Gun Control & RKBA

jimmy the one

(2,717 posts)

51. the cavilling beeve

Wed Sep 14, 2016, 12:49 PM

Sep 2016

beevul: That poster said "swiss model of national defense", not "swiss model of private gun ownership".

Let me get your LMAO remark straight.
You contend that the swiss model of national defense, where their home guard members keep an assault rifle at home but are not allowed to keep ammunition for the rifle at home (kept at armory), is what nuc uni meant when she said it would lead to less adventurism (whatever that meant). Then 8 out of 9 members who leave the home guard relinquish back to the govt their assault rifle.
I guess criminals are gonna be so cowered by swiss home guard members having a bulletless assault rifle, rather than ordinary citizens in possession with BOTH firearms AND ammunition. LMAO at the beevul.

Attributing to other posters, sentiments they did not author, isn't really clever james. In fact, its downright disingenuous - but you knew that.

That's no rebuttal. That's cavilling.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

109 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Swiss Balk At EU Concept Of Stripping ‘Assault Rifles’ From The People [View all] Purveyor Sep 2016 OP

It looks as if gun control in foreign lands... beevul Sep 2016 #1

Gun-"control" is just another political project discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2016 #3

Too-true a summary. appal_jack Sep 2016 #7

praising or burying caesar? jimmy the one Sep 2016 #10

Where did you go to school and.... discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2016 #11

So its "restrictive" in Switzerland, but its still not enough for the EU. beevul Sep 2016 #14

you call that restrictive? beergood Sep 2016 #46

california has stricter gun laws than switz - baloney jimmy the one Sep 2016 #49

i call baloney on your baloney beergood Sep 2016 #62

swiss vs california gun policies jimmy the one Sep 2016 #68

thank you beergood Sep 2016 #105

am i wrong? beergood Sep 2016 #108

whats the problem jimmy? beergood Sep 2016 #63

What problems? Travis_0004 Sep 2016 #4

Then accessibility is not the culprit despite what we're constantly told. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2016 #5

Are those actual "assault weapons"? JonathanRackham Sep 2016 #2

"Maybe America should be investing in the same" Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2016 #6

swiss investments jimmy the one Sep 2016 #9

That poster said "swiss model of national defense"... beevul Sep 2016 #15

the cavilling beeve jimmy the one Sep 2016 #51

The nattering james... beevul Sep 2016 #52

Upon retirement all Swiss military have the option of oneshooter Sep 2016 #13

Not "assault weapons", but real assault rifles. ManiacJoe Sep 2016 #55

going off half cocked, are you? jimmy the one Sep 2016 #8

"and the argument is that the swiss are saturated with guns?" No one has made that argument friendly_iconoclast Sep 2016 #16

Thats known more properly as the 'iverglas wallotext gambit'. beevul Sep 2016 #19

I'd call it a variant of the 'Gish Gallop': friendly_iconoclast Sep 2016 #41

icon confuses gish gallop with ordinary post jimmy the one Sep 2016 #50

You countered my allegation by posting a "wall-o-text" that has naught to do with the OP... friendly_iconoclast Sep 2016 #60

600,000 full-auto rifles in Switzerland is far more than the 2-300k in U.S. civilian hands. Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #12

Please see #8. nt flamin lib Sep 2016 #17

And? Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #18

And there aren't 600,000 assault weapons in Swiss hands. flamin lib Sep 2016 #20

re: "...AFTER it is converted to single fire." discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2016 #21

They aren't assault weapons. They are full-auto assault rifles. Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #22

I'm confused. I'm told that AR-15s aren't assault weapons because flamin lib Sep 2016 #23

Actual military rifles like the M-16 and M-4 are "assault rifles" discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2016 #24

Well, ol'flame, we all get confused... Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #25

You quote Josh, I quote the gun manufacturers. flamin lib Sep 2016 #30

"Technically"? Straw Man Sep 2016 #35

That was from the person that also proclaimed the following: friendly_iconoclast Sep 2016 #42

Isn't he one of the hosts that Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #53

They edited their comments DonP Sep 2016 #54

Not surprised Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #56

That "effect" is not recognized as "auto" by the ATF, the agency charged with gun regs. Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #44

I understand that. Contrary to a number of gunner's opinions of me I am not stupid. flamin lib Sep 2016 #66

Can you provide a link to the more sophisticated stock assemblies? I have no interest... Marengo Sep 2016 #70

Then go shopping. You really want advice from a flamin lib Sep 2016 #71

You were able to provide an example in post #67 without much difficulty I presume. I would think... Marengo Sep 2016 #75

If I were to provide advice for someone who wants advice on bumpfire flamin lib Sep 2016 #76

I'm not asking for advice, rather for you to provide an example to back you claim that... Marengo Sep 2016 #78

No, you are trying to hijack this sub thread and you should know by now flamin lib Sep 2016 #79

Wouldn't the best method to avoid questions of veracity be to include proof? Marengo Sep 2016 #81

