Re: JOIN THE NRA !!


"Danct" <zoemlbx-travel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c675b654-b0ca-4378-90cb-6daecf0ef9a0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 11, 1:38 pm, "Scout"
<4g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Danct" <zoemlbx-tra...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:e3ea38c6-ec40-4631-aa30-fe1bc290b143@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Dec 11, 8:34 am, "Scout"
<4g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Danct" <zoemlbx-tra...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:c123847b-973b-4759-96f6-4bf14901b1de@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 19, 5:31 pm, "Scout"

IMO, you are. Because we already have stuff they can pay the price
on,
namely the violent crime they engaged in. Second, you also restrict
those
who aren't doing harm and making them suffer the burden of these
restrictions.

Kind of like trying to outlaw booze in order to prevent drunk
driving.
Everyone suffers even though you are only after a problem few.

Poor analogy in my opinion. Since the topic was about ONE TYPE of gun,
namely assault weapons, then your analogy should be about ONE TYPE of
alcohol; say maybe scotch?

****answer

Ok, so how would banning scotch prevent drunk driving?

Would seem to be pretty stupid policy, but then we had the AW ban.

*************

It would follow then that only the people
who drink scotch would suffer the "ban".

****answer

Yep, and they would suffer for no good reason.

***********

By making this analogy you also attempt to distract us from the very
important issue that consumptive alcohol's designed purpose is
relaxant comfort and an assault weapon's designed purpose is to kill
and maim human beings.

*****answer

Please cite your sources, and remember AW are intended for the CIVILIAN
market and thus I don't think you're going to be able to explain how
they
are designed to kill and maim human beings. For example, how exactly
does
a
pistol grip stock make it designed to kill and maim human beings?

How exactly does having a magazing in front of the trigger rather than
behind make it designed to kill and maim human beings?

I think you are inventing excuses now.

Further I could just as easily state that the design purpose of scotch
is
to
cause drunkness......a leading contributer to drunk driving.

I will simply note that an AW shares the same design as any other gun.
To
propel a bullet downrange. What it is
USE for, just like alcohol, is controlled by the user, NOT the design.

*************

In my opinion any analogy of this topic should
bear in mind the deliberate intended nature of this lethal weapon.

****answer

It it were intended to be lethal, then should it look more like a car,
which
kills more people by accident than do guns when used with lethal
intent.

Sorry, but AW are not designed with the intent of being lethal weapons.
If
they were then they would have much more powerful ammo, and a bunch of
other
changes.

So you're saying that cars are "intended to be lethal"?

No more than AW are.

Nonsense.

Agreed, yet here you are trying to tell me that something produced for the
civilian market is intended to maim and kill human beings.

OK. At least I get SOME agreement here. I'll take what I can get, no
matter how small.


****answer

At the moment, I'm more than willing to agree that what you post is
generally nonsense.

You've given me no reason to disagree with that.

************


You're dancing on the head of a pin here, Scout. A distinction
without a distinction. Your point on the "civilian market" is clever,
but it misses the point.

****answer

Really? I think it was spot on, but let's see how you attempt to evade it.

***********

Whether or not they are produced for a
civilian or Martian market, the fact STILL remains of the lethal
nature of the product in question and it's unique place in our Bill of
Rights.


****answer

A car is lethal, a lamp is lethal, water is lethal. It's all in how it's
used.

In the hands of a killer, these all kill, in the hands of anyone else, they
do not except by accident.

It is the user NOT the device which establishs it's lethal nature.

You're only jumping around the issue here.

I'm just following your jumps.


****answer

Silence is noted

********

You and others like to jump
from one side of an argument to the other as it suits you while
missing my original point that the assault gun's intent is to kill and
maim.

Really? Please post any design notes, minutes of meetings, specifications
or
anything else you think would show that intent exists.

For a item produced for the civilian market, I don't think you can.

I think that the whole song and dance about the "cosmetics" of the
weapon is well documented and not lost on myself or others and the
manners that gun manufacturers redesigned the guns in such ways to
cloud these lines.

****answer

IOW, they banned certain cosmetic features and the manufactures removed such
features in order to comply with the law, and you weren't happy because
those cosmetic features are not and never were the issue.

*************

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck,
then it's probably a duck. Please don't try to make this into rocket
science.

****answer

IOW, you can't define an AW but you'll know it when you see it. Right?

I bet black plastic instead of wood has a lot to do with your decision in
that.

**************



A car's intent is to transport and alcohol's intent is do
whatever you desire it to be with the EXCEPTION of "kill and maim".

And yet, the combination kills more than guns.

Seems that actual use governs the results far more than any "intent" of
the
manufacturer.

Again, you're intentionally missing my point. although I'm not
surprised because, frankly your position is indefensible when you stay
on-point.

