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 3 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: 61
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 8:59 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 5:38 pm)
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.

God you're thick.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 62
Ron. Search for posts by this member.
don't surround yourself with your self
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 11994
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 10:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Apr. 23 2013, 7:59 pm)
QUOTE

(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 5:38 pm)
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.

God you're thick.

Maybe it is a failure on your part to communicate effectively.

--------------
And be kind toward one another
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 63
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 10:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ron. @ Apr. 23 2013, 10:00 pm)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Apr. 23 2013, 7:59 pm)
QUOTE

(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 5:38 pm)
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.

God you're thick.

Maybe it is a failure on your part to communicate effectively.

Seems more like failure on your part to offer an original thought.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 64
Ron. Search for posts by this member.
don't surround yourself with your self
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 11994
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 10:18 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Apr. 23 2013, 9:02 pm)
QUOTE

(Ron. @ Apr. 23 2013, 10:00 pm)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Apr. 23 2013, 7:59 pm)
QUOTE

(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 5:38 pm)
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.

God you're thick.

Maybe it is a failure on your part to communicate effectively.

Seems more like failure on your part to offer an original thought.

Well, there is nothing new under sun  :;):

--------------
And be kind toward one another
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 65
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6647
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 10:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ron. @ Apr. 23 2013, 9:18 pm)
QUOTE
Well, there is nothing new under sun  :;):

+1 for good humor

--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 66
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 23 2013, 10:23 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, 10:22 pm)
QUOTE

(Ron. @ Apr. 23 2013, 9:18 pm)
QUOTE
Well, there is nothing new under sun  :;):

+1 for good humor

Ken will be along shortly to explain it to the rest of us dummies.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 67
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 10:22 am 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, 4:49 pm)
QUOTE
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.

Thanks for the additional info.  I've not been following this mess too closely and I appreciate the additional details.  Maybe I'll do some google searches to get caught up.  For example I had no idea the lunatic claimed to have partied after learning of the mayhem he had caused.  Thanks again.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 68
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 10:32 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 6:06 pm)
QUOTE
Dude! Where's your sense of humor?

And where's your's?  I thought the two peas in a pod allusion was hilarious.  Can't you picture it?   TT and Dennis together, tightly snug, sharing a pod.  Maybe take advantage of the opportunity to do some spooning.  You can't picture that?  My, my, how humorless.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 69
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 10:40 am 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, 6:30 pm)
QUOTE
So I say again when will Kenv stop spewing strawman?

This is hilarious.  Your failed retort was addressed quite succinctly by our president's running mate.  Joe Biden made it abundantly clear that the administration's position is that a semi-auto rifle is not a defense weapon and that for defense, people should turn to a shotgun.  A double barrelled shotgunn specifically.  Never mind that a large number of people can't safely (never mind effectively) handle a shotgun.

But please, do keep trying.  This is quite entertaining.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 70
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 10:48 am 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, 6:48 pm)
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?

You really do have difficulty with sarcasm, don't you?

And you really do  believe you can read my mind and plumb my heart, huh?  You're STILL claimimg (ney, emphatically declaring) that I don't post here for entertainment.

Please, do keep this up Dennis.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 71
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 12:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 7:01 pm)
QUOTE
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:

Oh my, this is fun.  I'm dealing with guys with their hair on fire.  Let's have some more fun point by point.

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.  
“Purely a definitional distinction?”  Blindingly obvious!  But its those definitions that are CRITICAL.  In your zeal to keep “assault weapons” out of the hands of criminals, you propose to keep such weapons out of the hands of ALL law abiding citizens.  Sorry, but the constitution appears to disallow that.  Further, the majority of citizens today oppose that.  As for the many deviants from the norm you listed, once again you stated the “blindingly obvious”.  Unless you’re claiming that only you can perceive the blindingly obvious, the writers of the constitution were very aware of such deviations from the norm.  Indeed that is why they ensured the constitution protected the population’s right to keep and bear the tools necessary to protect the populace from such deviates.  Some of whom may even be wearing a uniform and/or a badge.  And as another poster on this thread pointed out, perhaps those wearing badges are MORE likely to fall outside the norm.

