SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 2 of 5<<12345>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Guns, emotions, and reality, vs the Boston Bomber< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 31
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 629
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 3:07 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I really don’t understand! There were all those killing machines on the streets of America, and not a single mass murder. Maybe, unlike what the anti-gun crowd is preaching, the AR-15 is just another inanimate object that is incapable of spontaneous killing? Kind of like a pressure cooker?

Fortunately, our representatives in the Senate agree, and ensured that we can continue to pick one up at Wal-Mart without too many hassles.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 32
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 3:18 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 2:41 pm)
QUOTE
Ah, I see...you're actually doubly confused (or dishonest).  Not only do you ignore the distinction between law enforcement professionals and the general public; you're also deeply confused (or dishonest) about what the President and gun safety advocates have actually said.  (Hint: it isn't what you say they said.)

My apologies for underestimating the breadth and depth of your confusion (or dishonesty).

More clueless drivel.  Or pehaps dishonest drivel?  With an astonishing breadth and depth of cluelessnes (or dishonesty).

The OP is NOT about the difference "between law enforcement professionals and the general public."  It's nice try at redirection and obfuscation, but a fail.

The OP is about the inherent DEFENSIVE nature of the AR-15 and other semi-auto rifles in the hands of BOTH "law enforcement professionals and the general public."  In BOTH cases, the SAME weapon is being used for the exact SAME purpose, namely self defense.  Which is NOT the purpose declared by many of our elected officials who have declared such weapons appropriate only for offensive military operations.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 33
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 3:33 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 23 2013, 3:00 pm)
QUOTE
Kenv says
"According to the president and the anti-gun crowd, AR-15s and other semi auto rifles have
no place as civilian self- defense weapons"

^^ classic Kenv

Kenv makes an assertion and as is typical of Kenv he gives no quotes from anyone showing the
evidence to back up his statement.

This is precious

On October 16, 2012, in response to the question: "What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?”  Pres Obama stated "....weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets."  Previous and subsequent to this statement Pres Obama included AR-15s and other semi-auto rifles as belonging to the class of weapons labelled "assault weapons" and "weapons designed for soldiers in war".  

And BTW, the AR-15 was sold to the public BEFORE its M-16 full auto version was accepted by the Army.  So its arguable that the AR-15 was "designed for soldiers in war," despite claims to the contrary by our president.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 34
justwalkin Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 494
Joined: Nov. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 3:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Pontificate all you want people; the bottom line is that, in all likelihood, the indicents of the last week just created tens of thousands of new gun owners in the Boston Metro area.  "Cover in place" = "Cower in fear".

--------------
If a day in the mountains is better than a week at work, why aren't I working in the mountains?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 35
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 3:40 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Apr. 23 2013, 2:16 pm)
QUOTE
But we also need to change a gun culture that is more about obsession with firepower that mature use of a tool. As a society we need to grow up and out of that juvenile fascination.

I agree.  Our gun culture is at least a little bit ill, like so many facets of our culture.  However, I believe tinkering with (or as more than some have called for, eliminating) the 2nd amendment is a bad way to change an ill or juvenile gun culture.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 36
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 3:44 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Apr. 23 2013, 2:27 pm)
QUOTE
It wasn't overlooked, the boat was outside the then-current boundaries of the search area, though only by about 2 blocks and the zone was constantly being expanded. Though if he hadn't been discovered there's always the possibility he would have died from his injuries and a lot of unanswered issues would remain. At least with him alive there's some small chance of furthjer information from a live participant.

Though given he went partying after blowing the legs off children I'm not all that ready to take anything he says with any level of trust whatsoever.

That's reassuring, if true.  However I heard on one news outlet that the homowner had previously talked to some law enforcement people who had knocked on his door and asked him some questions, and then called them back later when he discovered the blood, disturbed tarp, etc on his boat.  I'm hoping that report was wrong.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 37
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 3:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(wwwest @ Apr. 23 2013, 2:27 pm)
QUOTE
Its original primary purpose was to ensure the people of the U.S. were armed against oppression by the federal government.

No, wrong again.  Its primary purpose was to have a readily available pool of identified, armed citizens ready to defend their new country and its government from foreign invasion and from internal rebellion.

Note the use of members of the well regulated militia in harshly crushing  Shay's Rebellion in 1787, as described here:
While the government forces organized, Shays, Day, and other rebel leaders in the west organized their forces, establishing regional regimental organizations that were run by democratically elected committees. Their first major target was the federal armory in Springfield.[33] General Shepard had however, pursuant to orders from Governor Bowdoin, taken possession of the armory and used its arsenal to arm a force of some 1,200 militia. He had done this despite the fact that the armory was federal, not state, property, and that he did not have permission from Secretary at War Henry Knox to do so.[34][35]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion

Then General Lincoln proceeded to mop the rest of the rebels with a force of 3000 militia.

They were the National Guard of their day, not rebels against the newly formed government who had to be defeated, as armed rebels have always been defeated in the country.

