Seriously, Michigan?

[El Luchador]

2 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

Oops, I forgot that one.  Another "conservative" genius regurgitating more blather.

You do realize that the exact same can be said about you? 

[El Luchador]

12 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

What is a military class of weapons inappropriate for civilians?

I don't understand this?

[Plasmodium]

 

Just now, El Luchador said:

I don't understand this?

I want to know what y'all's rights are!! People had a right to muskets back in the day because those were arms.  Now we have nuclear arms, chemical arms, warthogs that fire lord knows what.  What are you entitled to bear and what arent you entitled to bear?

[BerniePragle]

8 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

You do realize that the exact same can be said about you? 

I suggest you read my original two "suggestions" before you say I'm regurgitating something I've heard.  Your "constitution, tread on my rights, liberty" I've heard countless times.  You should take pride in doing it well though.

I've had more original thoughts in the last 5 minutes than you've had in your lifetime.

[El Luchador]

13 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

I suggest you read my original two "suggestions" before you say I'm regurgitating something I've heard.  Your "constitution, tread on my rights, liberty" I've heard countless times.  You should take pride in doing it well though.

I've had more original thoughts in the last 5 minutes than you've had in your lifetime.

As all leftists think, you guys are the only ones with intellect.  That's why you say smart things like speech is violence and think censorship is necessary. Dismissing an argument based on it having been said.  Okay you're the smart one. What a great way to never have to address inconvenient facts.

Edited January 31, 2023 by El Luchador
Grammar and spelling

[El Luchador]

24 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

 

I want to know what y'all's rights are!! People had a right to muskets back in the day because those were arms.  Now we have nuclear arms, chemical arms, warthogs that fire lord knows what.  What are you entitled to bear and what arent you entitled to bear?

Well there have been lots of current rulings, maybe you should  start with that. Basically if it in common use and wide use, and if it's  historically consistent.

 

Look at the Heller vs DC and the Bruin vs The state of New York opinions. Those will give you a good understanding of the application of the second amendment. 

You may disagree with the second amendment but that's on you. The constitution protects the individual. Government is forbidden from doing certain things and taking my guns is one of them.

Edited January 31, 2023 by El Luchador

[El Luchador]

18 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Well there have been lots of current rulings, maybe you should  start with that. Basically if it in common use and wide use, and if it's  historically consistent.

 

Look at the Heller vs DC and the Bruin vs The state of New York opinions. Those will give you a good understanding of the application of the second amendment. 

You may disagree with the second amendment but that's on you. The constitution protects the individual. Government is forbidden from doing certain things and taking my guns is one of them.

Bruen is the correct spelling. 

[Plasmodium]

18 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Well there have been lots of current rulings, maybe you should  start with that. Basically if it in common use and wide use, and if it's  historically consistent.

 

Look at the Heller vs DC and the Bruin vs The state of New York opinions. Those will give you a good understanding of the application of the second amendment. 

You may disagree with the second amendment but that's on you. The constitution protects the individual. Government is forbidden from doing certain things and taking my guns is one of them.

I have already said I don't want to ban guns, just weapons of war.   Neither of those cases are related to the discussion at hand.   I am asking a pointed question, be courteous and throw out an answer.

[El Luchador]

5 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I have already said I don't want to ban guns, just weapons of war.   Neither of those cases are related to the discussion at hand.   I am asking a pointed question, be courteous and throw out an answer.

 

6 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I have already said I don't want to ban guns, just weapons of war.   Neither of those cases are related to the discussion at hand.   I am asking a pointed question, be courteous and throw out an answer.

What weapon of war that isn't banned should be. What exactly is a weapon of war?  We can't have any of those things you listed,  and they don't have historical use or wide use.  So basically I'm saying we have pretty good laws right now but lots of state are violating rights. Many of the current laws are in clear violation, also the ATF making laws by changing interpretation is clearly illegal.  The truth is they are knowingly and willingly violating the 2nd amendment and the court's will need years to work it out. 

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

 

What weapon of war that isn't banned should be. What exactly is a weapon of war?  We can't have any of those things you listed,  and they don't have historical use or wide use.  So basically I'm saying we have pretty good laws right now but lots of state are violating rights. Many of the current laws are in clear violation, also the ATF making laws by changing interpretation is clearly illegal.  The truth is they are knowingly and willingly violating the 2nd amendment and the court's will need years to work it out. 

