It's informative to the topic and I add my commentary.
My postings brought you out of the woodwork on this one.
I remember you used to post mega text with no highlights or commentary although not recently.
Feinstein going for another gun ban
- Thread starter purevilpleasure
- Start date
It's informative to the topic and I add my commentary.
My postings brought you out of the woodwork on this one.
I remember you used to post mega text with no highlights or commentary although not recently.
You are using a different definition of "function" than I am. I thought it was clear from the context of what I said. HOW something functions and WHAT it's function is are two very different things. One is objective (a fact of the mechanics in it's construction) and one is subjective and in need of justification .
You still haven't answered my questions:
- Do you think that our national discussion should cater to the most ignorant, irrational, lowest common denominator in society?
- Do you think that language and terminology has little to do with whether or not honest discourse is possible?
Without any specific answer, I am left to assume "yes" for the first question and "no" for the second question.
Again with your loaded rhetorical questions.
The lowest common denominator in American society is fear of death or bodily harm.
The other adjectives ignorant irrational and lowest are opinions
It depends on what and who you consider ignorant and irrational
and why.
Your baiting question is too vague on its own.
As to language both parties have to agree to common definitions so they are discussing the same things.
Otherwise they just wind up talking past and misunderstanding each other.
As long as they are aware they are talking about the same thing it doesn't matter what they call it.
How are the "loaded"? What assumptions are inherent in the question that make it loaded?
I don't think you understand the distinction I was making. It was between two different understandings of the term "function" in this context. Not variations of the same understanding.
ignorant irrational and lowest
I don't think you understand the distinction I was making. It was between two different understandings of the term "function" in this context. Not variations of the same understanding.
Ok
All guns function by killing things.
So you want Assault Guns called just guns as all guns do the same thing by definition.
Even the manufacturer calls Assault Guns Combat Rifles which isn't much sweeter than assault guns.
Not to nitpick but a rifle is not a gun, so there is no such thing as an Assault Gun. Assault Rifle makes sense, and so does Combat rifle. The rifles we use today are highly customizable unlike the old wooden rifles, which had extremely long barrels and were harder to use.
Its not just the caliber of the rifle that makes it deadly, it also has accuracy, range, and low recoil. Hence the term Assault Rifle.
But at short range, a shotgun is even more deadly and those aren't included in the ban now are they? And some handguns have more knock down power than the 5.56/.223 round.
Its not just the caliber of the rifle that makes it deadly, it also has accuracy, range, and low recoil. Hence the term Assault Rifle.
But at short range, a shotgun is even more deadly and those aren't included in the ban now are they? And some handguns have more knock down power than the 5.56/.223 round.
JoshMcMadMac
Dedicated LVC Member
A rifle is most certainly a gun. It is more proper not to refer to it as a "gun" but it is, nonetheless, a gun.
One word: carbine.
Three. Random. Words.
How do they connect together to make my question a loaded one? I can clarify what I meant by "lowest common denominator", but those adjectives should already be sufficient for that.
You may not like the hypothetical I set up, but that doesn't make it a loaded question.
You are missing the point.
Guns are categorized by how they mechanically function; automatic vs. semiauto, autoloading vs manual loading, type of round used (shell vs bullet), etc.
Any other adjective ("combat", "assault") concerns the end toward which the weapon is used; why it is used. As a broad category of weapon, they are mostly a political creation and completely subjective.
You seem to prefer non-specific categories that focus on why it is used. You need to justify (and specify) why that categorization should be preferred in the debate. Unfortunately, whether it is because you are unwilling or unable, you are not grasping the difference between "how" and "why".
Three. Random. Words.
How do they connect together to make my question a loaded one? I can clarify what I meant by "lowest common denominator", but those adjectives should already be sufficient for that.
You may not like the hypothetical I set up, but that doesn't make it a loaded question.
You are missing the point.
Guns are categorized by how they mechanically function; automatic vs. semiauto, autoloading vs manual loading, type of round used (shell vs bullet), etc.
