Define assault weapon

[jet57]

So you would define 30.06 to mean "hunting rifle" even if that hunting rifle was a .22 rimfire.

BTW, I've friends who say your Vietnam friends are full of crap so that clumsy rebuttal of yours is easily disposed.

No, and I don't believe you.

 

[TurtleDude]

So you would define 30.06 to mean "hunting rifle" even if that hunting rifle was a .22 rimfire.

BTW, I've friends who say your Vietnam friends are full of crap so that clumsy rebuttal of yours is easily disposed.

Its hilarious that his posts are always wrong, but they are.

 

[RF667799]

No, and I don't believe you.

Do you wish to now claim that 30.06 does not mean "hunting rifle"?

You don't believe my friends can effectively rebut your Vietnam friends? Are your Vietnam friends as infallible as you or something?

 

[prometeus]

Yes, I’m sure you are frustrated. Most of the gun thuggery around here is frustrated that they cannot out argue me on these issues. And when did I ever say that I’m never wrong? I never even intimated that: I have been wrong on plenty of things and when it is pointed out, I am happy to admit being corrected. THIS subject is not something I get correct on however. I get a lot of trolling and people SAY I’m wrong, but then like you, they can never prove it. Ask Turtledude about that…

Now “Banneroid” is a stupid and immature label to put on someone with a differing opinion as well, so what’s good for the goose ya’know… Perhaps if the gun thuggery would clean up their own act, we could all get along better: I just get tired of idiot labels because they lack the ability to defend their positions with any credibility: you come under that umbrella now yourself…

“Assault rifle” is the common nomenclature for such military weaponry. I’ve friends who were in Vietnam and “Banana clip” was a common word for 30 round magazines, so I use it.

And “30-ott six” was a very common phrase that described a hunting rifle, so yes, it’s correct. Being pedantic about this in no way helps to advance anything your trying to say, because it has nothing to do with the issue of banning such weaponry used in increasing numbers of mass shootings, like the one we just had in Texas- yet again. Being pedantic is only hiding from the issue, obfuscating and deflecting: gaslighting. So I will continue to ignore such silly reasoning.

NASCAR Camry? I don’t remember every saying THAT, but race cars cannot be driven on the streets for good reasons, so the analogy fits well and has every correlation when your side begins to color outside the lines as such. So I will ignore your condescension there as well.
You still haven’t answered anything. You just continue to personalize and deflect.

A “living wage” (off topic) is just that: a wage that is commensurate with the cost of living: fair, and part of the American Dream; unless you don’t believe in the American Dream…


“The AR15 was designed as a military weapon period – full stop”…

A Brief History Of The AR-15 : NPR

Enough said there: the world is full of articles that validate everything I’ve said on the subject, so – prove me wrong. Something that you are obviously having a great deal of difficulty with.

Ignorant bull crap. Improve your reading comprehension.

 

[TurtleDude]

Do you wish to now claim that 30.06 does not mean "hunting rifle"?

You don't believe my friends can effectively rebut your Vietnam friends? Are your Vietnam friends as infallible as you or something?

I wonder if they claim rifles only sold to civilians are "made for heavy warfare" or that shotguns are actually rifles

 

[RF667799]

I wonder if they claim rifles only sold to civilians are "made for heavy warfare" or that shotguns are actually rifles

Maybe that's where he gets it.

Hey..just thinking here...I have a Remington Peerless field gun pretty obviously configured for hunting. I didn't realize until now that given it is a rifle, it must be a 30.06!

And all this time I've been loading it with 12 gauge shot shells.

 

[TurtleDude]

Maybe that's where he gets it.

Hey..just thinking here...I have a Remington Peerless field gun pretty obviously configured for hunting. I didn't realize until now that given it is a rifle, it must be a 30.06!

And all this time I've been loading it with 12 gauge shot shells.

well if you are hunting moonbats, you load it with batshot. If you are hunting bigfoot, load it with 30-06 and if you are hunting Imperial TIE fighters, load it with 20MM HE

 

[jet57]

Ignorant bull crap. Improve your reading comprehension.

So show us what you're talking about.

 

[Aberration]

You claiming that without any evidence of the claim stand far superior.

You are the evidence. [emoji2369]

 

[haymarket]

You are the evidence. [emoji2369]

Of which you are impotent to present anything and then make a case about it. Instead you opt for enigmatic short little posts which say nothing of substance.

 

[Aberration]

Of which you are impotent to present anything and then make a case about it. Instead you opt for enigmatic short little posts which say nothing of substance.

Ironic. What is your evidence to support the claims you make right here?

 

[Aberration]

Just because you reject any ‘evidence’ in every single argument you are ever involved in, doesn’t mean the people you argue with lack any evidence or any argument.

The act is old.

 

[haymarket]

Ironic. What is your evidence to support the claims you make right here?