It would if it didn't lead to another red herring which is a specialty here.mnt flamin lib Sep 2016 #83

I am only asking for you to explain your understanding of a term you used in this thread. Marengo Sep 2016 #86

I'm not going away mad, I'm just going away because you make a very tedious flamin lib Sep 2016 #87

Regarding stocks, grips and guards, great attempt has been made by controller/banners Eleanors38 Sep 2016 #73

Could you explain what you mean by "resets mid cycle"? Marengo Sep 2016 #59

That's what I'd like to know too. Straw Man Sep 2016 #61

If you don't know what that means you are unqualified to engage in this discussion. nt flamin lib Sep 2016 #65

I'm asking for your definition. Can you provide one? Why did you avoid the question? Marengo Sep 2016 #69

I'm not avoiding a question. Just pointing out that a certain level flamin lib Sep 2016 #72

What causes you to believe I don't have that "level of sophistication". If your understanding... Marengo Sep 2016 #74

Becaue you asked a really unsophisticated question. flamin lib Sep 2016 #77

It seems I can safely assume you don't understand the concept and simply don't know what... Marengo Sep 2016 #80

You can assume anything you want. I really don't care to indulge you in meaningless banter. nt flamin lib Sep 2016 #82

I should think you would want to prevent others from assuming the same as well. Marengo Sep 2016 #84

Judging by this exchange... discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2016 #91

It really does appear that way, doesn't it? Marengo Sep 2016 #92

Can you expound on your comment on design and adoption dates? What can't I tell... Marengo Sep 2016 #85

Ah a convenient memory! nt flamin lib Sep 2016 #88

Why do you refuse to answer the question? Marengo Sep 2016 #89

Because you're not the boss of me. Nana boo boo. And it drives you nuts. nt flamin lib Sep 2016 #94

I found the reference. Are these pre-WWi rifle you own Mosin Nagants? Am I correct in recalling... Marengo Sep 2016 #90

because I was tired of seeing gunners soil the thread. Now, go away, I am. flamin lib Sep 2016 #93

Are they, or are they not, Mosin Nagants? Do you want me to assume that they are? Marengo Sep 2016 #95

Yep, they are Mosins, I found your post. The design was adopted in 1891, not 1898 as you... Marengo Sep 2016 #96

The Russian military put a call for a new infantry rifle sometime in the early/mid 1880s. flamin lib Sep 2016 #98

First production run of Mosin Nagant Model 1891 Three Line rifle was Chaterllerault, France 1892. Marengo Sep 2016 #99

What are the model designations for the paratrooper and tanker variants? Marengo Sep 2016 #100

You also might want edit where you claim the first production run was of Dragoons in the USA... Marengo Sep 2016 #101

Looks like your the one having the trouble understanding the difference. Designed in 1898... Marengo Sep 2016 #97

Let's approach this from another angle. Straw Man Sep 2016 #107

Do you have a link to "assault weapons conversion kits"? tortoise1956 Sep 2016 #64

They have cleverly been re-named to tactical kits. flamin lib Sep 2016 #67

Do tell. Straw Man Sep 2016 #103

Some things never seem to change. The standard of accuracy for antigun posts at DU is one of them friendly_iconoclast Sep 2016 #104

Nice catch. Not only have we been served bullshit, it's *recycled* bullshit: friendly_iconoclast Sep 2016 #109

Link? You may have better luck asking him for an Indio (coin) Marengo Sep 2016 #106

Yes, but they can buy ammo at the store gejohnston Sep 2016 #27

Yes, but if they have to go through that extra step flamin lib Sep 2016 #29

there is no empirical evidence to support the claim gejohnston Sep 2016 #31

I'm sorry, you're wrong. And I don't feel inclined go indulge in the mental masturbation flamin lib Sep 2016 #32

So thats what a mind closing sounds like. N/T beevul Sep 2016 #33

It sounds like a bear trap snapping shut to include the anguished howls. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2016 #38

More like an empty can kicked down a gravel road DonP Sep 2016 #58

IOW, argument by assertion gejohnston Sep 2016 #34

No, I won't play your silly assed game. You don't get to assert that something that flamin lib Sep 2016 #39

"I want to save lives." Appeal to emotion aside, we are free to question the efficacy of your ideas friendly_iconoclast Sep 2016 #40

And you don't get to assert something is truth without substantiation and have it automatically... beevul Sep 2016 #43

post hoc ergo propter hoc gejohnston Sep 2016 #102

"mental masturbation" beergood Sep 2016 #48

Typical of those with closed minds Duckhunter935 Sep 2016 #57

Right. Straw Man Sep 2016 #36

You started out arguing about semi vs full auto, now it's suicides. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2016 #37

"suicides go down" beergood Sep 2016 #47

Too bad we do not have the same deathrind Sep 2016 #26

some states do, gejohnston Sep 2016 #28

Swiss, and Canadians, and many others, can own guns benEzra Sep 2016 #45