Without arguing the 2nd amendment

[TX-RAT]

Please give your reason for owning are needing a hi-cap, semi-auto center fire rifle.

[library_max]

1. To quote Phil Gramm, former Senator, R-Texas

"Ah have more guns than Ah need, but Ah don't have as many guns as Ah want."

[slackmaster]

2. Because I feel like it

No further justification is needed.

[iverglas]

6. try again, now

Because I feel like it
No further justification is needed.

'Cause I just didn't hear anyone asking you to offer justification.

You're familiar with the concept of "reason"?

And yes ... Oxford does offer "justification" as one meaning of "reason" -- after "motive" and "cause". In the context, I certainly interpreted the question as being an inquiry about people's motives for owning whatever it is. Why didn't you?

If someone asked me my reason for much of anything I do, I wouldn't think of saying "because I feel like it". Not unless I were being purposely obnoxious ... and, in fact, actually saying "I'm not going to tell you".

.

[slackmaster]

7. Because I feel like it

I don't owe anyone any additional explanation.

[MrBenchley]

8. Appeal to Emotion Fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

Say, I wonder what Nizkor has to say about the gun rights crowd?

[slackmaster]

10. Appeal to Nizkor fallacy

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

9. such righteous indignation

I don't owe anyone any additional explanation.

And once again -- who actually suggested that you did? Nobody I heard.

The question wasn't even directed to you. If you didn't want to answer it, all you had to do was not answer it.

All I did was point out that your "answer" was not an answer. I couldn't care less whether you actually answer the question or not. I just don't know why anybody would go to the bother of saying something totally irrelevant in response to a question he wasn't asked.

But of course, I always have my suspicions about why people say things that might cause someone unwary to interpret what someone else said as something other than what it was ...

In this particular case, I can't see any real reason for wanting to make it look like the questioner was demanding "justification" from you, but ... whatever. All good politicians know that questions are simply opportunities to say whatever they happen to want to say.

.

[slackmaster]

11. Wrong

The question wasn't even directed to you.

Follow the thread back. You posted "try again, now" in response to my post which was reply #2.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoeBear]

41. BOY?

Who are you calling boy?

[iverglas]

47. oh dear me

If it was good enough for Winnie ...

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=736

One one occasion, which I think I did put in my book was the night before Hitler invaded Russia. I was at Chequers with Churchill and I was walking with him up and down the croquet lawn, trying hopefully but unsuccessfully to get him to sign some dreadfully dreary documents which he wouldn't look at.

He'd been reading the Ultra signals - we called them "Boniface" but the Admiralty called them Ultra - the decrypts of the German Air Force code. He said, "It is quite evident now, and there is no doubt about it, that that man is going to invade the Soviet Union." So I, for want of anything better to say, said, "Well, that's going to be difficult for you, because after all you were the person who tried to raise an army against the Bolsheviks in 1919, and are well known as the leading anti-Communist in the western world. Won't it be very difficult for you to say something in support of them?"

"My dear boy," he said, "if Hitler were to invade Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons!"

and Noel

http://www.cyber-nation.com/endeavor/places/funny_quotes.html

My dear boy, forget about the motivation. Just say the lines and don't trip over the furniture.

and Paul

I guess you never knew, dear boy ... I guess you never knew, dear boy (My dear boy, dear boy) that love was there.

and Willy

http://www.coolquotescollection.com/cat/movie/07/

My dear boy, if God had intended for us to walk, he wouldn't have invented roller skates.

and of course Algernon, whom I was just watching on the digital cable the other day

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~spires/Concord/earnest15.html

Now, my dear boy, if we want to get a good table at Willis's, we really must go and dress. Do you know it is nearly seven?

... then it's damned good enough for me. And anyone who suffers from (or inexplicably claims to suffer) some provincial incomprehension of the language can lump it!


<typo fixed>

[RoeBear]

49. I'm guessing that Winston wasn't ...

...addressing a message board that includes African-Americans.

Say it to a black man's face if you're so damn sure it's inoffensive.

"... then it's damned good enough for me. And anyone who suffers from (or inexplicably claims to suffer) some provincial incomprehension of the language can lump it!"

Or you could just say you're sorry and didn't mean to offend.

[iverglas]

51. gruss gott

I'm guessing that Winston wasn't
...addressing a message board that includes African-Americans.


(a) Neither was I. I was addressing slackmaster. I thought that was pretty obvious.

And I really just can't think of when I have ever heard of a USAmerican racist addressing a black man as "my dear boy". Can you cite me some examples?


(b) This ... from the chappy who was saying, just the other day:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=56444#57043

But unlike the gal being raped ...

If I were someone, I'd just be quiet now, lest someone else make some offensive remark about what pots call kettles.

.

[RoeBear]

52. I'll find you lot's of females...

...who don't mind being referred to as a 'gal' if you'll find me one black man who wouldn't be offended by being called a 'boy'?

Shall we continue; is the word sorry in your vocabulary?

[iverglas]

57. continue all you like

I was done before you started, and I'm just as done now.

You might want to try finding a black man whom I called a boy before you follow that thought of yours too deep into the forest, though.

Or even any racist who ever called any black man "my dear boy".

Whatever. It's your thought. Dance with it where you will. And consider, while you're twirling, how impressed I am likely to be with any woman you might know who is tickled pink to be called a gal. Perhaps as impressed as you might have been by all the black men a generation or two ago who would never have thought of objecting to being called "boy"?

You might even contemplate how extra special offensive it is to refer in this way to a victim of a violent assault which is perpetrated against her solely because she is a woman, because "woman" (or "gal", if you prefer) equals "subhuman prey" in many men's minds. The association of the gratuitously degrading language and the violently degrading treatment ... hmm, sound at all familiar?

Kinda shows who's still got a long way to go, is about all I get from it.

Yup, women still have a long way to go. So do some other people.

.

[RoeBear]

92. "gratuitously degrading language"

fits your useage of the word boy to a 'T'

[iverglas]

107. and here's a fun one

http://tvtalkshows.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=238

The first thing people see when they see me is skin color.....then they see gender....then they notice features.....for people who continue to judge people on race, I have already lost.

... But it is my secret wish that you would wake up one morning and have black skin and THEN see who complains. You, my dear boy, couldn't handle it.

In case you haven't guessed, the writer is a black woman, addressing a white man. Is that cool by you?

If so, then a fortiori (that's "for all the more reason"), a white woman using the expression to address a white man would seem pretty cool indeed. That being, of course, what my useage <sic> of the expression was.

If not, then it would seem that you don't speak for all black people, and, by your logic, I can dismiss you. That being, of course, what I am actually doing, although for much better reasons.

.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

119. why don't you just try answer the really easy questions?

Was I talking to a black person?

Even if I had been talking to a black person -- have you ever heard a racist address a black man as "my dear boy"?

Do you think you could try answering them?

And, old chum, if you may, and do, call me a "gal", then is there some reason why I shouldn't be able to call you anything I bloody well want?

Not that I necessarily would -- but is there some reason why I shouldn't be able to? You obviously thought one up and invented some connection between it and what I said, so why not share it?

.

[RoeBear]

121. One good reason.

"And, old chum, if you may, and do, call me a "gal", then is there some reason why I shouldn't be able to call you anything I bloody well want?"

Many women like to be called gals by men. Find me one black man that wants to be called a 'boy' by a a white woman and you win the arguement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Was I talking to a black person?"
Not directly, but you used it on an open board that you know is viewed by members of all races.

