why a ban on assault weapons doesn't make things safer

myp · Jan 23, 2013

clax said:
If you read anything other than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed." You are wrong.

It does mean something if you choose to reject reality, have a happy delusion, don't expect me to be deluded also.

I am done talking to you about this.

1. So you think millions of people are wrong because they read it differently? Quite an egotistical position to take that only your interpretation is right and that is that, no?

2. Knock it off with calling anyone who disagrees with you delusional.

3. If you are done talking about this with me, don't respond, but your position doesn't really make sense and is quite egotistical. Words are interpreted. Even the founders didn't read into everything the same way.

clax · Jan 23, 2013

myp said:
1. So you think millions of people are wrong because they read it differently? Quite an egotistical position to take that only your interpretation is right and that is that, no?

2. Knock it off with calling anyone who disagrees with you delusional.

3. If you are done talking about this with me, don't respond, but your position doesn't really make sense and is quite egotistical. Words are interpreted. Even the founders didn't read into everything the same way.

Yes, reading words that aren't there is wrong.

You don't disagree with me you disagree with the constitution

there is nothing to "read into", just read. It is written, no hidden meanings, as clear as day.

Then I am an egotistical person, just like all the other people who think what they think is right.

You think what you think is right you are every bit as egotistical as I am.

myp · Jan 23, 2013

clax said:
Yes, reading words that aren't there is wrong.

You don't disagree with me you disagree with the constitution

there is nothing to "read into", just read. It is written, no hidden meanings, as clear as day.

Then I am an egotistical person, just like all the other people who think what they think is right.

You think what you think is right you are every bit as egotistical as I am.

Whenever you read something, you interpret it to determine the meaning. Everyone interprets things differently. That's just how it is.

The whole point is I do not think I am right because I am right. I understand interpretations vary and that is why I am saying the courts should decide. I am not an expert on the law. Judges are.

clax · Jan 23, 2013

myp said:
Whenever you read something, you interpret it to determine the meaning. Everyone interprets things differently. That's just how it is.

The whole point is I do not think I am right because I am right. I understand interpretations vary and that is why I am saying the courts should decide. I am not an expert on the law. Judges are.

No, you don't. If a stop sign says stop and I interrupt that to mean go, I would be wrong.

Interpretation is for ambiguous language not direct language.

clax · Jan 23, 2013

myp said:
Whenever you read something, you interpret it to determine the meaning. Everyone interprets things differently. That's just how it is.

The whole point is I do not think I am right because I am right. I understand interpretations vary and that is why I am saying the courts should decide. I am not an expert on the law. Judges are.

you playing head games, I have metched my wit with a manipulative 14 year old, you're out of your league

myp · Jan 23, 2013

clax said:
you playing head games, I have metched my wit with a manipulative 14 year old, you're out of your league

When someone disagrees with you, they are playing head games? Hmm...

I have acknowledged that there is disagreement in interpreting the 2nd amendment. That neither one of us is necessarily right or wrong, but that we just read it differently. Will you agree to that or continue to insist you are right because you know best?

clax · Jan 23, 2013

myp said:
When someone disagrees with you, they are playing head games? Hmm...

I have acknowledged that there is disagreement in interpreting the 2nd amendment. That neither one of us is necessarily right or wrong, but that we just read it differently. Will you agree to that or continue to insist you are right because you know best?

no when someone tries to spin the Constitution that's playing head games

myp · Jan 23, 2013

clax said:
no when someone tries to spin the Constitution that's playing head games

So you have confirmed that it is your way of the highway. Okay, well good luck with that. That's not how the world works.

misterveritis · Jan 23, 2013

myp said:
Actually you don't. You read it as A. I read it as B. It is that simple. We read it differently. Now you can say I am wrong just because you think you are right, but that isn't any way of proving anything because I can say just the opposite. You saying it says A because you read it as A does not mean anything.

Have you ever read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland?

When I read what you write about our civil rights I am reminded of L. Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson). Alice is considered to be one of the best examples of the literary nonsense genre.

clax · Jan 23, 2013

myp said:
When someone disagrees with you, they are playing head games? Hmm...

