Let's Have That Discussion about Guns

[rstrong]

Ah, a Liarbart recruit and a red-baiting Akin supporter. Figures.

Ah, Vrede attacks the messenger when he/she is too stupid or has run out of lies to address the subject.

Once we establish that the messenger is stupid and the person who posts his message is a stupid liar, there's no point in wasting time elaborating on the stupidity.

I am therefore ignoring YOU, you stupid sheep screwer. And you have presented nothing that questions the intelligence of either me or the author of the article, but you have confirmed how vacuous and fatuous you are when your sheepish ass has my boot up it.

The pejorative "Liarbart" is an accurate one. This is the site responsible for politically motivated hoaxes like Shirley Sherrod hoax and the "ACORN undercover video" hoax. They are indeed professional liars.

Todd Akin's long-discredited pseudoscience "legitimate rape" comments were - and I'm being charitable here - god-damned stupid. It was not his first stupid public statement; for example his recent claim that "at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God."

Todd Akin refused to tell citizens where he stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2012 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

Even setting aside the obvious wingnuttery in your "messenger's" article, knowing that your "messenger" backs "Liarbart and Akin" provides important context with which to judge it.

[Stinger]

Over and over Partisan62 makes a better case for gun control than we lefties could ever hope to.

He also makes a great case for reopening mental hospitals around the country.

[O Really]

[

Are you people dense? The AR-15 is NOT a military weapon... (followed by the usual NRA propaganda...)
.

And I bet you were one of those who ridiculed Clinton wanting to know the "meaning of 'is'"

[Mad American]

So lets have a little gun quiz:

Which one of the following IS the assault weapon?

A


B


C

[Mad American]

Ban them all, just to be safe.

Cute but that was not a choice.....F

[Mad American]

This thread is titled "lets have that discussion about guns". Seeing as how a lot of people are now calling for a ban on assault weapons I thought it might be good to see just how many folks can actually IDENTIFY an assault weapon. It is a serious question with direct bearing on the original thread topic. Sorry you disagree but you also apparently can not answer the question.

[rstrong]

This thread is titled "lets have that discussion about guns". Seeing as how a lot of people are now calling for a ban on assault weapons I thought it might be good to see just how many folks can actually IDENTIFY an assault weapon.

An assault rifle looks like anything the designer wants it to look like. Meanwhile a non-assault rifle can look like an assault rifle. You can buy BB guns and paintball guns that look just like assault weapons including the M16, which the shooter's AR-15 is a variation of.

The most pedantic purists will point out that the semi-automatic AR-15 counts meets the definition of an assault weapon, rather than an assault rifle. Those who are more realistic will point out that with the AR-15's high rate of fire, high-volume magazine and a muzzle velocity high enough to cause severe brain damage through hydrostatic shock even with a hit to a limb, there's effectively no difference.

In any case, see the links above. The shooter's AR-15 is indeed an assault weapon.

And BTW, if people are calling for an outright ban on assault weapons, look no further to the NRA's all-or nothing policy on them. Many of the "liberals" that so terrify you would be happy just with some stricter requirements on ownership. The NRA, with all its lobbying and campaign finance power, says No. And so it's all or nothing as the NRA demands, and 'All' clearly ain't working.

[mike]

Yeah, let's have a gun discussion.

Quite honestly, I'm in favor of banning them all. I've never needed one, never wanted one, never felt threatened without one.

Certainly, we've gone far past the point of ever banning guns and I realize that.
Therefore, I'm with the Counselor on this one.

Even so, are there any intelligent 2nd amendment wingers out there who understand that, already, no matter the amount of guns you might want to horde, the American military can take you down in a heart beat? (tanks, missiles, rocket launchers, F16s and nukes for all! ... that's the ticket!)

Why the guns? Are your balls really that small?

[neoplacebo]

One of the more fearsome aspects of brandishing a gun was illustrated in the "Tombstone" movie where Val Kilmer was drunk and telling Johnny Ringo that "I have two guns; one for each of you." Scared the hell out of me.

[bannination]

Yeah, let's have a gun discussion.

Quite honestly, I'm in favor of banning them all. I've never needed one, never wanted one, never felt threatened without one.

Certainly, we've gone far past the point of ever banning guns and I realize that.
Therefore, I'm with the Counselor on this one.

Even so, are there any intelligent 2nd amendment wingers out there who understand that, already, no matter the amount of guns you might want to horde, the American military can take you down in a heart beat? (tanks, missiles, rocket launchers, F16s and nukes for all! ... that's the ticket!)

Why the guns? Are your balls really that small?

I wouldn't call myself a "winger" but, yeah, I understand that. I wouldn't even pretend the 2nd amendment was created so we can up-rise against an unjust the government.