And then there was the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, put down by President Washington using the militia to crush the rebels:

Militia was called up from New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and eastern Pennsylvania. The federalized militia force of 12,950 men was a large army by American standards of the time: the army that had been with Washington during the Revolutionary War had often been smaller.[85] Because relatively few men volunteered for militia service, a draft was used to fill out the ranks.[86] Draft evasion was widespread, and conscription efforts resulted in protests and riots, even in eastern areas. Three counties in eastern Virginia were the scenes of armed draft resistance.[87] In Maryland, Governor Thomas Sim Lee sent 800 men to quash an antidraft riot in Hagerstown; about 150 people were arrested.[88]





Governor Henry Lee of Virginia commanded the federalized militia army.
Liberty poles were raised in various places as the militia was recruited, worrying federal officials. A liberty pole was raised in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on September 11, 1794.[89] When the federalized militia arrived in that town later that month, suspected pole-raisers were rounded up. Two civilians were killed in these operations. On September 29, an unarmed boy was shot by an officer whose pistol accidentally fired. Two days later, a man was stabbed to death by a soldier while resisting arrest. President Washington ordered the arrest of the two soldiers and had them turned over to civilian authorities. A state judge determined the deaths had been accidental, and the soldiers were released.[90]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

Not exactly what you have in mind, is it??

Please read your last citation.  It states:

"Liberty poles were raised in various places as the militia was recruited, worrying federal officials."  

"Worrying federal officials" is EXACTLY one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment.  It helps keep the federal government in check.

Not exactly what you have in mind, is it??
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 38
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 3:51 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:18 pm)
QUOTE
The OP is NOT about the difference "between law enforcement professionals and the general public."...The OP is about the inherent DEFENSIVE nature of the AR-15 and other semi-auto rifles in the hands of BOTH "law enforcement professionals and the general public."  In BOTH cases, the SAME weapon is being used for the exact SAME purpose, namely self defense.  

Um...right. And, we're back to my original question. Because guns in the hands of law enforcement professionals and in the hands of the general public are emphatically not being used for "the exact SAME purpose".

To begin with, and to state the blindingly obvious, in practice a non-trivial number of guns in the hands of the general public are used for predatory purposes--not for self-defense. (Still more are used for suicide, or as weapons of opportunity in the heat of anger, or "used" accidentally.) So, there's that.

Beyond that, there's the equally obvious point that law enforcement professionals aren't using guns (merely) for self-defense. What they are defending is public order and safety. That's what they're authorized to do by law; that's what they're trained to do; that's what they do as a full-time job.  And it should be entirely non-controversial to say that the people we charge with preserving the peace are likely to need, and should have, more sophisticated weaponry than is required by any individual who does not bear a comparable public charge.


ETA:
QUOTE
"Worrying federal officials" is EXACTLY one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment.  It helps keep the federal government in check.

And how did that work out in practice? Did the Federal government say "Well, golly, the 2nd Amendment really does enshrine the right of insurrection and the Constitution really is a suicide pact, so we'll just let you be"?

Or did they crush the rebellion, making it abundantly clear that whatever rhetoric some of the founders may have used in connection with the 2nd Amendment, in practice it doesn't actually preserve some imaginary right to violent insurrection?

How's your history, Ken? What's the answer?


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 39
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 3:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:00 pm)
QUOTE
TehipiteTom said
QUOTE

Do you genuinely not understand the distinction between law enforcement professionals and the
general public, or are you merely pretending not to understand?


These are the types of questions I routinely ask myself when I read Kenv posts.

It's been so long since I've argued with Ken that I had nearly forgotten what it was like...but yeah, definitely.

Arguing with Ken is like watching a 3-hour-long Emily Litella sketch, but without the "never mind".


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 40
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 4:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 1:06 pm)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:56 pm)
QUOTE

(Ron. @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:46 pm)
QUOTE
Of course! Law enforcement officials are more equal than the general public :p

What a dumb comment.

Why is the left often so humorless and incapable of understanding satire?

It wasn't satire. It was sarcasm. It was a dumb comment because it doesn't work as sarcasm since LEOs actually do have more rights when it comes to firearm use.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 41
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 4:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 23 2013, 3:00 pm)
QUOTE
But the obvious point Kenv is missing is what Tom alluded to, is that the job of Law
enforcement is to protect the community(that would be more along the line of using such a
weapon for defensive purposes) and society has given a lot more trust to Law enforcement
officials compared to the general public.  

What a fascinating assertion.  False, but nevertheless fascinating.

For decades ran and file law enforement personnel in numerous jurisdictions were PROHIBITED from having rifles and even large caliber handguns.  No such restrictions have ever been imposed on "the general public".  The North Hollywood shootout lasted so long precisely because the police on the scene were so heavily out gunned by the perpetrators.  Only AFTER that sad experience were rank and file LAPD officers permitted to have AR-15s and Ruger Mini-14s.  These limitations imposed on police officer weaponry flies totally in the face of Dennis's assertion.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 42
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 4:17 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 3:53 pm)
QUOTE
Arguing with Ken is like watching a 3-hour-long Emily Litella sketch, but without the "never mind".

