Feinstein going for another gun ban

The cut and paste "wall 'o' text" posts are a little unbecoming, BTW.

It's informative to the topic and I add my commentary.
My postings brought you out of the woodwork on this one.
I remember you used to post mega text with no highlights or commentary although not recently.
 
These guns functions are primarily to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time.

You are using a different definition of "function" than I am. I thought it was clear from the context of what I said. HOW something functions and WHAT it's function is are two very different things. One is objective (a fact of the mechanics in it's construction) and one is subjective and in need of justification .


They are now called Assault Weapons and that's that.

You still haven't answered my questions:
  • Do you think that our national discussion should cater to the most ignorant, irrational, lowest common denominator in society?
  • Do you think that language and terminology has little to do with whether or not honest discourse is possible?

Without any specific answer, I am left to assume "yes" for the first question and "no" for the second question.
 
You are using a different definition of "function" than I am. I thought it was clear from the context of what I said. HOW something functions and WHAT it's function is are two very different things. One is objective (a fact of the mechanics in it's construction) and one is subjective and in need of justification .




You still haven't answered my questions:
  • Do you think that our national discussion should cater to the most ignorant, irrational, lowest common denominator in society?
  • Do you think that language and terminology has little to do with whether or not honest discourse is possible.
What is the most ignorant lowest common denominator you are getting at
Without any specific answer, I am left to assume "yes" for the first question and "no" for the second question.

Again with your loaded rhetorical questions.
The lowest common denominator in American society is fear of death or bodily harm.
The other adjectives ignorant irrational and lowest are opinions
It depends on what and who you consider ignorant and irrational
and why.
Your baiting question is too vague on its own.

As to language both parties have to agree to common definitions so they are discussing the same things.
Otherwise they just wind up talking past and misunderstanding each other.
As long as they are aware they are talking about the same thing it doesn't matter what they call it.
 
You are using a different definition of "function" than I am. I thought it was clear from the context of what I said. HOW something functions and WHAT it's function is are two very different things. One is objective (a fact of the mechanics in it's construction) and one is subjective and in need of justification .

The objective part is that the gun fires bullets, the subjective part is that the human being firing those bullets, as many as possible to kill another human being is in need of justification.
 
Again with your loaded rhetorical questions.

How are the "loaded"? What assumptions are inherent in the question that make it loaded?

The objective part is that the gun fires bullets, the subjective part is that the human being firing those bullets, as many as possible to kill another human being is in need of justification.

:confused:

I don't think you understand the distinction I was making. It was between two different understandings of the term "function" in this context. Not variations of the same understanding.
 
:confused:

I don't think you understand the distinction I was making. It was between two different understandings of the term "function" in this context. Not variations of the same understanding.


Ok
All guns function by killing things.
So you want Assault Guns called just guns as all guns do the same thing by definition.
Even the manufacturer calls Assault Guns Combat Rifles which isn't much sweeter than assault guns.
 
Not to nitpick but a rifle is not a gun, so there is no such thing as an Assault Gun. Assault Rifle makes sense, and so does Combat rifle. The rifles we use today are highly customizable unlike the old wooden rifles, which had extremely long barrels and were harder to use.

Its not just the caliber of the rifle that makes it deadly, it also has accuracy, range, and low recoil. Hence the term Assault Rifle.

But at short range, a shotgun is even more deadly and those aren't included in the ban now are they? And some handguns have more knock down power than the 5.56/.223 round.
 
Not to nitpick but a rifle is not a gun, so there is no such thing as an Assault Gun. Assault Rifle makes sense, and so does Combat rifle.
A rifle is most certainly a gun. It is more proper not to refer to it as a "gun" but it is, nonetheless, a gun.

The rifles we use today are highly customizable unlike the old wooden rifles, which had extremely long barrels and were harder to use.
One word: carbine.
 
ignorant irrational and lowest

Three. Random. Words.

How do they connect together to make my question a loaded one? I can clarify what I meant by "lowest common denominator", but those adjectives should already be sufficient for that.

You may not like the hypothetical I set up, but that doesn't make it a loaded question.

All guns function by killing things.
:rolleyes:

You are missing the point.

Guns are categorized by how they mechanically function; automatic vs. semiauto, autoloading vs manual loading, type of round used (shell vs bullet), etc.

