Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@ oralloy,
@ oralloy,
Nuh-uh.

Do you really think addressing oralloy in a post addressed to me makes you look like a genius?

I wasent addressing Ollie. Please try to keep up.

There was no moving of goalposts, and no obfuscation.



That isn't what he asked.

He asked how they make a gun especially dangerous, in the context of a conversation where people are trying to claim that they are so dangerous that they should be outlawed.



That is known as asking you to back up your claims.

Wrong again. You cannot provide any motivation for outlawing pistol grips other than the fact that progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

The features in question are harmless and superficial, and do nothing to make a weapon especially dangerous.

This response applies here as well.

Wrong again. The features that you are trying to outlaw are superficial and harmless, and do nothing to make a weapon especially dangerous.

Your inability to provide any other motivation for outlawing pistol grips shows that the only motivation is the fact that progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

Refer to my previous response.

Your previous response is wrong. The features in question are superficial and harmless, and do nothing to make any weapon especially dangerous. You cannot provide any motivation for trying to ban them other than the fact that progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

The more you repeat that, the dumber it sounds. We want types of weapons banned, which may or may not have pistol grips. That is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the baning. Andthose WEAPONS are in fact deadly, far in excess of any reasonable need for safety or self defense. A gun that can fire a hundred rounds in about two minutes would have been consdierede a terror weapon by the people who wrote the second amendment. That it figures prominently in many mass shootings does not argue well for its legality, as state legislatures have determined and the courts have upheld. That you disagree counts for nothing, it is purey an opinion, not fact.

That you think facts sound dumb says a lot about you.



Here are two posts where you have praised banning guns solely because they have a pistol grip on them:

http://able2know.org/topic/203766-209#post-5227079

http://able2know.org/topic/355218-2108#post-6598060



That is incorrect. Adding a pistol grip to a gun does not make it deadlier. Nor does it make the gun unsuitable for self defense.



Pistol grips do not have any effect on the rate at which guns fire.



That is incorrect. Pistol grips have not been a factor in the severity of any mass shooting.



No new gun laws for you. Have fun watching all of the massacres continue unabated.

And be sure to stack all of the corpses in nice neat piles. It's more convenient that way when I have a full bladder.



That is incorrect. It is a fact that there is no justification for outlawing pistol grips. And it is a fact that the only reason why progressives try to outlaw them is because progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

That you think that's a fact says a lot about you.

Neither of those posts you repeatedly cite says what you say they say. And since you are incapable of refuting the validity of the cases we make, you try to deflect by making the absurd argument that it is realy about pistol grips.

No pistol grip, no flash suppressor. Still need banned?

Sure it's about pistol grips.

‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

‘(iii) a bayonet mount;

‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

‘(v) a grenade launcher;
_______________________________________________________________________________________

So let's have your reasoning for calling a semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip and a flash suppressor an assault weapon. Start with the flash suppressor. How has a flash suppressor been shown to make a shooting more deadly?
______________________________________________________________________________________

Also, you brought up the 44 "school shootings" in 46 weeks in an attempt to justify banning guns.

Let's start with this one:

A 19-year-old student was shot by a masked gunman while getting out of a car at Achievement Academy, a high school. His injuries were non-life-threatening. Authorities believe an altercation occurred between the victim and shooter.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

So, is that your idea of school children being slaughtered, and a reason to ban guns? Simple yes or no. Then we can move on to the next shooting on your list.

No.

Refer to previous response about previous response.

high capacity mag with semi auto , plus it has 2 of the features on the list. PS , its really a dum lookin gun. Whats its purpose on the tag??

That rifle is compliant with the NYS Safe Act that Herr Cuomo enacted. It does not have any of the features on the list as high capacity magazines have been banned.

so if it doesnt have two of the other five features that, along with high cap magazines and auto-fire, its not "military style" . Its just a low accuracy rifle made to look scary.
So what's the point??
Does that have an auto select???? hmmmm?