independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 23rd Aug 2019 3:59am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > IN YOUR OPINION: What makes a rifle an Assault rifle?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 11/05/17 7:01am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

if you do not know then why post?

I happen to know a legume grows in a multi-seed pod like peas... (Like Peas in a Pod) Nuts are the seed in shell by itself


This thread is stupid. I think I know why you created it - to reinforce your opinion made in another thread that most people who are anti-gun are ignorant or dishonest. According to the law of Only the measure of this is knowing the difference between a rifle and an assault rifle - and because you state this it must be true. Therefore because myself and Dasein admit we're anti-gun but don't know the difference, that reinforces your belief that we are ignorant and dishonest and that anti-gun supporters don't know what they are talking about. Right? [Edited 11/4/17 23:51pm]

you are being honest. you are opposed to the right to own guns. I was glad you admitted that.

I am not claiming to have any special authority or whatever. I happen to think as I SAID that the term is made up to be vague and ultimately applicable to most firearms. Dasein admitted he did not know the difference and he wants them banned... he is being honest.

And NOT knowing the difference would not make one ignorant. What would, would be listing things that either do not really exist in modern firearms or things that apply to many other weapons or things that were simply not true of them.


ad many on the left say they only want to ban assault rifles but then give reasons that do not make any sense and thus show either they do not know what they are talking about or are lying.

Again since you and Dasein are just gun grabbers you would be exempt from any such label.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 11/05/17 7:12am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Dasein said:

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said: This thread is stupid. I think I know why you created it - to reinforce your opinion made in another thread that most people who are anti-gun are ignorant or dishonest. According to the law of Only the measure of this is knowing the difference between a rifle and an assault rifle - and because you state this it must be true. Therefore because myself and Dasein admit we're anti-gun but don't know the difference, that reinforces your belief that we are ignorant and dishonest and that anti-gun supporters don't know what they are talking about. Right? [Edited 11/4/17 23:51pm]


I suspect that you may be right, Maple, because Only is being awfully vague about answering
my questions as if I'm asking for his social security number. If your hunches are correct, that
Only thinks our ignorance about the distinguishing features of a rifle and assault rifle means
our anti-gun argument is uninformed, I would say to him that that reasoning is just as dumb
as this thread. For, I don't have to know why and how a gun is an automatic or semiautomatic
or what makes a rifle an assault rifle in order to make any anti-gun claim.


I do not answer your questions as they have nothing to do with this topic...

No, I do not think you not knowing the difference is bad...as I said I do not think the label is honest, to begin with. as you want all guns banned then the distinction is not relevant.

I do think your anti-gun mindset is wrong but that is not more personal than you thinking my pro-gun stance wrong.

oh and

automatic if you pull the trigger and hold it down it will keep firing until you let go or you run out of bullets (or some malfunction)


semiautomatic: one and ONLY one round fired per-pull...

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 11/05/17 8:01am

Dasein

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Dasein said:


I suspect that you may be right, Maple, because Only is being awfully vague about answering
my questions as if I'm asking for his social security number. If your hunches are correct, that
Only thinks our ignorance about the distinguishing features of a rifle and assault rifle means
our anti-gun argument is uninformed, I would say to him that that reasoning is just as dumb
as this thread. For, I don't have to know why and how a gun is an automatic or semiautomatic
or what makes a rifle an assault rifle in order to make any anti-gun claim.


I do not answer your questions as they have nothing to do with this topic...

No, I do not think you not knowing the difference is bad...as I said I do not think the label is honest, to begin with. as you want all guns banned then the distinction is not relevant.

I do think your anti-gun mindset is wrong but that is not more personal than you thinking my pro-gun stance wrong.

oh and

automatic if you pull the trigger and hold it down it will keep firing until you let go or you run out of bullets (or some malfunction)


semiautomatic: one and ONLY one round fired per-pull...


Your reply here and your reply to Maple is not honest or, you are inconsistent for you can not
tell us that you didn't create the thread, as Maple suggested, to show how some who are anti-
gun whilst not knowing the difference between a rifle and an assault rifle reinforces your belief
that we are ignorant and dishonest and that anti-gun supporters don't know what they are
talking about with you saying things like:


"if you do not know then why post?"

