- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 105,351
- Reaction score
- 26,549
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Intellectually dishonest. I think that's the only way you can ever be against gun ownership.
Intellectually dishonest. I think that's the only way you can ever be against gun ownership.Macros and spoon-fed talking points. That's the extent of his argument.
I didn't ask you what a semi-automatic pistol is.The definition IS 500 lines long.
Or Dillard's for a semi-automatic pistol. That's not what I asked for.Whether you asked for it or not, that's how long it is!
Yeah I think you would run away like you did. It was over when you posted your op you are just in denial.You didn't think it over when you asked for a definition, did ya?
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?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?
Are you kidding me? The definition is 500 lines long. The semi-automatic pistol is only the FIRST ...I didn't ask you what a semi-automatic pistol is.
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.So the definition is essentially just any semi-automatic rifle why not just say that?
no it's not.Are you kidding me? The definition is 500 lines long. The semi-automatic pistol is only the FIRST ...
You can't produce said definition because it will make you look ridiculous.Ah... forget it. You are not serious...
That's right run away.Next!
For assault weapon not for semi-automatic pistol try again.You asked for a definition, you got it!
Any at all so I know what the hell you're talking about.Now you want a definition that you "like".
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.Not happening!
That's too advanced for you huh?If you want a kindergarten level definition, you'll have to look for in the Kid's forum.
If you can't be understood without someone reading 500 lines of legal gibberish your proposals aren't worth considering.In the adult forum, you're going to have to READ! MORE than just three lines.
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 can't produce said definition because it will make you look ridiculous.
Such a definition is too advanced for you.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.
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 intelligenceDoesn't appear to be embarrassing to you..... but I'll stick with the ADULT version. No shortcuts!
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.You're in the the Big Boys' discussion area now!
If you don't want to be understood just be honest about it.Try to adapt if you want to be taken seriously...
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...
"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!If you can't be understood without someone reading 500 lines of legal gibberish your proposals aren't worth considering.
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."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!
"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!
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.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.
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.Yeah lost schools just a waste of time just read this trash that's written specifically to be confusing and not to educate anybody...
No definitions are there too ease communication so that we're not talking past each other.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.
Good point! Include it! The more the merrier...Gun experts wouldn't have exempted a Mini-14 while not exempting an AR-15.
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)
Exactly! That's what they're for. So we don't give a 500 line boring speech instead of just saying "assault weapon".No definitions are there too ease communication so that we're not talking past each other.
It's GUN gibberish. You already made it clear you don't understand gun-speak. So why are you still here?Legal gibberish ...
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?
And you made it clear you don't want to be understood again concealing your incompetence and ambiguity.You already made it clear you don't understand gun-speak. So why are you still here?
That bill defines a semi-automatic pistol with an 8 round magazine as an “assault weapon”. Do you agree with that definition?
View attachment 67579886
You did that to conceal your incompetence in ambiguity.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?
The legal definition yes, that's why they don't use that in court rooms.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?