Senate Democrats plan to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun legislation

[Slade3200]

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

"over the top dangerous weapons made for war" is a classic definition of hyperbole.

I actually think that phrase helps you. Define what a weapon of war specifically is. If an AR-15 has no different traits than a pistol then it won’t qualify as a weapon of war. It leaves room for a debate to define those terms. If you agree that weapons made for combat soldiers shouldn’t be easily sold to the public then there is common ground. If you think that Joe Citizen should be able to by any gun they want without regulation then you may be at an impass

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

 

[CWayne]

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

"over the top dangerous weapons made for war" is a classic definition of hyperbole.

I actually think that phrase helps you. Define what a weapon of war specifically is. If an AR-15 has no different traits than a pistol then it won’t qualify as a weapon of war. It leaves room for a debate to define those terms. If you agree that weapons made for combat soldiers shouldn’t be easily sold to the public then there is common ground. If you think that Joe Citizen should be able to by any gun they want without regulation then you may be at an impass

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

I see you capitulated.

Shall we now commence with scenario's that have little green men swooping down with ray guns and distributing them for free to the masses? Or any other imagnary 'what if' scenarios?

Or shall we stay on topic? That topic being that semi-automatic rifles are not weapons of war and that they are no more lethal than any other rifle in circulation at this time?

 

[iceberg]

"over the top dangerous weapons made for war" is a classic definition of hyperbole.

I actually think that phrase helps you. Define what a weapon of war specifically is. If an AR-15 has no different traits than a pistol then it won’t qualify as a weapon of war. It leaves room for a debate to define those terms. If you agree that weapons made for combat soldiers shouldn’t be easily sold to the public then there is common ground. If you think that Joe Citizen should be able to by any gun they want without regulation then you may be at an impass

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"over the top dangerous weapons made for war" is a classic definition of hyperbole.

I actually think that phrase helps you. Define what a weapon of war specifically is. If an AR-15 has no different traits than a pistol then it won’t qualify as a weapon of war. It leaves room for a debate to define those terms. If you agree that weapons made for combat soldiers shouldn’t be easily sold to the public then there is common ground. If you think that Joe Citizen should be able to by any gun they want without regulation then you may be at an impass

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

There is no constitutional right to own or drive a car.

 

[iceberg]

I actually think that phrase helps you. Define what a weapon of war specifically is. If an AR-15 has no different traits than a pistol then it won’t qualify as a weapon of war. It leaves room for a debate to define those terms. If you agree that weapons made for combat soldiers shouldn’t be easily sold to the public then there is common ground. If you think that Joe Citizen should be able to by any gun they want without regulation then you may be at an impass

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

There is no constitutional right to own or drive a car.

Automatic guns, not automobiles.

I think.

 

[2aguy]

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

"over the top dangerous weapons made for war" is a classic definition of hyperbole.

I actually think that phrase helps you. Define what a weapon of war specifically is. If an AR-15 has no different traits than a pistol then it won’t qualify as a weapon of war. It leaves room for a debate to define those terms. If you agree that weapons made for combat soldiers shouldn’t be easily sold to the public then there is common ground. If you think that Joe Citizen should be able to by any gun they want without regulation then you may be at an impass

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

I see you capitulated.

Shall we now commence with scenario's that have little green men swooping down with ray guns and distributing them for free to the masses? Or any other imagnary 'what if' scenarios?

Or shall we stay on topic? That topic being that semi-automatic rifles are not weapons of war and that they are no more lethal than any other rifle in circulation at this time?

Good points........

 

[2aguy]

I actually think that phrase helps you. Define what a weapon of war specifically is. If an AR-15 has no different traits than a pistol then it won’t qualify as a weapon of war. It leaves room for a debate to define those terms. If you agree that weapons made for combat soldiers shouldn’t be easily sold to the public then there is common ground. If you think that Joe Citizen should be able to by any gun they want without regulation then you may be at an impass

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

 

[iceberg]

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

Of course making AR's illegal is one step on a long journey. In the past they had a weapons ban, some areas outlawed magazines, they have suggested making gun owners carry insurance, and taxing ammunition. The ban of these kids of guns is only one of many bans, or attempted bans that they have in mind.

