funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,128
Location: Right over your left shoulder
25 Sep 2017, 11:48 pm
Raptor wrote:
KagamineLen wrote:
Raptor wrote:
KagamineLen wrote:
Raptor wrote:
KagamineLen wrote:
Uhm, if they support the rights of neo Nazis and Klansmen to march with automatic weapons and baseball bats while looking for a fight, yet turn around and state that the NFL is anti American because of some patriotic civil disobedience, I think it is fair to see where their hearts really are at. So actual neo Nazi and Klan membership is low, but there is a very large and very vocal crowd in their corner who tends to forget that their Klan and Nazi friends were highly armed, highly dangerous, and very much looking to stomp some heads in ways that go far beyond what the First Amendment actually covers. Trump himself claimed that they were "very fine people".
So, they may not be actual Nazis or Klansmen, but they certainly are sympathetic to their cause.
So, they may not be actual Nazis or Klansmen, but they certainly are sympathetic to their cause.
Oh, so they support free speech and the right to assemble (whether or not they support the actual cause) and that makes them Nazi sympathizers. Gee, thank's for the clarification.
Where did you see automatic weapons being carried?
Watch the video in this link. If you still think that what these men were up to is protected by the First Amendment, you have issues.
You just don't get it, do you?
I understand that you believe armed intimidation of racial minorities should be considered protected free speech. But only if white men are armed.
Nice strawman fallacy attempt there...
So you'd support this right for all, even liberals, or communists or Islamists marching with semi-automatic carbines of this sort and intimidating their opponents?
25 Sep 2017, 11:52 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
]
It's not unreasonable to call a semi-automatic rifle based on a select fire weapon an assault rifle. You're splitting hairs and lobbing childish insults because you have no valid point.
It's not unreasonable to call a semi-automatic rifle based on a select fire weapon an assault rifle. You're splitting hairs and lobbing childish insults because you have no valid point.
A assault rifle, would be select fire. The correct term for the rifle in discussion is sporting rifle. Just want you to have the facts, not that you care.
PS: AR in AR15, does not mean Assault Rifle. It means Armalite Rifle.
25 Sep 2017, 11:57 pm
25 Sep 2017, 11:58 pm
SH90 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
]
It's not unreasonable to call a semi-automatic rifle based on a select fire weapon an assault rifle. You're splitting hairs and lobbing childish insults because you have no valid point.
It's not unreasonable to call a semi-automatic rifle based on a select fire weapon an assault rifle. You're splitting hairs and lobbing childish insults because you have no valid point.
A assault rifle, would be select fire. The correct term for the rifle in discussion is sporting rifle. Just want you to have the facts, not that you care.
PS: AR in AR15, does not mean Assault Rifle. It means Armalite Rifle.
It does not really f*****g matter what hairs you are splitting. They carried big guns and threatened people they disliked with them. That is not protected by the First Amendment at all.
26 Sep 2017, 12:02 am
funeralxempire wrote:
Raptor wrote:
KagamineLen wrote:
Raptor wrote:
KagamineLen wrote:
Raptor wrote:
KagamineLen wrote:
Uhm, if they support the rights of neo Nazis and Klansmen to march with automatic weapons and baseball bats while looking for a fight, yet turn around and state that the NFL is anti American because of some patriotic civil disobedience, I think it is fair to see where their hearts really are at. So actual neo Nazi and Klan membership is low, but there is a very large and very vocal crowd in their corner who tends to forget that their Klan and Nazi friends were highly armed, highly dangerous, and very much looking to stomp some heads in ways that go far beyond what the First Amendment actually covers. Trump himself claimed that they were "very fine people".
So, they may not be actual Nazis or Klansmen, but they certainly are sympathetic to their cause.
So, they may not be actual Nazis or Klansmen, but they certainly are sympathetic to their cause.
Oh, so they support free speech and the right to assemble (whether or not they support the actual cause) and that makes them Nazi sympathizers. Gee, thank's for the clarification.
Where did you see automatic weapons being carried?
Watch the video in this link. If you still think that what these men were up to is protected by the First Amendment, you have issues.
You just don't get it, do you?
I understand that you believe armed intimidation of racial minorities should be considered protected free speech. But only if white men are armed.
Nice strawman fallacy attempt there...
So you'd support this right for all, even liberals, or communists or Islamists marching with semi-automatic carbines of this sort and intimidating their opponents?
It applies to ALL.
This is something you people can't seem to grasp; it's not about supporting rights we like, the rights apply across the board.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,128
Location: Right over your left shoulder
26 Sep 2017, 12:04 am
Raptor wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Those are CAR-15's (semi-auto M-4 clones) and not automatic weapon's.
There is a legal and technical difference. Just because they look scary to you doesn't make them automatic weapons. This scary guns topic has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum the whole 10 years that I've been on WP.
