|
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:25:32 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Peter, if you're the best pro-gunnie they got arguing their position,
then it won't be long before firearms are banned completely.
Nope, not by a long shot.
You truly are a blithering idiot.
Maybe it's your lack of command of English as a language?
LOL - this from some one who seems completely incapable of
distinguishing an Assault Weapon(tm) from something used in an assault.
Time for you to go back in the case.
--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level. LtCol Grossman.
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:27:54 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Try logic and common sense instead.
And those have what to do with The Law?
Your equivocation (that is, the confusing the multiple meanings of a
word.) is where your "logic" fails.
That's the whole point of the argument: SOD feels that because
something is used in an assault, that makes it a weapon, ergo, it is an
Assault weapon. True enough, unfortunately for him, the Legal Definition of
an Assault Weapon, for proposes of the statue and discussion, do not
include rocks. or knives, or machine guns. Never mind the ignorant media
showed machine guns when discussing the upcoming legislation, and repeats
the false hood when the ban sunsets, SOD wants to continue the fraud by
equivocating on the term, and continue obfuscating the difference between
machine guns and those firearms banned by the law.
And Peter has been told repeatedly that they are.
And SOD still wants to lie about the legal differences and what was,
and wasn't, covered by the legislation.
and for purposes of that law, sticks, rocks,
baseball bats, nor his head qualify. But being a shill of
an antigun_nut_, he continues attempting to confuse the
two. The difference between him and the man who claims his
dog has five legs because he calls the "tail" a leg is ..
minimal.
So now you want to talk about household pets instead of
cars?
No, I want to talk about Sod's deliberate lying. SOD's the one who
continues the lie that machine guns were covered by the "Assault Weapons
Ban of 1994". He's wrong, but to admit than is to concede that it was a
"feel good" law which did nothing but harass honest citizens. No doubt he
will claim he didn't feel harassed by the law, but then again, he doesn't
seem an honest citizen to start with.
When will you actually be discussing firearms?
Have been doing so for quite some time. That your grasp of rhetoric,
analogy, metaphor and simile is as lacking as your grasp of the truth
doesn't change the facts.
toodles
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level. LtCol Grossman.
|
| |
| |
pyotr filipivich wrote:
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O.
Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote back on Sat, 18 Sep 2004
22:27:54 -0600 in talk.politics.guns :
And those have what to do with The Law?
Your equivocation (that is, the confusing the multiple
meanings of a word.) is where your "logic" fails.
That's the whole point of the argument: SOD feels that
because something is used in an assault, that makes it a weapon,
ergo, it is an Assault weapon. True enough,
Yep, thanks for the confession.
And SOD still wants to lie about the legal differences and
what was, and wasn't, covered by the legislation.
and for purposes of that law, sticks, rocks,
baseball bats, nor his head qualify. But being a shill
of an antigun_nut_, he continues attempting to confuse the
two. The difference between him and the man who claims his
dog has five legs because he calls the "tail" a leg is ..
minimal.
No, I want to talk about Sod's deliberate lying. SOD's the
one who continues the lie that machine guns were covered by
the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994".
You lie again.
Got a cite to where I ever stated that?
He's wrong, but to
admit than is to concede that it was a "feel good" law
which did nothing but harass honest citizens.
You lie again. Honest citizens were not harrassed in
any way by the law.
No doubt he
will claim he didn't feel harassed by the law, but then
again, he doesn't seem an honest citizen to start with.
Have been doing so for quite some time. That your grasp of
rhetoric, analogy, metaphor and simile is as lacking as
your grasp of the truth doesn't change the facts.
Fact is, you lie.
toodles
pyotr
|
| |
| |
S. O. Damocles wrote:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Your equivocation (that is, the confusing the multiple
meanings of a word.) is where your "logic" fails.
That's the whole point of the argument: SOD feels that
because something is used in an assault, that makes it a weapon,
ergo, it is an Assault weapon. True enough,
Yep, thanks for the confession.
I like how you snipped his statement to make it say what you wanted it to.
Right up there with Michael Moore. There wasn't much doubt, but you've
proven yourself to be fundamentally dishonest.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:08:06 -0400, "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com>
wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
By and large, laws don't make things "legal", they make things
"illegal".
Yes, but since the National Firearms Act of 1934 severly restricts
their ownership, it would require another law to open that up, or at
least proof of the sunsetting of said law.
Given the extent of the restrictions, including proof of need, I feel it
safe to say that it bans the weapons, save for those grandfathered in by
prior ownership.
No proof of need on a Form 4. Know what a Form 4 is? It's what lets
you own a fully automatic weapon. It's a tax form.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/pdfs/f53204.pdf
The Hughes Amendment did not ban ownership. It just froze the NFA
registry.
Since you've never owned an NFA-34 firearms don't try tell us who know
how about the laws and what we have to do to own them.
Know where I can find a From 4 transferable MAT-49, boyo?
********************************************************
"In general, the art of government consists in taking as
much money as possible from one party of the citizens
to give to the other."
Voltaire (1764)
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:00:34 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
Logic and common sense?
Right. As has been pointed out to you before, logic and common sense
has little to do with legislation and the law.
And in this case, what SOD can't admit is that machine guns were not
covered by the Assault Weapon ban of 1994" nor were other functionally
identical rifles. The only thing banned by the act were cosmetic features.
Now, to SOD, that may be trivial, but to collectors it isn't.
And his repetition that "machine guns are assault weapons" demonstrates
his obstinate adherence to a discredited fallacy. not to mention his basic
dishonesty.
Not to mention you are easily distracted.
Sez the imbecile who wants to spend more time talking
about cars, automobiles, tractors and cats then about
the topic under discussion -- firearms.
I see. So SOD is admitting his incapacity for understanding analogies,
metaphors, similes or the other tools of the rhetorical art. He does have
equivocation down pat, accepting a different meaning of a word to obscure
his flawed logic. Like I said (pay attention, this is what is known as an
"analogy"), SOD doesn't seem anymore able to discern the difference between
"house cat" and "cat house" than he is able to discern the differences
between a "weapon used in an assault" and an "Assault Weapon".
--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level. LtCol Grossman.
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show thomandpam@yahoo.com.au
(Thom) wrote back on Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:39:48 GMT in talk.politics.guns :
I've always been annoyed at the fact government agencies think they
don't have to follow the law. I don't see why my local police don't
have to pay the $200 transfer tax just like everybody else.
THOM
Just be glad they don't, or they'd be using that as an excuse to raise
taxes.
--
pyotr filipivich
This is a .22 caliber derringer, one of the smallest, lightest handguns
ever made. It's over a hundred years old and might not even penetrate your
skull if I miss your eye socket. So you have to ask yourself just one
question: "Do I feel lucky?" - Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Lady Foole
|
| |
| |
|
