Sniper rifles?

Discussion in 'Firearms and Hunting' started by Wolverine, Oct 29, 2011.

  1. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Arguing "the law" is intellectually void.
    Congrats
     
  2. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no such hierarchy in the constitution
     
  3. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The united states has many numerous examples of mass shootings being committed, both during the ten year period when said firearm-related restrictions were in place, including the Columbine incident, and in states that still maintain their own total prohibitions on the private ownership of so-called "assault weapons". The majority of mass shootings in the united states are not even committed with so-called "assault weapons" but rather common, everyday handguns that are not covered under such prohibitions. Virginia Tech, the deadliest school shooting in the history of the united states was committed with two handguns, with magazines that were limited to ten rounds of ammunition each. The most recent mass shooting was committed with a handgun equipped with a sound suppressor, which is restricted to a far greater degree than any common firearm, and those restrictions still did not serve to prevent the incident from occurring.

    There is simply no evidence, read none whatsoever, that can be cited by yourself, to demonstrate that firearm-related restrictions do anything to promote public safety. And until such evidence can actually be presented on the part of yourself, it is nothing more than your word.
     
  4. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed it is not, when one considers just how many firearm-related offenses are committed in the united states every single year, including how many involve felons in possession of a firearm. If firearm-related restrictions truly did work, as is being claimed on the part of yourself, there would be no felons found in possession of firearms, as such is an illegal act.
     
  5. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The difference, however, is that there is no federal prohibition on the ownership of fully-automatic firearms. So ultimately the argument being presented is that semi-automatic firearms are somehow more dangerous than fully-automatic firearms.
     
  6. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The founding fathers that actually wrote and signed the united states constitution believed otherwise.
     
  7. Gary/Dubya

    Gary/Dubya Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You only think you know the law.
     
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You only think your posts are rational, reasoned, and reflective of reality.
     
  9. Gary/Dubya

    Gary/Dubya Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It's common sense to remove the ability to do mass shootings by weapons and things like magazines that facilitate mass shootings. It's also common sense to get the guns off the streets in areas with a high density population. The people who live in those areas benefit by using their common sense and they don't give a damn what you think. Why should they?
     
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given the reality of the situation, there's no sense at all in this - indeed, you could not speak more deeply from the pit of ignorance and irrationality.
    Areas with high population density have the most violent crime - why do you want to remove the ability of the law abiding to defend themselves?
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2019
  11. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Repeat: arguing "the law" is intellectually.void.
     
  12. Gary/Dubya

    Gary/Dubya Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The founding fathers are dead, so tell them about it. Even back in the militia days, the people weren't given total freedom to do whatever they wanted to do with their guns. The federal government refrained to be involved in the decisions, there were many religious objections to being in a militia, for example. Some militias required certain arms and some required arms to be stored in an armory. Rules for participation varied, the rabble showing up with a gun is not a military force and all guns can't be equipped with effective bayonets.

    You claim to know the minds of the founders and obviously the judges who make their living knowing the law don't agree with you.
     
  13. Gary/Dubya

    Gary/Dubya Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Figure it out, no one in their right mind buys your bullshit.
     
  14. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did. You're here to troll.
     
  15. Gary/Dubya

    Gary/Dubya Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    83
    More bullshit.

    If you think your view is universal in our country, you are totally deluded. Courts don't accept your view.
     
  16. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,888
    Likes Received:
    5,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ever been to a slaughter house? I guess you think burgers and steak are manufactured without harming animals.
     
  17. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know - its all you have.
     
  18. Gary/Dubya

    Gary/Dubya Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Animals aren't smart enough to avoid a slaughter house and people are.
     
  19. Gary/Dubya

    Gary/Dubya Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You can't even fully quote a person, so it's obvious you can't discuss this subject and keep making ad hominem remarks. How dare you call me a troll, try a definition for a change!
     
  20. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's been a while since you repeated your post hoc fallacy -- aren't you about due?
    And I'm still waiting for you to present a sound argument for banning 'assault weapons' as well as how such a ban does not violate the Constitution.
     
  21. Gary/Dubya

    Gary/Dubya Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You claim it's ad hoc, even knowing the history that the intent was given before it was done and it worked.

    Your argument is solely based on your word, which doesn't mean much to any rational person.
     
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Post hoc. Pay attention.
    You have as of yet failed to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the cause you cite and the effect you claim.
    Because you know you cannot.
    Thus, all you have is a post hoc fallacy.
    Still waiting for you to present a sound argument for banning 'assault weapons' as well as how such a ban does not violate the Constitution.
     
  23. Gary/Dubya

    Gary/Dubya Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Pay attention to this. Around that time, I lived let's say 120 miles from NYC, but very near the northeast corridor of high density population from Boston to DC. The major of NYC who announced the start of his guns off the streets program was well announced and the opposition to it was sounding off immediately. Let's figure out who around NYC wouldn't know about this happening as it happened. OK, a newborn baby wouldn't know about it. Kids usually need to grow to a certain age before they become interested in the news. Some adults can isolate themselves from common news, but I'd say at least half the people were aware of what was happening in NYC as it occurred for the most part. It would be difficult to shield yourself from all that news. There were obviously issues across the political spectrum and NYC guns off the streets policy was covered by the news as it was happening.

    Your bullshit ad hoc argument is a joke. It should be obvious the effort of the NYC cops to keep guns off the street was the action. For it to become ad hoc, the reaction has to happen before the action. The reaction that homicide levels dropped below Virginia, which has a comparable population didn't happen before the cops worked to get the guns off the streets.

    You just don't like the fact, it did work.
     
  24. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing here demonstrates the necessary relationship between the cause you cite and the effect you claim.
    You refuse to make this demonstration because you know you cannot.
    Thus, all you have is a post hoc fallacy.

    You should also lean the difference between ad hoc and post hoc.

    Still waiting for you to present a sound argument for banning 'assault weapons' as well as how such a ban does not violate the Constitution.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2019
  25. Gary/Dubya

    Gary/Dubya Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Are you claiming all that news of those times doesn't exist? Why wouldn't a mayor of NYC be running his mouth throughout this program? Do you know who that mayor was?
     

Share This Page