How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[RF667799]

That one is good enough for me.

And, boys and girls, you see here there is no limit to where these people will go to ridicule themselves.

Your first proposal goes much farther than that.

 

[JMB1911A1]

That one is good enough for me.

And, boys and girls, you see here there is no limit to where these people will go to ridicule themselves.

OK. I don’t expect you to be able to critically think on your own. You can only parrot the points of others.

Anyway, do you consider the below pistol which has a magazine capacity of 8 rounds to be an “assault weapon”? Yes or No? Or will your run from the question?

 

[rahl]

This thread is about saving as many lives as possible lost to mass shootings with assault weapons.

Assault weapons are used in less than 1% of shootings. They can’t be banned because they are explicitly protected by the 2nd amendment.

A murder committed with a gun that is not an assault weapon is as relevant as a murder committed with a knife or by pushing the victim off the roof of a 10-story building.

But I'll take the opportunity to point out AGAIN your desperation to change the subject. Clearly due to your complete inability to rebut what IS the subject.

 

[rahl]

'Twas a news story, not anectdotal, don't lie. What is your emotional point of view, that those first responders lives don't matter? Three officers down and two in intensive care, but let's not get emotional about it?

AI Overview

People considered "emotionally cold" lack empathy, show little concern for others' feelings, and appear distant, unexpressive, and emotionally unavailable. This detachment can stem from past trauma or negative experiences, a lack of unmet emotional needs in childhood, or be a coping mechanism to protect themselves from vulnerability. While it can be a protective behavior, it can also be a characteristic of certain psychological disorders or simply a learned behavior from their environment.

That you?

“Assault weapons” are used in less than 1% of shootings.

 

[rahl]

We can't outlaw hands and feet, but we CAN outlaw the sale of assault weapons.

Nope. Because as you know, the constitution explicitly precludes you from doing so.

The continuing flow of nonsensical "arguments" illustrates the fact that they don't have a single REAL argument.

 

[rahl]

Hold my bear!

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1531/text#:~:text=SEC.%202.%20DEFINITIONS.

I've done it so many times, I could probably do it with my eyes closed.

And as you know, the constitution specifically precludes them from being banned.

AGAIN to the boys and girls who are reading this: Remember that this is the BEST argument they could come up to rebut my proposals. That fact alone proves my point.

Every proposal you’ve made has been refuted. As you know.

 

[poppopfox]

OK. I don’t expect you to be able to critically think on your own. You can only parrot the points of others.

Anyway, do you consider the below pistol which has a magazine capacity of 8 rounds to be an “assault weapon”? Yes or No? Or will your run from the question?

https://www.gunsinternational.com/
Spamming?
How about this one?

 

[JMB1911A1]

https://www.gunsinternational.com/
Spamming?
How about this one?
View attachment 67590843

1) I wasn’t asking you.
2) I was asking a specific question related to the specific image that I posted.
3) Feel free to answer my question then we can address why you posted a picture of a common semi-automatic pistol caliber carbine since you failed to ask a specific question.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

OK. I don’t expect you to be able to critically think on your own. You can only parrot the points of others.

That's what intelligent people do: not redo the work others have done. The definition of "Assault Weapon" has taken over 30 years to develop by specialists on the matter. Even the one in the original assault weapons ban turned out to be insufficient. But it has been getting better and better. You'd have to be a real idiot to believe that somebody in a political forum can do better.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Assault weapons are used in less than 1% of shootings.

Yeah! And the parents of the children who have been killed in them should just shut up and let you have your fun with guns, right?

To the boys and girls in the audience... yes!... ALL their arguments are THIS idiotic! Don't expect anything better.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

And as you know, the constitution specifically precludes them from being banned.

I'll send this link just because I have it on hand. But I know that to somebody who doesn't get why trying to save 1% of mass shootings is relevant would never understand a serious debate about the Constitution.

 

[RF667799]

That's what intelligent people do: not redo the work others have done. The definition of "Assault Weapon" has taken over 30 years to develop by specialists on the matter. Even the one in the original assault weapons ban turned out to be insufficient. But it has been getting better and better. You'd have to be a real idiot to believe that somebody in a political forum can do better.

"Specialists on the matter"

They can't even be accurate in naming the parts.



This is the lower sling swivel. And this
Is the upper sling swivel, whose use you will see,
When you are given your slings. And this is the piling swivel,
Which in your case you have not got. The branches
Hold in the gardens their silent, eloquent gestures,
Which in our case we have not got.

 

[RF667799]

Yeah! And the parents of the children who have been killed in them should just shut up and let you have your fun with guns, right?

To the boys and girls in the audience... yes!... ALL their arguments are THIS idiotic! Don't expect anything better.

That's funny coming from a source that thinks appeal to emotion is a valid argument.

 

[JMB1911A1]

That's what intelligent people do: not redo the work others have done. The definition of "Assault Weapon" has taken over 30 years to develop by specialists on the matter. Even the one in the original assault weapons ban turned out to be insufficient. But it has been getting better and better. You'd have to be a real idiot to believe that somebody in a political forum can do better.

Selective quoting and failed to answer the question. I see that you cannot defend your positions. I predicted that you would run away and you did.

