the worst of liberalism

[/MSG/]

Better start saving your pennies there Wyatt Earp...the government has F-16's, tanks, missiles and aircraft carriers...

Tell that to the Iraqis, Afghanis, Libyans, Viet Cong, Palestinians,, Chechans, Etc.

 

[Bfgrn]

You failed to answer the question, so I used your prior logical premise, that no one was physically hurt and that a third party government agent is a better judge than you, to presume your answer. And since you've yet to answer the question, or deny it, I'd say my presumption was 100% correct.

AGAIN...I didn't say that. A school is not allowing students to bring a brown bag lunch to school unless there is a medical reason. Police have not shown up to take kid's bikes and the town has not proposed a curfew.

 

[/MSG/]

AGAIN...I didn't say that. A school is not allowing students to bring a brown bag lunch to school unless there is a medical reason. Police have not shown up to take kid's bikes and the town has not proposed a curfew.

But you'd be ok with all three, unless you're a hypocrite.

 

[Bfgrn]

Really now? Where?

It certainly isn't here. So I ask you define it. Or if you are intellectually unable to do so (as I suspect) then show me one.

.

Manufactures found ways around the ban. So what we need is a ban on all assault weapons. If you have one in your possession, you are put away for life. I have no problem with people having weapons for sport, hunting and to protect their home and family. NO ONE needs a weapon that can kill crowds of people.

 

[/MSG/]

.

So something that can kill a crowd of people? What exactly makes....say this gun:

able to kill a crowd of people?
And what makes say...this gun here:

incapable of doing the same? I mean if there is a difference you should be able to point it out to me.

 

[Bfgrn]

So something that can kill a crowd of people? What exactly makes....say this gun:

able to kill a crowd of people?
And what makes say...this gun here:

incapable of doing the same? I mean if there is a difference you should be able to point it out to me.

I'm not an expert on guns, but the ability to fire off numerous rounds in a short time would be a difference and the number of rounds the weapon can hold would be another.

 

[/MSG/]

I'm not an expert on guns, but the ability to fire off numerous rounds in a short time would be a difference and the number of rounds the weapon can hold would be another.

So the ability to empty a magazine in a short time eh?

That's the same gun as on the bottom. You're not an expert on guns but you have no problem trying to control them anyways.

 

[/MSG/]

So let's try something a little different. Which one of these would be an assault weapons?

#1:

Or
#2

 

[Bfgrn]

So let's try something a little different. Which one of these would be an assault weapons?

#1:

Or
#2

Both.

BTW, are you masturbating now?

 

[/MSG/]

So the ability to empty a magazine in a short time eh?

That's the same gun as on the bottom. You're not an expert on guns but you have no problem trying to control them anyways.

Here's some speed shoorting with a gun from the 1860s

 

[/MSG/]

Both.

BTW, are you masturbating now?

Intellectually, yes I am. And the correct answer is neither. They don't contain two (2) of the necessary features to be called such under the 1994 Brady Crime bill

 

[/MSG/]

The point that seems to be escaping you Bfgrn is that banning 'assault' weapons does nothing. They've been around for 3 centuries now. And they certainly aren't used often in crime (less than 0.5% of all gun crime in fact). So you are arguing appeal to emotion, as you cannot factually argue against them. You have been unable to define an assault weapon, because they do not exist except in the minds of those who are afraid of guns.

 

[/MSG/]

Oh, and I only feel it is right to point out that all the guns I've shown will defeat modern police body armor. The bolt action (f2nd picture, 1st video) will also defeat the ceramic trauma plates issued to our military.

 

[Bfgrn]

The point that seems to be escaping you Bfgrn is that banning 'assault' weapons does nothing. They've been around for 3 centuries now. And they certainly aren't used often in crime (less than 0.5% of all gun crime in fact). So you are arguing appeal to emotion, as you cannot factually argue against them. You have been unable to define an assault weapon, because they do not exist except in the minds of those who are afraid of guns.

Now it's my turn to use your tactics...

SO KOG, you support the rights of Jared Lee Loughner

over the rights of Christina-Taylor Green

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

 

[/MSG/]

They had/have the same rights as all people in America. Once again you use an appeal to emotion. The real question is why wasn't Laughner committed to a mental institution, as he clearly needed? Well we have your good friend President Kennedy to thank for that, for effectively ending institutionalization in America. And just be some sort of cosmic coincidence, there has been drastic rise in homelessness and mass shootings by the insane. But instead of reforming the mental institutions, we should unnecessarily restrict the essential rights of perfectly sane and law abiding citizens.

Also, you are once again using deflection as you cannot answer the question. And just in case you want to say the same of me, I'll answer your emotionally loaded question. I do not support the rights of any non criminal individual over another. They are both equal in rights until their actions deem it necessary to consider them different.

 

[/MSG/]

The point that seems to be escaping you Bfgrn is that banning 'assault' weapons does nothing. They've been around for 3 centuries now. And they certainly aren't used often in crime (less than 0.5% of all gun crime in fact). So you are arguing appeal to emotion, as you cannot factually argue against them. You have been unable to define an assault weapon, because they do not exist except in the minds of those who are afraid of guns.

Provide evidence contrary to the statements here. Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.

 

[Bfgrn]

They had/have the same rights as all people in America. Once again you use an appeal to emotion. The real question is why wasn't Laughner committed to a mental institution, as he clearly needed? Well we have your good friend President Kennedy to thank for that, for effectively ending institutionalization in America. And just be some sort of cosmic coincidence, there has been drastic rise in homelessness and mass shootings by the insane. But instead of reforming the mental institutions, we should unnecessarily restrict the essential rights of perfectly sane and law abiding citizens.

Also, you are once again using deflection as you cannot answer the question. And just in case you want to say the same of me, I'll answer your emotionally loaded question. I do not support the rights of any non criminal individual over another. They are both equal in rights until their actions deem it necessary to consider them different.

WOW, you are a bundle of emotion and ignorance. FACT: According to the FBI, Jared Loughner was a perfectly sane person. He passed an FBI background check. WHAT would give you the idea anything President Kennedy or his family did would have led to Loughner being institutionalized?

 

[/MSG/]

Ummm Kennedy ended institutionalization effectively in America. And because he was not committed, he passed a background check. You have to be declared mentally unstable in order to not pass.

But that has nothing to do with assault weapons. That has to do with the NICS system

 

[Bfgrn]

Ummm Kennedy ended institutionalization effectively in America. And because he was not committed, he passed a background check. You have to be declared mentally unstable in order to not pass.

But that has nothing to do with assault weapons. That has to do with the NICS system

WOW, talk about logical fallacy...please explain HOW institutionalization would have led to Jared Loughner being institutionalized? Would everyone have to take a state issued test? Talk about the mind of an authoritarian...man, you are a piece of work...and you have guns???

 

[Canceled14]

If it was up to me, I'd have all guns banned.