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 4 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: 91
Raznation Search for posts by this member.
Why surf when you can make waves!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 24421
Joined: Sep. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 9:16 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Buggyboo @ Apr. 24 2013, 5:36 pm)
QUOTE
meh

I see that you have your fourth box now.

So this is for you.

'The sword of Damocles is hanging over my head

And Ive got the feeling someones gonna be cutting the thread

Oh, woe is me, my life is a mystery

Oh, cant you see that Im at the start of a pretty big downer?'


--------------
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 92
Raznation Search for posts by this member.
Why surf when you can make waves!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 24421
Joined: Sep. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 9:19 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, 1:57 pm)
QUOTE
Yes it is hilarious because ^^ this is yet another example of a reading comprehension  fail from Kenv

You should ask about how he is doing with his 'software writing'  class.

I still laugh about that.


--------------
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 93
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 9:47 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hbfa @ Apr. 24 2013, 9:07 pm)
QUOTE
I only know of ONE person in this forum that suggests we should be unarmed.  So that statement holds virtually no value whatsoever.  

If you say so.  But I recall more than one person expressing the thought that we as a civilized society should not be armed and at least one who declared that even the police should not be armed.

QUOTE

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.
Oh good grief.  Such punctilious interpretations are so  annoying.  The context of the OP and this thread make clear that the term "under armed" refers to denying private individuals the right to arm themselves with so-called "assault weapons".  If that was not obvious, then let me clarify by emphatically stating that that is what I meant.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 94
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 10:30 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

KenV said
QUOTE


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



Kenv says he addressed it but doesn't give the quote where he does

In contrast I say I addressed it and give the exact quote where I did


Kenv claims Biden said the AR-15 isn't capable of being a weapon for defense purposes but once again fails to give
the quote that shows that

I, on the other hand, give the quote from Biden he just says that a Shotgun would be more appropriate as a defense weapon

Note, and this is Kenv's MO, he makes claims of this or that but actual quotes to back up his claims are few and far
between and when he does actually quote, they are so often irrelevant quotes or some other strawman

KenV said
QUOTE

Let's continue with your hilarious post.


^^ Kenv compensating again as he does so often


KenV said
QUOTE

Uh Dennis?  You did it AGAIN.  

The salient statement in my OP was as follows:


The only person who thinks Kenv made a salient point is Kenv

KenV said
QUOTE

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.  


Notice how Kenv equates "not appropriate for self defense" to not belonging on our streets. Now here is the quote
(the "don’t belong on our streets" quote Kenv quoted) in larger context(of which surprise surprise Kenv just happens
to leave out)


But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets.
And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of
it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of
the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using
AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”


NO WHERE Does Obama say such weapons are not appropriate because they are no appropriate for defense weapons. It
is beyond clear that he comes to that conclusion because "designed for soldiers in war theaters".  Total misreprsenation
of what Obama said and yet another strawman by Kenv yet Kenv hypocritically accuses me of a strawman

KenV said
QUOTE

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.


This is what Kenv said

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.


Again here is the quote from Biden

I promise, you … whoever’s coming in is not gonna … 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 shot gun.


No where does Biden say an AR-15 isn't a defensive weapon. Its comparison between the AR-15 and a shotgun. Kenv
continues to misrepresent what Biden said as well as other people

KenV said
QUOTE

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."


Lets be clear.  What does it mean to say a "a semi-auto rifle is not a defense weapon" or '"not appropriate" for self
defense"?

Does it mean that semi-auto rifles aren't capable of being a defense weapon?

If so then that certainly is NOT the Obama administrations position but isn't that what Kenv was trying to say when he
using the example in the OP about the Waterton police used the AR-15?

If it means, on the other hand, that semi-auto rifle aren't needed as defense weapons because
A) there are other weapons that aren't semi-auto rifle that can do the job as a defensive weapon

B) that "semi-auto rifle" have a higher potential for mass casualties and thus more lethal for offensive purposes

Then that is the Obama's position but Kenv's example of using the Waterton police using the AR-15 certainly doesn't
disprove A) & B)  

KenV said
QUOTE

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."


No its totally reasonable since it is consistent with the example Kenv used of the Waterton police using the AR-15.
What was the purpose of using that as Kenv's example in the OP?

KenV said
QUOTE


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!!


No I didn't redefine either one. Kenv claiming I did doesn't make it true.

Prove I redefined either

Oh and Kenv clearly doesn't know what a strawman is. A strawman isn't redefining a term but when someone attributes
something to someone else that can't be attributed to them or said another way is a misrepresenation of what someone
said like Kenv did in regard to what Biden and Obama said.

KenV said
QUOTE

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.


Kenv is the only one who thinks he made any salient point


What Kenv claims are false statements from Biden and Obama are based on misrepresentations of what they said
(yes a strawman on the part of Kenv).

BTW Biden expressed an opinion that compares Shotgun in contrast to the AR-15. How can such an opinion be
considered false or true for that matter?

KenV said
QUOTE

And you CONTINUE to miss (or perhaps more correctly twist) that salient point, over and over.


Again only Kenv thinks he has made a salient point and its Kenv that continues to twist
what Biden and Obama said.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 95
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 10:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Kenv said
QUOTE


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


where did Kenv get that?