"Even if I had been talking to a black person -- have you ever heard a racist address a black man as "my dear boy"?"

If I had it would have been the last words he would have been able to utter for awhile.

Time expired- YOu lose

[iverglas]

149. oh look

We're back to pretending to answer questions.

That seems to be the theme of this thread, after all.


Many women like to be called gals by men.

I can only hope that actually you know how pig-ignorant those words sound.

Many black people liked being slaves, too. Fact.

Unfortunately, the line I'm looking for doesn't seem to be anywhere on the net, so you'll have to go rent Gentleman's Agreement, the movie in which Gregory Peck decides to "pass" as Jewish in order to experience bigotry first-hand. He is distressed by the terms used to characterize Jews. He ultimately gets more bent out of shape about the bigotry than many of his Jewish friends. A woman friend pleads with him to just leave it alone; she tries to explain to him how it isn't really bigotry, and says something along the lines of: "Why, when I do something stupid, I say to myself 'you little kike'."

We know what we call people who internalize the hatred, right?

I have a tape, I think it's Abby Lincoln. She sings a song called "Beat Me, Daddy (Eight to the Bar)" ("daddy" being a rather telling term of endearment for a lover, of course). Google says the Andrews Sisters did it, too, and there's a 1940 movie by that name. It goes "You gotta beat me to keep me." Apparently it was quite popular.

So since some women like to be beaten, I guess it's okay to beat strange women in public?

.

[iverglas]

120. and while you're at it, here's another

What does what a black woman called a white man have to do with what black people call each other?

That's kinda like what I already asked, "what does what I called slackmaster have to do with what anybody calls black men?", but subtly different. Since you haven't managed to answer the first question, maybe you'll find this one easier.

.

[RoeBear]

122. Look Iverglas...

...if you've led such a shletered life that you don't realize that the use of the word 'boy' is offensive to black men I can forgive you. It reminds me of the Southwest Airlines hostess (Oh my Gawd I hope I can call a woman a hostess) who used the phrase "Einne meenie minnie moe grab a seat we're ready to go". I believe she had truly no idea of the original offensive words in that rhyme.

If you can't admit it or don't want to then I will just assume the worst about your personal beliefs.

[library_max]

124. Well, she's Canadian for one thing.

Not every US shibboleth is worldwide, ya know. They didn't even have slavery up there.

[iverglas]

144. actually

There was slavery here, to an extremely minor extent, and it was abolished long before your civil war. There is a black community here that is descended from those people, and of course from the USAmerican black people who came here via the underground railway. The significant Caribbean black community here is of course also descended from slaves. I have an ex-client, now an old man to whom I am a sort of surrogate daughter, whose grandfather sold slaves to the US slave trade. Of course, he was a black African village chief, living in West Africa at the time.

But none of that has anything to do with any of this. White women (and men) were calling white men "my dear boy" (and white women "my dear girl") for a very long time before there were black slaves in the US, I'm very sure.

This reminds me of the mockery that some misogynists make of women's requests for non-sexist language. "Are we supposed to say 'personufacture' and 'personipulate'?" ("Manufacture" and "manipulate" are of course derived from the Latin manus, "hand".)

I'd expect someone who was resistent to the request that black men not be called "boy" to say "Can I no longer say 'my dear boy' to my white friends and colleagues?"

The demand that I not say "my dear boy" to anyone is about as ludicrous as would be my demand that someone say "personipulate". I'd feel a right clown demanding such a thing, and I'd know exactly how disingenuous my demand would be.

And I'm still waiting to hear an instance when any white person ever called any black man "my dear boy".

Of course, I'm still waiting to hear what my addressing a WHITE man in this way has to do with RoeBear. A fortiorari, as I was saying, when we have seen an example of a black woman addressing a white man in that way (in the context of a criticism of the white man for his insensitivity to racial prejudice, no less).

[iverglas]

146. now here's a good one

http://spoons.com/amautletsigb.html

"My beloved boy, Mr. Davis:- How glad I am to get these few lines from my precious boy. I had just took out a sheet of paper to write you when to your letter came. You cannot have been happier than I to know that your eyes are better. I have refrained from writing or sending any pamphlets to my dear, handsome boy because I wanted your eyes to rest as much as possible. Dear, Sun. week, Apr. 10th will be Founders day here, at which time our Board of Trustees and Hospital Clinics will all be on. Our Trustees will reach here Apr. 8th, and be here until the evening of the 11th then I may have to leave right away for Detroit Mich. as Mr. H. Ford wants me to come. I am awaiting his pleasure in the matter. Had a letter from his Secy. today. Just as soon, dear, as I can be home long enough I want you and Mrs. C. Coulter to come over. Come in the morning, take dinner at Dorothy Hall and see me as much as possible in the farenoon and afternoon. I Certainly want to see my dear boy. I hope you can take a massage while you are here as I am sure you need on by this time. Yours with so much love and good wishes, ...

Now, who could have signed that letter?

Why, could it have been ..

... G.W. Carver

!?!

You know ... George Washington Carver, "noted for discoveries relating to the peanut & sweet potato". The person honoured by

the first designated national monument to an African American in the United States. George Washington Carver was bestowed an honorary doctorate from Simpson College in 1928. He was made a member of the Royal Society of Arts in London, England. He received the Spingarn Medal in 1923, which is given every year by the National Association for the Advancement of colored People. The Spingarn Medal is awarded to the black person who has made the greatest contribution to the advancement of his race.

He seems to have been able to distinguish between a racist epithet and a time-honoured term of endearment whose existence is 100% independent of any racial context whatsoever.

No, my dear RoeBear, there is no similarity whatsoever betweeen an air hostess <sic> reciting lines from a ditty that was racist in its origins and anyone using a term of endearment (even in the patronizing manner in which it has long been used) whose origins have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's race at all.

Calling a victim of sexual assault a "gal", when the use of juvenile diminutives to describe and address adult women is entirely rooted in the same patriarchy and misogyny that the assault enforced and was rooted in, well, that's a horse of another colour. Oh no! I'll bet I'm not allowed to say that, either! Even though it's a figure of speech relating to livestock, and is said to a person who has demeaned ME, a woman and a victim of a violent sexual assault, by using a juvenile epithet to diminish my status as an adult human being. What will you do next, RoeBear -- call a black man who has been dragged behind a pickup truck a "boy"?

.

[OpSomBlood]

126. To be fair to iverglas...

...I think you're being a little hypersensitive on this. As much as I disagree with her opinions, I have not sensed any racism from any of iverglas' posts.

Where she said "my dear boy," she obviously meant it with no racial overtones or offense intended. It's a very common phrase in some parts.

Just because some words were used in the past to degrade a race doesn't mean we should carry those meanings forward forever. In context, there was nothing at all offensive about what she said.

[RoeBear]

129. That could have been handled by a...

..."sorry, didn't mean to offend". Rather than Winston said it, Oprah said it, you called me a gal once.

I think the truest arbitrator of the debacle is that her post was deleted, without my requesting it.

[iverglas]

152. very true

That could have been handled by a...
..."sorry, didn't mean to offend"

... if, of course, there had been any offence taken.

I know perfectly well that there wasn't, and I know perfectly well, as I said, what this is about.

I think the truest arbitrator of the debacle is that her post was deleted, without my requesting it.

