• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

Feynman Lives! said:
The definition IS 500 lines long.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask you what a semi-automatic pistol is.


Feynman Lives! said:
Whether you asked for it or not, that's how long it is!
Click to expand...
Or Dillard's for a semi-automatic pistol. That's not what I asked for.
Feynman Lives! said:
You didn't think it over when you asked for a definition, did ya?
Click to expand...
Yeah I think you would run away like you did. It was over when you posted your op you are just in denial.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
The definition IS 500 lines long. Whether you asked for it or not, that's how long it is!

You didn't think it over when you asked for a definition, did ya?
Click to expand...
So the definition is essentially just any semi-automatic rifle why not just say that? Why is that so hard for you is it because it's unreasonable and you know it is and if you ever proposed this just like Congress did it would laugh at an overall than a court if it ever passed?

I think that's why I'm just going to go ahead and assume that's why since you're so afraid of defining terms.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I didn't ask you what a semi-automatic pistol is.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? The definition is 500 lines long. The semi-automatic pistol is only the FIRST ...

Ah... forget it. You are not serious...

Next!
 
CLAX1911 said:
So the definition is essentially just any semi-automatic rifle why not just say that?
Click to expand...
You asked for a definition, you got it! Now you want a definition that you "like". Not happening! If you want a kindergarten level definition, you'll have to look for in the Kid's forum. In the adult forum, you're going to have to READ! MORE than just three lines.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
You asked for a definition, you got it!
Click to expand...
For assault weapon not for semi-automatic pistol try again.
Feynman Lives! said:
Now you want a definition that you "like".
Click to expand...
Any at all so I know what the hell you're talking about.

5 minutes the amount of which you know about that subject proves to me you never read a 500 line definition.
Feynman Lives! said:
Not happening!
Click to expand...
Didn't expect that you would define terms if you were going to do that you would have done it in the first place. Do you want to dwell in ambiguity so you can talk past people it's the only way you can feel like you're winning.

It really is pathetic.
Feynman Lives! said:
If you want a kindergarten level definition, you'll have to look for in the Kid's forum.
Click to expand...
That's too advanced for you huh?
Feynman Lives! said:
In the adult forum, you're going to have to READ! MORE than just three lines.
Click to expand...
If you can't be understood without someone reading 500 lines of legal gibberish your proposals aren't worth considering.

If you had an idea about what you're talking about you can give a definition that a kindergartener could understand the fact that you have no idea it means in the gardeners are more advanced than you.
 
CLAX1911 said:
You can't produce said definition because it will make you look ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Well.... you see, that's not entirely false. Providing you with the kid-level definition that you demand would put me at YOUR kid level. Doesn't appear to be embarrassing to you..... but I'll stick with the ADULT version. No shortcuts!

You're in the the Big Boys' discussion area now! Try to adapt if you want to be taken seriously...
 
Feynman Lives! said:
Well.... you see, that's not entirely false. Providing you with the kid-level definition that you demand would put me at YOUR kid level.
Click to expand...
Such a definition is too advanced for you.
Feynman Lives! said:
Doesn't appear to be embarrassing to you..... but I'll stick with the ADULT version. No shortcuts!
Click to expand...
Asking you to explain yourself to where everyone can understand is not embarrassing. I mean I don't California do thinking someone has to read 500 lines of illegal gibberish to understand you that should be embarrassing but you have no shame. That requires intelligence
Feynman Lives! said:
You're in the the Big Boys' discussion area now!
Click to expand...
Am I it seems like I'm talking to someone who's desperately trying to avoid being understood. You have to read all this circular legal gibberish to understand you that's because you don't understand yourself.
Feynman Lives! said:
Try to adapt if you want to be taken seriously...
Click to expand...
If you don't want to be understood just be honest about it.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
Well.... you see, that's not entirely false. Providing you with the kid-level definition that you demand would put me at YOUR kid level. Doesn't appear to be embarrassing to you..... but I'll stick with the ADULT version. No shortcuts!