When I said
" I didn't redefine anything. "

If so how does that translate into me claiming I misquoting Kenv? Kenv doesn't usually quote

Kenv will not show specifically what and how I redefined anything. Certainly not with
specific quotes

Kenv said
QUOTE

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.)


First learn the definition of "if"

Definition of "if"


1
a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that
2
: whether <asked if the mail had come> <I doubt if I'll pass the course>
3
—used as a function word to introduce an exclamation expressing a wish <if it would only rain>
4
: even though : although perhaps <an interesting if untenable argument>
5
: and perhaps not even <few if any changes are expected> —often used with not <difficult if not impossible>
— if anything
: on the contrary even : perhaps even <if anything, you ought to apologize>
See if defined for English-language learners »
See if defined for kids »
Origin of IF


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if

If Kenv doesn't know basic english then what is Kenv doing on here attempting to debate anything?

Nor where did I say Kenv said "regulation must be able to stop X outcome anywhere at any point in time"
or that KEnv meant to suggest it. But being aware of what the implications of a statement
are and what someone meant by a particular statement are two different things

Not being aware of an implication doesn't mean the implication doesn't exist. I mean what was Kenv's
point of using the North Hollywood example(one example) to justify the statement although it
does rather forcefully illustrate the futility of most gun restrictions
?

The North hollywood example was one example that happened in a specific location on a specific point
in time that Kenv used to justify the statement although it does rather forcefully illustrate
the futility of most gun restrictions
?

Therefore If Kenv can use that argument in regard to gun restrictions then it should follow logically
that that argument should equally apply to other restrictions(regulations) so it does follow from Kenv's
statement although it does rather forcefully illustrate  the futility of most gun restrictions

I can't help it if Kenv doesn't have the ability to see the logical extensions of his statements.

Kenv shouldn't get angry when someone like me points out the illogic of his statements. Maybe Kenv
should think more logically for once and just put more thought into what he says rather than the
standard cognitively challenged drivel he spews over and over again.

Kenv said
QUOTE

I clearly used the words "most" gun restrictions and "futile".


hence why I later modified my statement to read


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


reading is fundamental

I'm just wondering when Kenv is going to try it

Kenv said
QUOTE

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.


Well this gets back to Kenv history. Again making this or that claim but yet nothing to back it up
as usual.

Kenv said
QUOTE

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.


Prove it. Prove I committed a strawman

Here is the thread

http://forums.backpacker.com/cgi-bin....1164349

This should be really fun given that

A) Kenv doesn't know what a strawman is

B) Kenv continues to commit strawman not only in this thread but the one above that I describe
in posts 10 & 13


C) Kenv doesn't even remember what the thread was about. It didn't involve any discussion of the Sandy Hook tragedy
. Geez


Kenv said
QUOTE

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".


^^ oh the irony strawman

Oh the irony.

I never said or suggested that someone in that other thread said "regulation must be able to stop X outcome anywhere at
any point in time".

I said something different in response to something Frano said in that other thread

the "regulation must be able to stop X outcome anywhere at any point in time". statement was only said
in this thread

again Kenv, Mr strawman, the statement was


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


It was the logical extension of your statement although it does rather forcefully illustrate  the fuitility of most
gun restrictions
. Again its too bad you just have the mind to see the logical implications of the statements
you make. I would suggest you might want to take a basic critical thinking class that are usually offered as lower
division philosphy classes.


Kenv said
QUOTE

That supposed "standard" was YOUR creation, and it was clearly a strawman, your (failed) protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.


Nope.

Prove its a strawman again.

Be specific with exact quotes.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 96
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 11:13 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

About Kenv using the North Hollywood example to try and refute my statement that society has given a lot more trust
to Law enforcement officials compared to the general public.
in regard to use of such weapons as the AR-15

Aside from the fact, as I stated, that Kenv's example using the waterton police would negate Kenv's North Hollywood
example, Why would the North Hollywood example in and of itself show that the public doesn't trust law enforcement
more than the general public? It seems this so called "argument" assumes that either LA PD not having access to
weapons like the AR-15 is somehow a result of the general public's view that the police officiers shouldn't have
access.  That seems like a huge leap in logic. It seems in order to prove that is the case you would have to show
a direct line from the general public's view that law enforcement should have weapons like the AR-15 and legislation
designed to prevent them. THe proof of that? At best, it seems that it might be possible that could be the
position of the general public in specifically the LA area(or other similar be cities) but even that is stretch.

What is the real proof that the general public has less trust with the law enforcement having weapons like the AR-15
compared to the general public?


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 97
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 11:44 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 24 2013, 6:47 pm)
QUOTE
Oh good grief.  Such punctilious interpretations are so  annoying.  The context of the OP and this thread make clear that the term "under armed" refers to denying private individuals the right to arm themselves with so-called "assault weapons".  If that was not obvious, then let me clarify by emphatically stating that that is what I meant.

Well gee Charlie Brown, this thread has wandered so far that I had look back at the OP where I found no mention of the term "underarmed".  But I'm sorry if my response truly caused you some annoyance.  I was trying to offer another perspective which you obviously have no interest in even considering.  Par for course I suppose.

