This user has been banned.
Speaking of mods, isn’t oojason ahead of me in line?
Darth Ender already defeated him. Also, as far as I know, oojason never played chess professionally.
I’ve decided to organize and hereby forthwith do declare the founding of:
The OT.com Chess Federation©®™(OTCF©®™)
I declare myself its first commissioner and of course recognize Darth Ender as OT.com chess champion.
The game between Darth Ender and Puggo shall go on as before.
The OP might have something to say about all this.
I am the OP.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good
This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.
Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.
no that is not what I was saying.
Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?
merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.
We’re not in a high school debate class lol. There’s no scoring points here.
ffs
lol
I see nothing funny.
Do you ever though?
I have on occasion.
After reviewing the last few pages, I gather facts about guns don’t matter, effectiveness of policies are either beyond our comprehension or don’t matter, and Frink’s mom is one happening lady.
Also, I like Collipso’s new avatar.
Since banning guns entirely will never be likely, I’m interested in more feasible solutions. For instance, the rubber bullets idea is actually a fairly reasonable solution: it may not be 100% effective, but I guarantee 17 people wouldn’t have died on Valentine’s Day if the perpetrator only had access to rubber bullets. The same enjoyable aspects of guns would remain, while the lethal aspect would be drastically reduced.
Like I said earlier, all guns should be registered with something like a title following every transaction. Definitely in order to own, but even better would be limiting the ability to shoot without training and a license renewed every three or five years. No training without a permit certified by a particular licensing agency. No gun purchases to anyone under 21. No training for anyone under 16. I mean, guns and cars are both potentially quite lethal–the two are quite comparable, only fewer people shoot than drive. A police officer should be allowed to see a man with a gun and ask him to produce his license to own.
You are an exception! I think states should have greater leeway to implement gun control laws, because a “well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State.” States should be able to implement rules to that end. This should be especially true under a state’s general police powers. Because of the dastardly 14th Amendment, the Court said the 2nd Amendment limits the states as it does the federal government, but I think there is room for states to do more than the federal government might be able to.
I could get into a fight with you about the “dastardly 14th Amendment”, but I won’t.
A fight over the 14th Amendment would probably be fisticuffs.
It would also be rehashing old debates.
Apparently Fergie (of The Black Eyed Peas) did a terribad rendition of the national anthem at the NBA All-Star game.
People are upset over that??? I’m old enough to remember a really bad rendition…
I won’t link to any actual video, because it would violate the Geneva Convention. 😛
I still don’t understand why she was allowed to do the anthem. She’s not even a singer!
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good
This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.
Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.
no that is not what I was saying.
Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?
merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.
We’re not in a high school debate class lol. There’s no scoring points here.
ffs
lol
I see nothing funny.
no.
After reviewing the last few pages, I gather facts about guns don’t matter, effectiveness of policies are either beyond our comprehension or don’t matter, and Frink’s mom is one happening lady.
Also, I like Collipso’s new avatar.
Since banning guns entirely will never be likely, I’m interested in more feasible solutions. For instance, the rubber bullets idea is actually a fairly reasonable solution: it may not be 100% effective, but I guarantee 17 people wouldn’t have died on Valentine’s Day if the perpetrator only had access to rubber bullets. The same enjoyable aspects of guns would remain, while the lethal aspect would be drastically reduced.
Like I said earlier, all guns should be registered with something like a title following every transaction. Definitely in order to own, but even better would be limiting the ability to shoot without training and a license renewed every three or five years. No training without a permit certified by a particular licensing agency. No gun purchases to anyone under 21. No training for anyone under 16. I mean, guns and cars are both potentially quite lethal–the two are quite comparable, only fewer people shoot than drive. A police officer should be allowed to see a man with a gun and ask him to produce his license to own.
You are an exception! I think states should have greater leeway to implement gun control laws, because a “well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State.” States should be able to implement rules to that end. This should be especially true under a state’s general police powers. Because of the dastardly 14th Amendment, the Court said the 2nd Amendment limits the states as it does the federal government, but I think there is room for states to do more than the federal government might be able to.
I could get into a fight with you about the “dastardly 14th Amendment”, but I won’t.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good
This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.
Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.
no that is not what I was saying.
Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?
merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.
I don’t need to know what is a good solution. I’m just posing a question. I can’t think of any reason why guns at shooting ranges need to be lethal.
I am confused as to what you think should be done to them to make them non-lethal.
It’s a fucking legitimate question and I don’t think I need to know whether rubber bullets are a safe option or whatever to pose it.
I never said it wasn’t a legitimate question.