He splits hairs well though.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 43
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43954
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 4:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:44 pm)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Apr. 23 2013, 2:27 pm)
QUOTE
It wasn't overlooked, the boat was outside the then-current boundaries of the search area, though only by about 2 blocks and the zone was constantly being expanded. Though if he hadn't been discovered there's always the possibility he would have died from his injuries and a lot of unanswered issues would remain. At least with him alive there's some small chance of furthjer information from a live participant.

Though given he went partying after blowing the legs off children I'm not all that ready to take anything he says with any level of trust whatsoever.

That's reassuring, if true.  However I heard on one news outlet that the homowner had previously talked to some law enforcement people who had knocked on his door and asked him some questions, and then called them back later when he discovered the blood, disturbed tarp, etc on his boat.  I'm hoping that report was wrong.

It's not necessarily inconsistent, a generalized household survey "see anything suspicious?" versus a minute inspection of every nook and cranny.... the minute fine-toothed comb inspection would be the much more labor intensive so thrusting out some additional people to give a thinner outward scan seems to to have merit. The presence of those roving patrols might have been what drove him to ground rather than his keeping exposed out on the streets trying to stay ahead of the search pattern.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 44
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 5:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Apr. 23 2013, 1:17 pm)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 3:53 pm)
QUOTE
Arguing with Ken is like watching a 3-hour-long Emily Litella sketch, but without the "never mind".

He splits hairs well though.

And he's a virtuoso of the rote "I know you are, but what am I?" response.

So, there's that.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 45
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 5:19 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 3:51 pm)
QUOTE
Um...right. And, we're back to my original question. Because guns in the hands of law enforcement professionals and in the hands of the general public are emphatically not being used for "the exact SAME purpose".

To begin with, and to state the blindingly obvious, in practice a non-trivial number of guns in the hands of the general public are used for predatory purposes--not for self-defense.

Your "difference" applies ONLY to criminals, be they private citizens or current or former police officers.  No reasonable person considers criminals to be part of the "general public."  The police use their weapons illicitly as much as (and perhaps more than) private citizens.  In New Orleans they were used to illegally disarm very many law abiding gun owners.  Police butality is not uncommon and has been a persistent problem vexing many municipalities.  

QUOTE
Beyond that, there's the equally obvious point that law enforcement professionals aren't using guns (merely) for self-defense.
You keep trying to change the parameters of the OP.  Is that "confusion" or "dishonesty"?

Once again using your vernacular, it is "blindingly obvious" that I never stated, implied or suggested that police only or "merely" use their weapons for self defense.  I used ONE example of defensive police use of AR-15 and other semi-auto rifles to show how the premise that "assault weapons" are ONLY for offensive military action is a LIE.  Contrary to such lies, "assault weapons" have legitimate DEFENSIVE purposes, as shown abundantly and graphically by the dragnet for the Boston Bomber.

I NEVER claimed nor suggested nor implied that such weapons cannot have OTHER uses.  Clearly they do.  Such weapons have been used extensively in multiple wars.  I DID claim, and I repeat the claim, that such weapons, despite their use in war, have a legitimate civilian DEFENSIVE purpose, which is contrary to the lies perpetrated by some elected officials and repeated by folks like you.

QUOTE
What they are defending is public order and safety.
BINGO.  Read that fourth word YOU used above.  "Assault Weapons" have a powerful and nesessary role in DEFENDING the people right here at home, and are NOT just for offensive military operations in war as many elected officials and pundits have claimed.  And clue for you, besides the police, the "militia" plays a vital role in, as you stated, "defending public order and safety."  Guess who that includes?  That's right, a large portion of "the general public"

QUOTE
And it should be entirely non-controversial to say that the people we charge with preserving the peace are likely to need, and should have, more sophisticated weaponry than is required by any individual who does not bear a comparable public charge.
REALLY?  Your assertion flies in the face of the weapons restrictions placed on police in numerous jurisdictions.  For example, until fairly recently (and only after the North Hollywood shootout) LAPD patrol officers were prohibited from having rifles of any kind and even large caliber handguns.  The "general public" has ALWAYS had the legal capability to outgun the police and it can be argued the weapons restrictions placed on police officers were placed there specifically to keep it that way.  It's when CRIMINALS occasionally outgun the police that we encounter problems which politicians try to solve by removing guns from the "general public".


QUOTE
ETA:
QUOTE
"Worrying federal officials" is EXACTLY one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment.  It helps keep the federal government in check.

And how did that work out in practice?
What a foolish question!!  It's "blindingly obvious" that for over two centuries it's worked out GREAT!!!  

QUOTE
Did the Federal government say "Well, golly, the 2nd Amendment really does enshrine the right of insurrection and the Constitution really is a suicide pact, so we'll just let you be"?
You read funny.  Read the 2nd amendment again.  The 2nd amendment protection "of the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is for "the security of a free state".  See that second word in the second quote?  That means The INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms is intended to secure a free state.   It secures the state FROM insurrectionists and does not give free rein TO insurrectionists.  wwwwest provided several examples of that.  Unlike you, the writers of the Constitution trusted the "general public" to know the difference and  ensures they are kept armed.  It's worked brilliantly for over two centuries.

So who are the insurrectionists today?  Perhaps people who want to overturn or eliminate the constitution or portions of it?  Like some in the anti-gun crowd perhaps?

