What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why would anyone need an assault rifle? (2 Viewers)

Assault Rifles

  • Ban them

    Votes: 309 74.6%

  • They have many uses outside of killing a lot of people in a short amount of time

    Votes: 105 25.4%
  • Total voters
    414
BigSteelThrill said:
You already dumbed it down as far as it can get.  You keep banging the same gong over and over for months.

Whats about X? What about Y? What about Z?  A: This is not the XYZ thread.
Click to expand...
That's because I think it's a valid question. If you had your way, you'd remove guns from our country in order to save lives. But, you crack a cold one and light up a Lucky Strike while toasting those that died from drunk drivers or second hand smoke. 

I think the word I'm looking for is hypocritical. (and it's not just you. society has determined what deaths are acceptable by their lack of action)

 
KCitons said:
That's because I think it's a valid question. If you had your way, you'd remove guns from our country in order to save lives. But, you crack a cold one and light up a Lucky Strike while toasting those that died from drunk drivers or second hand smoke. 

I think the word I'm looking for is hypocritical. (and it's not just you. society has determined what deaths are acceptable by their lack of action)
Click to expand...
We know, youve been at the same thing for months and people have been grossly put off by your style of anti-discussion communications and yet you keep doing it.

Imagine if this was the premise of posters in every thread at FBGs?   To sidetrack it into a "what about _xyz_?" discussion to distract from something else?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill said:
We know, youve been at the same thing for months and people have been grossly put off by your style of anti-discussion communications and yet you keep doing it.

Imagine if this was the premise of posters in every thread at FBGs?   To sidetrack it into and what about discussion to proper up something else?
Click to expand...
Let me be clear. I don't care what others here think of me. I've had a lot of discussions with multiple people here. I just refuse to make it narrow conversation. 

 
Mis: Im discussing and raising awareness for cerebral palsy.

KC: Dont you know cancer affects way more people, such hypocrisy for you to focus on CP! It doesnt deserve its own considerations and discussions so we must constantly conflate it!

:tfp:

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Mis: Im discussing and raising awareness for cerebral palsy.

KC: Dont you know cancer affects way more people, such hypocrisy for you to focus on CP! It doesnt deserve its own considerations and discussions so we must constantly conflate it!

:tfp:
Click to expand...
You're not discussing and raising awareness. You're discussing banning something. There's a difference. 

The comparison would be the government allocating $50 bil to research for cerebral palsy while allocating $50 for cancer research. I think you'd have a comparison complaint then. 

 
BigSteelThrill said:
:wall:

Evidently there can be no discussion that includes you though. 
Click to expand...
This is false. I've given a lot of suggestions on how to fix the problem. 

I was also the one that made the statement over a year ago about needing a counter to the NRA. I was told that was impossible. But here we are with anti NRA groups gaining momentum and the NRA losing power each day. 

 
KarmaPolice said:
Ah, so its exactly like the other gun thread and KCs dui thread. 
Click to expand...
It went off the rails when the anti gun crowd had to accept a small loss. The fact that there may actually be a need for an assault rifle. 

In order to lessen the pain, they went back to making generalizations about gun owners.

 
Misfit said:
I've given my ideas in the other gun thread multiple times.  I thought I was having a respectful conversation with you.  The reality is that it's a complex problem that demands a complex multi-faceted solution.  Pointing to some obscure language written hundreds of years ago doesn't get us anywhere.
Click to expand...
That obscure language is the same thing that defines many laws in this country. I don't think it was penned without purpose. That alone should make you take pause. 

 
Misfit said:
Yes.

Again, statistically you are adding danger to the situation.  Didn't you tell a story a while ago about an accident you or a family member had with a gun?
Click to expand...
nope wasn't me

I'm more afraid of a guy with a knife who wants to do harm to others than a guy who doesn't want to harm anyone but has an AR strapped to his back, one in his hands and a handgun on each hip 

like .... I'm afraid of a guy driving drunk at 40 MPH in the wrong lanes vs a corvette driving 100 in the right lanes with a sober drive

get it ?

