Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then you should move there. Immediately. Since you find liberty too scary. There are plenty of "advanced" oppressive nanny state's that would welcome you with open arms junior...Get rid of all assault style weapons. Pretty simple concept really.
Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.
Did Australia have a Second Amendment? Oh....
Guess it's a more advanced society and people.
Then you should move there. Immediately. Since you find liberty too scary. There are plenty of "advanced" oppressive nanny state's that would welcome you with open arms junior...Get rid of all assault style weapons. Pretty simple concept really.
Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.
Did Australia have a Second Amendment? Oh....
Guess it's a more advanced society and people.
[
Honestly, with Obama, I don't know.....and that's what scares the hell out of me. He seems to lean toward the Nation of Islam a lot quicker than he does Christian America.
As to the military - I have no clue anymore about them either. This latest generation has been so damned brainwashed (from K-16) that I truly don;t know any longer. I'd like to think that they wouldn't follow unlawful orders - but hell, do they even know what constitutes an "unlawful" order any longer? Just asking...
I agree that Obama or Hillary would order attacks on American civilians. However, there is no way in hell our armed forces would carry out such illegal orders.
You are the one spouting propaganda, loon. This country was founded and settled by people that I actually descend from. Not genocidal, not slavers, not land grabbers. Just ordinary working people with a firm sense of their own identity.Guess it's a more advanced society and people.
You bet. Direct descendants of criminals. Murders and suicides have not plummeted...at least that's not evidenced by that laughable article.
This is garbage, btw, that would be laughed out of any statistical classroom:
"However, the paper's findings about suicide were statistically significant — and astounding. Buying back 3,500 guns correlated with a 74 percent drop in firearm suicides. Non-gun suicides didn't increase to make up the decline."
Lolololol...no, the findings are not statistically significant at all. The CORRELATION means NOTHING the way it is presented here. And the author knows that. He counts on hysterical gun grabbers to gobble it up. And they do.
Own and permitted to carry, so I'm not sure what to do with your labeling criteria other than to write it off as myopic partisanshit. But you as an expert? Nah, you're too emotional about this. As for how a society began? Slavers and genocidal land grabbers ain't a lot better in my mind. I'm sure you disagree. But yes, the Australians seem much more coherent when it comes to dealing with guns than americans can manage to be. Pretty obvious to even the most casual of observers.
The us wasn't founded by slavers and genocidal land grabbers, lol. Typical commie bs.
Actually it was, but every nation's govt engages in propaganda so of course, you were not taught the truth openly in your state sponsored imprinting. That doesn't discount the abject reality that the founding fathers were slavers, that the constitution was silent on, thus allowing slavery, and the continent was over run via a centuries long canpaign of genocide. If you cannot deal with the reality that is another matter.
Unlike commies who identify with other groups based on fairy tales they've been taught by other commies.
[
I, like Jefferson, believe the Constitution should be re-written. No generation should be held captive by the thinking of the dead from hundreds of years ago.
You, and your filthy party were provided a mechanism to do so.
Start drafting those amendments.
[
Guess it's a more advanced society and people.
Nothing that you of the left hate more than liberty.
[
I, like Jefferson, believe the Constitution should be re-written. No generation should be held captive by the thinking of the dead from hundreds of years ago.
You, and your filthy party were provided a mechanism to do so.
Start drafting those amendments.
What's "my party" you idiot?
Your ignorance about the difference between them (the AR-15 and the M-16) is not only showing. . . . it's very telling.
??? The AR-15 came first and evolved into the M16. That is all I wrote about it. I am not incorrect. There is no ignorance to be shown.
Your (ignorant) implication / inference is clear. An AR-15 is not simply an M-16 under a different name as you have suggested and I suspect that you already know better. But then again, maybe you really are actually more ignorant than I first thought. So, I will allow for that possibility.
Go look at the original post in which I first mentioned the M16 and tell me what difference the post-transfer of the AR-15 design to Colt makes to the points of that post. I can tell you now, the answer is none. Even with regard to the topic of the sentence and paragraph in which the M16 reference, the differences are irrelevant, just as irrelevant as is the difference in the two types of ammunition the AR-15 can accept.
