Current Events > Why do gun nuts dismiss every person who doesn't know intricate nuances on

(+) Yeah! (+)

Abyssea posted...

Crazyman93 posted...

Abyssea posted...

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Abyssea posted...

so are nuclear warheads. why can't we buy those?

Because the government limited those to only Nation States having access.

isn't that a violation of the second amendment?

All considered, no, not really. A nuclear bomb is a lot different than a firearm.

A semi-automatic weapon is a lot different from a regular firearm too. So why do we make distinctions for some things but not others? :u

No it isn't
---

Asherlee10 posted...

It doesn't have to be policymakers, even citizens like us just having a discussion about it. If one side is ignorant of the subject, it isn't a valuable discussion.

I agree you it's fine to casually refer to a magazine as a clip, but when you are discussing magazine capacity limits, you need to know what that means and why you are supporting a certain position. That REQUIRES the knowledge you are shitting on.

Incorrect terminology has nothing to do with magazine limits. Even some gun owners refer to magazine on clips. I'm not shitting on knowledge, but the fact that people will outright dismiss anyone who uses clips instead of magazines, among other things.
---

DarthAragorn posted...

Abyssea posted...

Crazyman93 posted...

Abyssea posted...

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Abyssea posted...

so are nuclear warheads. why can't we buy those?

Because the government limited those to only Nation States having access.

isn't that a violation of the second amendment?

All considered, no, not really. A nuclear bomb is a lot different than a firearm.

A semi-automatic weapon is a lot different from a regular firearm too. So why do we make distinctions for some things but not others? :u

No it isn't

it functions differently and serves a different purpose.
---

Abyssea posted...

Crazyman93 posted...

Abyssea posted...

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Abyssea posted...

so are nuclear warheads. why can't we buy those?

Because the government limited those to only Nation States having access.

isn't that a violation of the second amendment?

All considered, no, not really. A nuclear bomb is a lot different than a firearm.

A semi-automatic weapon is a lot different from a regular firearm too. So why do we make distinctions for some things but not others? :u

A semi-automatic is a regular firearm, as are bolt-actions, lever-actions, pump-actions, and even single-shot.
---

Paragon21XX posted...

Abyssea posted...

Crazyman93 posted...

Abyssea posted...

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Abyssea posted...

so are nuclear warheads. why can't we buy those?

Because the government limited those to only Nation States having access.

isn't that a violation of the second amendment?

All considered, no, not really. A nuclear bomb is a lot different than a firearm.

A semi-automatic weapon is a lot different from a regular firearm too. So why do we make distinctions for some things but not others? :u

A semi-automatic is a regular firearm, as are bolt-actions, lever-actions, pump-actions, and even single-shot.

No, it is a semi-automatic firearm. That's different.
---

Abyssea posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

Abyssea posted...

Crazyman93 posted...

Abyssea posted...

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Abyssea posted...

so are nuclear warheads. why can't we buy those?

Because the government limited those to only Nation States having access.

isn't that a violation of the second amendment?

All considered, no, not really. A nuclear bomb is a lot different than a firearm.

A semi-automatic weapon is a lot different from a regular firearm too. So why do we make distinctions for some things but not others? :u

No it isn't

it functions differently and serves a different purpose.

What guns are you talking about? The old ball and cap guns trappers used back in the early 1800's? A good 85%+ guns in circulation are semi-auto.
---

DirkDiggles posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

I'm not talking about policy makers. You don't need to know the difference between clips and magazines to support magazine capacity limits.

You do when you don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic.

this would never happen, surely no prominent gun control advocate who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on it wouldn't even know the difference between full auto and semiauto, something one could learn with a ten second google search

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iV5E30ZY1kQ#
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Those are not the points of the abortion debate that someone needs to have knowledge in, in order to have a proper discussion.

Partial Birth Abortion ban. So yes, in some discussions you do need that knowledge to understand the law.
---

re: the magazine vs clip argument

I think there's a good argument that legislators need to use the correct language. it matters what the bill says and what the judge reads. exact language matters in those areas
however, in a debate between friends or on somewhere like CE and reddit, there's nothing wrong with using magazine instead of clip. even if someone starts talking about "clip capacity limits" and such, we all know what they're referring to. it should be a "heads up, you mean magazine" and not a justification to ignore the larger point
---

It bothers the hell out of me when politicians don't understand how firearms work. If you are trying to make new policy around guns you should probably know how firearms actually function on at least a basic level.
---

AlephZero posted...