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.
This is HILARIOUS!!  I write about politicians and you attempt to redefine them as “gun safety advocates”.  Yet another failed attempt at obfuscation.  And if your statement that “gun safety advocates” argue that “assault weaspons” make excellent defensive arms.  AMEN.  The nation’s premier gun safety organization, the NRA, has been saying that for a LOOOONG time.

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.
More hilarity.  It’s blindingly obvious that criminals do NOT belong to the militia, either in the past or in the “present-day reality”.  As for your confusion about the “organizational structure” of the militia, that “structure” has changed continuously over the more than two centuries since the 2nd amendment was written.  Nevertheless the Supreme Court has CLEARLY stated, and done so in “present day reality” that the 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right that is totally independent of how the militia is “structured”.  Surely you’re aware of that.  So, are you “confused” again, or are you being “dishonest”?

4) Your assertion that the "militia" (as defined by you) has a role ([i]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.[/I]
Still more hilarity.  The 2nd amendment is VERY clear and very succinct.  The militia exists because………wait for it………….the militia is “necessary to the security of a free State”.  The constitution is SILENT on police forces being necessary for a free state or anything else.  Surely you knew that.  So, are you “confused” again, or are you being “dishonest”?

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.
REALLY?  What ludicrous hilarity.  Without the individual guy in the street the “police force as an institution” is meaningless.  This was proved succinctly and definitively in North Hollywood when DOZENS of officers in the street could not defeat the body armor of TWO of the deviates you listed above (who incidently were ALSO convicted criminals).  It mattered not at all that numerous AR-15s were sitting in the armory back at the station.  Those cops ended up commandeering civilian AR-15s from a nearby gun store.  And secondarily, when citizens must depend ONLY on police officers to defend them, those police officers are at best minutes away.  And if they need a rifle to provide the necessary defense, it’s HOURS away.  Many (most?) defense situations require a response measured in seconds or even fractions thereof.  The 2nd amendment exists at least partially to allow citizens the right to resolve that conundrum.

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".
“Extended disquisition”?!!  If you say so.  And if you’re claiming that the 2nd amendment does NOT imply that the general public is necessary for the security of a free State, please use your brilliance to inform us how the 2nd amendment states that police forces are necessary for the security of a free state.

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.
Yeah, so?  LOTS of people hold such and similar delusions.  The “general populace” disagreed.  And two centuries later they are STILL proved correct.  Many politicians (both on the left and the right) hold the delusion that removing AR-15s and similar weapons from the “general populace” is allowed by the constitution and will result in greater security of our free State.  However, the “general populace” today disagrees with them.  And you.  Yeah, I know, that sets your hair on fire.  Get over it and find a bucket of water.

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.
REALLY?  We live under a tyranny today?  Good to know, but I disagree.  I'm firmly convinced that we do NOT live under a tyranny today, and that is largely because of the SUCCESS of the 2nd amendment and not because of its failure, as you implied.

9) The notion that [i]working through the existing structures of government to change the law could be defined as "insurrection" is completely insane.[/I]
The notion that I claimed such is completely insane.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 72
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43955
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 12:40 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 24 2013, 7:22 am)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Apr. 23 2013, 4:49 pm)
QUOTE
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.

Thanks for the additional info.  I've not been following this mess too closely and I appreciate the additional details.  Maybe I'll do some google searches to get caught up.  For example I had no idea the lunatic claimed to have partied after learning of the mayhem he had caused.  Thanks again.

People at his unviversity, where he went back to his dorm after the bombing,  were interviewed and described his behavior in the days after and mentioned that as well as other things, not from the guy himself.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 73
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 12:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 74
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 12:55 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, 7:30 pm)
QUOTE
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"


everything" more than me.

Dennis you slay me.  You really do.  That's why it's so entertaining to visit this forum on occasion.

Did you actually read what I wrote and that you jquoted repeatedly?  I stated that cops have been prohbited from having rifles and large caliber handguns.

The weapons used by the North Hollywood lunatics were fully automatic rifles.  AKA machine guns.  The rifles (e.g AR-15s and similar semi-auto weapons, which have been the sole topic of this thread from the very beginning) and large caliber handguns that were prohibited to the LAPD patrol cops were NOT prohibited to the average citizen.  And that is why the cops had to commandeer such weapons from prvate citizens.  Private citrizens had the weaponry prohibited to the patrol cops.

You read funny, Dennis.  Just one more reason why its so entertaining to visit this forum on occasion.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 75
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 1:11 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, 7:30 pm)
QUOTE
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.