All that aside, the term "underarmed" could be easily be used to address any restrictions to any arms whatsoever.  A term constructed by the NO crowd.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 98
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 24 2013, 11:52 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, 10:30 pm)
QUOTE
Kenv claims Biden said the AR-15 isn't capable of being a weapon for defense purposes but once again fails to give the quote that shows that

Uhhh Dennis?  Earth to Dennis.  I said, "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."  I did NOT say, as you claimed, "Biden said the AR-15 isn't capable of being a weapon for defense purposes "  That's not simply a stawman, but is a complete fabrication.  Wow your desperation is becoming palpable.  

QUOTE
I, on the other hand, give the quote from Biden he just says that a Shotgun would be more appropriate as a defense weapon
Uhhh Dennis.  Earth to Dennis.  I provided a link that showed Biden's ENTIRE
statement, and for context, included the question that led to his statement, and not just a small snippet of his statement like you did.

My goodness, you are getting desperate.  Besides generating total fabrications, you're resorting to your tired old habit of posting boringly long replies.

As for the rest, I scanned bits of it, but honestly did not bother to read it.  With this ludicrous start, I simply could not stomach another of your immensely long posts that take all the fun out of participating on this forum.  Try again.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 99
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 25 2013, 12:03 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(hbfa @ Apr. 24 2013, 11:44 pm)
QUOTE
Well gee Charlie Brown, this thread has wandered so far that I had look back at the OP where I found no mention of the term "underarmed".  But I'm sorry if my response truly caused you some annoyance.

Apology graciously accepted.  And I apologize for becoming annoyed.  My bad.

QUOTE
I was trying to offer another perspective which you obviously have no interest in even considering.  Par for course I suppose.
OK, I get your perspective.  I agree that the term I used could be used to go in all sorts of directions, including, as one deluded author mentioned, the possession of nukes.  But the perspective is based on a misinterpretation of my intent.  For the record, ANY weapon that the Supreme Court has ruled outside the realm of the 2nd amendment, which includes anything not in "common useage" by those citizens who would make up the militia, do not fall under my meaning of the term I used.  That includes everything from sawed off shotguns to nukes and everything in between.

Hope this clarified.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 100
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 25 2013, 12:51 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Kenv said
QUOTE

Uhhh Dennis?  Earth to Dennis.  I said, "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."  I did NOT say, as you
claimed, "Biden said the AR-15 isn't capable of being a weapon for defense purposes "  That's not simply a stawman,
but is a complete fabrication.  Wow your desperation is becoming palpable.  


Kenv said this statement


Joe Biden made it abundantly clear that the administration's position is that a semi-auto rifle is not a defense weapon


Kenv thinks someone can view a semi-auto rifle as not a defense weapon but at the same time think its capable of
of being used as defensive weapon?

Not only that, but once again, the example Kenv uses, the Wateron example, is meant to prove Biden wrong but
the only way it could prove Biden wrong is if Biden thought the AR-15 wasn't capable of defending people.

Although I guess I should have stated "Kenv essentially claimed Biden" or "Kenv implied Biden said"

Yes Kenv didn't literally explicitly say that but of course that wasn't my point

Kenv said
QUOTE

Uhhh Dennis.  Earth to Dennis.  I provided a link that showed Biden's ENTIRE
statement, and for context, included the question that led to his statement, and not just a small snippet of his statement like you did.


and yet Kenv still has yet to quote anything from it that proves his point. What does that
say when someone fails over and over to actually quote something from the video that they
claim proves what they claim it proves? It usually means they are talking out of their arse

Lets see Kenv quote something from the video that proves what he claims. For the record I've
quoted the following many times and have shown it doesn't prove Kenv's claims about Biden


“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


Kenv said
QUOTE

My goodness, you are getting desperate.  Besides generating total fabrications, you're resorting to your tired
old habit of posting boringly long replies.


^^ Looking for a way out

last time Kenv gave that excuse Kenv kept on replying

Oh and total frabications would be Kenv for example claiming about me
And BTW, no one but you said that laws must "solve everything" before they should be passed.

Kenv said
QUOTE

As for the rest, I scanned bits of it, but honestly did not bother to read it.  With this ludicrous start, I simply
could not stomach another of your immensely long posts that take all the fun out of participating on this forum.  Try again.


yet just like in those other long posts Kenv kept on replying?

Now this one is shorter because Kenv's post is shorter.

If Kenv doesn't like my long posts then maybe Kenv should shorten his

BTW What about post 96?


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 101
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 26 2013, 11:31 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 25 2013, 12:51 am)
QUOTE
Kenv said this statement


Joe Biden made it abundantly clear that the administration's position is that a semi-auto rifle is not a defense weapon


Kenv thinks someone can view a semi-auto rifle as not a defense weapon but at the same time think its capable of being used as defensive weapon?

This may come as a shock Dennis, but offensive weapons can be used defensively.

A carrier task force is a highly mobile offensive weapon system specifically designed for power projection.  But it is most certainly capable of being used defensively and has in fact been dispatched numerous times on defensive and even humanitarian missions.

A tank is a mobile offensive weapon system.  Indeed it is considered a "shock" weapon in high intensity warfare.  But it is most certainly capable of being used defensively and has in fact been used defensively many many times.

Even the penultimate offensive weapon, the ICBM, is capable of being used defensively.  Indeed, that is the ONLY way it has been used since it was invented over half a century ago.  No ICBM has ever been used offensively.

A repeat.  Dennis, you slay me.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 102
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 26 2013, 12:08 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 26 2013, 11:31 am)
QUOTE
A repeat.  Dennis, you slay me.

