Page 14 of 45 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 442

Thread: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

  1. #131
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,201

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Again, "cosmetic" does not mean "not dangerous"
    how are these cosmetic features dangers

  2. #132
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,131

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Again, "cosmetic" does not mean "not dangerous"
    "Dangerous" is the given reason for their ban. And these features are clearly not dangerous. They do have function, and are not entirely cosmetic, but the functionality they add does not add to their danger. They are "dangerously cosmetic", in that they look like they are more lethal, when in fact they are not.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  3. #133
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    "Dangerous" is the given reason for their ban. And these features are clearly not dangerous. They do have function, and are not entirely cosmetic, but the functionality they add does not add to their danger. They are "dangerously cosmetic", in that they look like they are more lethal, when in fact they are not.
    I said nothing about whether they should be used as criteria for a ban. I merely pointed out that the claim that they were "only cosmetic" is false and ignorant
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #134
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,201

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    THIS is on Sangha's to-be-outlawed list:




    ^ A single shot .22 competition target rifle because it has thumbhole stock and pistol grip. It fires and holds ONE .22 shell. But to Sangha, this is a mass murder's terror weapon.


    However, THIS is NOT on Sangha's list:



    ^A Browning M3HB semi-auto converted belt fed 50 caliber. It does not have a thumbhole stock, does not have a pistol grip and does not have a muzzle brake. Nor does it have a magazine. It can fire over 250 rounds per minute over 1 mile thru over 1 inch steel and thru as many belts as a person cares to link.

    NOR is THIS on his list:



    A NATO .308 gatlin gun at 250 rounds per link as many links as a person puts together at around 700 rounds per minute (or any lesser rate as it is cranked) - BUT it does NOT have a magazine, does not have a pistol grip, does not have a thumbhole stock - AND COSTS LESS THAN THE .22 single shot competition target rifle.

    In fact, by his messages he especially likes that beltfed .308 Browning because he opposes accuracy in firearms and it isn't very accurate (why they tend to use tracer bullets mixed in) and instead is for throwing out lots and lots of big bullets really extra fast! By his messages that's what he wants everyone to have in terms of long guns. And yes, one could be carried on and fired from a shoulder sling.

    So beware of Olypiades with .22 single shot rifles - or so says Sangha. Maybe schools should be legally declared "Olympic Competitors Free-Zones" and it a felony for a competitive .22 shooter to go into any school.

    THAT is how much Sangha in his messages REALLY does NOT care about mass killings and does NOT understand about firearms. He's just keep reciting the word "cosmetic" as if it means anything.
    Of course sangha doesn't have a clue. The cosmetic nonsense was just a red herring.

  5. #135
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,201

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I said nothing about whether they should be used as criteria for a ban. I merely pointed out that the claim that they were "only cosmetic" is false and ignorant
    you've been saying that for 13 pages, we get it, shut up.

    the ignorance I see is that you continue to beat this dead horse. everyone gets it, for the love of all that is good in this world SHUT UP!

    make a point regarding the OP, or get off of this thread.

  6. #136
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,131

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I said nothing about whether they should be used as criteria for a ban. I merely pointed out that the claim that they were "only cosmetic" is false and ignorant
    So why should these features be banned?
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  7. #137
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,201

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I said nothing about whether they should be used as criteria for a ban. I merely pointed out that the claim that they were "only cosmetic" is false and ignorant
    we all understand that you think you outsmarted everyone with third grader word games.

    aside from some features on a fire arm, what makes a weapon assault weapon?
    please provide something of substance to the conversation. so far you have simply called everyone ignorant, and insulted everyone, this means 1 of 2 things, either you have nothing to add, or you have no thought.

  8. #138
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,201

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    So why should these features be banned?
    he doesn't know, he doesn't really have a position, he just wants to rant and rave about poor word choice. it's pointless arguing with this person.

  9. #139
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,285

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    So it's your belief that bayonets and flash suppressors have no function at all and are purely cosmetic?

    Of course they have a function, but they are not the issue at hand in this gun control debate. Haven't you noticed the discussions about folding stocks and hand grips on "assault weapons"? That's the cosmetic bull**** being discussed. They can kill no more people than long guns without them.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #140
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,201

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    "for the most part cosmetic", "to be the better choice", etc all prove that the claim that these features are "purely cosmetic" is false.
    Okay, the features are not purely cosmetic, I get it, I have said this before.

    WARNING!!! THIS IS A QUESTION
    REMEMBER TO NOTE PRIOR TO RESPONSE TO THIS POST THAT A QUESTION DOES NOT I REPEAT NOT!!! INSINUATE THAT YOU HAVE MADE THIS CLAIM.

    Should certain features be illegal, and if so, why?

Page 14 of 45 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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