Guns

[jimipitbull]

Except it does. Those words have distinct meanings. Those distinct meanings do not cease to exist just because you've got so little interest in actually making a point that you don't care what the difference is. The first two guns posted are legally just rifles. The New York ones in particular generally can't even be converted to a form that would classify them as assault weapons, nevermind assault rifles. The third one is what would be classified as an assault weapon under typical United States gun control legislation, because an assault weapon generally just means "scary looking things to ban" and that one has many of them. This is also important, because assault weapons are what the link you posted here:

Was actually talking about, and even that link uses the two words (assault weapon and assault rifle) interchangeably when they still aren't the same thing.



The last one (the assault rifle) is the only one that is notably different in function from the other three. This is even more important, since the last one is the one you actually brought up. Here, let me help you:

An assault rifle would be something that dramatically outclasses the power of a handgun to the point that a confrontation could be a no win scenario. An assault rifle has the combination of powerful ammunition, large magazine size and controllable firing rate that can make pulling a handgun on someone with one merely highlight you as a target to be shot first. This is somewhat moot, though, because:

An assault rifle is not something that you can purchase legally. They have been effectively outlawed since 1986, and they had already been extremely strictly controlled since 1934. Anyone with the resources (meaning money, knowledge of someone who already has one and lots of political connections to push it through) to buy one legally could already have bought quite a few black market AK47s to use instead if he wanted to shoot up some place. Put another way:

They are. So your point, assuming that you meant to say the term you used, has no meaning, because the handful of people who actually legally own guns that are dramatically more powerful than anything a handgun owner (be it assault rifles, or automatic rifles, or submachine guns, or machine guns) could feasibly defend herself against never actually commit crimes with them. And if you didn't mean to say the term you used incorrectly, there were already several posts made in response to your initial one that you've already ignored in favor of making a limp-wristed attempt to defend your word use/change the subject.





On that topic:

Like this, then:





And, once again, learn what words mean.

Do you feel better now?

If gun people get this worked up over the naming of their weapons, it's probably best to just ban all guns outside of military and law enforcement. It works quite well in other countries.

You could still bear arms, just not guns.

 

[RC45]

There is no city in Illinois that even compares to Chicago. Not in population, size, economics, nothing. The Capitol is tiny compared to Chicago. Chicago might as well be the Capitol. Now add a population of over 3 million, add the gang problem that has always been here(in present day take away all the gang leaders, they cut the head off the snake in the 90s and all the order in the gangs) I find it funny you are using Chicago as a reason not to have a gun ban when there is whole countries to look at for better results. I guess you need your talking points though.

Wait, which is it then?

1st you blamed the lack of gun ban in states around Chicago, now you blame the size and gangs for the excessive gun violence.

Which is it?

BTW, Houston is so close to Chicago in population it is slated to pass Chicago in population in the near future.

We have no gun ban here, have similar diversity (and by diversity I mean ethnic ghettos), gangs and waaaaaaay more guns. Yet violence and the gun murder rate is nothing like Chicago.

Please explain.

 

[RC45]

Do you feel better now?

If gun people get this worked up over the naming of their weapons, it's probably best to just ban all guns outside of military and law enforcement. It works quite well in other countries.

You could still bear arms, just not guns.

You still do not get it do you?

The naming by the government is arbitrary.

ALL of the features that are used by the government to describe THEIR concept of an "assault weapon" are all COSMETIC features. NOT a single feature is a FUNCTIONAL feature.

There are hunting rifles that are functionally IDENTICAL to an "assault rifle" down the barrel length, magazine and trigger components, yet the presence of a grip that protrudes below the trigger, a collapsible stock (not folding, just collapsible), a barrel shield (a perforated alloy tube around the aft section of the barrel) and flash compensator on the end of the barrel cause the second weapon to be classified as an "assault weapon" and is banned in certain locations.

Now, just so you understand, the afore mentioned "hunting rifle" is legal to purchase in the same jurisdiction simply because is does NOT look like the "assault weapon".

Yet, functionally, they are identical. And the hunting rifle layout has been used in more crimes than the "assault weapon" version.

If you cannot see that the ban in this situation is purely political posturing then you are being intellectually dishonest.

And as explained before - proper assault rifles (select fire milspec units) have been banned from civilian ownership since 1986 - any assault rifle made after 1986 is banned from civilian ownership, and all pre 1986 units are registered with the Feds (have been since 1934) and transfer between civilians is very strictly managed.

It is not about the naming, it is about the outright lies being told about types of weapons and current legal ownership.

Just 1 more time for the anti gunners - military spec assault rifles are already banned from civilian ownership.

 

[jimipitbull]

You still do not get it do you?

The naming by the government is arbitrary.

.

Oh, I get it, but it's only the gun people that think it's important.

