header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: NRA. Anybody here a member?

 (Read 1023 times)

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37400
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #70 on: March 07, 2020, 06:43:38 PM »
It's a simple question, one you are afraid to answer obviously.  You know there is a "gotcha" there, but you can't figure out what it is, even after being led to the water many times on this point.


If you really wanted to learn something, you'd try and respond, and perhaps ask which is more deadly.

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12842
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #71 on: March 07, 2020, 07:17:02 PM »
Assault musket:

See the source image

Assault weapon:



U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10352
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #72 on: March 07, 2020, 07:31:07 PM »
Here is a simple question asked here over and over again but never answered.  Two rifles below, which is more dangerous?

I don't know.

Why? 

Because I don't care.

I assume it's an irrelevant rabbit hole, or as you admitted yourself, a "gotcha," so I can't want to see what I've won!
So now you answer my questions:

is this all just a nomenclature game being played the NRA's board (CEO's of all the gun manufacturers)?  

Change the name and look of the gun to play some kind of public three-gun-monty game of hind-and-seek with the lethality?
 
Then we can tell them they're stupid because they don't know as much about guns as we do?


ATexasVol

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 5660
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #73 on: March 07, 2020, 07:49:14 PM »

VolRage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3666
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #74 on: March 07, 2020, 08:00:29 PM »
Contrary to what you've been told on Fox News, the "left" isn't a monolithic voice.  You'd want to look at the language of any specific weapons ban to see what is meant.

I took the liberty of Googling Cincy's authoritative claims and accusations that the article I posted was "misleading."  Turns out he's wrong:

Semi-Automatic: Any rifle that shoots off one round per pull of the trigger. ... Assault Rifle: Any rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge, that's magazine fed, and capable of selective fire, that is, they can go from semi-automatic, burst fire, and fully automatic (multiple rounds per pull of the trigger). 


Therefore, a "semi-automatic" rifle is a kind of "assault" rifle, so it is consistent and legitimate to cite "semi-automatic" shooting data when talking about "assault" rifles.  So again, it turns out that Cincy is the misleading one here.  Will he admit it, acknowledge his error and apologize, especially in light of his posting, "I don't sense he is any more open to being education about the truth here...?"

Don't make me laugh. 


No Fuzz, a Semi-Automatic rifle is NOT a kind of assault rifle. By the definition you provided an assault rifle is capable of SELECTIVE fire. That doesn’t mean from safe to fire (semi only). Read again what you wrote and let it sink in. For the one millionth time, the AR is not an assault rifle. It’s not sold to the public having fully automatic selection capabilities. They are banned unless you go through the exercise of obtaining the special permit.

ATexasVol

  • Global Moderator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 5660
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #75 on: March 07, 2020, 08:37:20 PM »
So now you answer my questions:

is this all just a nomenclature game being played the NRA's board (CEO's of all the gun manufacturers)? 

Change the name and look of the gun to play some kind of public three-gun-monty game of hind-and-seek with the lethality?
 
Then we can tell them they're stupid because they don't know as much about guns as we do?



Fuzz, you like to let the experts do your thinking for you.   It saves you the aggravation of using logic and facts, and drawing a conclusion for yourself.   

So here is what I propose: Drew, Steve, and Rage are ex-military and are what I deem to be experts.  Let them tell you what characteristics define an assault rifle, and what features should be banned by law.   Agreed?   

Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 6701
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #76 on: March 07, 2020, 08:46:30 PM »
Hint: assault is an action... a verb.

Drew4UTk

  • Administrator
  • Team Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 6701
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #77 on: March 07, 2020, 09:18:53 PM »
this has done nothing but devolve into a worthless exercise in monotony...

@fuzzynavol has no idea what he's talking about.  all he can do is regurgitate talking points all good sheeple have been programmed with- without thought, and without any intellectual integrity whatsoever. 

he's either trolling (what i suspect) or he is completely assimilated into the mindless masses of the left.  which, i admit, is just as likely.

he feigns intellectual superiority, present in many of this posts- yet he has never, to my knowledge, shown or offered any original thought.  he's offered nothing of experience- just exercises in intellectual concept which he no doubt believes is a marker of this intellectual superiority.

he's a simple shill.  or, he's trolling.  either way, i'm weary of it at this point.  truly. 

the guy once argued with me about a 'silencer'(suppressor) claiming it silenced the report of a weapon.  he used or tried using 'appeal to common knowledge' and he actually commented that 'why would movies and television misrepresent them?'... seriously..

i've likely fired (based on statistics i just made up based on what i know of folks who post here) at least 1500% more suppressed rounds than anyone here.  perhaps.  maybe.. who cares who's fired more, because i've fired enough. i was issued my first at 20 years old... i would sound like bubba gump talking about shrimp dishes whilst i described all the weapons i've fired suppressed- but... fuzzy attempted to ridicule because of 'movies' and 'television' and 'common knowledge'. 

i offer this not to ridicule fuzz, though it's likely just as effective even if not intentional... i offer it because it's representative of most leftist- they speak in fear of demonstrating ignorance, which they are, yet they speak as if experts.  when called out, they double down.  when they lose traction they ridicule. it's systematic, and fuzz is no different. 

arguing with him or his replica's which are legion, is without value.  they know what they know, and akin to as Reagan said it's not that they're ignorant, it's that they know so many things that aren't true.  but that doesn't matter- they repeat it long enough and it becomes true to them- and moral truths are more valuable than facts to them.  they've said it- and the rest of them rallied to that.  THAT is the animal we're arguing with.

and all the while, there is not a single legitimate statistic available that supports their argument.. not in reality- only in their 'heads'.. heads that are swelled with reward from their peers about how smart they are... heads that live and thrive in academia and think tanks- not from experience or practice.  those types, which is every liberal/progressive/socialist i've ever encountered, are the ones that figure they know what's best.... regardless of the disconnect between make believe/academia and reality.

so, fuzz, have at it.  blow your little whistle all you want- all you do is demonstrate your lack of spine to use the tools God gave you (even you) to find your own way.... instead of fall inline behind the sheep in front of you. 

