Holder wants to explore gun tracking bracelets

[SMEAC]

Jack when will you ever see that people aren't going to calm down when you call them nuts

 

[RerouteToRemain]

When gun nuts accuse "the left" of wanting to ban guns, they mean ban all guns, not a particular type that isn't even that common. In the context of the discussion, to parse it like that, "Ha! Democrats think some types of guns should be illegal so yes they do want to ban guns!" is skipping over the substance of the discussion to claim a narrow, semantic victory.
.

Lmao
Not that common? That statement truly shows how out of touch you are with this subject. America's most popular rifle is the AR15. The AK47 is the most popular rifle in the world. They aren't trying to ban just an AR15 they are trying to ban many semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. They want to limit the magazine sizes for all guns, limit accessories on the rifle, pistol and shotgun, etc.

Here is what the awb they pushed for in 2013 includes.

All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

They also don't know what they are talking about as there is no such thing as a gun show loophole.

Semantic victory... gtfo
They want to ban many guns, accessories and restrict access to law abiding citizens. Some do go past that and would want an all out firearm ban. I understand that doesn't represent the entire party.

How you can say you are being genuine and the "gun nuts" aren't is ridiculous. When a person in power says we want to explore and look into this, without a reaction or opposition what would be stopping them from doing it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack when will you ever see that people aren't going to calm down when you call them nuts

I'm well aware that people are letting their emotions get the best of them, but I gotta call it like I see it. I can't sacrifice honesty for sensitivity and still feel good about myself.

 

[ruthless robert]

Lmao
Not that common? That statement truly shows how out of touch you are with this subject. America's most popular rifle is the AR15. The AK47 is the most popular rifle in the world. They aren't trying to ban just an AR15 they are trying to ban many semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. They want to limit the magazine sizes for all guns, limit accessories on the rifle, pistol and shotgun, etc.

Here is what the awb they pushed for in 2013 includes.



They also don't know what they are talking about as there is no such thing as a gun show loophole.

Semantic victory... gtfo
They want to ban many guns, accessories and restrict access to law abiding citizens. Some do go past that and would want an all out firearm ban. I understand that doesn't represent the entire party.

How you can say you are being genuine and the "gun nuts" aren't is ridiculous. When a person in power says we want to explore and look into this, without a reaction or opposition what would be stopping them from doing it.

Jack doesn't know anything about guns other than what he reads on biased liberal forums. I'm an FFL dealer and sell guns for a living yet he and every other Liberal in here will tell me to shut up because I don't know anything about guns while they are experts on the subject.

 

[Anabolistair]

Jack is just one of those people who will continue to argue even after he realizes he was wrong.

24/7 on an mma subforum becose he got exposed as a hack on the real political forums of all web.

 

[UpaLoompa]

When gun nuts accuse "the left" of wanting to ban guns, they mean ban all guns, not a particular type that isn't even that common. In the context of the discussion, to parse it like that, "Ha! Democrats think some types of guns should be illegal so yes they do want to ban guns!" is skipping over the substance of the discussion to claim a narrow, semantic victory.

My broader point in this whole, way-over-drawn-out discussion is: "Calm down, gun nuts. No one is taking your guns because the politically relevant left fully supports the 2nd Amendment and because the pro-gun people care far more about the issue than the less-fanatical supporters of gun ownership." Everything that's been posted in the thread has added weight to that point. Fox was just promoting yet another scare that isn't going to amount to anything because they know it riles up their base (and hence, Sleepyboy's comment that it was bad politics from Democrats misses the point completely that it's not Democrats putting this stuff in the news).

Obviously there is a lot of fear mongering on the right about gun control and seizures. However there's similar fear mongering on the left--although I do agree this is more of an issue on the right. However, you're being subtly disingenuous about this particular aspect. Democrats (and some prominent Republicans like Romney and Reagan) have indeed pushed for banning a particular group of guns. The group that's been defined is based primarily on aesthetics and that group is ultimately irrelevant to gun crime as a whole in this country. So, yes, dems have pushed for gun bans. Moreover, locally, democrats have pushed for broader gun restrictions and have passed legislation that effectively banned handguns in particular cities. It isn't at all ridiculous to suggest that there are democrats who want to ban guns broadly. Of course there are many democrats that oppose such bills but that's a different issue.

 

[SMEAC]

I'm well aware that people are letting their emotions get the best of them, but I gotta call it like I see it. I can't sacrifice honesty for sensitivity and still feel good about myself.

