Whining about gun minutiae

[bongbong]

We've been deluged with posts from gun humpers about this and that tiny little detail, and that we can't be serious about guns if we don't know every last little fact about them. But check this out...

An ad for the Remington 552 is here: http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/12/gun-ads-bushmaster-mattel?page=2 Remington's OWN advertisement calls it an "automatic".

But it is actually semi-automatic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_552

I'll be waiting for a post from a Delicate Flower explaining how Remington is clueless about guns.

[HiPointDem]

1. why after complaining about gun minutiae do you add to it? either don't complain or don't add,

but don't do both simultaneously.

[bongbong]

3. You're kidding, right?

Clueless are you, as Yada (Yoda's smarter cousin) would say.

[HiPointDem]

5. not at all. and you may think that was a clever comeback, but it wasn't.

[bongbong]

6. Right back at you, ace

you may think that was a clever comeback, but it wasn't.

[HiPointDem]

10. lol. yeah, sharp as a tack, you are. have fun.

[bongbong]

12. LOL

Yep, it's fun showing how clueless the gun humpers are. But wayyyyyy too easy. Why don't you guys try something other than NRA Talking Points?

[rl6214]

51. All he really has is his bong and his rolling smiley

[bongbong]

63. LOL

You Delicate Flowers sure love the personal attacks.

Being around, and worshiping, guns too much will put you in a permanent state of "attack!". The Rambo Syndrome. Put some of your Preciouses away and you'll regain solid footing.

<- different smiley just for you, since you sound especially delicate

[rl6214]

85. "You delicate flowers"

"Sure love the personal attacks"

And I suppose calling someone "delicate flowers" is really just a term of endearment?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

2. "Gun Humpers" & "Delicate Flowers"...

Yeah, I'm gonna bet you'll be taken seriously by gun owners.

But maybe all of the 'Drone Lickers' will want to play with you.

[bongbong]

4. Gun humpers

I could care less if cowards (gun nuts who need guns to feel safe) take me seriously. The days of policy being dictated by a very scared, very vocal, very tiny minority are over in America.

[OneMoreDemocrat]

9. Maybe...

We'll see.

It will actually be interesting to see how much of a minority 'they' actually are in America, and to see who is actually in the minority.

I don't think they are as small a group as some appear to, but at the moment the only gun owners I know personally are police officers so I don't rightly know.

[bongbong]

15. Crazy

> It will actually be interesting to see how much of a minority 'they' actually are in America, and to see who is actually in the minority.

Since the stats on gun ownership have been widely discussed lately here on DU, I wonder why you don't know them. It's a tiny minority.

The details of how many shots per second one of your Preciouses can fire is much more important than that, I guess.

[Mojorabbit]

59. Forty percent of gun owners are Dems

[bongbong]

78. Oh boy

Not hard to debunk your claim by just looking at the poll data at the Gallup website.

Turns out only 28% of Dems own a gun.

I wonder why Delicate Flowers have to, uhhh, well, hmmm, I would use the "L" word but it gets a post hidden, so I'll just say "shade the truth" if guns are so popular?

[NutmegYankee]

7. That's a throwback to the older definition of "automatic". The ad dates to 1966.

At one point, automatic meant any gun that automatically reloaded the next round into the chamber. Hence the older ads using the term "Automatic Pistol" to describe the classic Colt .45 1911.

In the last few decades, the term automatic has meant keep firing once the trigger is depressed versus the term semi-automatic for everything else.

[bongbong]

8. Oh Really?

You proved my point for me! Thanks!

[NutmegYankee]

13. This is why the NFA calls any gun that fires more than one round on a trigger pull a "Machine Gun".

NFA is the National Firearms Act of 1934.

For the record, language does change over time. In 1966 the term gay would mean happy to most folks, rather than the sexual orientation term it is now. In the 1960's, a gun that could keep firing was a machine gun. Today we call it an automatic.

[bongbong]

17. LOL

So gun terminology changes? That means that when a Delicate Flower laughs at a sane Liberal for making a "mistake" about some tiny gun detail, said Delicate Flower is actually wrong.

Good to know!

[NutmegYankee]

21. If people are picking at you on details, it's likely because of your attitude.

The use of name calling and blatant disrespect of DUers with opposing positions doesn't result in meaningful discussion. In fact, it's classic trolling.

[bongbong]

22. Crazy

> The use of name calling and blatant disrespect of DUers with opposing positions doesn't result in meaningful discussion. In fact, it's classic trolling.

No, trolling is posting NRA Talking Points, or "defend the holy gun!" posts, after a tragedy like Newtown (as well as the many before it).

All I can say is that Tom Tomorrow was like the greatest truth-teller in history when he decided to label gun nuts "Delicate Flowers"

[NutmegYankee]

23. I know the cartoon.

"over and over again apparently" It's a classic.

