On 6/11/2014 1:15 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:13:07 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
George Kerby wrote:
On 6/9/14 9:29 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson"
wrote:


Floyd. Learn that throwing down ridiculous propositions is NOT
"cornering",
please.

You didn't answer the questions, because they show just
what it is that is ridiculous.

For one, the idea that "gun control" means "against
private ownership" is ridiculous. I own guns, I am very
much in favor of significantly increased control of
guns. But I am clearly very much in favor of private
gun ownership.

But why are gun magazines all about assault weapons, not
about hunting?

We are not permitted to own assualt weapons. Assault weapons are automatic.
This constant drone about "assault" weapons is a lie. Just because a rifle
resembles a military rifle doesn't make it an assault rifle. You should
know that.

To be a "nut" on either side requires distorting language and ignoring
meaning to make a case.

The anti-gun nut says "Why do you need an assault rifle to hunt deer?"

The gun nut replies "This constant drone about 'assault' weapons is a
lie."

The anti-gun nut is not concerned that the NRA lobby has squeezed the
definition of "assault weapons" down to certain types of weapons:
those which fire on an automatic setting. The M4A1 is an assault
rifle, and the AR-15 is not. The question is *not* "Why do you need
an M4A1 to hunt deer?" The question is "Why do you need either to
hunt deer?".

By achieving a limited definition of "assault rifle", the NRA has
accomplished creating a gap in the logical interpretation of the
language.

What is the function of either the M4A1 or the AR-15 if not to be used
in assault tactics? In what situation would anyone not engaged in a
military action need an AR-15? That's the question in the mind of the
anti-gun nut.

The gun nut is incapable of providing any reason to own a M4A1 other
than "A bunch of guys in wigs and knee breeches in the 1700s were
worried that the citizens who revolted against the King might need
weapons to revolt against the next group of rulers.". Or, in other
words, "because I can".


Why does everyone need a handgun that is too big to
shoot and has no purpose other than ego inflation or
killing people?

Where does the Constitution indicate that a citizen must demonstrate a
"need" in order to exercise his/her rights? If I want to get myself a 357
Magnum like Dirty Harry used, then I can. I don't have to demonstrate to
anyone whether or not I need one.

Of course the Second Amendment indicates a need: to provide a well
regulated militia.

Are you a member of a militia? You want to ignore one part of the
statement, but use the other part.

The current form of "militia" is the military. We don't deny them the
right to carry an assault rifle.


I'd generally agree with you in that the "militia" is the National
Guard in the US. I think the British call it the "Territorial Army" or
"National Reserve"


--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.