Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #4621
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Extra if you're not going to follow along....
    Please tell me your just trolling now.

  2. #4622
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Look at the actually source.

    http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...d-ebf318d46d02

    certain guns. So like I said.

    The only time it blanket bans a gun based on capacity is on fixed capacity weapons.
    So, like i said.....(from your link) The bill intends to get the guns from all angles. (You see that "as well as" in there? Let me know if that confuses you)

    A summary of key provisions in the updated bill:

    Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 06:39 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Look at the actually source.
    Whew! We can keep any guns that don't work anymore! Awesome! I'm glad i read it again...missed that joyous news the first 10 times i read it.

    "exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons."

  3. #4623
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Extrazero8 View Post
    Please tell me your just trolling now.
    Wells is probably the least trolly person on these forums. It's hard to have a proper debate with you when you insist on arguing semantics and irrelevancies to distract from the real issues.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  4. #4624
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Extrazero8 View Post
    No, you didn't address the question. Sarah Palin would have been proud on that one.


    A gun ban doesn't have to ban all guns for it to be a gun ban. You know that and I'm not going to insult you by saying you don't.
    The accepted application of the phrase "gun ban" would be the banning of guns. The banning of guns would imply the banning of all guns. In this case, not all guns are being banned. You're arguing that it's a gun ban, when the appropriate phrasing would be a "banning of certain guns."
    @Maleficus
    You underline "as well as" while missing the word "certain," and underline "and" while missing the word "semiautomatic" and the phrase "can accept more than 10 rounds." My stance on this legislation is undetermined as of yet, but when there are arguments like these where there is specific phrasing that allows for exceptions, it should be noted that this isn't a ban on every gun.
    Last edited by Grizzly Willy; 2012-12-30 at 06:45 AM.

  5. #4625
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    The accepted application of the phrase "gun ban" would be the banning of guns. The banning of guns would imply the banning of all guns. In this case, not all guns are being banned. You're arguing that it's a gun ban, when the appropriate phrasing would be a "banning of certain guns."
    Just because a road has a speed limit does not mean all speeds are limited.

    Just because a law does not ban all guns doesn't mean it is not a gun ban law. If it bans guns, some or all, it is a gun ban.

  6. #4626
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    It is a ban on certain guns. I don't see the point in starting an argument on the semantics of the issue, so I'll leave it here. I thought it would be helpful to provide a clarification on the definition of the phrase, but it would appear that there is a strong level of disagreement. I think as long as you don't mean to imply that they are banning all guns you will be correct, but if there is that assumption that you do mean to imply that when you aren't, then you should explain it so there isn't the confusion. They aren't banning all guns, they are banning certain guns.

    Also, I think your analogy better suits my point than it does yours. It is a road. The assumption is not that it has a speed limit unless it is explicitly stated that the road has a speed limit. This can be done by describing the location or type of road; a road on the highway system or in a city, for example, will most likely have a speed limit, so it is proper to assume that it is a road with a speed limit. A dirt road most likely doesn't, so it is safe to assume that there isn't a speed limit. So when one says the word "road," unless they specifically state that location or nature of the road, the assumption is going to be that there isn't one. Unless it is specifically stated that the gun ban doesn't ban all guns, the assumption is going to be that the gun ban bans all guns.
    Last edited by Grizzly Willy; 2012-12-30 at 07:01 AM.

  7. #4627
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Extra won't have a debate with you without first making sure the definition of every word you present in your debate is redefined to fit his agenda.

    Infracted: Please refrain from making posts whose sole purpose is to devalue other posters' opinions without actually addressing the issue and contributing to the topic.
    Last edited by Wikiy; 2012-12-30 at 03:12 PM.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  8. #4628
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleros View Post
    Extra won't have a debate with you without first making sure the definition of every word you present in your debate is redefined to fit his agenda.
    Comments from the peanut gallery are generally worthless, so you'll understand if I ignore you.

  9. #4629
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    It is a ban on certain guns. I don't see the point in starting an argument on the semantics of the issue, so I'll leave it here. I thought it would be helpful to provide a clarification on the definition of the phrase, but it would appear that there is a strong level of disagreement. I think as long as you don't mean to imply that they are banning all guns you will be correct, but if there is that assumption that you do mean to imply that when you aren't, then you should explain it so there isn't the confusion. They aren't banning all guns, they are banning certain guns.
    I'm not disagreeing that this is not a ban on all guns. I've never said it was.

  10. #4630
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    You underline "as well as" while missing the word "certain," and underline "and" while missing the word "semiautomatic" and the phrase "can accept more than 10 rounds." My stance on this legislation is undetermined as of yet, but when there are arguments like these where there is specific phrasing that allows for exceptions, it should be noted that this isn't a ban on every gun.
    Nowhere have i stated that this is a ban on ALL guns....just most of them. I did not overlook the word certain, but nobody knows exactly what "certain" guns are targeted. Certain could mean any functioning guns since "they" are so kind to propose that "we" can keep any non-functional guns. Gee, thanks guys! (or whatever Feinstein is)

    Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms...