So anybody that thinks it will stop at banning AR's is out of touch with reality. If they really believe that, then I say they have my support provided the Democrats create a Contract With America that says no matter what happens after this ban, they will never, ever bring up the gun issue again, win, lose or draw.

Watch how fast they reject their own legislation. Because even they know they have no plans on stopping at an AR ban.

 

[iceberg]

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

Of course making AR's illegal is one step on a long journey. In the past they had a weapons ban, some areas outlawed magazines, they have suggested making gun owners carry insurance, and taxing ammunition. The ban of these kids of guns is only one of many bans, or attempted bans that they have in mind.

So anybody that thinks it will stop at banning AR's is out of touch with reality. If they really believe that, then I say they have my support provided the Democrats create a Contract With America that says no matter what happens after this ban, they will never, ever bring up the gun issue again, win, lose or draw.

Watch how fast they reject their own legislation. Because even they know they have no plans on stopping at an AR ban.

Reagan tried that with immigration promises.

The left didn't keep em. If the emotional ploy works they will keep using it.

Period.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

The Democrat leaders know quite well the similarities between an AR and any other semi-automatic. It's all part of their plan.

Ban the so-called military weapons, and when mass murderers start using handguns and accomplishing the very same thing, they will move towards a ban on all semi-automatic weapons.

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

"over the top dangerous weapons made for war" is a classic definition of hyperbole.

I actually think that phrase helps you. Define what a weapon of war specifically is. If an AR-15 has no different traits than a pistol then it won’t qualify as a weapon of war. It leaves room for a debate to define those terms. If you agree that weapons made for combat soldiers shouldn’t be easily sold to the public then there is common ground. If you think that Joe Citizen should be able to by any gun they want without regulation then you may be at an impass

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

I see you capitulated.

Shall we now commence with scenario's that have little green men swooping down with ray guns and distributing them for free to the masses? Or any other imagnary 'what if' scenarios?

Or shall we stay on topic? That topic being that semi-automatic rifles are not weapons of war and that they are no more lethal than any other rifle in circulation at this time?

This is the topic. I’m trying to gauge where you stand on regulations on our 2nd amendment rights. Either regulation is valid or not. If it is then we can discuss where the line should be. If you’re one of those absolutists that doesn’t believe in any limitations then that’s a different debate.

 

[DamnDude]

I think the NRA was forced into a political stance based on the constant attacks by the left. The Dems can't use the "deplorable" strategy as they seen how it worked for them the last time. So instead of insulting every gun owning American, they do so by proxy through the NRA.

The NRA didn't draw first blood. It was the Democrats that came after them. So now they're in bed with the Republican party because the Republicans will support their cause.

They weren’t forced into anything. Come on Ray wake up. They are using the most effective and aggressive marketing tactics to progress their agenda. Same as our politicians are doing with their campaigning. Unfortunately that no longer involves catering to the middle. It’s all about firing up the extreme base and demonizing the other side. It’s unfortunate

Their agenda? And what agenda do you speak of?

The NRA promotes what their supporters expect them to promote.......them.

Effective and aggressive marketing tactics? Do you object if the Girl Scouts of America promote selling their cookies? Do you object if Toyota has Camry signs on the highway?

After I obtained my CCW license, the NRA sent me solicitations several times. After a short period, they quit sending me flyers because I never responded. The AARP has been sending me crap in the mail for the last ten years. In spite of me telling them to stop, because they supported Commie Care and I find them to be an un-American organization, they continue to this day, and I'm not going to turn 65 for another six years.

I don't know what you consider aggressive and effective because I don't see any NRA signs on the highway. I don't see any NRA ads when I'm at the doctor and pickup a Time magazine or something. I don't see them running television ads during a comedy movie.

When organizations use hyperbole and fear tactics to push their messaging they define themselves to one side and one agenda. That’s fine but when talking about being responsible for the education of our youth, they are no longer credible in my eyes

You don't like their so-called fear and hyperbole, but it's okay when the Democrats use it.

As I stated earlier, the NRA never wanted to be a political movement, they were dragged into it by the Democrats. They seen the Republicans come to their side and now they have to be part of it. When you are repeatedly attacked, you have to defend yourself.

I never joined the NRA, but when Democrats attack them, I believe they are attacking me at the same time. Every crummy thing they say about the NRA they are saying about me because I support their positions. In a sense, the Democrats are now calling me a terrorist. That's the way I look at it.

