Scouts Honor

7 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Not quite.  "resembles" is far from equivalent to "looks"

ok, so how , other than it's look does it resemble it...

b/c without select fire, it is nothing.

militaries use assault rifles. do you know any military that uses an ar 15 ? 

4 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

 

• "I’m not going through it all, but masks are useless for aerosolized virus."
  • Again, you are DAF here
  • Masks are absolutely useful for aerosolized viruses - you know that surgeons wear them in the OR.
  • N95 masks are extremely effective - like 80%... sure, other masks are less effective.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/#:~:text=Most obviously%2C they can act,face in 24% of procedures.

4 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

 

• "Is an AR15 an assault rifle?"
  • The AR-15 is not a specific weapon, the name has been used for multiple weapons from the 50's to now.
• "Does AR stand for assault rifle?"
  • This is a legitimate question (finally.) The Dictionary has a definition, the US Army has a different one.
  • Given the lack of a definitive definition, I see it as a yes - it does. Yours may be different. That's cool w/me. In the US, we have that kind of freedom. We don't have to agree on everything. It's OK, comrade OTM.
•  

lol

' you must agree with me b/c i dont know the difference and we are disagreeing' is quite the argument

given the lack of a definitive definition.. um.... there is one. you just refuse to see it.

and it's not a legit question. AR stands for armalite rifle

its like BMW does not actually stand for big mechanical waste.

LOL

Just now, Plasmodium said:

Just so we are clear - the AR acronym is independent of it's assault rifle classification.

thats not what he said.

and using your definition.. .the only reason its 'classified' as an assault rifle... is because it LOOKS like an assault rifle.

Just now, Plasmodium said:

It took you seven minutes to Google that?

i own it.

On 7/25/2023 at 10:34 PM, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Except that an "AR-15" is an "Assault Rifle." Thus the "AR" in the name... it's designed to kill people, not deer.

Any notion that an assault rifle is a small deer rifle is beyond silly.

It's like saying a small 6-cylinder engine is somehow slower than an 8-cylinder. Try telling that to Formula 1 racing.

ok. so here is the entire post.. unedited..

nowhere in it do you repudiate your ignorance about AR standing for assault rifle.

and no the ar hasn't changed except that it has many other companies making similar versions based on the same platform.

.223 is the caliber

a .22 is also a caliber... the .223 is slightly larger. not much. and not a good deer rifle in my opinion. the thing that makes it different is the charge behind the projectile.

a .22 with the same charge behind it would be just as deadly.. though it is already deadly enough

6 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Keyboard clicking .., Googling "violent rap song" in 3, 2,1.......

cop killer album

and before you start. I AM NOT a warrior. but there are many who are.

and i could be taught.

the 2nd amendment is about the ability to throw off tyranny.

and yes joe thinks the people of his nation would need f-16's to resist his governance.

i laugh in afghan.

even vietnamese.

US v Miller '39: common to soldier of the day

10 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Thomas Jefferson thought it ridiculous for one generation to impose it's will on another, so he thought the constitution should be rewritten every 20 twenty years.  Now we are up 11 or 12 generations.  The 2nd amendment refers to muskets, for crying out loud!

the first refers to printing presses

italy... but maybe same in canada?

i would think resistance to change would save money

https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_in_Net_Worth_of_U.S._Senators_and_Representatives_(Personal_Gain_Index)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/business/sam-bankman-fried-campaign-finance-charge.html#:~:text=Federal prosecutors pursuing the criminal,he violated campaign finance rules.

dont we have this now? 

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I agree with this. I also believe there are sporting ventures using these weapons that do not include killing animals either. And I believe they are legitimate reasons to own. 
 

What do you believe is a relative time frame for me to be able to apply to own one of these, to actually receiving one of these?  When we combine my right to own with societies duty to protect its people, what do you think is a reasonable wait time? 
 

 

nothing the framers wrote... EVER dealt with hunting.

read the federalist papers.

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

I posted said definition for everyone's viewing pleasure.  You can choose not to read it but you can't deny it's existence.

i actually reposted it... and showed you the flaws...

8 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

No, the post of the thread said something about using the correct definition of words to follow a narrative.

and yet you don't follow said definition