To paraphrase you again:  How's YOUR history, TT?   What's YOUR answer?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 46
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19505
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 5:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 10:36 am)
QUOTE
Do you genuinely not understand the distinction between law enforcement professionals and the general public, or are you merely pretending not to understand?

I'd say the percentage of cops that fall into the "gung ho" category is about the same as the civilian population.

Some might even say it's higher, and that people who like guns gravitate towards law enforcement.

I know if I were a cop facing an armed suspect, I would much rather have a semi-automatic rifle than a 9mm pistol.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 47
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 5:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Apr. 23 2013, 4:00 pm)
QUOTE
It wasn't satire. It was sarcasm.

The statement was a paraphrase from Animal Farm.  That book was satire.


QUOTE
It was a dumb comment because it doesn't work as sarcasm since LEOs actually do have more rights when it comes to firearm use.


Two comments.

1.  The "dumb comment" did not suggest otherwise.  The upper heirarchy in Animal Farm were indeed "more equal" than the general population.  You just proved you don't get the humor.  Which seems to be typical.

2.  It is only sort of true, and usually only on paper.  Many jurisdictions have weapons restrictions on their officers.  For example, until recently, LAPD patrol officers could not have rifles of any kind or even large caliber handguns.   Many jurisdictions still have such restrictions.  No such restrictions are imposed on the general populace and never have been.

As an ATF agent I was for well over a decade only allowed to be armed with an issue weapon.  The issue sidearm was in my opinion seriously underpowered.  Yes, enforcement agencies have legal access to some bullets and other weapons not legal to the general public.  But agencies having access to, and agents in the field having issued such weapons are two VERY different things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 48
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 5:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 3:53 pm)
QUOTE

(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:00 pm)
QUOTE
TehipiteTom said
QUOTE

Do you genuinely not understand the distinction between law enforcement professionals and the
general public, or are you merely pretending not to understand?


These are the types of questions I routinely ask myself when I read Kenv posts.

It's been so long since I've argued with Ken that I had nearly forgotten what it was like...but yeah, definitely.

Arguing with Ken is like watching a 3-hour-long Emily Litella sketch, but without the "never mind".

Aaaaaaah.  Two peas in the same pod with the same narrow stilted vision of the real world.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 49
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6763
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 5:52 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Watch those shadows dance on the wall!  heh

--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 50
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 6:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 2:42 pm)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 3:53 pm)
QUOTE

(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:00 pm)
QUOTE
TehipiteTom said
QUOTE

Do you genuinely not understand the distinction between law enforcement professionals and the
general public, or are you merely pretending not to understand?


These are the types of questions I routinely ask myself when I read Kenv posts.

It's been so long since I've argued with Ken that I had nearly forgotten what it was like...but yeah, definitely.

Arguing with Ken is like watching a 3-hour-long Emily Litella sketch, but without the "never mind".

Aaaaaaah.  Two peas in the same pod with the same narrow stilted vision of the real world.

Dude! Where's your sense of humor?

--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 51
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 6:30 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Kenv said
QUOTE

(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 23 2013, 3:00 pm)
QUOTE

Kenv says
"According to the president and the anti-gun crowd, AR-15s and other semi auto rifles have
no place as civilian self- defense weapons"

^^ classic Kenv

Kenv makes an assertion and as is typical of Kenv he gives no quotes from anyone showing the
evidence to back up his statement.



This is precious

On October 16, 2012, in response to the question: "What has your administration done or
planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?”  Pres Obama stated "....weapons
that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets."  Previous and
subsequent to this statement Pres Obama included AR-15s and other semi-auto rifles as
belonging to the class of weapons labelled "assault weapons" and "weapons designed for
soldiers in war".

And BTW, the AR-15 was sold to the public BEFORE its M-16 full auto version was accepted by
the Army.  So its arguable that the AR-15 was "designed for soldiers in war," despite claims
to the contrary by our president.


This is precious because this is yet another strawman/red herring from Kenv said.

What Kenv said was that I responded to specifically was
"According to the president and the anti-gun crowd, AR-15s and other semi auto rifles have
no place as civilian self- defense weapons"

Kenv then gives as evidence the statement from obama "weapons that were designed for soldiers
in war theaters don’t belong on our streets." but no where in that statement does Obama say
assault weapons aren't capable of defending civilians. Again here is what Kenv went on to
say


Yet the images this past weekend showed literally hundreds of local, state, and federal
civilian enforcement personnel armed with AR-15s and other semi-auto "assault weapons".  The
purpose and mission of these personnel was NOT to "mow down" large numbers of people, nor
even to engage and then kill a force of determined criminals.  Their purpose was to search
for a single, wounded, armed individual with the intent of apprehending that individual and
taking him into custody.  ALIVE.  In other words, all those supposedly "offensive military
assault weapons" that according to our president and others have no use as a defensive arm
were carried by those officers for their own SELF DEFENSE.  And this despite the fact that
all of them already had handguns.


the reason why I italiced quoted the above is that it establishes and clarifies what Kenv
meant when he said According to the president and the anti-gun crowd, AR-15s and other semi
auto rifles have no place as civilian self- defense weapons
. The above establishes
that what Kenv meant to point out is that the AR-15 is a good defense weapon but Obama didn't
say or imply the AR-15 couldn't be a good defense weapon. Obama's statement "weapons
that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets." doesn't say
anything about that.

