This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

What's your point? by tsl4264

Where are you going with your argument? You make a skeptical challenge about a semi-automatic weapon and whether anyone "Like actually NEEDS it." You then say that a bolt-action rifle is sufficient for hunting, even if you need to hunt for food to live. Are you trying in a subtle way to indicate that you are in favor of banning private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons, regardless of the type of weapon or whether its normally accepted intended purpose is lawful because no private citizen really NEEDS it?


Rather than me trying unsuccessfully to guess, please help me out and tell me what is the endgame, if any, for the argument you are putting forth.