What has happened to the NRA?[W107,700]

[Federalist]

And I guess one could say "its possible" that three inch flame monkeys play basketball under the surface of Uranus.

Yes, so to answer your original question:

So is it possible that people are not using the same definition you are and when they say ASSAULT WEAPON they mean a firearm that is used to ASSAULT somebody?

My answer was, and is, that it is possible.

 

[TurtleDude]

It has become obvious by your response and the response of others - both in this thread and in others in the past - that this is something of a cause celebre among certain gun aficionados and I see no evidence of any kind that it means anything to anyone outside of that group. As such, it is used as a secret handshake to separate friend from foe and is used to measure if the poster is 'for us or agin us".

As such, it is a foolish and meaningless distinction to anyone outside of the group using it as such.

Like many of your anti gun posts, that makes no sense to me or others well versed in this field

the far wrong adopted a military term improperly in order to raise the fear level among mouthbreathers and Low information pawns.

why would someone try to create a faux similarity between a military assault rifle and a weapon that is really not useful for "assault" as contemplated by the term applied to a fully automatic military rifle?

 

[haymarket]

I never go back to find a post relating to any point I'm currently making. If I hadn't felt you had done so, we wouldn't be having this bit of exchange...

That then places you at quite a disadvantage in debate when you publicly admit you refuse to substantiate your allegations about what another poster has said.

 

[haymarket]

Like many of your anti gun posts, that makes no sense to me or others well versed in this field

the far wrong adopted a military term improperly in order to raise the fear level among mouthbreathers and Low information pawns.

why would someone try to create a faux similarity between a military assault rifle and a weapon that is really not useful for "assault" as contemplated by the term applied to a fully automatic military rifle?

How is me explaining to you what people are saying when using this term considered as ANTI-GUN? I see no sense at all in that charge. Can you explain it with some evidence that people who use the term are being "anti-gun" because they fail to distinguish between the line of an ASSAULT RIFLE and an ASSAULT WEAPON when they clearly are including one in the category of the other and both are clearly labeled as ASSAULT and can be used in ASSAULTS?

Again, this is a cause celebre among some gun aficionados and seems meaningless to anybody else not using this as some sort of secret handshake test of purity.

 

[TurtleDude]

That then places you at quite a disadvantage in debate when you publicly admit you refuse to substantiate your allegations about what another poster has said.

your rules of "debate" are really not controlling upon the rest of us and your view of debate as a confrontation where you "win" by avoiding taking a stand so you can claim no one refuted your stand is not particularly compelling to those of us who did not attend the same college you went to or practice the very narrow definition of debate that your college apparently used

for example, I used to box. part of winning a boxing match involves preventing your opponent from hitting you. But a fighter who runs away and avoids allowing his opponent a chance to hit him is not going to win because merely running and avoiding getting hit is not the total scoring issue in a match

 

[AlabamaPaul]

That then places you at quite a disadvantage in debate when you publicly admit you refuse to substantiate your allegations about what another poster has said.

No, I'm at no disadvantage, but you seem to be. Do you believe I just made up the reason for asking the questions that I've been posing? I have nothing against you other than some tactics I find objectionable and a bit of high mindedness...

 

[TurtleDude]

How is me explaining to you what people are saying when using this term considered as ANTI-GUN? I see no sense at all in that charge. Can you explain it with some evidence that people who use the term are being "anti-gun" because they fail to distinguish between the line of an ASSAULT RIFLE and an ASSAULT WEAPON when they clearly are including one in the category of the other and both are clearly labeled as ASSAULT and can be used in ASSAULTS?

Again, this is a cause celebre among some gun aficionados and seems meaningless to anybody else not using this as some sort of secret handshake test of purity.

assault weapon is a term that the anti gun far wrong uses in order to demonize a style of sporting firearms and to dishonestly link those firearms to the machine gun mayhem that is commonly depicted on the screen

 

[Trip]

He clearly said he was giving his own views... his own opinions.... his own arguments. To pretend otherwise is simply a lie.

No he did not "clearly" , or any other way, say that he was presenting his own views, his own opinion and his own arguments.



If he did such you could cite a complete sentence indicating such, but that's nowhere in Federalist #1. Since you're asserting otherwise, please provide that citation now.



What Hamilton did do is say what he ("I") would intend to present over the course of the Federalist papers, but in no way indicating this to involve his own opinion.

Your claim goes beyond being a patently false claim and rationale, beyond the absurdity of implying that his mere use of the personal pronoun is indicative that everything he is about to provided would be solely his own opinion, to such a level of intellectual dishonesty that it can only come from a either extreme pathology, or gross incapacity.

 

[Jerry]

I was trying to indulge your questions and those of others. Is that considered as objectionable to you to answer your own questions and posts?

You haven't answered my questions.

That's ok, though. You didn't even know what the Hughes Amendment was. As I said, that's exactly like Pro-Choice not knowing what Roe v. Wade is.

I guess I was the fool for attempting a conversation in the first place.

 

[haymarket]

your rules of "debate"

I have never written any rules of debate. As such, asking people for evidence of their allegations is NOT MY RULES but a long standing time honored practice in debate.

 

[haymarket]

You haven't answered my questions.

