No I did not. I posted that because I was showing the basis of an earlier post that I made. There was no intent of falsely representing Krauthammer as an example of a Democrat’s mindset.
Which post? You do know that the topic of discussion here is what the Democratic party stands for, right? I still don’t see what quoting a journalist has to do with that.
Krauthammer? It would be equally valid to quote Michael Moore about Republican values.
Post #44, then post #73. I was answering ITR on what my perceptions were, and Krauthammer was the basis for what I wrote, specifically the de-sensitization(sp?) of the AWB to the american public on further bans. I do apologize that this one quote has polarized the opposition so to speak, and am waiting with keen interest comment on the other cites I posted.
O.K., well you’ve certainly demonstrated that you’re paranoid, but you haven’t demonstrated that banning all guns is part of the Democratic party platform.
None of the other quotes say anything about an all out ban.
I think the problem is that some people are reading the words, “ban guns,” as “ban all bullet firing weapons”, while others are reading it as, “ban handguns, in certain places.”
Right, so if one wants to avoid confusion, one shouldn’t use the phrase “ban guns”, unless one means all guns. If one is only referring to some guns*, one should instead use the phrase “ban some guns*”. The sentence: “The democrats want to ban guns”, is vague to the point of being meaningless.
*And really, that there are people who want to ban some guns isn’t exactly a revelation. Only the most hardcore fanatics would believe that everyone has a right to a missile launcher, for example.
I agree. It is then incumbent on the person first using this phrase to define it properly. Which did not happen here. This is why there are so many people complaining about the shifting goal posts.
[quote=The sentence: “The democrats want to ban guns”, is vague to the point of being meaningless.]
Let’s check that original phraseology then, shall we?
Yup. Vague to the point of being meaningless. I agree with you once again, blowero.
I agree. It is then incumbent on the person first using this phrase to define it properly. Which did not happen here. This is why there are so many people complaining about the shifting goal posts.
Let’s check that original phraseology then, shall we?
Yup. Vague to the point of being meaningless. I agree with you once again, blowero.
This is getting off the topic, and is antithecal to the positive dialog I see developing, but I feel I have to say, I am one of those that believes that just because the general populace defines a word incorrectly, that does not mean they are correct to do so. I know that idea has been covered in other threads, but just for the record, I believe that guns mean (hand)guns, and a hunting rifle means a hunting rifle. Thus, it took me awhile to realize what some on this board meant. Also for the record, I have been to a shooting range once, I enjoyed it, and it turns out I am a pretty good shot, however, I am in support of a partial ban of handguns. Personally, I feel I can wait a few months for a background check, should I want to own one. Also, I do not believe that a ban on (hand)guns would be the same thing as Prohibition.
Yes. He should have been more clear. Obviously, some democrats have banned some guns - didn’t we have that assault-weapon thingie under Clinton? So yeah, he should have said all guns.
Thanks for making that clarification, Scott. The problem that arises through a loose definition of terms is amply shown in this thread. Tightly used, and universally defined terminology, however, is the preferable, and really only, means of preventing misunderstandings. And simple misunderstandings such as these, especially where the topic is already emotionally charged, can quickly spiral a discussion out of control. Furthermore, gun rights advocates (rightly or wrongly) overwhelmingly believe that gun-control folks very often do not possess basic firearm knowledge; what we then see isn’t so much ignorance but a totally different set of definitions being used. Like “gun.”
To us, and to the legal community who would eventually write the proposed laws, “gun” is equivalent to “firearm” and includes all such devices regardless of size, rate of fire, caliber and/or capacity. “Handgun” is what you’d expect it to be (small handheld firearms) and includes both pistols which are semi-automatic (see below) and revolvers. “Long gun” is a term that includes both shotguns & rifles, guns which are generally held with two hands and mounted on one’s shoulder. “Semi-automatic” means that one projectile will be fired by a gun (handgun, or long gun) with one pull of the trigger. “Automatic” means multiple projectiles with a single trigger pull and for as long as the trigger is depressed (or until all ammunition loaded is expended). “Select fire” is a term applied to firearms on which the user can choose firing modes: automatic, semi-automatic, or burst (which is when a predefined number of projectiles are fired-usually three- with a single trigger pull).
Wow, you really are from Georgia, aren’t you???
( d&r )
Cartooniverse