Ken you don't yourself much good when you demonstrate over and over that you can't follow the point others are making then you turn around and make these snide arrogant comments.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 103
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6647
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 26 2013, 1:44 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 24 2013, 6:47 pm)
QUOTE
The context of the OP and this thread make clear that the term "under armed" refers to denying private individuals the right to arm themselves with so-called "assault weapons".  If that was not obvious, then let me clarify by emphatically stating that that is what I meant.

Words and phrases have inherent meaning. "Under armed" implies insufficient arms, which puts it in the context of NEED. I could just as easily apply the term over armed  to civilian possession of AR-15's and it would be at least (if not more) valid than how you choose to characterize it.

If there is indeed a need  for civilians to have assault rifles (doubtful but debatable) it is because of the proliferation of high-powered guns in our society and how easily obtainable they are by those who would not pass a background check. One side asserts we need more heavily armed civilians, going so far as to recommend classroom teachers packin' heat.

IMO that way lies madness, and more death & tragedy.  Most people see that a sane solution entails stemming the proliferation of guns, thereby decreasing any need to turn our society into more of an armed camp than it already is.


--------------
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: 104
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 26 2013, 2:31 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Drift Woody @ Apr. 26 2013, 10:44 am)
QUOTE

(KenV @ Apr. 24 2013, 6:47 pm)
QUOTE
The context of the OP and this thread make clear that the term "under armed" refers to denying private individuals the right to arm themselves with so-called "assault weapons".  If that was not obvious, then let me clarify by emphatically stating that that is what I meant.

Words and phrases have inherent meaning. "Under armed" implies insufficient arms, which puts it in the context of NEED. I could just as easily apply the term over armed  to civilian possession of AR-15's and it would be at least (if not more) valid than how you choose to characterize it.

If there is indeed a need  for civilians to have assault rifles (doubtful but debatable) it is because of the proliferation of high-powered guns in our society and how easily obtainable they are by those who would not pass a background check. One side asserts we need more heavily armed civilians, going so far as to recommend classroom teachers packin' heat.

IMO that way lies madness, and more death & tragedy.  Most people see that a sane solution entails stemming the proliferation of guns, thereby decreasing any need to turn our society into more of an armed camp than it already is.

Well said, DW.

--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 105
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 26 2013, 3:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Kenv said
QUOTE


I Said
QUOTE

Kenv said this statement


Joe Biden made it abundantly clear that the administration's position is that a semi-auto rifle is not a defense weapon


Kenv thinks someone can view a semi-auto rifle as not a defense weapon but at the same time think its capable of being used as defensive weapon?


This may come as a shock Dennis, but offensive weapons can be used defensively.


kenv is playing petty semantical games. What makes Kenv think Biden is operating on the same
definition of what an offensive or defensive weapon that Kenv is?

So what is the criteria for establishing if a gun is more of a defensive weapon as opposed
to a offensive weapon? Who gets to decide? Kenv?

Seems like a question that is ripe with subjectivity.

and how does whatever criteria Kenv conveniently chooses to establish if a gun is more a
defensive weapon as opposed to offensive weapon, does in fact show that Biden doesn't think
the AR-15 isn't a defensive weapon? What is Kenv's argument to show that Biden doesn't
view the AR-15 as a defensive weapon and if Biden didn't view the AR-15 as a defensive weapon
,based on whatever definition Kenv is using for establishing if a gun is defensive or offensive
weapon, would Biden be wrong anyway?

What I think is whatever criteria Kenv chooses, it will conveniently be chosen so that it
will come closest, in the mind of Kenv, to proving/showing Biden doesn't view the AR-15 as a
defensive weapon.  Also whatever criteria Kenv chooses, I don't believe this is a criteria
that Kenv has had until he created this thread but is one he is creating on the fly and
constantly evolving to fit whatever he wants to prove/show on the fly.

Also I guess the implication is that Kenv views the Ar-15 as more of defensive weapon than
offensive weapon.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 106
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 26 2013, 3:17 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Apr. 26 2013, 12:08 pm)
QUOTE

(KenV @ Apr. 26 2013, 11:31 am)
QUOTE
A repeat.  Dennis, you slay me.

Ken you don't yourself much good when you demonstrate over and over that you can't follow the point others are making then you turn around and make these snide arrogant comments.

and yet in the other thread at the end of the OP Kenv said

Refraining from personal attacks, such as use of terms like “dishonest”, “confused”,
“thick”, “irrational”, “drama queen”, etc. will be appreciated.


I guess Kenv thinks its only one way he is free to engage in whatever snide remarks he wants


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 107
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 26 2013, 3:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 26 2013, 3:15 pm)
QUOTE
Kenv said
QUOTE


I Said
QUOTE

Kenv said this statement


Joe Biden made it abundantly clear that the administration's position is that a semi-auto rifle is not a defense weapon


Kenv thinks someone can view a semi-auto rifle as not a defense weapon but at the same time think its capable of being used as defensive weapon?


This may come as a shock Dennis, but offensive weapons can be used defensively.


kenv is playing petty semantical games. What makes Kenv think Biden is operating on the same
definition of what an offensive or defensive weapon that Kenv is?