I don't know how one arbitrates a debacle ... but really, a dispute regarding linguistic bias just isn't "arbitrated" by a message board moderator. A message board arbitrator decides whether a post will remain on a message board, applying, correctly or incorrectly, whatever rules apply to the message board.

Arbitrators are infallible, and their decisions always determine reality. I mean ... OJ didn't kill Nicole, right?


I remember the time when I paraphrased a famous African-American comic and free-speech crusader, using a line that he had spoken in a sketch written to expose the racist underpinnings of US history and popular culture, and my post was deleted ...

No accounting for taste, eh?

.

[RoeBear]

154. Thank you for telling me...

...what offends. I'll be sure to do you the same courtesy in the future.

[iverglas]

150. ta very much

And I would just note that you will find that I am as forthcoming with a defence when a defence is warranted, and even against interest and popular sentiment. My dear friend DoNotRefill will confirm. ;)

If you're interested:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=778538
(It's a long thread)

also
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=21533

.

[RoeBear]

127. Actually that would have been a fine response...

...too bad she couldn't say it herself.

[iverglas]

143. am I surprised?

Oh my Gawd I hope I can call a woman a hostess

A person who would call women who are victims of violent assaults "gals" would probably call just about anyone just about anything. Oh, except himself, that is.

People who work as cabin crew on airplanes are called flight attendants. I might have expected someone as sensitive to language bias issues as you to know that. But then, as far as I can see, you're not at all sensitive to language issues, and that is not what any of this is about.

.

[OpSomBlood]

145. Can we all get off of this?

I mean, really. Most of us don't take offense to "boy" or "gal" unless they are specifically used in a negative, condescending context.

[iverglas]

153. and that would be the point

Most of us don't take offense to "boy" or "gal" unless they are specifically used in a negative, condescending context.

Calling women who are victims of violent sexual assaults "gals" is beyond negative and condescending.

My addressing slackmaster as "my dear boy" could have been construed as condescending (perhaps in the Jane Austin sense, in which it was a good thing), BUT IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE'S RACE OR SEX.

Even *I* would have a hard time saying that someone who addressed me as "my dear girl" in the same context was being sexist. *I* am quite familiar with linguistic conventions, and it would, in the right context, be disingenuous to the max for me to do that.

And even if someone whose background left him/her less familiar with such linguistic conventions was not being disingenuous in making such an objection, it would most certainly be disingenuous for him/her to continue making the objection after being enlightened on the point.

If anybody wants to say "I am not your dear boy/girl, and you are patronizing me" -- just as s/he might say "I am not your old chum / good friend / fine fellow / worthy opponent / anything else that people might less than sincerely address each other as" -- fine.

Dressing up one's indignation (as the addressee of the remark has *not* done) as something more righteous is itself far less than sincere. Would I be allowed to say that we would be looking at mutton dressed as lamb, even though that is a figure of speech too commonly used to describe older women?

.

[el_gato]

170. Total over the top bull

So now anybody who has ever used the word gal has done it in the context of deriding a victim of rape?

What total bullshit.

[el_gato]

169. Some people walk around looking to be offended

They may hide behind different ideologies, like religious fundamentalism or pedantic paternalism, but the basic victimization outlook is the same. Everybody is out to get them unless they can somehow force these "non-believers" into seeing the world as they do. And when they can't get them to "believe" they resort to some authority to control others.

[iverglas]

58. oh, and btw

If you persist in calling women "females", you might want to prepare yourself for being called "negroid". We apparently want to be biologically accurate, am I correct?

Or hell, you could just apologize for both uses of gratuitously degrading language all at once, and have done with this.

.

[MrBenchley]

53. Funny, isn't it?

Roe gets his frilly panties in a bunch over crap like this...but show him ACTUAL, virulent racism...

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8977

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=243957

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9050

and suddenly he and all our other "gun owning democrats" ain't got the slightest faintest peep to say....except to suddenly spout excuses and evasions as to why he dare not respond.

[RoeBear]

90. Evasion....funny...you seem to know about evasion...

"What crime could I not commit if I couldn't get my hands on an assault weapon?"

[library_max]

94. We already did this down in #35 - 55.

It's a question based on a false premise, much like "When are you going to stop beating your wife?"

[RoeBear]

118. No 'we' didn't.

There is no false premise. So try it again.

Tell me a crime, any crime, that could be prevented by the absense of assault weapons.

I'll be here.

Waiting.

[library_max]

130. Well, as MrBenchley pointed out, you couldn't violate the AWB.

But basically the question is beside the point. Whether or not this or that crime could possibly be committed in absence of assault weapons has no bearing on the advisability of allowing civilians to own assault weapons. There's no crime that could be prevented by the laws against raping children (some people do it anyway) - does it follow that there should be no laws against raping children?

[OpSomBlood]

93. When MrBenchley says "Jump"...

...DU says, "fuck off."

Nobody here follows orders.

[library_max]

95. Well, why didn't anybody tell me that

before I went and fetched that study for you? If I'd have known the proper canonical DU response to requests like that, I sure would have used it.

[OpSomBlood]

97. There's a subtle difference between requesting a reference citation...

...and demanding that people respond to ignorant racists at other message boards in order to prove their loyalty.

[library_max]

101. Yup. It sure is subtle.

Too subtle to prevent "no requests" from being stated as an absolute principle, apparently.

[OpSomBlood]

103. If you're going to refer to "study after study," be prepared to cite them.

Word to the wise, regardless of the issue.

[library_max]

104. Hmm. Tricky.

So, other than "when OpSomBlood says so," how do I know when the "no requests" rule applies and when it doesn't?

[OpSomBlood]

106. You don't have to do anything.

Like I said, word to the wise. If you refer to "study after study" and don't cite those studies, then your arguments won't be as highly regarded around here.

Besides, if you can't see the difference between, "please cite your sources" and "go post at all of these websites to prove your loyalty" then I don't know what to tell you.

[library_max]

110. What about proving that homemade guns are really easy to make?

I want to be sure that I get all the rules right here, and I won't always have the Ultimate Authority handy to explain them to me.

O8)

[OpSomBlood]

112. Good night.

I've got a hot pizza and a hot girlfriend to attend to. I hope you one day attain clarity enough to see the difference between a request and a demand.

[MrBenchley]

137. That's easy...

If it seems like something an actual Democrat would want to do, you don't have to....

But if it seems like it violates the sort of belief that only a far right wing nut would harbor....then expect to have to produce proof over and over and over and over and over...

[MrBenchley]

136. Who expects you to prove anything, op?

You long ago showed us what you are with that crap from the stentorian...in spades.

[OpSomBlood]

141. Who is "us"?

Look at you, pretending that you've got some kind of sycophant chorus to back you up.

You're all by yourself, Benchley. There are three people on this entire site who think you're anything more than a loud internet pundit with way too much time on your hands.

So much time, that it's not enough to drop 17,000 posts on DU. You spend the rest of your busy day diligently scouring the rest of the internet for news stories about gunshot wounds. In your free moments, you browse other pro-gun websites looking for racist garbage so that you can demand we go respond to it in order to prove our loyalty.

Seriously, this is really disturbing. You spend all day, every day devoted to angry anti-gun rhetoric. This can't be healthy.

[MrBenchley]

147. Gee, op...

If you don't love it, tough titty.

[iverglas]

156. oh no, Paco!

