The OK case

[Dill]

(04-02-2017, 10:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course we're speculating if we think; however, we are not speculating when we point to what really happened. I truly don't know how to answer the question you have asked, but I'll give it a go: Yes we are speculating if we say it didn't have to be a "military style" (whatever the hell that is); as that is not what was used in this situation.

The debate is most likely only settled among rational folks. I overestimated the audience. 

I have zero idea what you have said it these 3 sentences. Perhaps you or someone can "dumb it down" for me. 

I'm sure I can.

I was commenting on the double standard in your use of "we" and "they." I see no evidence anything could change your mind, but you would distinguish yours from "theirs" by claiming nothing can change theirs. "They" want to impose their personal preferences on folks via law (weapons they deem suitable), which implies the preferences you would impose (weapons you deem suitable) somehow rise above personal preference. You are "rational"; "they" are not.

But a rational guy ought to understand something of logical implication.

A "military style" weapon is one which is or mimics military issue weapons. There term is most frequently used now in reference to guns which are or intended to mimic assault weapons like the M-4 or AK 47. A Winchester Model 04 30.30 would not be a military style weapon, nor would a Remington pump shotgun. An AR 15 would be a military style weapon.