"the fact that you admit you do not know the difference between them tells me that the difference
is made up."

I think Maple is right, and I think DJ is right, who said:

"As for the function of this thread? It shows that, regardless of their rhetoric, gun grabbers want to
take ALL the guns and don't even know what they're talking about when they claim they just want
to criminalize "assault" weapons."

This reason and Maple's reason are why you created the thread and you know it but for some reason,
you are reluctant to admit it.







  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 11/05/17 11:21am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Dasein said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I do not answer your questions as they have nothing to do with this topic...

No, I do not think you not knowing the difference is bad...as I said I do not think the label is honest, to begin with. as you want all guns banned then the distinction is not relevant.

I do think your anti-gun mindset is wrong but that is not more personal than you thinking my pro-gun stance wrong.

oh and

automatic if you pull the trigger and hold it down it will keep firing until you let go or you run out of bullets (or some malfunction)


semiautomatic: one and ONLY one round fired per-pull...


Your reply here and your reply to Maple is not honest or, you are inconsistent for you can not
tell us that you didn't create the thread, as Maple suggested, to show how some who are anti-
gun whilst not knowing the difference between a rifle and an assault rifle reinforces your belief
that we are ignorant and dishonest and that anti-gun supporters don't know what they are
talking about with you saying things like:


"if you do not know then why post?"

"the fact that you admit you do not know the difference between them tells me that the difference
is made up."

I think Maple is right, and I think DJ is right, who said:

"As for the function of this thread? It shows that, regardless of their rhetoric, gun grabbers want to
take ALL the guns and don't even know what they're talking about when they claim they just want
to criminalize "assault" weapons."

This reason and Maple's reason are why you created the thread and you know it but for some reason,
you are reluctant to admit it.



both you and maplenpg said you want all guns banned... so that makes the point DJ made that some want guns banned. You do not know or care what the difference is so all you do is come here and troll. I think I must have struck a nerve (triggered much?) with you as you seem obsessed with disrupting this topic. You are welcome to take part or not take part.

maplenpg suggested I was calling you and him dishonest or ignorant... NOPE. you both say you want to ban all guns... not know what makes a rifle an assault rifle is thus irrelevant to you both. But it also supports my claim that the difference is made up and more a political catchphrase than anything.



  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 11/05/17 11:47am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Dasein said:


Your reply here and your reply to Maple is not honest or, you are inconsistent for you can not
tell us that you didn't create the thread, as Maple suggested, to show how some who are anti-
gun whilst not knowing the difference between a rifle and an assault rifle reinforces your belief
that we are ignorant and dishonest and that anti-gun supporters don't know what they are
talking about with you saying things like:


"if you do not know then why post?"

"the fact that you admit you do not know the difference between them tells me that the difference
is made up."

I think Maple is right, and I think DJ is right, who said:

"As for the function of this thread? It shows that, regardless of their rhetoric, gun grabbers want to
take ALL the guns and don't even know what they're talking about when they claim they just want
to criminalize "assault" weapons."

This reason and Maple's reason are why you created the thread and you know it but for some reason,
you are reluctant to admit it.



both you and maplenpg said you want all guns banned... so that makes the point DJ made that some want guns banned. You do not know or care what the difference is so all you do is come here and troll. I think I must have struck a nerve (triggered much?) with you as you seem obsessed with disrupting this topic. You are welcome to take part or not take part.

maplenpg suggested I was calling you and him dishonest or ignorant... NOPE. you both say you want to ban all guns... not know what makes a rifle an assault rifle is thus irrelevant to you both. But it also supports my claim that the difference is made up and more a political catchphrase than anything.



It's her actually but I'll forgive you smile ... and on that note I'm out of this thread - come to Europe, see how we manage without guns, it's really not so bad.

If you're going to refer to people as 'scum' or 'garbage vomit', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 11/05/17 12:58pm

Dasein

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Dasein said:


Your reply here and your reply to Maple is not honest or, you are inconsistent for you can not
tell us that you didn't create the thread, as Maple suggested, to show how some who are anti-
gun whilst not knowing the difference between a rifle and an assault rifle reinforces your belief
that we are ignorant and dishonest and that anti-gun supporters don't know what they are
talking about with you saying things like:


"if you do not know then why post?"

