The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

Originally posted by SM2
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Just so you know, as I know you would never trouble yourself with learning anything unless Chris Matthews told you too....A machine gun and a full auto assault weapon are the same thing. One and the same. So, your question was like asking...

Would you rather have a car or an automobile?

Sorry...I'm not big into gun porn so I don't know the subtle differences.

Actually...I'm not sorry at all...I am glad I don't know the difference.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
double post, sorry

edit on 23-7-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)

That is not true at all. The German MG-42 fired the 7.92x57mm mauser round.That round was used in sniper rifles as well as sporting rifles, still is today. In case you will argue that, the MG in MG-42 means machine gun. The American M60 machine gun fired a 7.62x51 NATO round, which is a .308 winchester. The BAR is classified as a light machine gun that fires the 30-06 round. The American SAW and H&K MG4 are also classified as light machine guns.

What you are referring to would be a heavy machine gun like the Browning M2 and the like. Those do fire a heavy round, some light, heavy and medium are belt fed, such as the SAW.

reply to post by beezzer

So there were no handgun crimes in Chicago before 2010?

No, there were plenty of handgun crimes.

Care to show where I claimed there weren't? I simply claimed you don't have your facts straight...which you didn't.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Predictable...I doubt any of you gun lovers will honestly answer the question.

Because you either answer it honestly and look like a hypocrite...or you answer dishonestly saying you think everyone should be able to own a nuke and look crazy.

So owning a gun is equal to owning a nuke?

Or are you just using this fallacious off topic nuke argument as a means to try to make gun lovers, as you call them, out to be nuclear holocaust types?

Anyways, this thread is about Gun Control, not Nuke Control.

You are trying to sneakily turn this into something it's not, and twist everything into a totally new subject.
It's not gonna work, the distraction and deflection tactics are too shallow this time.

If you want to discuss Nuke Control please make a new thread about it.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

So this statement from you is enough to determine that you are not of sound mind and are a bit of an extremist.

And the elitist OutKast shows his truest colors.
I did not know you get to make such calls on others.

You didn't know that I get to form an opinion of someone based on their statements???

I'm sure you have an opinion of me based on my statements...does that make you an elitist too???

Civilians can own military vehicles, such as:



And here's ONE state's regulations for owning them:

www1.legis.ga.gov...

I love proving people wrong when they say a civilian can't own tanks.

reply to post by muzzleflash

That's beside the point though, to build a nuclear weapon you need extensive infrastructure and technical capability. The logistics are beyond any normal person and require a nation, or equally wealthy organization to create. It takes many people working together to make that weapon, and for it to have any use, even more to deploy it effectively.

So you think it should be legal for a large corporation with the appropriate resources to manufacture nukes and sell them to rich American citizens that can afford them???

Is that your position?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by beezzer

 

So there were no handgun crimes in Chicago before 2010?

No, there were plenty of handgun crimes.

Care to show where I claimed there weren't? I simply claimed you don't have your facts straight...which you didn't.

Waiwaitwait!

Banning handguns didn't stop handgun crimes?

reply to post by SM2


You do realize that the original constitution is filled with misspellings and grammar mistakes, right? The best we can do is try and interpret what they meant with the way they said it.

If you want to argue what comma's mean what then do we use the line passed by congress;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Or do we use the one that was ratified by the states;

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Seeing as we based a large portion of our constitution on English law we can go back to the source of the 2nd amendment;

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Well regulated is by Company, Division, and/or platoon.
Regulated is by drill and practice, in the Military sense.

Good grief you have no clue.

reply to post by sonnny1

I don't believe ANYONE should Own a Nukes.

But the government already does...so according to pro-2nd Amendment logic...so should American citizens.

But it really sounds like you are saying that there should be SOME regulation on what arms people can own...thanks for agreeing with me.

And hey...if you don't like the "nuke" example...how about surface to air missles???

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Wow, so now you have resorted to "I'm more of a man" BS?
You must be running low on Liberal BS, you seem to be running on fumes.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Actually...I'm not sorry at all...I am glad I don't know the difference.

That's a big problem.

You are proud that you are ignorant, and want to stay that way?
Yet you are so loud and ready to speak out of your ignorance that you pride yourself in?

Well since you admit you don't know and don't want to know anything about the topic, why do you speak so authoritatively about it?

Does prideful ignorance lend one very much credibility?

I'm the opposite.
I always want to learn more about everything, even things I don't like.
And before I speak out, 90%+ of the time I read about the topic and double check my facts just to make sure I'm not coming off as a....prideful ignorant type.

*ahem*

I repeat. . . .

Waiwaitwait!

Banning handguns didn't stop handgun crimes?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

That's beside the point though, to build a nuclear weapon you need extensive infrastructure and technical capability. The logistics are beyond any normal person and require a nation, or equally wealthy organization to create. It takes many people working together to make that weapon, and for it to have any use, even more to deploy it effectively.