I have acknowledged that there is disagreement in interpreting the 2nd amendment. That neither one of us is necessarily right or wrong, but that we just read it differently. Will you agree to that or continue to insist you are right because you know best?

your intellectual dishonesty is the head game you're playing.

can you interpret a stop sign go sign because that is what you're doing

myp · Jan 23, 2013

clax said:
can you interpret a stop sign go sign because that is what you're doing

It's really not. Unfortunate you can't see that.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Arms is not defined. One might consider a nuclear bomb to be an arm. Or a rocket launcher. Or a grenade. Or an assault weapon. Or a pistol. Or a sword. There is interpretation involved there.

clax · Jan 23, 2013

myp said:
So you have confirmed that it is your way of the highway. Okay, well good luck with that. That's not how the world works.

if everybody's interpretation I was equally valuable everything would mean nothing. so if you reject the meaning of language the way words are used to articulate things that's out of order.

its not my way or the highway, again it's the Constitution way or the highway. you want to interpret till it's meaningless.

but really this is because you don't like guns, especially the big scary and black. and you think your opinion trumps the Constitution. you pull this nonsense about at the interpretation, you have interpreted that " the right the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed" means that it can be infringed to see to suit your political standing.

like I said you're out of your league.

clax · Jan 23, 2013

myp said:
It's really not. Unfortunate you can't see that.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Arms is not defined. One might consider a nuclear bomb to be an arm. Or a rocket launcher. Or a grenade. Or an assault weapon. Or a pistol. Or a sword. There is interpretation involved there.

Arms, is defined look it up in the dictionary, oh wait that is meaningless because your incorporation is different.

I bore of your head games.

What is truly unfortunate is you continue to attempt to pull the wool over my eyes and expect me to buy it. Practice your hyperbole on somebody else. I am not that blind.

myp · Jan 23, 2013

clax said:
Arms, is defined look it up in the dictionary, oh wait that is meaningless because your incorporation is different.

I bore of your head games.

What is truly unfortunate is you continue to attempt to pull the wool over my eyes and expect me to buy it. Practice your hyperbole on somebody else. I am not that blind.

It is not hyperbole (where do you see exaggeration

) and it is not meaningless. Your inability to accept that words are interpreted goes against everything that language is. All for a silly ideological stance in which you can't even accept facts for facts before discussing your opinions given the facts. And again with the dictionary? You know different dictionaries give different definitions and many give multiple ones, right? That proves my point in and of itself. What dictionary that you know of defines arms as assault weapons?

Here is what Merriam-Webster has to say:
Definition of ARM

1
a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm
b : a combat branch (as of an army)
c : an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)

...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arms

Yea, nothing about assault weapons.

myp · Jan 23, 2013

clax said:
if everybody's interpretation I was equally valuable everything would mean nothing. so if you reject the meaning of language the way words are used to articulate things that's out of order.

its not my way or the highway, again it's the Constitution way or the highway. you want to interpret till it's meaningless.

but really this is because you don't like guns, especially the big scary and black. and you think your opinion trumps the Constitution. you pull this nonsense about at the interpretation, you have interpreted that " the right the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed" means that it can be infringed to see to suit your political standing.

like I said you're out of your league.

No one said everyone's interpretation is equal! What I am saying is it is ARGUABLE.

And this isn't a contest and there aren't leagues. These issues are real world issues because there is disagreement. If you were so right and it were so apparent, there would be no issue.

clax · Jan 23, 2013

myp said:
No one said everyone's interpretation is equal! What I am saying is it is ARGUABLE.

And this isn't a contest and there aren't leagues. These issues are real world issues because there is disagreement. If you were so right and it were so apparent, there would be no issue.

It is apparent, you are on the side of no common sense, so it isn't apparent to you. You don't understand what you are talking about.

Here is what an arm is. An armament being that the constitution is meant for the individual, it refers to individual armaments. An AR 15 is just a rifle exactly like any other rifle. It is a personal armament.

Nobody has explained what masks them different?

You aren't even thinking you are just jumping to conclusions (big surprise) sadly its what the media tells you to think.

How can "arms" exclude a personal arm? Please interpret this because its very strange.

myp · Jan 23, 2013

clax said:
It is apparent, you are on the side of no common sense, so it isn't apparent to you. You don't understand what you are talking about.

Your constant lack of respect for those who disagree with you says a lot about you. I'll leave that at that.

clax said:
Here is what an arm is. An armament being that the constitution is meant for the individual, it refers to individual armaments. An AR 15 is just a rifle exactly like any other rifle. It is a personal armament.

I thought the dictionary defines things. Why are you defining them? Dictionary only defines things until it disagrees with you?

What makes you think arms is synonymous with ALL arms, anyway?

Also, another point to consider is that assault rifles of today or anything similar didn't even exist when the Constitution was written. That is very relevant... How could you expect the founders' penning "arms" to mean ALL arms when ALL arms of today didn't even exist then? The founders weren't psychics and make quite a big assumption when you assume arms is synonymous with ALL arms. And for some reason when you make that assumption you still want rocket launchers to be illegal. Don't see the logic there.

clax · Jan 23, 2013

myp said:
Your constant lack of respect for those who disagree with you says a lot about you. I'll leave that at that.

I thought the dictionary defines things. Why are you defining them? Dictionary only defines things until it disagrees with you?

What makes you think arms is synonymous with ALL arms, anyway?

Also, another point to consider is that assault rifles of today or anything similar didn't even exist when the Constitution was written. That is very relevant... How could you expect the founders' penning "arms" to mean ALL arms when ALL arms of today didn't even exist then? The founders weren't psychics and make quite a big assumption when you assume arms is synonymous with ALL arms. And for some reason when you make that assumption you still want rocket launchers to be illegal. Don't see the logic there.

you are the most disrespectful person I have ever had the displeasure of talking to. so think about yourself before you say things about others.

furthermore I said nothing disrespectful to you. I only said what my observations have lead me to believe.

the business about the founding fathers having different type of firearms the only very slightly different. please explain to me how the difference.

furthermore, what makes an assault rifle different than hunting rifle, and not just different more deadly, because to my knowledge, which is extensive, they all have barrels, they all have firing pins, they all have triggers, they all have chambers they all have magazines. those are the only components involved in killing. 1 that's black it has a scary looking suppressor on it is no different. unless you think that suppressor has some sort of magical power that makes bullets fly faster. or any of the other features that make them more prone to assault.

it's completely irrational it's fear the lack of knowledge. I have tried to educate you you reject Realty.

please please please tell me what makes an assault weapon any different the modern hunting rifle. I really want to know because I have rebuilt both I saw the difference.

clax · Jan 23, 2013

myp said:
It is not hyperbole (where do you see exaggeration ) and it is not meaningless. Your inability to accept that words are interpreted goes against everything that language is. All for a silly ideological stance in which you can't even accept facts for facts before discussing your opinions given the facts. And again with the dictionary? You know different dictionaries give different definitions and many give multiple ones, right? That proves my point in and of itself. What dictionary that you know of defines arms as assault weapons?

Here is what Merriam-Webster has to say:
Definition of ARM

1
a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm
b : a combat branch (as of an army)
c : an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)

...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arms

Yea, nothing about assault weapons.

I guess there you have it, it doesn't exclude some mythical assault weapon. Thanks for finally understanding.

I'm sick and tired of you ranting raving about facts but having none.

there is no such thing as an assault weapons, other than a weapon used in an assault. this is made up crap to demonize something that someone doesn't like. it's rhetoric.

until you can tell me what and assault weapon is you have no argument. I reject your clairvoyance when you assume that the people manufacturing them manufactured them for any purpose. you're putting intent where there is none. in court that would be called perjury.

so again 1 more time please tell me why assault weapons are more deadly then I'll recognize your ranting and raving is more than anything but ranting and raving

clax · Jan 23, 2013

I take it you forfeit because you can't define assault weapon is any different than any other weapon.

if you're just anti pinky cosmetic features I guess you don't really have any rational.

why a ban on assault weapons doesn't make things safer

Similar threads