Wow.  Truly hilarious!!  I said most gun restrictions are"futile."  Futile is defined as
"ineffective, not successful, having no useful result."  Dennis redefines that to mean "must stop all undesirable  behavior."  I neither said, nor implied nor suggested any such thing.  So certainly we are dealing with a strawman.

Since Dennis fails to grasp the obvious (as well as the topic of this thread), let me clarify for Dennis' sake.  My statement clearly meant that most gun restrictions are futile because they are ineffective or not successful, or fail to produce any useful result in accomplishing the purpose for which they were iintended.  And sometimes they even have an effect opposite to that intended.  The AWB is an excellent example of a futile gun law that failed miserably.  It did almost nothing  to improve safety or reduce crime or keep "assault weapons" out of the hands of criminals, or indeed anything it was intended to accomplish.

As TT said, it is "blindingly obvious" that no law can be 100% effective.  Yet here's Dennis erecting that previously failed strawman.  AGAIN.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 76
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 1:46 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Apr. 24 2013, 12:40 pm)
QUOTE
People at his unviversity, where he went back to his dorm after the bombing,  were interviewed and described his behavior in the days after and mentioned that as well as other things, not from the guy himself.

OK, that makes more sense.  I had not heard they had interviewed his dorm mates after the bombings.  But wow.  What a cold hearted monster.  What turns people into such monsters?  For me, the fact that kids, especially kids who grew up in suburban America can be turned into such monsters is much more scary than all the assault weapons and pressure cooker bombs in the world.  I really hope the authorities are able to plumb deeply into this kid's psyche and possibly determine/establish/define markers that can help identify such monsters before they act.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 77
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 1:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Apr. 23 2013, 8:59 pm)
QUOTE
God you're thick.

God has nothing to do with it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 78
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 1:52 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Apr. 23 2013, 10:02 pm)
QUOTE
Seems more like failure on your part to offer an original thought.

Are you implying this thought was original?  Try again.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 79
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 2:57 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Kenv Said
QUOTE

This is hilarious.  Your failed retort was addressed quite succinctly by our president's
running mate.  Joe Biden made it abundantly clear that the administration's position is that
a semi-auto rifle is not a defense weapon and that for defense, people should turn to a shotgun.  A double barrelled shotgunn specifically.  Never mind that a large number of people can't safely (never mind effectively) handle a shotgun.

But please, do keep trying.  This is quite entertaining.


Yes it is hilarious because ^^ this is yet another example of a reading comprehension  fail from Kenv


I already addressed this when I said in post 28


Having said that, Biden did say that a Shotgun was more appropriate for self-defense than a
gun like an AR-15 but that isn't the same thing as saying that AR-15 can't be used as a
defense weapon or something along those lines.


Once again did everyone notice that Kenv didn't actually quote from Biden? (dead giveaway)


here is the specific quote Biden used


“If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barreled shotgun,” he said. “You don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim. It’s harder to use and, in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news....P4bv7JB


No where did Biden say that the AR-15 isn't capable of being a defense weapon but only that
double-barreled shotgun would be a better defense weapon than an AR-15.

Another Kenv fail


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 80
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 2:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Kenv said
QUOTE

ou really do have difficulty with sarcasm, don't you?

And you really do  believe you can read my mind and plumb my heart, huh?  You're STILL claimimg (ney, emphatically declaring) that I don't post here for entertainment.

Please, do keep this up Dennis.


No its Kenv who obviously had the problem with sarcasm.  Everyone can obviously see Kenv got
snookered by that onion piece.  Is there anyone is this forum who believes Kenv when he
says he didn't get snookered by that onion piece?

Here it is again

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


Here is what Kenv says in the OP


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.


Is clear no in that thread was buying Kenv's lame exuse. In post 35 on page 2 Kenv then says

You lefties slay me.  In your churlish efforts to portray me as humorless, you completely
missed the fact that the thread was itself a joke.  I was curious to see how many would
actually view the link (and thus the source of the "data") before commenting on my post.

LOL!!

I've hashed this out so many times with Kenv. I given example after example of Kenv taking
this forum way too seriously. Furthermore I've explained before the context in which Kenv
makes this accusation that just here for the entertain value, etc..