Now, let's everybody get exercised about some kind of ethnic sterotyping because I have quoted a PARROT, who spoke the words about another PARROT in a real-life tale I found extraordinarily funny when I heard it recounted on TV, as an apparent expression of sorrow and shock.

http://www.intuitive-connections.net/2002/goats.htm

... African Grey parrot, Bongo Marie. Its owner had a number of birds at her house, including an Amazon parrot, Paco, that Bongo Marie especially disliked. One day, the owner was removing a roast Cornish game hen from her oven when Bongo Marie flew over and shouted, "Oh no! Paco!" in an excited tone. When the owner produced Paco to show he was still alive, Bongo Marie responded in a disappointed tone, "Oh, no!" and then broke out into raucous laughter.

My own sorrow and shock was at finding that you might be making reference to that well known racist, Redd Foxx (unless it was Lenny Bruce, as I once thought; I've never been quite able to verify), who quoted Tonto as saying to the Lone Ranger -- when the Lone Ranger saw all the Native Americans on the ridge and said to Tonto "We're surrounded, Tonto" -- "Who 'we', white man?"

Watch out. I said it to one of the "RKBA" crowd once when s/he presumed to speak for "us". Do it, and you'll get deleted, is my experience.

Of course, what Benchley said was:

You long ago showed us what you are with that crap from the stentorian...in spades.

He wasn't presuming to speak for anyone. He was just stating a fact.

.

[OpSomBlood]

167. A fact...much like that Stentorian-hosted image of Feinstein.

But then again, you think that it's perfectly acceptable for a person to point a rifle at a crowd of people with your finger on the trigger an a magazine in, so long as it's unloaded.

Hey guys, go ahead show me where I ever quoted text from the Stentorian. Holy shit! I never did!

In fact, that website was the result of a Google image search, and I had no idea what else was hosted there.

But I guess that conflicts too much with your elaborate fantasies that I'm some kind of right-wing operative sent here to subvert you all.

[MrBenchley]

171. Gee, op... better look up fact in some dictionary....

"that website was the result of a Google image search"
We been through that op...and the results included the free republic....that sure would have been a tip-off to most people was to what a dishonest bit of crap it was.

"Hey guys, go ahead show me where I ever quoted text from the Stentorian. Holy shit! I never did!"
Thank koresh for small fucking favors.

[MrBenchley]

135. You see, max....

it's almost insanely unfair of us to even pretend that our "pro gun democrats" are going to behave like democrats in any way at all....

...although those of us who agree with the party platform, the presidential nominee and most every elected Democrat except Zell Miller are expected to jump through hoops to prove what pretty much every sane person knows...and in a timely fashion, too, else these "enthusiasts" put up posts complaining that they hear crickets...

[OpSomBlood]

142. Yeah, I'm pretty crushed about not winning Benchley's approval.

You know, if I only voted Democratic, and even had some liberal viewpoints, maybe I could be a "real" Democrat like Benchley.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x57787

Oh, whaddaya know. It seems that I'm a liberal on every fucking issue except guns. And I've voted Democratic in every fucking election since I turned 18. I'd love to know what some of your views are on other issues, but unfortunately you never talk about anything but guns.

Oops, did I "violate your privacy" again? I know you got pretty upset when I had the sheer audacity to ask you what you do for a living.

[MrBenchley]

134. And when op says nobody follows orders...

the rest of us laugh our asses off...

[OpSomBlood]

140. No, Benchley...you're laughing all by yourself.

n/t

[library_max]

157. Well, not all by himself.

n/t

[MrBenchley]

165. Evidently I am supposed to be crushed by despair

because I haven't won over wowsers like roe, slack and gato...not to mention fat slob and feeb...

So I guess I'll just have to console myself with the thought that the intelligent posters like yourself, the Democratic presidential candidate, the Democratic platform, most any Democrat (except Zell Miller) that anyone's ever heard of, pretty much every liberal or moderate columnist in the country, roughly every group of decent people in the country, and a majority of the voters agree with me.

And the RKBA crowd can point with pride to their friends in the Second Amendment Caucus and other cesspools swell places.

[el_gato]

168. Your posts are filled with desperate drivel, it's all plain to see

When you can't come up with anything more intelligent than words like "humhole" and "scum" it's pretty clear how desperate and sad you are.

[RoeBear]

125. "frilly panties"?

That's pretty weird Benchley.

[MrBenchley]

138. What about you isn't, roe?

Funny actual virulent racism don't make you blink....but you huff and puff and fly into a faux rage over phony slights like this.

[RoeBear]

139. Would you have made the...

..."frilly panties" comment to a woman. I find it offensive. Or aren't I allowed to do that?

Dang almost forgot:

What crime could I not commit if I couldn't get my hands on an assault weapon?

[MrBenchley]

148. Gee, roe...

As I've said four times now, without an assault rifle, you couldn't violate the AWB, for starters.

Meanwhiule, it's hilarious to hear you argue that you ought to get your hands on a really dangerous weapon because you're a menace to yourself and others.

And considering that you're mute as a stone when faced with actual racism, ask me if I care that you're "offended."

[RoeBear]

151. I guess technically you found ONE thing...

...but that's freaking hilarious!
I can just see the debates this fall-

Moderator: "Senator Kerry, would you vote for an AWB if elected as President?"

Sen. Kerry: "Yes I would."

Mod: "Well what kind of reduction in crime could we expect with a new AWB in 2005?"

Sen. Kerry: "None really. If criminals can't get any of the guns on the list of guns I will propose banning they would just get other guns and commit the same crimes."

Mod: "Then why do it"

Sen. Kerry: "Well we could tack on an extra charge of having violated the AWB."

Mod: "Mmmkay. Mr Bush what are your thoughts?"

Bush: "I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention, could you repeat the question?"
(any debate like this would have the voters flocking to vote for None of the Above)

And this is freaking offensive:
"And considering that you're mute as a stone when faced with actual racism, ask me if I care that you're "offended."

For you to suggest that you know how I react to actual racism, when you don't have a clue what it's like to live with it on a daily basis is EXTREMELY offensive.

[MrBenchley]

155. Actually, that's just the most obvious thing...

But yeah, I'd like to see this unexplained drunk tell the nation that criminals and loonies ought to be able to get their sweaty shaky hands on assault weapons more easily.

"And this is freaking offensive"
Gee, next ask me if I give a steaming crap what American Daily fans like YOU find offensive, roe.

"you don't have a clue what it's like to live with it on a daily basis"
Gee, roe, anytime anyone wants a clue, all they have to do is hold their nose and glance at one of those gun owner forums. You know, the ones you're pretending don't spout the racist shit they do on a daily basis.

[library_max]

159. Man, you can prove almost anything

when you allow yourself to present both sides of an argument.

[library_max]

158. Answered in post #130.

/nt

[iverglas]

78. nope, that's not gonna fly

Somebody wants to allege that my addressing slackmaster as "my dear boy" is racist, somebody's going to have to do a much better job of demosntrating it than anybody has done so far.

This is so fucking ludicrous I'm about choking on my coke.

Lordy ... does the expression "nanny state" come to anyone's mind? I think "ninny state" would be even more appropriate. I find my self in the state of ninniness ... or the province of ninniness ...

But alrighty then. Let's deal with this one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=56444#57043
But unlike the gal being raped at knife point in a dark alley ...

It needs immediate deleting. It is grossly and unspeakably offensive. And I am not engaging in mock outrage.

