Reply With Quote
You are such a ing idiot.
I am no more butthurt than a professor who scolds you for making an off the cuff remark as a first week freshman in his class who is trying to show just how smart he is. You're naive and self-assured in your ignorance. You need to be called a sucker at every turn until you learn to look before you leap. If that makes me butthurt, I don't mind.
I 'pulled the "u mad" card because as these snippets demonstrate: you are very butthurt. For that I laugh at you especially considering it is another of your cliche semantic arguments.
The cocaine example is not a bad one. You just throw out a ty argument and assume it sticks. Just because a medical reason is one of the reasons why you can obtain a thing does not mean that it invalidates it being banned. That there are other reasons and other approvals to obtain said thing just furthers the point.
The assault weapon ban expired in 2004. That is why you can buy your AR-15 now. Try and use some critical thinking especially in light of much of an expert in regards to gun law you claim. Had that ban been in existence then you would have to gone through the same thing that you need to do now with full-autos.
If a law abiding citizen of this state cannot obtain a permit to legally acquire cocaine, it's a bad analogy. I cannot legally park in a handicapped parking space. I cannot purchase a permit that will allow me to do so. I can purchase a machine gun and I don't need a permit to do so. I only need to pay a tax stamp and have my locals sign off on it. It's been done countless times, even by me.
Tell you what, I'll meet you where you designate. You bring the coke, I'll bring the subguns, we'll see.
You could buy the AR-15 even in 1995. You couldn't manufacture it.
You really are a novice at this, and you reek of misunderstanding Wiki and you have bits and pieces of information but you haven't spent enough time in your life understanding it. Basically you're not a gun person, you're a liberal. It's like a woman trying to tell a man what it's like to have an erection. Maybe you've held one, but you've no idea.
Last edited by DMC; 03-23-2013 at 05:09 PM.
You are such a ing idiot.
professor you im butthurt, esq. If that is your behavior towards your students then you are an awful teacher. Well your ability to convey knowledge in general is pretty bad. You certainly have a penchant for subs uting characterization for analysis.
I read the laws and the ATF licensing and registration forms. I have 2 friends with FFL with STO tags. I understand very well. You are not at any point arguing to requirements for le 2 registration xfer. You instead try and attack me. If I am a fool then you should be able to point out how I am wrong about, amongst other things, le 2 weapons provisions.
A law abiding citizen of any state can get cocaine provided they meet the requirements asked by the FDA. This is akin to the requirements that the FPA via the ATF. AR-15's in 1995 required the approval of the ATF which also required local law enforcement just as the remaining le 2 weapons still do today. What you are arguing is a matter of degree ie it is more difficult to get the FDA to approve cocaine than it is the ATF to approve registration xfer but that does not mean they are not analogous. Thus my comment about you lacking a concept of nuance.
As for my familiarity with the weapons, I have two things. You have no idea and you gun liberals sure do like discussing other's personal lives as if it is relevant. You are just wrong. Second familiarity with the weapon has nothing to do with the registration process ie it is irrelevant. How about you talk about the issues rather than my personal life. I suspect you don't because you have no leg to stand on.
When you guys do the "what does Fuzzy do" routine, it hearkens me back to Eleanor's Roosevelt.
I try discussing the concept of the word 'ban,' characterizations as a method of argument, the process by which le 2 weapons are xfered, what the 1994 act did, etc. You mostly want to discuss me.
Then of course there was the 1994 action which simply moved weapons that met the 'assault weapon' standard into le 2 along with machine guns, etc. The machine guns et al, are still classified under the same law as before. It hasn't been amended since 1994 afaik.
Finally, calling me a liberal is simpleminded claptrap. I am 'liberal' when it comes to gun control but in regards to immigration, capital punishment, foreign policy, and many other things is harldy that. The liberal/conservative label is just something to dumb reality down so it's easier to understand. That's just sad. Quit being WC.
Have you ever applied for a le 2 xfer?
You can man up and admit you were wrong at any time.
Sure, I have. Can you go into a gun store, find an automatic weapon for sale and walk out without only having passed a background check? Can you freely xfer le 2 registrations?
Did the 1994 assault weapon ban put these same requirements on those weapons?
You implied I couldn't own an automatic weapon, you were wrong.
You implied there was nowhere to purchase an automatic weapon because they were banned, you were wrong.
Now you're just back peddling and looking stupid.
You said "anything can be banned."
That's not really accurate.
Can you ban handguns in Washington DC?
I think you mean SOT tags (special occupational taxpayer). Does your friend have a class II or class III FFL? I am sure he's not an importer.
I read the laws and the ATF licensing and registration forms. I have 2 friends with FFL with STO tags. I understand very well. You are not at any point arguing to requirements for le 2 registration xfer. You instead try and attack me. If I am a fool then you should be able to point out how I am wrong about, amongst other things, le 2 weapons provisions.