It's not unreasonable to call a semi-automatic rifle based on a select fire weapon an assault rifle. You're splitting hairs and lobbing childish insults because you have no valid point.
No, it's either one or the other both in legal and technical terms. There are no hairs to split here.
Under Virginia law it is legal to open carry a firearm.
Oh, and accusing me of lobbing insults won't shame me into silence so you and yours can run unopposed in your little quest to end freedom of speech.
I'm familiar with the differences, but to the average layperson the distinction isn't clear and yes, you are splitting hairs to waste time. Even if it's legal to carry, it's not legal to brandish them in an attempt to intimidate others. You're trying to pretend that these guys have the right to threaten and intimidate their opponents, you can spin and flop around all you like, but that is what you're defending.
As for insults, you've always been better at those than actually raising valid points.
26 Sep 2017, 12:04 am
26 Sep 2017, 12:06 am
KagamineLen wrote:
SH90 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
]
It's not unreasonable to call a semi-automatic rifle based on a select fire weapon an assault rifle. You're splitting hairs and lobbing childish insults because you have no valid point.
It's not unreasonable to call a semi-automatic rifle based on a select fire weapon an assault rifle. You're splitting hairs and lobbing childish insults because you have no valid point.
A assault rifle, would be select fire. The correct term for the rifle in discussion is sporting rifle. Just want you to have the facts, not that you care.
PS: AR in AR15, does not mean Assault Rifle. It means Armalite Rifle.
It does not really f*****g matter what hairs you are splitting. They carried big guns and threatened people they disliked with them. That is not protected by the First Amendment at all.
You're saying they pointed firearms at people or threatened them with them? If so, that is against the law and anyone who did should have been arrested. The presence of firearms alone does not constitute a threat.
26 Sep 2017, 12:08 am
26 Sep 2017, 12:08 am
26 Sep 2017, 12:09 am
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,128
Location: Right over your left shoulder
26 Sep 2017, 12:09 am
SH90 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
]
It's not unreasonable to call a semi-automatic rifle based on a select fire weapon an assault rifle. You're splitting hairs and lobbing childish insults because you have no valid point.
It's not unreasonable to call a semi-automatic rifle based on a select fire weapon an assault rifle. You're splitting hairs and lobbing childish insults because you have no valid point.
A assault rifle, would be select fire. The correct term for the rifle in discussion is sporting rifle. Just want you to have the facts, not that you care.
PS: AR in AR15, does not mean Assault Rifle. It means Armalite Rifle.
You're aware that an average layperson being menaced by armed thugs and trying to identify the weapon based on the superficial differences isn't too concerned with whether or not it's capable of select fire or not?
And yes, I'm aware that AR doesn't stand for assault rifle in this context - and that the same guy who designed the AR-10 and -15 later designed a short stroke receiver that looks quite similar to the direct impingement receiver used by the earlier designs.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,128
Location: Right over your left shoulder
26 Sep 2017, 12:11 am
26 Sep 2017, 12:13 am
26 Sep 2017, 12:17 am
funeralxempire wrote:
Raptor wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Those are CAR-15's (semi-auto M-4 clones) and not automatic weapon's.
There is a legal and technical difference. Just because they look scary to you doesn't make them automatic weapons. This scary guns topic has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum the whole 10 years that I've been on WP.
It's not unreasonable to call a semi-automatic rifle based on a select fire weapon an assault rifle. You're splitting hairs and lobbing childish insults because you have no valid point.
No, it's either one or the other both in legal and technical terms. There are no hairs to split here.
Under Virginia law it is legal to open carry a firearm.
Oh, and accusing me of lobbing insults won't shame me into silence so you and yours can run unopposed in your little quest to end freedom of speech.
I'm familiar with the differences, but to the average layperson the distinction isn't clear and yes, you are splitting hairs to waste time. Even if it's legal to carry, it's not legal to brandish them in an attempt to intimidate others. You're trying to pretend that these guys have the right to threaten and intimidate their opponents, you can spin and flop around all you like, but that is what you're defending.
As for insults, you've always been better at those than actually raising valid points.
Whatever...
What about a REAL right wing facist government, not just an imaginary one, where they are rounding up leftist protestors and putting them in camps for exercising free speech that the governing regime finds "offensive"?
"Oh, but but but....", you'll stammer as they drag you and your cronies away to the patty wagon.
26 Sep 2017, 12:22 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Childhood diagnosis rates continue to rise |
17 Apr 2025, 3:35 am |
| Video with stats on rise in lonliness, drop in socialization |
10 Jun 2025, 12:53 am |
| Trump declares two new national holidays in US |
09 May 2025, 9:32 pm |
| Petition to stop the national registry |
25 Apr 2025, 5:29 pm |
