How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[Feynman Lives!]

Killing people is one weird way to save lives...

No it isn't.

Hah!!!

That's hilarious!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

"Might help"

And it might not.

yeah.... that goes into the list of arguments that are too stupid to include even in a list of stupid arguments. You would be the source for most of those, BTW.

 

[RF667799]

yeah.... that goes into the list of arguments that are too stupid to include even in a list of stupid arguments. You would be the source for most of those, BTW.

You're so useful.

Great example of you ignoring criticism of one of your proposals that you claim "might help".

My entire post- which you edited to avoid its clear refutation of your proposal- is repeated below:

"Might help"

And it might not. You've given no evidence that it will.

It's remarkable you think people should lose Constitutional rights and civil liberties on the basis of your supposition that it "might help".

Your proposal is duplicitous as well as nonsense. It implies the gun control trope "nobody is coming after your (existing) guns" in that it only bans sales. However, it also bans the sale of expendable items that are necessary to the use of firearms. In that you admit any firearm can be arbitrarily categorized as an "assault weapon", it is a de facto ban on the use of all firearms.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Killing people is one weird way to save lives...

I'll give you credit for being the author of the majority of the excuses that are so idiotic that they don't even make it into the list of dumb excuses.

Elisjsha Dicken stopped a potential mass killing at the Greenwood Mall by shooting the perpetrator. Killing him saved lives.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Elisjsha Dicken stopped a potential mass killing at the Greenwood Mall by shooting the perpetrator. Killing him saved lives.

Elishsha Dicken stopped a gunman who had an assault weapon he purchased at a local store. Which would not have happened if my proposal had been law. And he did it with a gun that would NOT be an assault weapon under the definition in the 2025 Assault Weapon ban that I provided.

A single specific case is just an anecdote. It's RIDICULOUS to assume that one or even a handful of cases prove... ANYTHING. Neither on your side or on yours. But how funny is it that you just happened to CHOOSE a case that would have supported MY position!

 

[JMB1911A1]

Elishsha Dicken stopped a gunman who had an assault weapon he purchased at a local store. Which would not have happened if my proposal had been law. And he did it with a gun that would NOT be an assault weapon under the definition in the 2025 Assault Weapon ban that I provided.

So you assume that if Jonathan Sapirman could not have bought an AR-15, he would have abandoned his plans? Are you assuming that he would have bought a shotgun instead?

There is a word for people who think like that.

A single specific case is just an anecdote. It's RIDICULOUS to assume that one or even a handful of cases prove... ANYTHING. Neither on your side or on yours. But how funny is it that you just happened to CHOOSE a case that would have supported MY position!

No, it doesn’t support your position. It destroys your argument that killing never save lives.

And BTW, are you familiar with the Sutherland Springs shooting? Do you know why it destroys your position?

 

[Feynman Lives!]

So you assume that if Jonathan Sapirman...

I assume NOTHING. I SAID that it's idiotic to think that an anecdote will settle the discussion about my proposals intended to reduce the number of people shot in mass shootings.

I am simply pointing out the fact that YOU chose an example that makes my case!

No, it doesn’t support your position. It destroys your argument that killing never save lives.

QUOTE!!!! I said NO such thing! So you can just retract. IF you expect to be considered a serious poster. Which I sense that you don't.

You dug yourself into a hole by giving an example that just happens to PROVE my position. And now you keep ridiculing yourself by digging DEEPER....

Just let it go! You tried to rebut my arguments and failed! Perhaps more miserably than OTHERS who have also tried and failed. But the end result is no different: FAILURE! So just accept it and move on...

 

[JMB1911A1]

I assume NOTHING. I SAID that it's idiotic to think that an anecdote will settle the discussion about my proposals intended to reduce the number of people shot in mass shootings.

I am simply pointing out the fact that YOU chose an example that makes my case!


QUOTE!!!! I said NO such thing! So you can just retract. IF you expect to be considered a serious poster. Which I sense that you don't.

Close enough.

Killing people is one weird way to save lives...

I'll give you credit for being the author of the majority of the excuses that are so idiotic that they don't even make it into the list of dumb excuses.

You dug yourself into a hole by giving an example that just happens to PROVE my position. And now you keep ridiculing yourself by digging DEEPER....

Just let it go! You tried to rebut my arguments and failed! Perhaps more miserably than OTHERS who have also tried and failed. But the end result is no different: FAILURE! So just accept it and move on...

And once again, the dishonest editing of my post and the failure to address my points. If you are the best that the gun prohibitionist lobby has, then our 2A rights are safe for decades.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Close enough.

NOT close! That's a lame retraction. Retract clearly!

I ALWAYS say what I mean and mean what I say. If I ever misspeak, I correct and retract when appropriate. That's what honest posters do.

 

[RF667799]

Elishsha Dicken stopped a gunman who had an assault weapon he purchased at a local store. Which would not have happened if my proposal had been law.