You're in the the Big Boys' discussion area now! Try to adapt if you want to be taken seriously...
Click to expand...

You have so much difficulty proceeding in your arguments. They're nothing but unsupported claims and brain farts you sucked out of the nether regions of the Gun Control Industry. And that's why you can't support them, nor even discuss them without having a tantrum.

You were woefully unprepared to come here with the load of nonsense that composes your OP.
 
CLAX1911 said:
If you can't be understood without someone reading 500 lines of legal gibberish your proposals aren't worth considering.
Click to expand...
"Legal gibberish"??? Ok, that says it all. Because the 500 lines are of gun-gibberish. It was written by gun experts. Not by lawyers. It's "gibberish" that only makes sense to people who UNDERSTAND guns. A lawyer wouldn't understand a word without consulting a gun expert!

So NOW we understand why you didn't like the part about having to demonstrate knowledge about guns to get a gun-license: you wouldn't pass. to you, gun-speak is gibberish!
 
Feynman Lives! said:
"Legal gibberish"??? Ok, that says it all. Because the 500 lines are of gun-gibberish. It was written by gun experts. Not by lawyers. It's "gibberish" that only makes sense to people who UNDERSTAND guns. A lawyer wouldn't understand a word without consulting a gun expert!

So NOW we understand why you didn't like the part about having to demonstrate knowledge about guns to get a gun-license: you wouldn't pass. to you, gun-speak is gibberish!
Click to expand...
Yeah lost schools just a waste of time just read this trash that's written specifically to be confusing and not to educate anybody hence the whole reason law school exists and they have to study how to manipulate this trash that's written poorly on purpose so you don't understand it.

The fact that you're pretending you understand this only shows you have an ego issue.

You have no idea what an assault weapon is that's what you can't define the term because you don't want to make yourself look any more foolish than you already have.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
"Legal gibberish"??? Ok, that says it all. Because the 500 lines are of gun-gibberish. It was written by gun experts. Not by lawyers. It's "gibberish" that only makes sense to people who UNDERSTAND guns. A lawyer wouldn't understand a word without consulting a gun expert!

So NOW we understand why you didn't like the part about having to demonstrate knowledge about guns to get a gun-license: you wouldn't pass. to you, gun-speak is gibberish!
Click to expand...

Gun experts wouldn't have exempted a Mini-14 while not exempting an AR-15. You don't understand that of course, but other readers do. They're the point. You're the illustration.
 
RF667799 said:
Gun experts wouldn't have exempted a Mini-14 while not exempting an AR-15. You don't understand that of course, but other readers do. They're the point. You're the illustration.
Click to expand...
Based on the definition he provided for an assault weapon you can just call an AR-15 something else and damn it's not an assault weapon he didn't even read his own definition.

I once thought this guy had chops but he's clearly way way more lacking than I ever thought before.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Yeah lost schools just a waste of time just read this trash that's written specifically to be confusing and not to educate anybody...
Click to expand...
It's definition. Definitions are boring! Otherwise, people would spend their free time reading the dictionary rather than the latest romance, action or science fiction novel.

I suspect you have never read any of the above. I mean, given that you expected to be "thrilled" by reading a definition. Added to the fact that you had to be persuaded to read more than just the first three lines!

How sad!

But don't worry. You won't be alone for long now that Trump is dismantling the Department of Education.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
It's definition. Definitions are boring! Otherwise, people would spend their free time reading the dictionary rather than the latest romance, action or science fiction novel.

I suspect you have never read any of the above. I mean, given that you expected to be "thrilled" by reading a definition. Added to the fact that you had to be persuaded to read more than just the first three lines!

How sad!

But don't worry. You won't be alone for long now that Trump is dismantling the Department of Education.
Click to expand...
No definitions are there too ease communication so that we're not talking past each other.

