The number of different ways GRA's have to refute the assertion that an assault rifle is an assault rifle is mind-boggling.

I find it amusing that they want scary-looking weapons designed to kill lots of people quickly, but they don't want the firearm classification to sound scary.

There is only fervor (equal to that associated with religious zealots).

... as it passes through the atmosphere. Those wavelengths get absorbed and re-emitted in all directions. It's also why the Sun looks reddish when viewed directly (since shorter wavelengths were scattered through the atmosphere).

You claimed it was from reflection and refraction, so you obviously don't know what you're talking about regarding guns!

They will sometimes employ the conservative tactic of staying on the offensive.

I think this comedian hit the nail on the head:

I also believe that the only valid reading of the Second Amendment supports a ban on personal/individual carry and possession that is not directly linked to membership in a well-regulated militia. That would be the National Guard.

But there are Democrats who disagree. On many issues,
from guns
to corporate funding of politicians,
to Israel,
to religion,
there are Democrats who disagree.

Simply because we disagree should not make us enemies, or make our opponents crazy. Democrats must work together and yes, we will continue to disagree on issues, but what unites is more important than what divides.

demanding evidence that must pass their standards only and attacking the individual instead of the argument.

You can't have an honest disagreement with people who are simply disagreeable.

Yeah, they say I'm just the same way but I spent more than a year in the gungeon and didn't say shit when I had a mouth full of it. All I got was ad homenim, personal insults, threats and unjust alerts (had one post hidden lately and it was worth it to tell one SOB what I thought of him).

I respect your honorable intent but these people are not really Democrats and simply troll the site.

But the same arguments can be, and are made in nearly every other group here.

I was banned from one group for posting information from a "banned" site that was not explicitly named as forbidden in the rules for the group. I was told that I "should have known" and summarily blocked.

And if you go to the "religion" group there is also much passionate discussion. I agree that name calling serves no purpose other than to make discussion difficult.

My pet peeve among gun enthusiasts is the tendency to fixate on terms such as "assault weapons". Many enthusiasts will tell you that the "Deathmaster 700" is not really an assault weapon because of (insert technical jargon here), but the "Deathmaster 700 is really a hunting weapon that just happens to have a 50 shot magazine.

(Note: Deathmaster 700 was my made-up term. As far as I know there is no such weapon.)

supporting other Democrats even while disagreeing with them. The problem with the Second Amendment absolutists however, is that it becomes very hard to tell the difference between an obvious right-wing troll, a Libertarian who claims to be a Democrat, and a Liberal Democrat.

In my experience, most Liberal Democrats do not call other Democrats "grabbers," "antis" or "prohis," and are supportive of reasonable, common sense gun control initiatives. Also, most Liberal Democrats who are gun owners aren't "gun nuts" in the common use of the term (absolutists, NRA apologists, or gun-splainers) and are actually pleasant to debate with.

I tend to use the "if it walks like a duck" standard to identify true gun nuts.

Especially

you have a cult following, but then again I wouldn't let it go to my head if I were you...