So when Kenv says something and its shown to be BS, Kenv says "Oh I'm just having fun"
..... and if I were to treat his post that way he would get all the sudden serious again
with responses "you dodged my question" or something like that. Its the stupid game Kenv is
and has been playing for sometime now.
 

http://forums.backpacker.com/cgi-bin....1157071

&


See what Kenv does is he goes back and forth between essentially claiming two different
posting styles. When he gets caught with his inconsistenties he then falls back on "i'm just
trolling"(even though he calls others players/trolls,having fun,etc..) or something along
those lines but if you notice he can't just ignore when I actually point out these various
inconsistencies and so kenV attempts a serious reply and when I note the inconsistencies
with that he falls back with a "oh i'm just having fun"..etc.. . KenV thinks no one is
looking.


http://forums.backpacker.com/cgi-bin....1152286


Kenv should just come clean and admit what everyone else knows which is that he got snookered
by that onion piece.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 81
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 3:00 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, 7:30 pm)
QUOTE


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.


Wow.  Truly hilarious!!  I said most gun restrictions were "futile."  Dennis redfines that
to mean that a successful restriction can ONLY mean "must stop all undesirable  behavior."  
I neither said, nor implied nor suggested any such thing.  So certainly we are dealing with
a strawman.


typical Kenv drama queen. Ever notice how Kenv likes to uses certain words or phrases to
compensate such as "truly hilarious","you slay me" or "this is fun".

and no I didn't redefine anything. I said "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?" and
it would still be irrational to come to any such conclusion about "most" gun restrictions
based on one example. Do we conclude that most environment regulations that the EPA has to
enforce are futile because one particular regulation failed to prevent pollution in one
particular factory at one particular point in time? If the standard is a regulation must
be able to stop X outcome anywhere at any point in time or else it illustrates how "futile." most
regulations are then that is very unrealistic standard to say the least

kenv said
QUOTE

Since Dennis fails to grasp the obvious (as well as the topic of this thread), let me
clarify for Dennis' sake.  My statement clearly meant that most gun restrictions are futile
because they fail to accomplish anything even approaching what they are intended to
accomplish and sometimes even have an effect opposite to that intended.


"clearly meant"

So where in this thread did Kenv "clearly" explain that part and with evidence and not Kenv's
typical BS unsubstantiated bloviating Kenv typically does just like how Kenv bloviated about
the ATF not regulating the gun industry, even when he supposedly had worked for the ATF,
when obviously the ATF did and does regulate the gun industry?

If Kenv did work for the ATF and yet didn't know that this very organization he worked for
regulates the gun industry(combined with Kenv's history of this forum of being wrong
over and over again) then why should anyone believe Kenv ever says unless he actually
provides quotes and reliable sources that we can all verify? Of course Kenv typically doesn't
do this. He just makes claims as if we are just going take his word for it. I'm certainly not
going to take Kenv's word for anything given his history on this forum.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 82
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 3:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Kenv said
QUOTE

Dennis you slay me.  You really do.  That's why it's so entertaining to visit this forum on
occasion.

Did you actually read what I wrote and that you jquoted repeatedly?  I stated that cops have
been prohbited from having rifles and large caliber handguns.

The weapons used by the North Hollywood lunatics were fully automatic rifles.  AKA machine
guns.  The rifles (e.g AR-15s and similar semi-auto weapons, which have been the sole topic
of this thread from the very beginning) and large caliber handguns that were prohibited to
the LAPD patrol cops were NOT prohibited to the average citizen.  And that is why the cops
had to commandeer such weapons from prvate citizens.  Private citrizens had the weaponry
prohibited to the patrol cops.

You read funny, Dennis.  Just one more reason why its so entertaining to visit this forum on
occasion.



Ok yet the key part of Kenv's OP was this


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.


So kenv starts of with the example where law enforcement was using guns like AR-15 to
try and make the case they can be used as defense weapons and so I then point out that
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.


Kenv then uses this North Hollywood example to disprove that response from me. So kenv
is trying to have it both ways.  Kenv goes back to 1997 for an example in North Hollywood
where Law enforcement were not legally permitted to have guns like an AR-15(according to
Kenv) to show that the public doesn't trust law enforcement to have such weapons but then at
the same time starts off in the OP(that is Original Post Kenv. Got it?) where Kenv uses as
example of the law enforcement now in 2013 where they do use AR-15. If Kenv is going to use
his first example to make the argument that AR-15 can be used as a defensive weapon then it
can also be used to negate his example of using North Hollywood(2013 trumps 1997 since it is
more recent).