 

[RC45]

Oh, I get it, but it's only the gun people that think it's important.

No, you don't get it - objects are being arbitrarily banned based on looks alone.

Much like MMGW is going to be legislated on feelings alone.

There is no coincidence that the anti-gunners are also climate change worshippers.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Much like MMGW is going to be legislated on feelings alone.

Rubbish. Do you have a source that the evidence for man-made carbon levels is "just a feeling"?

There is no coincidence that the anti-gunners are also climate change worshippers.

Rubbish. Some will be, some won't be. You have no point there.

EDIT: Apologies to the mods for being off-topic, @RC45 often seems to be blurring the line between a gun debate and a climate debate... I forgot where I was

 

[jimipitbull]

No, you don't get it - objects are being arbitrarily banned based on looks alone.

Much like MMGW is going to be legislated on feelings alone.

There is no coincidence that the anti-gunners are also climate change worshippers.

Some objects have no place in day to day life.

So can we assume pro-gunners don't believe the majority of scientists worldwide regarding climate change?
Do they yell at clouds?

Which version of zombie jesus do you think most pro-gunners would align themselves with?

 

[RC45]

Rubbish. Do you have a source that the evidence for man-made carbon levels is "just a feeling"?

Do you have anything other than circumstantial evidence?

Rubbish. Some will be, some won't be. You have no point there.

I don't believe I have yet met an anti-gunner that didn't worship at the altar of climate change.

The reason is mostly because anti-gunners, like climate change groupies, lack logic and common sense.

Some objects have no place in day to day life.

Says you. How about music with filthy lyrics, extremely dirty filthy porn, very controversial books, or maybe a religion that permits men to rape and abuse women with impunity?
Who gets to say what speech is free, which religion is permitted, or what property you may own?
A committee? A court? Peers? Who?

You?

So can we assume pro-gunners don't believe the majority of scientists worldwide regarding climate change?
Do they yell at clouds?

No, we follow the money. You can tell a lot about the integrity of science when you look at how it is funded.

Which version of zombie jesus do you think most pro-gunners would align themselves with?

Have no idea - myself am agnostic.

*edit*

BTW, I am curious to find out how many guns you presented for buy back after the 1996 ban.

 

[Barra333]

The reason is mostly because anti-gunners, like climate change groupies, lack logic and common sense.

How do you expect to have a reasonable debate with anyone when you essentially say that anyone who doesn't share your gun toting, climate change denying opinion is an idiot?
Hot tip - you are in the overwhelming minority in both arguments.

 

[Danoff]

Some objects have no place in day to day life.

Like swords... which are legal. And crossbows... which are legal... and my wife's wedding dress (she used it ONE TIME and now it's in a box that has to go with us everywhere until we die)... and yet my wife's wedding dress is legal.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Do you have anything other than circumstantial evidence?

It's the claim you made, it's not up to me to provide your source... so source required. You need to show that the evidence for "MMGW", as you refer to it, is "just a feeling".

 

[RC45]

How do you expect to have a reasonable debate with anyone when you essentially say that anyone who doesn't share your gun toting, climate change denying opinion is an idiot?
Hot tip - you are in the overwhelming minority in both arguments.

300+ million firearms in civilian ownership says you are at least flat out wrong on one issue.

And as for the other issue, show how all the evidence produced is not circumstantial?

Correlation does not imply causation - except for when climate research is involved, right?

How do you expect to have a reasonable debate when from the very outset your point of view contradicts this point.

 

[Barra333]

300+ million firearms in civilian ownership says you are at least flat out wrong on one issue.

Think outside the US for a bit, will you?

And as for the other issue, show how all the evidence produced is not circumstantial?

Correlation does not imply causation - except for when climate research is involved, right?

Do you need me to get the crayons out to explain my first post in the other thread to you again?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

How do you expect to have a reasonable debate...

There's your answer.

You'd think a warning specifically about being insulting to other members would fix these sorts of things. Apparently not.

 

[RC45]

t

It's the claim you made, it's not up to me to provide your source... so source required. You need to show that the evidence for "MMGW", as you refer to it, is "just a feeling".

No, I don't. This is not a debate I need to win.

The fact that the MMGW zealots "feel good" desire will crush regional economies and pretty much hamper human technological development for 100 years as they try curtail energy consumption to 'save the planet' will not impact me.

I will continue making money and survive comfortably, it will be the 6 billion or so folks in the under developed and developing nations that will be forced to either go backwards or rebel violently against the world domination climate protection mumbo-jumbo.

That is the reality of the implementation of the controls needed to address the absurd conclusions being drawn by MMGW disciples.

MMGW zealots will ultimately stifle the progress and improvement of the lives of billions - but hey, at least they would have done "something" right?

After all, doing something, anything is better than doing nothing.TM

 

[Exorcet]

Some objects have no place in day to day life.

