• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Obama takes the stage at VFW convention in Phoenix

2nd try still epic fail. ... r u on webTV?
The only 'epic fail' is the idea that there's nothing wrong with trying to discuss something regarding guns when you dont understand the basic terminology, or that its OK to get the terminology wrong when reporting it in the news.

But please -- continue to be trivial.
 
The only 'epic fail' is the idea that there's nothing wrong with trying to discuss something regarding guns when you dont understand the basic terminology, or that its OK to get the terminology wrong when reporting it in the news.

But please -- continue to be trivial.


much better, continue using both hands.
 
Ah. Nothing to say, and thus focred to pick on typos...

Actually I was giving you the chance to edit your post so I could understand what you said.
 
This whole thread is amusing in an odd way. Report on president Obama in Phoenix at a VFW convention, a guy is outside with 2 guns, and we have 30 posts over the classification of one of the guns. How totally trivial.
 
This whole thread is amusing in an odd way. Report on president Obama in Phoenix at a VFW convention, a guy is outside with 2 guns, and we have 30 posts over the classification of one of the guns. How totally trivial.
A reporter not knowing what he's reporting isnt trivial, especially when it is systemic.
 
Moderator's Warning:
All of you need to stop the insulting comments. Next one earns a thread ban at the least.
 
A reporter not knowing what he's reporting isnt trivial, especially when it is systemic.

He is reporting on the president meeting with vets at a VFW. What is he ignorant of on that topic? The gun nut in the article barely rated a mention, and is certainly not the topic the reporter is covering.
 
He is reporting on the president meeting with vets at a VFW. What is he ignorant of on that topic?
Red herring.
The point is that he made a factual error in his reporting.
You may not care, but only because it is situationally convenient for you to do so.
 
He is reporting on the president meeting with vets at a VFW. What is he ignorant of on that topic? The gun nut in the article barely rated a mention, and is certainly not the topic the reporter is covering.

the "gun nut"?

I'm sorry?
 
Red herring.
The point is that he made a factual error in his reporting.
You may not care, but only because it is situationally convenient for you to do so.

He made a trivial error. An error that about .0000000000001 % of the country would actually care about, and does not effect the meaning of any of his reporting.
 
The issue here is the use of dysphemisms. Similiar to the abortion debate, its inaccurate and often perpetuated by dishonest people who call pro-choicers "baby-killers" or the pro-choicers calling pro-lifers "misogynists".

If you cared about the abortion debate and heard a news reporter refer to you as a "baby killer" or a "misogynist" then the ignorance or intentional bias of the reporter might bother you. The same is true for the gun debate where dishonest terms such as "assult rifle" and "cop killer" and "gun violence" are used.
 
He made a trivial error. An error that about .0000000000001 % of the country would actually care about, and does not effect the meaning of any of his reporting.
What did I say?
Oh, yes:
You may not care, but only because it is situationally convenient for you to do so.
Am I surprised that I am right?
No.
 
Last edited:
The issue here is the use of dysphemisms. Similiar to the abortion debate, its inaccurate and often perpetuated by dishonest people who call pro-choicers "baby-killers" or the pro-choicers calling pro-lifers "misogynists".

If you cared about the abortion debate and heard a news reporter refer to you as a "baby killer" or a "misogynist" then the ignorance or intentional bias of the reporter might bother you. The same is true for the gun debate where dishonest terms such as "assult rifle" and "cop killer" and "gun violence" are used.

Thank you for putting it in terms the libs might be able to understand.
 
President Obama takes the stage at VFW convention in Phoenix



What the **** is a semi-automatic assault rifle?

Last time I checked, an AR-15 fired a centerfire rifle cartridge and was semi-automatic... Therefore making it a semi-automatic rifle.


****ing gun grabbing ****s and their idiocy in pushing terms that don't apply. UGH.

Steven:

I don't have a problem with guns or people who want to own as many guns as they can afford within the laws of their state. That being said...

If you're carrying around a semi-automatic rifle or a semi-automatic assault riffle with the sole purpose of showing people that you can legally do so and intentionally or unintentionally intimidating those going about their business in a public area... You are a jackass. You are someone who reads the 2nd amendment without acknowledging the personal responsibility and mutual respect for the rights of others that comes with gun ownership.

Liberty and Freedom, with some pragmatic common sense.

What was the need, what was the purpose of bringing the gun? Did he feel threatened? Was his life or personal property in danger? No, not while he was carrying the gun, of course. The point is, the other people passing him or noticing him, they don't know him or what he's up to--for a brief moment he was walking on their liberty and freedom to make his little point.

Some libertarians see this--they get that guns make some people uncomfortable and they are respectful of that. They understand that the liberty and freedom comes with a mutual respect for others. Are you one of those libertarians?
 
Some libertarians see this--they get that guns make some people uncomfortable and they are respectful of that. They understand that the liberty and freedom comes with a mutual respect for others. Are you one of those libertarians?
I wasn't aware you had a freedom from discomfort.

Does your argument also apply to people who create discomfort in others when they exercise their first amendment rights?
 
Steven:

I don't have a problem with guns or people who want to own as many guns as they can afford within the laws of their state. That being said...