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 83
Buggyboo Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Guests
Posts: 1153
Joined: Feb. 2013
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 6:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:36 pm)
QUOTE
Do you genuinely not understand the distinction between law enforcement professionals and the general public, or are you merely pretending not to understand?

Oh yea, these professional guys! I sure feel real safe with ole Barney Fife here! :D


"A SWAT team in upstate New York is being mocked as an example of the difference between military and police training after an officer was captured peering through a backwards sight on his combat rifle."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news....QHe1oYd
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook :D  :D


--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"

Charlton Heston
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 84
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 6:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Buggyboo @ Apr. 24 2013, 6:36 pm)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ Apr. 23 2013, 12:36 pm)
QUOTE
Do you genuinely not understand the distinction between law enforcement professionals and the general public, or are you merely pretending not to understand?

Oh yea, these professional guys! I sure feel real safe with ole Barney Fife here! :D


"A SWAT team in upstate New York is being mocked as an example of the difference between military and police training after an officer was captured peering through a backwards sight on his combat rifle."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news....QHe1oYd
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook :D  :D

With these kinds of mistakes occurring from trained professionals why would you spend so much time suggesting people with far less training be armed?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 85
Buggyboo Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Guests
Posts: 1153
Joined: Feb. 2013
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 6:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Apr. 24 2013, 6:42 pm)
QUOTE
With these kinds of mistakes occurring from trained professionals why would you spend so much time suggesting people with far less training be armed?

If your asking that question, nothing in this world would make you understand!

--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"

Charlton Heston
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 86
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 6:59 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 24 2013, 2:57 pm)
QUOTE
Yes it is hilarious because ^^ this is yet another example of a reading comprehension  fail from Kenv

I already addressed this when I said in post 28


Having said that, Biden did say that a Shotgun was more appropriate for self-defense than a
gun like an AR-15 but that isn't the same thing as saying that AR-15 can't be used as a
defense weapon or something along those lines.


Once again did everyone notice that Kenv didn't actually quote from Biden? (dead giveaway)

Uhhh Dennis? I "already addressed" it also when I provided a link to a video that provided BOTH the question and Biden's complete reply to that question.

In cased you missed it, here is the link again.

LINK

Biden's derisive and condescending tone in the video makes it clear that not only are AR-15s "not needed", but those who think they are are deluded.

The following videos I also linked to graphically show that not only was Biden wrong about there being "no need", he was talking out of his anal orifice when he said it's easier for women to aim and shoot shotguns than AR-15s.

LINK2

LINK3

Let's continue with your hilarious post.

QUOTE
here is the specific quote Biden used


“If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barreled shotgun,” he said. “You don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim. It’s harder to use and, in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun


No where did Biden say that the AR-15 isn't capable of being a defense weapon but only that
double-barreled shotgun would be a better defense weapon than an AR-15.

Another Kenv fail


Uh Dennis?  You did it AGAIN.  

The salient statement in my OP was as follows:

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. 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.

I used the words "not appropriate for self defense" TWICE to describe Obama's declaration that AR-15s and the like do not belong on our streets.  And also to describe  Biden's different but similar declaration that no one "needs" an AR-15 for self defense and should make do with a double barrel shotgun instead.

I believe the words "not appropriate" for self defense are a reasonable way to describe the gist of the administration's position as expressed in those two diffferent but similar statements, not to mention the many other statements by like minded politicians.

I  believe YOUR phrase "isn't capable of being a defense weapon" is a totally UNreasonable way to describe my use of the phrase "not appropriate for self defense."

For the record, "not appropriate" has a number of definitions, among them:
-Not suitable or proper in the circumstances
-improper
and even (in "urban" useage)
-The word used to denote that while not technically "wrong", one must conform and alter their behavior
-The euphemism for "bad" or "wrong".


So, after attempting to redefine "futile" you now attempt to redefine "not appropriate".  That's two glaring strawmen.  IN A ROW!!

Good for you Dennis!