And legislation is not written by “experts”. It is written by politicians and lobbyists. You know, the idiots who say things like “the shoulder thing that goes up”. In this case, the AWB was probably written by the gun control industry that wants to outlaw as many different firearms as possible.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

And legislation is not written by “experts”. It is written by politicians and lobbyists.

Wrong!!! 100% wrong! Legislation rely on EXPERTS when they include technical parts in a bill. Especially definitions. Otherwise we would never have bills dealing with scientific matters, or health, or AI, or the environment...

Amazing that you are so willing to publicize your ignorance that you won't even do the most basic research.

However, to the boys and girls in the audience, THIS is the level you can expect from posters who are THIS far gone in the gun cult. Reality, facts, real arguments.... forget about those!

 

[JMB1911A1]

Wrong!!! 100% wrong! Legislation rely on EXPERTS when they include technical parts in a bill. Especially definitions. Otherwise we would never have bills dealing with scientific matters, or health, or AI, or the environment...

Amazing that you are so willing to publicize your ignorance that you won't even do the most basic research.

Bullshit. You don’t even know how bills are written. BTW, who are the experts on firearms? The NRA.

Still waiting to see if you will step up and answer the question from post 3627. You may have missed it though so I will repost it for you.

Do you, @Feynman Lives!, personally consider the below pistol with a magazine capacity of 8 rounds to be an “assault weapon”? Yes or No?

 

[rahl]

Yeah! And the parents of the children who have been killed in them should just shut up and let you have your fun with guns, right?

Argument from emotion fallacy.

To the boys and girls in the audience... yes!... ALL their arguments are THIS idiotic! Don't expect anything better.

It’s not an argument. It’s an objective fact.

 

[rahl]

I'll send this link just because I have it on hand. But I know that to somebody who doesn't get why trying to save 1% of mass shootings is relevant would never understand a serious debate about the Constitution.

Meanwhile, the constitution explicitly precludes you from banning them. And as you know, each and every one of your proposals has been refuted.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Bullshit. You don’t even know how bills are written. BTW, who are the experts on firearms?

Don't know... don't care. If you care.... look it up. Great practice in the process of you learning how

to do research.

Read my sig!

Yes or No?

Yes! But what I think is irrelevant. It's what the bill SAYS that matters! So I'm not playing that game. Read the definition and do YOUR OWN research, if you are interested. I'm not!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Argument from emotion fallacy.

Hah! Yet ANOTHER area in which you publicize your utter ignorance. I TAUGHT logic at the University where I worked soon after I graduated.

And no.... that is NOT "Argumentum ad Misericordiam" fallacy.

 

[rahl]

Hah! Yet ANOTHER area in which you publicize your utter ignorance. I TAUGHT logic at the University where I worked soon after I graduated.

No you didn’t.

And no.... that is NOT "Argumentum ad Misericordiam" fallacy.

Yes it is

Meanwhile, as you have been shown, the constitution explicitly precludes you from banning “assault weapons”.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Don't know...

Well at least you admit your ignorance.

don't care. If you care.... look it up. Great practice in the process of you learning how

to do research.

Read my sig!

Typical BS. Your sig means nothing when you admit that you don’t know.

Yes! But what I think is irrelevant. It's what the bill SAYS that matters! So I'm not playing that game. Read the definition and do YOUR OWN research, if you are interested. I'm not!

So, you admit to reveling in ignorance. And you have no idea why a pistol with an 8 round magazine is an “assault weapon”. You just parrot talking points.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

And you have no idea why a pistol with an 8 round magazine is an “assault weapon”.

Of course I do! Because it's in the definition in the bill I sent you a link to. That's why! If you don't understand how that applies to this particular weapon, ask somebody who has the most basic knowledge about the subject AND gives a crap.

Other than that, I answered you idiotic pointless question, I gave you the definition, and I have provided my arguments. None of which is even relevant to my proposals. So not worth wasting any more time on it.

Therefore, unless you can QUOTE one of my proposals AND rebut that proposals, this means I'm done with you. Thanks for playing...

 

[JMB1911A1]

Of course I do! Because it's in the definition in the bill I sent you a link to. That's why! If you don't understand how that applies to this particular weapon, ask somebody who has the most basic knowledge about the subject AND gives a crap.

Oh I know that. The dreaded “threaded barrel”. My point here is that you don’t do any critical thinking. You just parrot what you are told and then try to pretend that you are debating.

Other than that, I answered you idiotic pointless question, I gave you the definition, and I have provided my arguments. None of which is even relevant to my proposals. So not worth wasting any more time on it.

If they are not relevant to your “argument”, why did you quote that definition?

Therefore, unless you can QUOTE one of my proposals AND rebut that proposals, this means I'm done with you. Thanks for playing...

I already demolished your “cop killer” bullet “argument” months ago. But you probably forgot that. Tends to happen when you selectively quote people because your “arguments” get demolished multiple times.

I don’t see defending our rights as “playing” but you do you. And, “bless your heart”.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

I already demolished your “cop killer” bullet “argument” months ago.

My "cop killer" argument? I have made no such argument. That's why I insist on a QUOTE.

Oh! I know what you mean. You mean you "demolished" the EXPRESSION "cop killer bullet".... That's a laugh! You think that questioning an IDIOM is the same as rebutting an argument.

O... K.... So once again you have made my case.