independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sun 21st Jul 2019 8:32pm
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 3 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #60 posted 11/06/17 6:17am

djThunderfunk

avatar

maplenpg said:

djThunderfunk said:


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 have a plan that will make all guns disappear share it.

As it is, guns do exist. There's approx. 300 million of them in the U.S. If all guns were made illegal today, only those willing to break the law would have a gun. Anybody that is willing to shoot up a church and kill 27 people, including children, would be willing to have an illegal gun. A law abiding private citizen would not break the law and not have stopped the shooting. Likeley Kelley would have continued his rampage.

Therefore, I'm glad the neighbor did have a gun and was willing to shoot Kelley and chase him down until the cops finally arrived.

[Edited 11/8/17 13:18pm]

Ross Perot was right!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #61 posted 11/06/17 6:22am

djThunderfunk

avatar

Dasein said:

djThunderfunk said:

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


SNIP

SNIP

Ross Perot was right!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #62 posted 11/06/17 6:31am

RodeoSchro

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

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



I'm sure that's great comfort to the families of the dead and wounded.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #63 posted 11/06/17 6:54am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

djThunderfunk said:

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



I'm sure that's great comfort to the families of the dead and wounded.


neutral I am sure they would rather the gunman were not able to easily purchase the weapon in the first place.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #64 posted 11/06/17 6:58am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

Here's a fun fact:

A Feb. 28 bill that was signed by Trump, blocked the Social Security Administration from reporting mentally impaired recipients to a national background-check database.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #65 posted 11/06/17 7:09am

djThunderfunk

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

djThunderfunk said:

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



I'm sure that's great comfort to the families of the dead and wounded.


Would you be happier if his rampage was not stopped until the police got there and he killed even more people?

Ross Perot was right!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #66 posted 11/06/17 7:17am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

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.


http://nypost.com/2017/03...ith-ar-15/



[Edited 11/6/17 8:29am]

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #67 posted 11/06/17 7:18am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

RodeoSchro said:



I'm sure that's great comfort to the families of the dead and wounded.


neutral I am sure they would rather the gunman were not able to easily purchase the weapon in the first place.

so what law would you change that would have stopped him?

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #68 posted 11/06/17 7:19am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

What makes a rifle an assault rifle?

Ask the people in Sutherland.

so what specific elements of that firearm made it any more deadly than many other non-assault class firearms?

give ONE single element

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #69 posted 11/06/17 8:22am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Mostly a white male issue

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #70 posted 11/06/17 8:30am

djThunderfunk

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Mostly a white male issue


Right. Other races don't use guns. GTFOOHWTBSCL!

Ross Perot was right!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #71 posted 11/06/17 8:50am

Dasein

djThunderfunk said:

Dasein said:


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.



Do you believe that if we "ban guns altogether", all or even most, of the 300 million firearms in this country will be turned in?

Do you believe that criminals are not willing to obtain and use an illegal gun?

Do you believe that someone who is willing to shoot 26 people is not willing to do so with an illegal firearm??

My statement is "justification" of nothing. It's a fact. The cops did not stop the shooting or shooter. A private citizen did.


Of course your post was an attempt to justify ongoing gun rights for it is ethically parallel to
the claim "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun; therefore, we should
continue to allow citizens to purchase and own guns legally."

That argument is a fucking disaster because it implies the necessary existence of gun-rights
without acknowledging the possibility that if no one can own a gun, then the situation where a
good guy with a gun needing to stop a bad guy with a gun decreases in likelihood. So, even
if you did not mean to make this implication, it is there.

It would take a herculean task to pass legislation banning the sale of all guns; there would have
to be a paradigmatic shift culturally and legally in order for this to happen. I would ask that all
guns be necessarily confiscated and/or turned into your local authorities. There would be those
who would resort with a dumbass retort: "You'll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead hands"
as if that does reveal the depths of their patriotism. My response to that would be to accept
this as a possibility while also imposing prison sentences and heavy fines on those private citi-
zens who are found to be in possession of a firearm illegally.




  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #72 posted 11/06/17 8:58am

djThunderfunk

avatar

Dasein said:


Of course your post was an attempt to justify ongoing gun rights for it is ethically parallel to
the claim "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun; therefore, we should
continue to allow citizens to purchase and own guns legally."

