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

InfraBlue wrote:

The act defined the term as required by the act. There was nothing fraudulent about it.

That is incorrect. A definition that deliberately misleads people by claiming that a word means the opposite of what it really means is a fraudulent definition.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. A human-hunting rifle would have a selective fire option.

No it wouldn't.

That is incorrect. Human-hunting rifles are capable of full-auto or burst-fire.

InfraBlue wrote:

The law banned assault weapons among other things.

That is incorrect. That law did not address assault weapons. It only addressed ordinary weapons that are no more dangerous than a common hunting rifle.

InfraBlue wrote:

The ban would be justifiable.

That is incorrect. There is no justification for banning such weapons.

InfraBlue wrote:

The motivation is to ban human-hunting weapons.

That is incorrect. The law in question does not address human-hunting weapons in any way. It only addressed ordinary weapons that are no more dangerous than a common hunting rifle.

InfraBlue wrote:

The ban specified those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire.

Selective fire is the only feature of a military rifle that is dangerous enough to justify regulating.

InfraBlue wrote:

The nation is going to tell your forty-three states, "**** you."

No it isn't. The Constitution overrules the will of the nation. And the NRA enforces the Constitution.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your gun psychopathy isn't touching nor pathetic, it's disturbing.

InfraBlue wrote:

What's funny in an unsettling way is that you can't see the forest for the trees because of your myopic gun psychopathy.

All he is doing is pointing out that you are factually wrong. That is not psychopathy.

Quote:

The motivation is to ban human-hunting weapons.

Don't tell me you also believe that animal-hunting rifles have some built-in safety mechanism that prevents them from being used as a human-hunting rifle.

Quote:

It wasn't arbitrary. The ban specified those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire. The nation is going to tell your forty-three states, "**** you."

You don't even know when you're contradicting yourself. The fact is that a select-fire weapon is what distinguishes an assault weapon from a non assault weapon. But your child-like reverence of authority figures blinds you to the fact that the change in definition was indeed arbitrary, and was an attempt to falsely classify every semiautomatic rifle as an assault weapon.

Quote:

The nation is going to tell your forty-three states, "**** you."

Yet another demonstration of how your obsession with pistol-grips has blinded you to reality. The forty-three states is the nation! In your mind, though, the seven states that chose to incorrectly define assault weapon represents the country. Interesting reasoning there . . .

Quote:

What's funny in an unsettling way is that you can't see the forest for the trees because of your myopic gun psychopathy.

No. What's funny is that in order to avoid having your obsession with pistol-grips exposed and put on parade here, you are declining my request to tell me the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher, and the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a flash suppressor, and the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a bayonet mount, and the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a pistol-grip?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Two women were shot outside a South Carolina State University residential building, according to university officials. Their injuries were not life-threatening. Witnesses told investigators some kind of argument or fight happened off-campus between multiple people. Those people then came onto the SCSU campus, he said. Police are working to identify the gunman and determine whether they have any connection to the university, Clark said. A student who says she was wounded said it began as an argument between two males that led to shots being fired.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Also, is this "school shooting" your idea of school children being slaughtered en masse, and a reason to ban guns?

There was no deliberate misleading claim that "a word means the opposite of what it really means."

What's the opposite of what the word really means?

That's incorrect. Not all human-hunting rifles are capable of full-auto or burst fire.

oralloy wrote:

That law did not address assault weapons. It only addressed ordinary weapons that are no more dangerous than a common hunting rifle.

Nuh-uh, that's incorrect.

oralloy wrote:

There is no justification for banning such weapons.

That's incorrect. There is a justification for banning such weapons.

oralloy wrote:

The law in question does not address human-hunting weapons in any way. It only addressed ordinary weapons that are no more dangerous than a common hunting rifle.

That's incorrect. The law in question addresses certain human-hunting weapons.

It addresses those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire.

Assault weapons based on military issue weapons whose only difference is selective fire are dangerous enough to justify banning.

Yes it is. The Constitution is amendable to the will of the nation.

Wrong. He isn't pointing out anything factual about me. He's just going on with his puerile straw man arguments.

Where's the contradiction? The act clearly defined what it referred to as assault weapons.

The forty-three state are not the nation. And the people of the nation will tell them "**** you."

Heh, straw man arguments are all you have.

The forty-three state are not the nation. And the people of the nation will tell them "**** you."

Your straw man arguments are what are funny in a laughable way.

InfraBlue wrote:

There was no deliberate misleading claim that "a word means the opposite of what it really means."

Yes there was. An assault weapon by definition has full-auto or burst-fire capability.

