some good education about "assault weapons"

[TurtleDude]

Pretty good analysis. some will quibble over her use of "bullets" vs cartridges in one instance but it is rather well done

 

[Harshaw]

She might have slipped in the definition of "carbine" somewhere, but yeah, pretty well done.

 

[Amelia]

Interesting that each of the first two posts in this thread find a way to quibble with the language in spite of her being on their side and trying her darnedest to get it right. But they're gentle about it ... because she's on their side.

What I'm hearing is that it's a complicated subject. But observing that the scary "assault" name was coined as propaganda to create fear doesn't change the fact that they (and the masses of other legals guns) give us reason to fear them.

We have a lot of gun death in this country. There is reason for fear.

 

[Lutherf]

Interesting that each of the first two posts in this thread find a way to quibble with the language in spite of her being on their side and trying her darnedest to get it right. But they're gentle about it ... because she's on their side.

What I'm hearing is that it's a complicated subject. But observing that the scary "assault" name was coined as propaganda to create fear doesn't change the fact that they (and the masses of other legals guns) give us reason to fear them.

We have much too much gun death in this country. There is reason for fear.

Hey! Some of y'all fear hats so we totally understand that you might fear guns too. The quibbling is just to make sure that the information being passed along is accurate because the best way I've ever found to combat fear is through education. I mean, maybe if the gun grabbers begin to understand that "gun death" is the result of PEOPLE pulling the trigger rather than guns creating some homicidal intellectual vortex in the brains of gun owners we'd be able to get some things done that actually create a reduction in gun crime.

 

[Amelia]

Hey! Some of y'all fear hats so we totally understand that you might fear guns too. The quibbling is just to make sure that the information being passed along is accurate because the best way I've ever found to combat fear is through education. I mean, maybe if the gun grabbers begin to understand that "gun death" is the result of PEOPLE pulling the trigger rather than guns creating some homicidal intellectual vortex in the brains of gun owners we'd be able to get some things done that actually create a reduction in gun crime.

And even someone who has worked really really hard to get all the terms correct still has two potential errors called out in the first two posts.

I've found that many gun rights activists seem more interested in telling people that they're effing up the vocabulary than in having a serious conversation. That's why it struck me as interesting that even someone on the gun rights activists' side gets quibbled over. The other side doesn't stand a chance.

 

[TurtleDude]

Interesting that each of the first two posts in this thread find a way to quibble with the language in spite of her being on their side and trying her darnedest to get it right. But they're gentle about it ... because she's on their side.

What I'm hearing is that it's a complicated subject. But observing that the scary "assault" name was coined as propaganda to create fear doesn't change the fact that they (and the masses of other legals guns) give us reason to fear them.

We have a lot of gun death in this country. There is reason for fear.

there is no reason to fear guns given that in the last 25 years, the number of guns in private hands has gone WAY up but the rate of gun deaths have gone down

what "scares" most liberals is that we gun owners understand that liberal gun control schemes are not intended to decrease crime but to harass us for the way we vote and to pander to low IQ voters who think people who commit murder or robbery will obey liberal gun laws

 

[TurtleDude]

And even someone who has worked really really hard to get all the terms correct still has two potential errors called out in the first two posts.

I've found that many gun rights activists seem more interested in telling people that they're effing up the vocabulary than in having a serious conversation. That's why it struck me as interesting that even someone on the gun rights activists' side gets quibbled over. The other side doesn't stand a chance.

We cannot have a serious conversation with people who call AR 15s weapons of war or claim that you can shoot 30 rounds in a second with a semi auto. Yet those are the people who are trying to ban such firearms.

 

[Lutherf]

And even someone who has worked really really hard to get all the terms correct still has two potential errors called out in the first two posts.

I've found that many gun rights activists seem more interested in telling people that they're effing up the vocabulary than in having a serious conversation. That's why it struck me as interesting that even someone on the gun rights activists' side gets quibbled over. The other side doesn't stand a chance.