I didn’t say it was ok when the dems did it. Don’t put words in my mouth Ray. I called out things the left does that I find absurd. You’re trying too hard to pin me as a hypocritical lefty.

Slade, your implications from previous posts, while technically correct, did not implicitly say the NRA was a terrorist organization, however, you did not discredit the SF BOS' claim of such. What you did do was indirectly support it by stating that the NRA had "disqualified" themselves because of unstated, indirect, unspecified actions over the course of replies to myself and others. I could speculate on why this is, but I do not want to pollute the situation in trying, and I still really want to come to an understanding as to the why from you on this. Therefore, I will not speculate nor will I assign the standard "feelz" to the situation.

 

[DamnDude]

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

 

[iceberg]

They weren’t forced into anything. Come on Ray wake up. They are using the most effective and aggressive marketing tactics to progress their agenda. Same as our politicians are doing with their campaigning. Unfortunately that no longer involves catering to the middle. It’s all about firing up the extreme base and demonizing the other side. It’s unfortunate

Their agenda? And what agenda do you speak of?

The NRA promotes what their supporters expect them to promote.......them.

Effective and aggressive marketing tactics? Do you object if the Girl Scouts of America promote selling their cookies? Do you object if Toyota has Camry signs on the highway?

After I obtained my CCW license, the NRA sent me solicitations several times. After a short period, they quit sending me flyers because I never responded. The AARP has been sending me crap in the mail for the last ten years. In spite of me telling them to stop, because they supported Commie Care and I find them to be an un-American organization, they continue to this day, and I'm not going to turn 65 for another six years.

I don't know what you consider aggressive and effective because I don't see any NRA signs on the highway. I don't see any NRA ads when I'm at the doctor and pickup a Time magazine or something. I don't see them running television ads during a comedy movie.

When organizations use hyperbole and fear tactics to push their messaging they define themselves to one side and one agenda. That’s fine but when talking about being responsible for the education of our youth, they are no longer credible in my eyes

You don't like their so-called fear and hyperbole, but it's okay when the Democrats use it.

As I stated earlier, the NRA never wanted to be a political movement, they were dragged into it by the Democrats. They seen the Republicans come to their side and now they have to be part of it. When you are repeatedly attacked, you have to defend yourself.

I never joined the NRA, but when Democrats attack them, I believe they are attacking me at the same time. Every crummy thing they say about the NRA they are saying about me because I support their positions. In a sense, the Democrats are now calling me a terrorist. That's the way I look at it.

I didn’t say it was ok when the dems did it. Don’t put words in my mouth Ray. I called out things the left does that I find absurd. You’re trying too hard to pin me as a hypocritical lefty.

Slade, your implications from previous posts, while technically correct, did not implicitly say the NRA was a terrorist organization, however, you did not discredit the SF BOS' claim of such. What you did do was indirectly support it by stating that the NRA had "disqualified" themselves because of unstated, indirect, unspecified actions over the course of replies to myself and others. I could speculate on why this is, but I do not want to pollute the situation in trying, and I still really want to come to an understanding as to the why from you on this. Therefore, I will not speculate nor will I assign the standard "feelz" to the situation.

I'd still like to know exactly he wants regulated. That keeps getting skipped.

 

[Slade3200]

I actually think that phrase helps you. Define what a weapon of war specifically is. If an AR-15 has no different traits than a pistol then it won’t qualify as a weapon of war. It leaves room for a debate to define those terms. If you agree that weapons made for combat soldiers shouldn’t be easily sold to the public then there is common ground. If you think that Joe Citizen should be able to by any gun they want without regulation then you may be at an impass

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

There is no constitutional right to own or drive a car.

So what does that have to do with anything that I’ve said?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No. A person can if they are so inclined to limit the rights of people, use and redefine terms in order to frame the debate in their favor. Using your model, the hyperbole grows and grows until a slingshot becomes a weapon of war. Leaving your condescension aside that anyone needs a term defined for them, anyone with any common sense realizes that a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of its exterior design, is no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon. In fact, a person who is trained and practices often can be just as deadly with a single bolt action rifle, like someone using a semi-automatic one.

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

There is no constitutional right to own or drive a car.

