Assualt weapons

[_honorentheos]

Hey RockSlider,

It could be, or not, that our children and grandchildren are inheriting a diminished world from what was available a generation or two before. Who knows? I don't really have a crystal ball as to whether or not the future of the country will be worse than it has been. Honestly, in a world with iPhones and Apps for everything, more expensive college but also the internet, it makes one wonder if comparing the present to the past is comparing apples to oranges? Probably wouldn't make me sleep better or worse if I found out there were great minds convening over the question, either.

Regarding the question of military-style semi-auto rifles, maybe we could ask at it's most fundamental level what is it we would be giving up if we agreed that they should no longer be manufactured or sold in the US?

[_RockSlider]

Regarding the question of military-style semi-auto rifles, maybe we could ask at it's most fundamental level what is it we would be giving up if we agreed that they should no longer be manufactured or sold in the US?

Nothing but those silly rights. However what I was failing at suggesting was that there would be nothing gained from it either as far as deterring these small group (under 20) indoor killings that we are seeing all the time .

[_honorentheos]

Regarding the question of military-style semi-auto rifles, maybe we could ask at it's most fundamental level what is it we would be giving up if we agreed that they should no longer be manufactured or sold in the US?

Nothing but those silly rights. However what I was failing at suggesting was that there would be nothing gained from it either as far as deterring these small group (under 20) indoor killings that we are seeing all the time .

Slow down. We just jumped to, "We lose rights and gain nothing" without any discussion.

Seriously, we don't have a guaranteed right to own a military-style semi-auto rifle. We have the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Both Congress and Supreme Court have acted to demonstrate that the definition of what is protected under the 2nd amendment can't be applied like that. If we assume they were wrong to do so, we're right back to being ideological next door neighbors with the folks who choose to act against the government with violence in the here-and-now. So, let's step back and think this through based on substantial points of argument.

What is it we are giving up if we agree that military-style semi-auto rifles should no longer be manufactured or sold in the US? From your earlier posts, I gleened that one thing you value them for is as a sport item, and being part of your family tradition and heritage. And frankly I could get on board with that. I also think compromise is possible with that as well. Shooting clubs are a part of how Australia has dealt with firearm restrictions for example. So, what else?

[_Ceeboo]

Hey honor!

our rhetoric is as much a weapon as any physical one and one which can do real damage to society. Let's agree to wield it with the same respect we'd apply to where we'd point a firearm, right?

A very insightful post!

in my opinion.


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_honorentheos]

Hey honor!

our rhetoric is as much a weapon as any physical one and one which can do real damage to society. Let's agree to wield it with the same respect we'd apply to where we'd point a firearm, right?

A very insightful post!

in my opinion.


Peace,
Ceeboo

Probably a good reason to assume I read it somewhere, forgot about it, and it's just floated up out of my subconscious. Or something. Though the writing is just clunky enough it could be mine. ;)

[_Lemmie]

In more than four generations here in the US, and from all the relationships I've had or currently have, that's never happened to anyone I've known. That's my anecdotal evidence,

Oh dear God. Don't ever walk through North Jersey, Manhattan, or Connecticut with that empathy. It won't go well.

[_Themis]

If I've argued that having a gun makes one safer, this has not been my intent, nor anywhere close to the point that I've tried to maintain during this thread. And that is my right to own my guns and not have someone else decide my ar-15 is only good for killing people and so it has to go. Mak tells me this is a naïve, twisted and sick desire because I value my right to own such a weapon over others miss-use of said in taking human lives.

What weapons people may own and use is a question society has to decide.

I get beat up because I confuse banning with restrictions, and when I stop and see what you are saying there I have no problem. So since I'm not saying (and don't think I have said) you guys are wrong about having a gun around ups all the statistics that someone is going to get hurt. I don't care about those numbers ... I care about my rights to choose for myself, for my own family rather I'm willing to take that risk.

My point is that if one is only looking at what will make them and their family safer then not having a gun is the logical choice. Not that people in same areas cannot decide to take the small extra risk. We do this with many decisions in life. Climbing a mountain is riskier then going for a walk. Going for a drive is riskier then staying at home. Some people do buy guns for protection not realizing they are not statistically going to make them safer but less. This is a good thing because it means your risk of being killed by a gun in western countries is very low and we shouldn't be overly concerned if we are not involved in things like organized crime.

Same with a car, If I choose to own a car, or let my kids drive at young ages etc. that is a risk/reward choice which I want to make.

