General Discussion

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)

172. You'll strain something trying to move those goalposts...

Reply to bongbong (Reply #111)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 12:24 AM

Jul 2012

A claim was made, and I demonstrated that it was erroneous.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

251 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How many different weapons can be used for hunting and why is it so critical that certain aspects of [View all] Cary Jul 2012 OP

It's one of the many oddities of this debate el_bryanto Jul 2012 #1

Not true: friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #2

Key phrase bongbong Jul 2012 #111

You'll strain something trying to move those goalposts... friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #172

LOL bongbong Jul 2012 #197

It is erroneous, only reason NRA supported that was to keep tougher restrictions from passing. Hoyt Jul 2012 #242

Because these bans don't actually help- they're security theater. friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #3

You're not answering my question Cary Jul 2012 #4

Irrelevance? Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #6

Irrelevance. Total irrelevance. Cary Jul 2012 #8

+1 slampoet Jul 2012 #10

Okay. Let's limit mag capacity to ten rounds. rrneck Jul 2012 #14

That's the "world's fastest reload", and it's being performed in a laboratory setting. DanTex Jul 2012 #25

They like them because they aren't very good mass murderers. rrneck Jul 2012 #27

They like them because with a high-capacity magazine, you don't need to worry about reloading. DanTex Jul 2012 #29

That's what I love about rrneck Jul 2012 #31

Yes, I'm sure that a mentally unbalanced person going on a shooting rampage... DanTex Jul 2012 #37

Like I said. They're bad mass murderers. rrneck Jul 2012 #43

Ahem. Speed reloading is *exactly* what Seng-Hui Cho did at Virginia Tech. friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #84

Anybody halfway competant knows when their gun in empty (before pulling the trigger) Travis_0004 Jul 2012 #77

"Serious proof" in a completely informal discussion like this? Okaaaay. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #18

Serious proof as in objective studies that support your assertions Cary Jul 2012 #26

One needn't refer to studies. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #32

There should be hearings on legislation and legislation should be based on the findings Cary Jul 2012 #34

Sorry, but your JD... Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #44

I handle guardianship matters Cary Jul 2012 #51

Okay, there's the deal: Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #54

Actually whether I say it's 26 or 28 is of no consequnce Cary Jul 2012 #62

If he's an attorney I'm an astronaut. nt rrneck Jul 2012 #65

A-yup. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #67

Translation Cary Jul 2012 #86

You have fled a previous discussion rrneck Jul 2012 #94

I have limited time and you are of limited use to me. Cary Jul 2012 #179

Then go your own way. rrneck Jul 2012 #182

I almost wonder what it is you think you're doing. n/t Cary Jul 2012 #183

That's for me to know and you to find out. rrneck Jul 2012 #186

Your shallow ambitions are all yours, buddy boy...n/t Cary Jul 2012 #188

And yet, here you are. rrneck Jul 2012 #191

If "the record" actually spoke... Cary Jul 2012 #192

First rule of holes... rrneck Jul 2012 #193

Just because you give yourself too much credit, doesn't mean I have to. Cary Jul 2012 #194

Okay. rrneck Jul 2012 #195

Hey, you're entitled to your worthless opinion. n/t Cary Jul 2012 #196

Yes I am. rrneck Jul 2012 #198

Is that right? n/t Cary Jul 2012 #199

The space below this text is where your informed opinion goes. rrneck Jul 2012 #200

You don't say? n/t Cary Jul 2012 #201

Yep. rrneck Jul 2012 #202

Well how do you like that? Cary Jul 2012 #203

Produce an opinion and we'll see. rrneck Jul 2012 #204

Wow! That's amazing. Cary Jul 2012 #206

Missed again. Still nothing. rrneck Jul 2012 #208

Unbelievable. Truly mind boggling. Cary Jul 2012 #210

This thread needs a theme song! rrneck Jul 2012 #219

This thread will be locked soon Cary Jul 2012 #220

It will always be visable. rrneck Jul 2012 #221

Pfeh. Cary Jul 2012 #222

Good. rrneck Jul 2012 #223

The correct spelling is "counselor" Cary Jul 2012 #224

Thanks! rrneck Jul 2012 #225

Pfeh is perfect, unless you're really picky in which case you might say I should use feh. Cary Jul 2012 #231

If you didn't care rrneck Jul 2012 #237

You ARE an amateur in regards to the subjects of this discussion- guns. friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #83

I am cognizant enough to know that the screaming gun Mimis Cary Jul 2012 #85

You know, you're not the first attorney here claiming to be The World's Foremost Authority. friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #173