Progressives were deliberately misleading when they applied the term "assault weapon" to guns that have neither capability.

InfraBlue wrote:

What's the opposite of what the word really means?

"Not having full-auto or burst-fire capability" is the opposite of "having full-auto or burst-fire capability".

InfraBlue wrote:

That's incorrect. Not all human-hunting rifles are capable of full-auto or burst fire.

No it isn't. All human-hunting rifles have either full-auto or burst-fire.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

That law did not address assault weapons. It only addressed ordinary weapons that are no more dangerous than a common hunting rifle.

Nuh-uh, that's incorrect.

No it isn't. That law did not address assault weapons. It only addressed ordinary weapons that are no more dangerous than a common hunting rifle.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

There is no justification for banning such weapons.

That's incorrect. There is a justification for banning such weapons.

No it isn't. There is no justification for outlawing ordinary hunting rifles like the ones that you are referring to.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

The law in question does not address human-hunting weapons in any way. It only addressed ordinary weapons that are no more dangerous than a common hunting rifle.

That's incorrect. The law in question addresses certain human-hunting weapons.

No it isn't. The law in question did not address human-hunting weapons in any way. It only addressed ordinary weapons that are no more dangerous than a common hunting rifle.

InfraBlue wrote:

It addresses those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire.

Selective fire is the only difference between "an ordinary hunting rifle" and "a military issue weapon" to begin with.

InfraBlue wrote:

Assault weapons based on military issue weapons whose only difference is selective fire are dangerous enough to justify banning.

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon without selective fire".

Without selective fire, a rifle is not an assault weapon, but is just an ordinary hunting rifle that is no more harmful than any other ordinary hunting rifle.

InfraBlue wrote:

Yes it is. The Constitution is amendable to the will of the nation.

That is incorrect. The Constitution forbids the nation from passing gun restrictions that cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

InfraBlue wrote:

Wrong. He isn't pointing out anything factual about me. He's just going on with his puerile straw man arguments.

You keep littering your posts with untrue accusations of straw man arguments against both me and Glennn, as well as making up your own fraudulent definitions of words and falsely accusing me of doing the same.

It's getting to the point that the actual substantive points of contention are beginning to be buried in all of the noise that you are putting out.

Since everyone already understands that your static is untrue, I'm going to disregard it and focus on the actual substantive points of contention.

No one should take the fact that I am not addressing your false accusations as acceptance that they are true.

InfraBlue wrote:

Where's the contradiction? The act clearly defined what it referred to as assault weapons.

The contradiction is between "the fraudulent definition contained in the act" and "the true definition of the term assault weapon".

InfraBlue wrote:

The forty-three state are not the nation. And the people of the nation will tell them "**** you."

That is incorrect. The NRA will not permit Congress to pass another law that violates the Second Amendment.

Quote:

Heh, straw man arguments are all you have.

No. What I have is you now trying to make the point that an animal-hunting rifle cannot be used as a human-hunting rifle. And that is a most ridiculous point; even more ridiculous than your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire.

But just for the record, why don't you give us all your take on just why an animal-hunting rifle cannot be used as a human-hunting rifle.

Quote:

The forty-three state are not the nation. And the people of the nation will tell them "**** you."

Really? It would appear that forty-three states do not share your obsession. You can say "**** you" to them, but that's about all.

Quote:

Your straw man arguments are what are funny in a laughable way.

Anti-gun nuts want to ban rifles based on certain characteristics. It is not a strawman argument to ask you to explain the reasoning behind the condemnation of those characteristics.

You must believe that crying "strawman argument" is akin to pleading the Fifth Amendment.

but it's not.

So, with your new understanding that asking you to defend your argument is not a strawman, you may now answer the questions below.

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher?

When the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a flash suppressor?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a bayonet mount?

When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a pistol-grip?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Those items are the reasoning behind the anti-gun nuts' desire to ban so-called assault weapons. You're being asked justify that kind of reasoning.

You're confusing assault rifles with assault weapons.

Incorrect on account of confusion.

Incorrect on account of confusion.

In regard to the law, assault weapons include certain semi-automatic pistols, e.g. the Intratec TEC-DC9. These are not considered hunting rifles, common or otherwise.

Yes it is. No they don't.

Repetition doesn't make your assertion any less incorrect.

My previous reply applies here as well.

See above.

No it's not.

Yes there is, see the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

That's incorrect.

oralloy wrote:

The Constitution forbids the nation from passing gun restrictions that cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

No it doesn't.

Only in your own mind, that is.

The nation will say to the NRA "**** off."

I along with the rest of the nation will tell your forty-three states "**** you," and effect much needed gun regulation for the entire country.