Although I do believe in the right to own a firearm, you are incorrect. I simply stated a fact that you find inconvenient.

That argument is a fucking disaster because it implies the necessary existence of gun-rights
without acknowledging the possibility that if no one can own a gun, then the situation where a
good guy with a gun needing to stop a bad guy with a gun decreases in likelihood. So, even
if you did not mean to make this implication, it is there.

I'm "implying" nothing. It's a fact that criminals don't care about legality. It's illegal to shoot up a church. It's illegal to shoot up a country music festival. It's illegal to drive a truck into pedestrians and bikers. Criminals do not obey laws. Guns exist. Criminals will use guns.

It would take a herculean task to pass legislation banning the sale of all guns; there would have
to be a paradigmatic shift culturally and legally in order for this to happen. I would ask that all
guns be necessarily confiscated and/or turned into your local authorities. There would be those
who would resort with a dumbass retort: "You'll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead hands"
as if that does reveal the depths of their patriotism. My response to that would be to accept
this as a possibility while also imposing prison sentences and heavy fines on those private citi-
zens who are found to be in possession of a firearm illegally.

Yes, because imposing prison sentences stops people from committing crimes? How did that work out for the war on drugs or prohibition. Why doesn't "being a crime" stop mass shootings?


Ross Perot was right!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #73 posted 11/06/17 9:32am

Dasein

djThunderfunk said:

Dasein said:


Of course your post was an attempt to justify ongoing gun rights for it is ethically parallel to
the claim "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun; therefore, we should
continue to allow citizens to purchase and own guns legally."

Although I do believe in the right to own a firearm, you are incorrect. I simply stated a fact that you find inconvenient.

That argument is a fucking disaster because it implies the necessary existence of gun-rights
without acknowledging the possibility that if no one can own a gun, then the situation where a
good guy with a gun needing to stop a bad guy with a gun decreases in likelihood. So, even
if you did not mean to make this implication, it is there.

I'm "implying" nothing. It's a fact that criminals don't care about legality. It's illegal to shoot up a church. It's illegal to shoot up a country music festival. It's illegal to drive a truck into pedestrians and bikers. Criminals do not obey laws. Guns exist. Criminals will use guns.

It would take a herculean task to pass legislation banning the sale of all guns; there would have
to be a paradigmatic shift culturally and legally in order for this to happen. I would ask that all
guns be necessarily confiscated and/or turned into your local authorities. There would be those
who would resort with a dumbass retort: "You'll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead hands"
as if that does reveal the depths of their patriotism. My response to that would be to accept
this as a possibility while also imposing prison sentences and heavy fines on those private citi-
zens who are found to be in possession of a firearm illegally.

Yes, because imposing prison sentences stops people from committing crimes? How did that work out for the war on drugs or prohibition. Why doesn't "being a crime" stop mass shootings?



You did not conveniently post the fact that the shooter here was stopped from possibly inflicting
more death or carnage by a good guy with a gun simply to present that as a fact without wanting
to make some other overall statement. Or, it's a helluva coincidence; but, more on that later.

Your second paragraph does nothing in the way of refuting anything I said in my second para-
graph and not only is it inconsequential, it doesn't make any sense on its own: "guns exist. Crimi-
nals will use guns" offers nothing to us because it has no new information. Criminals, who don't
care about obeying laws and the sanctity of the other's life, can only use guns if guns are avail-
able. And, I'm calling bullshit here: you most certainly did highlight the fact that a good guy
with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun (only after he killed 26 people) as a justification for
being able to own a gun because you followed that up by asking:

"Would you be happier if his rampage was not stopped until the police got there and he killed even
more people?"

The answer here is "no" obviously. So, that means logically that there is an implication and
it is precisely what I say it is: you think good guys with guns is enough to justify owning guns
because they stop bad men with guns (only after killing 26 innocent people). To deny this is to
be horribly disingenuous or you don't follow your own line of thinking in some way that makes
your posts internally consistent.