Any other adjective ("combat", "assault") concerns the end toward which the weapon is used; why it is used. As a broad category of weapon, they are mostly a political creation and completely subjective.

You seem to prefer non-specific categories that focus on why it is used. You need to justify (and specify) why that categorization should be preferred in the debate. Unfortunately, whether it is because you are unwilling or unable, you are not grasping the difference between "how" and "why".
 
Three. Random. Words.

How do they connect together to make my question a loaded one? I can clarify what I meant by "lowest common denominator", but those adjectives should already be sufficient for that.

You may not like the hypothetical I set up, but that doesn't make it a loaded question.


:rolleyes:

You are missing the point.

Guns are categorized by how they mechanically function; automatic vs. semiauto, autoloading vs manual loading, type of round used (shell vs bullet), etc.

Any other adjective ("combat", "assault") concerns the end toward which the weapon is used; why it is used. As a broad category of weapon, they are mostly a political creation and completely subjective.

You seem to prefer non-specific categories that focus on why it is used. You need to justify (and specify) why that categorization should be preferred in the debate. Unfortunately, whether it is because you are unwilling or unable, you are not grasping the difference between "how" and "why".

You seem to prefer cheap hypotheticals and useless semantic analysis, beating a dead horse point of no importance over real discussion and passing it off as intellect :D
I have grown tired of going over this with you ad nauseum.:(
You keep ignoring that the manufacturer calls them Combat Rifles, combat being an end to which they are used.
Go argue with Bushmaster :rolleyes: with your assertions that they have mislead the public and their customers like the old Geezers on the gun range in their ad by using the term Combat Rifle ;)
Have a good day...
 
I prefer honest, good faith discourse.

You clearly do not.

You prefer to be obtuse and annoying and not move the discussion forward getting hung up on a small thing.
Your point is a big So What
 
You prefer to be obtuse and annoying and not move the discussion forward getting hung up on a small thing.
Your point is a big So What

I prefer to make sure the discussion moves forward in good faith. Among other things, that means one-sided, misleading terminology has to be rejected in favor of neutral terminology.

If you can only win a debate by stacking the deck with misleading terminology,then you have no argument.

Put differently, if you had a well thought out position, you wouldn't need the misleading terms you so strongly defend.
 
I prefer to make sure the discussion moves forward in good faith. Among other things, that means one-sided, misleading terminology has to be rejected in favor of neutral terminology.

If you can only win a debate by stacking the deck with misleading terminology,then you have no argument.

Put differently, if you had a well thought out position, you wouldn't need the misleading terms you so strongly defend.


Ya Whatever Mr Filibuster.
You haven't won anything except impressing yourself :rolleyes: with your technical word games arguments.
Is this the best you can do here harping on and on strutting your pimple of a point?
You're funny and remind me of the knight on the bridge in Monty Python who demands to keep fighting even after his arms and legs have been cut off :D

I'm beginning to think you are playing me for your own amusement with your may as well be talking to the wall annoyance act :p

At some point we need to move forward :) though

What do you think about the hysterical conservative reaction to Obama's mild executive actions on gun control that were announced yesterday.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...osed_executive_orders_and_legislation_on.html

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

And these are the legislative ideas -- i.e., the ones the president wants to push through Congress, starting with the more pliable Senate.

Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. (a.k.a. closing the "gun show loophole.")

Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.

Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.

Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.

Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.

End the freeze on gun violence research.

Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.

Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.

Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.
 
Re your ideas
Your ideas basically amount to more guns to fight bad guys with good guys with guns which I suppose now that the country is flooded with weapons has some grim logic.

The powerful public sentiment though is that having all these guns available has led to more of these incidents in the first place and adding more guns to the situation is less desirable that reducing the number of guns available.

I will admit that this is mostly wishful thinking and faith in assertions out of despiration to do something but now that there's so many guns on the streets, with the reality of the situation your type of solutions are probably more result workable but what will emerge is a combination of both limiting of who can own guns and what type, stricter prosecution of straw purchasers and interstate trafficking laws for those who cross state lines to avoid restrictions and arming more law abiding citizens willing to possess firearms.
You still don't understand the issue yet.

It actually isn't about a desperation to just do something, in the minds of the Democrats.

It's political opportunism; by exploiting this tragedy they can get guns banned.

They don't give a rat's arse about the dead children.