****answer

IOW, I blame the user rather than the means or device, what could I have
been thinking?

**********



These are real and important differences, and worthy of being included
in all discussions of these weapons specifically and guns in general.

Except they are false, and simply establish you are imposing a double
standard.

Explain HOW they are false, please.


****answer

Because outside of guns designed for assassination, guns are NOT
specifically designed to kill. The whole "design" or "intent" is a red
herring because it doesn't matter what something was DESIGNED to do, only
what it is used for. A screwdriver was "designed" as an instrument of war,
but do we see you getting all bent out of shape because people own
unregulated screwdrivers? In short, it's an excuse for you to hold guns to
one standard but not to hold everything else to that same standard. If your
principles are honest then it shouldn't matter what the object it, it should
be able to be held to the same standard. Your problem is you blame guns for
the actions of the user, but you excuse those same actions when it's a
car....all because of your excuse not to apply a consistent standard.

In short, it's a means to justify the use of a double standard because if we
applied your standard for guns equally then it's nonsensical nature would be
made crystal clear.

**************


If you imply that the design and intent of this weapon is NOT to kill
and maim, but rather target practice, then say so, and justify your
claim with yourself that the Bill of Rights somehow justifies this
need.

Well, some guns are certainly intended specifically for target practice
including some AWs. Indeed every month I go to a match and watch people
using AW to target shoot. Some were even build for this express intent.
Yet,
you tell me that isn't true. So on one hand I have reality which says one
thing, and you on the other with your unsupported assertion saying
another.
Now which should I believe?

If on the other hand, you believe as do others here like Stephen and
Jim that the purpose of this weapon is to use against our own
government in the unlikely event that they get out of line then say
so, but you and others do need to make a choice and stop jumping back
and forth as it suits you because it's disingenuous.

Sorry, but now you are talking about the intent of the user.

No I'm not. I'm talking about the intent of the "poster".


****answer

Really, and you didn't talk about "the purpose of this weapon"????

Odd, I seem to recall seeing that.

Oh, well, I will chalk it up as another evasion.

**************



For one claiming that people should stop jumping around, then you
shouldn't
do so.

Either you are talking the intent of the builder or you are taking the
intent of the person who owns it, or the intent of the person currently
using it. Pick one and stick to it, but stop jumping around. It exposes
your
hypocracy.

Scout, many issues have be addressed here by myself, and for you to
merge and combine them in order to deceive is unkind at the very least
and not constructive to others trying to follow this thread in
general.


****answer

IOW, I shouldn't hold you to one thing, even though you complain that others
"jump" around.

I accept that you feel your standards of conduct shouldn't be applied to
you.

*******





I will simply note that you are attempting to impose a double standard
in
order to justify doing one thing, while acknowledging the stupidity of
doing
the same thing with another product.

********

I think you need to focus your attention on those that are the
problem,
and
in doing so will get the support you want/need.

Then pray tell us WHO the ones are that are the "problem"?

****answer

violent criminals.

duh.

************

If your
answer is "criminals" you might be surprised at how wrong you might
be.

****answer

I think not, since criminals, known criminals, commit the overwhelming
bulk
of violent crime, and gun violence.

Where does your data come from? Can you share?

FBI.

I could, but why should I give you answers that you should find out for
yourself? After all, here you are telling everyone that controlling
criminals doesn't work, so clearly this is information you should
have.......or are you going to admit you are shooting of your mouth about
things you don't know about?

Your answers will decide if I share specific source data with you or not.

In other words, you don't have a data source.

****answer

I do, but there seems to be no point in taking the time to look it up and
produce it when your mind is clearly closed to information contrary to your
position. Why else then, would you ignore the questions put to you?

Is it because you can't ask for that information without exposing your own
ignorance of your subject?

So go ahead. Ask me to produce the data one more time and I will do
so......with the understanding that you confess ignorance in your subject.

So do you want me to produce that source of information?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JOIN THE NRA !!
    ... are designed to kill and maim human beings. ... I will simply note that an AW shares the same design as any other gun. ... but AW are not designed with the intent of being lethal weapons. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: JOIN THE NRA !!
    ... I believe the standard preach goes something like: ... Make up your mind, are you talking arms, or are you talking just guns? ... the design intent of those arms as you suggest. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: JOIN THE NRA !!
    ... are designed to kill and maim human beings. ... kills more people by accident than do guns when used with lethal intent. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Note to Phil
    ... Since clubs aka Baseball bats. ... clearly baseball bats are designed to kill. ... The ONLY difference from that point on, is that guns have an additional design that allows THE USER to select his target with some accuracy. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Note to Phil
    ... the "design" of a bullet is not relevant compared to the intent of the ... Most bullets fired are never turned against a person. ... Many gun projectiles are NOT "designed to kill". ... Because he knows he's in the wrong WRT guns. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
Loading