"the fact that you admit you do not know the difference between them tells me that the difference
is made up."

I think Maple is right, and I think DJ is right, who said:

"As for the function of this thread? It shows that, regardless of their rhetoric, gun grabbers want to
take ALL the guns and don't even know what they're talking about when they claim they just want
to criminalize "assault" weapons."

This reason and Maple's reason are why you created the thread and you know it but for some reason,
you are reluctant to admit it.



both you and maplenpg said you want all guns banned... so that makes the point DJ made that some want guns banned. You do not know or care what the difference is so all you do is come here and troll. I think I must have struck a nerve (triggered much?) with you as you seem obsessed with disrupting this topic. You are welcome to take part or not take part.

maplenpg suggested I was calling you and him dishonest or ignorant... NOPE. you both say you want to ban all guns... not know what makes a rifle an assault rifle is thus irrelevant to you both. But it also supports my claim that the difference is made up and more a political catchphrase than anything.




Your purpose for creating this thread was to troll the Org with another one of your goofy gaps in
logic for you seem to think that in order for an anti-gun ethic to be credible, it must know the dif-
ference you think doesn't exist between a rifle and an assault rifle. You didn't strike any nerves;
Maple knew you were full of crap and I did as well which is why I my initial post in this thread was
an attempt for you to clarify. When you deflected by being vague, I knew you were up to no good.

If you say there is no difference between a rifle and an assault rifle apart from it being a term
coined to scare us anti-gun nitwits more, then why not state that in the OP? And, who else believes
as you do that there isn't a difference between the two? Why should we hold your opinion on this
matter as being one that is informed?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 11/05/17 1:25pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

The word "assault" before weapon or rifle means nothing because there is no uniform accepted definition as to what constitutes an "assault" weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ult_weapon

Any honest debate on the subject would focus on concrete terms such as automatic, semi-automatic, detachable magazine, magazine size, rifle, pistol, etc. which are non-debatable terms.

Anyone that engages in the discussion without knowledge of the terminology involved is simply talking about all "guns" and if that person uses the term "assault" weapon when they have no idea what that distinguishes, they are being dishonest.

What's wrong with pointing this out?




[Edited 11/5/17 13:26pm]

Ross Perot was right!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 11/05/17 1:49pm

Dasein

djThunderfunk said:

The word "assault" before weapon or rifle means nothing because there is no uniform accepted definition as to what constitutes an "assault" weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ult_weapon

Any honest debate on the subject would focus on concrete terms such as automatic, semi-automatic, detachable magazine, magazine size, rifle, pistol, etc. which are non-debatable terms.

Anyone that engages in the discussion without knowledge of the terminology involved is simply talking about all "guns" and if that person uses the term "assault" weapon when they have no idea what that distinguishes, they are being dishonest.

What's wrong with pointing this out?




[Edited 11/5/17 13:26pm]


There's nothing wrong with looking at the "difference" between a rifle and assault rifle as pos-
sibly being a kind of false dilemma. But, there is certainly something wrong with the claim that
in order to have a credible anti-gun ethic, then you need to have some overarching knowledge
of guns because if you don't, then you're being dishonest.

That is flawed argument.

In order for me to assert the claim that all guns, regardless of their power, should be banned
from citizen possession, I only need to give a basis for that claim which does not necessarily
require having extensive knowledge of gunsmithing. Does it help? Of course it does! But, is
it necessary? Of course not for my argument persists regardless of what kind of guns I'm
hoping to be banned. The only way you could make that claim is if I was asking for a ban on
all assault rifles while finding rifle ownership permissible. In asking for prohibitions for all guns,
I don't need to know the difference between a musket, pistol, handgun, blunderbuss, rifle, semi-
automatic, automatic, etc for then I'm not interested in debating gun terms but the ethic of gun
ownership period. Also, you cannot claim that if an anti-gun advocate doesn't know the termi-
nology of guns/weapons, then s/he is "dishonest" with some kind of credibility. Ignorant? Sure!
Being deceitful? Not necessarily.

The problem I have with Only is that he wasn't being forthright about why he created this thread
and what his argument was.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 11/05/17 2:00pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

Dasein said:


There's nothing wrong with looking at the "difference" between a rifle and assault rifle as pos-
sibly being a kind of false dilemma. But, there is certainly something wrong with the claim that
in order to have a credible anti-gun ethic, then you need to have some overarching knowledge
of guns because if you don't, then you're being dishonest.

The "dishonesty" comes in to play for those that pretend they don't have an agenda to take ALL guns but rather use the wordplay of "assault" weapons to make it sound as if they're only interested in banning a certain kind of firearm.

That is flawed argument.

In order for me to assert the claim that all guns, regardless of their power, should be banned
from citizen possession, I only need to give a basis for that claim which does not necessarily
require having extensive knowledge of gunsmithing. Does it help? Of course it does! But, is
it necessary? Of course not for my argument persists regardless of what kind of guns I'm
hoping to be banned. The only way you could make that claim is if I was asking for a ban on
all assault rifles while finding rifle ownership permissible. In asking for prohibitions for all guns,
I don't need to know the difference between a musket, pistol, handgun, blunderbuss, rifle, semi-
automatic, automatic, etc for then I'm not interested in debating gun terms but the ethic of gun
ownership period. Also, you cannot claim that if an anti-gun advocate doesn't know the termi-
nology of guns/weapons, then s/he is "dishonest" with some kind of credibility. Ignorant? Sure!
Being deceitful? Not necessarily.

I'll give you points for admitting you are for ALL guns being illegal. Often, "gun-grabbers" are deceptive on this point. Mostly because they know that any attempt to make all guns illegal brings out far more opposition than from just the "gun nuts" and the odds of making all guns illegal in the US is slim to none.

The problem I have with Only is that he wasn't being forthright about why he created this thread
and what his argument was.

As far as I can tell, Only was asking questions to make a point, not an argument. But, in any case, this in no way constitutes "trolling".

Ross Perot was right!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 11/05/17 2:19pm

NorthC

Put away the guns 4 future's sake
Don't U be another number 4 The Undertaker
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 11/05/17 2:25pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Dasein said:

MY Replys in BOLD inserted in to Dasein's post


Your purpose for creating this thread was to troll the Org with another one of your goofy gaps in
logic for you seem to think that in order for an anti-gun ethic to be credible, it must know the difference you think doesn't exist between a rifle and an assault rifle.

Wrong.

You didn't strike any nerves;

the number of times you posted in this topic says otherwise!

Maple knew you were full of crap and I did as well which is why I my initial post in this thread was
an attempt for you to clarify. When you deflected by being vague, I knew you were up to no good.

And the first part of this post shows you were wrong about the point of this topic.

If you say there is no difference between a rifle and an assault rifle apart from it being a term
coined to scare us anti-gun nitwits more, then why not state that in the OP?

there is a subtle distiction between there being no difference and how it is used by many... but like you said you want all guns banned so to you the difference is meaningless... you could have just said that or just not posted here...

And, who else believes as you do that there isn't a difference between the two?

again not excataly what I was saying but I see that some of that is my fault...but either way you said you do not know and that you want all guns banned.

Why should we hold your opinion on this matter as being one that is informed?

you are free to hold whatever you like

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 11/05/17 2:31pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Dasein said:


There's nothing wrong with looking at the "difference" between a rifle and assault rifle as pos-
sibly being a kind of false dilemma. But, there is certainly something wrong with the claim that
in order to have a credible anti-gun ethic, then you need to have some overarching knowledge
of guns because if you don't, then you're being dishonest.

That is flawed argument.

In order for me to assert the claim that all guns, regardless of their power, should be banned
from citizen possession, I only need to give a basis for that claim which does not necessarily
require having extensive knowledge of gunsmithing. Does it help? Of course it does! But, is
it necessary? Of course not for my argument persists regardless of what kind of guns I'm
hoping to be banned. The only way you could make that claim is if I was asking for a ban on
all assault rifles while finding rifle ownership permissible. In asking for prohibitions for all guns,
I don't need to know the difference between a musket, pistol, handgun, blunderbuss, rifle, semi-
automatic, automatic, etc for then I'm not interested in debating gun terms but the ethic of gun
ownership period. Also, you cannot claim that if an anti-gun advocate doesn't know the termi-
nology of guns/weapons, then s/he is "dishonest" with some kind of credibility. Ignorant? Sure!
Being deceitful? Not necessarily.