Most of the people on DU who own guns are not NRA members and hold a middle position on the debate. I think the discussions would go a lot smoother if you engaged them in a manner that didn't demonstrate absolute contempt for them.

[Ashgrey77]

25. +1 n/t

[bongbong]

33. Yadda yadda yadda

> Most of the people on DU who own guns are not NRA members and hold a middle position on the debate.

Seeing NRA Talking Points being repeated is my definition of trolling, and is especially despicable on a Liberal chatboard. I only react with disgust when I see those Talking Points or some variation thereof.

Your response to me was, basically, "terminology changes" (BTW, you were the only one to address the point). The upshot of that proves a secondary point, that some other replies pointed out - focusing on gun minutiae is another diversionary NRA tactic. Luckily, the braintrust at the NRA are like so many other repig braintrusts. They're only "braintrusts" if you compare them to grade schoolers. Thus, their tactics are as transparent as glass.

I do have nothing but contempt for parrots, whether they say "Polly wants a cracker" or "guns don't kill people, people kill people", or "more guns make you safer", or any of the other 9,844 NRA Talking Points that DU Liberals have been subjected to since Newtown.

[NutmegYankee]

38. I have not presented to you a single NRA talking point.

I just quickly explained the change in terminology over time.

Just don't equate "Gun Owner" with "NRA member". While I own guns for hunting and target shooting, I have specifically chosen to not be a member of the NRA. Partly because of it's absolute bizarre arguments, and mostly because it's a defacto part of the Republican Party. And remember that Liberal doesn't mean anti-gun. My hardcore Republican "free market/trickle down/end welfare" neighbors across the street are extremely anti-gun. They support a total ban. Society isn't that black and white.

[NutmegYankee]

41. The Terminology changes are why most big laws have a definition section.

[krispos42]

56. NRA talking points = inconvenient facts?

Like... the gun used in Newtown was not an "assault weapon".


And you don't give a shit about terminology anyway. You don't know the current terms, you don't know the past terms, and you don't care to learn the difference or the history. So your whining about "see, see, terminology changes, so it doesn't matter" is just that... whining.

And you think that your opinion has merit? You think that your opinion has weight?


I'm half-tempted to unblock you from the Gungeon to let you damage your credibility and your side even more.

[bongbong]

60. LOL

> I'm half-tempted to unblock you from the Gungeon to let you damage your credibility and your side even more.

You mean the traditional Liberal gun control "side"?

Nice to see people who disagree with Liberal goals as moderators on a Liberal website.

[krispos42]

66. I was thinking the factually-devoid side of the argument

Which is a Conservative stalwart for running things. Which explains why the country is sucking.


But go on, explain how appearance should determine which guns are legal and which are illegal.

[bongbong]

70. ????

> But go on, explain how appearance should determine which guns are legal and which are illegal.

You must - I hope - be responding to me by mistake.

If your reply to me is, indeed, intended, I have a response for you: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Since bushmasters

With all their "deficiencies" are found in actual combat zones...oh wait, this is an inconvenient fact for gunnies.

[krispos42]

67. So are pump-action shotguns and bolt-action rifles and semiautomatic handguns.

I'm assuming you're referring to Pentagon-contract mercenaries, who procure their own armaments.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Nice try

And no, I am not.

For the record shotguns are rare finds in those caches.

But nice try.

[obamanut2012]

76. +1

The OP has attacked me as a "gun nut" when I am anything but.

[Jenoch]

32. Posting gun grabber bullshit

in a forum dedicated to RKBA is the epiome of trolling.

[bongbong]

34. LOL

Using NRA terminology like "gun grabber" is the ne plus ultra of trolling on a LIBERAL website.

[rl6214]

52. But he is banned from that group now so he can't.

That's why he's trolling GD with his crap (Brady bunch talking points and childish BS) now.

[bongbong]

61. LOL

I won't alert on your personal insult & attack like you Delicate Flowers do so often.

I'm not scared like you guys.

[laundry_queen]

75. Brady bunch talking points?

I think you just let us ALLLLL in on what side of the aisle you are on. Oooopsie for you.

[rl6214]

86. Which side of the 2nd amendment, nothing to hide there

As anyone that knows my posts will tell you

[laundry_queen]

87. LOL. Nice attempt at dodging. nt

[Paladin]

29. Yeah, Right.

Gun activists like you have been trying to control the vocabulary with esoteric details for a long time, in an effort to de-rail those "meaningful discussions" you're pontificating about. You're not fooling anybody at this point---and I say that as a former Gun Enthusiast, somebody who knows the terminology, somebody who knows how this game has been played. I intend to call you people out on this trivial bullshit, every chance I get.

[NutmegYankee]

30. I'm a gun activist?

[OneMoreDemocrat]

14. You might have to take reality into account...

and then go back and figure out what your point actually is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. It changed in '68

Why I told congress criter to concentrate in how they work, not how they look.

