why the left hates guns

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

why gee, thank you for finally agreeing with my earlier post finally

I never claimed that the AR-15 was an assault rifle.

I pointed out that the wiki page that the link goes to clearly and specifically mentions the AR-15.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

I never claimed that the AR-15 was an assault rifle.

I pointed out that the wiki page that the link goes to clearly and specifically mentions the AR-15.

but you just had to disagree with me earlier....

you'll find that assault rifle has no clear cut definition. even that wiki link excludes my ar-15, which many nuts like to call an assault rifle.

No it doesn't.

maybe you missed the context of what i was talking about...

Edited August 4, 2010 by charles!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I "just had to"? Why are you personalising this?

You referred to the wiki link excluding the AR-15.

You did not refer to the definition on the wiki page excluding the AR-15 from Assault Rifle classification.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

I "just had to"? Why are you personalising this?

You referred to the wiki link excluding the AR-15.

You did not refer to the definition on the wiki page excluding the AR-15 from Assault Rifle classification.

no, i did not say it excluded the ar-15 in the link i.e. omitting mention of it.......you jumped to conclusions.

Edited August 4, 2010 by charles!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is also possible that your statement lacked clarity.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

It is also possible that your statement lacked clarity.

it's also possible you took it in the wrong context.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You said that already.

[Heracles 417]

It doesn't say anything directly about who guns can be used against. However, it does say "necessary to the security of a free state." SCOTUS has determined that to mean a personal right to possess arms for defense. Defense against whom? Well, you'll just have to figure that out, I guess.

The SCOTUS and their rulings are based along ideological lines period. It's why we, as in the first world, don't run a country based on their decisions alone.

Keep in mind the constitution isn't influenced by "the majority of the first world."

Thank you captain obvious, however, that specific comment was not relating to the Constitution specifically. The again, the Constitution also once insinuated that women had no right to vote, as did not slaves.. I'll leave it at that.

You're located in the Midwest, which to me is similar to being in a 2nd world country. So I get you guys wouldn't have a clue about anything first world oriented - just guns, calibers, fire rates etc. Awesome.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Heracles

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

You said that already.

perhaps in the future you might read with more of an open mind?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

perhaps in the future you might read with more of an open mind?

perhaps in the future you might improve the clarity of your language?

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

perhaps in the future you might improve the clarity of your language?

it's perfectly clear if you understand the context.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its perfectly clear if you communicate clearly

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

Its perfectly clear if you communicate clearly

no, the communication was clear enough - it's more like you read the post intending to find something to bicker about. if you'd read it with an open mind, we'd not be having this conversation.

[The_Dude 1,142]

no, the communication was clear enough - it's more like you read the post intending to find something to bicker about. if you'd read it with an open mind, we'd not be having this conversation.

Charles, if he misunderstood you, you didn't communicate your point clearly.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

Charles, if he misunderstood you, you didn't communicate your point clearly.

next time i'll be sure to use smaller words then.