Definitely no with the kids. You don't get to decide when your kids can drive other then a later time then what the law says. It would be the same for you thinking you can do whatever you like while driving your car.

If I ride a motorcycle and don't want to wear a helmet, that should be my choice.

That one could be more arguable, but there are also issues affecting society.

If I want to wear a seat belt ... my choice (hehe 2010 utah states 48% fatals had belts on, 46% did not)

Feel free to make that argument with those who can change the law. by the way just because the number of fatalities is greater for those wearing seat-belts does not mean it is more dangerous to wear a seat belt. You would need to show at least that the number of people wearing is the same as those who are not. If 90% of people in Utah wear their seat-belts this would mean it is much safer then those who do not.

These are very very old battles you guys. I'm shocked when Kevin and Mak claim that these are naïve and senseless Freedoms and have no clue why I would continue throughout this thread to harp on "Don't give up your freedoms for a false sense of security". Don't give up your personal decision making rights to higher authorities ... which yes Mak, do/will slippy slope from local government, to state, to fed to international.

Freedom, that thing your forefathers supposedly died for.

There are real freedoms that our forefathers fought and worked for. Guns are a tools. We don't necessarily have the right to own or use a tool. This is not real freedom.

[_Kevin Graham]

Holy Hell.

RockSlider this was your initial argument:

Did you follow any of the ammo shortage problems over recent years where the feds actually bought all/as much ammo as the manufactures could produce. Guess which was one of the hardest/scarcest ammo that you just could not find on shelves, order on line, anything ... just could not get it .... good old, cheap ass ruger 10-22 cartridges. Why do you suppose that is Kevin, when NO governmental agencies use 22cal guns? Let me clue you, its the most dangerous gun in America for what you are talking about...

... If you want a good banning cause --- keep the government buying up all the 22 ammo, and force all Americans to turn in those cop killing body armor piercing mini-14's, and ruger 10-22's..

You supported this conspiracy theory with absolutely zero evidence and lured me into the subject with yoru questions. You brought it up in two different posts before I decided to take the bait to go find out what you were on about. When I found out the claim was BS, I told you so and presented the proof from your own beloved NRA. Again:

National Shooting Sports Foundation, or NSSF, public affairs director Mike Bazinet noted last year that "there are a lot of wild stories" about the ammunition shortage, with some people even blaming the U.S. government for "buying up all the ammo." But according to Bazinet, that's simply not the case. In fact, "government purchases have gone down over [the] last three years."

He may be right. In 2014, the National Rifle Association, or NRA, helped to debunk the "government conspiracy" thesis for America's .22 ammo shortage. Laying out the facts and figures in a multi-page spread in American Rifleman, the "official journal of the NRA," the NRA described how:

1. The dollar value of ammunition sales in America doubled between 2007 and 2012. Highlighting the obvious, the NRA noted that sales really "started to climb fast as gun sales began surging" in the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election.

2. Federal Premium Ammunition -- now a subsidiary of Vista Outdoor (NYSE:VSTO), according to S&P Capital IQ -- attributed ammo shortages to "high demand for our products," and said flat out that the biggest increases in ammunition purchases are coming from "the civilian market." (This means you.)

3. Olin Corp's (NYSE:OLN) Winchester Ammunition agreed that it is "experiencing an extremely high demand."

4. And privately held Freedom Group, which manufactures Remington cartridges, said, "it's clear to us that any lack of supply in the marketplace has been from consumer demand."

And then there was the interview with privately held Hornady Manufacturing. There, President Steve Hornady explained to the NRA, "People walk into the store, they don't see as much as they want so they take everything they can get. The next guy who comes in can't get anything, so he panics."

Panic and prudent price-comparison habits rarely go hand-in-hand, of course. This naturally results in higher prices for ammunition.

Yet, you dismiss it because you don't like the fact that I was able to google it so quickly, and according to you, no refutation deriving from google can be worth anything because, as you said, anyone can refute anything with google.

1. I don't give a s*** about conspiracy theory discussions (sucked in too many times, waste of time)

Amazing. So you present a conspiracy theory and then say I am to blame for you getting "sucked into" a conspiracy theory discussion. Well, if you didn't want to discuss it then why the hell did you bring it up?

I assume you realize anyone can match you're pro or anti google responses one for one with the opposing view right?