Deflection and trying to turn the tables and run away form your own obligation . Nice tactic.

 

[Aberration]

Deflection and trying to turn the tables and run away form your own obligation . Nice tactic.

My obligation to what? Quote what you just posted as evidence of the comment I made? It’s all right there. By the way. Got in touch with your local militia for the next meeting? Or we still pretending those don’t exist and you have done your due diligence by looking beyond your nose?

 

[Wayne Jr]

I never said that. I think the guy's post is being misinterpreted on purpose.

I didn't claim you did say that. I'm throwing you a bone. While the AR in 'AR15' does not stand for Assault Rifle, the AR in 'SCAR' does stand for Assault Rifle. You can take it or leave it, all firearms should be perfectly legal regardless.

 

[Jimbo302]

Yes, I’m sure you are frustrated. Most of the gun thuggery around here is frustrated that they cannot out argue me on these issues. And when did I ever say that I’m never wrong? I never even intimated that: I have been wrong on plenty of things and when it is pointed out, I am happy to admit being corrected. THIS subject is not something I get correct on however. I get a lot of trolling and people SAY I’m wrong, but then like you, they can never prove it. Ask Turtledude about that…

Through the grammar inaccuracies, this reads as if you are saying you are never wrong on this subject matter, which is obviously contradictory to the earlier statement in the same paragraph as well as many other posts you have made.

I don't need to ask this other poster, I have read your nonsense replies to him regarding similar subjects. That would make you, the common denominator.

Now “Banneroid” is a stupid and immature label to put on someone with a differing opinion as well, so what’s good for the goose ya’know… Perhaps if the gun thuggery would clean up their own act, we could all get along better: I just get tired of idiot labels because they lack the ability to defend their positions with any credibility: you come under that umbrella now yourself…

I have no idea what this term is you are referencing. It seems as though you should have this discussion with someone that uses silly defamatory labels, as you do.

"Assault rifle” is the common nomenclature for such military weaponry. I’ve friends who were in Vietnam and “Banana clip” was a common word for 30 round magazines, so I use it.

Plainly, it is not. Your opinion and anecdotes do not change defined verbiage or reality.

And “30-ott six” was a very common phrase that described a hunting rifle, so yes, it’s correct. Being pedantic about this in no way helps to advance anything your trying to say, because it has nothing to do with the issue of banning such weaponry used in increasing numbers of mass shootings, like the one we just had in Texas- yet again. Being pedantic is only hiding from the issue, obfuscating and deflecting: gaslighting. So I will continue to ignore such silly reasoning.

This is also simply incorrect regardless of your opinion. "Common" does not equal correct. Also, the term is "ought", meaning zero.

NASCAR Camry? I don’t remember every saying THAT, but race cars cannot be driven on the streets for good reasons, so the analogy fits well and has every correlation when your side begins to color outside the lines as such. So I will ignore your condescension there as well.
You still haven’t answered anything. You just continue to personalize and deflect.

A "race car" has no correlation or equivalency to your attempted analogy.

“living wage” (off topic) is just that: a wage that is commensurate with the cost of living: fair, and part of the American Dream; unless you don’t believe in the American Dream…

It is patently ridiculous to expect taxpayers to "pay you" to live where you cannot afford to.

“The AR15 was designed as a military weapon period – full stop”…

A Brief History Of The AR-15 : NPR

My previous reply stands.

Enough said there: the world is full of articles that validate everything I’ve said on the subject, so – prove me wrong. Something that you are obviously having a great deal of difficulty with.

As I said before I had doubts in your ability to discuss your innacuracies earnestly, and you did not disappoint.

 

[haymarket]

My obligation to what?

The obligation to produce the evidence requested.

 

[jet57]

Through the grammar inaccuracies, this reads as if you are saying you are never wrong on this subject matter, which is obviously contradictory to the earlier statement in the same paragraph as well as many other posts you have made.

I don't need to ask this other poster, I have read your nonsense replies to him regarding similar subjects. That would make you, the common denominator.

I have no idea what this term is you are referencing. It seems as though you should have this discussion with someone that uses silly defamatory labels, as you do.

Plainly, it is not. Your opinion and anecdotes do not change defined verbiage or reality.

This is also simply incorrect regardless of your opinion. "Common" does not equal correct. Also, the term is "ought", meaning zero.

A "race car" has no correlation or equivalency to your attempted analogy.

It is patently ridiculous to expect taxpayers to "pay you" to live where you cannot afford to.




My previous reply stands.



As I said before I had doubts in your ability to discuss your innacuracies earnestly, and you did not disappoint.

Guys like you don't disappoint either. As for grammar, you misspelled 'inaccuracies'... So there's that point of failure. Secondly, rather than concentrating on proving my points on the AR15 wrong, you'd rather I buy into your personal deflection and go down the rabbit hole of making the poster the subject rather than the material: a common failure of the gun crowd; you guys simply cannot argue effectively so you personalize.

