Bullets

[ChiangShih]

All the annoying grammar banter aside, I'd like to point out how silly this thread is becoming. I believe OPs question was simply posed (probably in some relation to something he had seen or read) to spur honest opinion based conversation. Somehow, it has turned into attacking him as if he is advocating for it. I took his posts as stating he would not be against some unspecified form of ammo regulation. We may not agree with him, however, he has the right to his opinion. Furthermore, he has not even made it clear to what extent, depth, or detail of ammo regulation he may or may not be in support of. It seems many of you are attacking assumptions you've applied to him from what little he has actually said. To sum it up, I don't think the original intent of OP's post was to bait, troll, or create negative conversation. He probably just wanted to get an honest conversation going, which is a good thing since we haven't had a lot of active threads on the MO side this month.

So I say, lets turn this thread back on course. Would you accept stricter ammo regulation if they deregulated some of the more annoying firearms regs?

 

[wrightme]

All the annoying grammar banter aside, I'd like to point out how silly this thread is becoming. I believe OPs question was simply posed (probably in some relation to something he had seen or read) to spur honest opinion based conversation. Somehow, it has turned into attacking him as if he is advocating for it. I took his posts as stating he would not be against some unspecified form of ammo regulation. We may not agree with him, however, he has the right to his opinion. Furthermore, he has not even made it clear to what extent, depth, or detail of ammo regulation he may or may not be in support of. It seems many of you are attacking assumptions you've applied to him from what little he has actually said. To sum it up, I don't think the original intent of OP's post was to bait, troll, or create negative conversation. He probably just wanted to get an honest conversation going, which is a good thing since we haven't had a lot of active threads on the MO side this month.

So I say, lets turn this thread back on course. Would you accept stricter ammo regulation if they deregulated some of the more annoying firearms regs?

NO.

Stricter ammo regulation IS a "more annoying firearms reg."

 

[ChiangShih]

NO.

Stricter ammo regulation IS a "more annoying firearms reg."

So you're saying, if they made buying a burst fire or full auto rifle as easy and affordable as any semi on the market, but you had to show ID for rifle ammo, you would be against it?

 

[ChiangShih]

NO.

Stricter ammo regulation IS a "more annoying firearms reg."

Or how about, they remove all handgun carry regulation like AZ or AK, but wanted you to produce ID for pistol ammo you would be against it?

 

[goalseter88]

So you're saying, if they made buying a burst fire or full auto rifle as easy and affordable as any semi on the market, but you had to show ID for rifle ammo, you would be against it?

yah i personally would. i cant afford to shoot my guns full auto. so it wouldnt be to much of a benefit to me. but i always have to buy ammo for my guns, and that would always be a hassle.

but thats never going to be the case. they might try regulating ammo also. but they arent going to take off the regulations for full auto or 3 round burst.

 

[ChiangShih]

yah i personally would. i cant afford to shoot my guns full auto. so it wouldnt be to much of a benefit to me. but i always have to buy ammo for my guns, and that would always be a hassle.

but thats never going to be the case. they might try regulating ammo also. but they arent going to take off the regulations for full auto or 3 round burst.

Oh, your glass is half empty!

 

[wrightme]

So you're saying, if they made buying a burst fire or full auto rifle as easy and affordable as any semi on the market, but you had to show ID for rifle ammo, you would be against it?

Or how about, they remove all handgun carry regulation like AZ or AK, but wanted you to produce ID for pistol ammo you would be against it?

Go ahead with silly "what if" games.

I stated my position. It is simply too bad if it doesn't pigeonhole easily into some contrived "give-take" scenario of you and his liking.

I would prefer that ammo sales are not regulated as this thread suggests. THAT is my position in a nutshell. You do not need to present false compromises for me to review.

 

[Richieg150]

test

 

[ChiangShih]

Go ahead with silly "what if" games.

I stated my position. It is simply too bad if it doesn't pigeonhole easily into some contrived "give-take" scenario of you and his liking.

I would prefer that ammo sales are not regulated as this thread suggests. THAT is my position in a nutshell. You do not need to present false compromises for me to review.

Lol, you've been awful defensive and rude since you started posting in this thread. I'm simply offering examples to facilitate a directed perspective on my hypothetical scenario. This is no game, nor are they compromises, simply descriptive conversation, though I shouldn't have expected you to understand that given your lack of social graces. Also, give and take is how politics and legislation works and it is how most pro and anti gun legislation gets passed. So is this a scenario of our liking?--no it's reality bud. Anyway, I don't know how you Nevada boys do it on your side of the forum but here on the Missouri side we try to remain civil and polite with one another and we don't take kindly to grammar nazis and forum trolls.

 

[wrightme]

Lol, you've been awful defensive and rude since you started posting in this thread.

Well, no I have not. Feel free to misinterpret my posts as such if it helps you feel better though.

I'm simply offering examples to facilitate a directed perspective on my hypothetical scenario. This is no game, nor are they compromises, simply descriptive conversation, though I shouldn't have expected you to understand that given your lack of social graces.

When you offer to remove some regulations to put another in place, you are offering a compromise.

My position was clearly stated. Attempting to get me to agree to easing some existing laws in exchange is compromise.

Also, give and take is how politics and legislation works and it is how most pro and anti gun legislation gets passed. So is this a scenario of our liking?--no it's reality bud.

Okay, the "this is how its done, so its correct" argument. Just because it may operate that way now does not make it right.

Anyway, I don't know how you Nevada boys do it on your side of the forum but here on the Missouri side we try to remain civil and polite with one another and we don't take kindly to grammar nazis and forum trolls.

I have remained civil and polite in each post of this thread. You can choose to misinterpret it if it helps you rationalize it in your own mind.