If the use of the time-honoured and well-known turn of phrase "my dear boy", which has absolutely nothing to do with the race of the person being addressed, or of anyone else, to address a poster who is not even black, in a context in which Dr. King himself would not have alleged racism, is to be deleted, then the use of the demeaning, belittling, degrading term "gal" to describe a woman who is a victim of the violence fostered by patriarchy -- and that's ME -- simply cannot stand. I am not a gal and I will not be degraded in public in this way.

And if my post is not restored or that post deleted, we may just have another "bitch" situation on our hands.

Btw, since the deletion was public and no explanation was offered privately (and no copy of the content of the deleted post was provided for editing and reposting), so is the objection.

Not the shape of moderation to come, I hope.

.

[iverglas]

79. and may I add

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous
than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Just seemed à propos.

.

[MrBenchley]

12. Check out his "Iverglas does it" defense

in the "pro gun democrat" thread....

[enfield collector]

21. Amen! n/t

[OpSomBlood]

13. "Because I feel like having one" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

n/t

[iverglas]

17. actually

"Because I feel like having one" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

In those logical-fallacy fan circles, it's known as begging the question.

"God exists because he says so."
"I want one because I feel like having one."

What has just been said?

Precisely nothing.

Why do you feel like having one? Because I want one. Why do you want one? Because I feel like having one. Why do you feel like having one? ...



Dizzy yet?

[-..__...]

70. Conversley...

Is "no one needs an assault rifle" an acceptable reason for banning them?

[iverglas]

72. bring on the straw folk!

Is "no one needs an assault rifle" an acceptable reason for banning them?

Did someone say it was?

If not, I just can't imagine why you'd ask.

If so, perhaps you could offer a quotation.

.

[el_gato]

75. trying to hide as usual

You make statements quite often and then
don't want to admit to the implications
of those statements.

So I will ask you outright, do you want to ban
these guns or not? Stop trying to play games iver.

[iverglas]

82. well, with all the bales of straw around me

There sure are lots of places to hide if I wanted to, eh?


You said:

Is "no one needs an assault rifle" an acceptable reason for banning them?

I pointed out, just a touch indirectly, that NOBODY HAD SAID IT WAS, and therefore wondered why you would ask the question. No answer for me, eh?


You make statements quite often and then
don't want to admit to the implications
of those statements.

And, as you demonstrate here, you make bizarrely meaningless and pointless assertions of "fact" that appear to serve no purpose but to portray their subject in a bad light without actually providing any basis for the negative characterization you assert.


So I will ask you outright, do you want to ban
these guns or not? Stop trying to play games iver.

So, let's get it straight and call the game off, shall we?

I DON'T BLEEDING LIVE IN YOUR BLEEDING COUNTRY.

So I don't "want" anything in respect of these guns.

I have already posted complete info about what weapons are prohibited or restricted in Canada. I'm happy with the list.

What you people do is entirely up to you.

But YOU WEREN'T ASKING my opinion about your assault weapons ban.

You asked:

Is "no one needs an assault rifle" an acceptable reason for banning them?

and I refuse to answer that question, because to do so would be to implicitly acknowledge that the insinuation that someone had said that "no one needs an assault rifle" IS an acceptable reason for banning them is true, and as far as I can tell NO ONE HAS SAID THAT and THE INSINUATION IS FALSE and completely irrelevant to any discussion here.

So your question was of a type that I could recommend a number of things that one might do with, none of which involves answering it.

.

[el_gato]

160. a good non-answer, just like I expected

As far as your last sentence, just more typical hate spewing from you.

[library_max]

163. Why would anybody answer a straw-man question?

Would you give a straight answer if I asked you why you support Bush? No? Why not? Possibly because you DON'T support Bush?

[-..__...]

105. The straw in this case...

comes from the antis position.

"Did someone say it was?"

Are you saying that you've never heard or read that statement
"No one needs an assault rifle/weapon", before?

Or that no one has posted it in this thread?

"If not, I just can't imagine why you'd ask."

Seems like a simple enough of a question. Is there "reason" or "justification" for banning assault weapons based on the lack of need alone?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x58929#58962


"If so, perhaps you could offer a quotation."

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

The DU archives will reveal similar sentiments.

[library_max]

108. I'm going to go out on a limb here

and say that, yes, no one has posted the statement "No one needs an assault rifle" in this thread, excepting Roe Bear and others who posted it to argue against it.

As far as someone somewhere else some other time making such a statement, why throw it in iverglas's face? That's what is meant by straw man - demanding that person A defend or explain person B's statement.

[-..__...]

114. There was nothing dis-genuine about the question.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer and asked "what do you think of other peoples opinion that no one needs an assault rifle as an acceptable reason for banning them"?

Iverglas was dissecting and questioning the acceptability of another posters response... "Because I feel like having one", based on the posters want. In an earlier post there was the question of "justification" and "reason".

My question then becomes what's the argument (or dissection), of "who needs" with regards to "justification" and "reason".

If "wants" requires justification (or an explanation),, so does a lack of need.

[library_max]

115. Possibly the difference lies in the fact

that iverglas was discussing a response to the topic of the thread, whereas you were trying to introduce an entirely different topic.

[iverglas]

117. do you really, really not get it?

Iverglas was dissecting and questioning the acceptability of another posters response... "Because I feel like having one", based on the posters want.

Nope.

I absolutely was doing no such fucking thing. And I don't know how you could have read my posts and still be standing there saying that I did.

I said nothing whatsofuckingever about the "acceptability" of anyone's response.

I said IT WAS NOT A RESPONSE.

It was no more nor less than "because".

"Why do you want to do X?" - "Because." That's all it was.

"Because I feel like having one" MEANS "Because I want to." The question was WHY do you want to? "Because I want to" IS NOT AN ANSWER.

Would you like me to say this a few more different ways?

There is NOTHING WRONG with saying "I don't want to answer the question", in response to ANY question.

But it is very wrong to pretend that saying "because I want to" is an answer to "why do you want to?"


In an earlier post there was the question of "justification" and "reason".

Hmm. It seems that for someone whose grasp of subtleties has not been much in evidence so far, you've developed an excellent one here. You've been very subtle indeed. In French, subtile means "tenuous". Think of what I've said that way. In fact, you could actually be speaking French; it's a language known for its opportunities to put a bunch of words together and not quite say anything. Il était question de "justification" et "motif" would be applauded by French academics for the very obscurity of its meaning. Oh ... and see how the French for "reason", in this context, is "motif"?

What does it mean, this thing you've said? Let us see.

"There was the question of 'justification' and 'reason'." Indeed there was. And what was actually said was that no one was asking for a justification, what was asked for was A REASON. What was actually done was to DISTINGUISH between "justification" and "reason".

So I'm afraid that this just doesn't help you. In fact, depending on exactly what it is you're up to, it probably hurts you.


My question then becomes what's the argument (or dissection), of "who needs" with regards to "justification" and "reason".

Now here, I'm afraid you would lose even the French.

But again, YOU are the one making the connection between "want"/"need" and "justification". No one else. Am I making this plain enough?

No one needed to offer a "want" or "need" in response to the question.

And no one who did offer a "want" or "need" in response to it had to justify wanting it, or demonstrate the need or that the need could not be filled otherwise.

And no one needs to answer a question that implies the premise that s/he thinks (or anyone else thinks) that an absence of "need" justifies a prohibition, or that "want" is insufficient to prevent the prohibition, when that premise is false.


If "wants" requires justification (or an explanation),, so does a lack of need.

We seem to have descended into linguistic/logical hell here.

Two different notions, tossed together.