DirkDiggles posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

I'm not talking about policy makers. You don't need to know the difference between clips and magazines to support magazine capacity limits.

You do when you don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic.

this would never happen, surely no prominent gun control advocate who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on it wouldn't even know the difference between full auto and semiauto, something one could learn with a ten second google search

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iV5E30ZY1kQ#

lol this clown was the mayor of the largest city in the US. Let that soak in for a moment.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Those are not the points of the abortion debate that someone needs to have knowledge in, in order to have a proper discussion.

Partial Birth Abortion ban. So yes, in some discussions you do need that knowledge to understand the law.

Partial birth abortion ban, what?

And firearm discussions are one of those you need the knowledge to have the discussion about its regulation. This is the same case for abortion debates.

It's a law that requires knowledge on the procedure. But there are many times I've noticed that people will outright dismiss someone's post for details such as clips/magazines. I guess it's silly for me to tell people to take my word for it. But I've seen it happen here and of course I'm not bashing gun supporters who don't have that kind of elitist attitude.
---

Would you take someone's argument about climate change seriously if they didn't know what a greenhouse gas was?

No?

Then why should I take someone's argument to ban semi-automatic weapons seriously when they don;t even know what "semi-automatic" means?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Would you take someone's argument about climate change seriously if they didn't know what a greenhouse gas was?

No?

Then why should I take someone's argument to ban semi-automatic weapons seriously when they don;t even know what "semi-automatic" means?

So much this
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Those are not the points of the abortion debate that someone needs to have knowledge in, in order to have a proper discussion.

Partial Birth Abortion ban. So yes, in some discussions you do need that knowledge to understand the law.

Partial birth abortion ban, what?

And firearm discussions are one of those you need the knowledge to have the discussion about its regulation. This is the same case for abortion debates.

It's a law that requires knowledge on the procedure. But there are many times I've noticed that people will outright dismiss someone's post for details such as clips/magazines. I guess it's silly for me to tell people to take my word for it. But I've seen it happen here and of course I'm not bashing gun supporters who don't have that kind of elitist attitude.

I may not expect you to correctly identify a clip from a magazine, but I do expect you to know the true significance of every part you may want to regulate, especially those that supposedly turn a normal firearm into an "assault weapon" such as a pistol grip (makes it easier to hold the gun's sights at eye level, not to spray fire from the hip like the purely fictional action hero Rambo) and barrel shroud (so you don't have to burn your hands on the barrel).
---

Because of shoulder things that go up.

@Asherlee10 lol, I rarely reply to these topics, when I do its usually not serious.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Those are not the points of the abortion debate that someone needs to have knowledge in, in order to have a proper discussion.

Partial Birth Abortion ban. So yes, in some discussions you do need that knowledge to understand the law.

Partial birth abortion ban, what?

And firearm discussions are one of those you need the knowledge to have the discussion about its regulation. This is the same case for abortion debates.

It's a law that requires knowledge on the procedure. But there are many times I've noticed that people will outright dismiss someone's post for details such as clips/magazines. I guess it's silly for me to tell people to take my word for it. But I've seen it happen here and of course I'm not bashing gun supporters who don't have that kind of elitist attitude.

All abortion discussion require a degree of knowledge to even have a proper discussion/debate. This is the same for firearms.

I'm not sure why you are stuck on the clip vs magazine thing again, this discussion is MUCH larger than just those two terms.

Because it's the most prevalent example of what I'm talking about. Like I said, it's silly for me to tell everyone "take my word for it, people do it when the details are unimportant."
---

@ChainedRedone
Mal_Fet posted...

Would you take someone's argument about climate change seriously if they didn't know what a greenhouse gas was?

---

545x39 posted...

Because of shoulder things that go up.

@Asherlee10 lol, I rarely reply to these topics, when I do its usually not serious.