Let your friends get on here and argue. You suck at it. You cannot even get your damn terminology correct for brains.
I have pointed out your flaws. You tend to ignore that though. Carry on.
"Provided they meet the requirements..." You act as if that's a side note. That's the main aspect of the qualification, meeting the requirements. You cannot just decide to meet the requirements. There's a difference between hoops you have to jump through and a medical condition you must be diagnosed with. Again, you're desperately seeking an out here but this aint it.A law abiding citizen of any state can get cocaine provided they meet the requirements asked by the FDA. This is akin to the requirements that the FPA via the ATF. AR-15's in 1995 required the approval of the ATF which also required local law enforcement just as the remaining le 2 weapons still do today. What you are arguing is a matter of degree ie it is more difficult to get the FDA to approve cocaine than it is the ATF to approve registration xfer but that does not mean they are not analogous. Thus my comment about you lacking a concept of nuance.
You are just more pithy version of WC. You think you can browse a few pages and suddenly have the knowledge to debate a subject. Try reading a Wiki on plasma physics then debating it with a physicist, if you haven't already.As for my familiarity with the weapons, I have two things. You have no idea and you gun liberals sure do like discussing other's personal lives as if it is relevant. You are just wrong. Second familiarity with the weapon has nothing to do with the registration process ie it is irrelevant. How about you talk about the issues rather than my personal life. I suspect you don't because you have no leg to stand on.
I don't give a if it harkens you back to when you were sucking a during your coffee break. I believe you were read quite well and the wall of text you vomited shortly thereafter is evidence of that.When you guys do the "what does Fuzzy do" routine, it hearkens me back to Eleanor's Roosevelt.
No, you cry "semantics". The word "ban" means what it means, and it's not the word "ban" that's the issue as much as it's the fact that you equivocate a manufacturing ban with a ban on transfer and ownership. You've not recovered from that. You went from the "u mad" card to the "I'm a victim" card. Carry on.I try discussing the concept of the word 'ban,' characterizations as a method of argument, the process by which le 2 weapons are xfered, what the 1994 act did, etc. You mostly want to discuss me.
No... really?Then of course there was the 1994 action which simply moved weapons that met the 'assault weapon' standard into le 2 along with machine guns, etc. The machine guns et al, are still classified under the same law as before. It hasn't been amended since 1994 afaik.
"I'm financially conservative yet liberal on human rights" blah blah blah... You're a liberal through and through. Just own it already.Finally, calling me a liberal is simpleminded claptrap. I am 'liberal' when it comes to gun control but in regards to immigration, capital punishment, foreign policy, and many other things is harldy that. The liberal/conservative label is just something to dumb reality down so it's easier to understand. That's just sad. Quit being WC.
It's accurate. Anything can be banned. Name something that cannot be banned.
I cannot. I am not in the position of making law.
should be fun watching the man take his lumps, or back pedal.
Fox Repug Propaganda network spewing lies about guns
Americans Need Assault Weapons To Protect Themselves From An Iranian Invasion, Al Qaeda
“What scares the out of me we have a president, as we were discussing during break, that wants to take away our guns, but yet he wants to attack Iran and Syria. So if they come and attack us here, we don’t have the right to bear arms under this Obama administration,” Angela McGlowan, a former lobbyist for News Corp., said in the midst of a conversation about violence in Syria.
The panel also falsely argued that widespread gun ownership in Israel has helped prevent terrorist attacks, though access to firearms is strictly limited to people who “can prove their professions or places of residence put them in danger.” Approximately “170,000 guns are licensed for private use in Israel,” while assault weapons are “banned for private ownership.”
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/...sion-al-qaeda/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-24-2013 at 12:36 PM.
Ahh how cute. You two are having a circle jerk. Just leave me out of it. And I find it interesting that you find it so important to characterize me as on a coffee break, some erotic fantasy or reading or whatever you picture in your head. You two have no club but you are so desperate to label me. Keep on trying it's entertaining.
No, you cry "semantics". The word "ban" means what it means, and it's not the word "ban" that's the issue as much as it's the fact that you equivocate a manufacturing ban with a ban on transfer and ownership.
Again. The assault weapon ban from 1994 had the same provisions. That one way of determining what it means. That ban designated assault weapons as le 2.
Further, you keep on fixating on the need for a prescription to get cocaine. You neglected the other means by which it can be acquired ie by a research scientist or a pharmacy for resale. Again its not the same requirements but the point is that there are requirements. There is no free transfer. In one case you need to approval of the ATF and the other FDA. One a doctor, the other a head law enforcement head. What you are arguing is a matter of degree but your brain can only consider binary logic it would seem. The law in question prohibits the free transfer of the good in both cases unless a provision is made by a local expert or by the law enforcement agency in question.
If you are going to come back with more erotic imagery based off of your own butthurtedness along with characterizations in place of analysis I am just going to ignore you. It's boring.
Breathing
Breathing can be banned. The ban is only a law. It's not a physical barrier.
