automatics.

And as for your ass, the less said about it the better.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
There you go again Joe-boy. "semi automatic" weapons my ass. You just disqualified yourself from the discussion.

Are you suggesting that Zumbo was referring only to fully automatic weapons when he talked about hunters using "military-style assault rifles?"

Do you know the difference? Do you know that semi-automatics are one of the most popular hunting weapons even if you exclude "scary looking guns"? And certainly the most popular for personal protection - bar none.

You must have a dog in the fight - disarming people makes them easier to control. Right Joe?

0 Replies

No, you are disqualified. In the first place, i simply mentioned armor piercing ammunition, not kevlar vests. In the second place, high-velocity bullets may potentially cause life-threatening blunt-force injuries--but still will not penetrate the kevlar body armor. But you're disqualified for another reason, which is that Federal law already prohibits the sale of armor piercing ammunition.

However, i do want to thank you for providing more evidence of the fuzzy thinking which accompanies gun nut theories. If you need weapons to protect you from government oppression, and high-velocity rounds from a deer rifle will penetrate body armor (although you have failed to prove that), then you have no reason to rant about legislation which controls or bans handguns, since you cannot rely on a handgun to protect you from a government agent using a kevlar vest. Logic was never an NRA strong point--hence the need to move immediately to hysterics, and hence the need to immediately and viciously attack someone such as Zumbo, who merely speaks the truth.

1 Reply

Set, you are so far from truth you wouldn't know it if it smacked you in the face.

If you really think high velocity cartridges will only produce blunt force injury through Kevlar, I suggest you test it.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Set, you are so far from truth you wouldn't know it if it smacked you in the face.

If you really think high velocity cartridges will only produce blunt force injury through Kevlar, I suggest you test it.

Should be a relatively easy thing to prove either way. As the positive proponent of the idea, the burden lies upon you to provide proof to back your assertion up.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You are the one one introduced the topic of high-velocity rounds and kevlar, CJ, i did not. The current body armor used by American armed forces, as describe in this article at Global Security-dot-org, will stop your deer round:

Quote:

The outer tactical vest consists of a Kevlar weave that's will stop 9mm pistol rounds. Webbing on the front and back of the vest permits attaching such equipment as grenades, walkie-talkies and pistols. The Small Arms Protective Insert (SAPI) is made of a boron carbide ceramic with a spectra shield backing that's an extremely hard material. It stops, shatters and catches any fragments up to a 7.62 mm round with a muzzle velocity of 2,750 feet per second. It's harder than Kevlar.

However, i only pointed out that Federal law prohibits the sale of armor piercing rounds to the general public. In fact, the original creation of armor piercing rounds for handguns and rifles was a result of the call by police officers for ammunition which would penetrate automobile windshields and the sheet steel which formed the quarter panels and door panels of automobiles. Kevlar did not exist when this type of ammunition was being developed.

You are the one who introduced the subject of kevlar, not i. As usual, you lack the logical abilities to keep up with the discussion. You are attempting to prop up a strawman.

1 Reply

No, I know it will - it's up to Set to prove me wrong.

And he got it wrong...

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

No, I know it will - it's up to Set to prove me wrong.

And he got it wrong...

No, it isn't up to set to prove you wrong. You are committing a logical fallacy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

No, i didn't get it wrong. The Federal government prohibits armor piercing rounds for sale to the general public. You are just attempting to beat this dead horse with your straw man. You are the one who introduced the subject of deer slugs and kevlar, i did not.

So, it doesn't matter if you prove it or not, it's not what i wrote. Specifically, what i wrote was:

Quote:

The point is to introduce the hysteria immediately, and avoid the necessity of providing a cogent argument for the need for such things as armor piercing ammunition or streetsweepers.

I didn't mention kevlar, and i didn't mention deer slugs. You're just making **** up, CJ, as usual.

0 Replies

Hardly dude. I've seen it. And police officers don't wear military/SWAT style kevlar vests. Not even close.

If you don't know what you are talking about, and Set, Joe, and others obviously don't, it might help them to just shut up.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
No, I know it will - it's up to Set to prove me wrong.

And he got it wrong...

No, it isn't up to set to prove you wrong. You are committing a logical fallacy.

Cycloptichorn

Specifically, he's attempting to set up a strawman. I didn't mention kevlar or deer slugs--he introduced those. See my last post in response to him, in which i quote myself in the remark which lead him into the deep end.

http://shoutluton.com/attractions/images/strawman.jpg

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
No, I know it will - it's up to Set to prove me wrong.

And he got it wrong...

No, it isn't up to set to prove you wrong. You are committing a logical fallacy.

Cycloptichorn

Specifically, he's attempting to set up a strawman. I didn't mention kevlar or deer slugs--he introduced those. See my last post in response to him, in which i quote myself in the remark which lead him into the deep end.

I saw. It's a little ridiculous, really, to assert something and then demand others do the work to prove your assertion.

Telling others they would be better off 'shutting up' is also, yeah, a poor argumentative strategy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Hardly dude. I've seen it. And police officers don't wear military/SWAT style kevlar vests. Not even close.

If you don't know what you are talking about, and Set, Joe, and others obviously don't, it might help them to just shut up.

You should follow your own advice. I wrote:

Quote:

The point is to introduce the hysteria immediately, and avoid the necessity of providing a cogent argument for the need for such things as armor piercing ammunition or streetsweepers.

I didn't mention kevlar, you did. You were erecting a strawman. When it comes to forensic technique, you almost never know what you're talking about, yet you never shut up, do you?

0 Replies

A logical fallicy would be those who don't know what a "semi automatic" weapon is to continue with their either uniformed or intentionally misleading arguments unquestioned. Or the difference between military and police vests. They remind me of guys who have really strong opinions on abortion - it's like - what dog do you have in the fight? Can you even recognize your own dog?

0 Replies

NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know