Hmm I have you tagged as M16A1. I think it was because I wanted to know the exact parts that you used to construct your M16A1 lookalike. Something about that vietnam war-era rifle that looks so badass. Probably the triangular handguards that get me. Definitely something that I would like to build when I'm finished with school.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

@ChainedRedone
Mal_Fet posted...

Would you take someone's argument about climate change seriously if they didn't know what a greenhouse gas was?

Like I said, in some cases the details are relevant but the most prevalent example I used; completely dismissing someone because they misused the term clip, is ridiculous. This is something that many gun owners themselves get wrong. And it doesn't necessarily mean they're unknowledgeable. If I had screenshots I would post them. But at this point it's silly for me to say "just take my word for it". Gun proponents often take it too far.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Like I said, in some cases the details are relevant but the most prevalent example I used; completely dismissing someone because they misused the term clip, is ridiculous.

It isn't ridiculous when they often argue to limit "clip capacity"

Like, if you didn't do enough research to know what a clip is, then chances are you also didn't do any research on the efficacy of limiting magazine capacity.
---

Abyssea posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

Abyssea posted...

Crazyman93 posted...

Abyssea posted...

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Abyssea posted...

so are nuclear warheads. why can't we buy those?

Because the government limited those to only Nation States having access.

isn't that a violation of the second amendment?

All considered, no, not really. A nuclear bomb is a lot different than a firearm.

A semi-automatic weapon is a lot different from a regular firearm too. So why do we make distinctions for some things but not others? :u

No it isn't

it functions differently and serves a different purpose.

What is a 'regular firearm?'
---

Asherlee10 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Those are not the points of the abortion debate that someone needs to have knowledge in, in order to have a proper discussion.

Partial Birth Abortion ban. So yes, in some discussions you do need that knowledge to understand the law.

Partial birth abortion ban, what?

And firearm discussions are one of those you need the knowledge to have the discussion about its regulation. This is the same case for abortion debates.

It's a law that requires knowledge on the procedure. But there are many times I've noticed that people will outright dismiss someone's post for details such as clips/magazines. I guess it's silly for me to tell people to take my word for it. But I've seen it happen here and of course I'm not bashing gun supporters who don't have that kind of elitist attitude.

All abortion discussion require a degree of knowledge to even have a proper discussion/debate. This is the same for firearms.

I'm not sure why you are stuck on the clip vs magazine thing again, this discussion is MUCH larger than just those two terms.

Because it's the most prevalent example of what I'm talking about. Like I said, it's silly for me to tell everyone "take my word for it, people do it when the details are unimportant."

If your entire point of this topic hinges on people dismissing you because you mix up the words "clip" and "magazine" -- you needed to have been precise about that in the OP and the last 80 posts.

I feel like that isn't what you meant originally and you are deflecting to that now because it's the only merit to any of this.

That being said, if someone dismisses a point you are making purely because you used the word clip instead of magazine, yet your other points are valid -- then brush them off. They are likely trying to troll you.

Nobody is dismissing me. I probably know about as much on firearms as you do. I own multiple and I have a CCW. I based this topic on my own observations of debates here on CE and online elsewhere. But it's difficult to illustrate my observations without documentation of the actual argument, so it's pointless to try.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Hmm I have you tagged as M16A1. I think it was because I wanted to know the exact parts that you used to construct your M16A1 lookalike. Something about that vietnam war-era rifle that looks so badass. Probably the triangular handguards that get me. Definitely something that I would like to build when I'm finished with school.

I don't remember us having a conversation but @ me if you ever want to know more.


---

SexyPonyMagic69 posted...

Because the ignorant have no right to make demands.

Amen
---

Abyssea posted...

Crazyman93 posted...

Abyssea posted...

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Abyssea posted...

so are nuclear warheads. why can't we buy those?

Because the government limited those to only Nation States having access.

isn't that a violation of the second amendment?

All considered, no, not really. A nuclear bomb is a lot different than a firearm.

A semi-automatic weapon is a lot different from a regular firearm too. So why do we make distinctions for some things but not others? :u

This post is a perfect example of why people need some knowledge on a subject to debate legislation about it.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Your key points changed up until this point, though. Here is the example you used:

I used that because I recall someone flaunting their knowledge on knowing the difference between automatic and semiautomatic. That wasn't their exact wording but it could be summed up in that way.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Your key points changed up until this point, though. Here is the example you used:

I used that because I recall someone flaunting their knowledge on knowing the difference between automatic and semiautomatic. That wasn't their exact wording but it could be summed up in that way.