So, yes, someone's ignorance about the differences between the two weapons might in some discussions be relevant; however, given that the M16 was mentioned as an parenthetical and informational bit of ancillary minutia in paragraph that itself is noted as a sidebar to the main topic of the post and post section, and given that the M16 did evolve from the AR-15, there is neither ignorance -- no factual inaccuracy -- nor relevant ignorance in play.
Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.
All that, both videos, does not alter the fact that the M16 evolved from the AR-15, which is what I wrote, which is 100% accurate, and which is what gave rise to Busco's inaccurate remark.
You are the one spouting propaganda, loon. This country was founded and settled by people that I actually descend from. Not genocidal, not slavers, not land grabbers. Just ordinary working people with a firm sense of their own identity.You bet. Direct descendants of criminals. Murders and suicides have not plummeted...at least that's not evidenced by that laughable article.
This is garbage, btw, that would be laughed out of any statistical classroom:
"However, the paper's findings about suicide were statistically significant — and astounding. Buying back 3,500 guns correlated with a 74 percent drop in firearm suicides. Non-gun suicides didn't increase to make up the decline."
Lolololol...no, the findings are not statistically significant at all. The CORRELATION means NOTHING the way it is presented here. And the author knows that. He counts on hysterical gun grabbers to gobble it up. And they do.
Own and permitted to carry, so I'm not sure what to do with your labeling criteria other than to write it off as myopic partisanshit. But you as an expert? Nah, you're too emotional about this. As for how a society began? Slavers and genocidal land grabbers ain't a lot better in my mind. I'm sure you disagree. But yes, the Australians seem much more coherent when it comes to dealing with guns than americans can manage to be. Pretty obvious to even the most casual of observers.
The us wasn't founded by slavers and genocidal land grabbers, lol. Typical commie bs.
Actually it was, but every nation's govt engages in propaganda so of course, you were not taught the truth openly in your state sponsored imprinting. That doesn't discount the abject reality that the founding fathers were slavers, that the constitution was silent on, thus allowing slavery, and the continent was over run via a centuries long canpaign of genocide. If you cannot deal with the reality that is another matter.
Unlike commies who identify with other groups based on fairy tales they've been taught by other commies.
Your use of the term "commies" reinforces my point, thanks.
??? The AR-15 came first and evolved into the M16. That is all I wrote about it. I am not incorrect. There is no ignorance to be shown.
Your (ignorant) implication / inference is clear. An AR-15 is not simply an M-16 under a different name as you have suggested and I suspect that you already know better. But then again, maybe you really are actually more ignorant than I first thought. So, I will allow for that possibility.
Go look at the original post in which I first mentioned the M16 and tell me what difference the post-transfer of the AR-15 design to Colt makes to the points of that post. I can tell you now, the answer is none. Even with regard to the topic of the sentence and paragraph in which the M16 reference, the differences are irrelevant, just as irrelevant as is the difference in the two types of ammunition the AR-15 can accept.
So, yes, someone's ignorance about the differences between the two weapons might in some discussions be relevant; however, given that the M16 was mentioned as an parenthetical and informational bit of ancillary minutia in paragraph that itself is noted as a sidebar to the main topic of the post and post section, and given that the M16 did evolve from the AR-15, there is neither ignorance -- no factual inaccuracy -- nor relevant ignorance in play.
Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.
Thanks, Chuz, but the anti-gun Left doesn't give a shit about facts. We're already seen that a few times on this thread alone.
You want facts:
2,000 – 5,200: Estimated number of gun shows that take place in the U.S. each year.
19.5/1: Ratio of people killed by firearms in the U.S. compared to other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, according to a 2011 UCLA School of Public Health study. For 15-to-24-year-olds, firearm homicide rates are 42.7 times higher in the U.S. than in other OECD countries.
132.1: Rise in stock market value of gun-maker Smith & Wesson throughout 2015. The shares of gun-makers Strum Ruger and Vista also performed extraordinarily well last year, rising 72.1 and 29.9 percent, respectively.