But your proposal isn't law, so the killer had his gun prior to your proposal and would be unaffected by your proposed law.

And he did it with a gun that would NOT be an assault weapon under the definition in the 2025 Assault Weapon ban that I provided.

That definition is open ended.

A single specific case is just an anecdote. It's RIDICULOUS to assume that one or even a handful of cases prove... ANYTHING. Neither on your side or on yours. But how funny is it that you just happened to CHOOSE a case that would have supported MY position!

The case doesn't support your position. It refutes your notion in post 3668.

 

[JMB1911A1]

NOT close! That's a lame retraction. Retract clearly!

I ALWAYS say what I mean and mean what I say. If I ever misspeak, I correct and retract when appropriate. That's what honest posters do.

When you start being an honest poster, I’ll treat you as such.

First thing that an honest poster does is not dishonestly quote people.

 

[RF667799]

NOT close! That's a lame retraction. Retract clearly!

I ALWAYS say what I mean and mean what I say. If I ever misspeak, I correct and retract when appropriate. That's what honest posters do.

Another thing honest posters do is restrain themselves from editing the posts of others.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

But your proposal isn't law, so...

You're kidding me! It's not? I'm going to need to have a talk with AOC and Schumer right now. Heads will roll!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

When you start being an honest poster, I’ll treat you as such.

I don't give a CRAP how you treat me. I just need you to RETRACT.

You claimed I said something I DIDN'T say. That's called a lie! Unless you retract. If you do then it's just a mistake.

It's up to you,

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Another thing honest posters do is restrain themselves from editing the posts of others.

Only YOU can edit your posts. And you only have 15 minutes after you post it to edit it. I don't have your password. So I CAN'T edit your post.

Ask the moderators how it works if you don't understand.

 

[RF667799]

Only YOU can edit your posts. And you only have 15 minutes after you post it to edit it. I don't have your password. So I CAN'T edit your post.

Ask the moderators how it works if you don't understand.

I understand exactly. You post edited versions of other people's posts.

 

[RF667799]

You're kidding me! It's not? I'm going to need to have a talk with AOC and Schumer right now. Heads will roll!

...so you edited the context from my post in order to make a facetious comment and avoid the substance. It's not clever. It's childish. There's a sub-forum here where you can play those games if you like.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

I understand exactly. You post edited versions of other people's posts.

Oh. I think what you are struggling to describe is what we call a "quote" (look it up). And yes, I ONLY quote the part of the posts that I respond to. Which is the PROPER way to quote.

 

[RF667799]

Oh. I think what you are struggling to describe is what we call a "quote" (look it up). And yes, I ONLY quote the part of the posts that I respond to. Which is the PROPER way to quote.

You "quote" the other person's post, edit it, and post that edited version. Then you respond to that version that is bereft of context.

It's evident in your posts. The edited version you post and the original don't go away. Lying about it is corrosive to your credibility, so I don't mind if you continue to do so.

 

[rahl]

NO rebuttals so far.
...

it’s so funny when you lie like this.

 

[rahl]

Elishsha Dicken stopped a gunman who had an assault weapon he purchased at a local store. Which would not have happened if my proposal had been law.

And as you’ve been shown, your proposal can’t become law because the constitution explicitly precludes you from enacting it.

And he did it with a gun that would NOT be an assault weapon under the definition in the 2025 Assault Weapon ban that I provided.

A single specific case is just an anecdote. It's RIDICULOUS to assume that one or even a handful of cases prove... ANYTHING.

It’s not just a handful. 1.7 million lawful defensive uses involving firearms happen annually.

Neither on your side or on yours. But how funny is it that you just happened to CHOOSE a case that would have supported MY position!

Your position remains refuted.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

And as you’ve been shown, your proposal can’t become law because the constitution explicitly precludes you from enacting it.

Stop talking nonsense about things you know nothing about. ALL my proposals have ALREADY been implemented.

The job of people who don't know anything about the topic is to sit in the corner, read, learn and remain quiet.

 

[rahl]

Stop talking nonsense about things you know nothing about.

ALL my proposals have ALREADY been implemented.

This is a lie.

The job of people who don't know anything about the topic is to sit in the corner, read, learn and remain quiet.

The constitution explicitly precludes you from banning any firearm that is in common use “dc v heller”. “Assault weapons” are in common use and can’t be banned.

You remain refuted.

 

[RF667799]

Stop talking nonsense about things you know nothing about. ALL my proposals have ALREADY been implemented.

No they haven't.

Your apparent belief that they have, does make one wonder what's the sense of proposing them.

The job of people who don't know anything about the topic is to sit in the corner, read, learn and remain quiet.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

“Assault weapons” are in common use and can’t be banned.

And yet... states HAVE banned them. No problem....

Now do as you're told and sit in the corner. You make too much noise.