I've seen that happen but, generally, it happens when the speaker or author is presenting themselves as an expert. For example, if Bob holds himself out on CBS as a tactical firearms expert and uses inaccurate terms while decrying the horrors of semi-auto firearms we're going to give him grief.

 

[Lutherf]

We cannot have a serious conversation with people who call AR 15s weapons of war or claim that you can shoot 30 rounds in a second with a semi auto. Yet those are the people who are trying to ban such firearms.

They ALWAYS take things to the extreme. For the last month Trump was accused of "holding the federal workers hostage" even though "hostage" implies that there is no way out of the situation and Trump made multiple offers to allow them out...which Democrats shot down.

 

[Harshaw]

Interesting that each of the first two posts in this thread find a way to quibble with the language in spite of her being on their side and trying her darnedest to get it right. But they're gentle about it ... because she's on their side.

Interesting that you find friendly suggestions for making a good video even better so . . . triggering.

Perhaps you should just stick to the content.

 

[TurtleDude]

Interesting that you find friendly suggestions for making a good video even better so . . . triggering.

Perhaps you should just stick to the content.

I was foreclosing one of the anti gun trolls from trying to dismiss her argument by making claims that she erred.

 

[Harshaw]

I was foreclosing one of the anti gun trolls from trying to dismiss her argument by making claims that she erred.

And I was making a suggestion because at the point in the video where it was used, it would have been helpful to know what makes a "carbine" a carbine.

I knew your intentions. You understood mine.

But Amelia was clearly never here to have the reasonable discussion she claims to lament.

 

[OlNate]

there is no reason to fear guns given that in the last 25 years, the number of guns in private hands has gone WAY up but the rate of gun deaths have gone down

what "scares" most liberals is that we gun owners understand that liberal gun control schemes are not intended to decrease crime but to harass us for the way we vote and to pander to low IQ voters who think people who commit murder or robbery will obey liberal gun laws

One day we're gonna get together, under the premise of having a beer around a campfire, and I'm gonna give you the mother of all wedgies, so that hopefully you remember this is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. I'll make sure it is at my campfire, so that you are unarmed at the time...

The education approach is good, though...it addresses the real problem, which isn't political lean, but ignorance in the face of a scary situation.

 

[Rucker61]

One day we're gonna get together, under the premise of having a beer around a campfire, and I'm gonna give you the mother of all wedgies, so that hopefully you remember this is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. I'll make sure it is at my campfire, so that you are unarmed at the time...

The education approach is good, though...it addresses the real problem, which isn't political lean, but ignorance in the face of a scary situation.

Gun control isn't a liberal vs conservative issue? And why would you be worried about TD being armed?

 

[Harshaw]

One day we're gonna get together, under the premise of having a beer around a campfire, and I'm gonna give you the mother of all wedgies, so that hopefully you remember this is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. I'll make sure it is at my campfire, so that you are unarmed at the time...

It shouldn't be, I entirely agree, but that's how it tends to break down.

 

[OlNate]

Interesting that each of the first two posts in this thread find a way to quibble with the language in spite of her being on their side and trying her darnedest to get it right. But they're gentle about it ... because she's on their side.

What I'm hearing is that it's a complicated subject. But observing that the scary "assault" name was coined as propaganda to create fear doesn't change the fact that they (and the masses of other legals guns) give us reason to fear them.

We have a lot of gun death in this country. There is reason for fear.

Yes...there is a reason for fear. But don't let fear drive you to support "solutions" that won't work. Banning guns, or certain guns, feels good the same way that building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out feels good. As usual, it is much more complicated than that.

I get that some folks will never get guns. I get that it's weird hearing about keeping an open mind when it comes to responsible gun ownership, even ownership of the guns that are especially intimidating. But you'll never get rid of guns in America, they are too far embedded in your culture, and with 300 million guns in circulation in America, they are also too well established to get rid of with any hope of total success. Therefore the progressive, by definition, seeks the solution that works within the reality of a country that has a lot of guns that aren't going anywhere. Bans and excessive controls are a waste of time.