If "wants" requires justification -- IF being the operative word. DID SOMEONE SAY IT DID?

IF "wants" requires an explanation -- again, "if". No one said it REQUIRES an explanation; someone ASKED for one.

But as for this "lack of need" requiring justification or explanation ... you have fatally lost me, I'm afraid.

Someone who doesn't need something must justify wanting it -- is that what you're trying to say? If so, forgive the broken record, but WHO SAID THAT?


Really, if you still don't get whatever it is you're not getting, please ask.

.

[iverglas]

113. Make the pile higher! Make the pile higher!*

<* with apologies to that well-known poet, G.W. Bush>

Here's what you said:

Is "no one needs an assault rifle" an acceptable
reason for banning them?

Here's what you're saying now:

Are you saying that you've never heard or read that
statement "No one needs an assault rifle/weapon", before?

Can you tell me what the connection between the two is? It seems to be going right over my head. Why are you asking me the second question? Is it somehow related to the first question?


Seems like a simple enough of a question.
Is there "reason" or "justification" for banning
assault weapons based on the lack of need alone?

Well now, that's just a sort of flowery restatement of the first thing you said.

So I'll have to respond the same way I already have:

Why do you ask? Why, in particular, do you ask me?

Did someone say that there IS?? And if not -- what is the source of your urge to ask this question??

Will you not at least TRY to show me where someone -- preferably me, but anyone would do -- has said that absence of need is "reason" or "justification" for doing this?

Unless you can, the question you purport to be asking is still just noise.

The links were fascinating. You'll forgive me if I didn't open any of the links in the lists, since they're quite irrelevant to our discussion here. Maybe you could identify which of them say that assault weapons should be banned BECAUSE no one needs them (and specify what in the vast DU archives you might be referring to that might say that), and I could then consider whether what was said is worth my addressing here.

[el_gato]

74. Why are you sitting outside enjoying the sunshine?

Because I want to.

"hey that's not a reason"

[iverglas]

83. you're absolutely right

Why are you sitting outside enjoying the sunshine?"
Because I want to.
"hey that's not a reason"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

.

[el_gato]

161. In your twisted thinking, thanks for exposing it

I see you believe in the concept of choice.

Liberty is a foreign concept for you and your ilk.

So why do you drink lemonade instead of water?
Because I like lemonade.

[library_max]

164. Please see post #86 re: pizza, beer, and sunshine. /nt

[TX-RAT]

19. Lets try this OP

Why would you choose a hi-cap center fire auto over a bolt action in the same caliber.

[OpSomBlood]

23. See post #20.

And you might want to check your nomenclature a little.

"Hi cap" refers to the magazine, not the rifle. "Centerfire" is merely the type of ammunition, meaning the primer is in the center of the cartridge. Most rifles (regardless of action) fire "centerfire" ammo...are you sure you know what "centerfire" means?

Lastly, I don't think anyone here owns an "auto." Did you mean "semi-auto"?

[TX-RAT]

36. I did mean semi-auto

And yes i do know what hi-cap mean and also center fire.

[OpSomBlood]

38. Just checking...those features you listed seemed a little out of context.

n/t

[library_max]

48. From Webster's Third International Dictionary:

reason

\Rea"son\, n. 1. A thought or a consideration offered in support of a determination or an opinion; a just ground for a conclusion or an action; that which is offered or accepted as an explanation; the efficient cause of an occurrence or a phenomenon; a motive for an action or a determination; proof, more or less decisive, for an opinion or a conclusion; principle; efficient cause; final cause; ground of argument.

Hey, whaddya know! "Because I feel like it" isn't in there anywhere!

[OpSomBlood]

60. Would the reason be considered a definition of the word "reason"?

If I looked up "automobile" in Webster's would I find "1998 Ford Taurus"?

[library_max]

64. No, but the definition would generally fit a 1998 Ford Taurus,

or any other automobile. The definition wouldn't be such that a 1998 Ford Taurus would definitely NOT be an "automobile."

[el_gato]

62. a consideration offered in support of an opinion

"why do you think you should be able to buy that beer?"

Because I feel like having a beer.

The beer purchaser offers his thought or consideration in support of his opinion.

How is that not valid?

[library_max]

66. First of all,

the original question wasn't "Why do you think you should be able to own a hi-cap, semi-auto center fire rifle?" It was, "Please give your reason for owning are needing a hi-cap, semi-auto center fire rifle." The difference is significant.

Second, "Because I feel like it" isn't a consideration offered in support of anything. It's a non-answer, a way of making it clear that the speaker has no intention of giving a reason and doesn't feel he/she has to. Which is fine. TX-RAT asked a civil question. If you don't want to answer it, gee, don't answer it.

[el_gato]

73. You just don't like the answer and now you want to play semantics

You claim that it is a non-answer is baseless.

So let's consider it again.

What is your reason for owning X?

Because I want to.

That is a valid answer.

If you can't be civil enough to accept a persons answer then
don't get bent out of shape when they don't accept your dislike of it.

Not that you care one way or another because you are against
gun ownership obviously.

[library_max]

76. From dictionary.com:

ad hom·i·nem
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

[el_gato]

81. I can point to countless ad hominem attacks from the anti-gun gang

All I have done is point out that you didn't like his answer.
And we are not interested in your personal problems.

Notice how the pro-gun ownership people here
don't spend much time personally attacking people
the way people on your side do.

[library_max]

85. "Notice how the pro-gun ownership people here don't spend much time

personally attacking people the way people on your side do."

Now that's funny, because I could swear that all these lines, in this thread, come from pro-gun ownership people:

"trying to hide as usual"

"You make statements quite often and then don't want to admit to the implications of those statements."

"If you can't be civil enough to accept a persons answer then
don't get bent out of shape when they don't accept your dislike of it."

"The answer was not what you wanted to hear so you began to whine about it."

"All I have done is point out that you didn't like his answer.
And we are not interested in your personal problems."


In fact - son of a gun! - those personal attacks are all from your own posts!

[el_gato]

166. ha ha, you make me laugh, talk about name calling

Those statements are true and if you get upset about them I don't give a fuck. Everyone of those statements that you quote are accurate and I stand by them.

Now if you cared you would notice the endless rants by your gang about how people who believe in the right to own a gun are in league with scum, etc. etc. etc. I know you don't want to acknowledge that but hey as I said I really don't care what you think.

Here are some examples of ad hominem trash from your gang:
==========================================================

"bigoted humholes peddling this "gun rights" rubbish in public"

"the closer you look at "gun rights" the scummier it is"

"I'm not the one posting childish bigoted horseshit"
=================================================================

Now That is Ad hominem. So much for your claims.
As well, you will notice how childish these anti-gun rants
are. Humhole? Gee, how adult.

[library_max]

77. And why sneer at semantics?

We are discussing whether or not a given statement constitutes a "reason." This clearly hinges on the definition/meaning of the word "reason." What is that if not semantics? Geometry?

[el_gato]

80. You've changed the arguement, it's called a red herring

Someone asked a question and another person gave an answer.
The answer was not what you wanted to hear so you
began to whine about it.

Later, I'm going to have a beer BECAUSE I WANT TO.

[OpSomBlood]

84. "Because I want one" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

If someone asks, "Why did you order a pizza?" you don't have to say, "Because I desire to have the succulent flavor of mozzarella cheese and pepperoni on a thick, doughy crust."

"Because I feel like having one" is just as good an answer.