Also just because a weapon can be used as good defense weapon to get 1 or 2 people doesn't
therefore refute the possiblity that it can more easily take out masses of people more than
other weapons. Heck why does the military prefer to use such weapons as opposed to weapons
that aren't assault weapons? Its this line of thought that motivated Obama's statement and
other similar statements from others.


So I say again when will Kenv stop spewing strawman?


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 52
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 6:31 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

KenV Said
QUOTE

What a fascinating assertion.  False, but nevertheless fascinating.

For decades ran and file law enforement personnel in numerous jurisdictions were PROHIBITED
from having rifles and even large caliber handguns.  No such restrictions have ever been
imposed on "the general public".  The North Hollywood shootout lasted so long precisely
because the police on the scene were so heavily out gunned by the perpetrators.  Only AFTER
that sad experience were rank and file LAPD officers permitted to have AR-15s and Ruger
Mini-14s.  These limitations imposed on police officer weaponry flies totally in the face of
Dennis's assertion.


As I recall Kenv also claimed to work for the ATF one time? Could be wrong but usually my
memory is on the mark.

as for this part
"No such restrictions have ever been imposed on "the general public"

The AWB didn't restrict the general public from using such weapons?

As the North Hollywood shootout,


Phillips and Ma(ta(sa(reanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an HK-91
rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating vehicles and
police Kevlar vests.




The illegally modified automatic AR-15 with a 100-round Beta Magazine used by Matasareanu


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout


Furthermore my statement "society has given a lot more trust to Law enforcement
officials compared to the general public" is in response to Kenv using the example of
law enforcement in the OP(that is Orginal Post Kenv. OP means the starting post Kenv)
using Assault weapons against the brothers so when kenv says "These limitations imposed on
police officer weaponry flies totally in the face of Dennis's assertion" then those limitations
obviously didn't apply to the Police Officers in watertown, massachusetts which is what
I had in mind when I said "society has given a lot more trust to Law enforcement
officials compared to the general public"

But the general premise of what I said, that society trusts law enforcement more than the
general public and therefore would trust them more than the general public to use assault
weapons still stands. But I'm not saying that means legislation has always mirrored that
belief in every way.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 53
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 6:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 23 2013, 3:01 pm)
QUOTE
Kenv said
QUOTE

I wonder why a rightwinger like me can recognize and often appreciate humor used by a leftwinger, but so many leftwingers can't even recognize humor used by a rightwinger?  It's puzzling.


Ya Kenv appreciates humor all right, just like Kenv appreciated that onion piece a while back.

Oh wait.

Funny, DTM.

And I'm glad you brought that up.  It rather proves my point that you and some other leftists did not get my sarcasm in posting that Onion piece.  I've cited The Onion many times on this forum, and never was it because I was "fooled" into thinking it was real. No rightwinger has ever perceived that I thought an Onion piece was real.   Only some of you humorless leftists have gotten that perception.  Which fits right in with my premise.  For many leftists, humorlessness comes with the territory.  

You for example are incessantly adamant that I do not post here for entertainment.  You've devoted entire threads to that premise with tones of almost religious fervor.  You are literally unable to fathom the concept that for me this place is just a fun outlet when I'm in the right mood.  That's why I'm often gone for weeks and months (and sometimes years) at a time.   In that long exchange that you finally pulled out of I was providing flight line engineering support at night.  It was exceedingly boring duty.  But ths forum, and you in particular, were an entertaining distraction.

You just cannot grok that because this forum is so heavily loaded with left wingers that it is a target rich environment where I can go to mock leftists and leftist causes.  And sometimes that's what I'm in the mood for.  That's what this thread is for.  It mocks the politicians (including our prez) who claim that AR-15 and other semi auto rifles only belong on the battlefield and have no place in home defense.  (and by home I don't mean the dwellings that people live in.)  While a rightwinger immediatly got the point of the OP, you leftists keep missing the point, over and over again, making all sorts of arguments unrelated to the salient point of the OP and inferring things I never stated nor implied in the OP.  And I'm enjoying every minute of it.  How come?  I'm on the road and stuck in a boring hotel.

To be honest, HSF is quite different.  Although he's as leftwing as I'm rightwing, I've been able to have some meaningful exchanges with him.  Sometimes with Driftwoody too.  I enjoy such exchanges as well.  In some ways more than I enjoy mocking the leftists.  (Did you catch the distinction I made?  I wonder.)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 54
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 6:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 6:32 pm)
QUOTE

(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 23 2013, 3:01 pm)
QUOTE
Kenv said
QUOTE

I wonder why a rightwinger like me can recognize and often appreciate humor used by a leftwinger, but so many leftwingers can't even recognize humor used by a rightwinger?  It's puzzling.


Ya Kenv appreciates humor all right, just like Kenv appreciated that onion piece a while back.

Oh wait.

Funny, DTM.

