Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

a reply to: intrptr

It's actually quite easy to create something out of what you have around the house that can be used to fire rounds.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

If you're trying to make a point, don't use photoshopped images of Obama in your argument. It makes you look biased and trite.

And that means what exactly to me?
My original image stands.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
As society evolves, so must our laws. That is why the amendment process exists. I understand you're unhappy about the proposed regulations. There's a LOT in the proposal I'd like to see thrown out, specifically the limitations on the TYPES of firearms and ammo. I think it's reasonable though, to have a national discussion on how we can prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who would use them for evil.

So, in this response you state that there is a process to change the 2nd, and then go on about how unhappy I am and okay you are about that process being circumvented with new laws proposed.
For your gymnastics effort I give you a 6.8. Your approach was okay, but you lost several points on the execution of the attempted trick and your landing was way off.

And another thing to point out. No person that actually values the 2nd would use the astroturf term of "reasonable" gun law expansion. Your talking points are old and weak.

a reply to: Answer
I never stated that I could build any weapon at home.
I stated that firearms can be built in a home workshop.... and they can.
I didn't name any particular firearm when I stated that firearms can be built in a home workshop.
I was being told by a 'smith' that what I stated was impossible.
Then we have the smith make the statement that firearms have machined receivers. That statement isn't true.
Read the thread.
And being a gunsmith, you should be able to find the book that tells you how to build an smg using hand tools... in your basement.
Not a car... and smg.
no barrel to buy.
and before you come back and say that it would be unreliable, how about I build one... will you stand in front of it while someone pulls the trigger?

a reply to: introvert

Such a lengthy retort from someone that states your for gun rights..........but are for "common sense" laws.

The provided talking points from the Brady Bunch and Bloomberg's group are the most parroted one liners out there.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Answer
I never stated that I could build any weapon at home.
I stated that firearms can be built in a home workshop.... and they can.
I didn't name any particular firearm when I stated that firearms can be built in a home workshop.
I was being told by a 'smith' that what I stated was impossible.
Then we have the smith make the statement that firearms have machined receivers. That statement isn't true.
Read the thread.

Ok, Captain Semantics.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

In fact, he's got a decent stance and form.

Below par. He's leaning slightly back instead of forward into his stance and the butt of the stock is too high on the shoulder.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

In fact, he's got a decent stance and form.

Below par. He's leaning slightly back instead of forward into his stance and the butt of the stock is too high on the shoulder.

That's what happens when someone told you 5 minutes ago how to hold it and you're just posing for a photo op to convince the handful of "middle-ground" voters that you're not as anti-gun as the NRA says.

a reply to: Answer

OK Sir Richard.

a reply to: macman

No person that actually values the 2nd would use the astroturf term of "reasonable" gun law expansion. Your talking points are old and weak.

Ahh, the good ole 'no true Scotsman'.

You know what that is, correct? It's a logical fallacy.

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").[2]

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Source

It is flawed logic such as this that stops reasonable debate between the pro and anti 2nd groups.

originally posted by: introvert


It is flawed logic such as this that stops reasonable debate between the pro and anti 2nd groups.

There has never been a reasonable debate between the 2 groups.

Just as there has never been a reasonable debate between the pro life and pro choice crowds.

It's a polarizing issue and the 2 groups will never see eye-to-eye.

One-on-one conversations are possible and I've "turned" a few anti-gun folks but in a group setting, it's impossible.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Answer

OK Sir Richard.

Did you just call me a condom?

Also - there is gun lore......and there is gun law.

One cannot be changed for it is the science and history of guns, the other..........well, the government wants to change it, and if they distract enough of you, they will change it - so you get none and they get them all.

It's also know as "death by a thousand cuts" because even if it takes another 30 years to achieve, the only thing stopping the government from fully disarming you of all weapons is your resolve - versus theirs.

Educate your children and the broader community - the militarization of the police force is not to enforce gumdrops and lollipops - the % is citizens who need reigning-in is not proportionate to all LEO's becoming weaponized terminators....where your only defence is rocks and sticks.

a reply to: macman

You wanna talk reasonable, you're so up in arms (pun intended) about this whole "shall not be infringed" thing, I wonder why your signature says what it does. Or are those reasonable restrictions? It would seem our respective definitions of "reasonable" are simply different.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: introvert

Such a lengthy retort from someone that states your for gun rights..........but are for "common sense" laws.

Im all for a discussion on things that seem reasonable, or common sense. Why are you having such a hard to comprehending? A discussion does not mean I will simply go along with it. I say it over and over again, yet you still don't grasp?

The provided talking points from the Brady Bunch and Bloomberg's group are the most parroted one liners out there.

Ok, I don't have a clue what you're even talking about. We are having a discussion, one in which you have already proven that your logic is severely flawed, and you have to resort to accusing me of using talking points?

Like I said, it is discussions like this that give the anti-2nd ammunition because the pro-2nd side has a hard time intelligently articulating their point and have to resort to ad hominum attacks and false accusations.

You, my friend, are a bigger threat to my 2nd amendment rights than any gun-grabbing liberal.

a reply to: Answer

First I ever heard of that brand.

originally posted by: introvert

You, my friend, are a bigger threat to my 2nd amendment rights than any gun-grabbing liberal.

Oh the irony of a man who speaks out against hyperbole while using hyperbole.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Answer

First I ever heard of that brand.

Same here, the condoms came up on Google even before Richard Branson.

I'm kinda out of the condom scene. I had a procedure.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Answer

First I ever heard of that brand.

Same here, the condoms came up on Google even before Richard Branson.

I'm kinda out of the condom scene. I had a procedure.

Me too.
9 years shooting blanks.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Also - there is gun lore......and there is gun law.

One cannot be changed for it is the science and history of guns, the other..........well, the government wants to change it, and if they distract enough of you, they will change it - so you get none and they get them all.

It's also know as "death by a thousand cuts" because even if it takes another 30 years to achieve, the only thing stopping the government from fully disarming you of all weapons is your resolve - versus theirs.

Educate your children and the broader community - the militarization of the police force is not to enforce gumdrops and lollipops - the % is citizens who need reigning-in is not proportionate to all LEO's becoming weaponized terminators....where your only defence is rocks and sticks.

Yet again, the Aussie gets it.

The anti-gun folks want to pass "reasonable restrictions" until no one can possess guns. That's what the "reasonable" people don't seem to grasp.

Those of us who have paid attention to gun laws for many years see the pattern. They know they'll never be able to say "turn them in, America" so they'll keep trying to chip away a little bit at a time until they reach their goal.

The usual folks try to slip gun laws through congress in every single session. It's because of the diligence of gun-owners that they typically die in committee.

a reply to: introvert

You can't be for the 2nd, and yet for more restrictions.

If that be your game, I suggest you go and research what a FUD is.