2.97: Gun homicides per 100,000 people in the U.S. in 2012, compared to 38.97 in Venezuela, 0.51 in Canada, 0.19 in Germany, 0.14 in Australia, 0.07 in England and Wales and 0.06 in France, according to data compiled by The Guardian.
310 million: Number of civilian firearms in the U.S. as of 2009, according to a 2012 Congressional Research Service report. The Washington Post found that if the number were to be updated with data from 2013, there would be more guns than people in the U.S.
1892: Year in which the city of Kennesaw, Ga., passed legislation that requires all of its residents to carry guns. The law is still in effect, though there are a number of loopholes that residents can use to opt out.
60: Percentage of people killed by guns who die by suicide. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is the second-most common cause of death for Americans between ages 15 and 34. Across all age groups, it ranks as the 10th most common cause of death.
372: Number of mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, according to data from Mass Shooting Tracker, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded. Last year, 475 people were killed and 1,870 were wounded.
80: Percentage of people who carry out mass shootings who are using legally obtained firearms.
27: Number of Americans killed in shooting incidents on Christmas day last year, equal to the total number of people killed in gun homicides in Austria, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Bermuda, Estonia, Iceland and Hong Kong, combined.
16.4: Average number of “active shooting incidents” — individuals killing or trying to kill people in a populated area — per year between 2007 and 2013, up from 6.4 between 2000 and 2007.
47: Percentage of Americans who say they are in favor of stricter gun laws, according to Gallup. This percentage is much lower than the 58 percent of people recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Conn.
85: Percentage of Americans who said they favor expanding background checks for gun buyers, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in July 2015. Both Democrats (88 percent) and Republicans (79 percent) supported the idea.
$17 million: Amount of money the NRA spent on the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.
31: Percentage of American households that reported having a firearm in 2014, the lowest level of reported gun ownership in the last 40 years.
22.4: Percentage of adults in the U.S. who owned a gun as of 2014, up a bit from a record low of 20.6 percent in 2010.
23 million: Number of background checks the FBI conducted in 2015, nearly three times the 8.5 million completed in 2000.
11 million: Number of guns made in the U.S. in 2013, the year after the Sandy Hook massacre. That’s more than twice as many as the 5.4 million firearms produced in 2010.
48: Percentage of Americans who cite protection as the main reason to own a gun, while 32 percent said hunting. In 1999, 49 percent of Americans said hunting was the main reason to own a gun, while just 26 percent said protection.
15: Number of minutes that passed in 2016 before the first shooting of the year occurred — at 12:15 am on Jan. 1, 2016.
39: Percentage by which gun-related homicides dropped between 1993 and 2011.
Views of the National Rifle Association have become more politically and ideologically polarized over the course of a decade and a half. Among conservative Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, a slim share (13%) said the NRA has too much influence over gun control policy in 2015, compared with 32% who said the same in 2000. In July 2015, nearly six-in-ten (59%) said the NRA has the right amount of influence, and 23% said it has too little.
You are the one spouting propaganda, loon. This country was founded and settled by people that I actually descend from. Not genocidal, not slavers, not land grabbers. Just ordinary working people with a firm sense of their own identity.Own and permitted to carry, so I'm not sure what to do with your labeling criteria other than to write it off as myopic partisanshit. But you as an expert? Nah, you're too emotional about this. As for how a society began? Slavers and genocidal land grabbers ain't a lot better in my mind. I'm sure you disagree. But yes, the Australians seem much more coherent when it comes to dealing with guns than americans can manage to be. Pretty obvious to even the most casual of observers.
The us wasn't founded by slavers and genocidal land grabbers, lol. Typical commie bs.
Actually it was, but every nation's govt engages in propaganda so of course, you were not taught the truth openly in your state sponsored imprinting. That doesn't discount the abject reality that the founding fathers were slavers, that the constitution was silent on, thus allowing slavery, and the continent was over run via a centuries long canpaign of genocide. If you cannot deal with the reality that is another matter.