That's ok, though. You didn't even know what the Hughes Amendment was. As I said, that's exactly like Pro-Choice not knowing what Roe v. Wade is.

I guess I was the fool for attempting a conversation in the first place.

And you totally missed my point when I posed the question to you. Which I imagine was not accidental nor by omission.

 

[Federalist]

BTW haymarket, you still haven't answered this question: Do you think it is justified to initiate interpersonal violence against people who have not harmed others or their property?

 

[haymarket]

No he did not "clearly" , or any other way, say that he was presenting his own views, his own opinion and his own arguments.

And if I a can quote him saying he was presenting just that - his own opinion... his own argument ... then you agree to leave here and never return? And if I cannot quote him saying that, I will leave here and never return?

Are you ready to back up your silly denials of the record with your own continued existence here? Because i am.

Ready?

 

[TurtleDude]

I have never written any rules of debate. As such, asking people for evidence of their allegations is NOT MY RULES but a long standing time honored practice in debate.

you constantly tell other posters that they do not meet the standards of what you think debate is. Those of us who were not at your college really don't care because many of us have had debate experience where the rules are far different than the rules you are used to.

This is debate politics. The membership determines what matters

 

[haymarket]

BTW haymarket, you still haven't answered this question: Do you think it is justified to initiate interpersonal violence against people who have not harmed others or their property?

Based on your answers to my question in 418, it is obvious that you are using the term interpersonal violence as something which is clearly and obviously NOT part of the real world we live in and something you have made up which has special meaning for you.

 

[Federalist]

did you miss post 418?

Did you miss post #422?

 

[haymarket]

Did you miss post #422?

yes I did as it did NOT appear on my notifications. But I found it anyways and replied to you about your 'answers'.

 

[haymarket]

No, I'm at no disadvantage, but you seem to be. Do you believe I just made up the reason for asking the questions that I've been posing? I have nothing against you other than some tactics I find objectionable and a bit of high mindedness...

I am sorry you find objectionable me asking you to support your claims with evidence.

 

[haymarket]

assault weapon is a term that the anti gun far wrong uses in order to demonize a style of sporting firearms and to dishonestly link those firearms to the machine gun mayhem that is commonly depicted on the screen

I get that is what you believe and I get that this term means some sort of dividing line secret handshake test for people who are gun aficionados. I suspect that for many people it is a difference without a distinction as an ASSAULT RIFLE that is a WEAPON can be used in an ASSAULT and thus to people becomes an ASSAULT WEAPON.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

I am sorry you find objectionable me asking you to support your claims with evidence.

I do not owe you anything. You make your own bed with the posts you choose to make. If it's uncomfortable, change the sheets or mattress...

 

[Federalist]

yes I did as it did NOT appear on my notifications. But I found it anyways and replied to you about your 'answers'.

Which post contains your reply?

 

[TurtleDude]

I get that is what you believe and I get that this term means some sort of dividing line secret handshake test for people who are gun aficionados. I suspect that for many people it is a difference without a distinction as an ASSAULT RIFLE that is a WEAPON can be used in an ASSAULT and thus to people becomes an ASSAULT WEAPON.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

you obviously are not understanding the military term "assault"

all weapons can be used to assault an individual
since less than 3 percent of all firearms crimes involve the larger group of firearms that includes the subset known as "assault weapons" to Democrat gun banners, its rather specious to claim that these weapons are more likely to be used for "assault" (the term that is designed to scare voters) than say handguns or pump shotguns, or claw hammers, or baseball bats, or kitchen knives

 

[haymarket]

you constantly tell other posters that they do not meet the standards of what you think debate is. Those of us who were not at your college really don't care because many of us have had debate experience where the rules are far different than the rules you are used to.

This is debate politics. The membership determines what matters

I understand that people who have not been participants in formal debate and do not have the training often lack the skills that are necessary to participate in debate - be it here or anywhere else.

I also understand that asking people to support their allegations, claims and charges with actual verifiable evidence seems way out of bounds for a group of people raised on the internet and believe that their own belief system is a valid substitute for verifiable evidence.

Sadly, some people simply are not willing to learn.

The membership can never determine that personal belief trumps verifiable evidence no matter how large the crowd employing the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Populum becomes or how loud or vocal they get. It is still a fallacy just the same.

 

[TurtleDude]

I understand that people who have not been participants in formal debate and do not have the training often lack the skills that are necessary to participate in debate - be it here or anywhere else.

I also understand that asking people to support their allegations, claims and charges with actual verifiable evidence seems way out of bounds for a group of people raised on the internet and believe that their own belief system is a valid substitute for verifiable evidence.

Sadly, some people simply are not willing to learn.

The membership can never determine that personal belief trumps verifiable evidence no matter how large the crowd employing the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Populum becomes or how loud or vocal they get. It is still a fallacy just the same.

many of us have as much or more training. we just find the rules of one poster to be not relevant to this forum

we find constant references to rules that have no relevance to this forum to be irrelevant

 

[haymarket]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

you obviously are not understanding the military term "assault"

You should because I have explained clearly and repeatedly.

You obviously do not seem to understand that outside of the hardocre gun group - nobody else seems to care about the military distinction. Nobody other than some hardcore gun aficionados seem to care and they only care because they use it as a secret handshake as a test of purity to separate frioned from perceived foe.