Okay, but you've moved the goal posts a few times in this topic already in order to illustrate your point.

Uh, no I just didn't make it clear from the beginning. That quote I used in the OP was damn close to someone completely dismissing another person because they didn't know the exact differences in an automatic and semiautomatic.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Your key points changed up until this point, though. Here is the example you used:

I used that because I recall someone flaunting their knowledge on knowing the difference between automatic and semiautomatic. That wasn't their exact wording but it could be summed up in that way.

Okay, but you've moved the goal posts a few times in this topic already in order to illustrate your point.

Uh, no I just didn't make it clear from the beginning. That quote I used in the OP was damn close to someone completely dismissing another person because they didn't know the exact differences in an automatic and semiautomatic.

When you're trying to garner support for banning something by misrepresentation of what that something is, why shouldn't you be dismissed?
---

gunbeards are among the lowest form of human
---

darkjedilink posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

While you are showing a caricature of a person, there are merits to be knowledgeable about firearms and discussing policy changes. Knowing the intricacies of firearms will make a difference in deciding what policies and laws should change.

With that in mind, there are some aspects of regulation and gun control that do not require firearm knowledge to talk about, but most do.

Rarely. Give examples.

Rarely what?

Give examples of what?

Rarely are the details important. Give examples of contemporary gun control discussions that would require such knowledge.

Assault weapons don't exist, for one. It's a made-up term to scare people into giving up their Second Amendment rights.

i'm sure the weekly mass shooting victims care about this
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Nice...

Slightly related, but my MPX Carbine has only 1 point for a sling, should I keep it that way or add a second point? I've been hearing answers both ways.

Your call, I personally like two point slings. I tried a single point on one of my AK's and one of my AR's. I found the gun to be floppy in front of me.

I'm more of a traditionalist though, usually only use a sling to carry the rifle on my shoulder. You can adjust a 2 point sling so it cradles the rifle in front of you.

ETA: I bought a new gun yesterday, a rather nice PDW. I bought it online though so I'm waiting for it to ship. I'll tag you when I post pics.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Your key points changed up until this point, though. Here is the example you used:

I used that because I recall someone flaunting their knowledge on knowing the difference between automatic and semiautomatic. That wasn't their exact wording but it could be summed up in that way.

Okay, but you've moved the goal posts a few times in this topic already in order to illustrate your point.

Uh, no I just didn't make it clear from the beginning. That quote I used in the OP was damn close to someone completely dismissing another person because they didn't know the exact differences in an automatic and semiautomatic.

You used specific examples in the OP. Your arguments got shot down. Then you started to use the whole clip vs magazine example as your entire platform. That is very much moving the goal posts.

If your topic was, "Don't dismiss my points about gun regulation because I used the word clip instead of magazine. It's just a terminology mistake, but it doesn't mean I have zero knowledge of firearms." -- This conversation would have gone a lot differently.

I used an equally ridiculous example of sears. I thought that was sufficient to get the point. And I'm not sure why you think I'm talking about myself. I don't support gun control outside of background checks. This has nothing to do with my political views.
---

Yeah, unless it's super tight against your chest it likes to dangle in front of you. That's the main thing I didn't like.

Do what suits you. Fuck the haters.

Also, I bought a $250 AK magazine, it's supposed to be delivered today. It's a nice glass filled 5.45 bakelite. I actually got a decent deal on it.
---

Shadow Don posted...

It bothers the hell out of me when politicians don't understand how firearms work. If you are trying to make new policy around guns you should probably know how firearms actually function on at least a basic level.

Nah, all you have to do is tell a great story about how scurry they are.

Don't be a fool, given the chance and left to it's own devices a fully semi automatic smart assault rifle with an extended drum banana clip, bumpy stock, exploding homing tracer armor piercing hollow point shells, and silencer and rocket launcher attachment (available at your local Wal-Mart) will kill you and everyone you've ever cared about!