    ...as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

    That second part is much more dangerous than the first part. A VERY small percentage of guns do not fit into those categories - essentially bolt action rifles and revolvers. Well, and muzzle loaders too, but those are already exempted by the manual clause.

  11. #4631
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Extrazero8 View Post
    I'm not disagreeing that this is not a ban on all guns. I've never said it was.
    I know. My point is that calling it a gun ban is going to bring with it the assumption that it is banning all guns, even if that isn't your intention. I apologize if I wasn't clear on that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maleficus View Post
    Nowhere have i stated that this is a ban on ALL guns....just most of them. I did not overlook the word certain, but nobody knows exactly what "certain" guns are targeted. Certain could mean any functioning guns since "they" are so kind to propose that "we" can keep any non-functional guns. Gee, thanks guys! (or whatever Feinstein is)

    Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms...

    ...as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

    That second part is much more dangerous than the first part. A VERY small percentage of guns do not fit into those categories - essentially bolt action rifles and revolvers. Well, and muzzle loaders too, but those are already exempted by the manual clause.
    Isn't there a grandfathering for over 900 different weapons? I assume that people who still own guns would be able to hold on to them.

  12. #4632
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    Comments from the peanut gallery are generally worthless, so you'll understand if I ignore you.
    Sorry, I tried having a reasonable debate, it always ended in Extra picking at definitions and semantics, which is pretty much the debate equivalent of saying you have no real argument. He more or less successfully drove the topic away from Wells's point onto the topic of discussing the definition of a "ban" because even acknowledging Wells's argument would have conceded a point.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  13. #4633
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleros View Post
    Sorry, I tried having a reasonable debate, it always ended in Extra picking at definitions and semantics, which is pretty much the debate equivalent of saying you have no real argument. He more or less successfully drove the topic away from Wells's point onto the topic of discussing the definition of a "ban" because even acknowledging Wells's argument would have conceded a point.
    I just take issue with people telling me not to attempt a conversation with somebody while insulting them. It's fine if you think I shouldn't, but I don't particularly care. Don't mean to sound like an ass, it just gets on my nerves.

  14. #4634
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    I know. My point is that calling it a gun ban is going to bring with it the assumption that it is banning all guns, even if that isn't your intention. I apologize if I wasn't clear on that.

    Isn't there a grandfathering for over 900 different weapons? I assume that people who still own guns would be able to hold on to them.
    We will still be able to own what we own now. However new ones will not be able to be made and old ones will not be able to be sold or transferred in anyway.

    So if the ban passes, and you don't own one of these weapons right then, you will never be able to get one legally. If you do own one you'll never be able to own a different one. Gun makers and gun stores who have them, but have not sold them to a person, will never be able to sell them even if the gun already exist.

    All of the above includes magazines over 10 rounds as well.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 01:20 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleros View Post
    Sorry, I tried having a reasonable debate, it always ended in Extra picking at definitions and semantics, which is pretty much the debate equivalent of saying you have no real argument. He more or less successfully drove the topic away from Wells's point onto the topic of discussing the definition of a "ban" because even acknowledging Wells's argument would have conceded a point.
    I tried having a discussion with you friend. You could not handle having an adult conversation so I ended it.

  15. #4635
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    I will say that this ban seems equal parts too aggressive and not aggressive enough. It's taking away an industry and kicking out jobs in a period of economic uncertainty while still allowing for a large pool of weapons that still have the capacity to inflict a great deal of harm. The method of banning these guns is going to prevent new acquisitions, but if it does nothing about guns currently out there, then it has changed, effectively, very little.

    So, ultimately, I lean against it. I'm more in favor of the tiered gun permit idea that was posted on these boards.

  16. #4636
    Immortal SirRobin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    7,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleros View Post
    It's good to see the same old tired circular argument is still going on 200 pages later. It's like both sides have a pre conceived notion of what is and isn't best for the country.
    Isn't this a good thing though? As long as we eventually find the middle ground. Even the Constitution had compromises in it. The debate between the public good and private right has been going on for some time. We should probably be more concerned if it ever actually stops. Now there is bias on both sides. Just as there are misunderstandings on both sides. Pro-gun says things like "a rifle behind every blade of grass," even though Yamamoto never said it. While anti-gun says things like there is no need, when its not actually about need.

    Neither side really needs to understand the other. At least I don't recall it ever being a requirement before. Finding a middle ground between the two is the thing. We've got plenty of checks and balances to help keep things from getting too out of hand. Just like how the 2nd Amendment is already "limited." And how its not the "illegal" guns which have brought the FAWB back to the table. When first-graders die in their classrooms by the score, what we have is obviously not enough.

