Firearm Nomenclature

a reply to: Ahabstar

Just by looking, which are the scary guns?

if you know what your looking at and are on the receiving end, all of them. for that matter being on the receiving end of any firearm aimed at you that a nut job,or criminals is wielding is can be scary.

good thing i can scare them back legally for the time being. but if the reactionary nut jobs up on the hill and of many states have their way, only nut jobs, criminals, and the "law" will be able to scare people.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

But that's what you said.

You said that their ideas aren't necessarily bad after a long diatribe on how they don't know what they're talking about.

Sorry, but this dichotomy isn't easily glossed over for those of us who comprehend what we read.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: AaarghZombies

But that's what you said.

You said that their ideas aren't necessarily bad after a long diatribe on how they don't know what they're talking about.

Sorry, but this dichotomy isn't easily glossed over for those of us who comprehend what we read.

I notice that you didn't quote my original comment. Maybe you didn't want people to read what I actually said, so that you could put words in my mouth?

OK, first thing, I don't think that "Diatribe" means what you think it means. Maybe Google it.

Second thing, I said that taking guns away from liberals when they threatened to kill conservatives might have some merit. Which isn't the same thing as agreeing with them.

But back to my original comment. What I was trying to get across was that arguing the minutia about what an assault weapon is or isn't is a distraction, because liberals aren't looking at the individual components of an assault rifle. They're looking at the overall concept.

Liberals are taking their lead from Justice Potter Stewart, to quote him:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it:

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

You're doing exactly what I said was the problem. You're heaping strawman arguments on top of strawman arguments.

You come up with a definition and then say that it's impossible to define something as that definition.

And around we all go.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

that's exactly how almost all of us feel about groomers,

I don't believe that for one second. You're using that word because you know that it will upset liberals, not because you actually believe that it's true.

trying to convince us that talking about anal sex with a six year old isn't grooming.

This one's actually pretty simple. If you're end game is to get them to do it, then yes it is. Otherwise, no it isn't. It's just creepy and weird.

From now on teachers that are accused by anyone of any inappropriate behavior are suspended immediately without pay, without recourse, and without any evidence.

That's actually the exact opposite of what I said. I said that there should be checks and balances so that this can't happen. There must be a requirement for evidence, and for appeal. I'm not sure that you understand the meaning of "checks and balances".

At the very least a judge should sign off on it after the presentation of evidence, which the person should be able to dispute with their own lawyer present.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

An assault rifle as defined by the the military quite clearly falls under the NFA.

In the OP, i used the term echoed by Byden and the media, assault weapon. An umbrella term that is ill defined yet used as categorizing for some sort of legal standing. IE propaganda.

Thanks for the addition!

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Let's get this into perspective. Most liberals aren't experts on guns, and most aren't really interested in the specifics.

So arguing over exactly what is or isn't an Assault Rifle, isn't really going to get you anywhere. It's a strawman at best.

By this logic we should most definately ban vehicles, including semi-trucks.

What I tried to do was put the firearm argument into perspective. Then youre building the strawman.

Safety, education and training. In that order is where we ALL should be on firearms.

Red flag laws don't have to be a due process violation, simply add in some checks and balances. Make sure that due process is done first. 

How exactly would this work? Please explain.

Ahhh rapid fire

Those wonderful days when the q store has to clear out their ammo and the m60’s (later on the minimi’s) need a run.

‘Any volunteers?’

‘Why!? Yes Staff Sargent, we are completely at your beck and call.’

a reply to: nugget1

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: JinMI

I believe one of these rulings means that caltrops, flails, warhammers, glaives, trebuchets, and giant solar powered concave mirror incinerator rays, are not in fact eligible for second amendment protection because they're weapons of war.

Now the horses are going to be able to gallop or trot right onto your property with no fear of caltrops being lodged in their hoof. First the libs want to stop culling the wild mustangs, now this. They let them run wild and take away caltrops so you can't even defend your property. Nobody can say this wasn't planned.

They almost got away with it. Not on my watch, Mr. Ed, not on my watch. WE GOT EM!

^^^
Stole my thunder.

I humbly submit halberds, half pikes, pikes, morning star, mace, lance, polearms, and lucene hammers to the list.

If we're going to eliminate access to "weapons of war", we cannot do this in a half-@ss manner.

And picks. Oh! And entrenching tools!

And pick handles.

And sticks....

Damn. And pitchforks.

Crickey. And torches.

Excluding the Barret light 50?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Ksihkehe

that's exactly how almost all of us feel about groomers,

I don't believe that for one second. You're using that word because you know that it will upset liberals, not because you actually believe that it's true.

trying to convince us that talking about anal sex with a six year old isn't grooming.

This one's actually pretty simple. If you're end game is to get them to do it, then yes it is. Otherwise, no it isn't. It's just creepy and weird.

From now on teachers that are accused by anyone of any inappropriate behavior are suspended immediately without pay, without recourse, and without any evidence.

That's actually the exact opposite of what I said. I said that there should be checks and balances so that this can't happen. There must be a requirement for evidence, and for appeal. I'm not sure that you understand the meaning of "checks and balances".

At the very least a judge should sign off on it after the presentation of evidence, which the person should be able to dispute with their own lawyer present.

Grooming seems to have undergone a slight change in definition according to it's most recent cultural use. Remember when crappy vaccines caused the definition of vaccine to change? Well crappy policy by the alt-left caused the definition of groomer to change. It's now more loosely meant to be one who advocates for the normalization of open sexual discussion with children or enabling their exploitation via normalization of sexual behavior. This isn't me, this is the evolving nature of language. Sometimes definitions change and I become an anti-vaxxer, then sometimes they change and you become a groomer. That sword cuts both ways, eh?

I have to tell you, I'm glad this round of definitions change spilled in your lap instead of mine. LOL, words. Can't live with 'em, can't groom without 'em! Right? Are you trying to remember how many times you may have played the definitions change game with me? I wonder what the karmic exchange rate is on anti-vaxxer to groomer.

No amount of information will change your mind. I won't waste further words on grooming. It wasn't as much of a waste of time when I was countering your poisonous compliance trolling on COVID, but this issue most parents don't need any help with. Parents know that secrets, sex, and kids, are not an acceptable combination. It's less complicated than the astroturfed shill campaign that was COVID.

Your fantasy red flag rules had no bearing on my absurdist parody of red flag teachers. It's absurdist. It was not meant as some serious reflection on your red flag shenanigans. Teachers aren't doing anything. 2nd amendment supporters are no more interested than the teachers. No, you don't count.