# Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475 "2009-02-26T03:45:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 444
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/444 "2009-03-18T17:36:16Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > So it’s now “bad manners” to point out that your argument is full of shit? Awwwww, so sad. If you can’t deal with someone pointing out that your gun-grabbing rationalizations fail, you can cry me a river. I’m only responding to this by way of explanation. Your manners were atrocious, get over it. I’m glad I made you upset to the point where your so-called arguments seem to be coming from the frothing mouth of a quivering psychopath. If you been more civil, perhaps this debate would have gotten somewhere. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > By your own standard, which you quickly changed and shifted the goalposts, the only metric was necessity. Only necessity. Not any of your other post-hoc rationalizations. Yes yes, keep lying as if it was true. How many times must I post that necessity was only one criteria for judging? If you’re not going to even read what I write then kindly excuse yourself from the debate > [@FinnAgain](#): > > When it was pointed out that by that same standard, the federal government could limit you to wearing a burlap sack and eating bland food only for its nutrient content, you harped on the dramatic unfairness of having your own bullshit rationalizations applied to yourself. So horrible, your own rationalizations turned against yourself. So sad. Abhorrent absurdities are only for legal gun owners who are unlucky enough to be your targets. No, they cannot, because man needs more than sacks and bland food. Besides, those things are hardly dangerous by themselves, and they also serve many other purposes. Its the same reason why gun control is a good idea and knife control is not > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Oh, and, yeah, you are unwilling to look at sources. The DoJ data has already been posted, and as you’ve just admitted to posting deliberately to “piss me off”, I’m certainly not going to fall for the same trick again. Go read the thread if you’re curious. Post some sources. You’ve been the only one harping on others without so much as a link. Where’s your source? Wheeeerrrrrreeeeeeee? I’m clicking wildly in the vain hope that it’s invisible, maybe I’ll get lucky! Hey source, where are you? Yoo hoo, Mr. link! Come here so I can click you!!! ;)😛 > [@FinnAgain](#): > > No, actually the fact that they’re hardly ever used in crimes and those that are would not be banned is relevant. You’re also spewing fiction, as per your normal pattern. People have pointed out numerous uses, you’ve spewed obnoxious rhetoric about how they’re only useful for hunting rhinos and such, and when called on it, you get all upset and talk about sarcasm, obnoxiously intimating that those here debating honestly have done something wrong in not realizing that you were posting things you knew not to be true in your admitted attempt to piss people off. Good job, though, ignoring the fact that you never actually provided any valid argument for something’s lack of use, only provided bombastic hyperbole that you explicitly admit wasn’t something you believed in. “Those guns are not necessary because their only use is hunting large game”, even if it’s sarcastic (and seeing how you argue, I’d put money on you actually being so ignorant that you didn’t know what “assault weapons” were used for), still means that you argued for removing American citizens constitutionally protected rights and didn’t even bother to provide a justification besides an obnoxious untruth which you didn’t even _attempt_ to replace with an accurate claim. Wow, what a wild rant! Let me see if I can distill the relevent parts… 1. Its irrelevent that those guns are rarely used in crimes. Only 2 nukes have ever been used for offense in the history of the world. (I’ll spare you the rhetoric “Does that mean everyone should have them?”) 2. Numerous uses all relating to shooting something. Yes, hunting game, home protection, self-defense, war re-enactments, collections, are all part of “numerous” uses. Most of them also fall under the category of “putting a hot piece of lead through another being”. Your “numerous” uses are bunk; they are the same use. When a gun becomes a kitchen utensil like a knife, then we’ll evaluate how relevent it is to keep something like that around for other uses. 3. Rhinos. Hey, that was sarcasm 😃 I think your problem is that the comment was meant to illustrate shooting game, and I showed you that you don’t need an Ak-47 to do that. You can have your rifles for game hunting, I’m not worried about that as much as easily concealable handguns, or assault weapons capable to killing a lot of people really fast. We should still regulate them, but to a different extent 4. Contitutional rights can be changed. I’ve already provided examples in which rights like speech are regulated, and how rights can already be said to have been denied in cases of large bombs. Gun control is merely the same thing > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Or as you put it, you deliberately posted in an attempt to piss people off. Just you 😃 You seem to have little control over your emotions > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Moe bullshit. Every weapon is dangerous, “assault weapons” are quite useful for self defense and hunting, they are not replaceable with handguns (which you’d know if you had even a basic clue, which you still resist strongly), handguns are used in the vast majority of crimes in any case, and any object on the planet has a range of functions “outside of the range of legal use”. “Every weapon is dangerous” is a pointless non-sequitor intended to bolster your argument with weasel words and mindless rhetoric. Yes, duh, weapons are dangerous, but that’s not why I want gun control. Hell, every THING is dangerous, from plastic bags you can choke on to a necklace that can get caught. Your commentary will win you no adherents, except the stupid Assault weapons are useful in self defense? Yeah, sure, if you’re defending the president. What, a robber busts into your house and you aim the minigun at his face? You routinely strap AK47’s to you back when you go to Burger King? You do NOT need assault weapons for defense, you can use a handgun. And with hunting, there are slower firing, less concealable guns you can use that pose less danger to other people. Even those guns should be restricted to actual hunters. And I guess your comment about handguns makes you an enthusiastic supporter of handgun control, right? Surely you couldn’t be saying that and then want to do nothing about them (except have more assault weapons on you) > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Sorry, your ability to spew untruth about “useless” things only means you’re not exactly being knowledgeable, or aren’t playing straight if you aren’t horribly ignorant. Recognizing your bullshit hardly counts as myopia. Right, repeat something long enough and people will start to buy it. Have you illustrated ANY other legitimate use for assault weapons other than self-defense (which can be done with handguns) and hunting (which also do not need certain types of assault weapons)? Hell, I gave you your silly war re-enactment groups, you likely didn’t even know about that because you were too busy finding new things to blow away > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Your absurd preference for the weapons that vast majority of crimes are committed with over the weapons that the vast, insignificant minority are committed with reveals that your objection is neither utility nor crime, but rationalizations designed to gun-grab and remove constitutionally protected rights. That you want to ban weapons that overwhelmingly are used for legal purposes in the hopes of imposing stricter policies that would lead to your unconstitutional wishes being put into law is something that can’t properly be commented upon in this forum. You’re like someone who pushes for harsher and harsher obscenity laws in the hopes of one day eliminating the first amendment itself without the mess of a new amendment. > And proper comments on such a person are fit only for the Pit. I want a nuke for protection. Its never been used for something illegal and its not often used. So it would be ok right??? :rolleyes: > [@FinnAgain](#): > > I’m done with you here. If you want to allow people to respond to you properly, post in the Pit thread which was started to describe your behavior. I’m touched, you started a thread for me? 🙂 --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475)._