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

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:21:07 PM)
quote: 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. But that's just it, I never asked for such reasons. I simply stated there is no rational need. And you somehow read that as me asking for reasons, and due to whatever weird mental block you have, you continue to do so, despite me having corrected your error repeatedly. It really is getting funny. quote: he People don't need to list "rational reasons" as to why they have semi-automatic rifles. I never said they did. Get it through your obviously thick skull.

Edwird -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:21:40 PM)
There are a million things for which there might be rational reasons for buying, but that consideration is moot if someone has no use for it and doesn't want it to begin with.

Nnanji -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:22:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz 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. I like Cherry Garcia. But, ive never tried Chunky Monkey. So, what the heck, I'm just going to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about and that you should read what I've written while I gloat at your blinkered lowly existence.

ifmaz -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:22:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird 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. Are there any other rational reasons (besides the lack of desire) to not own a semi-automatic rifle with a "large capacity" magazine?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:23:13 PM)
quote: Point out to me where I've assumed anything you've implied? OK http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4929867

Nnanji -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:26:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird 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. No...that's not gonna fly. "Rational" in this context, if you read the OP, means that the government proscribes the ownership. It has nothing to do with ability to afford or desire to own.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:27:50 PM)
quote: "Rational" in this context, if you read the OP, means that the government proscribes the ownership. No it doesn't.

Nnanji -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:28:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird There are a million things for which there might be rational reasons for buying, but that consideration is moot if someone has no use for it and doesn't want it to begin with. Again, the OP has to do with the government taking away the right to own one. By twisting this to the opinion stated here you've obviously lost the debate by trying to misdirect the intent of the debate.

Edwird -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:29:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz Are there any other rational reasons (besides the lack of desire) to not own a semi-automatic rifle with a "large capacity" magazine? I answered that even before you posted the question: quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird There are a million things for which there might be rational reasons for buying, but that consideration is moot if someone has no use for it and doesn't want it to begin with. I have no use for it, just as I have no use for a million other things. I don't sit there and make up a list of 'reasons not to buy' for each of the million things I have no use for.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:31:11 PM)
quote: I have an idea. Why don't you read the decision that forms the topic of the thread. There was no rational needs given.

Nnanji -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:34:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Point out to me where I've assumed anything you've implied? OK http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4929867 Nope, see, there you go again. I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't discussing your statement I was discussion your general overall actions that I've seen in several threads and I was using sarcasm, which you seemed to, again, have missed. Additionally, it totally speaks to the point I've been making about you in this entire thread. That you don't debate, you offer generalities and enjoy people misunderstanding your inanity. Which is not you correcting me for assuming something you didn't say. But which is me offering an overall impression of your constant presence here on the forum. Try again. You're just not doing well.

Nnanji -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:37:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Point out to me where I've assumed anything you've implied? OK http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4929867 Nope, see, there you go again. I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't discussing your statement I was discussion your general overall actions that I've seen in several threads and I was using sarcasm, which you seemed to, again, have missed. Additionally, it totally speaks to the point I've been making about you in this entire thread. That you don't debate, you offer generalities and enjoy people misunderstanding your inanity. Which is not you correcting me for assuming something you didn't say. But which is me offering an overall impression of your constant presence here on the forum. Try again. You're just not doing well. Oh, I might add that it is your assumption that I was perceiving your statement, which wasn't even discussed in that post, as you offering a gun ban opinion. So, you projected onto me in an unrelated post that which you are you are projecting onto others here. Again, not even a nice try in the fail.

Nnanji -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:39:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: I have an idea. Why don't you read the decision that forms the topic of the thread. There was no rational needs given. There was actually pages of it. I know, I know, it was in legalese and hard for you to understand. But there was pages of it.