No, you can't, otherwise you would have done it already. And it wasn't a "google" response, it was official remarks from ammunition manufacturing reps along. They are the world's authorities on who their customers are. They explained it in detail. When demand is up it puts a strain on production, and thus, as reduction in available supply. This is Economics 101 stuff. You have nothing to prove or even support this crazy theory that the government is rapidly increasing their purchases of .22 ammunition. Nothing beyond your anecdotal evidence that amounts to, "Oh dayam, the shelves are empty Vernon!"

2. People who actually own guns and buy ammo know that the shelves were empty. A thing which had NEVER before been seen.

But you know damn well that was never your argument. Your argument was that the shelves were empty because the government was buying them all up. Yet, those responsible for producing the ammo say it is the consumers who were doing all the buying and demand from the government actually went down.

3. 22 rim fire cartridges, the least likely ammo to be horded by gun nuts and not used by any government agency were impossible to buy, direct from manufacture, whole sell, retail, online, want adds ... nothing.

This is just a repeat of what you just said, but still ignores the fact that you haven't produced a single piece of evidence to support your theory. Saying you see empty shelves is no more evidence for a government conspiracy than a foggy day being evidence for a breathing dragon around the corner. But I guess it should be expected that gun nuts imagine the government is to blame for everything under the sun. They probably do it to help justify their irrational paranoia and need for guns in the first place.

So, what exactly have you refuted here?

Really? I mean ... really? Let me dumb this down for you as best I can...

You said the government was buying up all the ammo for a specific reason, but in reality the government isn't buying up all the ammo as ammo manufacturers say sales to the government have actually declined.

Here is your refutation.

Maybe a picture will help:



Brought to you by: http://bearingarms.com/breaking-dhs-is- ... mmunition/


So after attacking me for simply addressing the questions you were asking from the start, you have the audacity to claim that it was I who was trying to engage in conspiracy theory arguments:. I mean, you really said this!

"I have not bothered to respond to this line of thinking as with Kevin's conspiracy theory arguments, any one can counter every google search you are using to claim as true. It's a waste of time. "

What a joke. Not only will you not own up to your own stupid claim, but you've decided to project that stupidity onto me and hope that no one would notice? And to think, you were here trying to act as a credible judge about my intellect and ability to critically assess data? You can't even make up your mind what argument you want to stick to and you're too busy blaming others for your own silly remarks, because trying to look like you're winning a debate seems to be the most important thing to you.

Just damned say you screwed up and move on already. If you hadn't brought it up again and misrepresented me I never would have brought it up again either.

[_ludwigm]

My heart is bleeding, my friends Quasimodo an Ceeboo, but rules are rules.
According to the rules, I should report both of You for breaking them.

In general:

(this is not red...) RULES FOR THE TELESTIAL FORUM:

1. Keep all communications "Rated R" to "Rated NC-17" or better. In other words, no blatantly pornographic words or images.

by the way No definition for pornography...
by the way In Europe, there are no classification as "Rated R" or "Rated NC-17". They are American things.
by the way (to make this worthy to be terrestrial):
if a CHURCH doesn't enable to adults to watch anything, then (take Your pick...)

If pornography means showing genitals and/or female nipples, then Your comments should be punished --- at least deleted. I am sorry again, but rules are rules.

Especially:
From this thread
- viewtopic.php?p=933247#p933247 -
- viewtopic.php?p=933270#p933270 -
- viewtopic.php?p=933283#p933283 -
Genitals AND female nipples at once.




You know, I am that always

[_Quasimodo]

My heart is bleeding, my friends Quasimodo an Ceeboo, but rules are rules.
According to the rules, I should report both of You for breaking them.

In general:

(this is not red...) RULES FOR THE TELESTIAL FORUM:

1. Keep all communications "Rated R" to "Rated NC-17" or better. In other words, no blatantly pornographic words or images.

by the way No definition for pornography...
by the way In Europe, there are no classification as "Rated R" or "Rated NC-17". They are American things.
by the way (to make this worthy to be terrestrial):
if a CHURCH doesn't enable to adults to watch anything, then (take Your pick...)

If pornography means showing genitals and/or female nipples, then Your comments should be punished --- at least deleted. I am sorry again, but rules are rules.

Especially:
From this thread
- http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 47#p933247 -
- http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 70#p933270 -
- http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 83#p933283 -
Genitals AND female nipples at once.




You know, I am that always

No worries, ludwigm. Ceeboo and I already know that we are evil transgressors.

I think the important thing is that it sounds like Shades is offering a way out of hell for you. Take it.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=40133&p=933393#p933393