Finally, your last statement begs the question: show me proof that incarceration didn't contribute
to a reduction in crimes during Prohibition and/or the war on drugs. And you're asking the wrong
question anyways: why don't you want to get rid of your guns? Because I certainly know why I
want to take them from you.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #74 posted 11/06/17 9:56am

djThunderfunk

avatar

Dasein said:

SNIP


SNIP

Ross Perot was right!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #75 posted 11/06/17 10:01am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

And I'm the one who got a 7 day ban! lol

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #76 posted 11/06/17 10:03am

djThunderfunk

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

And I'm the one who got a 7 day ban! lol


Go ahead and report me then. If someone accuses me of racism and prejudice I'm going to tell them to "fuck off" every time.

Ross Perot was right!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #77 posted 11/06/17 10:06am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

can you all take the issues related to the shooting to the topic about the shooting. this one had Nothing to do with that.

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #78 posted 11/06/17 10:15am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Only, right winger Bret Stephens wrote that they should ban the 2nd Amendment?

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #79 posted 11/06/17 11:18am

RodeoSchro

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

RodeoSchro said:

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.


http://nypost.com/2017/03...ith-ar-15/



[Edited 11/6/17 8:29am]



Thanks. I found eight. In each case, pretty much any gun would have worked. In one case, a guy shouted "Get my AR!" which was allegedly enough to cause the robbers to flee. Not sure I buy that one.


Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #80 posted 11/06/17 11:33am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:


http://nypost.com/2017/03...ith-ar-15/



[Edited 11/6/17 8:29am]



Thanks. I found eight. In each case, pretty much any gun would have worked. In one case, a guy shouted "Get my AR!" which was allegedly enough to cause the robbers to flee. Not sure I buy that one.


I read that people in riot situations used them to defend property from a distance. I do not know of any real function that makes an AR any better or worst than many other rifles. They have a LOOK... a Sinister (from the left) look. That is really the vast majority of the difference.

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #81 posted 11/06/17 11:43am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

NY Post??

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #82 posted 11/06/17 11:44am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

can you all take the issues related to the shooting to the topic about the shooting. this one had Nothing to do with that.

Except it does. Seeing as it was reported he used an assault rifle. I mean, would the outcome have been different if he'd used a rifle?

If you're going to refer to people as 'scum', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #83 posted 11/06/17 11:46am

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:

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".

I'd have gone for 'some' over 'many'.... perhaps even just 'a couple of people I've spoken to'?

If you're going to refer to people as 'scum', at least have a reason to do so.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #84 posted 11/06/17 11:54am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

can you all take the issues related to the shooting to the topic about the shooting. this one had Nothing to do with that.

Except it does. Seeing as it was reported he used an assault rifle. I mean, would the outcome have been different if he'd used a rifle?

ok then what elements of the rife that he used made the difference?

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #85 posted 11/06/17 11:55am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

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

I'd have gone for 'some' over 'many'.... perhaps even just 'a couple of people I've spoken to'?

ok semantics is fun but it serves little point here

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #86 posted 11/06/17 1:17pm

Dasein

djThunderfunk said:

Dasein said:

SNIP


SNIP


SNIP

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #87 posted 11/06/17 1:27pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

Dasein said:

djThunderfunk said:


SNIP


SNIP


SNIP

Ross Perot was right!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #88 posted 11/06/17 3:24pm

Dasein

SNIP

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #89 posted 11/08/17 12:13pm

langebleu

avatar

moderator

djThunderfunk said:

maplenpg said:

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 have a plan that will make all guns disappear share it.

As it is, guns do exist. There's approx. 300 million of them in the U.S. If all guns were made illegal today, only those not willing to break the law would have a gun. Anybody that is willing to shoot up a church and kill 27 people, including children, would be willing to have an illegal gun. A law abiding private citizen would not break the law and not have stopped the shooting. Likeley Kelley would have continued his rampage.

Therefore, I'm glad the neighbor did have a gun and was willing to shoot Kelley and chase him down until the cops finally arrived.


Really?

confuse

That solves it in a stroke .. so make guns illegal today, and then the only people who would own a gun would be those people who would be unwilling to break the law by murdering other people.

[Edited 11/8/17 12:15pm]

ALT+PLS+RTN: Pure as a pane of ice. It's a gift.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 3 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?