I'm not going to play your game. If you cannot prove what you say about my arguments, then you join the ranks of the discredited right-wingers around here.

 

[TurtleDude]

Guys like you don't disappoint either. As for grammar, you misspelled 'inaccuracies'... So there's that point of failure. Secondly, rather than concentrating on proving my points on the AR15 wrong, you'd rather I buy into your personal deflection and go down the rabbit hole of making the poster the subject rather than the material: a common failure of the gun crowd; you guys simply cannot argue effectively so you personalize.

I'm not going to play your game. If you cannot prove what you say about my arguments, then you join the ranks of the discredited right-wingers around here.

translation-jet throws out abject lies and plain errors and demands we prove why his idiotic comments are stupid. We do constantly and he pretends it never happened.

BTW AN AR 15 WAS NOT INTENDED FOR HEAVY COMBAT

Shotguns are not rifles

Reagan didn't sign the brady bill

Magazines (not clips) that hold more than ten rounds are suitable for many things other than "Warfare"

 

[Jimbo302]

Guys like you don't disappoint either. As for grammar, you misspelled 'inaccuracies'... So there's that point of failure. Secondly, rather than concentrating on proving my points on the AR15 wrong, you'd rather I buy into your personal deflection and go down the rabbit hole of making the poster the subject rather than the material: a common failure of the gun crowd; you guys simply cannot argue effectively so you personalize.

I'm not going to play your game. If you cannot prove what you say about my arguments, then you join the ranks of the discredited right-wingers around here.

You are an odd, self aggrandizing thing. Perhaps you missed the fact that I acknowledged your point about AR15 design origin.

 

[Jimbo302]

Guys like you don't disappoint either. As for grammar, you misspelled 'inaccuracies'... So there's that point of failure.

I am certainly not immune to a typo, or misspelling, and I see that one of the times I typed the word is incorrect. Thank you.
Although, "point of failure"? You literally miscommunicated your entire point through incorrect grammar previously, and because it was pointed out, you are going to attempt to look down your nose at a mispelled word? Your insecurities are shining bright.

Secondly, rather than concentrating on proving my points on the AR15 wrong,

On your point about the design origin of the ar15, I literally wrote that I understood your meaning.
It doesnt take concentration to point out the rest of your errors, the simple sentences I posted do that just fine.

you'd rather I buy into your personal deflection and go down the rabbit hole of making the poster the subject rather than the material: a common failure of the gun crowd; you guys simply cannot argue effectively so you personalize.

I'm not going to play your game. If you cannot prove what you say about my arguments, then you join the ranks of the discredited right-wingers around here.

On every statement, I pointed out your errors. They are plain and obvious, it is not at all difficult to understand that. You offered no rebuttal to any, other than your own awkwardness.

While i appreciate your "attempt", your self aggrandizing language and painfully insecure nature inspires more pity than frustration. In any case your dismissal is effortless.

If you come up with the ability to actually discuss or refute my statements, feel free.

 

[Jimbo302]

Its hilarious that his posts are always wrong, but they are.

I wouldn't say all, but it does seem, most.
The pitiful part is that any disagreeing post gets this same "refutation":

No, and I don't believe you.

 

[TurtleDude]

I wouldn't say all, but it does seem, most.
The pitiful part is that any disagreeing post gets this same "refutation":

He permanently destroyed any credibility he might have had on the gun issue when he claimed that AR 15s should be banned since they were "designed for heavy combat" or as "weapons for warfare" while saying he had an MI Carbine

 

[Glitch]

He permanently destroyed any credibility he might have had on the gun issue when he claimed that AR 15s should be banned since they were "designed for heavy combat" or as "weapons for warfare" while saying he had an MI Carbine

The overwhelming majority are ignorant of the history of the AR15, largely because of the misinformation and stupidity published by the "enemy of the people," mainstream media.

 

[jet57]

I am certainly not immune to a typo, or misspelling, and I see that one of the times I typed the word is incorrect. Thank you.
Although, "point of failure"? You literally miscommunicated your entire point through incorrect grammar previously, and because it was pointed out, you are going to attempt to look down your nose at a mispelled word? Your insecurities are shining bright.


On your point about the design origin of the ar15, I literally wrote that I understood your meaning.
It doesnt take concentration to point out the rest of your errors, the simple sentences I posted do that just fine.



On every statement, I pointed out your errors. They are plain and obvious, it is not at all difficult to understand that. You offered no rebuttal to any, other than your own awkwardness.

While i appreciate your "attempt", your self aggrandizing language and painfully insecure nature inspires more pity than frustration. In any case your dismissal is effortless.

If you come up with the ability to actually discuss or refute my statements, feel free.

Okay, well you have no credibility. You should have stopped at the typo.