Assault rifles, to both questions 

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

Assault rifles, to both questions 

Define assault rifle? The standard issue battle rifle is not available to the general public without ridiculous fees and administrative paperwork. You most certainly cannot go out and buy them at a local gun shop. 

[Plasmodium]

We all know the definition.  Turns out, it is part of the English language and can be referenced in the dictionary!

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

We all know the definition.  Turns out, it is part of the English language and can be referenced in the dictionary!

This part of we all doesn't know. It is nothing more than a hyperbolic term. Like I said main military battle rifles are already not available. So you have yet to show an example. 

[Plasmodium]

9 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

This part of we all doesn't know. It is nothing more than a hyperbolic term. Like I said main military battle rifles are already not available. So you have yet to show an example. 

I'll repost for convenience.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

[El Luchador]

20 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I'll repost for convenience.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

Sorry but that is not an accurate or legal definition.  That could literally be used to ban toy guns. How can you be expected to be taken serious.  If I looks like something ban it. That definition only works if you want to outlaw every gun, which we all know is the real agenda of the left. 

[El Luchador]

Just now, El Luchador said:

Sorry but that is not an accurate or legal definition.  That could literally be used to ban toy guns. How can you be expected to be taken serious.  If I looks like something ban it. That definition only works if you want to outlaw every gun, which we all know is the real agenda of the left. 

How poorly defined is a definition that used the words it's trying to define to explain it. That's some real intellectual shit.

[Plasmodium]

6 hours ago, El Luchador said:

How poorly defined is a definition that used the words it's trying to define to explain it. That's some real intellectual shit.

Wow, sounds like old Slick Willie.  What your definition of "is"?

That is the dictionary.  Anybody can see the difference between an assault rifle and a deer rifle - unless you don't want to.  Too bad, they do exist and there is no place in society for them.

Moving on.

In a roundabout way, that sort of brings us to Sandy Hook.  That was the one that took my innocence.  Literally millions of people obstinately and hatefully refused to acknowledge its existence, including current sitting members of Congress. We actually vote - in droves! - for people not dissimilar to Alex Jones.

BTW, as an aside.  Less than a month after Sandy Hook, I was at a large tournament in Boise.  The fund raising raffle grand prize to benefit the school children?  Yep, an assault rifle!  How is that for cool, @Nailbender?

Edited January 31, 2023 by Plasmodium

[Nailbender]

19 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Wow, sounds like old Slick Willie.  What your definition of "is"?

That is the dictionary.  Anybody can see the difference between an assault rifle and a deer rifle - unless you don't want to.  Too bad, they do exist and there is no place in society for them.

Moving on.

In a roundabout way, that sort of brings us to Sandy Hook.  That was the one that took my innocence.  Literally millions of people obstinately and hatefully refused to acknowledge its existence, including current sitting members of Congress. We actually vote - in droves! - for people not dissimilar to Alex Jones.

BTW, as an aside.  Less than a month after Sandy Hook, I was at a large tournament in Boise.  The fund raising raffle grand prize to benefit the school children?  Yep, an assault rifle!  How is that for cool, @Nailbender?

        You'd like to think you have wrapped up the definition of an assault rifle in a neat little bow. You haven't. I could go into all the examples of how you are wrong again but you don't care and that's fine. I don't really either. However, someone will have to, if you want laws to pass and be a permanent solution as you claim to, they're going to have to be a lot better at it than you, cause...lawyers.

        My suggestion would be to stop obsessing over an intimate object you can't even define and look elsewhere for a solution. Maybe even realize that the scary guns are statistically insignificant in gun violence. If you want to really stop gun violence you need to get rid of handguns (good luck with that) or find whatever this society lost because this didn't used to happen.

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

        You'd like to think you have wrapped up the definition of an assault rifle in a neat little bow. You haven't. I could go into all the examples of how you are wrong again but you don't care and that's fine. I don't really either. However, someone will have to, if you want laws to pass and be a permanent solution as you claim to, they're going to have to be a lot better at it than you, cause...lawyers.

