RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit

RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ifmaz -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:30:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: You're asking for "rational reasons" as to why a civilian "needs" such a rifle. No I'm not, I never asked anything of the sort, I stated there was no rational need. quote: I'm asking why you think civilians should not have such a rifle. I never said they shouldn't, only that there was no rational reason why they need one. And even though several of you have been arguing with me, you have all been arguing a position I never took. See I made one simple statement, and you somehow have decided that I believe all sorts of things that were not even tangentially referenced in my statement. If you wish to argue with my statement, then by all means, list some ways that a civilian rationally needs such a weapon. You've stated there is no "rational reason" for a civilian to own such a firearm, thus implying there were reasons a civilian should not own one. What are those reasons?

Nnanji -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:32:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Actually, if you had read my posts you'd see I never accused you of anything of the sort. Silly boy, you quoted me quoting you of doing exactly that. Lol, yes of course. I was sarcastically showing you the inanity of your thinking and communicating style. Sorry you didn't get it.

Kirata -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:32:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick list some ways that a civilian rationally needs such a weapon. I have an idea. Why don't you read the decision that forms the topic of the thread. You know, just because that's the topic after all. K.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:33:19 PM)
quote: You've stated there is no "rational reason" for a civilian to own such a firearm, Correct quote: thus implying there were reasons a civilian should not own one. Only in your mind. Like I said, you are extrapolating a position I have not only never taken, one I have specifically said I do not hold. quote: What are those reasons? Hell, you tell me, after all, you are making up my position, so you may as well keep on making shit up.

ifmaz -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:35:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: You've stated there is no "rational reason" for a civilian to own such a firearm, Correct quote: thus implying there were reasons a civilian should not own one. Only in your mind. Like I said, you are extrapolating a position I have not only never taken, one I have specifically said I do not hold. quote: What are those reasons? Hell, you tell me, after all, you are making up my position, so you may as well keep on making shit up. If there is no reason a civilian should not own such a rifle, they can (and should) own it. Many, in fact, because there's no rational reason not to.

Nnanji -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: You're asking for "rational reasons" as to why a civilian "needs" such a rifle. No I'm not, I never asked anything of the sort, I stated there was no rational need. quote: I'm asking why you think civilians should not have such a rifle. I never said they shouldn't, only that there was no rational reason why they need one. And even though several of you have been arguing with me, you have all been arguing a position I never took. See I made one simple statement, and you somehow have decided that I believe all sorts of things that were not even tangentially referenced in my statement. If you wish to argue with my statement, then by all means, list some ways that a civilian rationally needs such a weapon. There is no sense in arguing your position since you have not made any rational statements to argue. Also, keep in mind, what I've repeatedly said, because you can not articulate clearly, everyone has the right to assume the meaning of your unkempt statements. For instance this, you don't have the ability to think and express well enough to argue with but in a debate I, as well as everyone else, have the right to argue what you said in any context we perceive. It's how debates and contractual disputes are dealt with in society. If you are offended that such a thing happens to you a lot, I suggest you look at your communication style and skill rather than petulantly stomping your pretty little foot and telling people they don't understand. That sort of introspection will actually help yo grow personally.

Edwird -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:40:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz If there is no reason a civilian should not own such a rifle, they can (and should) own it. Many, in fact, because there's no rational reason not to. Wow. So now every citizen who doesn't have one should get one. No, everyone should get many of them. Wow.

ifmaz -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:42:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz If there is no reason a civilian should not own such a rifle, they can (and should) own it. Many, in fact, because there's no rational reason not to. Wow. So now every citizen who doesn't have one should get one. Wow. What reason is there to not own one (or more)?

Edwird -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:43:17 PM)
Because they don't want one?

Nnanji -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:44:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick list some ways that a civilian rationally needs such a weapon. I have an idea. Why don't you read the decision that forms the topic of the thread. You know, just because that's the topic after all. K. The same suggestion has been made repeatedly since the beginning of this thread. She's not interested in it.

ifmaz -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:45:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Because they don't want one? Am I attempting to force you to get one? Are you attempting to force me to not have one?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:47:19 PM)
quote: because you can not articulate clearly Actually I articulate perfectly well, the problem is that you and other Americans can only conceive of two sides of anything. Just because I see no rational need for something, you automatically assume I am against it. I can see no rational need for lots of things that I do not oppose, Hell even some things I enjoy (Cherry Garcia ice cream - there's no rational need for it, but damned if I am not glad it exists). So, apparently, in your limited blinkered world view, the fact that I see no rational need for a civilian to own a large capacity magazine semi-automatic rifle, that means I must want to ban them. The world is not black and white and opinions do not have to fit into your Yankish with me/against me mindset. quote: I, as well as everyone else, have the right to argue what you said in any context we perceive. And I have the right to repeatedly correct your errors. :)

Nnanji -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:50:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz If there is no reason a civilian should not own such a rifle, they can (and should) own it. Many, in fact, because there's no rational reason not to. Wow. So now every citizen who doesn't have one should get one. No, everyone should get many of them. Wow. Yes, they should within given constraints that are now law. Well, I'd add temperament as well. Some people are just frightened of them and there is no sense in forcing it on them. For instance I know a person who is absolutely sure that alcohol is bad and I wouldn't force him to have beer waiting for me in his refrigerator. But I'd feel much better with a higher percentage of the population armed. Maybe everyone should go in the army and take tier issued weapon home.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:53:38 PM)
quote: Maybe everyone should go in the army and take tier issued weapon home. That's pretty much what they do in Switzerland, or at least they used to, that may have changed.

