Skip to main content

View Diary: Texas dad freaks out and shows why it is past time we ban assault-style weapons & ammo (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Shamash, the NRA might say you are WRONG (0+ / 0-)

    You mocked TS4C for saying that some states ban the .223 because they have flat land;

    The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:
        1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.
    ~Teamsarah4choice
    You mocked TS4C with this:
    How silly of me. That's why these states allow hunting with weapons more powerful than the .223. Really? Isn't that a facepalm statement and not one you should be saying "I stand by every single 'gun' comment" on?
    ~Shamash
    Yet Shamash, read what J.R. Robbins of the NRA wrote when a Virginia County banned rifles for deer hunting:
    Much of the county’s land is flat (hence the 10-foot above ground rule), and there was great concern that such terrain increases the potential for missed shots to strike unintended targets.
    ~J.R. Robbins NRA employee for over 27 years
    Now, putting what TS4C wrote side-by-side with waht the NRA employee wrote --- that you mocked
    The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:
        1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.
    ~Teamsarah4choice
    Thus, you have not proven TS4C wrong.  In fact, you have shown that TS4C knows more about what he/she is talking about than you do.  

    At least TS4C comment reflected what the NRA employee J.R Robbins wrote.

    So to answer the question you mockingly asked TS4C:

    Isn't that a facepalm statement and not one you should be saying "I stand by every single 'gun' comment" on?
    ANS: No, it is not a facepalm statement and it is one TS4C can stand by as the NRA even stands by it ... but your comment Shamash, to TS4C is definitely a facepalm statement.

    Nothing you wrote proved TS4C was wrong and apparently TS4C comments are supported by the NRA.

    By the way, just because you do not know of a state that bans rifles for hunting does not mean you are correct.

    •  You are not illiterate (0+ / 0-)

      So there must be some other problem. First, why should I give a rat's ass what the NRA says? Not a member, never have been one, they've been loony since the 70's. Unless you are going to be quoting them as a credible source, in which case you're on the wrong web site.

      Let's recap:

      The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:
          1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.
      Note the text in bold. Read it a couple times until it is clear. She did not say "rifles", she did not say "high-powered rifles", she said hunting was specifically banned state-wide for one particular rifle in one particular caliber, a rifle which she singles out in multiple followup comments as not being powerful enough for deer hunting, despite the first-hand contradictions of multiple deer hunters (including myself). Why does she contradict actual deer hunters? She heard it on the internet, so it must be true!

      There is absolutely no mention or even the implication by her of states banning rifles more powerful than this or even banning other rifles using the exact same caliber. Maybe she is a poor writer. Maybe she is just obsessed with a particular caliber. Maybe she will come back and say "hey, you were right, I should have written that more clearly and not been so knee-jerk defensive about my perfect accuracy on all things "gun".

      And maybe pigs will fly.

      Second, I believe I did mention that localities (which last I checked, are not states) have banned rifles for hunting for exactly the reason I mentioned.

      So:
      1) She picked out a specific weapon and specific caliber for its danger
      2) Even though she also claims it is underpowered, then
      3) Ignores everything that is more dangerous, and
      4) Misrepresents local prohibitions as state-wide bans

      Then you step in and double the idiocy, by supporting her claim of a state-wide ban on all hunting with a particular caliber by conflating it with a local ban on one type of hunting with a type of weapon.

      And that intellectual misadventure is the best response you generate against my entire long comment? Are you sure you're not just a conservative who wandered in here by accident and was too dim to realize he was on the wrong web page?

      By the way, just because you do not know of a state that bans rifles for hunting does not mean you are correct.
      I would presume you accept then that just because she states that there is such a ban somewhere, that it does not mean she is correct, either. It's her diary, if she can show me many state-wide bans on "hunting" with "rifles", I will cheerfully retract that statement and apologize for doubting her. Remember, the statement that she insists is accurate is (parentheses mine)
      many states, including "Red States" prohibit hunting(generic) with any(generic) type of rifle(generic)
      There's your challenge. Pass it on to the entire internet for all I care. Get a pro-RKBA person to apologize. All you have to do is find something like "many of 50 states" that ban all hunting with all rifles. And FYI, even tiny Rhode Island allows some rifles for hunting, including the .223 for use against coyote, so begin your search elsewhere.

      Her diary was well-meaning, just riddled with errors. You took it up a notch. It is comments like yours that make me long for the days when you needed an IQ of 130 just to figure out how to send an email. We had contentious political discussions back in the 110 baud days of teletype machines and paper tape readers, just like we do now. Except you knew that the person on the other side of the debate wasn't a moron.