So you think it should be legal for a large corporation with the appropriate resources to manufacture nukes and sell them to rich American citizens that can afford them???

Is that your position?

I never stated a position.

Why are you trying to BAIT people into off topic debates ?

This is about gun control and you are trying to derail it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


My opinion of you is just LOW.
That is about it.
But, I do not think that I get to take away YOUR rights to think I can magically or falsely protect mine.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


The OLD derail Topic trick, and the bonus?

Cherry-Pick the post.

I love it !!!!!





As Beezzer so Eloquently stated......

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher



No, there were plenty of handgun crimes.

Care to show where I claimed there weren't? I simply claimed you don't have your facts straight...which you didn't.

Banning handguns didn't stop handgun crimes?

reply to post by macman

Don't need the Constitution to state as such. Anyone with any background in Firearms knows such things. A Nuclear Missile is not a firearm. Nor is it "arms".

By who's definition???

webster-dictionary.net...

Definition of Arms

1. Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.

And I swear nukes were part of the "arms" race...were they not???

You keep saying "firearms"...and yet that isn't in the Constitution anywhere.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Do you think people should be allowed to own a knife? Do you think people should be allowed to own a sword? Do you think people should be allowed to own a bow and arrow? Do you think people should be allowed to own a single shot musket? Do you think people should be allowed to own a handgun? Do you think people should be allowed to own a hunting rifle? Do you think people should be allowed to own a semi-auto assault rifle? Do you think people should be allowed to own a high powered/long range rifle? Do you think people should be allowed to own a full auto assault rifle? Do you think people should be allowed to own a machine gun? Do you think people should be allowed to own a 50-cal machine gun? Do you think people should be allowed to own a car mounted gatling gun?

All legal right up to the class 3 firearms.

Do you think people should be allowed to own a cannon? Do you think people should be allowed to own a anti aircraft gun? Do you think people should be allowed to own gernades?

Still legal under the curio and relic license.

Do you think people should be allowed to own RPGs?

Hey go tell those drug dealers in this country they shouldn't own them and yet people do.

Do you think people should be allowed to own tanks?

People are allowed to own tanks and other armored vehicles in this country

Do you think people should be allowed to own stealth bombers?

Do you know how many domestic/foreign vintage military aircraft are currently flying the skies of this country?

And yet not a single one has ever been used to do anything but fly.

Do you think people should be allowed to own surface to air missles?

There is not a BATF license for that so nice try, want to point out where anyone wants one or has ever used one in this country?

Do you think people should be allowed to own ICBMs?

There is no BATF license for that agian another nice try, want to point out where anyone wants one or has every used one in this countrty?

Do you think people should be allowed to own chemical weapons?

Between what is sold at Walmart and hardware stores and kiuds chemistry sets everyone owns chemical weapons chlorine gas for example

Do you think people should be allowed to own nukes?

How does one jump from all that to nukes is a strawman.

So...you are also dodging the question.

Dodged nothing

Predictable...I doubt any of you gun lovers will honestly answer the question.

Haven't seen any honesty in this thread from the anti gun crowd they jump from guns to nukes and other BS.

Because you either answer it honestly and look like a hypocrite...or you answer dishonestly saying you think everyone should be able to own a nuke and look crazy.

Yeah there is hypocrisy in this thread because all the anti gun crowd is so concerned with human life and turn around and support abortion.

reply to post by links234

You do realize that the original constitution is filled with misspellings and grammar mistakes, right? The best we can do is try and interpret what they meant with the way they said it.

But can you spell disingenuous?

The Constitution was written in 1787 in the manner of the day — in other words, it was written by hand. According to the National Archives, the version we are most familiar with today was penned by Jacob Shallus, a clerk for the Pennsylvania State Assembly. In the document itself are several words which are misspelled. Far from the days of spell checkers and easy edits, these misspellings survive in the document today.

Only one, though, is a glaringly obvious mistake. In the list of signatories, the word "Pennsylvania" is spelled with a single N: "Pensylvania." This usage conflicts with a prior spelling, at Article 1, Section 2. However, the single N was common usage in the 18th century — the Liberty Bell, for example, has the single N spelling inscribed upon it.

Another mistake, though less obvious, is a common one even today: the word "it's" is used in Article 1, Section 10, but the word "its" should have been used. The most common mistake, at least to modern eyes, is the word "choose," spelled "chuse" several times. This is less a mistake than it is an alternate spelling used at the time. The word is found in the Constitution as both "chuse" and "chusing."

www.usconstitution.net...

Would you fall into a state of mass confusion when seeing the Liberty Bell for the first time and declare that the best we can do is interpret the state of which it resides?

Critical thinking works just as easily when confronted with grammatical mistakes and misspelled words as it does academic excellence, and academic excellence includes understanding that certain word spellings today vary from the late 1700's.