Connecticut Elementary School.

Semantics is important, as are the details. On these pages we do better discussing providers than whores, because the latter has offensive connotations. How something is said matters.

But this isn't about the guns. At one point in history, certain cavemen were outraged when another tribe started tying rocks to sticks in order to pummel their adversaries better. The greatest weapon today will be trumped tomorrow.

Regulation gives power. Power will be abused. I'll take the occasional nutjob incident over the abusive authority. How to reduce the nutjob incidents, that's worth discussing.

But guns are manly and more fun for y'all to talk about. I get that.

Let's stop putting people down and arguing about "terminology", and concentrate on talking about weapons - whatever you want to call them - whose only purpose is to kill a lot of people in a very short time.



I don't understand why philosophical disagreements have to be personalized. Originally Posted by jackfengshui

Making gun crime punishable by castration would certainly alleviate the problem. Seriously, I don't think it says anything in the constitution about bullets. Severely limiting access to ammunition would go a long way to alleviating our problems with gun violence. Since our conservative( idiot) friends like living in the fantasyland past so much, limit gun ownership to those weapons which were available when the constitution was written. Back then guns were so bad that in a duel, it was just as likely that that the participants would miss each other as it was that one would hit the other. Since this was the concept of guns that they had, we should apply the founding fathers right to bear arms in the light it was written in. Originally Posted by drluv1

Seriously challenging my resolve not to insult fellow participants. But this is some of the most rancid, stale and putrid thought I've recently heard expressed, completely lacking in foresight, hindsight, and awareness. Doc Luv called me out a few weeks back and I gave him some credibility for his comments but I struggle to value his recent posts, but that they illustrate my point: we need guns to protect ourselves should men like Doc Luv get any real power.

Just two points:

1. Don't worry about me. As I stated many times already, despite my personal believes, I am not wasting any of my time advocating gun control. I think it is a futile cause.
2. I plead ignorance about the terminology. I have stopped using "assault weapons" many posts ago. I simply would like to see the country having a discussion about the omnipresence of "guns that can kill a lot of people in a very short time" in our everyday life. I'm sure the experts will put me down about the number of rounds per minute, the magazine capacity, etc.

If you care to notice, no one in this thread that supports ownership of these weapons uses the term. And most who oppose ownership of them do. Originally Posted by rooster

Take every single use of the term "assault weapon(s)" in this thread and change it to "semi-automatic" and this thread changes.....how?

It doesn't.

If you're going to make the misuse of a particular term the main crux of your argument in 3 or 4 posts within a thread, perhaps you should give us the actual definition of it so we can know when to use it and when not to use it.

Until then i'll just assume you're upset that it's being used, and not that it's being misused.

To say that we should not be allowed to own them is like saying that my neighbor cannot own his Audi RS. That fucking car can break the national speed limit in second gear! And lots of people die in cars just like it. And.... I'll bet he uses it "illegally" on a regular basis (i.e., he drives too fast). If he drives it into a school bus and kills 27 people, will you assholes call for a ban on cars like this?

First, i've had it up to here with these sorts ridiculous comparisons. We're not talking about cars, or bowling balls, or razor knives. We're talking about something that, by it's very design, is meant for killing.

And secondly, as far as your "assholes" comment, i'll just say this:

I have to say that after this debate, I have gone from a cautious (very cautious) admirer of yours to someone who thinks you are kind of a jerk. It may seem cheap for me to go there after all of this, but I don't care. Your whole attitude just blows. Comments you make like the one about "whacking off" while staring at a gun rack and your characterizations of millions of people as a bunch of insensitive, simplistic morons are only designed to offend. Fortunately, there are many here who seem to realize that. Originally Posted by rooster

So, Rooster, who's "kind of a jerk" now?

its called "labeling" rooster

its a liberal technique

if you say something over and over and over

your every average everyday DOLT will just start believing it

[QUOTE

Better yet, some of us even go so far as to mock girls if they should have the temerity to claim the hobby was damaging to them. So if we're going to point fingers at societal ills, let's not conveniently ignore the finger that should be pointed at us.[/QUOTE]

Fuck no, as long as I'm not injecting runaways and turning them out against their wills, I reject this thought. These ladies make decisions and have the will to make change. I'm sure many of the women on eccie far out-earn me. This is the oldest profession, and many, many women who do not charge cash for sex still use their pussies as ways to earn. I am amazed how many men on this site seem to think they are doing something wrong here. We should be embracing our virtue and working to correct the flaws that make prostitution illegal, not slinking around like shamed slugs.

I'm proud to say I have my favorite 'ho a big wet kiss on a very public place yesterday. Fuck it, Merry Christmas!

And secondly, as far as your "assholes" comment, i'll just say this:



So, Rooster, who's "kind of a jerk" now? Originally Posted by Doove

Ummmm..... you. Still. And if you are assuming the "assholes" comment was indirectly aimed at you - you are CORRECT. Part of me hates myself for saying that.... it hurts my credibility in this thread and as a Mod.... but I don't want to be on this board if I have to put up with you any more without being able to speak my mind.

But this is the last time I will speak to you in this or any thread - board "business" excepted, of course. I know I said that before (again.... I'm damaging my cred).... but one way or another, this is it.