That's pretty special. Don't worry about anyone feeling good for you

 

[RerouteToRemain]

LOL!

Can you fucking believe this guy, "honesty". That was clearly some disingenuous bullshit and everyone can see it.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Are you a lobbyist? I'm assuming you just read Fox's scaremongering and passed it on. Is that wrong?

Jack, it's answers like this that make me accuse you of Sophistry.


For sherdog readers who may not know:

A Sophist is someone who will make an emotionally appealing or provocative statement while providing no methodology as to how that conclusion was arrived at (as the old saying goes, "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"). The Sophist will also try to (in Socraties/Platos words) "make the worse seem the better cause"

Reading some of your other "arguments" in this thread. I can now say conclusively that my theory was correct.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's pretty special. Don't worry about anyone feeling good for you

I know it. It's amazing the level of vitriol you get just for telling gun nuts that they don't have anything to fear.

Jack, it's answers like this that make me accuse you of Sophistry.

So how on Earth does that definition fit with the quote? The emotion is entirely coming from gun, um, enthusiasts here, is it not?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

So how on Earth does that definition fit with the quote? The emotion is entirely coming from gun, um, enthusiasts here, is it not?

I'm not talking about anyone else, I'm talking about you.

You constantly make wild assertions ("that's nuts" "that's just bat-shit and not to be considered" "Austrian economics are invalid" "Democrats don't want to ban any guns") and never show any methodology as to WHY something is that way. You simply make sweeping statements in the hopes that no one will question it.

I'm showing you that you're using your intellect to undermine rationality and one's sureness in the human brain, not advance it.

I wish you well, and that you may one day realize it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not talking about anyone else, I'm talking about you.

You constantly make wild assertions ("that's nuts" "that's just bat-shit and not to be considered" "Austrian economics are invalid" "Democrats don't want to ban any guns") and never show any methodology as to WHY something is that way. You simply make sweeping statements in the hopes that no one will question it.

None of those are wild assertions. AE is invalid--based on logical errors and empirically disproven. The Democratic Party platform is something I posted (so your claim that there's no methodology can objectively be demonstrated to be false). I understand that some of those positions hurt your feelings, and I understand that my not caring about that makes you associate your negative emotions with me, and for that I am truly indifferent. Let's discuss things rationally.

I'm showing you that you're using your intellect to undermine rationality and one's sureness in the human brain, not advance it.

But there is no rational basis for believing that Democrats want to ban all guns (and I see your dishonest rephrasing of my position, but I skipped over it) or that AE explains reality. It does sound nuts to me that people get worked up by what they think the secret beliefs of the other party, given that the party doesn't believe that and that in our system, a party can't pass laws without declaring their intention to do so (among many other things that have to happen). I've demonstrated all of that. You're just mad about it and trying to smear me personally.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

AE is invalid--based on logical errors and empirically disproven.

Again, just another assertion. As I said earlier, something that is asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence. If you think Austrian Economics is invalid (it's silly that I even need to explain this) then you need to show WHY it is invalid. So far, to only reasoning you have given as to why Austrian Economics is invalid is "It's invalid because it is." You understand that this qualifies as sophistry, correct?

The Democratic Party platform is something I posted (so your claim that there's no methodology can objectively be demonstrated to be false).

Yes, you posted the democratic platform, then attempted to tell everyone that the platform didn't say what was clearly in the platform (again, attempting to make the worse seem the better cause). When you were called on it, you changed your argument to say "democrats don't want to ban ALLLLLLLLLL guns" (a clever moving of the goal post, and the only thing you could have said without having to admit you're wrong)

You're just mad about it and trying to smear me personally.

I'm not mad, just disappointed. You now know why the way you argue is anti-rational, but you refuse to admit it because you're afraid you may lose face on a faceless internet forum.

Jack....... it takes courage to admit when you're wrong, or that you have done wrong by others. The one thing you can't seem to ever do, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, is admit you're wrong.

I actually feel bad for you. I wish you well

 

[RerouteToRemain]

I know it. It's amazing the level of vitriol you get just for telling gun nuts that they don't have anything to fear.



So how on Earth does that definition fit with the quote? The emotion is entirely coming from gun, um, enthusiasts here, is it not?

The emotion you see here is from you calling people disingenuous ignorant nuts, while you yourself are the one making the uneducated asinine disingenuous comments.