Legal gibberish is used to make sure anybody who practices law has to go through 8 years of school so they can understand how to pick apart this broken language they use in legal definitions.

You didn't answer the question why do you think lawyers go to school for so long.

So when you give me a definition that's this complicated and you can't summarize it it's because you don't want to be understood so you can hide your incompetence and ambiguity.

At least be honest about it.
 
RF667799 said:
Gun experts wouldn't have exempted a Mini-14 while not exempting an AR-15.
Click to expand...
Good point! Include it! The more the merrier...

I say, if in doubt, consider it included!

[From the Definition]
“...(xix) Sturm, Ruger & Co. Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M–14/20CF."

Oh oh! Looks like you too also read only the first three lines!

Wa Wa Wa Waaaaa (sad trombone)
 
Feynman Lives! said:
Good point! Include it! The more the merrier...

I say, if in doubt, consider it included!

[From the Definition]
“...(xix) Sturm, Ruger & Co. Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M–14/20CF."

Oh oh! Looks like you too also read only the first three lines!

Wa Wa Wa Waaaaa (sad trombone)
Click to expand...

No, the Mini-14 is exempted. Unless you can explain why it is exempted and the AR-15 is not, then it can easily be assumed that both should be exempted. I utterly reject your intellectually dishonest ploy of arguing from a completely extreme position that all guns should be banned anyway. If that's what you want to have as your position, then be honest enough to argue it that way instead of it being your fall-back upon failure.

Edit: M1 Carbines are exempted too. Is that because the United States government sold tens of thousands- maybe hundreds of thousands- to civilians?
 
CLAX1911 said:
No definitions are there too ease communication so that we're not talking past each other.
Click to expand...
Exactly! That's what they're for. So we don't give a 500 line boring speech instead of just saying "assault weapon".

But somebody who has no arguments will DEMAND the 500 line speech, when provided to they argue they only read the first three lines, when prompted to read it all they argue it's to long, and when they finally DO read it they argue that they don't understand it.

Just like YOU did!


CLAX1911 said:
Legal gibberish ...
Click to expand...
It's GUN gibberish. You already made it clear you don't understand gun-speak. So why are you still here?
 
Feynman Lives! said:
Exactly! That's what they're for. So we don't give a 500 line boring speech instead of just saying "assault weapon".

But somebody who has no arguments will DEMAND the 500 line speech, when provided to they argue they only read the first three lines, when prompted to read it all they argue it's to long, and when they finally DO read it they argue that they don't understand it.

Just like YOU did!



It's GUN gibberish. You already made it clear you don't understand gun-speak. So why are you still here?
Click to expand...

You seem unable to credibly discuss the information you provided. "Looky here" is not much of a debate tactic. It signals someone who doesn't really have a firm grasp of a topic and is unprepared to use his own words.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
Exactly! That's what they're for. So we don't give a 500 line boring speech instead of just saying "assault weapon".
Click to expand...
You did that to conceal your incompetence in ambiguity.

If you understood this definition you could explain it.
Feynman Lives! said:
But somebody who has no arguments will DEMAND the 500 line speech, when provided to they argue they only read the first three lines, when prompted to read it all they argue it's to long, and when they finally DO read it they argue that they don't understand it.

Just like YOU did!



It's GUN gibberish. You already made it clear you don't understand gun-speak. So why are you still here?
Click to expand...
 
Feynman Lives! said:
Exactly! That's what they're for. So we don't give a 500 line boring speech instead of just saying "assault weapon".

But somebody who has no arguments will DEMAND the 500 line speech, when provided to they argue they only read the first three lines, when prompted to read it all they argue it's to long, and when they finally DO read it they argue that they don't understand it.

Just like YOU did!



It's GUN gibberish. You already made it clear you don't understand gun-speak. So why are you still here?
Click to expand...
The legal definition yes, that's why they don't use that in court rooms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom