Rau. You said in
post 367:
QUOTE:
I think you are still overthinking this. A tennis shoe is footwear.
I’m not overthinking anything.
(Regarding your objecting to my “tennis shoe” occurrence in the news . . . Tell that to the prosecuting attorney that said it IS a “deadly weapon”.
This is the problem with your citing of statistics too. WHO gets to define which “statistics” we use? Who gets to define what we call a “deadly weapon”? Who gets to define WHO has the right to defend themselves and who does NOT. etc. etc. WHO gets to define “anti personnel weaponry” and then re-invent the Constitution based on that?)
The point of the thinking exercise I laid out for you was that you show me WHERE (from the military, not from you) that the civilian weapon we were discussing has been defined as an “anti-personnel weapon” and in what context.
Otherwise someone can RE-DEFINE “Anti personnel weapons” any way and in any context they want.
You can do this re-definition canard with a lot of things (like Bill Clinton’s AG Janet Reno did RE-DEFINING Rosary praying people in front of an Illinois abortuary as “Terrorists”).
I gave you the benefit of a doubt when I asked you to provide me with a link from the military calling the AR-15 an “anti-personnel weapon” and waited for you to provide it.
I asked you to show me where this was because I didn’t think the military was in the business of doling out definitions of civilian items in this manner (but you didn’t).
So now, it is looking like (to me at least) that you used the phrase “anti-personnel weapons” and “military” in the same context for rhetorical effect.
And it seems to me that you NEEDED this rhetorical effect to bolster an already weak argument.
Look. I have no problem with you using “emotional phrases” to try to sway me or other readers to the way you think. But you need to back it up with facts. ALL the facts.
You
said about steak knives and tennis shoes:
The intended purpose is “benign”.
That’s irrelevant. Civilian weapons “intended purpose” can be target shooting, collecting, hunting, investing, etc.
And self-defense is certainly not “malignant”.
So your own definition nuances (“benign purposes”) would not classify an AR-15 as an “anti-personnel weapon” (another reason for asking for a MILITARY definition
specifically relating to the AR-15).
and
The AR-15 (and variants of it) was not made for a benign purpose. It’s made to shoot people.
Maybe. Maybe not. I have already given you several examples of exceptions.
If you think this reasoning shows firearms as an intrinsic evil, you start by telling the Governments around the world to rid themselves of their firearms first.
Then we can begin to have a substantive discussion of why it would be a bad idea to disarm law abiding citizens.
Again no “overthinking” here.
But when I see you using “emotional” terms and phrases, especially without any other substance, I’m going to point it out here.
And I’m going to point it out so readers here are not swayed by mere emotions and feelings.
As a matter of fact, I have not seen ONE good reason here on this thread to further burden good law abiding citizenry with MORE rules and regulations that continue to incrementally infringe upon their Second Amendment freedoms. Not one.
Now your going to parrot some politicians and say: “You mean saving
one life isn’t one good reason?”
But that would just ignore
my comment about risk/benefit ratios.
The politicians themselves don’t believe the “one life” political talking point nor should they.