Any other adjective ("combat", "assault") concerns the end toward which the weapon is used; why it is used. As a broad category of weapon, they are mostly a political creation and completely subjective.
You seem to prefer non-specific categories that focus on why it is used. You need to justify (and specify) why that categorization should be preferred in the debate. Unfortunately, whether it is because you are unwilling or unable, you are not grasping the difference between "how" and "why".
You seem to prefer cheap hypotheticals and useless semantic analysis, beating a dead horse point of no importance over real discussion and passing it off as intellect
I have grown tired of going over this with you ad nauseum.
You keep ignoring that the manufacturer calls them Combat Rifles, combat being an end to which they are used.
Go argue with Bushmaster
with your assertions that they have mislead the public and their customers like the old Geezers on the gun range in their ad by using the term Combat Rifle Have a good day...
You prefer to be obtuse and annoying and not move the discussion forward getting hung up on a small thing.
Your point is a big So What
I prefer to make sure the discussion moves forward in good faith. Among other things, that means one-sided, misleading terminology has to be rejected in favor of neutral terminology.
If you can only win a debate by stacking the deck with misleading terminology,then you have no argument.
Put differently, if you had a well thought out position, you wouldn't need the misleading terms you so strongly defend.
Ya Whatever Mr Filibuster.
You haven't won anything except impressing yourself
with your technical word games arguments.Is this the best you can do here harping on and on strutting your pimple of a point?
You're funny and remind me of the knight on the bridge in Monty Python who demands to keep fighting even after his arms and legs have been cut off
I'm beginning to think you are playing me for your own amusement with your may as well be talking to the wall annoyance act
At some point we need to move forward
thoughWhat do you think about the hysterical conservative reaction to Obama's mild executive actions on gun control that were announced yesterday.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...osed_executive_orders_and_legislation_on.html
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
And these are the legislative ideas -- i.e., the ones the president wants to push through Congress, starting with the more pliable Senate.
Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. (a.k.a. closing the "gun show loophole.")
Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.
Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.
Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.
Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
End the freeze on gun violence research.
Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.
Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.
Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You still don't understand the issue yet.
It actually isn't about a desperation to just do something, in the minds of the Democrats.
It's political opportunism; by exploiting this tragedy they can get guns banned.
They don't give a rat's arse about the dead children.
Furthermore, your opinion of public sentiment is incorrect. You're confusing public sentiment with what the media says. And since when is the 'public' a legitimate source of authority on what's right and wrong?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
"Hysterical" vs. "mild" - talk about a 'loaded question'...thanks for showing your true colors again, hypocrite...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I own an AK-74 and several other guns.
I've never done anything like that. Nor have 99.9999999% of the rest of the gun owners in this country.
But it's clear that you have an emotional basis for your hatred of guns. It's sad that you can't see the issue objectively, but it's not surprising.
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
–Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
[Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403][
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Ya Whatever Mr Filibuster.
You haven't won anything except impressing yourself
Is this the best you can do here harping on and on strutting your pimple of a point?
You're funny and remind me of the knight on the bridge in Monty Python who demands to keep fighting even after his arms and legs have been cut off
I'm beginning to think you are playing me for your own amusement with your may as well be talking to the wall annoyance act
At some point we need to move forward
What do you think about the hysterical conservative reaction to Obama's mild executive actions on gun control that were announced yesterday.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...osed_executive_orders_and_legislation_on.html
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
And these are the legislative ideas -- i.e., the ones the president wants to push through Congress, starting with the more pliable Senate.
Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. (a.k.a. closing the "gun show loophole.")
Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.
Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.
Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.
Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
End the freeze on gun violence research.
Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.
Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.
Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.
Nothing in there about Hollywood's violent movies or violent video games.
Also, why not just outlaw murder?
Upstairs Chris
Dedicated LVC Member
Oh goodness you are still beating each other over this issue.
Many many many studies have proven their is no connection between violent movies and video games and actual violent behavior.
Outlaw murder? What?
Political opportunism? Or a response to an actual event. Get mad about it all you want, but that would place the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as political opportunism, hell even WWII would be political opportunism.