You keep spouting bullshit, saying inane things like your statement about cars and bowling balls. I believe you do it only to inflame, not to further the dialog.

My point about high-performance cars is painfully accurate, IMHO. They are DEADLY. They are INTENTIONALLY MISUSED by many who use them (if not all). And they kill FAR MORE people than "assault weapons."

But you cannot even agree that there is some truth to the analogy. You just say it is invalid because a car was not originally conceived as a weapon. Pretty weak.

You are in major denial over this whole issue. You don't like (nor understand) these guns. You don't like (nor understand) me. Actually, I don't think you like most on here. And you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. Enough.

Post freely. I'm done with this. And you.

And I admit that I am a jerk also. And an asshole.

(that was strangely satisfying.... someone needs to report my ass quick... that will probably make it more so....)

Shortly after I posted it, I "edited" my earlier post, # 345, to add my "second" point at the end.....

It doesn't really change much.... just piles on (which, I admit, is getting pretty old)

Take every single use of the term "assault weapon(s)" in this thread and change it to "semi-automatic" and this thread changes.....how?


It doesn't. Originally Posted by Doove

It does because there is a huge difference between the two.

Since "assault weapon" was an term invented by people biased on the side of gun control, it is not something that should be used if you care to participate in a meaningful and fair debate. But for the sake of conversation, lets agree the term means "MILITARY" assault weapon (full auto), since there is NO SUCH thing as a "civilian assault weapon".

NOW.... you also seem to have a hard on for semi-automatic weapons. That to me takes you a step even further than most gun control advocates. I am not sure, but I would guess the number of semi-auto weapons (rifles, handguns and shotguns) is astounding. Since it is unlikely that any type of legislation would have a chance of passing a ban on semi-auto weapons, you gun control "nuts" (LOL-I enjoyed that) would have a much better chance passing legislation controlling magazine capacities. I have also heard mentions of going after banning ammunition. I laugh when I hear that, because that opens up a whole other can of worms. I don't want to even get into people who reload their own ammo.

My point about high-performance cars is painfully accurate, IMHO. They are DEADLY. They are INTENTIONALLY MISUSED by many who use them (if not all). And they kill FAR MORE people than "assault weapons." Originally Posted by rooster

But not intentionally. And not by design. If you fail to see the difference from that very inconvenient fact.....not my problem.

But you cannot even agree that there is some truth to the analogy. You just say it is invalid because a car was not originally conceived as a weapon. Pretty weak.

Pretty weak? Really? It's the whole freakin' point. By your logic we'd have to ban pretty much everything that currently exists in all of society since everything can be used to kill somehow. Is that the argument you really wanna try to use? While claiming i'm in denial?

You are in major denial over this whole issue. You don't like (nor understand) these guns.

Still waiting for the definition of "assault weapon".

You don't like (nor understand) me.

I believe i've said the opposite on more than one occasion, and our butting heads on this one issue won't change that. If you want me to hate you, i suppose i can try. But my heart just probably won't be into it.

Actually, I don't think you like most on here.

Well, that's neither here nor there.

But seriously, that's not true either. The vast majority of the people on here i have little to no opinion of one way or the other. As to the rest, some i like and a few (very few) i don't.

And you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. Enough.

Oh please. You people that keep saying this act as if i'm here arguing with myself. And even if i were, so what? (Perhaps you can ask our friend if i should have used "was" instead of "were". )

And Merry Christmas Rooster.

Pretty weak? Really? It's the whole freakin' point. By your logic we'd have to ban pretty much everything that currently exists in all of society since everything can be used to kill somehow. Is that the argument you really wanna try to use? While claiming i'm in denial? Originally Posted by Doove

That is the point.... for both sides. Glass half full or half empty, you pick. The argument works both ways.

Still waiting for the definition of "assault weapon". Originally Posted by Doove

Please see my above post.

some i like and a few (very few) i don't.


And Merry Christmas Rooster. Originally Posted by Doove

I love you too man!

It does because there is a huge difference between the two. Originally Posted by GP

Fine. Then tell me what i should be calling these weapons. Give me a term and i'll use it because, frankly, i don't give a shit what we call 'em.

Since "assault weapon" was an term invented by people biased on the side of gun control, it is not something that should be used if you care to participate in a meaningful and fair debate.

Kind of like the people using the term "Obama phone"?

Rooster ... NO!

DD

Fine. Then tell me what i should be calling these weapons. Give me a term and i'll use it because, frankly, i don't give a shit what we call 'em.



Kind of like the people using the term "Obama phone"? Originally Posted by Doove

Yes, just like that. But I don't think people are trying to ban Obama Phones.


Single shot pistol



Semi-Automatic pistol



Revolver







Pump Action Shotgun



Sing Shot shotgun


Semi-Automatic Shotgun




Single Shot Rifle



Semi-Auto Rifle



A few more Semi-Auto hunting rifles



Military assault rifles (semi-auto, 3 shot burst or full auto)

M-16



AK-47

Rooster ... NO!

DD Originally Posted by DDarkness

Don't worry, DD. His comments were directed at me, so it's understandable.

Anyways, as far as what to call these weapons, apparently we're left with this...