So what is the criteria for establishing if a gun is more of a defensive weapon as opposed
to a offensive weapon? Who gets to decide? Kenv?

Seems like a question that is ripe with subjectivity.

and how does whatever criteria Kenv conveniently chooses to establish if a gun is more a
defensive weapon as opposed to offensive weapon, does in fact show that Biden doesn't think
the AR-15 isn't a defensive weapon? What is Kenv's argument to show that Biden doesn't
view the AR-15 as a defensive weapon and if Biden didn't view the AR-15 as a defensive weapon
,based on whatever definition Kenv is using for establishing if a gun is defensive or offensive
weapon, would Biden be wrong anyway?

What I think is whatever criteria Kenv chooses, it will conveniently be chosen so that it
will come closest, in the mind of Kenv, to proving/showing Biden doesn't view the AR-15 as a
defensive weapon.  Also whatever criteria Kenv chooses, I don't believe this is a criteria
that Kenv has had until he created this thread but is one he is creating on the fly and
constantly evolving to fit whatever he wants to prove/show on the fly.

Also I guess the implication is that Kenv views the Ar-15 as more of defensive weapon than
offensive weapon.

and a more fundamental problem for Kenv seems to be how does the wateron example show its
more of a defensive weapon as opposed to an offensive weapon? Since Kenv obviously isn't
determining if a weapon is a defensive weapon based on if it capable of being a defensive
weapon(and being capable of being a defensive weapon would be established by at least one
example where it was used in a defensive situation), how the hell could Kenv just use the
wateron example to show if the AR-15 is a defensive weapon?


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 108
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4656
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Apr. 26 2013, 4:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 1:39 pm)
QUOTE
While your points are correct, they beg a question.

No Ken a point can't beg a question. Question begging is another term for a circular argument. For instance if I were to say, "how do you know the Bible is true with its claim that Jesus is God?" And you were to say, "because the Bible says 500 people saw him risen from the dead." That's begging the question.  Of course you'd never be that illogical would you?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 109
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 12:37 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 26 2013, 3:48 pm)
QUOTE
and a more fundamental problem for Kenv seems to be how does the wateron example show its
more of a defensive weapon as opposed to an offensive weapon? Since Kenv obviously isn't
determining if a weapon is a defensive weapon based on if it capable of being a defensive
weapon

Dennis, all you have to do is look at the mission of the police and how the police used their guns in Watertown to determine if they were using them offensively or defensively.  

Their mission was to locate and take into custody a ruthless mass murderer.  The mission was NOT to locate and then engage and kill on sight the mass murderer.

And when the mass murderer was located and surrounded, their guns were not used to kill the mass murderer who was hiding in a location that offered him zero protection from police gunfire.  Instead, the police took the mass murderer into custody.  The rifles were not needed to that.

QUOTE
(and being capable of being a defensive weapon would be established by at least one
example where it was used in a defensive situation), how the hell could Kenv just use the
wateron example to show if the AR-15 is a defensive weapon?
Defensive situation?!  Um Dennis?  The ENTIRE "situation" in Watertown was defensive as far as the rifles, body armor, helmets, bullet resistant shields, armored vehicles, etc was concerned.  NONE of it was needed to locate or take into custody the suspect.  Indeed, police take into custody hundreds of suspects EVERY DAY without resort to any of that equipment (except probably a protective vest).  The only reason all that stuff was used in Watertown was bthe nature of the suspect being sought,  not the nature of the search.  NONE of that equipment helped them search for the suspect (indeed it could easily be argued that most of that equipment hindered their ability to do a search) while ALL of that equipment would help the police protect themselves from the suspect should he put up a fight.

You appear utterly ignorant of police tactical procedures.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 110
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 12:45 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ Apr. 26 2013, 3:17 pm)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Apr. 26 2013, 12:08 pm)
QUOTE

(KenV @ Apr. 26 2013, 11:31 am)
QUOTE
A repeat.  Dennis, you slay me.

Ken you don't yourself much good when you demonstrate over and over that you can't follow the point others are making then you turn around and make these snide arrogant comments.

and yet in the other thread at the end of the OP Kenv said

Refraining from personal attacks, such as use of terms like “dishonest”, “confused”,
“thick”, “irrational”, “drama queen”, etc. will be appreciated.


I guess Kenv thinks its only one way he is free to engage in whatever snide remarks he wants

Hello Dennis?  This thread is not that thread.  The anti-gun folks very quickly dragged this thread down with personal attacks and I have no problem returning fire in kind on this thread.

The intent of that other thread is to cover the same topic, but do so without (hopefully) resorting to the personal attacks prevalent in this one.  If the personal attacks in this thread bother you, use the other thread.  That's why it's there.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 111
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 12:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Apr. 26 2013, 4:38 pm)
QUOTE

(KenV @ Apr. 23 2013, 1:39 pm)
QUOTE
While your points are correct, they beg a question.

No Ken a point can't beg a question. Question begging is another term for a circular argument. For instance if I were to say, "how do you know the Bible is true with its claim that Jesus is God?" And you were to say, "because the Bible says 500 people saw him risen from the dead." That's begging the question.  Of course you'd never be that illogical would you?