Edwird -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 9:55:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Because they don't want one? Am I attempting to force you to get one? quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz If there is no reason a civilian should not own such a rifle, they can (and should) own it. Many, in fact, because there's no rational reason not to. Not just me, everybody. quote: Are you attempting to force me to not have one? Unlike you, I never said a word concerning what you or anyone else should or shouldn't do. But you've been hallucinating since you got here, don't let me stop you.

ifmaz -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:01:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Because they don't want one? Am I attempting to force you to get one? quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz If there is no reason a civilian should not own such a rifle, they can (and should) own it. Many, in fact, because there's no rational reason not to. Not just me, everybody. quote: Are you attempting to force me to not have one? Unlike you, I never said a word concerning what you or anyone else should or shouldn't do. But you've been hallucinating since you got here, don't let me stop you. If there's no reason to not own one, why not own it? Assuming one wants it, of course, hence the word "should" and not the word "must". Your fairly useless "wow just wow" post seems to indicate you disagree yet I don't recall seeing a list of rational reasons as to why civilians should not own a semi-automatic rifle with a "large capacity" magazine. Do you have any rational reasons?

Nnanji -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:02:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: because you can not articulate clearly Actually I articulate perfectly well, the problem is that you and other Americans can only conceive of two sides of anything. Just because I see no rational need for something, you automatically assume I am against it. I can see no rational need for lots of things that I do not oppose, Hell even some things I enjoy (Cherry Garcia ice cream - there's no rational need for it, but damned if I am not glad it exists). So, apparently, in your limited blinkered world view, the fact that I see no rational need for a civilian to own a large capacity magazine semi-automatic rifle, that means I must want to ban them. The world is not black and white and opinions do not have to fit into your Yankish with me/against me mindset. quote: I, as well as everyone else, have the right to argue what you said in any context we perceive. And I have the right to repeatedly correct your errors. :) Point out to me where I've assumed anything you've implied? Point out to me where you find the facts to determine everyone is blinkered? Point out to me where your skill at communicating, beyond a drunken bar room scene, is articulate enough that people understand you well enough that you don't continue to have people misunderstanding you? Offer me one thought that you've had where you've explored the possibility that the problem is yours and not just those pesky blinkered Americans? When you continue to find errors in others, have you considered that you're projecting? For instance I've had to correct you a couple of times above where you tried to correct something I've said although I never said it. It seems to be a constant with you that I've noticed for some time. Point out any actual error I've made that you actually factually corrected me upon? You seem, and notice how in this statement I actually signify an opinion by using the word "seem" to have a tendency to throw out an inanity and then enjoy telling people that they just don't understand what you were thinking. Really, the problem seems to be that people are actually assuming you say anything that's not vapid and the debate it. Which, of course is the purpose for most people in a debate. While you...here it is again...seem to rather enjoy arguing people's honest debate responses to your inanity by telling them they should read what you say, as if they can't understand you.

ifmaz -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:02:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: because you can not articulate clearly Actually I articulate perfectly well, the problem is that you and other Americans can only conceive of two sides of anything. Just because I see no rational need for something, you automatically assume I am against it. I can see no rational need for lots of things that I do not oppose, Hell even some things I enjoy (Cherry Garcia ice cream - there's no rational need for it, but damned if I am not glad it exists). So, apparently, in your limited blinkered world view, the fact that I see no rational need for a civilian to own a large capacity magazine semi-automatic rifle, that means I must want to ban them. The world is not black and white and opinions do not have to fit into your Yankish with me/against me mindset. quote: I, as well as everyone else, have the right to argue what you said in any context we perceive. And I have the right to repeatedly correct your errors. :) When you ask for reasons as to why someone should be permitted to own a particular thing you're implying there are reasons to not own said thing. Personally, I don't like Cherry Garcia. To me it's gross and Chunky Monkey is clearly a better way to obtain a coveted diabetes trophy. Should you have to provide a list of "rational reasons" as to why you want/"need" Cherry Garcia? Wouldn't that be overstepping boundaries just slightly? Much like you don't need my permission to eat the grossness that is Cherry Garcia instead of the clearly better Chunky Monkey, The People don't need to list "rational reasons" as to why they have semi-automatic rifles. It's a silly comparison but the root of the conversation is who has power. I don't want (or need) power over you yet people questioning rights and/or limiting rights, especially when using words like "rational" or phrases like "common-sense", usually want power over others.

Edwird -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:16:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz ... yet I don't recall seeing a list of rational reasons as to why civilians should not own a semi-automatic rifle with a "large capacity" magazine. Do you have any rational reasons? Because they don't want one, as already stated. Most people consider not buying what one doesn't want to be rational.

BamaD -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:18:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: because you can not articulate clearly Actually I articulate perfectly well, the problem is that you and other Americans can only conceive of two sides of anything. Just because I see no rational need for something, you automatically assume I am against it. I can see no rational need for lots of things that I do not oppose, Hell even some things I enjoy (Cherry Garcia ice cream - there's no rational need for it, but damned if I am not glad it exists). So, apparently, in your limited blinkered world view, the fact that I see no rational need for a civilian to own a large capacity magazine semi-automatic rifle, that means I must want to ban them. The world is not black and white and opinions do not have to fit into your Yankish with me/against me mindset. quote: I, as well as everyone else, have the right to argue what you said in any context we perceive. And I have the right to repeatedly correct your errors. :) You have told us repeatedly that you think that we should have no guns, that even France and Englands gun laws are inadequate because they allow any guns.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875