Furthermore, your opinion of public sentiment is incorrect. You're confusing public sentiment with what the media says. And since when is the 'public' a legitimate source of authority on what's right and wrong?
 
What do you think about the hysterical conservative reaction to Obama's mild executive actions on gun control that were announced yesterday.
"Hysterical" vs. "mild" - talk about a 'loaded question'...thanks for showing your true colors again, hypocrite...
 
I just wanted to add that although I have never felt threatened enough to buy a gun I did feel threatened by a long time employee I had to let go who went funny in the head, because he legally owned an AK-47 and several semi automatic handguns he personally showed me when I went to visit him one time on a weekend at his house to see his renovation work.

After working for me for 5 years he had a bad motorcycle accident where he slid his big Harly into a parked car on gravel on a curve and was almost killed.

He lost his house due to a divorce his wife decided to go forth with then but because he was useful and talented I let him live in a camping trailer on my industrial property for 18 months while he recovered after getting out of the hospital.
She was also funny in the head and actually broke into the trailer one day he was away to gather information.

When we moved to our new larger location and tried to reintegrate him into our 90 employee company he became a menace and a threat to the company.
The government was taking 60% of his paycheck for child support and enforced healthcare, he would come in late and intoxicated, coming and going as he pleased, take multiple cigarette breaks, not obeying supervisors and using the N word and intimidating the other employees.
He was a bomb waiting to go off and finally we had to escort him off the property while he kept yelling "I'm going to get you!"
He was a big burly biker looking guy and in fear of him coming to shoot up the place in a suicidal revenge attack or showing up with some of his Biker buddies instead of firing him for cause I paid him wages and healthcare for 6 months and then laid him off so he could collect UI for another year.
He had said before that if I fired him he would be destroyed.

This defused the bomb but it cost me 75k to get rid of him and a lot of angst and as far as I know he still has his guns.

Although this is only annecdotal it has certainly colored my opinion about these firearms and gun control in general.

I would be interested in hearing if you or Foss or any other members had any personal experiences of real fear that may have added to your opinions.

That will make this discussion more interesting and less clinical.
I own an AK-74 and several other guns.

I've never done anything like that. Nor have 99.9999999% of the rest of the gun owners in this country.

But it's clear that you have an emotional basis for your hatred of guns. It's sad that you can't see the issue objectively, but it's not surprising.

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

–Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
[Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403][
 
Ya Whatever Mr Filibuster.
You haven't won anything except impressing yourself :rolleyes: with your technical word games arguments.
Is this the best you can do here harping on and on strutting your pimple of a point?
You're funny and remind me of the knight on the bridge in Monty Python who demands to keep fighting even after his arms and legs have been cut off :D

I'm beginning to think you are playing me for your own amusement with your may as well be talking to the wall annoyance act :p

At some point we need to move forward :) though

What do you think about the hysterical conservative reaction to Obama's mild executive actions on gun control that were announced yesterday.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...osed_executive_orders_and_legislation_on.html

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

And these are the legislative ideas -- i.e., the ones the president wants to push through Congress, starting with the more pliable Senate.

Require criminal background checks for all gun sales. (a.k.a. closing the "gun show loophole.")

Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.

Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.

Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.

Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.

End the freeze on gun violence research.

Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.

Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.

Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.

Nothing in there about Hollywood's violent movies or violent video games.

Also, why not just outlaw murder?
 
Nothing in there about Hollywood's violent movies or violent video games.

Also, why not just outlaw murder?

Oh goodness you are still beating each other over this issue.


Many many many studies have proven their is no connection between violent movies and video games and actual violent behavior.

Outlaw murder? What?


Political opportunism? Or a response to an actual event. Get mad about it all you want, but that would place the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as political opportunism, hell even WWII would be political opportunism.



I stopped following this thread when it became more of a goal to brow beat the other individual. Different opinions be damned, he is presenting legitimate facts to debate a point and in almost every post you go out of your way to insult the guy. It's really working out for you.
 
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

–Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
[Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403][

I have no interest in getting into the main topic here, but you have a habit of posting bogus quotes, and this is one. Only the first sentence appears in Mein Kampf, and the surrounding paragraph has nothing to do with using children to curtail liberty. It's just more made-up BS from the right.