If you're carrying around a semi-automatic rifle or a semi-automatic assault riffle with the sole purpose of showing people that you can legally do so and intentionally or unintentionally intimidating those going about their business in a public area... You are a jackass. You are someone who reads the 2nd amendment without acknowledging the personal responsibility and mutual respect for the rights of others that comes with gun ownership.

Liberty and Freedom, with some pragmatic common sense.

What was the need, what was the purpose of bringing the gun? Did he feel threatened? Was his life or personal property in danger? No, not while he was carrying the gun, of course. The point is, the other people passing him or noticing him, they don't know him or what he's up to--for a brief moment he was walking on their liberty and freedom to make his little point.

Some libertarians see this--they get that guns make some people uncomfortable and they are respectful of that. They understand that the liberty and freedom comes with a mutual respect for others. Are you one of those libertarians?

I'm sorry, but needs and purpose aren't required to exercise your constitutionally given rights.

And, again I'm sorry that you believe that the "fears" or "dislikes" of others of me exercising my rights trump my rights... Maybe we could apply that to the liberals and their precious freedom of speech... and start restricting when they can talk about subjects that make me uncomfortable? Or subjects that I don't like?

It is not my problem if you're uneasy about seeing a gun in a law abiding citizens hand's.

So while I respect your right to object to me carrying a rifle, I have to politely tell you to bite my ass while I exercise my rights.
 
What did I say?
Oh, yes:
You may not care, but only because it is situationally convenient for you to do so.
Am I surprised that I am right?
No.

I don't care because it has no effect on the story. Whether he is carrying a zip gun or a bazooka, it does not matter.
 
I don't care because it has no effect on the story. Whether he is carrying a zip gun or a bazooka, it does not matter.
I'm -sure- that's it.
:roll:
 
The issue here is the use of dysphemisms. Similiar to the abortion debate, its inaccurate and often perpetuated by dishonest people who call pro-choicers "baby-killers" or the pro-choicers calling pro-lifers "misogynists".

If you cared about the abortion debate and heard a news reporter refer to you as a "baby killer" or a "misogynist" then the ignorance or intentional bias of the reporter might bother you. The same is true for the gun debate where dishonest terms such as "assult rifle" and "cop killer" and "gun violence" are used.

You would have a point if the article was about the guy with the gun, and if he had not correctly identified the gun as an AR-15. This is an oops moment, not an intent to mislead or spin moment.
 
The same is true for the gun debate where dishonest terms such as "assult rifle" and "cop killer" and "gun violence" are used.

I'll certainly agree that the press often uses loaded and dishonest terms for firearms, this isn't the case.

The original Ar-15 was in fact a full-auto assault rifle as originally named. The later civilian semi-automatic versions were not called AR-15's but had separate designations like r-15 or cr-15. I believe that changed after the Assault weapons ban in 94. Furthermore, Colt owns the AR-15 trademark, and decided to use it only on the semi-automatic versions of the rifle. However, other companies manufacture the rifle but can't use the trademarked name. Just to make it extra confusing, such rifles are commonly called AR-15s but aren't officially designated as such.

Suffice to say calling the Ar-15 a semiautomatic assault rifle is an okay definition. It covers the fact that it was originally an assault rifle, but also mentions that it was semi-automatic. Not perfect, but good enough.
 
I don't care because it has no effect on the story. Whether he is carrying a zip gun or a bazooka, it does not matter.

It matters very much, because at the heart of this issue for me.. is there are people like Kernel Sanders who for all intensive purposes do not understand the differences.

Combine that with the push in the media about all the violence and how they've generally ALWAYS got people on there telling everyone that guns are to blame.

They're spreading misinformation in hopes of making people believe it who either don't understand or just believe it out of the sheer numbers of incorrect reports such as this.
 
I'll certainly agree that the press often uses loaded and dishonest terms for firearms, this isn't the case.

The original Ar-15 was in fact a full-auto assault rifle as originally named. The later civilian semi-automatic versions were not called AR-15's but had separate designations like r-15 or cr-15. I believe that changed after the Assault weapons ban in 94. Furthermore, Colt owns the AR-15 trademark, and decided to use it only on the semi-automatic versions of the rifle. However, other companies manufacture the rifle but can't use the trademarked name. Just to make it extra confusing, such rifles are commonly called AR-15s but aren't officially designated as such.

Suffice to say calling the Ar-15 a semiautomatic assault rifle is an okay definition. It covers the fact that it was originally an assault rifle, but also mentions that it was semi-automatic. Not perfect, but good enough.

Except for the fact that to meet the definition requirements of an assault rifle.. universally they must be select fire.

A semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle... because it's ancestors were... That's some messed up logic.
 
I'll certainly agree that the press often uses loaded and dishonest terms for firearms, this isn't the case.
It is, as the term "assault rifle" denotes a military weapon, which the AR15 is not.

The original Ar-15 was in fact a full-auto assault rifle as originally named.
Except foir the StG44 and the AK47.

The later civilian semi-automatic versions were not called AR-15's but had separate designations like r-15 or cr-15.
The Colt AR15 has been around for decades.

I believe that changed after the Assault weapons ban in 94.
No, Colt still sold AR15s.

Suffice to say calling the Ar-15 a semiautomatic assault rifle is an okay definition.
Except that it is factually incorrect.
 
Back
Top Bottom