 
Misfit said:
The reality is that it's a complex problem that demands a complex multi-faceted solution. 
Click to expand...
actually the core problem is simple - violent people

the solution is VERY complex - and it is embedded in why they are violent and how to stop them from ever being like that or wanting to hurt others ........... their choice in weapons isn't that important really

that said, we have very good common sense gun laws - right now, we don't need more 

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Please try to stay on topic...

... by deflecting to another topic!?!  Brilliant!
Click to expand...
You seem to think I'm defecting. What I'm doing is comparing. It's what we do here on a fake football board.

We compare RB's, head coaches, defenses, teams, politicians, hamburgers, hot girls, you're mom, and any number of other things. On a daily basis. 

Comparing the need to ban firearms with the need to ban other things is part of a healthy discussion. Otherwise, let's stop talking about the previous assault weapons ban and the bans on firearms in other countries. Those things are not the same time or place. So, you're just deflecting the conversation from having any relative progress. 

 
UncleZen said:
From that page: "Gun nut" is a term of derision that anti-gun supporters roll out when they don't have a substantive argument to make and want to belittle and dehumanize their opponents.  The use of such a term, along with others like "ammosexual", "gun humper" and so on, basically indicates that the person is acting like a child and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...
A gun-nut is the same as an anti-gun nut. A person on one side of the argument who is so convinced they are right that they refuse to even listen or acknowledge the opposing sides argument. The people who actually say AND mean "from my cold dead hands". A gun-nut is somebody who refuses to acknowledge a problem even related to guns and therefore will not talk about solutions. They generally believe that those who disagree are un-American traitors and/or idiots. They are most likely firearms owners, although money and/or felonies may change that.

A firearms owner is somebody who owns firearms. THEY ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY A GUN NUT!!!

Somebody in favor of gun control may or may not be a firearms owner, but who believes that a (the?) major contributing factor to the violence issues in this country are related to our gun laws.

Somebody in favor of gun rights believes either/both a.) firearms ownership is an inalienable right (this group usually refuses to acknowledge the full text or the 2nd amendment) and b.) that the violence crisis in this country is primarily due to causes other than firearms, and that guns are either a very minor factor or a solution.

An anti-gun nut is somebody who believes that ownership of a firearm is proof that you want to murder their children in cold blood. Like the gun nuts, they refuse to acknowledge other points of view or other potential causes or solutions. Like the gun nuts, you cannot have a conversation with them about gun control. They believe that those who don't agree are simply bad human beings.
Click to expand...

 
Sheriff Bart said:
Every American should be trained in martial arts. Then there wouldn't be a need for guns for self defense. Personally, I'm a karate man. 
Click to expand...
how can you karate a guy pointing a gun at you from 20' away ?

 
Stealthycat said:
yes, that's the spirit of an internet forum designed to exchange ideas and beliefs !! bury your head in the sand and ignore - BRAVO !!!
Click to expand...
When someone intentionally tries to derail discussion by constantly deflecting and raising irrelevant topics, it doesn't further discussion, it hinders it.  Collectively ignoring such postings furthers discussion.  If you'll notice above, there is a fairly interesting discussion of the Supreme Court's judicial advocacy and when it is appropriate to alter Constitutional rights.   Contrast that with a poster changing the subject to alcohol, cars, or the sun, which just interferes with rational discussion and intelligent discourse.  Ignoring such postings allows more valuable discourse to continue while filtering out posts that are pure noise.

Would you like to talk about the price of grapes?  

 
-fish- said:
When someone intentionally tries to derail discussion by constantly deflecting and raising irrelevant topics, it doesn't further discussion, it hinders it.  Collectively ignoring such postings furthers discussion.  If you'll notice above, there is a fairly interesting discussion of the Supreme Court's judicial advocacy and when it is appropriate to alter Constitutional rights.   Contrast that with a poster changing the subject to alcohol, cars, or the sun, which just interferes with rational discussion and intelligent discourse.  Ignoring such postings allows more valuable discourse to continue while filtering out posts that are pure noise.

Would you like to talk about the price of grapes?  
Click to expand...
This is why people call posters here elitists. How many people on this board (or in this country) are able to discuss the judicial advocacy of the Supreme Court? By contrast, how many are able to understand the comparison of gun laws vs laws on cigarettes, alcohol, or cars? 