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10352
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #78 on: March 08, 2020, 10:24:43 AM »
Fuzz, you like to let the experts do your thinking for you.

That's an unflattering way of putting the fact that unlike the MMGW deniers here, I have the humility to defer to the scientific experts.

It saves you the aggravation of using logic and facts, and drawing a conclusion for yourself. 
 
More humor - I like it!

So here is what I propose: Drew, Steve, and Rage are ex-military and are what I deem to be experts.

YOU deem them to be experts.  They may know a lot about guns, but (lets leave Stevie out of this) they have not shown themselves to be particularly logical or rational thinkers.  Ragey can't even understand this simple passage:

Assault Rifle: Any rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge, that's magazine fed, and capable of selective fire, that is, they can go from semi-automatic, burst fire, and fully automatic (multiple rounds per pull of the trigger). 

That clearly says that a semi-automatic is an assault rifle, yet Ragey not only insists it isn't so, but that it's not what the passage says.  So you may deem him an expert on guns, but surely you question his basic reading comprehension. 

Let them tell you what characteristics define an assault rifle, and what features should be banned by law.  Agreed?
 
Oh, I'd be happy to let them tell me what should be banned.  They're never done that.  All they've ever done is argue that our gun controls are perfect just as they are, and argue that no additional characteristics should be banned over the paranoid delusion that "if you give an inch, they'll take a mile." 
« Last Edit: March 08, 2020, 10:44:18 AM by fuzzynavol »

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10352
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #79 on: March 08, 2020, 11:38:12 AM »
 

the guy once argued with me about a 'silencer'(suppressor) claiming it silenced the report of a weapon.  he used or tried using 'appeal to common knowledge' and he actually commented that 'why would movies and television misrepresent them?'... seriously..

That wasn't me.  

i've likely fired (based on statistics i just made up based on what i know of folks who post here) at least 1500% more suppressed rounds than anyone here.  perhaps.  maybe.. who cares who's fired more, because i've fired enough. i was issued my first at 20 years old... i would sound like bubba gump talking about shrimp dishes whilst i described all the weapons i've fired suppressed- but... fuzzy attempted to ridicule because of 'movies' and 'television' and 'common knowledge'. 

Again, you got the wrong guy.

VolRage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3666
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #80 on: March 08, 2020, 11:55:48 AM »
Fuzz, do you know what selective fire means?


DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24146
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #81 on: March 08, 2020, 12:08:25 PM »
Fuzz, do you know what selective fire means?
and a verb
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37400
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #82 on: March 08, 2020, 01:07:08 PM »
Is this all just a nomenclature game being played the NRA's board (CEO's of all the gun manufacturers)?  

Change the name and look of the gun to play some kind of public three-gun-monty game of hind-and-seek with the lethality?


My "point" has been that so called "assault rifles" as legally defined are no more deadly that normal looking guns like the Ruger Mini-14 (which has existed for decades now, it was not designed to avoid some law).  So, if you ban assault rifles, you leave extant equally deadly rifles aplenty.

And this normal looking Mini-14 with the wood stock etc. was patterned after the MILITARY M-14, so it too is designed based on a "weapon of war".  So, NOW you have to "ban" Mini-14 type rifles as well to have any impact, and that would eliminate (magically) nearly every semi-automatic rifle in existence.  Such a thing simply is not practicable.

And, once again, the vast vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns.  Nothing you do about rifles would change that, it would if anything make it worse.

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37400
  • Liked:
Re: NRA. Anybody here a member?
« Reply #83 on: March 08, 2020, 01:23:39 PM »
"Assault Rifle: Any rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge, that's magazine fed, and capable of selective fire, that is, they can go from semi-automatic, burst fire, and fully automatic (multiple rounds per pull of the trigger). 

That clearly says that a semi-automatic is an assault rifle, yet Ragey not only insists it isn't so, but that it's not what the passage says.  So you may deem him an expert on guns, but surely you question his basic reading comprehension. "


I gather you have reading issues.  The terms "capable of selective fire" and "fully automatic" are very very key in your copy and paste, and you have seized solely on "semi-automatic" and ignored the AND conjunctive.  You accuse others of misreading this when you have badly distorted the clear meaning.

AND.  It's important.  An M-16 military rifle can be fired in FULLY AUTOMATIC MODE (for at least 3 rounds depending on variant).  This is ILLEGAL, ALREADY BANNED, except for those who possess an expensive and rare Federal Firearms license.

So, the rifles according to your definition above are ALREADY TIGHTLY RESTRICTED and RARE.  Problem solved, the thing you wanted was done in the 1930s.  Yay.

 

Support the Site!