Unlike commies who identify with other groups based on fairy tales they've been taught by other commies.
Your use of the term "commies" reinforces my point, thanks.
You've never made a point in your life, commie.
Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.
Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.
Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.
**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.
2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR
View attachment 78100
I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.
Thomas Jefferson supported rewriting the Constitution every 19 years, equated not doing so to being 'enslaved to the prior generation'
Thomas Jefferson supported rewriting the Constitution every 19 years, equated not doing so to being 'enslaved to the prior generation' - what do you think about that ?
The Constitution and the Founders are often lest understood by those who talk about them most.
It doesn't need to be rewritten, some parts need to be read and interpreted within the context of the 21st Century. We no longer live in a mostly agrarian society, we have police depts, sheriff depts and public transportation, moving millions of people everyday within and without the borders of the several states; we have mass murderers, those who kill for myriad of reasons, known only to themselves.
And yet, notwithstanding the amount of mass murders; death by accident, suicide and homicides, which occur daily, the Congress sits on their collective ass making phone calls to facilitate their reelection after pausing for less than a minute, thinking(?), shit I need to make those calls.
The 2nd amendment was written to secure the rights and the abilities of "the people" to defend their freedoms and their perspective states. . . Especially from an abusive / tyrannical government.
Can you explain for all of us why that concern and principle is any less valid today than it was when the amendment was written?
Because it's not practical. Bubba next door fighting the government with his AR-15 is (a) not necessarily supporting my views and (b) sure as shit not going to win.
You know, it's funny when you consider this: The United States of America is one of the largest exporters of weapons in the world - second only to Russia. We export all manner of death and destruction to anyone (and everyone) who has the cash. Yet our leaders (and I use that term very loosely) want to disarm the law-abiding citizens of our own country. Has no one ever asked - "Where the hell do these inner city minorities get the tens of thousands of guns that are always there?"
Hell, one many weekends this year, there have been as many deaths as there were in Orlando. Yet the democrat controlled city NEVER affects change in that city.
Please - help me understand the crap that goes on in this country and how the hell democrats can "walk out" on a moment of silence while their constituencies are dying in the cities that THEY control??
Find ONE -- even ONE -- fucking example of this, dipshit.
Ok. Barbara Boxer. Want 200 more, dipshit?
So you think an assault weapons ban is "disarming the law-abiding citizens" of our country? I missed where she banned all guns. ZERO leaders in the U.S. have suggested this. You're completely full of shit.
How do you think the founding fathers like Patrick Henry, Jon Adams and Paul Revere would have reacted, had the tyrannical king tried to enact a ban on any of the weapons they were amassing to defend their [our] freedoms with?
How do you think Paul Revere and Jon [sic] Adams and Patrick Henry would have reacted if the king had banned their access to the NSA website?
Your comparison makes zero sense. Like your life.
??? The AR-15 came first and evolved into the M16. That is all I wrote about it. I am not incorrect. There is no ignorance to be shown.
Your (ignorant) implication / inference is clear. An AR-15 is not simply an M-16 under a different name as you have suggested and I suspect that you already know better. But then again, maybe you really are actually more ignorant than I first thought. So, I will allow for that possibility.
Go look at the original post in which I first mentioned the M16 and tell me what difference the post-transfer of the AR-15 design to Colt makes to the points of that post. I can tell you now, the answer is none. Even with regard to the topic of the sentence and paragraph in which the M16 reference, the differences are irrelevant, just as irrelevant as is the difference in the two types of ammunition the AR-15 can accept.
So, yes, someone's ignorance about the differences between the two weapons might in some discussions be relevant; however, given that the M16 was mentioned as an parenthetical and informational bit of ancillary minutia in paragraph that itself is noted as a sidebar to the main topic of the post and post section, and given that the M16 did evolve from the AR-15, there is neither ignorance -- no factual inaccuracy -- nor relevant ignorance in play.
Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.
All that, both videos, does not alter the fact that the M16 evolved from the AR-15, which is what I wrote, which is 100% accurate, and which is what gave rise to Busco's inaccurate remark.
Do you claim that an AR-15 is the very same thing as an M-16 (a rose by any other name)? Yes or no?
Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.
Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.
Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.
**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.
2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR
View attachment 78100
I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.
Thomas Jefferson supported rewriting the Constitution every 19 years, equated not doing so to being 'enslaved to the prior generation'
Thomas Jefferson supported rewriting the Constitution every 19 years, equated not doing so to being 'enslaved to the prior generation' - what do you think about that ?
The Constitution and the Founders are often lest understood by those who talk about them most.
It doesn't need to be rewritten, some parts need to be read and interpreted within the context of the 21st Century. We no longer live in a mostly agrarian society, we have police depts, sheriff depts and public transportation, moving millions of people everyday within and without the borders of the several states; we have mass murderers, those who kill for myriad of reasons, known only to themselves.
And yet, notwithstanding the amount of mass murders; death by accident, suicide and homicides, which occur daily, the Congress sits on their collective ass making phone calls to facilitate their reelection after pausing for less than a minute, thinking(?), shit I need to make those calls.
The 2nd amendment was written to secure the rights and the abilities of "the people" to defend their freedoms and their perspective states. . . Especially from an abusive / tyrannical government.
Can you explain for all of us why that concern and principle is any less valid today than it was when the amendment was written?
Because it's not practical. Bubba next door fighting the government with his AR-15 is (a) not necessarily supporting my views and (b) sure as shit not going to win.
If and when there comes a time for "the people" to rise up against another tyrannical government (as our founders faced) it will not be just a Bubba or two next door with their (by then illegal) AR-15s.
Your imagination and perceptive ability is very short sided.
Thomas Jefferson supported rewriting the Constitution every 19 years, equated not doing so to being 'enslaved to the prior generation'
Thomas Jefferson supported rewriting the Constitution every 19 years, equated not doing so to being 'enslaved to the prior generation' - what do you think about that ?
The Constitution and the Founders are often lest understood by those who talk about them most.
It doesn't need to be rewritten, some parts need to be read and interpreted within the context of the 21st Century. We no longer live in a mostly agrarian society, we have police depts, sheriff depts and public transportation, moving millions of people everyday within and without the borders of the several states; we have mass murderers, those who kill for myriad of reasons, known only to themselves.
And yet, notwithstanding the amount of mass murders; death by accident, suicide and homicides, which occur daily, the Congress sits on their collective ass making phone calls to facilitate their reelection after pausing for less than a minute, thinking(?), shit I need to make those calls.
The 2nd amendment was written to secure the rights and the abilities of "the people" to defend their freedoms and their perspective states. . . Especially from an abusive / tyrannical government.
Can you explain for all of us why that concern and principle is any less valid today than it was when the amendment was written?
Because it's not practical. Bubba next door fighting the government with his AR-15 is (a) not necessarily supporting my views and (b) sure as shit not going to win.
If and when there comes a time for "the people" to rise up against another tyrannical government (as our founders faced) it will not be just a Bubba or two next door with their (by then illegal) AR-15s.
Your imagination and perceptive ability is very short sided.
Lefty limp-wrist always use the argument that only "bubba" would rise up. It's their use of propaganda (see; Joseff Goebbels). Farmers in the colonies stood up to the most powerful nation (and army) in the world and sent them packing. We were outmanned, out gunned, and out trained. Yet our forefathers and founders fought back - and won.
For any idiot to tell you that "the people" have no chance, knows nothing about history.
Your (ignorant) implication / inference is clear. An AR-15 is not simply an M-16 under a different name as you have suggested and I suspect that you already know better. But then again, maybe you really are actually more ignorant than I first thought. So, I will allow for that possibility.
Go look at the original post in which I first mentioned the M16 and tell me what difference the post-transfer of the AR-15 design to Colt makes to the points of that post. I can tell you now, the answer is none. Even with regard to the topic of the sentence and paragraph in which the M16 reference, the differences are irrelevant, just as irrelevant as is the difference in the two types of ammunition the AR-15 can accept.
So, yes, someone's ignorance about the differences between the two weapons might in some discussions be relevant; however, given that the M16 was mentioned as an parenthetical and informational bit of ancillary minutia in paragraph that itself is noted as a sidebar to the main topic of the post and post section, and given that the M16 did evolve from the AR-15, there is neither ignorance -- no factual inaccuracy -- nor relevant ignorance in play.
Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.
All that, both videos, does not alter the fact that the M16 evolved from the AR-15, which is what I wrote, which is 100% accurate, and which is what gave rise to Busco's inaccurate remark.
Do you claim that an AR-15 is the very same thing as an M-16 (a rose by any other name)? Yes or no?
No, I do not claim it is the very same thing; I don't think an AR-15 is exactly the same as an M16. I don't because it is not. I claimed that the AR-15 evolved into the M16. The two are quite similar, yet they are different. That said, click on the link I provided to my initial mention of the M16 and you'll see that the similarity and differences between the two are irrelevant to the point of the post, paragraph and sentence in which I first mentioned the M16. I could have been right or wrong about whether the AR-15 evolved into the M16 and the point of the sentence would be neither enhanced nor diminished.
If you click on the links I provided earlier, you'll also find that my statement that the AR-15 evolved into the M16 is fully accurate. It did. I am simply not incorrect on that point of fact.
Red:
I'm sorry the literary device I used zoomed over your head like an F16 on afterburner.
Do you understand what metaphor, they specific type of metaphor being metonymy, is? Do you not recognize that my statement -- "I don't care what name gets put on it. That is essentially what the AR-15 is, the "rose" that is the M16 but called by another name." -- is precisely that?
Yes, I made reference to one of the best known plays of all time. But take a look at The Bard's verses from Romeo and Juliet:
Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
The Bard doesn't suggest literal equivalence. Juliet's remarks focus on overall substance, not on absolute identicality. Just Montague-ness does not depend on the face or foot being precisely the same for one's substance to yet be that of a Montague, so too does the similarity of substance between the AR-15 and M16 not depend on literal and uniform sameness.
Go look at the original post in which I first mentioned the M16 and tell me what difference the post-transfer of the AR-15 design to Colt makes to the points of that post. I can tell you now, the answer is none. Even with regard to the topic of the sentence and paragraph in which the M16 reference, the differences are irrelevant, just as irrelevant as is the difference in the two types of ammunition the AR-15 can accept.
So, yes, someone's ignorance about the differences between the two weapons might in some discussions be relevant; however, given that the M16 was mentioned as an parenthetical and informational bit of ancillary minutia in paragraph that itself is noted as a sidebar to the main topic of the post and post section, and given that the M16 did evolve from the AR-15, there is neither ignorance -- no factual inaccuracy -- nor relevant ignorance in play.
Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.
All that, both videos, does not alter the fact that the M16 evolved from the AR-15, which is what I wrote, which is 100% accurate, and which is what gave rise to Busco's inaccurate remark.
Do you claim that an AR-15 is the very same thing as an M-16 (a rose by any other name)? Yes or no?
No, I do not claim it is the very same thing; I don't think an AR-15 is exactly the same as an M16. I don't because it is not. I claimed that the AR-15 evolved into the M16. The two are quite similar, yet they are different. That said, click on the link I provided to my initial mention of the M16 and you'll see that the similarity and differences between the two are irrelevant to the point of the post, paragraph and sentence in which I first mentioned the M16. I could have been right or wrong about whether the AR-15 evolved into the M16 and the point of the sentence would be neither enhanced nor diminished.
If you click on the links I provided earlier, you'll also find that my statement that the AR-15 evolved into the M16 is fully accurate. It did. I am simply not incorrect on that point of fact.
Red:
I'm sorry the literary device I used zoomed over your head like an F16 on afterburner.
Do you understand what metaphor, they specific type of metaphor being metonymy, is? Do you not recognize that my statement -- "I don't care what name gets put on it. That is essentially what the AR-15 is, the "rose" that is the M16 but called by another name." -- is precisely that?
Yes, I made reference to one of the best known plays of all time. But take a look at The Bard's verses from Romeo and Juliet:
Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
The Bard doesn't suggest literal equivalence. Juliet's remarks focus on overall substance, not on absolute identicality. Just Montague-ness does not depend on the face or foot being precisely the same for one's substance to yet be that of a Montague, so too does the similarity of substance between the AR-15 and M16 not depend on literal and uniform sameness.
The answer "no" will suffice.
They are not the same. So, the inference that an AR-15 is just an M-16 going by another name is false, fallacious, fictitious, disingenuous, misleading, deceptive, counter productive, erroneous and is not supported by the facts. .
Your (ignorant) implication / inference is clear. An AR-15 is not simply an M-16 under a different name as you have suggested and I suspect that you already know better. But then again, maybe you really are actually more ignorant than I first thought. So, I will allow for that possibility.
Go look at the original post in which I first mentioned the M16 and tell me what difference the post-transfer of the AR-15 design to Colt makes to the points of that post. I can tell you now, the answer is none. Even with regard to the topic of the sentence and paragraph in which the M16 reference, the differences are irrelevant, just as irrelevant as is the difference in the two types of ammunition the AR-15 can accept.
So, yes, someone's ignorance about the differences between the two weapons might in some discussions be relevant; however, given that the M16 was mentioned as an parenthetical and informational bit of ancillary minutia in paragraph that itself is noted as a sidebar to the main topic of the post and post section, and given that the M16 did evolve from the AR-15, there is neither ignorance -- no factual inaccuracy -- nor relevant ignorance in play.
Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.
Thanks, Chuz, but the anti-gun Left doesn't give a shit about facts. We're already seen that a few times on this thread alone.
You want facts:
2,000 – 5,200: Estimated number of gun shows that take place in the U.S. each year.
19.5/1: Ratio of people killed by firearms in the U.S. compared to other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, according to a 2011 UCLA School of Public Health study. For 15-to-24-year-olds, firearm homicide rates are 42.7 times higher in the U.S. than in other OECD countries.
132.1: Rise in stock market value of gun-maker Smith & Wesson throughout 2015. The shares of gun-makers Strum Ruger and Vista also performed extraordinarily well last year, rising 72.1 and 29.9 percent, respectively.
2.97: Gun homicides per 100,000 people in the U.S. in 2012, compared to 38.97 in Venezuela, 0.51 in Canada, 0.19 in Germany, 0.14 in Australia, 0.07 in England and Wales and 0.06 in France, according to data compiled by The Guardian.
310 million: Number of civilian firearms in the U.S. as of 2009, according to a 2012 Congressional Research Service report. The Washington Post found that if the number were to be updated with data from 2013, there would be more guns than people in the U.S.
1892: Year in which the city of Kennesaw, Ga., passed legislation that requires all of its residents to carry guns. The law is still in effect, though there are a number of loopholes that residents can use to opt out.
60: Percentage of people killed by guns who die by suicide. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is the second-most common cause of death for Americans between ages 15 and 34. Across all age groups, it ranks as the 10th most common cause of death.
372: Number of mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, according to data from Mass Shooting Tracker, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded. Last year, 475 people were killed and 1,870 were wounded.
80: Percentage of people who carry out mass shootings who are using legally obtained firearms.
27: Number of Americans killed in shooting incidents on Christmas day last year, equal to the total number of people killed in gun homicides in Austria, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Bermuda, Estonia, Iceland and Hong Kong, combined.
16.4: Average number of “active shooting incidents” — individuals killing or trying to kill people in a populated area — per year between 2007 and 2013, up from 6.4 between 2000 and 2007.
47: Percentage of Americans who say they are in favor of stricter gun laws, according to Gallup. This percentage is much lower than the 58 percent of people recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Conn.
85: Percentage of Americans who said they favor expanding background checks for gun buyers, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in July 2015. Both Democrats (88 percent) and Republicans (79 percent) supported the idea.
$17 million: Amount of money the NRA spent on the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.
31: Percentage of American households that reported having a firearm in 2014, the lowest level of reported gun ownership in the last 40 years.
22.4: Percentage of adults in the U.S. who owned a gun as of 2014, up a bit from a record low of 20.6 percent in 2010.
23 million: Number of background checks the FBI conducted in 2015, nearly three times the 8.5 million completed in 2000.
11 million: Number of guns made in the U.S. in 2013, the year after the Sandy Hook massacre. That’s more than twice as many as the 5.4 million firearms produced in 2010.
48: Percentage of Americans who cite protection as the main reason to own a gun, while 32 percent said hunting. In 1999, 49 percent of Americans said hunting was the main reason to own a gun, while just 26 percent said protection.
15: Number of minutes that passed in 2016 before the first shooting of the year occurred — at 12:15 am on Jan. 1, 2016.
39: Percentage by which gun-related homicides dropped between 1993 and 2011.
Views of the National Rifle Association have become more politically and ideologically polarized over the course of a decade and a half. Among conservative Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, a slim share (13%) said the NRA has too much influence over gun control policy in 2015, compared with 32% who said the same in 2000. In July 2015, nearly six-in-ten (59%) said the NRA has the right amount of influence, and 23% said it has too little.
What are the stats on the number of times that a firearm has been used in an act of self defense? How many lives were saved, Etc?
Go look at the original post in which I first mentioned the M16 and tell me what difference the post-transfer of the AR-15 design to Colt makes to the points of that post. I can tell you now, the answer is none. Even with regard to the topic of the sentence and paragraph in which the M16 reference, the differences are irrelevant, just as irrelevant as is the difference in the two types of ammunition the AR-15 can accept.
So, yes, someone's ignorance about the differences between the two weapons might in some discussions be relevant; however, given that the M16 was mentioned as an parenthetical and informational bit of ancillary minutia in paragraph that itself is noted as a sidebar to the main topic of the post and post section, and given that the M16 did evolve from the AR-15, there is neither ignorance -- no factual inaccuracy -- nor relevant ignorance in play.
Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.
All that, both videos, does not alter the fact that the M16 evolved from the AR-15, which is what I wrote, which is 100% accurate, and which is what gave rise to Busco's inaccurate remark.
Do you claim that an AR-15 is the very same thing as an M-16 (a rose by any other name)? Yes or no?
No, I do not claim it is the very same thing; I don't think an AR-15 is exactly the same as an M16. I don't because it is not. I claimed that the AR-15 evolved into the M16. The two are quite similar, yet they are different. That said, click on the link I provided to my initial mention of the M16 and you'll see that the similarity and differences between the two are irrelevant to the point of the post, paragraph and sentence in which I first mentioned the M16. I could have been right or wrong about whether the AR-15 evolved into the M16 and the point of the sentence would be neither enhanced nor diminished.
If you click on the links I provided earlier, you'll also find that my statement that the AR-15 evolved into the M16 is fully accurate. It did. I am simply not incorrect on that point of fact.
Red:
I'm sorry the literary device I used zoomed over your head like an F16 on afterburner.
Do you understand what metaphor, they specific type of metaphor being metonymy, is? Do you not recognize that my statement -- "I don't care what name gets put on it. That is essentially what the AR-15 is, the "rose" that is the M16 but called by another name." -- is precisely that?
Yes, I made reference to one of the best known plays of all time. But take a look at The Bard's verses from Romeo and Juliet:
Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
The Bard doesn't suggest literal equivalence. Juliet's remarks focus on overall substance, not on absolute identicality. Just Montague-ness does not depend on the face or foot being precisely the same for one's substance to yet be that of a Montague, so too does the similarity of substance between the AR-15 and M16 not depend on literal and uniform sameness.
The answer "no" will suffice.
They are not the same. So, the inference that an AR-15 is just an M-16 going by another name is false, fallacious, fictitious, disingenuous, misleading, deceptive, counter productive, erroneous and is not supported by the facts. .