What reasoning leads you to that conclusion?

 

[RC45]

There's your answer.

You'd think a warning specifically about being insulting to other members would fix these sorts of things. Apparently not.

What I have learned is that on GTPlanet if one does not tow the party line (in this case support MMGW and irrationally hate guns) one gets penalized for the slightest comment. But if one happens to support the party line one can literally get away with threats of violence.

Think outside the US for a bit, will you?

Why? I do not live outside the USA. Why should I consider other countries stances on firearms?

BTW, how many guns did you offer up for buy back and destruction in 1996/7?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

No, I don't. This is not a debate I need to win.

Yes, yes you do (need to back up your claim). We've been over this before, and it seems you're still incapable of understanding. If you want to make a claim, you need to back it up. You agreed to it when you joined the site.

That is the reality of the implementation of the controls needed to address the absurd conclusions being drawn by MMGW disciples.

We've been over this before too. Repeating your opinion on something and just sticking "reality" in there, as if it's in any way a fact, is being intentionally misleading. Don't do it.

Your shoddy attitude is what earned you points, and will continue to if you keep it up. If you can't argue against something without constantly tossing in insults, you're not welcome here, and you certainly won't be missed.

What I have learned is that on GTPlanet if one does not tow the party line (in this case support MMGW and irrationally hate guns) one gets penalized for the slightest comment. But if one happens to support the party line one can literally get away with threats of violence.

It has nothing to do with some imagined "party line" (which in itself is a hilarious presumption), it has to do with you repeatedly insulting those you don't agree with.

Oh yeah, and stop double posting. And take the climate talk to the proper thread.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Think outside the US for a bit, will you?

Do you need me to get the crayons out to explain my first post in the other thread to you again?

Ironic that you just chastised someone for not being able to have a reasonable debate because people are "idiots" if they don't agree with him, and then follow it up with a condescending wisecrack about crayons. Or is it different when you do it?

 

[RC45]

Yes, yes you do (need to back up your claim). We've been over this before, and it seems you're still incapable of understanding. If you want to make a claim, you need to back it up. You agreed to it when you joined the site.

Show the exact clause of the AU page you are referring to.

We've been over this before too. Repeating your opinion on something and just sticking "reality" in there, as if it's in any way a fact, is being intentionally misleading. Don't do it.

What planet (other than GTPlanet) are you from where all of a sudden a posters OPINION has to be backed by scientific research for it to be permitted to be posted??? Are you suggesting my opinions carry so much weight they are in fact, fact? If that was the case then they would stand ion their own merit and not need

Look, if you don't want anyone on this forum that does not automatically fall down and swoon at the mere mention of climate change or gun control then just say so - but you trying to censure my opinion because it does not tow the party line is in pretty poor taste.

Your shoddy attitude is what earned you points, and will continue to if you keep it up. If you can't argue against something without constantly tossing in insults, you're not welcome here, and you certainly won't be missed.

So a post that is a reply to an insult from an anti-gunner that never gets called out, is ok to be called out - as I say, the bias runs deep at GTPlanet.

It has nothing to do with some imagined "party line" (which in itself is a hilarious presumption), it has to do with you repeatedly insulting those you don't agree with.

That's a laugh - this entire attempt to censor me is only because I am not in the MMGW/anti-gunner camp. GTPlanet mods really are not very good at hiding the bias. I have lost count how many times anti-gunners (and MMGW zealots) have tossed implied insults because of my pro-gun POV - and not yet seen any of them censored.

Oh yeah, and stop double posting. And take the climate talk to the proper thread.

If only the MMGW supporters would stop posting MMGW posts in the gun thread expecting a response. But I will not hold my breath for similar demands to be made there way.

 

[jimipitbull]

Show the exact clause of the AU page you are referring to.


.


So a post that is a reply to an insult from an anti-gunner that never gets called out, is ok to be called out - as I say, the bias runs deep at GTPlanet.


That's a laugh - this entire attempt to censor me is only because I am not in the MMGW/anti-gunner camp. GTPlanet mods really are not very good at hiding the bias. I have lost count how many times anti-gunners (and MMGW zealots) have tossed implied insults because of my pro-gun POV - and not yet seen any of them censored.


If only the MMGW supporters would stop posting MMGW posts in the gun thread expecting a response. But I will not hold my breath for similar demands to be made there way.

From what I can see, the global warming related posts were direct replies to the off topic content in your posts. And things you believe are implied insults, are often just well worded questions. In most cases, a well thought out answer would probably result in you not feeling insulted at all.

Anyway, back on topic. How many assault rifles do you own?

 

[RC45]

From what I can see, the global warming related posts were direct replies to the off topic content in your posts. And things you believe are implied insults, are often just well worded questions. In most cases, a well thought out answer would probably result in you not feeling insulted at all.