I stopped following this thread when it became more of a goal to brow beat the other individual. Different opinions be damned, he is presenting legitimate facts to debate a point and in almost every post you go out of your way to insult the guy. It's really working out for you.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
I have no interest in getting into the main topic here, but you have a habit of posting bogus quotes, and this is one. Only the first sentence appears in Mein Kampf, and the surrounding paragraph has nothing to do with using children to curtail liberty. It's just more made-up BS from the right.
The folkish State has to make up for what is today
neglected in this field in all directions. It has to put the
race into the center of life in general. It has to care for its
preservation in purity. It has to make the child the most
precious possession of a people. It has to take care that only
the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: to be
sick and to bring children into the world despite one's own
deficiencies; but one highest honor: to renounce this. Further,
on the other hand this has to be looked upon as objectionable:
to keep healthy children from the nation.
Blah blah blah...
neglected in this field in all directions. It has to put the
race into the center of life in general. It has to care for its
preservation in purity. It has to make the child the most
precious possession of a people. It has to take care that only
the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: to be
sick and to bring children into the world despite one's own
deficiencies; but one highest honor: to renounce this. Further,
on the other hand this has to be looked upon as objectionable:
to keep healthy children from the nation.
Blah blah blah...
Do you even understand what Mein Kampf was? It wasn't some personal diary full of Hitler's secret plans and desires. It was written as propaganda, to get the German people worked up about the greatness of the nation and its people, and to tar the supposed enemies who had caused the severe problems the nation was facing. It was meant to be spread far and wide to all "good" Germans, to get them on Hitler's side. Whether he actually believed everything he wrote in it will never be known, but he certainly wouldn't transmit his plans to subject the people to "almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
It's an illogical response. Nothing proposed will work. Out of tens of thousands of background checks, only a handful are ever actually prosecuted. Telling doctors to ask patients if they own guns?
I've posted plenty of facts, he's posted opinions. You are delusional. Try reading the thread objectively and critically instead of just spouting off half-cocked.
How naive are you?
Rahm Emanuel: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste - YouTube
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Although this quote is bogus, you are incorrect that I have a 'habit' of doing this. Nice try, though.
Exit question:
Are these quotes 'bogus?'
Obama 2008 - "I Am Not Going To Take Your Guns Away, That Just Ain't True" - YouTube
Barrack Obama On Gun Control and Second Amendment - YouTube
I don't hate guns but have felt fear due to them.
I think it would be better if there were less of them out there.
You want an armed camp.
The guy we sent home had gotten into a feud with a newly hired black worker and after we escorted him off the property the black workers wife started being followed and recieving daily obscene phonecalls at her work to the point where she quit her job and he quit due to the stress and I decided to give him 5k to presettle a potential lawsuit his lawyer uncle may have been entertaining.
So have you ever felt legitimately threatened by a real situation where someone had guns one way or another or are you just one of those people who hates the government and feels otherwise powerless without your guns.
Maybe you should be a Soverign Citizen but I don't think
are that serious or courageous but merely a p!ssed off dilletante blaming the government for your woes and playing with your guns while imagining yourself as a vanguard against "tyranny"
Or as Dr Phil might say
"What are you compensating for"
Even more studies show that gun control does not reduce crime. In fact, if there is any effect, it is to encourage violent crime.
You are missing the points being made.
No, it's political opportunism and your comparison is false (the whole purpose of declaring war is far different than the purpose of changing law in the wake of a tragedy like this).
NONE of the gun control policies being pushed would have made ANY difference in the Newtown incident. Yet they are still pursuing this agenda.
It is really simple. After an incident such as this, the proposed legislation must be effective such that it would have prevented the associated incident. If that is not the case, then the incident is simply being exploited as propaganda for a separate political agenda.
Crisis-mongering has been the way this administration has worked from day one. They devised the Fast & Furious program for precisely that end. It is about emotionally exploiting a crisis to herd the populace to a preferred political agenda. Create a mob and then manipulate that mob through emotion.