And I'm glad you brought that up.  It rather proves my point that you and some other leftists did not get my sarcasm in posting that Onion piece.  I've cited The Onion many times on this forum, and never was it because I was "fooled" into thinking it was real. No rightwinger has ever perceived that I thought an Onion piece was real.   Only some of you humorless leftists have gotten that perception.  Which fits right in with my premise.  For many leftists, humorlessness comes with the territory.  

You for example are incessantly adamant that I do not post here for entertainment.  You've devoted entire threads to that premise with tones of almost religious fervor.  You are literally unable to fathom the concept that for me this place is just a fun outlet when I'm in the right mood.  That's why I'm often gone for weeks and months (and sometimes years) at a time.   In that long exchange that you finally pulled out of I was providing flight line engineering support at night.  It was exceedingly boring duty.  But ths forum, and you in particular, were an entertaining distraction.

You just cannot grok that because this forum is so heavily loaded with left wingers that it is a target rich environment where I can go to mock leftists and leftist causes.  And sometimes that's what I'm in the mood for.  That's what this thread is for.  It mocks the politicians (including our prez) who claim that AR-15 and other semi auto rifles only belong on the battlefield and have no place in home defense.  (and by home I don't mean the dwellings that people live in.)  While a rightwinger immediatly got the point of the OP, you leftists keep missing the point, over and over again, making all sorts of arguments unrelated to the salient point of the OP and inferring things I never stated nor implied in the OP.  And I'm enjoying every minute of it.  How come?  I'm on the road and stuck in a boring hotel.

To be honest, HSF is quite different.  Although he's as leftwing as I'm rightwing, I've been able to have some meaningful exchanges with him.  Sometimes with Driftwoody too.  I enjoy such exchanges as well.  In some ways more than I enjoy mocking the leftists.  (Did you catch the distinction I made?  I wonder.)

OMG

Kenv is still denying that he got snookered by that onion piece

My gaad. Just look at this very response to me


Does it look like Kenv is having fun?

or does it leave the impression that Kenv has stick firmly wedged between his butt cheeks?

I think the answer is obvious


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 55
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 6:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"making all sorts of arguments unrelated to the salient point of the OP and inferring things I never stated nor implied in the OP. "

^^ LOL!!!!! Irony code red

"salient point"

LOL!!!!


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 56
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 6:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Ok folks here is the infamous thread Kenv started where he used the onion piece

http://forums.backpacker.com/cgi-bin....d+palin


Does anyone by Kenv's claim that he wasn't snookered

When Kenv says


I'm hardly left leaning, and I can hardly imagine myself voting for Palin.  Indeed, in the
last election I voted against her.  But 80% of polled "life long democrats" saying they would
vote for Palin just out of a morbid curiosity seems to say a lot about the fickle nature of
democrat party politics and the voters they rely on.  Even Oprah seems to be an on-again,
off-again Palin endorser.  It's a weird world we live in.


Does it look like he understands it was satire from the onion?


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 57
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 7:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 2:19 pm)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 3:51 pm)
QUOTE
Um...right. And, we're back to my original question. Because guns in the hands of law enforcement professionals and in the hands of the general public are emphatically not being used for "the exact SAME purpose".

To begin with, and to state the blindingly obvious, in practice a non-trivial number of guns in the hands of the general public are used for predatory purposes--not for self-defense.

Your "difference" applies ONLY to criminals, be they private citizens or current or former police officers.  No reasonable person considers criminals to be part of the "general public."  The police use their weapons illicitly as much as (and perhaps more than) private citizens.  In New Orleans they were used to illegally disarm very many law abiding gun owners.  Police butality is not uncommon and has been a persistent problem vexing many municipalities.  

QUOTE
Beyond that, there's the equally obvious point that law enforcement professionals aren't using guns (merely) for self-defense.
You keep trying to change the parameters of the OP.  Is that "confusion" or "dishonesty"?

Once again using your vernacular, it is "blindingly obvious" that I never stated, implied or suggested that police only or "merely" use their weapons for self defense.  I used ONE example of defensive police use of AR-15 and other semi-auto rifles to show how the premise that "assault weapons" are ONLY for offensive military action is a LIE.  Contrary to such lies, "assault weapons" have legitimate DEFENSIVE purposes, as shown abundantly and graphically by the dragnet for the Boston Bomber.

I NEVER claimed nor suggested nor implied that such weapons cannot have OTHER uses.  Clearly they do.  Such weapons have been used extensively in multiple wars.  I DID claim, and I repeat the claim, that such weapons, despite their use in war, have a legitimate civilian DEFENSIVE purpose, which is contrary to the lies perpetrated by some elected officials and repeated by folks like you.