[library_max]

86. What was the original argument, then?

Since I've "changed" it with my "red herring"? (oops, there's a personal attack I missed!)

Fatuous questions about pizza, beer, and sunshine aren't relevant, because in each case the answer is obvious from the question itself and doesn't require explanation. Nobody actually asks questions like that. TX-RAT was asking a question because he wanted an answer, not attitude. Check out posts #20, 29, 32, 45, and 67 to see what an actual answer to TX-RAT's question looks like. And again, if you really thought TX-RAT was asking a dumb question with an obvious answer, you were in no way obligated to answer it.

[OpSomBlood]

87. TX-RAT deliberately framed the question to filter out certain responses.

So let's not start with "he was just asking a simple question." There was obviously another motive there. See posts 31 and 39.

Also, note how MrBenchley never swooped in to criticize RAT for soliciting "gun porn" even though that's exactly what he was doing, according to the explanation.

[library_max]

88. That rat bastard!

That probably explains why TX-RAT was so nasty and ill-tempered in his replies to #20, 29, 32, 45, and 67. He had "another motive"!

/sarcasm off/

Oh, and complaints about MrBenchley need to go to the MrBenchley complaint desk. This is the library_max complaint desk. Sorry for the confusion.

[OpSomBlood]

89. I gave TX-RAT the benefit of the doubt and played along.

But considering the way he framed the question, one has to wonder what he was getting at.

His initial post was met harshly because it had an interrogative tone to it, as if he was asking people to justify the items they own. Several people interpreted it that way.

[library_max]

91. Several people think George W. Bush is a great President.

Does that make it true?

[OpSomBlood]

96. All I'm saying is that I'm not the only one who saw it that way.

Right or wrong, there were several people who interpreted it as a demand for justification. Considering that TX-RAT is one of the more vocal anti-gun posters (at least in terms of the specific type of rifle he was referring to) here in the Gungeon, it was not unreasonable to draw that conclusion.

[library_max]

98. Hey, we've come a long way here!

From pretending that "Because I feel like it" is a civil answer to implicitly admitting that it was an ill-tempered snarl in response to what was perceived as a loaded question. Can I push my luck and ask you to look at TX-RAT's messages on this thread, to see whether it might be reasonable to admit that you and some of the others misunderstood his intentions? Never mind my messages or MrBenchley's - I'm not complaining about you biting our heads off.

[OpSomBlood]

100. See #28.

n/t

[library_max]

102. #28 is very, very cool.

The only thing that bothers me is that I can't see how you posted #28 after you posted #87. Because in #87 you were trying to make the whole brouhaha TX-RAT's fault. Even #89 proceeds from the same premise.

[OpSomBlood]

109. I'm going to go enjoy my evening.

Have fun.

[library_max]

111. Alas. And we were making such progress. /eom

[happyending]

3. .

I'm a really bad shot. ;)

Note: I do not really own a gun.

[Township75]

4. My reason for wanting to own, and hopefully soon-to-own...

is that I want one.

[FatSlob]

5. My reasons for owning.

I own my full-capacity magazines and autoloading center-fire rifles and carbines for the following reasons:

1. All lawful purposes.
2. All lawful purposes.
3. All lawful purposes.

[FrontPorchPhilosophr]

15. Under the American form of government....

unlike the European forms.... that which is not prohibited, is allowed.

Americans do not have to provide REASONS, absent a legal prohibition - ANYTHING is OK, terminally stupid perhaps, but authorized.

Personally, I don't happen to like to stop and reload just when I'm getting "in the zone, " and the center of the target is starting to disappear.

[FatSlob]

16. I agree about being "in the zone"

That's why I take 32 magazines to the range with me. Each mag has 30 rounds.

[iverglas]

22. wow

Somebody seems to need to get off the front porch and read some real philosophy.

Americans do not have to provide REASONS,
absent a legal prohibition - ANYTHING is OK,
terminally stupid perhaps, but authorized.

Now, can you explain what that has to do with:

Please give your reason for owning <or> needing
a hi-cap, semi-auto center fire rifle.

??

If someone I knew asked me: "Why did you go to the store yesterday?"
I would probably answer: "To buy tomatoes."

But who knows ... you might say: "Americans do not have to provide REASONS, absent a legal prohibition - ANYTHING is OK, terminally stupid perhaps, but authorized."

And I'll bet if you did, you'd have lots of friends, too. Although they might spend a lot of their time shaking their heads.


Under the American form of government....
unlike the European forms.... that which is
not prohibited, is allowed.

Where do some of you people get your notions??

Can you point me to a "European" law that says "thou mayest commit adultery"?

Ever heard of the French Code pénal? I'll bet you think it's a great big book listing all the things that people are allowed to do ...

.

[MrBenchley]

34. Gee, just about the first American document

says "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes "...

I somehow doubt the Colonists would have been inspired to put up much of a fight if Tommy had written "We don't have to give a reason...it's allowed. Nyah nyah nyah."

Ever notice that RKBAers seem to have no grasp of civics, history or logic? It's as if all they know is gun specs and a couple of bits of inaccurate propaganda, and that's all they seem to want to know. Everything else they pull out of their asses.

[OpSomBlood]

37. LOL...no grasp of civics or history?

This coming from the guy who believes that "the people" refers to the National Guard.

[MrBenchley]

40. Yup...not a fucking speck among the RKBA crowd...

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blarguardhistory.htm

[Wickerman]

18. Cuz as my eyes are failing I can't hit squirrels as well as I used to

But with a semi center fire I can squeeze off more rounds, more accurately, and it levels the playing field between me and the squirrel.

[OpSomBlood]

20. Not that reasons are needed, but I'll bite.

I will use my Colt M4 carbine as an example of a "hi-cap, semi-auto centerfire rifle" to attempt to answer your question.

- It is comfortable to shoot. Lightweight and little recoil.
- Rifle magazines are a bitch to reload. Taking a few hi-capacity magazines to the range means more shooting and less loading. This is important when you're shooting by the hour.
- It is a good caliber for small game hunting.
- It is fun and rewarding to get sights zeroed in just right.
- Ammunition is plentiful and cheap.

[iverglas]

24. my goodness

Looky there. Someone answered the question.

.

[RoeBear]

26. So now we can...

...keep them?

[TX-RAT]

27. Thanks OP

Thats all i was asking. Having never owned one i didn't think it was going to be that tough of a question. I'm just trying to get an idea as to why someone would choose it over another rifle.

[OpSomBlood]

28. Sorry for the roundabout...

...the tone of the question implied that you were looking for justification for why "anyone would ever need" such a weapon. That's why a few people got testy.

It's a question of wants, not needs. I can think of a lot of potentially harmful things that people don't "need."

Hope that helped.

Also, are you sure you know what "centerfire" means?

[TX-RAT]

31. Reason i said center fire was to exclude tube feed rim fires.

[OpSomBlood]

33. How the weapon is fed has nothing to do with the ammo type.

And now I'm wondering why you deliberately narrowed the question down like that.

[TX-RAT]

39. Just trying to keep 22s out of the discussion.

[RoeBear]

25. I will answer the implied question...

...tough crap if someone posting here doesn't like that.

The implied question is: Why do I need one? Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't need one. Hell, I don't even own one. But someone please tell me what the lack of an assault weapon would stop me from doing if I were a mind to commit mayhem?

[iverglas]

30. cute

I will answer the implied question...

Since the request was:

Please give your reason for owning <or> needing ...

