Seriously, Michigan?

[Nailbender]

2 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

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

You don't have any idea what rifles are made for. To you, that's what they are for.

    A car going 90 is not for transportation, it's a death machine that is endangering my life on the highway. People deal with that every day. It deals out more death than rifles by a significant margin but you don't care. Why not?

 

I have to get some work done. Have a good day.

[Plasmodium]

1 minute ago, Nailbender said:

You don't have any idea what rifles are made for. To you, that's what they are for.

    A car going 90 is not for transportation, it's a death machine that is endangering my life on the highway. People deal with that every day. It deals out more death than rifles by a significant margin but you don't care. Why not?

 

I have to get some work done. Have a good day.

You owe me an answer.  We all (probably) have a limit on the class of weapons which exist in the military but the level of lethality renders them inappropriate in society.  Mine is assault rifles.  What is yours?

[El Luchador]

11 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

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

False statements.  Guns are made to hunt,  for recreational fun and for self defense. Guns are also protected specifically by the constitution. I don't need to justify my use, and I most certainly do need to adjust the cosmetics of my gun to suit an emotional response by a totally uninformed anti gunner. 

[Plasmodium]

8 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

False statements.  Guns are made to hunt,  for recreational fun and for self defense. Guns are also protected specifically by the constitution. I don't need to justify my use, and I most certainly do need to adjust the cosmetics of my gun to suit an emotional response by a totally uninformed anti gunner. 

We have already established I am not against guns, just weapons of war.  That is what an assault rifle is whether you like or not.   

[El Luchador]

5 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

You owe me an answer.  We all (probably) have a limit on the class of weapons which exist in the military but the level of lethality renders them inappropriate in society.  Mine is assault rifles.  What is yours?

You sure like to ignore the fact that the main battle rifle issued to the military is not available to the general public, ones with similar looks are. You straight up want to ban guns and you'll start with what is easiest to gain an emotional response over. 

 

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

We have already established I am not against guns, just weapons of war.  That is what an assault rifle is whether you like or not.   

That is a just plain stupid.  Another catch phrase with no actual definition bit being vague is the SOP of the left. Hyperbole is all you got.

[El Luchador]

4 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

We have already established I am not against guns, just weapons of war.  That is what an assault rifle is whether you like or not.   

Are you willing to accept that if a gun can be used for hunting then it is protected? 

[jross]

4 hours ago, BerniePragle said:

At a rate of about 50 million people dying each year since 1945, there have been about 3.8 billion people died in those subsequent 77 years...

The fear in 1945 and subsequent years was founded on data (and emotion), given WW2 killed 85 million alone against a population of 2.3 billion.  Famine and disease were also a problem.  The average life span in the 40s was 46 years compared to the 70s today; most people did not live long enough to die from cancer.  It was logical to prioritize the top cause of death, specifically reducing the risk of weapons that killed hundreds of thousands of people at once.  

 

[jross]

11 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

I am interested in what class of weapons you feel is appropriate for civilians to possess vs what the military has in its arsenal.  Does it stop at assault rifles?  Extend to fully automatic weapons?  Projectiles of any rate of fire and energy delivered?  Missiles? 

Edit: as for which side will be upset: I don't  believe school shootings will be tolerated forever.  At some point, one will be so hideous that even moderate republicans will be appalled and drastic gun control will happen.

It is always hideous—like the first well-known event on August 1st, 1966 at the University of Texas.

What drastic gun control will address this?
 

[jross]

11 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.

Bernie is smart and does share original thoughts.

He listens to what I say and responds directly to my points with critical thinking.

[Nailbender]

49 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

You owe me an answer.  We all (probably) have a limit on the class of weapons which exist in the military but the level of lethality renders them inappropriate in society.  Mine is assault rifles.  What is yours?

 I had a few minutes between appointments.

I haven't given it enough thought to have a line. Why would I waste my time coming up with one when I don't feel like they matter? I could own a tank or a jet fighter if I could afford to feed them. They wouldn't hurt a soul. People do in fact own them, as well as fully automatic weapons.

 

Your line is insignificant. People can and do far more damage with a pistol or a even a bolt action rifle, yet you aren't asking for those "classes" to be banned? In fact, you ignore the fact every time I mention it. You draw your line in a place that statistically will do very little if any good. I don't understand that and you can't seem to explain it. 

You obviously care, I can at least see that.

[El Luchador]

9 minutes ago, jross said:

Bernie is smart and does share original thoughts.

He listens to what I say and responds directly to my points with critical thinking.

Critical thinking: regurgitating leftist ideology catch phrases programed during indoctrination under the guise of education.  

[Plasmodium]

5 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

 I had a few minutes between appointments.

I haven't given it enough thought to have a line. Why would I waste my time coming up with one when I don't feel like they matter? I could own a tank or a jet fighter if I could afford to feed them. They wouldn't hurt a soul. People do in fact own them, as well as fully automatic weapons.

 

Your line is insignificant. People can and do far more damage with a pistol or a even a bolt action rifle, yet you aren't asking for those "classes" to be banned? In fact, you ignore the fact every time I mention it. You draw your line in a place that statistically will do very little if any good. I don't understand that and you can't seem to explain it. 

You obviously care, I can at least see that.

You won't answer a simple question?

[jross]

10 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Assault rifles, to both questions 

The Supreme Court has held that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that the government may regulate the ownership of dangerous and unusual weapons, such as rocket launchers.  If rocket launchers were as common as semi-automatics, would they be used in school shootings and drive-bys?  Yes.  Is a semi-automatic considered dangerous and unusual enough to have tighter regulation?  I believe so, yes, and I own them for recreation.  Others disagree on what is considered unusual.  Where do you draw the line between my unrestricted right-to-own grenades versus rapid-fire rifles with large ammo capacity?

