On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:25:41 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:24:50 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:01:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I just don't see why folks of the liberal bent fail to understand such
as simple concept. You are far from being alone in thinking that. I
think part of it is being angry at guns in general rather than the
people who are abusing them. Why is that, if I may ask?

People "of the liberal bent" simply cannot understand cost/benefit
tradeoffs (or dynamics, but that's a separate issue).

If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a semi-automatic
military assault weapon, all those kids would still be alive. That is an
undisputable fact.

Absolute bull****. First, define "assault weapon". you can't.

In any case, he did not have access to a "semi-automatic military
assault weapon". It is unlawful to own an assault weapon in Connecticut
and all of the firearms used were lawfully owned in Connecticut,
therefore none of them was an "assault weapon".

Clearly his definition varies from the CT legal definition and the
military definition. These aren't the point. The left doesn't care
what the accepted definition of anything is. All words and ideas are
relative so any discussion is like trying to build a building with
silly putty (in every sense). When cornered, they'll simply redefine
themselves out of it (see; Clinton). I want his definition of
"assault weapon" before listening to any more of his bull****.