Kirata -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:39:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: I have an idea. Why don't you read the decision that forms the topic of the thread. There was no rational needs given. Another person being robbed by their ESL teacher. There are legitimate reasons for citizens to favor a semi-automatic rifle over handguns in defending themselves and their families at home. The record contains evidence suggesting that "handguns are inherently less accurate than long guns" as they "are more difficult to steady" and "absorb less of the recoil . . . , reducing accuracy." J.A. 2131. This might be an important consideration for a typical homeowner, who "under the extreme duress of an armed and advancing attacker is likely to fire at, but miss, his or her target." J.A. 2123. "Nervousness and anxiety, lighting conditions, the presence of physical obstacles . . . and the mechanics of retreat are all factors which contribute to [the] likelihood" that the homeowner will shoot at but miss a home invader. J.A. 2123. These factors could also affect an individual’s ability to reload a firearm quickly during a home invasion. Similarly, a citizen’s ability to defend himself and his home is enhanced with an LCM . And that's without even mentioning the circumstance of multiple assailants. K.

Nnanji -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:41:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: 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. But that's just it, I never asked for such reasons. I simply stated there is no rational need. And you somehow read that as me asking for reasons, and due to whatever weird mental block you have, you continue to do so, despite me having corrected your error repeatedly. It really is getting funny. quote: he People don't need to list "rational reasons" as to why they have semi-automatic rifles. I never said they did. Get it through your obviously thick skull. And your rational premis for a thick skull is that you don't understand him or he doesn't understand you? We seem to have arrived back to that same salient point.

ifmaz -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:41:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: 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. But that's just it, I never asked for such reasons. I simply stated there is no rational need. And you somehow read that as me asking for reasons, and due to whatever weird mental block you have, you continue to do so, despite me having corrected your error repeatedly. It really is getting funny. quote: he People don't need to list "rational reasons" as to why they have semi-automatic rifles. I never said they did. Get it through your obviously thick skull. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick @ http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4929720 No actually, seeing as I never said a thing about the constitution or any law, so it is you who has been shown to be effectively illiterate, arguing some point you imagined, all the while totally ignoring the actual point made, which remains unchallenged and un countered; to whit: There is no rational reason for a civilian to own such a weapon. (emphasis added) Your opinion is there is no "rational" reason for a civilian to own such a rifle and you state this opinion is "unchallenged" and "uncountered". I am merely asking what reasons you have for taking such a stance. What formed this "unchallenged" opinion of yours?

Kirata -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:43:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz Your opinion is there is no "rational" reason for a civilian to own such a rifle and you state this opinion is "unchallenged" and "uncountered". I am merely asking what reasons you have for taking such a stance. What formed this "unchallenged" opinion of yours? It's difficult to read when you're dizzy. K.

Nnanji -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:44:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: I have an idea. Why don't you read the decision that forms the topic of the thread. There was no rational needs given. Another person being robbed by their ESL teacher. There are legitimate reasons for citizens to favor a semi-automatic rifle over handguns in defending themselves and their families at home. The record contains evidence suggesting that "handguns are inherently less accurate than long guns" as they "are more difficult to steady" and "absorb less of the recoil . . . , reducing accuracy." J.A. 2131. This might be an important consideration for a typical homeowner, who "under the extreme duress of an armed and advancing attacker is likely to fire at, but miss, his or her target." J.A. 2123. "Nervousness and anxiety, lighting conditions, the presence of physical obstacles . . . and the mechanics of retreat are all factors which contribute to [the] likelihood" that the homeowner will shoot at but miss a home invader. J.A. 2123. These factors could also affect an individual’s ability to reload a firearm quickly during a home invasion. Similarly, a citizen’s ability to defend himself and his home is enhanced with an LCM . And that's without even mentioning the circumstance of multiple assailants. K. Well, it's just your...and at least a couple of court's...opinion that your quote is rational. I'm sure Dizzy will explain why it's not.

ifmaz -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:47:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz Are there any other rational reasons (besides the lack of desire) to not own a semi-automatic rifle with a "large capacity" magazine? I answered that even before you posted the question: quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird There are a million things for which there might be rational reasons for buying, but that consideration is moot if someone has no use for it and doesn't want it to begin with. I have no use for it, just as I have no use for a million other things. I don't sit there and make up a list of 'reasons not to buy' each of the million things I have no use for. So if there's no rational reason (apart from lack of a desire), The People should buy as many of them as they desire, yes?

Edwird -> RE: MD FSA Decision - 2nd Circuit (7/17/2016 10:53:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird 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. No...that's not gonna fly. "Rational" in this context, if you read the OP, means that the government proscribes the ownership. It has nothing to do with ability to afford or desire to own. Actually, that's completely wrong. The context was this: 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.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875