If you don’t know a solution either I don’t why you you’re questioning my knowledge. It’s not like I’m pretending, I’m being forthright about it. But it shouldn’t matter in this conversation.
I did not mean to offend you. I am not questioning your knowledge, you questioned it yourself. You said
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good solution.
I am merely saying that by learning more about guns and how they work and the terminology and pro gun people and whatnot, we might get better at offering solutions. I am sorry if you thought I was picking on you or something. It was not my intent.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good
This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.
Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.
no that is not what I was saying.
Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?
merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.
We’re not in a high school debate class lol. There’s no scoring points here.
ffs
Why do you guys care so much that the weapon isn’t fully automatic?
I think the point is: if we (as a country) are to regulate/ban guns, we should specify what specifically should be regulated or banned and how. If we (in the gun-control camp) are to argue efficiently, we ought to be knowledgeable in our argument and not make ignorant generalizations because our ignorance lessens the credibility of our argument. Therefore, accurate knowledge of terms and functioning of equipment is necessary, especially so we are better capable of understanding why past or current gun laws were/are inadequate or ineffective.
exactly. Thanks, chyron.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good
This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.
Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.
no that is not what I was saying.
Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?
merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.
Why do you guys care so much that the weapon isn’t fully automatic? And it can be fully auto if the guy decides to buy something for the gun, so why would you argue and bring that point up so much? I mean, I much rather have the guy having to press the trigger at every shot than once per magazine, but it’s almost just as deadly. I’d argue that the guy has even more precision with a semi-auto. It doesn’t matter, it’s beyond the point.
I just like to get the facts and terminology correct.
Noted.
I don’t care however.
noted, and so is your rude dismissiveness and bad attitude.
Why do you guys care so much that the weapon isn’t fully automatic? And it can be fully auto if the guy decides to buy something for the gun, so why would you argue and bring that point up so much? I mean, I much rather have the guy having to press the trigger at every shot than once per magazine, but it’s almost just as deadly. I’d argue that the guy has even more precision with a semi-auto. It doesn’t matter, it’s beyond the point.
I just like to get the facts and terminology correct.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good
This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.
Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.
no that is not what I was saying.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
Like, rubber bullets?
Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good
This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.
What’s the difference between a fully automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock?
Nothing.
I believe I did mention bump stocks in my post above.
Again I agree for basically all intents and purposes, they are the same. But technically they are two different things.
Here is a good video that shows the difference between the two
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd9y8hHMUag&feature=youtu.be&t=26s
Therefore the terminology doesn’t matter.
The terminology does matter. Semi-auto weapons and fully-auto weapons are two different things. If we are going to decide what guns to ban and what not, we’d better understand these things. Also the other side uses the fact that the pro gun control people don’t understand these things as way to argue against them.
I don’t care, and nothing is going to change based on anything I say so I don’t see the point in clarifying that I’m talking about a semi-auto weapon.
sheesh. Your attitude.
I have never been a member of any barbershop quartet.
I get why people like shooting automatic rifles at firing ranges. I get it.
I don’t.
Explain it to me. Why is this required as a potential pastime in this country?
I wouldn’t say it is required, but I could see it as being fun.
I mean why is it required that this country include shooting guns at the range as a potential pastime? Why is it mandatory that there be the option to include this as one’s hobby?
You’ll have to ask the pro-gun people that.
They are
10/10 great sentence.
oops. typo deleted.
I get why people like shooting automatic rifles at firing ranges. I get it.
I don’t.
Explain it to me. Why is this required as a potential pastime in this country?
I wouldn’t say it is required, but I could see it as being fun.
Ok Warb. They should ban semi-autos as well as fully-auto weapons for civilians. Happy?
ok.
Why does what they’re called matter so much to you?
I simply like getting the facts and terminology correct, that is all. Also again it can be argued that it makes us(the pro gun control side) look foolish when we don’t get these things correct.
What’s the difference between a fully automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock?
Nothing.
I believe I did mention bump stocks in my post above.
Again I agree for basically all intents and purposes, they are the same. But technically they are two different things.
Here is a good video that shows the difference between the two
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd9y8hHMUag&feature=youtu.be&t=26s
Therefore the terminology doesn’t matter.
The terminology does matter. Semi-auto weapons and fully-auto weapons are two different things. If we are going to decide what guns to ban and what not, we’d better understand these things. Also the other side uses the fact that the pro gun control people don’t understand these things as way to argue against them.
If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?
Just curious what you meant.
Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.
I am not sure how you would take the power to kill out of bullets and guns and still be able to call them bullets and guns.