On a related note, Biden's "you don't need" and Obama's "don't belong on our streets" statements have been used and are currently being used to justify restictions or outright bans on AR-15s, many similar rifles, 20 and 30 round magazines, telescoping stocks, pistol grips, and a whole host of firearms related items and cosmetic features.

The salient point of the OP was that both Biden's and Obama's statements are utterly false.  Further, attempts to restrict or ban articles related to those statements are utterly without merit.

And you CONTINUE to miss (or perhaps more correctly twist) that salient point, over and over.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 87
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 7:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Apr. 24 2013, 6:42 pm)
QUOTE
With these kinds of mistakes occurring from trained professionals why would you spend so much time suggesting people with far less training be armed?

As usual, you've got the question a$$ backward.
'
The constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Pretty simple.

No one is "suggesting" untrained people should "be armed."  The point is, they have a RIGHT to "be armed. " The question is, why are you and many like you not merely suggesting, but demanding, that they be unarmed or under-armed?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 88
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 7:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Buggyboo @ Apr. 24 2013, 6:49 pm)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Apr. 24 2013, 6:42 pm)
QUOTE
With these kinds of mistakes occurring from trained professionals why would you spend so much time suggesting people with far less training be armed?

If your asking that question, nothing in this world would make you understand!

Can you offer a response that doesn't give the impression that you have no idea how to respond like an intelligent person?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 89
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 7:33 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 24 2013, 3:00 pm)
QUOTE
Kenv said
QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 23 2013, 7:30 pm)
QUOTE


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.


Wow.  Truly hilarious!!  I said most gun restrictions were "futile."  Dennis redfines that
to mean that a successful restriction can ONLY mean "must stop all undesirable  behavior."  
I neither said, nor implied nor suggested any such thing.  So certainly we are dealing with
a strawman.


typical Kenv drama queen. Ever notice how Kenv likes to uses certain words or phrases to
compensate such as "truly hilarious","you slay me" or "this is fun".

and no I didn't redefine anything. I said "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?" and
it would still be irrational to come to any such conclusion about "most" gun restrictions
based on one example. Do we conclude that most environment regulations that the EPA has to
enforce are futile because one particular regulation failed to prevent pollution in one
particular factory at one particular point in time? If the standard is a regulation must
be able to stop X outcome anywhere at any point in time or else it illustrates how "futile." most
regulations are then that is very unrealistic standard to say the least

Oh Dennis!!  Are you claiming I misquoted you?  My quote was a direct cut and paste.

Now, regarding the following phrase in your backpedal:

If the standard is a regulation must be able to stop X outcome anywhere at any point in time or else it illustrates how "futile" most regulations are then that is very unrealistic standard to say the least

I NEVER stated, nor suggested, nor implied that a "regulation must be able to stop X outcome anywhere at any point in time".  NEVER.  So yet ANOTHER strawman.  (yeah,yeah, you started your phrase with an "if".  That does not excuse it.)

I clearly used the words "most" gun restrictions and "futile".  And indeed, "most" gun restriction laws do NOT accomplish their intended purpose and I even provided a specific exaple to illustrate my point.  The AWB failed to stop nearly ALL its intended outcomes at nearly EVERY point in time that it existed.  That is the definition of futile I clearly and "blindingly obviously" intended, and not the weird bastardizatioin from you that I quoted above.

Oh and BTW, the bill that recently failed in the Senate was pushed with parents of Sandy Hook vicims looking on.  The publicly described intent was clear: We must "save our children" and "prevent similar tragedies."  Would or even could the failed legislation have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy or even a remotely "similar tragedy"?  Nope.  So yes, your statement was a strawman in that thread just as it is a strawman in this thread.  No one in that thread or this one has suggested that a "regulation must be able to stop X outcome anywhere at any point in time".  

That supposed "standard" was YOUR creation, and it was clearly a strawman, your (failed) protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 90
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 9:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 24 2013, 4:05 pm)
QUOTE
The question is, why are you and many like you not merely suggesting, but demanding, that they be unarmed or under-armed?

I only know of ONE person in this forum that suggests we should be unarmed.  So that statement holds virtually no value whatsoever.  

As far as "underarmed"...that's a good one Ken.  Such a broad statement could be taken anywhere.  You and I are most certainly underarmed if it came to overthrowing a tyrannical government - with or without an AR-15 and a big phalic 30 round clip.  The same isn't true for home/personal protection.
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 3 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