      •  Shamash, TS4C is correct some states do ban .223 (0+ / 0-)

        AR-15 and/or any other .223

        first:
        It sounds like you don't know much about the AR-15 because TS4C is correct, some states do have a state-wide ban on hunting with an .223 AR15 and any other .223

        I can't speak to all the states and I don't know which states TS4C was talking about but here are just a few states that I know of that have a state-wide ban on hunting with a .223 AR15 and/or any other .223: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Indiana, Virginia (some counties in Virginia ban any rifle)

        second:
        You mocked TS4C for a comment that was nearly identical to a comment an employee of the NRA said ... sounds like you need to give yourself a facepalm on that one.

        third:
        If you think TS4C is the only person who says a .223 is not big enough to put a deer down effectively then you don't know many hunters.  Plenty of people agree with the stance TS4C has and plenty don't.

        Here's what Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Deer Project Coordinator Matt Knox says on hunting a deer with a .223 and why there is a state-wide ban on hunting with a .223:

        “We could argue ‘til the cows come home, but we err on the conservative side of achieving humane and ethical kills,”
        ~Matt Knox
        Are you going to call him up and tell him he's wrong and you are right?

        fourth:
        Maybe, TS4C does not mention any state-wide ban on rifles more powerful than a .223 because there are none?  Perhaps, the states TS4C is referring to, like the ones I listed above do not ban rifles more powerful than a .223 because a more powerful gun can put down the deer effectively.

        fifth:
        I notice you conveniently left out the comment TS4C wrote before she wrote the one you are harping on (even though you've been proven wrong on the one you'r harping on)

        - many states, including "Red States" prohibit hunting with the AR-15 due to its .223 caliber.

        ~Teamsarah4choice

        It is very evident to anyone who can read that TS4C clarified why the AR-15 is banned, "due to its .223 caliber"

        Then TS4C went on to explain the reason for the ban is twofold and both 1) and 2) have been substantiated.
         1) was substantiated by the NRA employee, J.R. Robbins, and
        2) was substantiated by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Deer Project Coordinator Matt Knox.

        sixth:
        The reason I gave you the NRA employee's comment on the VA county ban was because you mocked TS4C for saying the same dang thing the NRA employee said.

        Much of the county’s land is flat (hence the 10-foot above ground rule), and there was great concern that such terrain increases the potential for missed shots to strike unintended targets.
        ~J.R. Robbins NRA employee for over 27 years
        Now, putting what TS4C wrote side-by-side with what the NRA employee wrote --- that you mocked
        The reason many states, including Red States, ban hunting with a .223 AR-15 is due twofold:
            1) the danger of innocent people being killed by them.  You see, some Red States are flat and such terrain increases the potential for missed shots from a rifle to strike unintended targets, like people.
        ~Teamsarah4choice
        seventh
        I have no idea if TS4C is correct about there being any state that does not allow hunting with any rifle.  But, that seems to be the only illegitimate question there is ... however, you did not question TS4C as to which state(s) don't allow rifles you, instead, pretended like you actually knew more than you apparently do and you wrote:
        there is so much factual fail and abject ignorance in the diary that it hurts.

        ... Everything else you said about guns was both irrelevant to the father's actions and pretty much wrong.
        ~Shamash

        Fact is, Shamash, you are wrong.  There is not "so much factually wrong" as even I have proven that you are the one was wrong.

        And "everything else" TS4C wrote about guns is not wrong -- you were wrong.

        eighth:
        You, Shamash, were blatantly wrong when you falsely wrote that "everything else" TS4C "said about guns is wrong."

        And You, Shamash, were blatantly wrong when you falsely wrote that there is "so much" about what TS4C wrote that is "factually wrong"

        You tossed out your false accusations when, as it turns out, you had no idea what you were talking about.

        It boils to:
        There is one comment TS4C has in her diary that is questionable -- that neither you nor I know if it is true -- but just because there is one questionable comment does not take away from the fact that you seem to have no idea what you are talking about.

        I suggest that the next time you say someone is "factual fail and abject ignorance in the diary that it hurts." that you actually do some research so you don't end up looking " ignorant " by showing you do not knowing what you are talking about.

        •  I take it back (0+ / 0-)

          Wow.
          You are illiterate, or suffer from some other cognitive disorder. You either cannot understand what you read, or suffer from an ideological bias that blinds you to things you do not want to see. There is no point in engaging in a fact-based debate with someone who is incapable of understanding, let alone accepting facts. I've dealt with young-earth Creationists who have a better grasp on reality.

          Though all you've done is waste my time and make yourself look foolish, I'm sure that in your mental Bizarro-land you will congratulate yourself for your intellectual prowess and putting me in my place.

          Good luck with the rest of your life. You're going to need it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (59)
  • 2016 (50)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (37)
  • Media (34)
  • Republicans (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • Law (29)
  • Jeb Bush (29)
  • Culture (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Climate Change (25)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Labor (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • LGBT (16)
  • Congress (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site