It signifies expertise in the law Cary Jul 2012 #176

You might know the law, but based on what you've posted in this thread,... badtoworse Jul 2012 #177

Unfortunately for you... Cary Jul 2012 #178

What hubris! Stick with slip and fall lawyering badtoworse Jul 2012 #184

I run into a lot of childish posts like yours Cary Jul 2012 #187

I'm sure you get called on hubris all the time - nt badtoworse Jul 2012 #190

If a distinguished, board-certified physician presumed to lecture you about law, would you listen? friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #213

f_i writes: "I think not..." Cary Jul 2012 #214

Knowing doctors as a group, I don't doubt at least a few of them have already... friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #217

ROTFLMAO! Cary Jul 2012 #218

Any law should have a demonstrably positive effect. NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #57

People shouldn't blow through red lights and mow you down in the crosswalk Cary Jul 2012 #63

Forgive me, because this post may sound contentious and that's not how I intend it. NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #72

I look at it like this: Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #5

So you admit that it doesn't matter if certain characteristics of assault weapons are outlawed Cary Jul 2012 #7

In answer to your last question: X_Digger Jul 2012 #12

"Why endorse a law that has been proven to be ineffective? " Cary Jul 2012 #13

See the last para (and quotes) for your answer.. X_Digger Jul 2012 #15

It's a perfectly good answer, just not the one you want. (nt) Posteritatis Jul 2012 #20

Great post! I'm going to bookmark this for the next time I'm called paranoid about incrementalism badtoworse Jul 2012 #88

Cosmetic features are still important gregoire Jul 2012 #9

Why do you want to have a blood feud over cosmetics? n/t Cary Jul 2012 #11

If someone is so close to the edge... Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #22

Because legislation is expensive. rrneck Jul 2012 #16

How much money has been spent on this? How much political capital? Cary Jul 2012 #17

How did the NRA set off this shit storm? hack89 Jul 2012 #23

What's your point? rrneck Jul 2012 #24

How much political capital? Umm.. try losing congress for a decade. X_Digger Jul 2012 #33

Just because Bill Clinton says that's why the House was lost doesn't mean it's true. Cary Jul 2012 #36

I lived in rural Virginia during that time, I remember the shitstorm it caused. X_Digger Jul 2012 #41

A bit of history for you.. virginia mountainman Jul 2012 #19

My answer is very simple - Laws that restrict peoples' choices have to pull their weight slackmaster Jul 2012 #21

I have practiced law for 28 years now. Cary Jul 2012 #28

My answer is that there is no reason TO ban them slackmaster Jul 2012 #47

Your nonanswers are the answers I expected. Cary Jul 2012 #49

It interfered with a lot of things. rrneck Jul 2012 #56

I am inflexible and obstinate. NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #60

I've met DU gun reactionaries for the first time yesterday Cary Jul 2012 #64

I want to work toward positive change, and I do. NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #74

The proof is in the pudding Cary Jul 2012 #87

I've been saying for a long time... NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #106

Explain to me how you treat a violent psychopath Cary Jul 2012 #109

It's not possible to prevent every violent act. NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #122

Translation Cary Jul 2012 #135

I don't know anything about the treatment of violent psychopaths. NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #140

It's not your run of the mill mentally ill person who goes out and shoots up a crowded theater Cary Jul 2012 #141

"Take preemptive action of some sort"??? MicaelS Jul 2012 #143

That makes sense. Cary Jul 2012 #145

Coming from lawyer, that's a compliment. MicaelS Jul 2012 #147

Oh good! Cary Jul 2012 #149

Well, I'm glad we understand each other, to an extent. NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #165

Not fed up with you personally and I am certainly not demanding that you Cary Jul 2012 #168

It's your judgement that taking away my option to get a rifle with a folding stock would not be a... slackmaster Jul 2012 #66

In other words Aerows Jul 2012 #50

Free clue.. paint them camo.. X_Digger Jul 2012 #53

You need 100 round clips in them, too Aerows Jul 2012 #70

No silly, you hunt with 5 round magazines (or whatever your state allows.) X_Digger Jul 2012 #75

And you think your argument isn't silly? Aerows Jul 2012 #78

Feel free to set that goalpost down.. X_Digger Jul 2012 #81

Let's play Nuclear Straw Man. slackmaster Jul 2012 #68

I desperately need a 100 round clip to hunt Aerows Jul 2012 #69

You're trying to change the subject, your tone is hostile and rude slackmaster Jul 2012 #73

It's hostile and rude to YOU Aerows Jul 2012 #79

The topic of this thread is characteristics of firearms, not of ammunition magazines slackmaster Jul 2012 #91