    Maybe its time for the balance between public good and private right to get another tuning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    The news is not a very good format for the gun discussion, given that most of the networks lean towards gun control anyway. The NRA's grassroots stuff is much better at getting to voters directly, but isn't common in networks.
    The news has always been a great format for influencing public opinion. Its been that way since the Spanish-American War and before. Grassroots is great with voters as Obama showed again to great effect. However, public opinion is not necessarily the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    After thinking about it, maybe it was a package deal with a bunch of magazines and stuff. No clue myself, but the market here in Florida was $200-$249 for a pristine example of the POS in question. The internet in those days was AOL, so maybe in that area prices were higher. (Which would mean that AR's were also higher there, in theory.) Again though, I know what the market was like in that time frame (at least in Florida), and the gun wasn't that much. Magazines were $25ish each, so again, maybe that was justification.
    Don't know much about price history. Does anyone have actual sources to prices before, during, and after, the FAWB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    Bout a decade, but I think it's just that they're more mainstream with the media and get the coverage. They cook up something and the news runs with it. On the flip side, gun buyers swarm out to buy stuff and stockpile it when another "scare" occurs.
    Oh of course there is some bias involved. As an example, they don't call it the conservative arts. However, the press has been used by both sides of the aisle very effectively before to sway or arouse the public. As far as the fearmongering sales? Seriously, that's going to end up biting them in the butt sooner or later.
    Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
    Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
    Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
    And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  17. #4637
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    I tried having a discussion with you friend. You could not handle having an adult conversation so I ended it.
    Every time I made a point you couldn't counter, you'd start arguing definitions, semantics, and my favorite was when you claimed that guns didn't make it any easier for a crazy to kill multiple targets. I wouldn't call changing the subject and redefining words and terms to fit your agenda an "adult conversation". You just successfully drove the conversation away from Wells's point because logic didn't fit into your argument. Although if that's what you call an adult argument, I wouldn't be surprised if that's your definition of it.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  18. #4638
    They will do whatever they want to do as far as what is law and what gets banned, no amount of discussion will change that only money. As long as the NRA is a multi-million dollar lobbyist, very little will be done with ban laws.

  19. #4639
    Quote Originally Posted by Gsara View Post
    They will do whatever they want to do as far as what is law and what gets banned, no amount of discussion will change that only money. As long as the NRA is a multi-million dollar lobbyist, very little will be done with ban laws.
    I'm not so sure. When the public favors something we generally tolerated it. Mitt is a great example. He had out spent Obama with about 12 million dollars left over by the time he finished. By all accounts if money equals free speech and Mitt still lost despite his efforts. If the general mood in America they want to ban it or at least ban magazines that can carry large ammos.

    Generally they will do it. This is one of the few times in history when a shooting happens the NRA holds a rally in their town the week after to discuss the importance of gun protection and gun rights. I'd call that a tiny bit insensitive. However if most Americans support a bill nothing they can do really. They are sincerely a lobbying group for guns. They also make and produce a large number of guns and sell them for a massive profit.

    We shouldn't look to corporations and lobbying groups before doing something for general public safety.

  20. #4640
    Quote Originally Posted by KunkkaTheAdmiral View Post
    I looked at every, absolutely every post here... 225 pages. Wow... dont know what to say, I'm no american but I have a question.

    Why do you need a gun ? You have police in the USA.

    I guess a Hunter would need a gun, atleast if he wants to shoot something and not wrestle with it... but ... is there any other reason for you ?

    I dont fear to be "stripped" of my rights, even without a gun, I wouldn't know what to do with this piece of metal.
    Ok so just to put a couple of things out there. First off the police have an average response time in the US of 30 minutes, this has caused rise to the saying:

    "When seconds matter the cops are only minutes away"

    Before someone goes off on a rant about how that needs fixed, even if you use that as an excuse to change gun laws the issue with the police needs fixed first. On top of that I live in an area of the US called Appalachia and while I am not a moonshinin', tobacco chew, clan fuedin' hillbilly the simple suburban neighborhood I grew up in has dear, fox, coyotes and black bear, occasionally you would run into a mountain lion though they're not very common anymore. The police are not who you call to get the black bear off of your back porch. These animals are known for eating pets, plants and destroying property. The best part of this is that I lived under a mile from a fairly major city.

    People also have said that guns like the AR-15 is not a hunting gun and I beg to differ. While i know people that hunt dear with .223 rifles I dislike the idea, the bullet is too small and does not have enough expansion (I much prefer bigger bullets and in the woods, where you can't take long shots, big "slow" handgun rounds tend to be very good choices IE the lever action .44 mag is great) I have killed fox, coyotes, skunks and gophers with an AR-15. That gun has a match grade long barrel and is used mostly for long range silhouette shooting but it makes a great varmint gun.
    As for prot... haha losers he dmg needs a nerf with the intercept shield bash wtf silence crit a clothie like a mofo.
    Wow.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •