- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 70% of Young Americans think we should be allowed to own Assualt Rifles
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:28 am to lsuroadie
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:28 am to lsuroadie
quote:
One should also bear in mind that just 2.6% of all murders are committed using any type of rifle.
therefore, less than 2.6% would have been committed using an "assualt weapon"
quote:
Since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report. By 2011, the murder rate fell to 4.7 per 100,000 people.
WSJ
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 10:29 am
1
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:30 am to WildTchoupitoulas
I don't see how you can't understand the context when toy admit yourself the definition of the term keeps changing. I'll chalk it up to willful ignorance.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:34 am to Clames
quote:
I don't see how you can't understand the context when [you] admit yourself the definition of the term keeps changing
Because...
1. I find function eminently more relevant than nomenclature.
2. I am not swayed by political propaganda. They can call it whatever they want, I focus on function.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:35 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Words have meaning and if you actually read these laws you might be in a better position to make a point. Go look up how the ATF defines a "firearm" then come back when you can explain why a cap and ball pistol isn't one.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:37 am to MisterSenator
The overwhelming majority of murders happen with handguns yet scary black rifles get the publicity. You can't fix stupid.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:40 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
1. I find function eminently more relevant than nomenclature
AWB's certainly don't which is the point you keep ignoring.
quote:
I am not swayed by political propaganda.
I'm sure somebody around here has a cookie for you.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:45 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
But pull something like "assault weapon" out of your fourth point of contact, get the willing and ignorant press to go out there and fire up the ignorant masses - BOOM - now you're getting somewhere.
I have emboldened the relevant part of your statement.
quote:
It doesn't appear to be working, though, as the black rifle is more popular than ever.
Perhaps the masses aren't as ignorant as you imply. Or MAYBE, people see the term, 'assault weapon' and think, "Oh cool! I want one!" there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
So why all the hysteria over the term 'assault weapon'?
Here's another term made up by the US government:
Latino.
Does it have no meaning? Is it arbitrary? Do people now refer to themselves as 'Latino/Latina'?
It doesn't matter why a term comes into our lexicon, what matters is how we use it. And the government cannot dictate how we use a word - unless we allow them to.
Calling something an 'assault weapon' has no inherent value judgment, DEMONIZING assault weapons DOES. I refuse to submit to the demonization of 'assault weapon'. I think they're cool.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:45 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
that were supposed to be banned were still legally available for purchase.
They were grandfathered in.
The "conforming" weapons ("post-ban" designs) replaced the birdcage "flash suppressor" with AK-style or Y-comp muzzle brakes.
Adjustable stocks were replaced with thumbhole or permanently pinned stocks.
Bayonet lugs were removed.
The point is - those hoops shouldn't have been put there. The ludicrous (arbitrary and nebulous) nature of it was exposed, but they never backed down - the only reason is isn't the law of the land now was that in response to that very silly law, the House went Republican. And the only reason they didn't do it again in 2009 or 2010 was that Democrats from red states were shaking in their boots from 1994. Heck, they tried it again after Newton.
Thank G-d those efforts to renew have failed.
But they haven't given up - by any stretch. And despite what Biden says, they want the pistols, revolvers, rifles AND shotguns.
They might (with political patronage, of course) allow their friends to keep shotguns locked up at a gun club for skeet purposes - but that will be it - if they ever get their way on guns. But the rest of them? Forget it. Cut up for scrap.
Don't believe me? Check with the Australian Rifle Association - and that happened, virtually overnight - a nation with gun laws similar to ours went to a U.K. model in about 18 months.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:48 am to Clames
quote:
Words have meaning and if you actually read these laws you might be in a better position to make a point.
And yet, according to you, the words they used to outlaw certain weapons and features in 1994 were meaningless when it came to actual legal acquisition of said weapons and features.
You keep contradicting yourself.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:48 am to bayoudude
quote:
scary black rifles get the publicity. You can't fix stupid.
I hear ya, but at least this poll says that, regardless of where the attention is, young Americans are starting to see through the brown garbage that the left & the media (redundant) have been throwing at their lenses for so long
oh, and piers morgan lost his job... 2+2=4 right? haha
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:57 am to MisterSenator
lol the anti narrative in this thread is a joke, lucky for them it turned into a long thread so they could go back and do research, and I love it when people reference wiki 
fact is: liberals do not want the private ownership of firearms, I mean what a social risk to have individuals in control of their own safety or their ability to provide. Like most liberals they want the change for you because its best for all. Idiots
fact is: liberals do not want the private ownership of firearms, I mean what a social risk to have individuals in control of their own safety or their ability to provide. Like most liberals they want the change for you because its best for all. Idiots
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 11:00 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:02 am to WildTchoupitoulas
No, just highlighting your ignorance. I gave you an opportunity to sees the difference between a deliberately nebulous term (assault weapon) vs one that has a much more technical definition. I can look through nearly a dozen state and federal laws dealing with "assault weapons" and each one is different on exactly what weapons fall in the definition.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:03 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Thank G-d those efforts to renew have failed.