The folkish State has to make up for what is today
neglected in this field in all directions. It has to put the
race into the center of life in general. It has to care for its
preservation in purity. It has to make the child the most
precious possession of a people.
It has to take care that only
the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: to be
sick and to bring children into the world despite one's own
deficiencies; but one highest honor: to renounce this. Further,
on the other hand this has to be looked upon as objectionable:
to keep healthy children from the nation.
Blah blah blah...​

Do you even understand what Mein Kampf was? It wasn't some personal diary full of Hitler's secret plans and desires. It was written as propaganda, to get the German people worked up about the greatness of the nation and its people, and to tar the supposed enemies who had caused the severe problems the nation was facing. It was meant to be spread far and wide to all "good" Germans, to get them on Hitler's side. Whether he actually believed everything he wrote in it will never be known, but he certainly wouldn't transmit his plans to subject the people to "almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
 
Oh goodness you are still beating each other over this issue.


Many many many studies have proven their is no connection between violent movies and video games and actual violent behavior.

Outlaw murder? What?


Political opportunism? Or a response to an actual event. Get mad about it all you want, but that would place the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as political opportunism, hell even WWII would be political opportunism.



I stopped following this thread when it became more of a goal to brow beat the other individual. Different opinions be damned, he is presenting legitimate facts to debate a point and in almost every post you go out of your way to insult the guy. It's really working out for you.
It's an illogical response. Nothing proposed will work. Out of tens of thousands of background checks, only a handful are ever actually prosecuted. Telling doctors to ask patients if they own guns?

I've posted plenty of facts, he's posted opinions. You are delusional. Try reading the thread objectively and critically instead of just spouting off half-cocked.

How naive are you?

Rahm Emanuel: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste - YouTube
 
I have no interest in getting into the main topic here, but you have a habit of posting bogus quotes, and this is one. Only the first sentence appears in Mein Kampf, and the surrounding paragraph has nothing to do with using children to curtail liberty. It's just more made-up BS from the right.
Although this quote is bogus, you are incorrect that I have a 'habit' of doing this. Nice try, though.

Exit question:

Are these quotes 'bogus?'

Obama 2008 - "I Am Not Going To Take Your Guns Away, That Just Ain't True" - YouTube

Barrack Obama On Gun Control and Second Amendment - YouTube
 
I own an AK-74 and several other guns.

I've never done anything like that. Nor have 99.9999999% of the rest of the gun owners in this country.

But it's clear that you have an emotional basis for your hatred of guns. It's sad that you can't see the issue objectively, but it's not surprising.

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

–Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
[Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403][

I don't hate guns but have felt fear due to them.
I think it would be better if there were less of them out there.
You want an armed camp.
The guy we sent home had gotten into a feud with a newly hired black worker and after we escorted him off the property the black workers wife started being followed and recieving daily obscene phonecalls at her work to the point where she quit her job and he quit due to the stress and I decided to give him 5k to presettle a potential lawsuit his lawyer uncle may have been entertaining.
So have you ever felt legitimately threatened by a real situation where someone had guns one way or another or are you just one of those people who hates the government and feels otherwise powerless without your guns.

Maybe you should be a Soverign Citizen but I don't think
are that serious or courageous but merely a p!ssed off dilletante blaming the government for your woes and playing with your guns while imagining yourself as a vanguard against "tyranny"

Or as Dr Phil might say
"What are you compensating for"
 
Many many many studies have proven their is no connection between violent movies and video games and actual violent behavior.

Outlaw murder? What?

Even more studies show that gun control does not reduce crime. In fact, if there is any effect, it is to encourage violent crime.

You are missing the points being made.

Political opportunism? Or a response to an actual event. Get mad about it all you want, but that would place the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as political opportunism, hell even WWII would be political opportunism.

No, it's political opportunism and your comparison is false (the whole purpose of declaring war is far different than the purpose of changing law in the wake of a tragedy like this).

NONE of the gun control policies being pushed would have made ANY difference in the Newtown incident. Yet they are still pursuing this agenda.

It is really simple. After an incident such as this, the proposed legislation must be effective such that it would have prevented the associated incident. If that is not the case, then the incident is simply being exploited as propaganda for a separate political agenda.

Crisis-mongering has been the way this administration has worked from day one. They devised the Fast & Furious program for precisely that end. It is about emotionally exploiting a crisis to herd the populace to a preferred political agenda. Create a mob and then manipulate that mob through emotion.
 

Members online

Back
Top