I'd say, if you feel strongly about it, you should try to educate yourself (or talk to someone like Turtle, who knows a crap ton on the subject), and approach that learning with an open mind. The reality is that the vast vast majority of guns are owned by responsible gun owners, which means that the vast vast majority of these guns pose no threat to you whatsoever. If you start with that in mind, you'll work to a much better solution that stands a choice of working - certainly better than "gun grabbing".

Just my two cents, Amelia...and even there, that's only two cents in Canadian currency....hehe

 

[OlNate]

It shouldn't be, I entirely agree, but that's how it tends to break down.

Not sure it does, bud... only 1/5 Americans support #RepealThe2nd. That means there are a lot of liberals who do not want guns banned. Though I guess it's likely that the 1 in 5 are probably liberal... With numbers like that, and in the political climate you are in, I'd maintain it's a bad idea to polarize the issue along party lines...

 

[Harshaw]

Not sure it does, bud... only 1/5 Americans support #RepealThe2nd. That means there are a lot of liberals who do not want guns banned.

That doesn't really follow; a good deal of them who want guns banned or severely restricted insist that the Second Amendment isn't an impediment, so they're not worried about repeal. They just claim Scalia made things up in Heller.

Though I guess it's likely that the 1 in 5 are probably liberal...

I guarantee you the vast majority of them are, though there are a few conservatives, like George Will, who have called for the 2A to be repealed.

With numbers like that, and in the political climate you are in, I'd maintain it's a bad idea to polarize the issue along party lines...

It's not the gun rights advocates who did that.

 

[Rucker61]

Not sure it does, bud... only 1/5 Americans support #RepealThe2nd. That means there are a lot of liberals who do not want guns banned. Though I guess it's likely that the 1 in 5 are probably liberal... With numbers like that, and in the political climate you are in, I'd maintain it's a bad idea to polarize the issue along party lines...

The parties themselves, especially the Democratic Party, have polarized the issue along party lines.

 

[Amelia]

Yes...there is a reason for fear. But don't let fear drive you to support "solutions" that won't work. Banning guns, or certain guns, feels good the same way that building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out feels good. As usual, it is much more complicated than that.

I get that some folks will never get guns. I get that it's weird hearing about keeping an open mind when it comes to responsible gun ownership, even ownership of the guns that are especially intimidating. But you'll never get rid of guns in America, they are too far embedded in your culture, and with 300 million guns in circulation in America, they are also too well established to get rid of with any hope of total success. Therefore the progressive, by definition, seeks the solution that works within the reality of a country that has a lot of guns that aren't going anywhere. Bans and excessive controls are a waste of time.

I'd say, if you feel strongly about it, you should try to educate yourself (or talk to someone like Turtle, who knows a crap ton on the subject), and approach that learning with an open mind. The reality is that the vast vast majority of guns are owned by responsible gun owners, which means that the vast vast majority of these guns pose no threat to you whatsoever. If you start with that in mind, you'll work to a much better solution that stands a choice of working - certainly better than "gun grabbing".

Just my two cents, Amelia...and even there, that's only two cents in Canadian currency....hehe

I don't feel strongly about it.

I feel sad about all those children whose parents didn't give enough of a damn about them to keep them safe from guns ... and about the children whose parents did care but their children still weren't safe because of other people's decisions which the caring parents couldn't control for.

But I don't feel strongly, because I feel numb. We have single issue voters who would elect a Trump because of some fearmongering about people taking away their guns. How do I deal with that? I don't try. I think it's hopeless.

I just thought it amusing to see the first two posts send off friendly fire over the vocab, so I commented. The vocabulary wars are a symbol of why we won't be making any progress on this subject. So I noted them. And with that I am done.

(Oh, I did watch the video, but am not stupid enough to get any deeper into this conversation.)

