(06-24-2021 03:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 02:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You did the exact same thing to me - you started the "word twisting" by asking what gun is not deadly against unarmed populations.
It was clear that my point wasn't related to AR-15s being the only gun capable of violence against unarmed populations, and you know that.
I'm impressed you responded this way given your initial response to me.
Please resist the urge to twist my words in future posts. Thank you in advance.

Not quite sure how I twisted anything. Sorry you took offense.
In future I will say whatever the f-k I want to say. Thank you.

Sure can dish it out, but not a fan of having the same thing said right back to ya...
My initial point was clear when I respond to Tanq's post - the joke was shallow and didn't make any sense when you actually thought about it.
Gun control advocates who focus on restricting access to AR-15s are focused not on their use against the military, but unarmed populations. So their position is not connected to their opinion on AR-15s' effectiveness against trained military personnel.
Furthermore, when we think about it, a weapon could be highly effective at killing/maiming a lot of unarmed individuals but not effective against military personnel. So yes, the hypothetical "Schrodinger's Weapon" exists, likely in multiple iterations.

My larger point is that I see the whole AR-15 debate as a clever diversion. If gun control advocates have their way, one day we will get rid of AR-15s and then be astonished to find that doing so has no material impact on gun deaths, or even mass shootings. Criminals will just find something else. And that will lead naturally down the slippery slope to banning other guns, because of course if we just ban enough guns the problem will go away. But of course it won't, because criminals will still have guns. And so will police and the military, which leads to a separate question for all you Black Lives Matter folks out there. How will you feel when the police have guns and you don't?

So my comments about AR-15s come from the perspective that it is a stupid issue to raise except when it is intended as a diversion from your true intent--the disarming of the populace. And if government takes our guns, and takes control of our health care, then we become little more than slaves.

The 2nd Amendment exists for a reason, and it ain't militia. It's liberty and freedom. Without the 2nd Amendment, all the rest are meaningless.

Ok?

I was commenting specifically on a really, really bad joke that apparently gun rights advocates thing is a lot funnier and more appropriate than it is.