U.S. House kills gun proposal

[CFLarsen]

Am I the only one that doesn't think sniping necessarily means killing?

I refer you to Webster. We have to work from a common acceptance of the meaning of words. Otherwise, we create intentional confusion instead understanding.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not to me.

No? You don't think that suburban home owners should have the right to own these guns? Interesting.

That's not how I understand it, perhaps you need to learn more about common usage of words in English.

I don't think I can learn much about the correct usage of English from you, if you keep redefining terms to suit your own agenda.

89%

And how did you get that number from?

What are adventages of Pedophilia and Cannibalism, be specific.

I told you: Pedophiles and cannibals have the advantages. Sure, it isn't so nice for their victims, which is why society has outlawed it.

 

[Grammatron]

No? You don't think that suburban home owners should have the right to own these guns? Interesting.

The exact opposite of that actually.

I don't think I can learn much about the correct usage of English from you, if you keep redefining terms to suit your own agenda.

Well three people beside me seem to think the word mean other than you say. Seems to me that mean you are redefining it.

And how did you get that number from?

It's my opinion so the number has no real value to you.

I told you: Pedophiles and cannibals have the advantages. Sure, it isn't so nice for their victims, which is why society has outlawed it.

So you hold people who own these guns at the same level as Pedophiles and Cannibals?

 

[CFLarsen]

That's the easy part:

The one Grammatron has is like this but has his name on the sides in big letters.

Unfortunately Hellfire Missles are restricted to those that hold a Destructive Devices permit, hence the need for a .50 long range scary to liberals sniper rifle. Unless, of course, you have said permit.

Joe Deer, Fred Moose, and Quentin Elk.

I don't detect a note of seriousness in your posts. Why not answer the question instead?

 

[Donks]

I refer you to Webster. We have to work from a common acceptance of the meaning of words. Otherwise, we create intentional confusion instead understanding.

Kodiak has alredy provided the definition for the term he introduced into the conversation. It is not restricted to killing.

 

[Grammatron]

CFL, I just don't understand what your problem is with someone owning this weapon if all they do is use it for recreation at a properly designated area.

 

[CFLarsen]

It doesn't have to. The Constitution is a restriction on powers of the government, not the people.

More accurately, it grants powers to the government. The Bill of Rights is technically a redundancy, for safety, against encroachment by the government on the people.

There we go.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'll pop the question again:

When will the misuse of something for criminal activity outweigh the intended use of same thing, in order for you to think it should be banned?

Come on, people: You do this all the time: You evaluate if a certain product or behavior is more harmful than beneficial, so you know if it should be outlawed or not.

Why is that so hard to do with this type of gun?

 

[Grammatron]

I'll pop the question again:

When will the misuse of something for criminal activity outweigh the intended use of same thing, in order for you to think it should be banned?

When 89% of people misue it criminaly I'll think about it.

Come on, people: You do this all the time: You evaluate if a certain product or behavior is more harmful than beneficial, so you know if it should be outlawed or not.

Why is that so hard to do with this type of gun?

Because it has not been harmful, it has a potential to be but so are many other things.

 

[Donks]

I'll pop the question again:

When will the misuse of something for criminal activity outweigh the intended use of same thing, in order for you to think it should be banned?

Come on, people: You do this all the time: You evaluate if a certain product or behavior is more harmful than beneficial, so you know if it should be outlawed or not.

Why is that so hard to do with this type of gun?

Has this type of gun been misused for criminal activity?

 

[CFLarsen]

When 89% of people misue it criminaly I'll think about it.

Why 89%? How did you come to that figure?

Because it has not been harmful, it has a potential to be but so are many other things.

Indeed. And you draw the line at 89%. I'd like to know how you got there. Based on what?

 

[CFLarsen]

Has this type of gun been misused for criminal activity?

That's not the point. It can be used for good things and bad things.

When does the bad outweigh the good?

 

[merphie]

That's not the point. It can be used for good things and bad things.

When does the bad outweigh the good?

What hasn't been used for something bad?

 

[Donks]

That's not the point. It can be used for good things and bad things.

What do you mean that's not the point? You said:

When will the misuse of something for criminal activity outweigh the intended use of same thing, in order for you to think it should be banned?

If there has been no misuse of something for criminal activity, how can it outweight its intended use?

When does the bad outweigh the good?

What bad has been done with this type of weapon?

 

[H3LL]

Tut! All the sniping on this thread, and no one dead yet. It must be because you're using cheap shots.

I have little, if anything to contribute to the thread, but will type anyway.

From a link posted in another thread. Sniperpractice (the activity that doesn't kill people) looks like an enjoyable activity to me. HERE, and useful for those that require the skill at work.

As the guy says "Shooting stuff is fun".


While you are there, have a wander over his other articles. Not scientific by any means but interesting practical demonstrations, particularly for those educated about guns by Hollywood.

www.theboxotruth.com

Carry one. Remember to shoot then re-locate.

 

[Grammatron]

Why 89%? How did you come to that figure?

Indeed. And you draw the line at 89%. I'd like to know how you got there. Based on what?

Well since you've asked for my opinion that is what I gave you. The number is at the point where I think something may be harmful to society. Why 89%? Not sure, seems like the right number to me.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well since you've asked for my opinion that is what I gave you. The number is at the point where I think something may be harmful to society. Why 89%? Not sure, seems like the right number to me.

So, you arbitrarily decide when something is harmful or not.

A little weak, isn't it?

 

[Ed]

So, you arbitrarily decide when something is harmful or not.

A little weak, isn't it?

That is decided by the voters. At some point, for any activity, they might demand legislation. Alternatively the legislators might determine that something is dangerous. It is not hard and fast. That is the answer.

What figure would be acceptable to you?

 

[CFLarsen]

That is decided by the voters. At some point, for any activity, they might demand legislation. Alternatively the legislators might determine that something is dangerous. It is not hard and fast. That is the answer.

I am asking people here. When will the misuse of something for criminal activity outweigh the intended use of same thing, in order for you - as a citizen and a voter - to think it should be banned?

What figure would be acceptable to you?

I don't see any reason why civilians should have access to such a firearm at all. If this firearm is allowed, why not a bazooka? Why not a heat-seeking missile?

 

[Rob Lister]

A snipe hunt is not shooting people. A snipe hunt is going out and hunting snipes.

Isn't that done with a burlap bag and a large stick?

To use a .50 cal seems a bit unsporting.