Because we already have bad laws on the books we should go ahead and add a few more? 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #90

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are nonhunters. benEzra Jul 2012 #30

Reasonable voices should prevail. cbrer Jul 2012 #35

That's one factor Reasonable_Argument Jul 2012 #38

Is it more accurate cbrer Jul 2012 #58

I'm sure this is true. Cary Jul 2012 #40

There are two intentionally direct questions rrneck Jul 2012 #55

Difficult cbrer Jul 2012 #59

A couple that can and have been used hobbit709 Jul 2012 #39

True. Cary Jul 2012 #42

I've seen a tightly rolled up newspaper shred someone's face. hobbit709 Jul 2012 #46

It is my experience that shrill DU voices Cary Jul 2012 #52

Shrill DU voices? slackmaster Jul 2012 #95

You don't have to like my judgment Cary Jul 2012 #98

I answered your direct question TWICE, and you ignored my answer because you don't like it. slackmaster Jul 2012 #100

I didn't say I didn't like your answer. Those are your words, not mine. Cary Jul 2012 #103

And at this point I'm lumping you with all other gun reactionaries Cary Jul 2012 #104

My only reply is that no weapons should be used for hunting. RebelOne Jul 2012 #45

When the state wants to ban, limit, or restrict any choice, liberty, or freedom, petronius Jul 2012 #48

So, should we outright ban hunting to eliminate them all? flvegan Jul 2012 #61

The banned features have legitimate uses. ManiacJoe Jul 2012 #71

*If* the purpose of our guns is to authentically protect freedom . . . patrice Jul 2012 #76

There are so many cooked up arguments against assault weapon bans Aerows Jul 2012 #80

Oh, it's the little things. krispos42 Jul 2012 #82

That's a good answer Krispos42 Cary Jul 2012 #115

Certainly we can. :-) n/t krispos42 Jul 2012 #125

Perhaps you could instead provide reasons for them to be banned 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #89

It creates the illusion that the problem is being addressed badtoworse Jul 2012 #92

I agree 100% 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #93

Versus what? Cary Jul 2012 #101

My post was clear about how the problem should be addressed badtoworse Jul 2012 #116

How do you know what I am happy or unhappy about? Cary Jul 2012 #119

I'm reading between the lines of your posts in this thread. badtoworse Jul 2012 #121

I haven't advocated any ban Cary Jul 2012 #99

You haven't asked for a ban 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #102

I said we should have a dialogue and that the gun reactionaries who are stifling that dialogue Cary Jul 2012 #107

Ok, but shouldn't any dialogue about potentially banning something 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #108

I don't buy that "conservative" limited government meme Cary Jul 2012 #112

Saying proponents of a ban should provide evidence for why such a ban 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #114

Hahahahaha Cary Jul 2012 #117

Yes, if you're pushing for a ban 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #124

ROTFLMAO Cary Jul 2012 #130

Because the attempted ban is on guns that look "bad" or "evil" to some people. MicaelS Jul 2012 #96

Not to nitpick, but.. Marinedem Jul 2012 #97

You need a 100 round magazine if you want to shoot at bees. n/t Ian David Jul 2012 #105

If these features of assault weapons are merely "cosmetic," why do gun nuts insist on having them? Erose999 Jul 2012 #110

Why are you asking me? Cary Jul 2012 #113

Several reasons... MicaelS Jul 2012 #118

So 100 round magazines in civilian hands are absolutely necessary because they "look cool". And this Erose999 Jul 2012 #120

"Absolutely necessary"??? Nope.... MicaelS Jul 2012 #123

Consider that just one of that "1%" shot about 70 people, killing at least 12 of them last week. And Erose999 Jul 2012 #128

for me living in a ban state... belcffub Jul 2012 #129

The cosmetic features serve legitimate uses. ManiacJoe Jul 2012 #132

What the AWB did. Kaleva Jul 2012 #126

Maybe because arguing about minutia is an effective way of derailing the conversation? drm604 Jul 2012 #127

Lack of knowldege of the minutia made, IMO, the AWB an ineffective law. Kaleva Jul 2012 #131

I thought that was about Teflon coated bullets. n/t Cary Jul 2012 #134

It was about rounds that could penetrate ballistic vests. Kaleva Jul 2012 #137

I am still certain that the "cop killer bullet" issue was about Teflon coated bullets. Cary Jul 2012 #138

A lot of bills don't go anywhere becasue people take the time and look at the details of it. Kaleva Jul 2012 #142