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/12/...6981322728200/
Last edited by DMC; 03-24-2013 at 12:34 PM.
It's "morans," by the way.
breathing can't be banned. It wasn't banned in your link either.
Your use of semantics sucks.
Your understanding of the term "banned" sucks. You seem to think banning something makes it physically impossible to do. It's simply a law. Are you saying that it's impossible to create a law that bans breathing? I am not talking about unlikely, but if someone was challenged to create such a law, could it be done if everyone involved was in agreement? Sure it could. Anything can be banned. If you can write it here, it can be written in a legal do ent.
Nuance, is that what makes a feral hog a javelina?Ahh how cute. You two are having a circle jerk. Just leave me out of it. And I find it interesting that you find it so important to characterize me as on a coffee break, some erotic fantasy or reading or whatever you picture in your head. You two have no club but you are so desperate to label me. Keep on trying it's entertaining.
Again. The assault weapon ban from 1994 had the same provisions. That one way of determining what it means. That ban designated assault weapons as le 2.
Further, you keep on fixating on the need for a prescription to get cocaine. You neglected the other means by which it can be acquired ie by a research scientist or a pharmacy for resale. Again its not the same requirements but the point is that there are requirements. There is no free transfer. In one case you need to approval of the ATF and the other FDA. One a doctor, the other a head law enforcement head. What you are arguing is a matter of degree but your brain can only consider binary logic it would seem. The law in question prohibits the free transfer of the good in both cases unless a provision is made by a local expert or by the law enforcement agency in question.
If you are going to come back with more erotic imagery based off of your own butthurtedness along with characterizations in place of analysis I am just going to ignore you. It's boring.
You cannot legally acquire cocaine. There's not a regulating agency that sells transferable machine guns. They are bought and sold by civilians. Your analogy is ing stupid. Based on your analogy, registering a vehicle is no different than getting cocaine legally.
How do you know what I can or cannot do? Oh yeah you don't. Quit trying to make this about me. I am only one of 100's of millions in this country despite you getting hung up on me. Oh NOES! I confused native pigs to feral pigs. That doesn't bother me and it certainly does not automatically invalidate what I say.
You can get it for research purposes. Pharmacies get it. Doctors can get it as well via those sources.
I never said the ATF sold le 2 weapons. Try again and try to keep up.
You can go into the tax assessor and register a vehicle with the le and a bill of sale. If you have the required do ents then the clerk has to issue. le 2 weapons do not work like that. You have to get approval from two law enforcement agencies. Neither of which are beholden to do ents or compelled to issue the transfer. For someone that acts like he is an expert on guns, you sure are clueless as to le 2 xfers.
You still don't address the 1994 assault weapons ban and how this is procedurally the same ie they are both a classification of le 2. Further underscoring the point is the schedule 2 classification of cocaine. Not only in number but in how the differences in numerical classification are used to determine control. Again a matter of degree which you are blind to.
why do you keep ignoring your stupid claim. Admit you were wrong and we'll move on.
Why didn't you take me up on my offer? I will prove to you that I can/have acquired subguns, you prove to me that you can/have acquired cocaine, both legally of course.
You're no doctor nor are you a researcher.You can get it for research purposes. Pharmacies get it. Doctors can get it as well via those sources.
Of course not, but you made the comparison to a substance that's only sold legally by regulating agencies, and a device that's owned by the general public and tracked by regulating agencies. If you could get this cocaine, like if you had a license to acquire it, you couldn't sell it. I can sell my subguns, the buyer just needs the tax stamp and the local approval.I never said the ATF sold le 2 weapons. Try again and try to keep up.
You've gone beyond absurdity now with this comparison. Just stop.
Not really. You can create a trust or a corporation, and then the signatures aren't required.You can go into the tax assessor and register a vehicle with the le and a bill of sale. If you have the required do ents then the clerk has to issue. le 2 weapons do not work like that. You have to get approval from two law enforcement agencies. Neither of which are beholden to do ents or compelled to issue the transfer. For someone that acts like he is an expert on guns, you sure are clueless as to le 2 xfers.
Keep trying though. This is why I say you're in over your head here. You keep making false statements as if you've reached the end of the internet.
You keep jumping around between machine guns, "assault weapons" which aren't machine guns and le II or NFA weapons which include short barreled shotguns and short barreled rifles, suppressors and other items. Try to separate these things in your mind as being completely different things, because they are. The 1994 ban did nothing to NFA weapons. It did not ban the sale of pre-existing AR-15s or "assault weapons". It addressed manufacturing, and the possession of illegally imported (duh!) assault weapons.You still don't address the 1994 assault weapons ban and how this is procedurally the same ie they are both a classification of le 2. Further underscoring the point is the schedule 2 classification of cocaine. Not only in number but in how the differences in numerical classification are used to determine control. Again a matter of degree which you are blind to.
You need to back up 10 yards and punt.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions