ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Humerox]

I guess because it's because I'm smart enough to look for what's relevant to copy and paste.


You're not a real fan of citing sources are you? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're not a real fan of citing sources are you? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This posts clearly illustrates either Humerox's complete disregard of reading other people's posts or his amazing ability to write with little to no reading comprehension.

What I find funniest about your line of arguments is the fact that I can do the exact same motions and still be arguing for my side. It is really uncanny. Also, the copy pasta you referred to was just as relevant to what we were arguing about as mine was. Try harder though. If I believed in no child left behind, I would give you a gold star and send you to remedial classes, but since I don't, here is a link I think best suits your intellectual capabilities: http://www.mcstate.com/careers/

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This posts clearly illustrates either Humerox's complete disregard of reading other people's posts or his amazing ability to write with little to no reading comprehension.

What I find funniest about your line of arguments is the fact that I can do the exact same motions and still be arguing for my side. It is really uncanny. Also, the copy pasta you referred to was just as relevant to what we were arguing about as mine was. Try harder though. If I believed in no child left behind, I would give you a gold star and send you to remedial classes, but since I don't, here is a link I think best suits your intellectual capabilities: http://www.mcstate.com/careers/

We were arguing about how to interpret the Second Amendment. Now it's nice that you put the Constitution up there for us...but you left out the Second Amendment.

When we started all this you seemed pretty intelligent, but you've devolved into something that spits out ad hominem like Skittles.

And I have yet to see you post any real scientific argument that supports your opinions. You regurgitate other links people have (like using the NRA analyst to support gun statistics) posted without even taking the time to read them. How the fuck do I know that study from Vallerti came from an NRA analyst? Because I actually read the fucking thing. You might want to start doing that yourself. You may learn something.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We were arguing about how to interpret the Second Amendment. Now it's nice that you put the Constitution up there for us...but you left out the Second Amendment.

No, we were discussing your clear lack of understanding of constitutional law regardless of school of thought. You ignorantly thought that since people interpret the constitution differently that somehow your flagrant and rampant assertions are valid. Either that or you confused me with Stealin.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When we started all this you seemed pretty intelligent, but you've devolved into something that spits out ad hominem like Skittles.

I have intelligent discussions as long as my peer is able to possess one. When I find my peer so fervent on the subject they are unable to listen or if I find that my positions are being discarded for no justifiable reasons other than my peer being unable to answer it or if the situation is one in which intellectual progress can not be made, then I no longer continue in such a manner. Originally when we started this debate, you seemed intelligent enough and so I engaged you as an intelligent individual. You have not shown the same rhetoric in this thread and generally made child like taunts, just didn't listen, or used ad hominem and straw man tactics. I find my ad hominem well suited to your "arguments" in this thread as you behaved illogically and childishly.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And I have yet to see you post any real scientific argument that supports your opinions. You regurgitate other links people have (like using the NRA analyst to support gun statistics) posted without even taking the time to read them. How the fuck do I know that study from Vallerti came from an NRA analyst? Because I actually read the fucking thing. You might want to start doing that yourself. You may learn something.

You are right! There is no real scientific evidence for my argument. There is also no real scientific evidence for yours. Yet, I claimed, many times in fact, that such a thing was impossible(with today's technology. I felt like I needed to add that in). All either side has in sociological studies is correlation via statistical evidence.

Vellatri posted an NRA unofficial analyst's article and then verified them through the proper crime statistics. Just because the man's position might be pro-NRA does not mean that his study is biased. His statistics used more accurate metrics on the impact of assault rifle bans than the Australian article you posted. His statistics were taken from a much larger global pool making his case stronger while according to your "scientific data" I could shoot 500+ people and as long as only 4 died, it would not constitute a mass shooting. Do you honestly not see how flawed that metric is? To reiterate my point, I do no think the Australian article you posted was complete bollocks. It did make some good points, but its major point was backed by a very skewed (and probably manipulated) statistic that you have just refused to acknowledge as such since that is the only piece of "evidence" you have brought to table which honestly makes me think it is the ONLY piece of evidence you have.

