Author Topic: CO. Movie House Attack (Read 34016 times)

ArfinGreebly · « **Reply #125 on:** July 23, 2012, 01:53:55 PM »

Quote from: Balog on July 23, 2012, 01:51:36 PM

Which is why they won't do that. Hollywood is all about infringing liberty unless it might hurt their bottom line.

Arfin: the legislature decided what an assault rifle is, whether we like it or not. Observing that this conflicts with the original definition is all well and good, but it looks like (and is) pedantry on par with insisting that bullet and cartridge are not interchangeable terms.

So educate the legislators, and make it painful for them not to learn.

TommyGunn · « **Reply #126 on:** July 23, 2012, 01:57:20 PM »

Quote from: ArfinGreebly on July 23, 2012, 01:53:55 PM

So educate the legislators, and make it painful for them not to learn.

[sarcasm]I wish there was a good way just to make it painful for legislators in general.

[/sarcasm]

Scout26 · « **Reply #127 on:** July 23, 2012, 01:59:49 PM »

So Hollywood is completely against the TSA at movie theaters but completely fine with the TSA at Airports/

Ben · « **Reply #128 on:** July 23, 2012, 02:02:17 PM »

Quote from: scout26 on July 23, 2012, 01:59:49 PM

So Hollywood is completely against the TSA at movie theaters but completely fine with the TSA at Airports/

Pretty much, but I'm still glad they said it. Documentation to be used when they take the opposite stance with something that doesn't have a fiscal impact on them or otherwise affect their lives.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #129 on:** July 23, 2012, 02:10:56 PM »

Quote from: BryanP on July 23, 2012, 12:33:22 PM

On the weight side I agree with you, but not the expense. I've seen several people claiming that he had over $20,000 worth of gear (which I think is WILDLY exaggerated) and that is proof he was set up to do this by someone else. Heck, he could have bought all that and more on credit if he knew he had no plans to pay it back. Walk in to Gander Mountain with a shiny new Visa, walk out with a bunch of gear.

Oh for sure. Actually between ammo guns and other gear he's certainly over the 10k mark. Highly doubt he had magazines for all those rounds though. And even if he did, and had an emplaced position with them all ready to shoot, I have no idea how he'd be able to light off all that ammo without getting popped by police, or armed citizens.

BlueStarLizzard · « **Reply #130 on:** July 23, 2012, 02:11:46 PM »

As to the term "assualt rifle".

I read that it was never a technical term, but a made up term by polititions, and then used in the AWB. I would guess that the only weapons that are truely considered "assult weapons" are those that qualified as such under the ban?

My dad and I just bypass it and refer to our rifles (the ones that qualify) as "modern combat rifles", based on the design, not fireing options (as we have no select fire weapons)

AJ Dual · « **Reply #131 on:** July 23, 2012, 03:30:57 PM »

With his background in neuroscience... I'm sure I can't be alone in wondering if he, you know, ever experimented on himself somehow.

Thinking he'd become an evil super-genius or whatnot.

Or a simple "trip" to see just how far down the rabbit hole goes.

Balog · « **Reply #132 on:** July 23, 2012, 04:27:24 PM »

Quote from: ArfinGreebly on July 23, 2012, 01:53:55 PM

So educate the legislators, and make it painful for them not to learn.

You're attempting to win an argument you've already lost by being pedantic. Give it up.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #133 on:** July 23, 2012, 04:30:26 PM »

Where has 'the legislature' decided what an assault rifle is?

The term 'assault weapon' had appeared in AWB, not 'assault rifle'... and that is no longer law.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #134 on:** July 23, 2012, 04:51:04 PM »

Thank you, MicroBalrog. The term "assault rifle" has a very specific meaning, and has been so defined by the military for decades. The term "assault weapon" was invented by Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center in the late 1980's.

Balog · « **Reply #135 on:** July 23, 2012, 05:00:14 PM »

Gay had a very specific meaning that was defined for years. The meaning changed. Deal with it instead of whining about semantics.

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #136 on:** July 23, 2012, 05:12:20 PM »

Quote from: Monkeyleg on July 23, 2012, 04:51:04 PM

Thank you, MicroBalrog. The term "assault rifle" has a very specific meaning, and has been so defined by the military for decades. The term "assault weapon" was invented by Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center in the late 1980's.

I think "assault rifle" came from the German STG-44 "sturmgewehr," or storm/assault rifle prototyped during WWII and the direct predecessor of the AK-47.

brimic · « **Reply #137 on:** July 23, 2012, 05:42:21 PM »

Quote

I think "assault rifle" came from the German STG-44 "sturmgewehr," or storm/assault rifle prototyped during WWII and the direct predecessor of the ~~AK-47~~ AR-15.

While the concept of the AK-47 was the same and they look very similar, The STG-44 is very similar to the AR-15 in operation and design.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #138 on:** July 23, 2012, 06:45:09 PM »

Quote

Deal with it instead of whining about semantics.

Why? When you cede the language to the enemy, you're letting them win. If someone uses the term "assault weapon", I'll correct them if possible by giving them a short history on the origin of the phrase. Sometimes it changes someone's mind on the issue if they realize they've been duped.

Balog · « **Reply #139 on:** July 23, 2012, 06:53:53 PM »

Oh ffs... Really? You think that's a substantiative difference that someone open to the idea of gun control would care about? Why not just point out that "gun" technically refers to smoothbores, but the shooting actually used a rifled weapon! They'll totally switch opinions then! "OMG, the media slighly misused a term, I love and care about the 2nd Amendment now! And they called them clips but the proper term is magazine?!?! I'm only getting my gun news from the NRA now!"

gunsmith · « **Reply #140 on:** July 23, 2012, 07:07:59 PM »

Quote from: AZRedhawk44 on July 23, 2012, 05:12:20 PM

I think "assault rifle" came from the German STG-44 "sturmgewehr," or storm/assault rifle prototyped during WWII and the direct predecessor of the AK-47.

WELCOME BACK! AZR! how ya been? I was askin about you awhile ago.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #141 on:** July 23, 2012, 07:10:22 PM »

Being correct =/= being pedantic. Correcting the ignorant =/= whining.

Now quit whining about others' preference for correct nomenclature.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #142 on:** July 23, 2012, 07:15:30 PM »

If there's no difference between an assault rifle and your AR15, do I take it you think you're not placed at a disadvantage by not being able to own the former?

S. Williamson · « **Reply #143 on:** July 23, 2012, 07:40:37 PM »

Everyone lay off the semantics debate, or start (yet) another thread. Please. We're all on the same side here, and people are getting worked up over (at least in this topic) a non-issue. We've had numerous debates about it all over the internet, and it very rarely does anyone any good.

I come here for intelligent discussion, not bickering. I have other fora for that.

Not owning a TV myself, what was discussed/revealed at the arraignment?

Balog · « **Reply #144 on:** July 23, 2012, 07:59:54 PM »

Quote from: fistful on July 23, 2012, 07:10:22 PM

Being correct =/= being pedantic. Correcting the ignorant =/= whining.

Now quit whining about others' preference for correct nomenclature.

Quote from: Pedantic

2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 23, 2012, 07:15:30 PM

If there's no difference between an assault rifle and your AR15, do I take it you think you're not placed at a disadvantage by not being able to own the former?

You're deliberately misunderstanding me. Although for the record I do in fact prefer semi-auto AR-15's to my issued M16-A4, should I have the choice of either.

Calling it an assault rifle or whatever your preferred term is (copy of an assault rifle? assault style rifle? What do you want the press to call them?) functionally the same. It's no different than calling a rifle a gun; technically incorrect but it makes no difference to the question at hand.

Picture this conversation to see why this is such a silly and fruitless argument.

Anti-Gunner: "OMG that crazy guy killed a bunch of people with an assault rifle! Let's ban them!!!!"
APS Pedant: "Actually, that was just a semi-automatic copy of an assault rifle, which by definition is fully automatic."
A-G: "Then let's ban those too!"
A-P: ...

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #145 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:24:39 PM »

Quote from: ArfinGreebly on July 23, 2012, 01:49:07 PM

D) Bag Check: Completely wrong vector. A bag check would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this, and would have disarmed anyone who might have been able to respond.

WTF is wrong with people? Guy comes in shooting through a door that's supposed to be locked to ingress, and you want to scrutinize all the movie attendees? Do you kick the dog after a hard day at the office?

DING, DING, DING!

Give that man two gold stars

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #146 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:29:40 PM »

Quote from: Balog on July 23, 2012, 01:51:36 PM

Arfin: the legislature decided what an assault rifle is, whether we like it or not.

No, they didn't.

The decided what they thought an assault rifle was, and now that the law has expired even those who were in favor of it at the time realize (unfortunately) that their definition was all about appearance rather than function. Which is why today, when they talk about enacting a new AWB, they talk about "fixing" the weaknesses in the old one. If the definition can change each time they dream up a new version of the law, then it really isn't a definition ... is it?

280plus · « **Reply #147 on:** July 23, 2012, 08:31:10 PM »

Quote

WTF is wrong with people? Guy comes in shooting through a door that's supposed to be locked to ingress, and you want to scrutinize all the movie attendees? Do you kick the dog after a hard day at the office?

Peeples is dumb and very close minded as well. I hate that.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #148 on:** July 23, 2012, 09:06:01 PM »

Quote

Picture this conversation to see why this is such a silly and fruitless argument.

Anti-Gunner: "OMG that crazy guy killed a bunch of people with an assault rifle! Let's ban them!!!!"
APS Pedant: "Actually, that was just a semi-automatic copy of an assault rifle, which by definition is fully automatic."
A-G: "Then let's ban those too!"
A-P: ...

No, how it's going down is like this:

Anti-Gunner: "OMG that crazy guy killed a bunch of people with an assault rifle! Let's ban them!!!!"

[Anti-Gunner is never going to be convinced. It's as likely as trying to persuade a practicing Christian to become a Satanist.]

APS Pedant: "Anti-Gunner is being manipulative on purpose. He's using the term "assault rifle" to conflate the civilian rifles used by regular people to defend their homes and families. there is no definable difference between an AR15 and any other semi-automatic rifle. What they want to do is to deliberately make this issue sound scary so they can create a set of catch-all restrictions banning the guns they disapprove of.... and everything that looks vaguely like them."

Bystander: "Is this true, Anti-Gunner? Have you lied to me?"

Anti-Gunner: "NO WE HAVE JUST ALTERED A FEW DETAILS STOP BEING SUCH A PEDANT. WAAH WAAH."

Fitz · « **Reply #149 on:** July 23, 2012, 09:23:33 PM »

This is why the tide of gun grabbing will go unabated. Because the gunnies can't stop bickering amongst themselves

News:

Author Topic: CO. Movie House Attack (Read 34016 times)