Seriously, Michigan?

[Nailbender]

27 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

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

You're definitely going out on a limb with your position.

It's literally the take of every single person who just wants "to do something" but doesn't really care what. The only requirement is that they don't have to actually do anything.

[El Luchador]

4 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

You're definitely going out on a limb with your position.

It's literally the take of every single person who just wants "to do something" but doesn't really care what. The only requirement is that they don't have to actually do anything.

No armed security in schools,  and no gun safety in schools,  teach victim hood ignore personal responsibility, and say we want to reduce gun violence.  This issue is almost 100 percent a reflection of the society created by leftist ideology.  Violence in media,  video games and on the internet but it's a gun issue. 

[Plasmodium]

12 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

You're definitely going out on a limb with your position.

It's literally the take of every single person who just wants "to do something" but doesn't really care what. The only requirement is that they don't have to actually do anything.

Still crickets.

[Plasmodium]

2 hours 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.

I know what deer rifles are used for.  I know what bushmaster cannons are used for.  Many others as well.  And I know what assault rifles are used for.

[El Luchador]

2 hours ago, El Luchador said:

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

Still crickets 

[El Luchador]

8 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I know what deer rifles are used for.  I know what bushmaster cannons are used for.  Many others as well.  And I know what assault rifles are used for.

Clearly you do not.  Explain to me what defines a deer rifle. The gun I most use for deer hunting is a Remington 7400. Is that not an assault rifle.  It's not plastic, shares no cosmetic features of a bushmaster other than it has a stock and forearm and trigger. But I can tell you with certainty it is a far more deadly rifle.  Also do you know what a cannon is?  Or is that more hyperbole? 

[Nailbender]

21 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Still crickets.

Fine here ya go.

I don't think anyone should own any kind of rifle, for any reason. In fact if you own one that your Great Grandpappy gave you when he died, you should destroy it or become a felon. Deer hunting is only allowed with shotguns and straight walled cartridges in my state anyway. Handguns and shotguns are all any American should be allowed to own.

Now, please tell me how this will stop gun violence?

 

Bernie is right about one thing, this is not a productive conversation. My only fault in that, is continuing it.

[El Luchador]

I'm not against guns just weapons of war.

So that would be the Winchester model 70, it was used by Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam,  the Remington model 700, used as the short range marksman rifle,  the Ithaca pump action 12 gauge, used as a WW1 trench gun, the Colt 1911 std issue side arm from WW1 till the 1980s, the Beretta 92, used by Mel Gibson in lethal weapon but also by the US military replacing the 1911,  the Sig sauer 320 now having replaced the Beretta 92, the Glock 19 used by Seals, and the Sig 226 it replaced. The colt SAA carried by General Patton, the Springfield Trapdoor single shot 45-70 attributed to thw defeat of Custer, the Winchester lever action, Springfield 1903, the M1, the flint lock, the muzzle loader.... So basically everything 

 

[Nailbender]

2 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

I'm not against guns just weapons of war.

So that would be the Winchester model 70, it was used by Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam,  the Remington model 700, used as the short range marksman rifle,  the Ithaca pump action 12 gauge, used as a WW1 trench gun, the Colt 1911 std issue side arm from WW1 till the 1980s, the Beretta 92, used by Mel Gibson in lethal weapon but also by the US military replacing the 1911,  the Sig sauer 320 now having replaced the Beretta 92, the Glock 19 used by Seals, and the Sig 226 it replaced. The colt SAA carried by General Patton, the Springfield Trapdoor single shot 45-70 attributed to thw defeat of Custer, the Winchester lever action, Springfield 1903, the M1, the flint lock, the muzzle loader.... So basically everything 

 

Was Mel Gibson really worth mentioning?

[Plasmodium]

20 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Clearly you do not.  Explain to me what defines a deer rifle. The gun I most use for deer hunting is a Remington 7400. Is that not an assault rifle.  It's not plastic, shares no cosmetic features of a bushmaster other than it has a stock and forearm and trigger. But I can tell you with certainty it is a far more deadly rifle.  Also do you know what a cannon is?  Or is that more hyperbole? 

 

https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/land/armament-systems-and-ammunition/

[El Luchador]

5 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

Was Mel Gibson really worth mentioning?

No love for Mel?

[El Luchador]

4 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

 

https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/land/armament-systems-and-ammunition/

Great example of a complete non issue. 

[Nailbender]

1 minute ago, El Luchador said:

No love for Mel?

He's a great actor. I don't have anything against him, he just didn't seem to fit the theme. Made me laugh though, so it was worth it. Way to keep it relatable!

 

[El Luchador]

Guess which one is the most common Deer cartridge? 

[Plasmodium]

11 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Great example of a complete non issue. 

The fact you don't know what that term means in military parlance is all I need to know about you.

[El Luchador]

8 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

The fact you don't know what that term means in military parlance is all I need to know about you.

I assumed you didn't know, never said I didn't know.  Armor vehicles mounted artillery doesn't seem to be real relevant to a discussion about guns. You again make an argument over a situation that doesn't exist as if it's a  huge problem facing Americans.  

[El Luchador]

Or were you concerned about these:

[Plasmodium]

25 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

I assumed you didn't know, never said I didn't know.  Armor vehicles mounted artillery doesn't seem to be real relevant to a discussion about guns. You again make an argument over a situation that doesn't exist as if it's a  huge problem facing Americans.  

Clearly your assumption was wrong, again. It is beyond silly you two think an assault rifle doesn't exist.