Ummm:

Many English speakers use "begs the question" to mean "raises the question", "evades the question", or even "ignores the question", and follow that phrase with the question, for example: "this year's deficit is half a trillion dollars, which begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" Apart from philosophical, logical, grammatical and legal contexts, some authorities deem such usage to no longer be mistaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 112
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 1:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"[S]ome authorities deem such usage to no longer be mistaken." Wow, that's a ringing endorsement.

--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 113
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 3:54 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Kenv said
QUOTE


I said
QUOTE

and a more fundamental problem for Kenv seems to be how does the wateron example show its
more of a defensive weapon as opposed to an offensive weapon? Since Kenv obviously isn't
determining if a weapon is a defensive weapon based on if it capable of being a defensive
weapon


Dennis, all you have to do is look at the mission of the police and how the police used
their guns in Watertown to determine if they were using them offensively or defensively.


So how they are used in one example determines if they are more of a offensive or defensive
weapon? Let me remind Kenv of his previous statement where he said This may come as a
shock Dennis, but offensive weapons can be used defensively.
so based on that statement
from Kenv, we can't necessarily conclude that the AR-15 is a defensive weapon simply because
of how it was used in this one occasion

Kenv said
QUOTE

Their mission was to locate and take into custody a ruthless mass murderer.  The mission was NOT to locate and then engage and kill on sight the mass murderer.


and how does this one example prove the AR-15 is more of defensive weapon in light of Kenv's
statement This may come as a shock Dennis, but offensive weapons can be used
defensively.
and more importantly prove Kenv's prior statement Joe Biden made it
abundantly clear that the administration's position is that a semi-auto rifle is not a
defense weapon


Kenv said
QUOTE


I said
QUOTE

(and being capable of being a defensive weapon would be established by at least one
example where it was used in a defensive situation), how the hell could Kenv just use the
wateron example to show if the AR-15 is a defensive weapon?


Defensive situation?!  Um Dennis?  The ENTIRE "situation" in Watertown was defensive as far as the rifles, body armor, helmets, bullet resistant shields, armored vehicles, etc was concerned.


Once again, since Kenv previously said This may come as a shock Dennis, but offensive
weapons can be used defensively.
the above wouldn't necessarily prove that the A5-15
was a more of a offensive weapon as opposed to defensive weapon.  How does the situation
make it a "defensive weapon"? Kenv clearly established when he said This may come as a
shock Dennis, but offensive weapons can be used defensively.
that simply using a weapon
defensively doesn't make it a "defensive weapon".

Kenv said
QUOTE

NONE of it was needed to locate or take into custody the suspect.  Indeed, police take into custody hundreds of suspects EVERY DAY without resort to any of that equipment (except probably a protective vest).  The only reason all that stuff was used in Watertown was bthe nature of the suspect being sought,  not the nature of the search.  NONE of that equipment helped them search for the suspect (indeed it could easily be argued that most of that equipment hindered their ability to do a search) while ALL of that equipment would help the police protect themselves from the suspect should he put up a fight.


What does all this have to do with anything I said? What a massive red herring. Again Kenv
said This may come as a shock Dennis, but offensive weapons can be used defensively..
So how does this one example establish the AR-15 as a "defensive weapon" since clearly
Kenv has established that simply using it in a defensive manner doesn't necessarily make it
a defensive weapon.

and again, more importantly, what is Kenv's evidence and proof to back up his statement
Joe Biden made it abundantly clear that the administration's position is that a
semi-auto rifle is not a defense weapon


Kenv said
QUOTE

You appear utterly ignorant of police tactical procedures.


^^ again massive red herring

where the hell did I even start to discuss anything about "police tactical procedures."?
I never even brought it up.

kenv's seems ignorant about his prior statements of which my statements that he responded to
were all about. Once again here are the relevant statements from Kenv

Joe Biden made it abundantly clear that the administration's position is that a
semi-auto rifle is not a defense weapon


&

This may come as a shock Dennis, but offensive weapons can be used defensively..


Kenv is attempting to change the subject in a way that I wasn't even discussing.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 114
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 3:55 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Kenv said
QUOTE

Hello Dennis?  This thread is not that thread.  The anti-gun folks very quickly dragged this thread down with personal attacks and I have no problem returning fire in kind on this thread.

The intent of that other thread is to cover the same topic, but do so without (hopefully)
resorting to the personal attacks prevalent in this one.  If the personal attacks in this thread bother you, use the other thread.  That's why it's there.


So standards of conduct only apply in one thread but not this one?

actually it was in the other thread where Kenv said

Refraining from personal attacks, such as use of terms like “dishonest”, “confused”,
“thick”, “irrational”, “drama queen”, etc. will be appreciated.

Refraining from side trips into past personal beefs with individuals on this forum will also
be appreciated.


The above was NOT said in this one but the OTHER one,

and what is the difference between statements like "you slay me."(as HighGravity noted was
snide) and statements like '“dishonest”, “confused”, “thick”, “irrational”, “drama queen”'?

One standard for Kenv and other standards for everyone else?


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 115
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 07 2013, 9:31 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Ok so as is the case with many discussion with Kenv, Much discussion gets wasted on
definitions and what Kenv means by this or that(which Kenv often will change when he gets
boxed in) so to sidestep this problem and get to the heart of the matter, Lets see Kenv
show/prove that the Waterton example specifically disproves anything Obama, Biden or any
other Democratic politician Kenv quoted(with the exception of Senator Gillibrand) in this
thread or his followup thread(use specific quotes).