I'll ask again. When people in power say they want to explore or enact something, without a reaction or opposition what is stopping them from doing it?

There is a reason why not many anti or restrictive gun laws get passed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Again, just another assertion.

It's just an assertion here. There's no requirement that someone has to go through the whole thing with every mention of that.

I said earlier, something that is asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence. If you think Austrian Economics is invalid (it's silly that I even need to explain this) then you need to show WHY it is invalid.

I've shown it many, many times here. Others have shown it before me in other places. It's a dead issue.

So far, to only reasoning you have given as to why Austrian Economics is invalid is "It's invalid because it is." You understand that this qualifies as sophistry, correct?

I've never said "it's invalid because it is." You understand that you're flat out lying, right?

Yes, you posted the democratic platform, then attempted to tell everyone that the platform didn't say what was clearly in the platform.

To be accurate, I posted the platform and then told my previous interlocutors that the platform said what it said (which is why it was me that was posting it rather than the people lying about it).

When you were called on it, you changed your argument to say "democrats don't want to ban ALLLLLLLLLL guns" (a clever moving of the goal post, and the only thing you could have said without having to admit you're wrong)

I didn't change anything. Or direct me to two different posts where I was saying something different.

I'm not mad, just disappointed. You now know why the way you argue is anti-rational, but you refuse to admit it because you're afraid you may lose face on a faceless internet forum.

I'm not refusing to admit anything. I'm the one who posted the platform. What's happening is you have people who are claiming that Democrats secretly believe something that contradicts the platform.

The emotion you see here is from you calling people disingenuous ignorant nuts, while you yourself are the one making the uneducated asinine disingenuous comments.

I'll ask again. When people in power say they want to explore or enact something, without a reaction or opposition what is stopping them from doing it?

There is a reason why not many anti or restrictive gun laws get passed.

The reason that they don't get passed is that they don't get proposed because there's no one that wants them.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I've shown it many, many times here. Others have shown it before me in other places. It's a dead issue.

Now you're just saying things. Putting words in semi-random orders hoping it constitutes a refutation. You have an emotional disliking of Austrian Economics based on zero evidence, got it:wink:

I tried, but you're more afraid of losing face on an internet forum then discovering the truth.

I wish you a happy life, feel free to have the last word if you wish.

 

[spamking]

This thread really didn't go the way I expected and have the participation by the usual folks . . .

 

[45ACP]

So Jack claims that people saying the democrats want to ban guns REALLY mean the democrats want to ban ALL guns, even though no one here said that.

Jack, we said the democrats want to ban guns. No one used the word "all". That was an invention of yours because it was the only way you could weasel your way out of admitting you were wrong. What "gun nuts" mean when they say the dems want to ban guns is that they want to ban entire classes of extremely common firearms based mostly on cosmetic features, which is 100% true as you've shown by posting their platform.

So the dems want to ban a whole bunch of guns, the GOP doesn't want to ban anything and in fact wants to make it easier for people to carry guns, and you're still claiming that the dems don't want to ban guns and that there's no significant difference between the two platforms on the matter. You are just flat out wrong, Jack.

It's actually kind of amusing watching you play mental gymnastics to get around simply admitting that yes, the democrats want to ban guns and the GOP doesn't.

To answer a question from a few pages back; yes, a ban on granny smith apples is a ban on apples, just not a ban on ALL apples. But it really is cute when you pretend to be dumb.

 

[IDL]

On a more interesting note.. Did it ever occur to anyone that Sherlock Holmes wasn't good at solving crimes, but instead was just really good at framing people?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Now you're just saying things. Putting words in semi-random orders hoping it constitutes a refutation. You have an emotional disliking of Austrian Economics based on zero evidence, got it:wink:

Does that really make sense to you? Really? Why would anyone have an "emotional disliking" of an explanation of how the economy works?

Here's a thread where it's discussed in some detail:

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f5...-hike-do-so-your-own-risk-2643221/index8.html

Start at like 211 or so. Gets heavier as it goes on.

I tried, but you're more afraid of losing face on an internet forum then discovering the truth.

I wish you a happy life, feel free to have the last word if you wish.

Again, this is nonsense, and you know it. For proof, look at what happened to the "story" mentioned in the OP? Yet another gun scare that got Republicans riled up and ready to donate or buy extra guns and has now disappeared. I'll remind you of this thread when the next one pops up.