Gun control debate (merged)

[luthervol]

Ok, what weapons would fit in that category?

I don't know. I will give some broad ideas which you guys can hyperventilate over.
We all know how this conversation ends.
But I do not mind playing along.

Any magazine or clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Any gun which can be fired by the "average" person at more than x rounds in y seconds. (I know, I know....I have answers)
Might look into caliber and such.

 

[luthervol]

Well played. He actually thinks that's something that helped him. Have fun with his attempting to answer that question.

It wasn't a very difficult question to answer.

 

[jp1]

Not really. I'm thinking the nutty experts should define it and then be able to defend their definition.

That's a bit backwards to me. The "experts" aren't the one using the word. You would think the ones using the descriptor should at least know what it is.

 

[hog88]

I don't know. I will give some broad ideas which you guys can hyperventilate over.
We all know how this conversation ends.
But I do not mind playing along.

Any magazine or clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Any gun which can be fired by the "average" person at more than x rounds in y seconds. (I know, I know....I have answers)
Might look into caliber and such.

How does that qualify as something “with a primary purpose to assault”? The machine gun was designed For defensive purposes.

 

[luthervol]

That's a bit backwards to me. The "experts" aren't the one using the word. You would think the ones using the descriptor should at least know what it is.

I provided a definition. It was the first one that came up. If the "experts" don't wish to weigh in, then that can be the definition.

 

[luthervol]

How does that qualify as something “with a primary purpose to assault”? The machine gun was designed For defensive purposes.

lol.....defense by assault will still be classified as assault.

 

[hog88]

lol.....defense by assault will still be classified as assault.

So let’s just make this simple. To Luther an assault weapon is any gun.

 

[VOLS INC.]

How does that qualify as something “with a primary purpose to assault”? The machine gun was designed For defensive purposes.

For all his talk of “Deeper understanding”, he can’t see past his own nose. It’s quite remarkable.

 

[hndog609]

I don't know.

The only part of your reply that matters.

 

[hog88]

For all his talk of “Deeper understanding”, he can’t see past his own nose. It’s quite remarkable.

He’s just not very intelligent

 

[luthervol]

So let’s just make this simple. To Luther an assault weapon is any gun.

Nope, not the least bit true. But again, we all knew you would end up here.

 

[hndog609]

He’s just not very intelligent

Eh...I don't think he's really "dumb" but he absolutely will start at and end point he personally prefers and diligently try to work backwards filling in as he goes. Off the top of my head trying to redefine what "semi-automatic" functionally means is a favorite.

 

[luthervol]

The only part of your reply that matters.

He’s just not very intelligent

So this is where we end up? Shocker!

You guys should resists the urge to lazily accept your simplemindedness. But it is comfortable, maybe that's enough.

 

[hog88]

Eh...I don't think he's really "dumb" but he absolutely will start at and end point he personally prefers and diligently try to work backwards filling in as he goes. Off the top of my head trying to redefine what "semi-automatic" functionally means is a favorite.

He’s one of those guys that believes he’s much smarter than he really is and lies to fill in the gaps he’s missing.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Let's be honest here. The goal of Luther and his communist brethren is total disarmament. It has nothing to do with saving lives. If that were the case there are many, many more things they could champion in the name of saving lives. It's always the goal of tyrannical governments to neuter as much as possible any means of resistance. Their goal is total power and control.

 

[85SugarVol]

Then it was a bad definition.
Are you still not getting the whole point of this part of the conversation.
Someone asked........probably rhetorically
I answered by google, copy, paste....I didn't care what that particular definition was. I didn't read it and try to determine if it was a good definition or a horrible one.......that wasn't the point.

If it's horrible - fine, then the collective gun geniuses (nuts) in this thread should certainly be able to come up with an agreed upon definition. And then we can go from there.

The fact that the posters here seem terrified by that is interesting....to say the least.

In the UK an assault weapon is a large knife with “head splitter” written on the side of it.

So it’s kinda in the eye of the beholder.

 

[hndog609]

So this is where we end up? Shocker!

You guys should resists the urge to lazily accept your simplemindedness. But it is comfortable, maybe that's enough.

You're confusing the comfort level we have at how simple it is dismiss most of your input on almost all things firearm related.

 

[luthervol]

Let's be honest here. The goal of Luther and his communist brethren is total disarmament. It has nothing to do with saving lives. If that were the case there are many, many more things they could champion in the name of saving lives. It's always the goal of tyrannical governments to neuter as much as possible any means of resistance. Their goal is total power amd control.

Patently absurd........but a typical response when one is losing the debate.

 

[StarRaider]

For all his talk of “Deeper understanding”, he can’t see past his own nose. It’s quite remarkable.

 

[VOLS INC.]

Eh...I don't think he's really "dumb" but he absolutely will start at and end point he personally prefers and diligently try to work backwards filling in as he goes. Off the top of my head trying to redefine what "semi-automatic" functionally means is a favorite.

He accuses us of being simple minded which is ironic because his mind works in such a simple manner.


He’s already categorized in his head what is acceptable and what is not. He’s also already positioned himself well above the rest as a wise and moral authority. Critical thinking for him, is the process one must take to reach the conclusions he has reached. Any arguments that use his argument against him is a silly argument.


Pride is more powerful and more dangerous than any weapon he wants banned. Clearly.

 

[VOLS INC.]

That’s awesome.

 

[luthervol]

How quickly this devolved into nothing but insults and false accusations.
But it's not like I didn't know this is exactly where we would end up.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Patently absurd........but a typical response when one is losing the debate.

This definition will always evolve for you. Take away the AR15s and someone commits a shooting with a semi pistol and then they have to go. Then someone uses a pump shotgun, then those go. Before you are done, we'll have muskets.

Stay down. You've been beat to a pulp. You embarrassing yourself even more than usual.

 

[luthervol]

This definition will always evolve for you. Take away the AR15s and someone commits a shooting with a semi pistol and then they have to go. Then someone uses a pump shotgun, then those go. Before you are done, will have muskets.

Stay down. You've been beat to a pulp. You embarrassing yourself even more than usual.

There are plenty of reasons for embarrassment in this thread; that's for sure, and you've just provided another one.

 

[LouderVol]

Then it was a bad definition.
Are you still not getting the whole point of this part of the conversation.
Someone asked........probably rhetorically
I answered by google, copy, paste....I didn't care what that particular definition was. I didn't read it and try to determine if it was a good definition or a horrible one.......that wasn't the point.

If it's horrible - fine, then the collective gun geniuses (nuts) in this thread should certainly be able to come up with an agreed upon definition. And then we can go from there.

The fact that the posters here seem terrified by that is interesting....to say the least.

no we have given you the definition of what "assault weapon" means. you just didn't like it.

The definition of "assault weapon" would be: a made up term used to lie to the general public and overstate the political opinions of people with no working knowledge of guns. a completely amorphous term that is changed constantly at the behest of those who actively want to condemn guns and their owners.