[O Really]

This thread is titled "lets have that discussion about guns". Seeing as how a lot of people are now calling for a ban on assault weapons I thought it might be good to see just how many folks can actually IDENTIFY an assault weapon. It is a serious question with direct bearing on the original thread topic. Sorry you disagree but you also apparently can not answer the question.

OK, here's a serious answer. "We" don't need to IDENTIFY (in either upper or lower case) an "assault weapon." It's a generic term that can be applied or misapplied to a number of weapons. But there are people who are able to define the characteristics of the types of weapons under discussion, and to do so in a way that makes it more difficult for gun manufacturers to get around. I'll just let them do their job and if I inaccurately use the term "assault weapon" to apply to a class of weaponry I'd like to see more difficult to obtain, so be it.

[Crock Hunter]

.or you might actually stand up to the troops of dictator George III bent on disarmament. .

At the time of this nation's founders.. governments and citizens were somewhat evenly matched in firepower... . today.. not so much..

Are there really any of you idiots that believe today you and your band of radical gunnuts could last more than an hour against ANY modern Army.. ??

Your lust for these weapons has more to do with your fears and insecurities than with 2nd Amendment rights.. .

YOU don't get to determine what is appropriate for personal defense because you cannot know what the situation might be

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with personal defense.. .. Here.. since you've clearly never read it?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[billy.pilgrim]

I'm still pissed at partly and his ilk because they won't stand up for those of us who need a nuke for personal defense

[billy.pilgrim]

not sure we have 3,000,000 willing to die for the something very close to the freedom we already have

the vietnamese were fighting for their independence from colonial powers

[billy.pilgrim]

Akin was still head and shoulders above McCaskill no matter what he said....she is stupid enough to support killing unborn children, just as you evidently are. Since you support murdering children, why aren't you celebrating what Lanza did? Such hypocrisy! Let us know when you stop peddling the slaughter of unborn children as a "right", and we might start taking you seriously.

oops, partly is beginning to see himself as more than one personality

didn't it start that way with gollum

"Thief, thief, thief! Baggins! We hates it, we hates it, we hates it forever!"

[billy.pilgrim]

not sure we have 3,000,000 willing to die for the something very close to the freedom we already have

the vietnamese were fighting for their independence from colonial powers

Probably not even that many would be willing here. But, Vietnam's population was only around 44 million in 1970. The equivalent deaths here would be more like 14 million.

and that number is only from the american viet nam war, they had been fighting colonial powers france, japan and france again for nearly 30 years before we blew up the peace treaty that would have unified the country

[Stinger]

he is stupid enough to support killing unborn children, just as you evidently are. Since you support murdering children, why aren't you celebrating what Lanza did? Such hypocrisy! Let us know when you stop peddling the slaughter of unborn children as a "right", and we might start taking you seriously.

Translation of Pantywaist62:

I can't argue intelligently with you -- I don't stand a snowball's chance in hell -- so I will "rhetorically" slay you with logical fallacies.

Then, having failed Logic 1101, I will later come back and claim that I have "rhetorically" handed you your ass on many occasions.

I'm just stupid like that.

[Stinger]

Very macho. And stupid.....the absolute idiocy of your "doesn't affect me so who cares" attitude" shows us how unprincipled you really are....just as we thought. It's a trademark of most leftists. As I educated the eunuch lizard boy in a previous post, you two dickless blowhards might want to contact the Vietnamese and the Afghans and explain to them the rule that they were were not supposed to defeat the American military with few weapons and resources.

And this pretentious little dumbass wants to try to lecture others about intelligent conversations?

"Dickless." Sounds like projection from Pissant62 to me. Explains the need for all the guns.

"Blowhard" is definitely projection.

[billy.pilgrim]

not sure we have 3,000,000 willing to die for the something very close to the freedom we already have

the vietnamese were fighting for their independence from colonial powers

Don't bet on it....we had the equivalent of 5 million die in 1861-1865. And a fight with a leftist tyranny in control of the federal government would be similar to a fight for "independence from colonial powers".

As far as your dual personality post....what? You might want to lay off the mushrooms because that made sense.
Not surprising when your other personality is a missing link gorilla.

partly, time to get over being so pissed that I exposed your jknowgood sock at the goupstate forum. lighten up dude, or as I always do, light up

[Stinger]

Did anyone else catch Wayne Lapierre's disconnect-from-reality speech? I happened to be sitting in a local restaurant, munching on a bagel, and who should be on the big screen but old Wayne himself. He was not targeting rational people with his speech.

Sounded like the boy was genuinely interested in protecting his mill-per-year salary.

Crank up that cash cow. Push those fear buttons. Watch the money roll in. Rinse, lather, repeat.