Kaleva, I don't have a point of view either way. Cary Jul 2012 #146

Why do you think I'm a gungeoneer? Kaleva Jul 2012 #171

Any centerfire rifle ammuntion will penetrate soft body armor MicaelS Jul 2012 #144

This is where the technical knowledge comes in handy. ManiacJoe Jul 2012 #152

Your "technical knowledge" is nothing more than a cheap tactic you use to change the subject Cary Jul 2012 #155

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. ManiacJoe Jul 2012 #156

I do have a will to learn. Cary Jul 2012 #159

You show potential. ManiacJoe Jul 2012 #166

I think if you weed out the b.s. Cary Jul 2012 #133

I'm trying to figure out which side you're referring to with that term. drm604 Jul 2012 #169

What is a "gun reactionary"? obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #175

Like damned near everything surrounding the process we've chosen to follow in this debate, Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #136

There's a process in this debate? Cary Jul 2012 #139

Sure there is. Both sides stake out the most absurd positions they can find and Egalitarian Thug Jul 2012 #174

Listen, we, as True Americans�, have a God given 2nd Amendment right to carry as much military grade leeroysphitz Jul 2012 #148

I deny your premise. It is the anti-gun forces who are having an emotional fit over mags >10 rounds aikoaiko Jul 2012 #150

You deny what premise? Cary Jul 2012 #151

Your premise is that pro-rkba types are emotionally resisting the AWB.You called it emotional noise. aikoaiko Jul 2012 #157

I'm not saying that "pro-rkba types" are emotionally resisting the AWB Cary Jul 2012 #161

really? aikoaiko Jul 2012 #164

Really Cary Jul 2012 #167

We prefer to use shoulder-fired stinger missiles for hunting. Zorra Jul 2012 #153

Your initial premise is wrong. randome Jul 2012 #154

That was supposed to just be an example. Cary Jul 2012 #163

If a rife has the letters AR, AK, HK, SKS, FAL or TECH in its gun nut code name - ban 'em jpak Jul 2012 #158

This is an example of brilliant thinking that led to the Olympic PCR during the AWB ban aikoaiko Jul 2012 #160

Ban that piece of shit too jpak Jul 2012 #162

great thread! fascisthunter Jul 2012 #170

Number of times hunting is mentioned in the 2nd amendment: 0 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #180

I think I have seen you on threads other than gun threads but I Cary Jul 2012 #181

Oh I hope I pass your ideological purity test Mr. McCarthy 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #185

What ideological purity test would that be? Cary Jul 2012 #189

"see if any of you are really liberals" hack89 Jul 2012 #205

You aren't liberal, are you? n/t Cary Jul 2012 #207

Very much so - I support abortion rights, marriage equality, unions and single payer health care. hack89 Jul 2012 #209

Of course you're just the right person to put me in my place. Cary Jul 2012 #211

No - I commonly answer rudeness with rudeness. One of my many human failings. nt hack89 Jul 2012 #226

It was a sincere question. Cary Jul 2012 #228

Just perusing more of Meta Cary Jul 2012 #215

"Problem" is a relative term. I have to give a shit what you think first, right? nt hack89 Jul 2012 #227

Generally when I encounter as much whining as I have from you, Cary Jul 2012 #229

So what's the problem you can't discuss your own OP? rrneck Jul 2012 #230

It is my experience that a normal person understands when they're being mocked Cary Jul 2012 #233

What have you won? nt rrneck Jul 2012 #238

I haven't claimed to have won anything buddy boy. Cary Jul 2012 #240

You can't make any claim rrneck Jul 2012 #244

You can fabricate any claim that you want to. Cary Jul 2012 #247

See post #24. nt rrneck Jul 2012 #248

So dreck, you're claiming I have some kind of duty to respond to you? Cary Jul 2012 #249

I think you've overestimated me. nt rrneck Jul 2012 #250

I have no reason to complain hack89 Jul 2012 #232

Good grief. Cary Jul 2012 #234

Yet you keep wanting to engage with me. Why don't you simply stop typing? nt hack89 Jul 2012 #235

I told you already. Cary Jul 2012 #236

Procrastination is one of my talents too. hack89 Jul 2012 #239

I figure it's a cost of doing business. Cary Jul 2012 #241

Well if you want to actually eat what you kill, Assault rifles shouldn't be used LynneSin Jul 2012 #212

why? belcffub Jul 2012 #216

What? Edweird Jul 2012 #245

A good hunter will usually need only one shot and will match the round to the game badtoworse Jul 2012 #246

What does hunting have to do with anything? Edweird Jul 2012 #243

Locking SunsetDreams Jul 2012 #251