I'd say self-defense, but mine are locked up and unloaded, and I have no concern about self-defense in the suburbs.  When my kids graduate, I plan to buy and conceal-carry a handgun for self-defense in parts of the metro.  It is the metro where I've encountered numerous crimes against me.

I can support more gun restrictions while believing guns are not the problem.  The problem is parenting, poverty, and the larger culture.  It may seem crazy, but I'd support outright bans on handguns and semi-automatics with large ammo capacity for people under 25.  And major consequences for people that are caught in public with illegal guns.

[Nailbender]

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

You won't answer a simple question?

Maybe the fact that you think it's so simple is something to think about.

The question has already been answered by our government. I'm fine with their answer (not really but I don't want to go any further) and see no reason to change it.  

[Plasmodium]

2 minutes ago, jross said:

The Supreme Court has held that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that the government may regulate the ownership of dangerous and unusual weapons, such as rocket launchers.  If rocket launchers were as common as semi-automatics, would they be used in school shootings and drive-bys?  Yes.  Is a semi-automatic considered dangerous and unusual enough to have tighter regulation?  I believe so, yes, and I own them for recreation.  Others disagree on what is considered unusual.  Where do you draw the line between my unrestricted right-to-own grenades versus rapid-fire rifles with large ammo capacity?

I'd say self-defense, but mine are locked up and unloaded, and I have no concern about self-defense in the suburbs.  When my kids graduate, I plan to buy and conceal-carry a handgun for self-defense in parts of the metro.  It is the metro where I've encountered numerous crimes against me.

I can support more gun restrictions while believing guns are not the problem.  The problem is parenting, poverty, and the larger culture.  It may seem crazy, but I'd support outright bans on handguns and semi-automatics with large ammo capacity for people under 25.  And major consequences for people that are caught in public with illegal guns.

I disagree, but this is a reasonable opinion.

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

Maybe the fact that you think it's so simple is something to think about.

The question has already been answered by our government. I'm fine with their answer (not really but I don't want to go any further) and see no reason to change it.  

You don't want to see your own anonymous opinion in persisted media.  That is courageous.

[BerniePragle]

1 hour ago, Nailbender said:

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)

The real intellectuals debate ad nauseam the definition of "assult rifle" using only the tools provided to them by the ones making money selling them.  Carry on, good soldier.

[jross]

15 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Critical thinking: regurgitating leftist ideology catch phrases programed during indoctrination under the guise of education.  

We are all products of our nurture.  Some of us can challenge our thoughts, ask questions, and think about them.  Bernie does.  I have seen less of this assumption with BP than with others, including those with right-leaning takes.

[Plasmodium]

19 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Critical thinking: regurgitating rightist ideology catch phrases programed during indoctrination under the guise of education.  

 

[Bigbrog]

2 minutes ago, jross said:

We are all products of our nurture.  Some of us can challenge our thoughts, ask questions, and think about them.  Bernie does.  I have seen less of this assumption with BP than with others, including those with right-leaning takes.

I would agree for the most part in terms of your take on BP...however, he did lose me on his rant about intellect and the regurgitation of "talking points" while turning around and regurgitating the other sides "talking points"...and then trying to lecture people and thinks his opinion holds more water because he is older.  Anyway, I suppose both sides play the "talking points" game when they don't agree with someone else's opinion.  

[jross]

2 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

This is a matter of opinion.  I believe there is a common enough understanding to represent guns with fast reloading rapid-fire capabilities that coincidently often look like they belong in a Rambo movie.  The definition isn't clear because people use it for any gun thought to be highly lethal and is certainly politicized.

[Bigbrog]

3 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

 

Plasmodium...how do you not see that you have no idea what you are talking about?  You have consistently spewed false ideas of what is a military weapon and an "assault rifle".  Your "definition" of an assault rifle was first based off of a military weapon/weapon of war, then it was based on a definition from a website that is about as vague as it can get and describes about every long rifle out there.  Then spew fallacies that the AR15 was made purely to kill a lot of people...which again is completely false and has been shown and proven to you that it is false.  

My guess is you really have no interest in learning something new or opening your mind to truly understand the very things you are talking about and having opinions on.  I can respect someone who is open and honest but have a hard time discussing things with someone who chooses to be ignorant about the things they are discussing.  

[El Luchador]

14 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

 

It actually is. It was first coined by an anti gun group to render an emotional response.  It has no practical or specific meaning in the actual gun and military world. It is pure and simple hyperbole. Old man Pelosi was assaulted with hammer  there for assault hammer is accurate,  I was attacked with a sawed off golf club modified to make it more concealable therefore an assault golf club. Repeating the meaningless term will never make it accurate. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by El Luchador
Speeling

[Nailbender]

15 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

The real intellectuals debate ad nauseam the definition of "assult rifle" using only the tools provided to them by the ones making money selling them.  Carry on, good soldier.

It's not me trying to define it. It's people in government and the citizens who support them who want to ban...…..something. I don't need a definition, I don't even want one. They need one to make a law. I want no part in that ridiculousness.

Turns out an assault rifle is an assault rifle, I guess. According to the dictionary. I feel really foolish now.

 

Maybe we should ban Army boots instead, easy to define and will do a lot to stop gun violence or at least as much as most of what I've seen in this intellectual oasis.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Nailbender
grammar