QUOTE
What they are defending is public order and safety.
BINGO.  Read that fourth word YOU used above.  "Assault Weapons" have a powerful and nesessary role in DEFENDING the people right here at home, and are NOT just for offensive military operations in war as many elected officials and pundits have claimed.  And clue for you, besides the police, the "militia" plays a vital role in, as you stated, "defending public order and safety."  Guess who that includes?  That's right, a large portion of "the general public"

QUOTE
And it should be entirely non-controversial to say that the people we charge with preserving the peace are likely to need, and should have, more sophisticated weaponry than is required by any individual who does not bear a comparable public charge.
REALLY?  Your assertion flies in the face of the weapons restrictions placed on police in numerous jurisdictions.  For example, until fairly recently (and only after the North Hollywood shootout) LAPD patrol officers were prohibited from having rifles of any kind and even large caliber handguns.  The "general public" has ALWAYS had the legal capability to outgun the police and it can be argued the weapons restrictions placed on police officers were placed there specifically to keep it that way.  It's when CRIMINALS occasionally outgun the police that we encounter problems which politicians try to solve by removing guns from the "general public".


QUOTE
ETA:
QUOTE
"Worrying federal officials" is EXACTLY one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment.  It helps keep the federal government in check.

And how did that work out in practice?
What a foolish question!!  It's "blindingly obvious" that for over two centuries it's worked out GREAT!!!  

QUOTE
Did the Federal government say "Well, golly, the 2nd Amendment really does enshrine the right of insurrection and the Constitution really is a suicide pact, so we'll just let you be"?
You read funny.  Read the 2nd amendment again.  The 2nd amendment protection "of the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is for "the security of a free state".  See that second word in the second quote?  That means The INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms is intended to secure a free state.   It secures the state FROM insurrectionists and does not give free rein TO insurrectionists.  wwwwest provided several examples of that.  Unlike you, the writers of the Constitution trusted the "general public" to know the difference and  ensures they are kept armed.  It's worked brilliantly for over two centuries.

So who are the insurrectionists today?  Perhaps people who want to overturn or eliminate the constitution or portions of it?  Like some in the anti-gun crowd perhaps?

To paraphrase you again:  How's YOUR history, TT?   What's YOUR answer?

Good lord...what a mind-numbing mess of sloppy logic, conclusory assertions, fatuous platitudes, and willful misreading...

There's too much here that's too laughably wrong for me to address all of it, but here are a few observations:

1) Your "general public" vs. "criminals" dichotomy is a purely definitional distinction. In fact, the general public (in any meaningful use of the term) includes criminals. It also includes white supremacists, communists, misogynists, anarchists, people suffering from bipolar disorder, people who harbor inchoate rage at the world, domestic abusers, and a whole lot of people whose judgment and competence aren't nearly as solid as they think.

2) Your caricature of what gun safety advocates argue ('the premise that "assault weapons" are ONLY for offensive military action') bears very little resemblance to the thing it portrays.

3) Your definition of "militia" as encompassing the entirety of the "general public" (carefully redefined to exclude "criminals"), absent any kind of organizational structure that would give the term meaning, bears no resemblance at all to present-day reality.

4) Your assertion that the "militia" (as defined by you) has a role (comparable to that of law enforcement professionals) in defending public order and safety is purely conclusory, and not based on anything in present-day reality.

5) The weapons entrusted to an individual patrol officer do not define the weapons capacity of the police force as an institution. The latter is the relevant factor here.

6) Your extended disquisition on the 2nd Amendment is internally incoherent, untethered to anything resembling reality, and based entirely on definitional premises such as your spurious distinction between the "general public" and "insurrectionists".

7) By the way: the people who rose up against the Federal government in the Whiskey rebellion believed they were fighting tyranny--that is, they believed what they were doing was exactly the sort of thing you claim is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

8) Sadly, it has not "worked brilliantly"; for much of America's history, in large portions of the country, the armed populace has acted in support of (not opposition to) tyranny.

9) The notion that working through the existing structures of government to change the law could be defined as "insurrection" is completely insane.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 58
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 7:03 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 23 2013, 6:31 pm)
QUOTE
As I recall Kenv also claimed to work for the ATF one time? Could be wrong but usually my
memory is on the mark.

As the North Hollywood shootout,


Phillips and Ma(ta(sa(reanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an HK-91
rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating vehicles and
police Kevlar vests.




The illegally modified automatic AR-15 with a 100-round Beta Magazine used by Matasareanu


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout


Furthermore my statement "society has given a lot more trust to Law enforcement
officials compared to the general public" is in response to Kenv using the example of
law enforcement in the OP(that is Orginal Post Kenv. OP means the starting post Kenv)
using Assault weapons against the brothers so when kenv says "These limitations imposed on
police officer weaponry flies totally in the face of Dennis's assertion" then those limitations
obviously didn't apply to the Police Officers in watertown, massachusetts which is what
I had in mind when I said "society has given a lot more trust to Law enforcement
officials compared to the general public"

But the general premise of what I said, that society trusts law enforcement more than the
general public and therefore would trust them more than the general public to use assault
weapons still stands. But I'm not saying that means legislation has always mirrored that
belief in every way.

Your memory is correct.  For well over a decade I was resticted to carrying only the issue sidearm and ammunition.  In my opinion it was woefully underpowered, but I was stuck with it.  Many (most) agencies still have such restrictions.

QUOTE
as for this part
"No such restrictions have ever been imposed on "the general public"

The AWB didn't restrict the general public from using such weapons?
You fell into that one didn't you?  No it did not.  There were numerous and myriad legal ways over, under, and around the AWB by simply altering the look of the weapon (I'd use the word "cosmetics", but you object to that word) without alltering its function or performance one iota.