[bongbong]

18. Yes

The point is that Delicate Flowers who make some big deal about gun terminology are actually barking up a non-existent tree.

I should've know that "you don't know factoid XXXX about guns means you can't discuss gun control" was just another NRA Talking Point (AKA Big Lie)

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Them are not happy to be honest

At this point.

[sarisataka]

11. No, not Remington...

did you notice that ad is from 1966?

[bongbong]

20. You're right!

It wasn't from "Remington". It was from "Remington A Division Of Dupont".

[ehrenfeucht games]

24. Now I'm feeling really, really old.

Just reading how people are talking about the 1960s.

Like it is ancient history or something.

[NutmegYankee]

26. Weren't you a crewman on Columbus's ship or something?

[lanlady]

27. I notice this too, all the time

It's an attempt to derail any serious conversation about guns, this frequent claim that if you can't tell a Remington xx2 from a xx3, you're not qualified to have an opinion. I swear, in the NRA playbook there must be an entire long chapter on using inconsequential details to browbeat your opponent.

[CTyankee]

31. Next time, ask them how they can vote for President if they don't know all the details

of foreign policy, e.g., who are the heads of states of every country in the world and what are their policies with regard to every issue of importance to the U.S.

I will betcha there will be LOTS of sputtering..."well, I don't have to know EVERYTHING about foreign policy to vote for President..."

Sit back and smile...

[bongbong]

37. Good point!

[CTyankee]

39. I don't know why we didn't think of this earlier. Let's not be bullied by these guys.

Let's let 'em have it with this argument every chance we get! It will work!

[Squinch]

57. In real life, when an NRA person tries to shut me down with the terminology argument, I have

started asking them what they think about fracking. Whatever position they choose, I toss some terminology at them, and ask them if, not knowing the correct terminology, they have a right to an opinion on fracking.

Then I ask them if they think their personal ignorance of the more esoteric vocabulary about fracking is going to ruin any eventual legislation that is passed about fracking.

Most just shut up, but one guy totally didn't get the analogy, and said to me, "that's just stupid." I still laugh when I think of it.

[CTyankee]

58. Love it! OF COURSE, they can't answer you! There is no answer! The NRA hasn't given

them the prepared text to spew back at you. But I guarantee you that once we start using this technique on them over and over again they'll be forced to come up with some bullshit answer. Can't wait to see what'll happen then!

[hack89]

49. Ignorance on your part serves the NRA well

the first AWB was fucked up and didn't work because it was written by people that were clueless about guns. If you don't bother to educate yourself the NRA will sandbag you again and you will once again be left with a useless law.

Is that the result you really want? At some point you have to put the emotion aside and to the hard work of learning the technical aspects of gun control. Or you will fail.

[cantbeserious]

28. Gun Minutiae Is Irrelevant - It Is Meant To Redirect The Discussion So The Fact That Guns Kill

is lost in the minutiae.

[spin]

35. Why not be honest and state that you wish to ban all firearms?

If you did so firearm terminology is irrelevant.

If you don't support banning all firearms but wish to engage in a productive discussion with a person who does know a lot about firearms, it would make sense to at least know the basics of the subject.

How productive would a debate on high performance cars go if you felt that an old Volkswagen diesel Rabbit is a high performance car as it can exceed the freeway speed limit if it's going downhill with a strong wind pushing it?

[bongbong]

36. Lovely diversion attempt

One of the posters above actually proved that terminology is quite unimportant, by stating that "terminology changes over time".

If it's so important why does it change with the breeze?

I hate NRA Talking Points.

[spin]

40. Yes, it is true that over half a century terminology can change. ...

but modern technology has enabled us to get up to date on any subject quickly.

Obviously you have access to a computer. In just a couple of seconds I found a link to an excellent firearm tutorial on my Ipad.
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINTRO.html

Another quick search led to an good dictionary on gun terms.
http://www.hallowellco.com/abbrevia.htm

Any computer literate person can spend an evening on the net and learn enough about the subject in order to make an intelligent post on the subject of gun control. Of course any poster on DU can ask a question and usually this will result in imformation and links posted by other members.

I feel that you label any fact or statistic from any relieable source as a "NRA talking point" as it enables you the opportunity to simply ignore it. If a statistic came from the FBI and the DOJ and it doesn't fit your preconceptions it MUST be an NRA talking point.

[Hoyt]

42. Why do those who a month ago laughed at any talk of gun restrictions now want a "productive dialog?"

Gun culture just wants the discussion to end up protecting their most beloved of lethal weapons. Be honest.

[spin]

44. Because some of us actually want to reduce gun violence. ...

and have ideas on how to accomplish this. We were also discussing these same ideas a month ago, six months ago and a year ago. You should be well aware of this as you and I have discussed such laws in the past.

[Hoyt]

46. After promoting more guns in more places, you now want to do something. Good.

How about sending Obama and Congressmen your demand for immediate restrictions. No delays, no loopholes, no NRA BS, no more. . . . . .

[bongbong]

47. Called his bluff...

... and got crickets.

[spin]

48. In my posts I have often said that I actually try to discourage people from buying a firearm ...

without a good reason. I do not believe that everybody should own a gun. Many people buy a firearm on a whim and are unwilling to take the time to learn how to safely handle it. Some people abuse alcohol or drugs and firearms do not mix well with either. Often people suffer from mental problems such as depression and a firearm makes suicide far too easy. Many people live in a volatile relationship with a significant other and a fight could lead to a tragedy. Some have children in the family and are not willing to properly store their firearms.

If a person who does not own a firearm asks me about buying one, I point out all the problems that owning a firearm can cause and then tell them to go look in a mirror and ask themselves, "Do I really need a firearm? Is my lifestyle appropriate for owning a firearm? Am I responsible enough to own one?"

Firearms are not for everybody!

[bongbong]

72. Nice idea to limit guns

Have a conversation with prospective buyers that they don't need it.

THAT'LL WORK!!!

[spin]

73. In some cases it has believe it or not. ...

Logic and reason can be more effective than propaganda from those who manufacture firearms.

[RC]

43. OK, how about a list of cars, vs equivalent guns.

You can start with the equivalent gun for that old Volkswagen diesel Rabbit and work your way up to Caddies and Lincolns.
BTY, what kind of gun is a Chevy Cavalier? A Ford Fusion?

[spin]

45. It might actually be fun to do that but I fail to see how it would accomplish anything useful. (n/t)

[rl6214]

50. Back to the bong I see

[Jim Warren]

53. Whining about whining

cancels out.

[krispos42]

55. 1966... that's how far back, huh?

I could explain how it works, but you can't dirty your delicate with such facts, can you?


Because you don't want to know.

[bongbong]

62. LOL

> I could explain how it works, but you can't dirty your delicate with such facts, can you?
> Because you don't want to know.

I really should alert on this since it is a double-barreled alterer's fest, including both personal insult & a Strawman.

Would I receive a special gold star for having a forum moderator get a post blocked?



I sure have your Delicate Panties in a bunch, flowers!

[spin]

79. If you seriously believe that insulting those you disagree with will accomplish anything ...

than you are a fool. But I really don't believe that your goal is productive discussion.

I suspect you post just for the fun of irritating others and when you are finished making a post you walk to the bathroom and admire your image in the mirror. You pat yourself on the back and say, "I bet you really pissed them off this time, you handsome devil."

There once was a lady from Canada who often posted in the Gungeon. She was able to really irritate a lot of the pro-gun posters and even had a reputation for her DU posts on other internet sites. I found her to be one of the most interesting and challenging posters I've encountered here on DU and she often made strong points for the gun control side of the debate. I learned a lot by debating her as I had to do considerable research to back my position up. I feel she won many of our discussions. Many would say that she was far from polite but she did use her ability to insult effectively.

I doubt if you ever will have her talent to infuriate pro-gun supporters or the knowledge to support your side of the gun control debate as effectively as she did. But then I could be wrong. Keep practicing as I feel you are showing some sings of improvement and at least your insults are often more original and entertaining to read than most I read here.

I enjoy reading your posts and often get a good chuckle from them.

[bongbong]

81. Thanks

For your concern.

> I suspect you post just for the fun of irritating others and when you are finished making a post you walk to the bathroom and admire your image in the mirror. You pat yourself on the back and say, "I bet you really pissed them off this time, you handsome devil."

Boy you hit the nail on the head!

[spin]

83. I have no problem giving free advise. Take it for what it is worth. (n/t)

[DanTex]

80. The definition of "Assault Rifle" dates back even further.

Whenever anyone describes an AR-15 as an "assault rifle", the NRAers lose their heads.

[closeupready]

65. Obligatory auto-post

[ileus]

69. I own a 270 BAR.

In my dreams it's a BAR.

[bongbong]

71. Whatever you need

To feel safe enough to get out from under the bed.

[ileus]

74. You don't know the purpose of a 270 BAR do you?

[bongbong]

77. LOL

Are you trying to be doubly ironic, since this thread is about gun minutiae, or are you being obtuse, or what?

Where is the secret code ring that Delicate Flowers have?

[ileus]

82. Your post made it sound like a 270BAR is for conceal carry or HD.

[Paladin]

84. You Mean A .270 Caliber Browning Semi-Auto, Don't You?

(You need to place a period before the "270" to correctly identify the caliber. You're welcome.)

And if you've got a fine sporting rifle like that, why would you be pining away for a clunky old WWII weapon like a "BAR"? That's kind of silly, isn't it?