Again, the burden of proof is and always  has been on Kenv.


Notice that answering this question doesn't depending on coming to an understanding of what
"appropriate for self defense","defense weapon","Offensive weapon","excellent AND appropriate
weapon for self defense" "reasonably effective AND appropriate weapon for self defense." or any other
phrase Kenv want to use


and the discussion certainly isn't about police tactics. That isn't the issue here nor did I
say anything about that so that ironically was yet another red herring/strawman from Kenv.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 116
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 08 2013, 6:46 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ May 07 2013, 1:11 pm)
QUOTE
"[S]ome authorities deem such usage to no longer be mistaken." Wow, that's a ringing endorsement.

"ringing endorsement?"  Who even remotely suggested anyone "endorsed" my usage of the term?   I merely pointed out that my usage was not necessarily "wrong" as was stated.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 117
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 08 2013, 7:43 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Fine.  Can you name ONE example of police use of AR-15s in an offensive military assault action?

The repeated claim made by several politicians and other anti-gun folks is that "assault rifles" are only good for offensive use by the military to kill large numbers of people (hence the term "assault").  If that were remotely true, no police department would have such weapons.  Or are you claiming that police have an offensive military assault mission to kill large numbers of people?

The recent Watertown event was but one obvious and extremely well publicized example of police defensive use of "assault rifles".   And virtually EVERY police use of "assault rifles" is by nature defensive since the police don't have an assault mission.

QUOTE
Once again, since Kenv previously said This may come as a shock Dennis, but offensive
weapons can be used defensively.
the above wouldn't necessarily prove that the A5-15
was a more of a offensive weapon as opposed to defensive weapon.  How does the situation
make it a "defensive weapon"? Kenv clearly established when he said This may come as a
shock Dennis, but offensive weapons can be used defensively.
that simply using a weapon
defensively doesn't make it a "defensive weapon".
Hello Dennis?  The AR-15 is a tool.  Whether it is used defensively or offensively depends totally on the user.  This is true of knives, bows and arrows, rocks, even hands and feet.

The meme/narrative of the anti-gun folks (which includes many of our politicians) is that "assault rifles" are intended only for offensive military action to facilitate the killing of large numbers of people and are neither appropriate nor useful for self defense.  My argument is that this narrative is blatantly false.  The fact that such weapons are issued to police in certain situations is proof of that fact   The fact that such weapons are more routinely being issued to police is further proof of that fact.

The Watertown (and btw, its Watertown, not Waterton) event was just a recent highly publicized example of police use of "assault rifles."  It is by no means the "only" example.  If you want more, just do a Google Image search of "police" and "AR-15".   You will get literally tens of thousand of hits.  Do a Google web search and you'll get hundreds of thousands of hits.  Sorry Dennis, but Watertown is most certainly NOT the only example.  And you will find ZERO examples that buttress the anti-gun folks' narrative that "assault rifles" are only appropriate/useful for offensive military assault actions.

And BTW, the similar "large capacity magazine" meme/narrative from the anti-gun folks?  That's also blatantly (and hilariously) false.  Just as you don't need more that 3 rounds to kill a deer, you don't need more than 3 rounds to kill a human who's sleeping/unconscious in a boat.  Yet when you look at all those images of cops with AR-15s, they all had 20 and 30 round magazines.  Why is that, Dennis?  Were those cops all engaged in a military assault mission?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 118
Raznation Search for posts by this member.
Why surf when you can make waves!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 24421
Joined: Sep. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: May 08 2013, 8:49 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Dennis has Kenv in such a twist, ken is repeating himself in his own post. LoLz

--------------
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 119
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: May 08 2013, 9:30 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Dennis The Menace @ May 07 2013, 3:55 pm)
QUOTE
So standards of conduct only apply in one thread but not this one?

actually it was in the other thread where Kenv said

Refraining from personal attacks, such as use of terms like “dishonest”, “confused”,
“thick”, “irrational”, “drama queen”, etc. will be appreciated.

Refraining from side trips into past personal beefs with individuals on this forum will also
be appreciated.


The above was NOT said in this one but the OTHER one,

and what is the difference between statements like "you slay me."(as HighGravity noted was
snide) and statements like '“dishonest”, “confused”, “thick”, “irrational”, “drama queen”'?

One standard for Kenv and other standards for everyone else?

What "standards of conduct" are you rambling on about?  I merely stated in another thread what actions would "be appreciated" in that thread.  If that constitutes a "standard of conduct" it is only so in someone's fevered imagination.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 120
Dennis The Menace Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10734
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: May 08 2013, 1:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

kenv said
QUOTE

Fine.  Can you name ONE example of police use of AR-15s in an offensive military assault action?


^^ see there Kenv goes again

"offensive military assault action?"

See now Kenv can play games and dance around what exactly he defines as
"offensive military assault action?"

Hence why I framed post 115 the way I did

kenv said
QUOTE

The repeated claim made by several politicians and other anti-gun folks is that "assault
rifles" are only good for offensive use by the military to kill large numbers of people (hence the term "assault").