The problem I have with Only is that he wasn't being forthright about why he created this thread
and what his argument was.

Yellow Highlighted part: I agree 100% and I never once made that claim... you simply missed the point when you were jumping to a false conclusion.


Green Highlighedpart: there is no argument made in the OP and I can not just tell people why I am asking a question and hope to get an honest answer.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 11/05/17 2:42pm

Dasein

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Dasein said:


Your purpose for creating this thread was to troll the Org with another one of your goofy gaps in
logic for you seem to think that in order for an anti-gun ethic to be credible, it must know the difference you think doesn't exist between a rifle and an assault rifle.

Wrong.

You didn't strike any nerves;

the number of times you posted in this topic says otherwise!

Maple knew you were full of crap and I did as well which is why I my initial post in this thread was
an attempt for you to clarify. When you deflected by being vague, I knew you were up to no good.

And the first part of this post shows you were wrong about the point of this topic.

If you say there is no difference between a rifle and an assault rifle apart from it being a term
coined to scare us anti-gun nitwits more, then why not state that in the OP?

there is a subtle distiction between there being no difference and how it is used by many... but like you said you want all guns banned so to you the difference is meaningless... you could have just said that or just not posted here...

And, who else believes as you do that there isn't a difference between the two?

again not excataly what I was saying but I see that some of that is my fault...but either way you said you do not know and that you want all guns banned.

Why should we hold your opinion on this matter as being one that is informed?

you are free to hold whatever you like


The number of times I post in this thread has nothing to do with me having my nerves
struck; that's just fucking ridiculous.

Why is it important for you to make it known that there is supposedly no difference between an
assault rifle and a rifle? What comes from that fact being accepted as true? How do you benefit
from that assertion?


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 11/05/17 3:15pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

Dasein said:


Why is it important for you to make it known that there is supposedly no difference between an
assault rifle and a rifle? What comes from that fact being accepted as true? How do you benefit
from that assertion?



Why is it important for you to police Only's threads and demand he explain himself to you why he started it? What comes from repeatedly demanding he play by your rules? How do you benefit from this?

Just sayin', if you think a thread is "baiting", don't bite.

Ross Perot was right!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 11/05/17 3:21pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Dasein said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:


The number of times I post in this thread has nothing to do with me having my nerves
struck; that's just fucking ridiculous.

Why is it important for you to make it known that there is supposedly no difference between an
assault rifle and a rifle? What comes from that fact being accepted as true? How do you benefit
from that assertion?


Well, you are not here to take part. You are free to ask me questions and I am free to ignore you. And unless you have anything to add that is what I am doing...

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 11/05/17 7:51pm

13cjk13

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Dasein said:


The number of times I post in this thread has nothing to do with me having my nerves
struck; that's just fucking ridiculous.

Why is it important for you to make it known that there is supposedly no difference between an
assault rifle and a rifle? What comes from that fact being accepted as true? How do you benefit
from that assertion?


Well, you are not here to take part. You are free to ask me questions and I am free to ignore you. And unless you have anything to add that is what I am doing...

FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS.

"If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 11/05/17 7:55pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

13cjk13 said:



OnlyNDaUsa said:




Dasein said:




The number of times I post in this thread has nothing to do with me having my nerves
struck; that's just fucking ridiculous.

Why is it important for you to make it known that there is supposedly no difference between an
assault rifle and a rifle? What comes from that fact being accepted as true? How do you benefit
from that assertion?





Well, you are not here to take part. You are free to ask me questions and I am free to ignore you. And unless you have anything to add that is what I am doing...



FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS.




And some call me a gun humper!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 11/05/17 7:57pm

13cjk13

OnlyNDaUsa said:

13cjk13 said:

FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS.

And some call me a gun humper!

FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS. I guess if the 28 people that were slaughtered today didn't like guns, they shouldn't have bought any. FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS.

"If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 11/05/17 7:58pm

13cjk13

OnlyNDaUsa said:

13cjk13 said:

FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS.

And some call me a gun humper!

Slaughtering people is a big joke, isn't it?

"If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 11/05/17 8:12pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

13cjk13 said:



OnlyNDaUsa said:


13cjk13 said:


FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS. FUCK GUNS.



And some call me a gun humper!

Slaughtering people is a big joke, isn't it?



Now you are making up lies...i did not joke about that. So step off..
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 11/05/17 8:24pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

A private citizen with a legal firearm stopped the rampage and stopped the criminal who committed it.

Ross Perot was right!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 11/05/17 10:20pm

maplenpg

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

A private citizen with a legal firearm stopped the rampage and stopped the criminal who committed it.


And if the guy hadn't gone on a rampage with an assault rifle (according to british press) in the first place the neighbour wouldn't have had any need to shoot anyone. But hey, you stick to your narrative, I'm with all those that think that, yet again, America should at least be having the conversation. And I've seen the gun, the shooter's bad bitch, geez why does anyone in America need to own a gun like that?
If you're going to refer to people as 'scum' or 'garbage vomit', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 11/05/17 10:35pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

maplenpg said:

And if the guy hadn't gone on a rampage with an assault rifle (according to british press) in the first place the neighbour wouldn't have had any need to shoot anyone. But hey, you stick to your narrative, I'm with all those that think that, yet again, America should at least be having the conversation. And I've seen the gun, the shooter's bad bitch, geez why does anyone in America need to own a gun like that?


Since Kelley DID go on a shooting rampage, I'm glad that a good person with a gun was around to stop him, because the police were not.

Ross Perot was right!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 11/05/17 11:05pm

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Dasein said:


There's nothing wrong with looking at the "difference" between a rifle and assault rifle as pos-
sibly being a kind of false dilemma. But, there is certainly something wrong with the claim that
in order to have a credible anti-gun ethic, then you need to have some overarching knowledge
of guns because if you don't, then you're being dishonest.

That is flawed argument.

In order for me to assert the claim that all guns, regardless of their power, should be banned
from citizen possession, I only need to give a basis for that claim which does not necessarily
require having extensive knowledge of gunsmithing. Does it help? Of course it does! But, is
it necessary? Of course not for my argument persists regardless of what kind of guns I'm
hoping to be banned. The only way you could make that claim is if I was asking for a ban on
all assault rifles while finding rifle ownership permissible. In asking for prohibitions for all guns,
I don't need to know the difference between a musket, pistol, handgun, blunderbuss, rifle, semi-
automatic, automatic, etc for then I'm not interested in debating gun terms but the ethic of gun
ownership period. Also, you cannot claim that if an anti-gun advocate doesn't know the termi-
nology of guns/weapons, then s/he is "dishonest" with some kind of credibility. Ignorant? Sure!
Being deceitful? Not necessarily.

The problem I have with Only is that he wasn't being forthright about why he created this thread
and what his argument was.

Yellow Highlighted part: I agree 100% and I never once made that claim... you simply missed the point when you were jumping to a false conclusion.


Green Highlighedpart: there is no argument made in the OP and I can not just tell people why I am asking a question and hope to get an honest answer.

In reply to yellow highlighted part. On 11/3/2017 I posted in the Harvard study thread:

apparently most people who are anti gun are ignorant or dishonest (according to the law of only).


On 11/3/2017 at 11.24 you (Only) posted the following:

well, many are. Many go after so-called assault rifles... but when asked what makes a rifle an assault rifle and what features of a firearm make it ban worthy many will show ignorance or dishonesty.



so I will ask here! (but many will pass which is cool)


what are 3 features of a rife that make it an assault rifle?

Just six minutes later you start this thread entitled 'What makes a rifle an assault rifle, yet there is no connection? And you are not saying that having no knowledge of the difference makes you ignorant or dishonest? Geez, I really want out but you keep posting shite.