(I assume TXRat doesn't mind if I correct his typo, "are" for "or")

... I'd say it was a pretty express question.

However, it was phrased in the alternative. A "reason for owning" is not necessarily the same as a "reason for needing". Someone who had a reason for needing the thing was quite welcome to state it, while someone who didn't was quite welcome to state a different reason for owning. Someone who didn't wish to say anything was quite welcome to say nothing, as far as I can tell.

What a bunch of hoohah about nothing.

But someone please tell me what the lack of an assault weapon would stop me from doing if I were a mind to commit mayhem?

Maybe you could start a thread about that. In the present discussion, it smells like a scarlet fishy.

.

[RoeBear]

35. No, I'll just let you answer the question...

But someone please tell me what the lack of an assault weapon would stop me from doing if I were a mind to commit mayhem?

[MrBenchley]

42. So, roe....

"what the lack of an assault weapon would stop me from doing if I were a mind to commit mayhem?"
So society should allow you to be armed with an assault weapon BECAUSE you might be some sort of homicidal maniac?

Guess that's more of that RKBA "logic." "Gimme gun...I might kill you without one, you know."

[RoeBear]

43. Yeah...

...that's what I was saying. :crazy:

But where did I say it was a choice between an assault weapon and nothing? I said it was a choice between (you pick it)

1)a currently available loophole assault weapon

2)a pre-ban assault weapon, like may be available again shortly

3)or your (as to wit) undescribed toughened assault type weapon

AND

Whatever it is that you would allow us gun-owners to have.

Now one more time with feeling:

But someone please tell me what the lack of an assault weapon would stop me from doing if I were a mind to commit mayhem?

[MrBenchley]

44. Too TOO funny!!!!

"where did I say it was a choice between an assault weapon and nothing?"
I'm sorry...where did you say ANYTHING except that you might become a danger to the public, with or without an assault weapon? That sure as fucking hell isn't any sort of rationale for ALLOWING you to have an assault weapon...and a damn fine reason why nobody should be allowed to have one.

"someone please tell me what the lack of an assault weapon would stop me from doing if I were a mind to commit mayhem?"
Jeeze, roe....the responsible course of action in that case is to call the authorities, not give you access to any sort of weapon. You're a menace to yourself and otehrs.

[RoeBear]

46. So you admit...

...that the availablity of a certain type of weapon would have no effect on what I could do.

Again I will ask, just give me one example:

What crime could I not commit if I couldn't get my hands on an assault weapon?

[library_max]

50. Here, Mr. Benchley, let me try.

Let's rephrase the question. Is there any crime Charles Manson couldn't commit without an assault weapon?

If the answer is no, is that a good reason to let Charles Manson have an assault weapon?

[RoeBear]

55. Was Manson a felon prior to the Tate thing?

I have no idea.

But.... would a victim be deader with one of these:




Or one of these:

[MrBenchley]

56. You're welcome to try

but I don't think the problem's on this end...

[library_max]

68. Not intended as a criticism.

And I didn't get anywhere either, so there ya go.

[MrBenchley]

71. Not taken as a criticism...

Don't think it's possible to get some of our "enthusiasts" to say anything sensible, except when they stumble into it by accident.

And just try and catch one saying anything pro-Democrat.

[MrBenchley]

54. I admit that somebody threatening violence

ought not to have any sort of weapon...other than that your point seems pretty fucking daft in every way possible,

"What crime could I not commit if I couldn't get my hands on an assault weapon?"
Hilariously, you couldn't violate the AWB.

[Maurkov]

29. Slightly off topic

My reason for wanting a hi-cap, semi-auto rim fire rifle is that when target shooting, I hate changing the magazine so often. If I wanted to spend more money on the hobby, I could easily graduate to center fire rifles.

[mosin]

32. "Why I own a semi-automatic Avtomat Kalashnikov variant"

by mosin

1. AK variants are inherently reliable. They are designed to operate under adverse conditions without cleaning.
2. It is easy to operate. It has no controls other than a charging handle, a safety lever, and a trigger.
3. The 7.62x39 ammunition offers low recoil.
4. 7.62x39 ammunition is reasonably effective at moderate ranges. Depending on bullet selection it can be used for varmint control or for hunting animals up to and including deer.
5. Military surplus ammunition in 7.62x39 is cheap and plentiful ($70-$100 per 1000rds).
6. 20rd, 30rd, and 40rd magazines are cheap and plentiful ($5-15).
7. 75rd drums are reasonably affordable ($70-$100).
8. All of the above combine to make it an effective home or farm defense weapon.
9. All of the above combine to make it a load of fun at the shooting range.

[jtb33]

45. Because...

When I go to the shooting range with a handgun, I usually go through 300 rounds, and it much easier to store that in 20 magazines rather than carry around an extra 10 (30 total) and it saves me money (buy 20 mags for my handgun rather than 30 - saved $200 on mags by having 20 instead of 30). Also, that way, I save my fingers (and my time) by not having to reload at the range.

[Aunt Anti-bush]

59. I'd never want one, but...

some people use the defense that they want to "collect" stuff like that. I can't understand for the life of me why someone would want to, but that is what they say.

I'd prefer collecting something safe like coins or vinyl records. :)

[OpSomBlood]

61. Guns are as safe as their owner.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that no gun I ever own will ever accidentally harm another person.

[Aunt Anti-bush]

65. I agree with you on that.

I, however, am very clumsy, hence why I collect vinyl and coins.

[OpSomBlood]

69. To each their own.

And that's the reason why nobody is forced to own a gun.

[-..__...]

63. I hope you keep your coin collecton locked up.

Coins are not playthings; small chldren can put them in their mouths and choke on them.

Vinyl records OTOH, make excellent reactive targets. :D

[-..__...]

67. In addition to other reasons given.

They're easily maintained.

Aftermarket parts are plentiful.

There's no limit (at least with the AR series), to the way it can be configured.

Perfect for "3 gun matches" (handgun, rifle, shotgun).

[beevul]

99. I neither ...

"Please give your reason for owning or needing a hi-cap, semi-auto center fire rifle."

I neither own one nor do I percieve to need one.

Truth be told, I really have no desire to own one at this point in time.

I DO however support the right of law abiding folks to own one, should they so desire, or percieve a need to.

[Columbia]

123. Because you don't want me to

[FeebMaster]

128. Nice.

How many assault weapons, pre-ban and post-ban have been sold thanks to the push to ban them?

[Columbia]

131. People always want what they can't have

That's how it is and how it always will be.

We have yet to learn our lesson from prohibition.

[mosin]

Duplicate (n/t)

[mosin]

133. "Click-it or ticket" campaign

To illustrate your point:

I was driving home from work today and heard another radio spot in the Ohio Highway Patrol's seatbelt campaign. The commercial -- and its self-righteous tone -- grated on my nerves. It made me want to take my seatbelt off!

I've never driven a car in my life without a seatbelt, but the mere fact that the government is telling me to wear my seatbelt -- or they're going to give me a ticket -- makes me want to not wear it.

[LibLabUK]

162. Hmm....

I've never driven a car in my life without a seatbelt, but the mere fact that the government is telling me to wear my seatbelt -- or they're going to give me a ticket -- makes me want to not wear it.

Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face seems a strange way to go about making a political protest.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

132. Just stumbled in on this one

I own full cap magazines and semi-auto centerfires because I enjoy shooting them.

As for the rest of the cr4p in this thread: