Apparently asking rhetorical questions = self-discrediting
TeamPooka (2,237 posts)
SE Cupp doesn't know what "rapid-fire" or Military grade weapons" means
on MSNBC right now.
She wants to haggle over definitions and context?
What a dumbass neocon.
The nerve of her!
OneGrassRoot (17,250 posts)
4. She annoys the living shit out of me...
arrogant and condescending, always deflecting.
Talked about "assault" and "rapid-fire" being terms to scare people and are "shiny objects" but have no validity.
She wouldn't clarify though, preferring deflect and take it up with Howard (Fineman) later.
Ugh.
TeamPooka (2,237 posts)
19. by definition assault weapons are the type used by armed forces....
in an "assault" on enemy soldiers, positions or territory.
Hand held machine guns, automatic rifles and sub-machine guns are weapons originally manufactured for this purpose:
To arm a nation's soldiers for combat in wartime.
Every word and term has a real definition and meaning....except to those who need to use a 'semantic argument' to defend something that without said argument they are unable to defend.
Recursion (20,601 posts)
22. Hm ok. Those have been banned since the 1930s
I think something like 4 people have been killed by that kind of weapon in the US in the past 50 years.
TeamPooka (2,237 posts)
68. A Bushmaster AR 15 is an automatic rifle so you are wrong.
^ He who would presume to rule you.
jeff47 (5,871 posts)
21. It was invented by the Nazis.
No really, it was. For this gun.
Hitler wanted traditional long-range automatic rifles. But some folks in his arms industry realized what modern gun designers did - infantry doesn't fight thousands of yards from each other.
Enter the Sturmgewehr. They made it without permission, but it worked so damn well that it was later accepted.
And we can say that Hitler named it, without invoking Goodwin:
The name was chosen personally by Adolf Hitler for propaganda reasons and literally means "storm rifle" as in "to storm (i.e. "assault") an enemy position". After the adoption of the StG 44, the English translation "assault rifle" became the accepted designation for this type of infantry small arm.
And then this condescending asshole shows up:
The Magistrate (79,549 posts)
23. Actually, Sir, It Was There From the Start
The grandpa of the breed, from which all the rest are descended, the Sturmgewehr 44 --- literal translation, from German and jargon, being 'assault rifle, model (year) 1944'.
Recursion (20,601 posts)
25. I said "assault weapon" not "assault rifle"
Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:38 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Assault rifles are tightly controlled, and have been for almost 80 years.
Having looked it up, the phrase seems to have been coined in 1988 by Josh Sugarmann.
The Magistrate (79,549 posts)
32. That, Sir, May Be the Silliest Quibble Seen Yet From 'Team NRA' And Associates
Thank you for presenting yourself as such an entertaining spectacle and volunteer object for mockery; we can all use a laugh, and you have just provided many with one....
Recursion (20,601 posts)
33. Do you honestly not know that there's a huge difference between the two?
Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:52 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
Really?
I suppose it's not that surprising; the phrase "assault weapon" was pretty deliberately chosen so that people would think we were talking about assault rifles like the military uses, along with the fact that the most infamous models look like rifles that the military uses.
The Magistrate (79,549 posts)
37. Do You Honestly Have Such An Inflated View Of Yourself, Sir, As That?
Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:14 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
What began all this was the usual practice of marketing ex-military rifles as hunting arms; no problem with Springfields and Garands and the like, but once standard infantry arms went fully automatic, there was a problem. Those sold to civilian trade were de-natured, by removing a bit which enabled full automatic fire. Leaving aside that it is not particularly difficult to 'fix' this, and other tweaks, the potential remains that semi-automatic fire, combined with magazine capacities in excess of the five to eight typical of bolt action military rifles, and the Garand, can produce results very different from those of an old military arm turned deer rifle, and well in excess of what is needed in hunting.
It is true enough that 'assault weapon bans' are in some degree cosmetic measures, and political chips, since the great bulk of criminal shooting is done with pistols. Laws ought to aim at curbing trade and transfer, making it a frightening thing to serve as a straw buyer or to engage in underworld traffick in fire-arms, even in informal trafficking, and at tracking and tracing fire-arms in circulation. It is exactly such measures that in fact the NRA and gun lobby work hardest against. People who propose 'assault weapon bans' seem to hope that if something can be passed, it may be possible to move on to more substantial and beneficial enforcement measures.
But the kind of semantic swill you have tried above is exactly as I have described it; laughable, and deserving of mockery. As others have pointed out, it is simply a diversionary tactic aimed a derailing discussion. Best to leave it go, if you want to be taken seriously. I have seen some of your other comments, and by and large you seem a reasonable enough fellow --- don't **** it up.
Recursion (20,601 posts)
39. You are factually mistaken about converting a semi-automatic rifle to a fully automatic rifle
Those sold to civilian trade were de-natured, by removing a bit which enabled full automatic fire. Leaving aside that it is not particularly difficult to 'fix' this
With respect, sir, neither of those statements are accurate. A semi-automatic has a completely different mechanism inside from an assault rifle: even in semi-automatic mode an assault rifle uses a different firing mechanism than one only capable of semi-auto.
There were some weapons that fired from an open bolt, which could be converted to full-auto (sort of) by filing down the serre ("sear" seems to have taken over as the popular spelling, but I prefer the old way). These were banned in the 1980s, rather effectively (they tended to be crappy guns in the first place).
I'd add that I don't think I've done anything to deserve your tone, and I've only seen you be very respectful to people you disagree with over the years, so that's disappointing.
It is true enough that 'assault weapon bans' are in some degree cosmetic measures, and political chips, since the great bulk of criminal shooting is done with pistols. Laws ought to aim at curbing trade and transfer, making it a frightening to serve as a straw buyer or to engage in underworld traffick in fire-arms, even in informal trafficking, and at tracking and tracing fire-arms in circulation.
Absolutely agreed.
People who propose 'assault weapon bans' seem to hope that if something can be passed, it may be possible to move on to more substantial and beneficial enforcement measures.
And people who oppose them (or at least "me") think that burning political capital on what a legal firearm can look like is worse than doing nothing, because it means we won't have the capital to pass actual effective restrictions on guns.
billh58 (2,187 posts)
24. Semantics and gunz gobbledygook
Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:38 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
are all the NRA/Gungeon crowd has left. They believe that they can use gun jargon and buzz words in order to dazzle non-gunners with bullshit NRA talking points, and then actually believe that they have "won" an argument based on this feature vomit.
Gungeoneers have always been a sad group of losers, but now they're becoming pathetic.
Discussing technical capabilities = semantics
jody (26,526 posts)
44. If "definitions & context" don't matter, then intelligent people can't have a productive discussion.
IMO that's exactly why anti-RKBA types are easily frustrated in discussions with pro-RKBA proponents.
If one hopes to write a federal law to control firearms, courts will demand "definitions and context".
Paladin (7,645 posts)
51. Come On, Jody. We're Talking S.E. Cupp, Here.
The terms "intelligent" and "productive" don't enter into it.....
She apparently stymied 4 morons and the gene (wading) pool at DU.
JoePhilly (14,921 posts)
52. They matter, which is why some work so hard to muddy the water.
Today on MSNBC Sippy Cupp played dumb regarding the definition of the term "rapid fire".
"Its just such a confusing term ... how in the world can we ever come to know what it means??" Gasp Gasp. Throw up hands and shrug.
What we need to do is quantify the terms so little Sippy's head doesn't explode from all the confusion.
What is range and the effective kill distance of a weapon?
At what rate can it kill at a specific distance (how many human targets could it drop)?
What is the damage caused by a particular piece of ammo, fired from a specific weapon, at a specific range?
And so on...
Take quantifiable elements like these and you can construct a model in which weapons and ammo are classified, and then regulated.
You can have any weapon you want, but as the weapon and the ammo's lethality increase, you need to demonstrate greater levels of proficiency with that weapon.
Sippy can't play dumb and pretend that no definitions exist, and the hoops required are tough enough that those with mental issues will find it harder to maneuver through the system and obtain weapons with the higher levels of lethality.
All that bloviating and no definition for "rapid fire."
jody (26,526 posts)
57. Understand and then slip into law granting the Attorney General unilateral authority to ban any
firearm she/he decides might be used by the military would almost certainly lead to banning the most widely used firearms such as the Remington 1100.
That was attempted with H.R. 1022 110th CONGRESS http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022:
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
JoePhilly (14,921 posts)
58. You should build strawmen for a living ... you're good at it.
The last thing you want is real "definitions and context" ... because once they exist, you can't throw up your hands and claim nothing can be done.
Nowhere in what I proposed is the Attorney General given unilateral control.
But because I proposed something that could be done to create real definitions and provide context, you whine about a bill that I at no time recommended.
Its a transparent tactic you are using.
jody (26,526 posts)
62. You replied to MY #44. I pointed out how a bill like H.R. 1022 could be deviously modified
to the detriment of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
I see nothing transparent, in fact I made my point most clearly.
I haven't read ONE proposal by the gun-creationist community that is supported by facts that has a promise of preventing another Sandy Hook Tragedy or reducing crime.
I have read too many posts by people trying to refill the Augean Stables.
JoePhilly (14,921 posts)
66. Another throw up hands and shrug response. Not a big surprise.
jody (26,526 posts)
67. I have no idea what is your problem. I asserted "44. If 'definitions & context' don't matter, then
intelligent people can't have a productive discussion."
Are you saying only stupid people can solve the problem?
Yes.
And by God, they're determined to prove it.
And it goes on like that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022162055