If you're going to refer to people as 'scum' or 'garbage vomit', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 11/05/17 11:08pm

maplenpg

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

maplenpg said:

And if the guy hadn't gone on a rampage with an assault rifle (according to british press) in the first place the neighbour wouldn't have had any need to shoot anyone. But hey, you stick to your narrative, I'm with all those that think that, yet again, America should at least be having the conversation. And I've seen the gun, the shooter's bad bitch, geez why does anyone in America need to own a gun like that?


Since Kelley DID go on a shooting rampage, I'm glad that a good person with a gun was around to stop him, because the police were not.

And if he hadn't have had access to his bad nitch in the first place 27 people would still be alive and the neighbour would have had no cause to shoot anyone.

And, BTW, I do recognise the bravery of the neighbour in trying to stop this piece of shit, it just annoys me that the fact he used a gun to do so is now being used as an excuse not to start a conversation about at least trying to tighten up the law or ban certain types of gun. The conversation needs to start.

If you're going to refer to people as 'scum' or 'garbage vomit', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 11/06/17 1:42am

Dasein

djThunderfunk said:

Dasein said:


Why is it important for you to make it known that there is supposedly no difference between an
assault rifle and a rifle? What comes from that fact being accepted as true? How do you benefit
from that assertion?



Why is it important for you to police Only's threads and demand he explain himself to you why he started it? What comes from repeatedly demanding he play by your rules? How do you benefit from this?

Just sayin', if you think a thread is "baiting", don't bite.


I'm not policing Only's threads. And yes, in order to have a conversation about controversial
topics, people have to explain themselves and clarify and be clear about what they say and
what they mean. The benefit from all of this is I gain new knowledge and then hopefully change
the way I think about things.

I asked Only to explain the function of this thread because often he will feign innocence when he
actually has an agenda but doesn't want to reveal his hand. I knew he was full of crap when he
started this thread because I read what he posted about assault rifles in the other othread; and, I
don't mind taking bait to show Orgers that Only can be so intellectually disingenuous sometimes,
like this thread reveals.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 11/06/17 1:59am

Dasein

djThunderfunk said:

A private citizen with a legal firearm stopped the rampage and stopped the criminal who committed it.


So, that's a justification for citizens continuing to possess firearms legally and our gun
worship?

So, twenty-six people had to die in order to justify a citizen owning a gun and being able to
stop a gun-toting murderer with evil intentions? How about we ban guns altogether and then
we don't need to praise a private citizen with a legal firearm stopping some murderous rampager
with a gun because the murderous rampager doesn't have a fucking gun in the first place. To
say: "See? If we banned guns then the private citizen wouldn't have been able to stop the rampage"
then is a slapped together ethic obviously constructed in order to protect gun ownership which
pays more respect for that privilege than it does for the sanctity of life.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 11/06/17 3:56am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Yellow Highlighted part: I agree 100% and I never once made that claim... you simply missed the point when you were jumping to a false conclusion.


Green Highlighedpart: there is no argument made in the OP and I can not just tell people why I am asking a question and hope to get an honest answer.

In reply to yellow highlighted part. On 11/3/2017 I posted in the Harvard study thread:

apparently most people who are anti gun are ignorant or dishonest (according to the law of only).


On 11/3/2017 at 11.24 you (Only) posted the following:

well, many are. Many go after so-called assault rifles... but when asked what makes a rifle an assault rifle and what features of a firearm make it ban worthy many will show ignorance or dishonesty.



so I will ask here! (but many will pass which is cool)


what are 3 features of a rife that make it an assault rifle?

Just six minutes later you start this thread entitled 'What makes a rifle an assault rifle, yet there is no connection? And you are not saying that having no knowledge of the difference makes you ignorant or dishonest? Geez, I really want out but you keep posting shite.

I think I used qualifiers such as "many" as opposed to "Most" or "all".

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 11/06/17 4:46am

RodeoSchro

avatar

What makes a rifle an assault rifle?

Ask the people in Sutherland.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 11/06/17 5:54am

RodeoSchro

avatar

A question - can anyone provide even ONE example of someone using their personal AR-15 or similar type of semi-automatic rifle to prevent a crime?

I anxiously await examples of this. Post them here.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > IN YOUR OPINION: What makes a rifle an Assault rifle?