So what does that have to do with anything that I’ve said?

You compared the regulations of automobiles to the regulations of guns.

 

[Slade3200]

So I’m guessing your against the regulations on machine guns then is that right? Do you think anybody should be able to walk into a 711 and buy an uzi with their slurpy no questions asked?.

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

 

[Slade3200]

They weren’t forced into anything. Come on Ray wake up. They are using the most effective and aggressive marketing tactics to progress their agenda. Same as our politicians are doing with their campaigning. Unfortunately that no longer involves catering to the middle. It’s all about firing up the extreme base and demonizing the other side. It’s unfortunate

Their agenda? And what agenda do you speak of?

The NRA promotes what their supporters expect them to promote.......them.

Effective and aggressive marketing tactics? Do you object if the Girl Scouts of America promote selling their cookies? Do you object if Toyota has Camry signs on the highway?

After I obtained my CCW license, the NRA sent me solicitations several times. After a short period, they quit sending me flyers because I never responded. The AARP has been sending me crap in the mail for the last ten years. In spite of me telling them to stop, because they supported Commie Care and I find them to be an un-American organization, they continue to this day, and I'm not going to turn 65 for another six years.

I don't know what you consider aggressive and effective because I don't see any NRA signs on the highway. I don't see any NRA ads when I'm at the doctor and pickup a Time magazine or something. I don't see them running television ads during a comedy movie.

When organizations use hyperbole and fear tactics to push their messaging they define themselves to one side and one agenda. That’s fine but when talking about being responsible for the education of our youth, they are no longer credible in my eyes

You don't like their so-called fear and hyperbole, but it's okay when the Democrats use it.

As I stated earlier, the NRA never wanted to be a political movement, they were dragged into it by the Democrats. They seen the Republicans come to their side and now they have to be part of it. When you are repeatedly attacked, you have to defend yourself.

I never joined the NRA, but when Democrats attack them, I believe they are attacking me at the same time. Every crummy thing they say about the NRA they are saying about me because I support their positions. In a sense, the Democrats are now calling me a terrorist. That's the way I look at it.

I didn’t say it was ok when the dems did it. Don’t put words in my mouth Ray. I called out things the left does that I find absurd. You’re trying too hard to pin me as a hypocritical lefty.

Slade, your implications from previous posts, while technically correct, did not implicitly say the NRA was a terrorist organization, however, you did not discredit the SF BOS' claim of such. What you did do was indirectly support it by stating that the NRA had "disqualified" themselves because of unstated, indirect, unspecified actions over the course of replies to myself and others. I could speculate on why this is, but I do not want to pollute the situation in trying, and I still really want to come to an understanding as to the why from you on this. Therefore, I will not speculate nor will I assign the standard "feelz" to the situation.

I said that I thought it was absurd when SF called the NRA a terrorist organization and it goes against the things I support. Those were pretty much my exact words.

I said the NRA was disqualified IMO as an objective actor as we were discussing them leading classes in our schools. Sorry if I was confusing

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except with a machine gun we have the characteristic of it being automatic.

While spray and pray is never really effective, it has been regulated. To date I've heard NO ONE characterize an AR15 that doesn't include almost every gun out there.

So, can you? Invariably when pressed those coming after the AR simply fall to banning all semi automatic guns because they CAN'T define just the AR. Their frustration does this.

please define what about the AR must be banned / more regulated that won't also impact the entry level rugar 10/22.

Right, but my point is that autos are regulated and I think most people agree that is a smart and just law that makes us safer. The poster I was responding to was talking about limiting peoples rights so I wanted to see where he stood on the issue. Some on this board don’t think there should be any regulations on any weapon

Great. What are we going to regulate? An absence of facts in this "regulation" will cause problem with people arguing factually vs emotionally.

Again what would you like to regulate, keeping any factors to the AR15.

This gets to the heart of their problem......they want to ban all guns but have to pretend....for now, that they only want the scary black rifles........so they have to do a dance with false definitions, that pretend to only include those scary rifles, while hiding the truth that those scary rifles are simply normal guns....... this is why I thank Beto.....he was dumb enough to just tell the truth.......

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

So you're talking about the elimination of all semi-automatic firearms. That's what we've been saying all along. That's the next step for the Democrat party if they ever get AR's banned.