And yet the original 1994 law was fairly toothless. Apparently their nebulosity only created loopholes. If they re-instated the very same law it would have just as little impact as before. The only reason I don't want them to re-instate the ban is simply because it infringes on my liberty if in even a very small, theoretical way.
quote:
But they haven't given up - by any stretch. And despite what Biden says, they want the pistols, revolvers, rifles AND shotguns.
Which is EXACTLY why we need to be vigilant and look beyond the terminology and focus on the features and functions they are looking to ban - is all I'm saying. Like I said before, they could call shotguns popsicles and I wouldn't care what they call them, but if they tried to BAN popsicles, I would care about what they want to ban.
For now, I embrace 'assault weapons', and I think you should too.
"Save the assault weapon" should be our cry, and frick those guys.
quote:
Don't believe me? Check with the Australian Rifle Association - and that happened, virtually overnight
wtf? Totally non-sequitur. I am NOT arguing that the government should ban anything, or make us register anything, all I am saying is simply that I refuse to have my attention diverted by nomenclature.
Don't waste your time arguing that there's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. In the end it doesn't matter what they call it. What matters is if they want to ban it.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:03 am to Clames
quote:he is researching now
No, just highlighting your ignorance. I gave you an opportunity to sees the difference between a deliberately nebulous term (assault weapon) vs one that has a much more technical definition. I can look through nearly a dozen state and federal laws dealing with "assault weapons" and each one is different on exactly what weapons fall in the definition.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:05 am to Clames
quote:
can look through nearly a dozen state and federal laws dealing with "assault weapons" and each one is different on exactly what weapons fall in the definition.
neb·u·lous
/'neby?l?s/
adjective
adjective: nebulous
1. in the form of a cloud or haze; hazy.
"a giant nebulous glow"
synonyms: indistinct, indefinite, unclear, vague, hazy, cloudy, fuzzy, misty, blurred, blurry, foggy; Morefaint, shadowy, obscure, formless, amorphous "the figure was nebulous"
antonyms: clear
•(of a concept or idea) unclear, vague, or ill-defined.
"nebulous concepts like quality of life"
synonyms: vague, ill-defined, unclear, hazy, uncertain, indefinite, indeterminate, imprecise, unformed, muddled, confused, ambiguous
antonyms: well-defined
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 11:06 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:34 am to Clames
quote:
I can look through nearly a dozen state and federal laws dealing with "assault weapons" and each one is different on exactly what weapons fall in the definition.
So what? I recommend you get past scrutinizing the term 'assault weapons' and focus on "exactly what weapons fall in the definition."
So, if you are attempting to highlight my ignorance, what, exactly, is it that I don't know? Apparently I missed your highlights when I was pointing out the invalidity of your argument.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:35 am to ninthward
Researching what?
Are you another one ignoring the content for the semantics?
Are you another one ignoring the content for the semantics?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:42 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I recommend you get past scrutinizing the term 'assault weapons' and focus on "exactly what weapons fall in the definition."
I do both genius. It's called having a "global" understanding. You haven't pointed out shite except creating word salads to ignore the point that the term "assault weapon" is used to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. I understand that technical and non-technical terms are used in the framework of legal documents and you ignoring that point makes you no more than another useful idiot for gun-control advocates.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:56 am to Clames
quote:
the term "assault weapon" is used to infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
No, BANNING weapons is infringing on the 2nd Amendment.
Apparently you are having a VERY difficult time distinguishing between substance and abstractions.
If we all embraced the term 'assault weapon' just as the shop owner has, and successfully fought against every attempt to ban any sort of currently legal firearm/weapon/weapon system/feature/function, what affect would the term 'assault weapon' have on gun ownership in the US?
None.
That's my point. We could just as easily embrace the term and fight against restrictions as cry over nomenclature - and we would be more effective.
I'm sorry you can't seem to see this.
Any further discussion on the topic would be ridiculous at this point. For two people who have the same fundamental belief to spend this much time quibbling over such an arcane point is already absurd.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 12:08 pm to Tactical1
quote:
One moment the youth of America is the indisputable proof that Idiocracy is real and inevitable.
The next, most of you are proud and praising them.
I think my generation is against the Government telling them what to do. They are very pro individual freedom and against Government intrusion (such as NSA spying).
I think their downfall is their misunderstanding of economic ideas and foreign policy, but that knowledge comes with age and wisdom.
I honestly believe in the long run my generation will bring about more freedom in this country. I just hope they can realize that Government needs to stay out of business also and decrease regulation so we can have job growth. I think that lesson will be learned the hard way as more college graduates find themselves unemployed or underemployed.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News