And you fell into yet another typical leftist trap.  The fact that the shooters used illegal weapons is largely beside the point, although it does rather forcefully illustrate the fuitility of most gun restrictions.  Even with all that massive firepower and over a thousand rounds expended the lunatics killed no one.  NO ONE.   (Well, except one killed himself.)

The point you (typically) missed was that the LAPD was powerless to stop them NOT because the lunatics had automatic weapons, but because the LAPD only had handguns and shotguns.  The police hit the lunatics MANY times.  But the shooters were wearing body armor that the police weaponry could not defeat.   Had ONE of those cops on the scene had an AR-15, the shootout would have been over quickly.  But the patrol cops were prohibited from having rifles.  Those cops did eventually commandeer AR-15s from a nearby gun shop.  And not until a SWAT team armed with AR-15s did the shootout end.

Regular patrol cops are indeed highly limited in their weaponry.  Not until there is some nasty event that requires a SWAT or similar response, are rifles even considered for release to SOME cops.  And that can take hours. And that assumes the agency has rifles to  issue them.  The LAPD did not.   Even ehrn rifles are relelased, many cops have to get by with their handguns, and if they're lucky, with a shotgun.  Did you look at the news videos?  Only a portion of the cops had rifles.  And in a streetfight, a semi auto rifle has a HUGE advantage over a handgun or even a shotgun.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 59
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 7:30 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Kenv Said
QUOTE

You fell into that one didn't you?  No it did not.  There were numerous and myriad legal ways over, under, and around the AWB by simply altering the look of the weapon (I'd use the word "cosmetics", but you object to that word) without alltering its function or performance one iota.


The reason why I brought Kenv claiming to work for the ATF, is that, yet, Kenv claimed over
and over again that the ATF didn't regulate the gun industry but then I found numerous
quotes from ATF's very own website saying the contrary. So what does that have to do with the
above? Because Kenv is yet again making a claim without supportive evidence and so Kenv
wants us to just take his word for it even though Kenv is proven wrong over and over gain.

You know what is so amazing about Kenv is how he is proven wrong over and over again yet he
is still so confident in his claims. You would think someone who is proven wrong so often
would start to lose their confidence but not Kenv.

Kenv Said
QUOTE

And you fell into yet another typical leftist trap.  The fact that the shooters used illegal weapons is largely beside the point,


No it isn't "beside the point" because  Kenv specifically said

For decades ran and file law enforcement personnel in numerous jurisdictions were PROHIBITED
from having rifles and even large caliber handguns.  No such restrictions have ever been
imposed on "the general public"
.


the fact those guns were illegal would seem to contradict Kenv's assertion No such
restrictions have ever been imposed on "the general public"


Kenv Said
QUOTE

although it does rather forcefully illustrate the fuitility of most gun restrictions


And Kenv just fell in the trap that I was trying to illustrate in that other thread. How the
hell would one example illustrate anything unless you think the standard for for establishing
if gun restrictions are justified is if there is even ONE example where it doesn't work which
of course would be irrational? Of course gun regulations, like all regulations, don't stop
all undesirable  behavior but that shouldn't justification to not have regulations. We have
pollution still in the US, and the world, so does that mean that since the EPA hasn't been
able to eliminate all pollution that we should not have the EPA or any regulations meant
to reduce pollution? Of course not

The irony is that on this very point in another thread Kenv said to me And BTW, no one
but you said that laws must "solve everything" before they should be passed.  Kind of a
strawman, huh?


Well it certainly seems Kenv is much closer to the viewpoint that laws should  "solve
everything" more than me.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 60
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 8:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 9:21 am)
QUOTE
There was LOTS of imagery recently on the pursuit of the Boston Bomber in Watetown, Mass.  The images were in stark contrast to the claims made and rhetoric expressed by our president and his anti-gun supporters.

According to the president and the anti-gun crowd, AR-15s and other semi auto rifles have no place as civilian self- defense weapons.  Supposedly they are strictly offensive miltary "assault weapons" designed to "mow down" large numbers of people.

Yet the images this past weekend showed literally hundreds of local, state, and federal civilian enforcement personnel armed with AR-15s and other semi-auto "assault weapons".  The purpose and mission of these personnel was NOT to "mow down" large numbers of people, nor even to engage and then kill a force of determined criminals.  Their purpose was to search for a single, wounded, armed individual with the intent of apprehending that individual and taking him into custody.  ALIVE.  In other words, all those supposedly "offensive military assault weapons" that according to our president and others have no use as a defensive arm were carried by those officers for their own SELF DEFENSE.  And this despite the fact that all of them already had handguns.

The imagery clearly and emphatically proved that the presidential, senatorial, and congressional speechifying that AR-15s and other "military style" rifles are not appropriate for self defense were a complete and total lie.

Or do the anti-gun folks on this forum have a spin on the imagery that contradicts the conclusion above?  If so, I'd  dearly love to read it.

I figure the cops carry AR-15's cuz they're among the most effective killing tools.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
139 replies since Apr. 23 2013, 12:21 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 2 of 5<<12345>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Guns, emotions, and reality
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions