• lobut@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Just don’t mention assault rifle, you’ll trigger someone.

    (I got one!)

    • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      The best way to be taken seriously is to show how misinformed you are about the subject you’re pontificating on

      • Aaron@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        The people don’t need to be taken seriously, the issue does. Arguing over semantics isn’t helpful unless it’s “Legislating against assault rifles won’t do anything because that’s not a thing. We need to …” And the words after the ellipsis can’t be “…do nothing.”

        • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Assault rifles have been illegal since the 30s. You’re advocating a ban on something that’s already banned and has been for almost a hundred years. Do you see how stupid and unhelpful that is? Why should I take your issue seriously when you don’t seem to even understand it?

            • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              The ban was strengthened in 1986. Assault rifles have been essentially illegal since the national firearms act of 1934. Assault rifles have been used in 0 recent mass shootings, and people on the internet screaming for an assault rifle ban to solve the problem of mass shootings are fucking idiots.

                • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Ok, introduce a bill to ban assault rifles. I’m sure it’ll be very effective and solve the mass shootings problem.

  • paprika@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    They love these little semantic games. That’s not a machine gun! Your argument for gun control is invalid!

    But there are all sorts of tools that turn an AR-15 in a fully automatic machine gun.

    Anticipating that bump stocks would be outlawed post-Vegas, Bogard said, he began developing a new device that uses a similar principle. By changing the configuration of the trigger mechanism, the design enables a shooter to harness the recoil and pull the trigger extremely fast. In a sales pitch delivered by Bogard at one gun show recently, he claimed the modification allows him to empty a 30-round magazine in 2.3 seconds.

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkwnm/bolt-part-ar15-machine-guns

    These people are all intellectually dishonest at all times.

    • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      There is nothing wrong with being conversant in proper terminology.

      “These people” aren’t the only ones who play semantic games: if you have ever wondered, then been punched in the taint, about what any of the letters in lgbtqia+ mean you will understand how ridiculous people of any ideology get about using the “right words”.

  • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    I take your point loud and clear.

    Aside:

    It is worth being conversant and properly educated about the things that are important to you if you want to engage meaningfully with people who disagree. That means knowing the vocab, syntax, and lingo.

    For example, if you hate manga / anime / Japanese character retardation like I do, it’s worth knowing the difference to tell people it’s stupid on their own terms.

    • quaddo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      They could call it a “fnorplgleek” for all I care.

      Until they figure out how to prevent any and all fnorplgleeks from having the ability to injure, main, or kill another human being when the fnorplgleek operator wishes to harm you unlawfully, they can expend 100% of their thinkbox time figuring out how to do so. Like, pin their wetware CPU to working out a solution. Interconnect them Borg style.

      If the response is “well no, not like that” then we recognize that it’s a compromise that continues to put victims in front of said fnorplgleek operators.

      brb getting a “Down with fnorplgleeks” t-shirt made

      • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        So you wouldn’t care if the legislation was written to ban anything that has the potential to kill?

        Guns, cars, knives, bleach, rope all could fall into that category. See how words have specific definitions and actually matter quite a bit? Especially when the law is concerned. Why do you think there’s different categories of homicide? Do you think manslaughter and 1st degree murder should carry the same penalty?

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            So large jacked up trucks have a use? Butterfly knives and swords have practical uses? What about cars with more than 200 hp? Not like you can do 120mph anywhere legally, so why have them? Or alcohol, more people are killed 10 fold via drunk drivers than all rifles combined… sounds like alcohol should go back to prohibition era and the gov. poisons it.

  • Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I know so many people who think they are helping by critiquing like this when they are not. And also expect a “thank you” for their destructive distraction. If there were a hell I hope they are the first to burn or freeze in it.

  • corm@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    The point of the right to bear arms is to have some defense against an oppressive government if needed.

      • kleenbhole@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yes it is.

        Historians could only “uncover” this reason because it’s buried under the actual reasons. All the rationale behind the constitutional amendments was highly documented at the time, public, and easily accessed and referenced.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          You mean including the highly documented rationale that historian uncovered?

          By the way, do you really think you could defeat the U.S. military with your gun collection? Even if you and a bunch of buddies got together?

          • kleenbhole@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            As to your second paragraph, yep, yes, sure. We got beat by a bunch of illiterate desert goat rapists and jungle Asians. Just need to outlast the political will of the oligopoly

  • MisterMcBolt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    “Also, there is no way that the gun was a part of this crime! Guns don’t kill people. Only the mentally unstable people we goad into mass shootings with the weapons and ammo we sell them kill people.”

  • Dkarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Pfft these kids don’t even know what kind of guns they’re being killed with…

    -conservatives