Did you know I used to be for the ban of assault rifles? I really was. I looked into statistics and tried to find what evidence I could to make my case stronger since I enjoy getting into perspicacious debates with people. As I read further into things(yes I read the article Vellatri linked), I found there was not only more evidence against my original position but stronger evidence as well. I then reconsidered my position and adjusted it accordingly. Are you able to do the same? If not, then there is no reason to have an intelligent debate as it can not be made.

I am all for going back to having an intelligent discussion, but you will have to behave accordingly or I am not going to waste my time. Make your points well worded, clear and backed with evidence and reason and I will respond in kind. Act like child and I will treat you like a child.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am all for going back to having an intelligent discussion, but you will have to behave accordingly or I am not going to waste my time. Make your points well worded, clear and backed with evidence and reason and I will respond in kind. Act like child and I will treat you like a child.

Behaving accordingly to you is nothing short of agreeing with your arguments, lol. When I posted that scientific study from the University of Australia you told me you didn't have the time to go back through it and refute any statistical data they used, or lay a foundation to argue the methodology they used.

You've told me more than once here that you didn't have the "time" to look into anything I showed you, so why should I waste my time arguing with you?

I won't.

When you can show me an argument that includes a legal definition what the Constitution means by the Second Amendment I may listen to your point of view. Otherwise, neither you nor anyone else has the right to carry whatever you want, because the underlying principle of law has always been to balance Constitutional rights with public safety.

See the First Amendment for an example of balance, and remember that we can use the underlying principles for precedent. That's one of the reason courts exist.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Behaving accordingly to you is nothing short of agreeing with your arguments, lol. When I posted that scientific study from the University of Australia you told me you didn't have the time to go back through it and refute any statistical data they used, or lay a foundation to argue the methodology they used.

Wow... just wow. First of all, no. I posted several times and even in the post you quoted the glaring problem I found with their statistics and you have yet to respond to. This is most likely due to the fact that you can't and all you can do is just ignore it. I gave you an example.

Your cookie cutting arguments not only exemplify your dolt behavior, they also augment your complete ineptitude to have an intelligent discussion. You clearly didn't read my post or much of them for that matter. You are just a monkey banging your head on a keyboard.

What I find the most surprising though is your complete narcissism. Every argument you have made, you were crushed in the same realm so you abscond to the next realm. We are now in the realm of constitutional law which you know little to nothing about which is unsurprising for a fast food cook at McDonalds. Did you ever get the promotion to cashier by the way? I really hope so

Second, all I expect from you is to either concede or refute it logically. You ignoring it and then telling me to reread a giant article isn't a basis for an argument while you slink away to another poorly and hastily formed argument based on your opinion.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You've told me more than once here that you didn't have the "time" to look into anything I showed you, so why should I waste my time arguing with you?

I told you I don't have time to look over it again. Your simian brain can't fathom that I suppose. How is your 47th chromosome?

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When you can show me an argument that includes a legal definition what the Constitution means by the Second Amendment I may listen to your point of view. Otherwise, neither you nor anyone else has the right to carry whatever you want, because the underlying principle of law has always been to balance Constitutional rights with public safety.

How did your head get so big to the point where you actually believe this? You can't just declare it to be so. This highlights your complete ignorance on the subject matter, and since you clearly unable to contribute anything of intellectual worth to this subject, I ask again for the chimpanzee behind humerox to stop posting.

You could be spending your time doing a lot more productive things like filling out that application to McDonalds I sent you. It would definitely suit society better than you gracing us with the fecal bile that spews from your mouth.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wow... just wow. First of all, no. I posted several times and even in the post you quoted the glaring problem I found with their statistics and you have yet to respond to. This is most likely due to the fact that you can't and all you can do is just ignore it. I gave you an example.

I asked you where the problems were...sources, methodology, what? You said you didn't have time to look at it and you never refuted anything in the study with anything other than your own personal opinion.

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your cookie cutting arguments not only exemplify your dolt behavior, they also augment your complete ineptitude to have an intelligent discussion. You clearly didn't read my post or much of them for that matter. You are just a monkey banging your head on a keyboard.

Still doesn't tell us what arms the Constitution says we can have. This is a personal attack...not a refutation of anything.

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What I find the most surprising though is your complete narcissism. Every argument you have made, you were crushed in the same realm so you abscond to the next realm. We are now in the realm of constitutional law which you know little to nothing about which is unsurprising for a fast food cook at McDonalds. Did you ever get the promotion to cashier by the way? I really hope so

No one has crushed anything, lol. If anything we've come to understand that the Constitutional argument can support your position as well as mine...and is why I stated the courts need to clarify it, because the Constitution doesn't.

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Second, all I expect from you is to either concede or refute it logically. You ignoring it and then telling me to reread a giant article isn't a basis for an argument while you slink away to another poorly and hastily formed argument based on your opinion.

It was a real scientific study. You said it was hogwash and sounded funny...I asked you where the problems were. Statistics, methodology...what? That was a real scientific study done by the University of Sydney...not some off-the-cuff news story from the Examiner.

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I told you I don't have time to look over it again. Your simian brain can't fathom that I suppose. How is your 47th chromosome?

Because you'd rather argue opinion. You don't have time to learn anything...and I'll tell you something. You CAN'T refute that study with anything other than opinion. You're not capable of it. Val should probably take a look at it...we might be able to get some intelligent discourse on the subject then.

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How did your head get so big to the point where you actually believe this? You can't just declare it to be so. This highlights your complete ignorance on the subject matter, and since you clearly unable to contribute anything of intellectual worth to this subject, I ask again for the chimpanzee behind humerox to stop posting.

Believe what? That the Constitution isn't clear in meaning as applied to our modern society and we constantly have to try to interpret it to fit our changing world?

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You could be spending your time doing a lot more productive things like filling out that application to McDonalds I sent you. It would definitely suit society better than you gracing us with the fecal bile that spews from your mouth.

Might interest you to know that I'm a volunteer with AmeriCorps, I'm an old fart that doesn't have to work anymore, and that I'm a decorated vet.

I don't usually slip up and let that much personal history escape onto these boards...but whatever. I'm proud of me...and I actually do advocate. You know...do silly things like call congressman and write them nice little letters and such.

You seem to have become very angry lately.

or in internetese...

umad.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, we were discussing your clear lack of understanding of constitutional law regardless of school of thought. You ignorantly thought that since people interpret the constitution differently that somehow your flagrant and rampant assertions are valid.

Where did I say that I certain understanding of Constitutional law that you don't? And since people interpret the Constitution differently, it's the responsibility of the courts to clarify it.

Show me where I've argued differently.

What flagrant and ramapant assertions? The fact that I said we could interpret the Second Amendment to mean we can carry suitcase nukes and Stinger missiles? Using your logic, we can.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Where did I say that I certain understanding of Constitutional law that you don't? And since people interpret the Constitution differently, it's the responsibility of the courts to clarify it.

Show me where I've argued differently.

What flagrant and ramapant assertions? The fact that I said we could interpret the Second Amendment to mean we can carry suitcase nukes and Stinger missiles? Using your logic, we can.

Except that those didn't exist as to where firearms did.

Can you call stinger missiles firearms?
Can you call a suitcase nukes firearms?
Can you call an AR15 a firearm?
Can you call a musket a firearm?
Can you call a tank a firearm?
Can you call a RPG a firearm?

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except that those didn't exist as to where firearms did.

Can you call stinger missiles firearms?
Can you call a suitcase nukes firearms?
Can you call an AR15 a firearm?
Can you call a musket a firearm?
Can you call a tank a firearm?
Can you call a RPG a firearm?

The Constitution doesn't say "firearms" bro.

Now you're interpreting.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]