This is why the pompous elitists of this world are shocked by the election of someone like Trump. Perhaps we are tired of having you decide what we can say or do.  

I find many of your posts about the legal mumbo jumbo to be pure noise as well. 

 
-fish- said:
When someone intentionally tries to derail discussion by constantly deflecting and raising irrelevant topics, it doesn't further discussion, it hinders it.  Collectively ignoring such postings furthers discussion.  If you'll notice above, there is a fairly interesting discussion of the Supreme Court's judicial advocacy and when it is appropriate to alter Constitutional rights.   Contrast that with a poster changing the subject to alcohol, cars, or the sun, which just interferes with rational discussion and intelligent discourse.  Ignoring such postings allows more valuable discourse to continue while filtering out posts that are pure noise.

Would you like to talk about the price of grapes?  
Click to expand...
Well said. 

 
-fish- said:
When someone intentionally tries to derail discussion by constantly deflecting and raising irrelevant topics, it doesn't further discussion, it hinders it.  Collectively ignoring such postings furthers discussion.  If you'll notice above, there is a fairly interesting discussion of the Supreme Court's judicial advocacy and when it is appropriate to alter Constitutional rights.   Contrast that with a poster changing the subject to alcohol, cars, or the sun, which just interferes with rational discussion and intelligent discourse.  Ignoring such postings allows more valuable discourse to continue while filtering out posts that are pure noise.

Would you like to talk about the price of grapes?  
Click to expand...
just because you don't understand the relevancy of comparisons, analogies and deeper connections within a thread doesn't mean others don't

more likely, you can't argue your view, get frustrated and either quit or block .... that's very typical Democrat/Liberal move

tie grapes to AR15's in any way and sure I will ... but i will never block you 

 
-fish- said:
When someone intentionally tries to derail discussion by constantly deflecting and raising irrelevant topics, it doesn't further discussion, it hinders it.  Collectively ignoring such postings furthers discussion.  If you'll notice above, there is a fairly interesting discussion of the Supreme Court's judicial advocacy and when it is appropriate to alter Constitutional rights.   Contrast that with a poster changing the subject to alcohol, cars, or the sun, which just interferes with rational discussion and intelligent discourse.  Ignoring such postings allows more valuable discourse to continue while filtering out posts that are pure noise.

Would you like to talk about the price of grapes?  
Click to expand...
The price of grapes is affecting the price of wine and.... OMG DRUNK DRIVERS!!!!!!

 
Stealthycat said:
just because you don't understand the relevancy of comparisons, analogies and deeper connections within a thread doesn't mean others don't

more likely, you can't argue your view, get frustrated and either quit or block .... that's very typical Democrat/Liberal move

tie grapes to AR15's in any way and sure I will ... but i will never block you 
Click to expand...
I find fish to be a very perspicacious fellow.  I take umbrage with this characterization.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I find fish to be a very perspicacious fellow.  I take umbrage with this characterization.
Click to expand...
Who knows what perspicacious means without looking it up? 

If you're trying to communicate with the masses, it's best to use language that the majority will understand. Otherwise, it appears that you're speaking in only to the elites. 

 
KCitons said:
Who knows what perspicacious means without looking it up? 

If you're trying to communicate with the masses, it's best to use language that the majority will understand. Otherwise, it appears that you're speaking in only to the elites. 
Click to expand...
Well -fish-, for one.  Still I will take under advisement your counsel here and try to communicate in a more common idiomatic vernacular. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Well -fish-, for one.  Still I will take under advisement your counsel here and try to communicate in a more common idiomatic vernacular. 
Click to expand...
As a student of English literature long before legal writing crippled my ability to write creatively, I appreciate the use of the mot juste.   It's not like the masses even need to refer to a dictionary anymore.   If they're too lazy to highlight and right click, they can't be all that interested in learning from a discussion anyway.    

In the words of Billy Joel, don't go changing.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
New York Enacts Ridiculous New Gun Laws: "I’m A NYC Liberal, And I Want A Gun" (7/3/22 20:29 PST)
Replies
28
Views
795
FairWarning
FairWarning

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top