General Discussion

dumbcat

(2,160 posts)

4. You find it wrong to correct nomenclature?

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:48 AM

Jan 2016

That very telling.

One would think using correct nomenclature would encourage intelligent debate. Well, unless one had another agenda?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Guns are tightly restricted on US military bases -- would Trump change that? [View all] Akamai Jan 2016 OP

he is right Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #1

McCrhystal was talking about the bullets themselves -- not the automatic firing capabilities. Akamai Jan 2016 #10

a 5.56 round is not big Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #14

What are these larger military rounds? JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2016 #16

You really have no knowledge of military weapons do you? GGJohn Jan 2016 #18

The 5.56mm round the M4 and M16 fire is so SMALL, troops complained in Afghanistan about it NickB79 Jan 2016 #23

Very few military assault rifles are in civilian hands, GGJohn Jan 2016 #2

I see gunners are here correcting nomenclature - - auto vs semiautomatic - as if a semi-auto can't Hoyt Jan 2016 #3

You find it wrong to correct nomenclature? dumbcat Jan 2016 #4

He also claims it's easy to convert a semi to a full auto, GGJohn Jan 2016 #7

the San Bernardino shooters attempted to convert their AR's to full auto Angel Martin Jan 2016 #41

I find deflecting with minor corrections to nomenclature a common tactic. Thor_MN Jan 2016 #11

Of course. It's much better to continue the lies and half truths dumbcat Jan 2016 #13

that is not a minor correction Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #15

Exactly. As numerous mass shootings demonstrate, semi-autos are plenty lethal Hoyt Jan 2016 #29

Of course, as usual Hoyt, you're wrong. GGJohn Jan 2016 #5

Hoyt TeddyR Jan 2016 #8

Semi-auto are deadly enough. I bet you've checked out what is involved. Here's a trick. Hoyt Jan 2016 #30

That didn't answer my question TeddyR Jan 2016 #34

Yahoos don't need fully automatic weapons to kill a lot of folks, intimidate folks, play Hoyt Jan 2016 #37

Semi-auto vs full auto is not a small quibble NickB79 Jan 2016 #24

Our mass shooters have been effective with semi-auto and yahoos love them. Hoyt Jan 2016 #31

LOL. eom. GGJohn Jan 2016 #32

The policy is in place because guns and ammo ended up at gun shows in the early 90's. X_Digger Jan 2016 #6

McChrystal was focusing on the bullet itself -- see below Akamai Jan 2016 #9

If the argument is meant as an idea towards warding off rampage shooters Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2016 #12

My suggestion -- Leave it up to the commanders on base or to the relevant laws. Akamai Jan 2016 #17

Commanders can add to restrictions but seldom lift restrictions. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2016 #19

I would let them make the changes they feel they need to make and can lawfully make. Akamai Jan 2016 #21

While what you say is true I don't see it as germane to discussion about regulations Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2016 #25

A real problem is generalizing from single instances -- military leaders are much more likely to be Akamai Jan 2016 #26

While military leaders can and do offer advice on the writing of military regulations Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2016 #27

Memory doesn't serve you accurately in this instance. The regs were written during the preceding Akamai Jan 2016 #36

Another bad Bush policy. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2016 #39

commanders can not loosen Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #20

Policies vary from base to base madville Jan 2016 #22

however Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #28

Glad to see you understand that allowing more gunz loose on base is a LOWER standard. Hoyt Jan 2016 #33

Let's be clear TeddyR Jan 2016 #35

And hardly any guns. You seem to think society here is a war zone. Leave em at home. Hoyt Jan 2016 #38

Did you actually read my post? TeddyR Jan 2016 #40