 

[kylemoul]

lynard skynard - gimme back my bullets

 

[goalseter88]

i agree there sometimes a give and take. but i dont think it will ever be the deregulation of full auto in order to get regulation on ammo. if were going to debate something. lets make it a bit more pratical. or if we are not going to do something a bit more pratical, make it a bit more out there and lets have a joke out of it.

 

[ChiangShih]

Well, no I have not. Feel free to misinterpret my posts as such if it helps you feel better though.

Attacking someone's short hand because of a personal pet peeve, the style in which you responded to my post calling my explained attempt to create a friendly directed conversation a silly game. The personality and mood that you portray in your style of text and how you respond is painfully obvious. What makes it even more pathetic is your inability to man up and return to some civility.

When you offer to remove some regulations to put another in place, you are offering a compromise.
My position was clearly stated. Attempting to get me to agree to easing some existing laws in exchange is compromise.

My scenarios again were not compromises in the respect that there were no set regulations or detailed thought structure at hand. So refer to my previous post and attempt to comprehend what I wrote.

Okay, the "this is how its done, so its correct" argument. Just because it may operate that way now does not make it right.

Nothing in my post said it was correct, simply that it is reality.

I have remained civil and polite in each post of this thread. You can choose to misinterpret it if it helps you rationalize it in your own mind.

Refer to my first response Not fooling anybody.

 

[John563]

WOW…..I’m with Chiang on this one…..You all need to set back and get a cup of coffee and just let this go........Mobodyguard was just trying to start a good conversation. I think that most of us use some form of shorthand on the computer and if you’re not mature enough to just read thru it without being insulted / hurt, peeved etc, you may want to find a grammar forum to go to. I would be the last person to correct anyone for there use of (speeling) or (grammmer).

 

[mobodyguard]

WOW…..I’m with Chiang on this one…..You all need to set back and get a cup of coffee and just let this go........Mobodyguard was just trying to start a good conversation. I think that most of us use some form of shorthand on the computer and if you’re not mature enough to just read thru it without being insulted / hurt, peeved etc, you may want to find a grammar forum to go to. I would be the last person to correct anyone for there use of (speeling) or (grammmer).

Thank you sir

 

[wrightme]

Attacking someone's short hand because of a personal pet peeve, the style in which you responded to my post calling my explained attempt to create a friendly directed conversation a silly game. The personality and mood that you portray in your style of text and how you respond is painfully obvious. What makes it even more pathetic is your inability to man up and return to some civility.

Once again, I have been entirely civil. Continuing to imply that I haven't is simply argumentative.
I see that you have chosen to go with ad hominem argument now.

My scenarios again were not compromises in the respect that there were no set regulations or detailed thought structure at hand. So refer to my previous post and attempt to comprehend what I wrote.

No, I pointed out accurately what you were doing. I stated my position as "no, I would not support ammo regulation." You then attempted to find out where I was willing to compromise on it by dangling regulations out. I simply responded that my position was already stated, and did not change with your desire to direct the conversation in your chosen direction. It seems you are unwilling to accept that.

]Nothing in my post said it was correct, simply that it is reality.

It is only 'reality' because that is how it is being done. It is not necessary to continue with that reality. That is one nature of it that I would desire to change. As example, I support the efforts to cease "earmarks" and such to garner votes for legislation by dangling "how about if we take this regulation away, can we have this other one?"

 

[wrightme]

WOW…..I’m with Chiang on this one…..You all need to set back and get a cup of coffee and just let this go........Mobodyguard was just trying to start a good conversation.

Mobodyguard suggested ammo regulation. He got plenty of responses; just not the ones he desired. He (and Chiang) seem to desire to direct the conversation in only one direction. That isn't effective in this forum.

I think that most of us use some form of shorthand on the computer and if you’re not mature enough to just read thru it without being insulted / hurt, peeved etc, you may want to find a grammar forum to go to. I would be the last person to correct anyone for there use of (speeling) or (grammmer).

I am not insulted by reading poor grammar. If you were to go back and read my post on the topic, it specifically referenced the ability to accurately communicate, and did not make any statement that I felt it was insulting.

 

[ChiangShih]

I have to agree with JXD, this argument is going no where. Wright can't seem to understand what has been clearly stated perhaps mentally blocked by a need to continue arguing and an unwillingness to admit he presented himself improperly (even when 3 other members stated or made clear they had felt so too). That said and thread derailed, see most of you on the 12th! Stay safe

 

[John563]

This guy is starting to sound like someone from another thread. (I won’t mention eye.) Once he has his hooks into to something he doesn’t want to let it rest at least not today.

NO…..I do not believe that they should do the same for bullets…….

Why……..I believe that once the gov. starts to track the amount of ammo that you use/buy, their will be a time when they say that U R purchasing to much and try to put a limit on it.
(4 national security reasons of course) U R buying too much U may B a risk to our National security. (FBI take your list and go check him out).No-Knock

 

[wrightme]

I have to agree with JXD, this argument is going no where.

Correct.

Wright can't seem to understand what has been clearly stated perhaps mentally blocked by a need to continue arguing and an unwillingness to admit he presented himself improperly (even when 3 other members stated or made clear they had felt so too). That said and thread derailed, see most of you on the 12th! Stay safe

LOL, I clearly stated my position, and made one post about grammar. The rest are responses. If the grammar wasn't such an issue, why do you and several others keep addressing it?


I stated my position clearly. I find it difficult to believe you consider this to be "arguing."

I do find it quite interesting that you are posting in the manner which you try to falsely attribute to me. In addition, you are actually being rude in your comments about me. In other words, you are projecting.