^^ Kenv playing the game

Notice that kenv
A) doesn't provide any names of these politicians with the actual quote

b) say "only good for offensive" so then we can get into a debate about what "offensive"
means.

kenv said
QUOTE


I said
QUOTE

Once again, since Kenv previously said This may come as a shock Dennis, but offensive
weapons can be used defensively. the above wouldn't necessarily prove that the A5-15
was a more of a offensive weapon as opposed to defensive weapon.  How does the situation
make it a "defensive weapon"? Kenv clearly established when he said This may come as a
shock Dennis, but offensive weapons can be used defensively. that simply using a weapon
defensively doesn't make it a "defensive weapon".


Hello Dennis?  The AR-15 is a tool.  Whether it is used defensively or offensively depends
totally on the user.  This is true of knives, bows and arrows, rocks, even hands and feet.


LOL!!!. Squirm Squirm Squirm

Notice how Kenv is trying to have a discussion of the AR-15 based on its use which was the
way I originally started to have this discussion UNTIL Kenv decided to make
this discussion about whether the AR-15 was a "defensive weapon".  See once again here
is the context

kenv said this 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.


I then responded with Kenv thinks someone can view a semi-auto rifle as not a defense
weapon but at the same time think its capable of of being used as defensive weapon?


Then Kenv responded with This may come as a shock Dennis, but offensive weapons can be
used defensively.



See in the above exchange Kenv makes it clear that simply using it in defensive way doesn't
necessarily make it a "defensive weapon" and so by the same reasoning I assume that Kenv
would also believe that simply using a gun in a offensively doesn't make it an "offensive
weapon"

Kenv doesn't really define the criteria for establishing what makes an weapon "defensive weapon"
or "offensive weapon".  But you see this is the game Kenv plays. He dances around these
phrases to avoid really addressing the issue. Its once again why I framed post 115 the way
I did and notice how Kenv has essentially ignored post 115 because he knows it totally
boxes him in and allows no room for kenv to dance around the topic.

kenv said
QUOTE

The meme/narrative of the anti-gun folks (which includes many of our politicians) is that "assault rifles" are intended only for offensive military action to facilitate the killing of large numbers of people and are neither appropriate nor useful for self defense.


^^ notice once again another claim with any supportive evidence

notice also again phrases like "offensive military action". So Kenv can dance around that
phrase and play games about what that exactly means so we can waste time.

Notice that Kenv also says 'neither appropriate nor useful for self defense.'

"useful for self defense."

See another phrase Kenv can dance around and waste time on.

kenv said
QUOTE

My argument is that this narrative is blatantly false.  


No its a premise not argument. Argument presupposes that its a statement supported by
documented facts with a logical component that validates another statement. By that standard
this is NOT an argument from kenv

kenv said
QUOTE

The fact that such weapons are issued to police in certain situations is proof of that fact   The fact that such weapons are more routinely being issued to police is further proof of that fact.


But kenv was using this one example of Watetron to indict these numerous Democratic
politicians. Oh and since Ken said he wasn't using the Waterton example to show that the
AR-15 is capable of being used in a defensive situation then how would one example show what
the AR-15 is "appropriate for self defense","defense weapon","Offensive weapon","excellent
AND appropriate weapon for self defense" "reasonably effective AND appropriate weapon for
self defense." or any other phrase Kenv want to use?


Which(and I pointed this out at least in the other thread) makes determining whether the
AR-15 is a "excellent" or "reasonable" or "good" "defensive" or "offensive" weapon simply
based on how it is used in some situation simplistic and absurd since what determines
how its used is in large part dependent on the expertise of the user.

kenv said
QUOTE

The Watertown (and btw, its Watertown, not Waterton) event was just a recent highly publicized example of police use of "assault rifles."  


kenv specifically used this one example of Watertown to try and show/prove certain things
about Democratic politicians which he has still failed to show

kenv said
QUOTE

It is by no means the "only" example.  If you want more, just do a Google Image search of "police" and "AR-15".   You will get literally tens of thousand of hits.  Do a Google web search and you'll get hundreds of thousands of hits.  Sorry Dennis, but Watertown is most certainly NOT the only example.  And you will find ZERO examples that buttress the anti-gun folks' narrative that "assault rifles" are only appropriate/useful for offensive military assault actions.


Like I said, the burden of proof is still on Kenv, therefore Kenv still has to provide
the exact quotes said by these Democratic politicians and then show how any other example
Kenv wants to use, disproves any quote that those Democratic politicians said

kenv said
QUOTE

And BTW, the similar "large capacity magazine" meme/narrative from the anti-gun folks?  That's also blatantly (and hilariously) false.  Just as you don't need more that 3 rounds to kill a deer, you don't need more than 3 rounds to kill a human who's sleeping/unconscious in a boat.  Yet when you look at all those images of cops with AR-15s, they all had 20 and 30 round magazines.  Why is that, Dennis?  Were those cops all engaged in a military assault mission?



Oh and BTW, of course no one to my knowledge has said that you needed more than a certain
amount of rounds to kill someone(like 3 rounds. Another Kenv strawman?) but that of course
the potential to kill more people in a more efficient way increases with the greater magazine
capacity. But fine. If kenv wants to go down that route then maybe Kenv wants to make another
pointless thread in which he will make this or that claim about Democratic politicians saying
this or that that I'm sure will have the same problems in logic and argument as this one.

Have at it Kenv if you really want the rest of us to laugh at you.  Make another thread.
Watch the reaction of everyone else.


--------------
politics is the art of taking advantage of mass stupidity and ignorance
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 4 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