 

[OlNate]

Gun control isn't a liberal vs conservative issue? And why would you be worried about TD being armed?

Because he's a raging gun nut, and he's likely to mow me down with little to no provocation, of course.

Rucker, stand down, bud, TD and I are good...I was kidding. The comment was made because I live in Canada, so he'd have to be unarmed to make it across the border, which is handy to know when planning a serious wedgie. I am a gun enthusiast (though I don't have any now, sadly - living in the city made that impossible...but I'm working on remedying that, now that I am back in the country), got my first .22 when I was 11 or 12. Some of my best memories are shooting with my grandfather - what I wouldn't give just to have him back for an afternoon of shooting.

Yup, I'm a dirty liberal, and I love guns. Can you accept that, or would you like to change my mind?

 

[OlNate]

I don't feel strongly about it.

I feel sad about all those children whose parents didn't give enough of a damn about them to keep them safe from guns ... and about the children whose parents did care but their children still weren't safe because of other people's decisions which the caring parents couldn't control for.

But I don't feel strongly, because I feel numb. We have single issue voters who would elect a Trump because of some fearmongering about people taking away their guns. How do I deal with that? I don't try. I think it's hopeless.

I just thought it amusing to see the first two posts send off friendly fire over the vocab, so I commented. The vocabulary wars are a symbol of why we won't be making any progress on this subject. So I noted them. And with that I am done.

(Oh, I did watch the video, but am not stupid enough to get any deeper into this conversation.)

Fair enough...but if you ever want to do your due diligence, in terms of coming to an educated opinion, I'd be happy to chat.

(I didn't know how to say that without sounding condescending AF, so I'll just blabber on like this for a sec, and hope for the best)

 

[Rucker61]

Because he's a raging gun nut, and he's likely to mow me down with little to no provocation, of course.

Rucker, stand down, bud, TD and I are good...I was kidding. The comment was made because I live in Canada, so he'd have to be unarmed to make it across the border, which is handy to know when planning a serious wedgie. I am a gun enthusiast (though I don't have any now, sadly - living in the city made that impossible...but I'm working on remedying that, now that I am back in the country), got my first .22 when I was 11 or 12. Some of my best memories are shooting with my grandfather - what I wouldn't give just to have him back for an afternoon of shooting.

Yup, I'm a dirty liberal, and I love guns. Can you accept that, or would you like to change my mind?

You'll need to post the actual meme for me to take you up on that . Good point about the Canadian thing, eh. I forgot you were up there. Given my position on social issues, many Republicans would consider me a liberal, too. Come'on down to Colorado - I'll get you out to a 3 Gun match shooting ARs, semi-auto pistols, SBRs and guns with suppressors. Good times

 

[Mach]

We cannot have a serious conversation with people who call AR 15s weapons of war or claim that you can shoot 30 rounds in a second with a semi auto. Yet those are the people who are trying to ban such firearms.

So with a bump stock an AR15 is at 9 rounds per second rather than 30. And that means you "can't have a serious conversation"?
AR-15s were developed directly from the M16 rifle as designed for military use, in war, to kill humans efficiently at range, with the only significant difference the lack of select fire. But you object to it being called a "weapon of war"? It was basically even ruled as such years back.

Of course you can't have a serious conversation when you aren't posting seriously. Amelia's correct, even the OP video slips up, but you apologize for that because stuff.

 

[OlNate]

You'll need to post the actual meme for me to take you up on that . Good point about the Canadian thing, eh. I forgot you were up there. Given my position on social issues, many Republicans would consider me a liberal, too. Come'on down to Colorado - I'll get you out to a 3 Gun match shooting ARs, semi-auto pistols, SBRs and guns with suppressors. Good times

Haha...would love to. I've got a buddy near by who has his Restricted license, which lets him have the AR and the semi-auto pistols, if only at the range, and I've gotten some good practice in, so don't expect the Canuck to be a slouch... Never played with a suppressor before, though. Those are for terrorists. :lol: