Gun control

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
TPDDODD_sl said:
Stop misreading the post. Discontinue mis-construing the content. There was no specifically. There was an attempted inferance by one of the
ex-advisors.

Re-read the post. Ex-advisor. Jared Bernstein.
Click to expand...
English may be my second language, but my reading comprehension is fine, thanks. You were the one who came into this thread and railed against a claim that, as far as I know, no one ever made. I'll re-quote what you said:

It is a stupid argument, and those who pursue it demeans themselves, to make the claim that the second amendment only applies to flintlock rifles and the pistols of the 1770's era.
Click to expand...
You didn't say insinuation or inference, you specifically said that someone is making this argument. When I ask you for specifics, you backpedal and bring up inferences and indirect suggestions. Uh-huh, in other words, no one actually said it. THIS is how fear-mongering starts. People will take your post literally and really think that there are influential people in government that only apply the 2nd amendment to ancient weaponry and this falsity will spread and whip up hysteria where none is needed. Stop it.
 
T

TPDDODD_sl

shitlord
119
0
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
English may be my second language, but my reading comprehension is fine, thanks. You were the one who came into this thread and railed against a claim that, as far as I know, no one ever made. I'll re-quote what you said:



You didn't say insinuation or inference, you specifically said that someone is making this argument. When I ask you for specifics, you backpedal and bring up inferences and indirect suggestions. Uh-huh, in other words, no one actually said it. THIS is how fear-mongering starts. People will take your post literally and really think that there are influential people in government that only apply the 2nd amendment to ancient weaponry and this falsity will spread and whip up hysteria where none is needed. Stop it.
Click to expand...
Re-read the post.

The point of the post is that particular line of argument is stupid.



In the original post there was no mention of someone specifically saying this. In follow-up discussion it was pointed out to you that Jared Bernstein tries to strongly infer that line of argument. This inferance on his part is what precipitated my need to disqualify that line of argument.

Your referance that english is your second language ham-strings adequate response on my part, as any further follow-up may be unintentionally misconstued as demeaning or insulting or similar. It would have been best had you not mentioned that little unasked-for tit-bit.
 
Olscratch

Olscratch

tour de salt
<Banned>
2,114
536
It's simple. Look at the facts. Go to FBI.gov check out the violent crime stats. From 1992 to 2011, violent crimes per 100K of population has dropped 50%. Murder rates for the same period have dropped 54%. Why is no one mentioning this inconvenient truth? Go to homeoffice.gov.uk and look at UK's violent crime stats. You'll find they have 1,361/100K, 3.5 times the rate of the US. Fewer guns does NOT reduce violent crime. In 2011, of the homocides in the US caused by firearms, rifles were used in only 3.5%. AR15's are a subset of rifles. An assault weapons ban will have, and has had, absolutely no effect on crime.

It's a gun grab folks. Pure and simple. Write your congressmen OFTEN. Send what you can to the NRA, GOA and your state advocacy group. It's now or never. Don't expect the "Republicans" to protect you. They are not your friends.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Flunklesnarkin_sl said:
This seems like a reasonable recommendation.

"The vice president's recommendations are likely to include a variety of ways to bolster prosecutions under existing gun laws, collect more information about gun violence and improve databases for background checks, including more financing for such goals. Just 44 people were charged with lying on background check forms in 2010, even though 80,000 would-be purchasers were denied guns for providing inaccurate information about their criminal histories."
Click to expand...
That sounds reasonable, but I am curious what the 80,000 number is from. Is that inflated by the number of poorly-filled out forms that were rejected, then submitted again and possibly passed? For example, people writing an incorrect social security number down as a mistake.
 
S

Simas_sl

shitlord
1,196
5
khalid_sl said:
That sounds reasonable, but I am curious what the 80,000 number is from. Is that inflated by the number of poorly-filled out forms that were rejected, then submitted again and possibly passed? For example, people writing an incorrect social security number down as a mistake.
Click to expand...
Just 44 people were charged with lying on background check forms in 2010, even though 80,000 would-be purchasers were denied gunsfor providing inaccurate information about their criminal histories.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Yes, and Im implying that it is possible the number isn't really those that gave inaccurate information about their criminal histories, but instead people that gave inaccurate information.

Regardless, the recommendation sounds pretty reasonable and I will be curious to see the details.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
TPDDODD_sl said:
Re-read the post.

The point of the post is that particular line of argument is stupid.



In the original post there was no mention of someone specifically saying this. In follow-up discussion it was pointed out to you that Jared Bernstein tries to strongly infer that line of argument. This inferance on his part is what precipitated my need to disqualify that line of argument.

Your referance that english is your second language ham-strings adequate response on my part, as any further follow-up may be unintentionally misconstued as demeaning or insulting or similar. It would have been best had you not mentioned that little unasked-for tit-bit.
Click to expand...
/facepalm. No one is "inferring" that argument but YOU. Maybe you're saying hes implying that argument, but even then, I'll bet you 10 bucks that if i looked up that clip that you are talking about, I can "infer" from his implication a million different things than you. Arguing with people who make shit up, it's tiresome.

By the way, stop trying to use big words. Smaller words work just fine. The condescending bullshit doesn't help either.
 
Gavinmad

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
43,742
52,295
TPDDODD_sl said:
Your referance that english is your second language ham-strings adequate response on my part, as any further follow-up may be unintentionally misconstued as demeaning or insulting or similar. It would have been best had you not mentioned that little unasked-for tit-bit.
Click to expand...
I never would have known Soysauce was ESL, but you, good lord he definitely has a better grasp of the language than you. Reference, Hamstring, Misconstrued, and Tidbit, not to mention overall hard to follow sentence structure.
 
F

Fyro

Golden Squire
127
0
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
If we pass a law that bans the sales of AR-15's because a psychopath used one in a school shooting, then we are fucking doomed as a society.
Click to expand...
Oh you make me chuckle.

That's slightly over-the-top hyperbole no?

I can see you in the streets in your raggedy ass clothes; urine soaked and shit stained, shouting to anyone that will listen, "DOOM IS UPON US!"
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
Fyro_sl said:
Oh you make me chuckle.

That's slightly over-the-top hyperbole no?

I can see you in the streets in your raggedy ass clothes; urine soaked and shit stained, shouting to anyone that will listen, "DOOM IS UPON US!"
Click to expand...
Yes, but isn't it equal hyperbole to ban all black rifles with large magazines because a few people used them to shoot up some schools? And I didn't mean we're doomed as in it's the end of the world, but as in if our country becomes this reactionary piece of shit that bans and outlaws any and everything to satisfy the vocal minority despite no logical reasoning, then yeah, we are kind of fucked.
 
T

TPDDODD_sl

shitlord
119
0
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
/facepalm. No one is "inferring" that argument but YOU. Maybe you're saying hes implying that argument, but even then, I'll bet you 10 bucks that if i looked up that clip that you are talking about, I can "infer" from his implication a million different things than you. Arguing with people who make shit up, it's tiresome.

By the way, stop trying to use big words. Smaller words work just fine. The condescending bullshit doesn't help either.
Click to expand...
I think you are being confrontational just for the sake of same.
This may help:
in?fer
/in'f?r/
Verb
Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

Synonyms
conclude - deduce - gather - imply - induce

in?ferredin?fer?ring
Also

Definition of INFER
transitive verb
1
: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire - L. A. White>- compare imply

2
: guess, surmise <your letter . allows me to infer that you are as well as ever - O. W. Holmes ?1935>

3
a: to involve as a normal outcome of thought
b: to point out : indicate <this doth infer the zeal I had to see him - Shakespeare> <another survey.infers that two-thirds of all present computer installations are not paying for themselves - H. R. Chellman>
4
: suggest, hint <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>
intransitive verb

: to draw inferences <men . have observed, inferred, and reasoned . to all kinds of results - John Dewey>
- in?fer?able also in?fer?ri?ble adjective
- in?fer?rer noun


You have not seen the actual clip where he equates/infer/imply/(whichever you prefer) that the 2nd amendment should be applicable to 1770's era arms. Yet, you deny the substance of what was said in the clip that you have not seen.
That mental gymnastics cause you to be mentally fatigued is of no concern of mine.
Whether big or small, all words have thier uses and usage; the preference of same is a unique individual choice. ergo, I choose. Your choice to complain is yours.
 
T

TPDDODD_sl

shitlord
119
0
Gavinrad_sl said:
I never would have known Soysauce was ESL, but you, good lord he definitely has a better grasp of the language than you. Reference, Hamstring, Misconstrued, and Tidbit, not to mention overall hard to follow sentence structure.
Click to expand...
In this particular matter, your judgement is questionable. Regardless, I care not a whit.
 
F

Flunklesnarkin_sl

shitlord
922
3
http://www.thebulletproofpatriot.com...ance-and-fear/


4doar.jpg



2mebzw4.jpg




"Assault" weapons should definitely be major focus in reducing violence.
rolleyes.png
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
TPDDODD_sl said:
I think you are being confrontational just for the sake of same.
This may help:
in?fer
/in'f?r/
Verb
Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

Synonyms
conclude - deduce - gather - imply - induce

in?ferredin?fer?ring
Also

Definition of INFER
transitive verb
1
: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire - L. A. White>- compare imply

2
: guess, surmise <your letter . allows me to infer that you are as well as ever - O. W. Holmes ?1935>

3
a: to involve as a normal outcome of thought
b: to point out : indicate <this doth infer the zeal I had to see him - Shakespeare> <another survey.infers that two-thirds of all present computer installations are not paying for themselves - H. R. Chellman>
4
: suggest, hint <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>
intransitive verb

: to draw inferences <men . have observed, inferred, and reasoned . to all kinds of results - John Dewey>
- in?fer?able also in?fer?ri?ble adjective
- in?fer?rer noun


You have not seen the actual clip where he equates/infer/imply/(whichever you prefer) that the 2nd amendment should be applicable to 1770's era arms. Yet, you deny the substance of what was said in the clip that you have not seen.
That mental gymnastics cause you to be mentally fatigued is of no concern of mine.
Whether big or small, all words have thier uses and usage; the preference of same is a unique individual choice. ergo, I choose. Your choice to complain is yours.
Click to expand...
You're hilarious you know that. Here, let mehelpyou with that.

Grammar for dummies version (because you clearly need one): The party that is communicating the message is the one that implies. The party receiving the message is the one that draws inferences from that which is implied. The dictionary references imply/infer as synonyms because fuck tards like you don't know the fucking difference and use them interchangeably. But the ignorance of the general public does not make the choice between the words a mater of personal preference; one is clearly correct, and one is clearly wrong.

Fucks sakes, they even did a gag on this on theBig Bang Theory.

As for the video clip, I asked you before: provide it for me and I'll "infer" what the man is "implying" for myself. You say he's implying that the 2nd amendment only applies to 16th century weaponry. If I had to guess, your clip probably shows him engaged in some theoretical hypothetical about how the constitution should be interpreted (originalism v. pragmatism, maybe). Or maybe he is bringing up the argument that guns have grown much more powerful than what was conceived by the Framers to argue for stricter regulation. Or hey, maybe I'm giving him too much credit and he could be as stupid as you suggest and really only think people can only legally own muskets and that the government should reposes ALL firearms. Either way, give me the link. I tried googling it to no avail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.