Define assault weapon

[KevinKohler]

View attachment 67262430

Are you really going to dredge up all that old crap again?

I thought you had something new, but then again your thread is set to get people fighting.

Not my tired stuff, yours.

Did you not say velocity? Explain yourself so I can understand.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Because that's my arbitrary hurdle you must leap before I agree to define "assault weapon."

Alright, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "fine art" is art (such as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful objects —usually used in plural, objects of fine art, or an activity requiring a fine skill.

I don't see what this random exercise has to do with this discussion but there's your definition.

 

[KevinKohler]

Nonsense again.

Your litmus test didn't save you from the '94 ban, nor will it save you from the coming one.

So, here's your question: which of the founders who wrote and debated and and passed the second amendment were ballistics experts and where's their well researched papers that prove what experts they were?


When you've successfully answered that and sourced credible proof of same, then we can continue our discussion.

The problem is, the 94 ban was unsuccessful. It listed off a bunch of specific guns, and specific manufacturers, but did not define characteristics that were not to be allowed. So, new weapons were made, new options, and in short, that law was skirted entirely. It prevented not one single fire arm sale.

 

[KevinKohler]

Nonsense again.

Your litmus test didn't save you from the '94 ban, nor will it save you from the coming one.

So, here's your question: which of the founders who wrote and debated and and passed the second amendment were ballistics experts and where's their well researched papers that prove what experts they were?


When you've successfully answered that and sourced credible proof of same, then we can continue our discussion.

Well, a couple of them shot and killed their fair share of British soldiers. Does that make them experts?

 

[haymarket]

Nope.
If you say so...

Aha! You have to know the secret handshake!!!!

Still waiting for that meeting schedule.

 

[haymarket]

Why do gun people always demand that the rest of us pass a definition test before gun control can be discussed?

because it is an intellectually DISHONEST attempt to allow the pro-gun side to frame the debate in their terms and thus insuring their desired results.

 

[haymarket]

Exactly what kinds of weapons that are issued in the military should not be available to private citizens? Should the handguns that officers routinely carry as sidearms not be available to citizens? How about the fighting knives that soldiers are issued?

If you're talking about the standard rifles that soldiers use as their primary weapon, those already aren't available to private citizens.

You are NOT a professional who requires usage of the tools of their trade. That is why.

 

[haymarket]

The problem is, the 94 ban was unsuccessful. It listed off a bunch of specific guns, and specific manufacturers, but did not define characteristics that were not to be allowed. So, new weapons were made, new options, and in short, that law was skirted entirely. It prevented not one single fire arm sale.

So a new law needs to be more anticipatory and sweeping.

 

[Cardinal]

Alright, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "fine art" is art (such as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful objects —usually used in plural, objects of fine art, or an activity requiring a fine skill.

I don't see what this random exercise has to do with this discussion but there's your definition.

False! Try again.

 

[KevinKohler]

(chuckle)

So the ones that invented the "right to keep and bear" didn't have to be experts but anybody with a counter opinion to gun thug BS HAS to be an expert...

The bans are coming, so get used to the idea.

The band will not survive a challenge unless someone on your side clearly establishes a rule set that will govern those bans.

Things like, no rifle that can fire at X firing rate or greater.
No gun firing ammunition that has X or higher velocity.
No gun that is manufactured to hold X or greater number of rounds.

Etc.

Some of it, you have. Some of it, is winky, confusing, and unclear. And some of it...just flat out makes no rational sense.

I have a theory for why no one wants to try.

 

[KevinKohler]

Why do gun people always demand that the rest of us pass a definition test before gun control can be discussed?

Because you don't like what WE define as being an assault weapon/rifle...

Yet won't put up one of your own. At least, not one that isn't vague and confusing.

 

[KevinKohler]

I will define it, but first you need to define "fine art."

Art that's fine.

 

[Cardinal]

Because you don't like what WE define as being an assault weapon/rifle...

Yet won't put up one of your own. At least, not one that isn't vague and confusing.

I've already told you which hurdle you must leap before I define "assault weapon." Now...jump!

 

[Cardinal]

Art that's fine.

False! Try again.

 

[Harshaw]

Irrelevant. That is the exercise you must pass before I will define "assault weapon."

And why must I pass this exercise?

You "must" pass it because most of the time he's asked a question he doesn't want to answer, he plays a childish game of "NO! YOU answer MY question first!!"

You should just take it as his concession, because that's what it effectively is.

 

[KevinKohler]

I will define it, but first you need to define "fine art."

Couldn't help myself, lol.

Fine art is the visual, audio, olfactory, and tactile representation of an artists thoughts, emotions, and or ideas.

 

[Cardinal]

Couldn't help myself, lol.

Fine art is the visual, audio, olfactory, and tactile representation of an artists thoughts, emotions, and or ideas.

False! Try again.

 

[KevinKohler]

because it is an intellectually DISHONEST attempt to allow the pro-gun side to frame the debate in their terms and thus insuring their desired results.

Actually, I am genuinely trying to allow you guys to frame this debate.

 

[KevinKohler]

So a new law needs to be more anticipatory and sweeping.

Exactly.


Probably wanna....define...what it is you're trying to regulate.

 

[KevinKohler]

False! Try again.

Prove its false.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why do gun people always demand that the rest of us pass a definition test before gun control can be discussed?

Imagine the nerve of folks wanting to know the details of a (gun control) law (or proposal) before they decide whether to support or oppose it.

 

[Cardinal]

Prove its false.

You know what? I'll give you that last one.

Next test: define "green."

 

[lurchadams]

Exactly what kinds of weapons that are issued in the military should not be available to private citizens? Should the handguns that officers routinely carry as sidearms not be available to citizens? How about the fighting knives that soldiers are issued?

If you're talking about the standard rifles that soldiers use as their primary weapon, those already aren't available to private citizens.

Okay, good. Sounds like we're all safe then and nothing needs to be done :roll:

 

[Harshaw]

Why do gun people always demand that the rest of us pass a definition test before gun control can be discussed?

To see if you have the slightest idea what you're talking about, of course.

In this case, of course, the point is that "assault weapon bans" are the hot topic again.

In order to "ban" something, or even "discuss" banning it, it needs to be defined. Do you disagree with that? Do tell.

 

[Harshaw]

That certainly seems like the form of weaponry that the Second Amendment was meant to protect: weaponry for military purposes, not recreational purposes.

Isn't that the most fun irony?

Most of the people who insist that the Second Amendment is about protecting the militia also say that it doesn't protect military (or "military-style") weapons.

It's almost as if they don't really understand what they're arguing, or don't care.