[El Luchador]

7 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Clearly your assumption was wrong, again. It is beyond silly you two think an assault rifle doesn't exist.

Well you can't define it so it's difficult to know. It's an assault weapon if it looks like an assault weapon.  Forgive my ignorance.  

 

As long as we're making issues out of inconsequential weapon based on Hollywood depiction I suggest the Trebuchet.  They are completely unregulated unregistered and can be made without government oversight. Ghost Trebuchets should not be legal, should not be allowed near schools and should require a strict background check and licensing. A true weapon of war capable of mass casualties. If it saves even 1 life it's worth it. 

[Bigbrog]

23 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Clearly your assumption was wrong, again. It is beyond silly you two think an assault rifle doesn't exist.

If YOU can't clearly articulate your stance on something, how is it you feel you have a good argument??  You have shown that YOU are unable to describe, show a picture of, explain in plain English, what it is YOU consider an "assault weapon/weapon of war", and how it differs from what YOU think are the "common" rifles used for deer hunting.  We will continue to wait....

In the mean time, I think we all can rest on common ground that we all would want nothing more than these senseless shootings to stop.  I can also guarantee, that if I thought for 1 second that banning any sort of gun would stop these from happening I would support it and vote for it.  There is ZERO evidence, logic, data, and/or facts that support banning any gun will stop the shootings from happening.

[Plasmodium]

21 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

If YOU can't clearly articulate your stance on something, how is it you feel you have a good argument??  You have shown that YOU are unable to describe, show a picture of, explain in plain English, what it is YOU consider an "assault weapon/weapon of war", and how it differs from what YOU think are the "common" rifles used for deer hunting.  We will continue to wait....

In the mean time, I think we all can rest on common ground that we all would want nothing more than these senseless shootings to stop.  I can also guarantee, that if I thought for 1 second that banning any sort of gun would stop these from happening I would support it and vote for it.  There is ZERO evidence, logic, data, and/or facts that support banning any gun will stop the shootings from happening.

I have provided an actual English language definition from a dictionary.  Twice.  Not good enough?  Look up the federal law from the 90s when an actual ban existed.  That will be explicit enough for anyone, present company excepted.

[BerniePragle]

3 hours 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.

Thank you for the kind words!  I try to be pragmatic, open minded and think for myself.  You and I don't agree on everything, but we agree much more than disagree, I think.  At the very least, there is a lot of "common ground", and mutual respect.  That's what's important.
By way of explanation... My education was 95+% a matter of me trying to prepare myself for solving the most difficult of technical problems.  Even though I attended a couple of quite liberal schools during very tumultuous times in America's history, I had no time for that BS.  Having said that, I truly cannot understand the fomented distrust of higher education in America.  A lot of the technology we use in modern life started in our Universities.  As my wife and I say, left to their own devices a lot of these people would still be wearing fig leaves and riding donkeys.

"At the time we were all convinced that we had to speak, write, and publish as quickly as possible and as much as possible and that this was necessary for the good of mankind. Thousands of us published and wrote in an effort to teach others, all the while disclaiming and abusing one another. Without taking note of the fact that we knew nothing, that we did not know the answer to the simplest question of life, the question of what is right and what is wrong, we all went on talking without listening to one another."
— Leo Tolstoy   A Confession

As a matter of reference for those who have not been "indoctrinated by the educational system", this was written 140+ years ago.  Some things never change.
 

[Bigbrog]

20 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I have provided an actual English language definition from a dictionary.  Twice.  Not good enough?  Look up the federal law from the 90s when an actual ban existed.  That will be explicit enough for anyone, present company excepted.

So you can't define it or explain it...got it.  

Seriously, if you read a definition written for anything else that you aren't 100% against, or you were actually honest with yourself, you know that definition is a joke and essentially doesn't explain or define anything.  You know why...because there is no such thing as an "assault rifle".  It is a fabricated word to play on the emotions of those that know nothing about guns and who want to completely disregard the 2nd amendment for political reasons.

[Plasmodium]

25 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

So you can't define it or explain it...got it.  

Seriously, if you read a definition written for anything else that you aren't 100% against, or you were actually honest with yourself, you know that definition is a joke and essentially doesn't explain or define anything.  You know why...because there is no such thing as an "assault rifle".  It is a fabricated word to play on the emotions of those that know nothing about guns and who want to completely disregard the 2nd amendment for political reasons.

This is sad.  I can't imagine how frustrating it is for legislators.  People won't even accept the existence of a word or a phrase, despite it's presence in the dictionary and being defined in an actionable law 30 years ago.

This is the narrative driven world of alternative facts.

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

This is sad.  I can't imagine how frustrating it is for legislators.  People won't even accept the existence of a word or a phrase, despite it's presence in the dictionary and being defined in an actionable law 30 years ago.

This is the narrative driven world of alternative facts.

You doubling down on that garbage definition doesn't bode well for your position. I can assure you in the unconstitutional former gun ban that no guns were baned with that worthless definition.  The only reason to stick to that as having any value in the discussion is to be intentionally vague so as to be able to lump in any and all firearms. Literally every type of firearm design and look has been used as a weapon of war. From the first bamboo fire Lance used by China, to the modern sporting, and defense rifles. So with your definition of Assault rifle there are no guns that should be legal. Pretty sure that's not in compliance with the second amendment. We know this as established law from recent and past Court rulings. We all know that the Webster definition has zero value in this discussion and is nothing more than a straw man argument to make yourself feel as if you have a basis for your position, but you are the only one buying it.