        My suggestion would be to stop obsessing over an intimate object you can't even define and look elsewhere for a solution. Maybe even realize that the scary guns are statistically insignificant in gun violence. If you want to really stop gun violence you need to get rid of handguns (good luck with that) or find whatever this society lost because this didn't used to happen.

Are you proposing we get rid of hand guns?  It is not what society lost.  It is what society, our society in particular, created.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Plasmodium

[Nailbender]

9 hours ago, BerniePragle said:

I suggest you read my original two "suggestions" before you say I'm regurgitating something I've heard.  Your "constitution, tread on my rights, liberty" I've heard countless times.  You should take pride in doing it well though.

I've had more original thoughts in the last 5 minutes than you've had in your lifetime.

The ATF could do what you want tomorrow with no need to even involve Congress. Why don't they?

 

[BerniePragle]

9 hours ago, El Luchador said:

As all leftists think, you guys are the only ones with intellect.  That's why you say smart things like speech is violence and think censorship is necessary. Dismissing an argument based on it having been said.  Okay you're the smart one. What a great way to never have to address inconvenient facts.

Funny you can qualify me as a "leftist" based on my two somewhat out-of-the-box suggestions on one of the dog whistles used by our political parties to separate the vast majority of the electorate for monetary gain.  Oh, and probably because I communicate on this matter using words and phrases that are not in the vocabulary that has so carefully been chosen for you.
As always, we've reached that magical moment when I'm accused of "questioning someone's intellect rather than addressing the issues".  (Quotes for my benefit not yours.)
A nickle's worth of free advice from an old man before I leave you...  When you play any sport or any game, you will never be much better than, maybe, a little better than the people you play with.  The same is true of being intelligent.  If you want to be smart, hang around and converse with smart people.  I know, what a concept.  In my opinion, this board is a very good place to start/continue.  There are a lot of very smart cookies on here.  People whose thought process is not limited to what they've seen someone else say on TV or social media.   People who know a lot more than one side of the Big Three "issues" that have been chosen for us.  Don't burn any more bridges on here and you may learn something about the world.  Or maybe not...

[Nailbender]

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

Are you proposing we get rid of hand guns?  It is not what society.  It is what society, our society in particular, created.

I'm not proposing anything. I'm suggesting that you don't know anything about guns or gun violence. Hand guns are responsible for the great majority of the latter.

I'm having trouble following the last part. Might be a word missing? If it means what I think it means, how is removing certain objects that are statistically insignificant and impossible to define going to get us back to where we need to be?

[Plasmodium]

1 minute ago, Nailbender said:

I'm not proposing anything. I'm suggesting that you don't know anything about guns or gun violence. Hand guns are responsible for the great majority of the latter.

I'm having trouble following the last part. Might be a word missing? If it means what I think it means, how is removing certain objects that are statistically insignificant and impossible to define going to get us back to where we need to be?

*Lost. I have already corrected it.  Because assault rifles have no place in society.  I don't understand what monster we have created, TBH.  No one does.  Gun culture and fascination with them is part of it, I think.  We need to change that.  The reason to raffle off assault rifles is because people want them more than other types, so they will buy more tickets.  They are cool, hip.  Might even land you a lucrative career with fame and fortune like Kyle Rittenhouse.  Maybe we are just a nation of wanna-bes?

[Nailbender]

11 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

*Lost. I have already corrected it.  Because assault rifles have no place in society.  I don't understand what monster we have created, TBH.  No one does.  Gun culture and fascination with them is part of it, I think.  We need to change that.  The reason to raffle off assault rifles is because people want them more than other types, so they will buy more tickets.  They are cool, hip.  Might even land you a lucrative career with fame and fortune like Kyle Rittenhouse.  Maybe we are just a nation of wanna-bes?

And cars have no need to go faster than 75. That additional speed is responsible for much more senseless death than rifles. I still don't understand.

 

I don't know that some of your assertions are correct but in general, I don't have any problem with trying to change the culture. In fact, that's kinda what I've been saying. Apparently, that's too "in the box". I should be banning objects not even capable of harming others to really be an intellectual. (Body armor)

[Plasmodium]

False equivalency.  Cars are made for transportation, assault rifles are made to kill people en masse.