Poll: Views on gun laws unchanged after Aurora theater massacre - U.S. News


While he may be an expert in that field, he's nevertheless using typical loaded language to favor the position he likes and to diminish the position held by those with whom he disagrees. I'd bet that the folks who rely on the second amendment as permitting them to keep and bear arms would tend to think of that as a "fundamental issue."

I'd argue that neither the horrible loss of life nor the right to bear arms is "trivial."

It only boggles your mind because of your herculean effort to ensure that you never, ever agree with anything I say. This thread illustrates my point. I expressed two opinons: (1) automatic weapons should be regulated and (2) it is reasonable for the President to argue in favor of the regulation of automatic weapons. Incredibly, you, MTUpower, kaymasob, Hatterasguy, and maybe others have argued and argued with me about those two obviously true statements. Your collective disagreement, I believe, has nothing to do with what I said because it would take a truly strange person to disagree with either of the opinions I expressed.

That said, my definition of "bs" is the defintion discussed by Harry Frankfurt in his entertaining book, "On Bulls**t." To me "bs" means "a statement made by someone who is indifferent to the truth." That is the opposite of the position I have take with respect to whether automatic weapons are regulated. I would be amazed to learn that automatic weapons are not regulated. That would be truly odd. I am not, however, indifferent to the truth of my statements. I have expressed no opinion about whether automatic weapons are regulated because I have not taken the time to consult any reliable authorities on the subject, nor do I intend to do so. The question has no relevance to the opinions I have stated here.

I don't expect you to accept any of what I said as anything other than nonsense, but consider this: I stated that automatic weapons should be regulated and several of you are freaking out about it. That says more about you than it does about me.

Classic. "a metaphorical description of your pace of argument." Say it out loud to yourself. It is a rare treat.Clearly true. Clearly false. In fact, I asked kaymaysob to stop. I have explained myself over and over. My position is that automatic weapons should be regulated. I don't know what further explanation is required.

I'm still back at the 'herculean effort'. I like that one!

This exerting herculean efforts as I freak-out is making sweat bead on my nethers.

I have a feeling that if you go back and look you'll find I am not in the set of which you allege.

I suspect there are a few guys here for whom stepping up that game is an ambition.

Exactly what I find. Like a talking with a hermit crab if one could. Always unexposed everywhere.

You should have said nothing in the first place with a comment about guns was that automatic weapons should be regulated. Not an insightful comment. Everyone (okay for lawyers this should be rephrased somehow to mean alot but not 100%, including most present but also some which may come at another time not withstanding those were here previously) knows automatic weapons ought to be regulated and are. It's not a talking point frankly and if it were those that say automatic weapons should have (or currently do have) no regulations are quickly run out of town so to speak. Gun nuts and anti gun nuts both pretty much agree on this (they should have some regulation). Your statement was useless and out of place in the grand scheme of gun control conversations (which they all become shortly) without further explanation (unless you wished it to be so neutrally useless). You waded into a mine field without prior study with the typical lawyerese speak which allows constant backtrack combined with zero exposure; all statements must be defensible no matter what they end up sounding like.

My goodness. How utterly ridiculous. Even if you hadn't missed the point of my original comment, this post would still be way out of bounds. Who the hell are you to tell me what I should and shouldn't post? Do you act this way in real life?

The really comical part is that you would put so much energy into establishing that my comment contained no real insight. There was no need for you to go to all that trouble. I would have conceded that so-called point right from the beginning, but you and others kept trying to put words in my mouth. The conversation started when Txjake criticized Obama's AK-47 comment. (See Post #9) At the time, I thought Obama was making the obvious point that we do not want criminals to have automatic weapons. (See Posts #14 and #16) I may have misunderstood Txjake's comment, but it seemed to me as if he disagreed with Obama's modest statement. My comments defending Obama's statement began a long string of responses where various people insisted that I was calling for greater regulation of automatic weapons. No matter how many times I said I was doing no such thing, someone would insist that I was. There were a couple of people who suggested that my point would have been made more clear were I to say that I know that automatic weapons are regulated and that I think they should continue to be regulated. I imagine that would have been a true statement, but it wasn't the statement I intended to make. I don't think that there is anything wrong with the statement, but it was not my statement. I don't even know what it means. I have a notion about what automatic weapons are and it seems well established that they are regulated, but my notions about that point contribute nothing and they have nothing to do with what I said. The only reason I kept repeating my non-insightful comment was that people kept arguing with me about it and kept insisting that I was really saying something else. It is one of the stranger conversations I have had in a while.

Of all the confusing things you've said, I think this one is the most bizarre:Is that intended as a criticism? Are you OK with people who make indefensible statements?

You completely and repeatedly missed my simple, simple point. More importantly, you have gone outside the bounds of polite conversation. It's not a total loss, though. At least now I have a comical quote for my signature line.

Why don't you lighten up?

I'm surprised that you and I agree on some aspects of this issue as that doesn't seem to happen often. But I'm sorta wondering why you are so involved in the 'Honus said a bad thing' drama. Your first sentence should be read 3 times so that the meaning can be removed and stored in a safe house, the rest chucked and the sentence re-written.

I've encountered a number of people on the interwebs who seem to believe with some vigor that the outlawing of automatic weapons was the beginning of a slippery slope that will eventually lead to even bolt action hunting rifles being banned, that is if the collapse of civilized society doesn't happen first. To such a person, one might say 'I think automatic weapons should be regulated.'

I hear gun geeks regularly go on about how semi-automatic is actually better - more accurate - than automatic weapons, "recoil is cumulative, don't you see old chap, you're really much better off with a single shot semi."

So if they are such a damned unattractive gun for people serious about safe, effective, and legal use of guns, who else would they be attractive to if not wannabe glory killers?

Okay MOTO

I think you've moved a bit close to center lately and perhaps I've moved a bit left- maybe?
Guns make gun nuts- it's strange. I think we have about enough gun control laws, but then I think we need more every time I hear of more innocent kids or people killed from some wacko or some policeman (or anyone) who left his gun for kids to find. Seeing that both of those are common I'd like to see more gun control somehow but cannot endorse any one item/idea for more control.
I wouldn't wage into a scuba diving debate with " I think everyone ought to wear a mask when they scuba dive" which is as close as I can come to Honus's statement. Perhaps "every adult should wear a seat belt while in a passenger car" is also close. While it's obvious, it's defensible, it makes sense and few could rationally disagree- it's also useless and shows a lack of forethought about the subject. That's MHO.

Automatic weapons have been regulated in the US since before WWII. At one time, you could purchase Thompson .45 caliber submachine guns at Montgomery Wards. See the National Firearms Act of 1934

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those were the days. :D

Entirely possible.I'm OK with all of that except the last part. My statement was originally made based on my interpretation (misinterpretation, perhaps?) of Txjake's criticism of Obama's AK-47 comment. At the time it seemed to me that he did not agree that people should wear a mask when they scuba dive, so to speak. I was just responding to that. Then things sort of went downhill. No big deal.