Condescend much? I believe this post qualifies as insulting under the broad interpretation permitted under AUP.

Anyway, back on topic. How many assault rifles do you own?

How many guns did you offer up for buy back in the late 1990's?

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Wait, which is it then?

1st you blamed the lack of gun ban in states around Chicago, now you blame the size and gangs for the excessive gun violence.

Which is it?

BTW, Houston is so close to Chicago in population it is slated to pass Chicago in population in the near future.

We have no gun ban here, have similar diversity (and by diversity I mean ethnic ghettos), gangs and waaaaaaay more guns. Yet violence and the gun murder rate is nothing like Chicago.

Please explain.

You must not be very clever. Their is never one answer to all the problems. It's a mixture. Are you suggesting having guns so easily accessible to the citizens of Chicago who wish to obtain them has no part in the gun problem? Are you suggesting the size of Chicago has no part? Also Chicagoland has over 10,000,000 citizens.

 

[Dennisch]

If I can just interrupt here and show you guys this

 

[Famine]

GTPlanet mods really are not very good at hiding the bias.

I'm pro-guns. You don't even have to look very hard in this thread to see it.

Your move.

 

[Imari]

I don't believe I have yet met an anti-gunner that didn't worship at the altar of climate change.

Hi.

Brought up and live in a culture that is pretty strongly anti-gun, so I have a hard time accepting their "necessity" because it just doesn't jive with my experience. If you look in the global warming thread, you'll see that I'm hardly a worshipper.

What I have learned is that on GTPlanet if one does not tow the party line (in this case support MMGW and irrationally hate guns) one gets penalized for the slightest comment.

Hardly. I haven't been penalised for any of my criticism of the current state of global warming. But that's because I generally don't post in a hyper-aggressive and abusive manner.

 

[RC45]

I'm pro-guns. You don't even have to look very hard in this thread to see it.

Your move.

And pro MMGW? If not for the threat of retribution I would have directed the response you quoted at a specific individual moderator, but decided to try skate by with a general blanket statement.

But if permitted I could go back and edit that response to reflect my opinion of the single moderator, but would not want to run foul of the AUP so choose not to.

You must not be very clever. Their is never one answer to all the problems. It's a mixture. Are you suggesting having guns so easily accessible to the citizens of Chicago who wish to obtain them has no part in the gun problem? Are you suggesting the size of Chicago has no part? Also Chicagoland has over 10,000,000 citizens.

And greater Houston Metro is 7 million. What's your point?

Chicago has an effective ban on legally owning guns. So these people are ALL breaking the law. How are these laws effective if they are not effective?

Further more, how would banning guns in Wisconsin help with Chicago's problem?

You are all over the place here.

Houston has no such ban in place, is similar in demographic and size and yet does not have the same issue.

Following MMGW logic, the more the residents of Chicago had access to guns restricted the more deadly and violent they become. We know this to be true, because in the same time frame, Houston residents have actually been less violent and murderous while having easy unfettered access to guns.

So, this mixture, what's your answer? Block people in Texas from having guns to solve Chicago's problem?

 

[Famine]

And pro MMGW?

I wouldn't exactly say that, no.

If not for the threat of retribution I would have directed the response you quoted at a specific individual moderator, but decided to try skate by with a general blanket statement.

Yes, in many respects it is better to falsely state that the entire group of staff is biased and operating from a biased position to treat you unfairly...

Your problem isn't what you think, but how you choose to express yourself to other people.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

This is a good discussion and I would hope no one would take it any further than we've already gone and get theirselves banned. Back on topic though

Why does the 2nd amendment hold more weight than any other amendment? Why is it infallible? We've crossed the point many years ago of being able to rid this country of guns and the only answer today is to regulate them to the point where there is no question wether or not someone who has a gun should have it. Why are regulations and background checks the devil? Why is the government the devil? Read my signature.

 

[RC45]

This is a good discussion and I would hope no one would take it any further than we've already gone and get theirselves banned. Back on topic though

Back on topic would be answering Houston must pay for Chicago's violence with restrictive gun laws that do not work?

Why does the 2nd amendment hold more weight than any other amendment? Why is it infallible? We've crossed the point many years ago of being able to rid this country of guns and the only answer today is to regulate them to the point where there is no question wether or not someone who has a gun should have it. Why are regulations and background checks the devil? Why is the government the devil? Read my signature.

FDR was a socialist BTW. A poor champion of the electorate, a great champion of big oppressive government - and government is NOT the people. They are faceless APPOINTED bureaucrats with no accountability to the electorate.

And as such need to be kept as small and only permitted sufficient authority to execute the task at hand. We have however expanded the power of the federal Government so far now that the entrenched bureaucracy is the real problem.

EPA, Department of Education, ATF are prime examples.