Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
fantasycurse42

Why would anyone need an assault rifle?

Assault Rifles  

441 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I'm just expanding on your concerns. Not sure what more you would want. 

But, you and @Misfit keep making grand generalizations and absolutes about gun owners. That seems to be working for you. 

Concentrate on the GUN concern.  Particularly in this thread.

I'm not in this thread a ton, bit every time there seems to be any back and forth you drops... what about the sun!  What about obesity?  A disgusting style on communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Concentrate on the GUN concern.  Particularly in this thread.

I'm not in this thread a ton, bit every time there seems to be any back and forth you drops... what about the sun!  What about obesity?  A disgusting style on communication.

Disgusting? 

Sorry you can't handle a conversation that encompasses more than one very specific thing. 

I'll try to dumb it down moving forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Disgusting? 

Sorry you can't handle a conversation that encompasses more than one very specific thing. 

I'll try to dumb it down moving forward. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Concentrate on the GUN concern.  Particularly in this thread.

I'm not in this thread a ton, bit every time there seems to be any back and forth you drops... what about the sun!  What about obesity?  A disgusting style on communication.

Concentrate on whether or not "anyone" would "need" and assault rifle. 

That's the topic of this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Concentrate on whether or not "anyone" would "need" and assault rifle. 

That's the topic of this thread. 

:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 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)

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?

Edited by BigSteelThrill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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?

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Misfit said:

I never said I was the solution.

You never said what your solution is either. 

@BigSteelThrill -  this is what deflecting and not wanting to have a conversation looks like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, 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. 

Not a bad idea.  Mandatory martial arts would probably help with a few of our country's problems.  

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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:

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BigSteelThrill said:

Its about seatbelts and obesity.   :lol:

Ah, so its exactly like the other gun thread and KCs dui thread. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

You're not discussing and raising awareness. You're discussing banning something. There's a difference.

:wall:

Evidently there can be no discussion that includes you though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BigSteelThrill said:

:wall:

Evidently there can be no discussion that includes you though. 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Ah, so its exactly like the other gun thread and KCs dui thread. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 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?

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Misfit said:

The reality is that it's a complex problem that demands a complex multi-faceted solution. 

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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 a "what about _xyz_?" discussion to distract from something else?

Ignore works great

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Ignore works great

Please try to stay on topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, FF Ninja 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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Please try to stay on topic...

... by deflecting to another topic!?!  Brilliant!

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 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. 

So you bleed on the inside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 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.

Quote

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 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. 

how can you karate a guy pointing a gun at you from 20' away ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, -fish- said:

Ignore works great

yes, that's the spirit of an internet forum designed to exchange ideas and beliefs !! bury your head in the sand and ignore - BRAVO !!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

how can you karate a guy pointing a gun at you from 20' away ?

Perhaps if you took karate you would know the answer.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4Kx9IqIZw

 

I cant remember who reminded me of this, Man of Constant Sorrow, perhaps.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Perhaps if you took karate you would know the answer.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4Kx9IqIZw

 

I cant remember who reminded me of this, Man of Constant Sorrow, perhaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fjMpn7JCJ0

 

ban all knives - damn things kill people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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 !!!

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?  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -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?  

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, -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?  

Well said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, -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?  

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -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?  

The price of grapes is affecting the price of wine and.... OMG DRUNK DRIVERS!!!!!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 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 

I find fish to be a very perspicacious fellow.  I take umbrage with this characterization.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Is that one guy I have on ignore still conflating, and calling it "comparing"?

Of course.  Unfortunately this time it was @BigSteelThrill trying to keep him on topic.   Really wish there was a "super-ignore" where you wouldn't see it when someone like that gets quoted, but all you can do is encourage rational people to ignore or not quote them.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I find fish to be a very perspicacious fellow. 

:bowtie:   I did buy a hard-top convertible to keep me safe from the cheetahs.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elitist echo chamber. 

You don't like what others think, so you want to silence them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I find fish to be a very perspicacious fellow.  I take umbrage with this characterization.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Is that one guy I have on ignore still conflating, and calling it "comparing"?

Yep. And I'm still against including suicides as part of the overall gun deaths. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, -fish- said:

:bowtie:   I did buy a hard-top convertible to keep me safe from the cheetahs.

If you aren't also buying and planting lemongrass around your house to keep you safe from killer bees, then you are a hypocrite. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

If you aren't also buying and planting lemongrass around your house to keep you safe from killer bees, then you are a hypocrite. 

:hifive:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.