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

You don't get to define what the compelling government reason is. The people we elect do. That's why we elect them.

And reasonable governments have banned them and the courts have let those bans stand.

It's your opinion and like most of your opinions, it's hogwash.

so STFU.

SWhat nonsense. As I understand it, you thinlk compensation is due those who couldn't buy an assault style weapon when they were legally and constitutionally banned decades ago. Total tpmmyrot.

The people actually due compensation are the victims of gun violence and their families devastated by guns you and your cronies put in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

By conservative estimate that is over 10 billion dollars a year, over 200 billion in total by now. Pay your due debts, deadbeat.

Your reading comprehension is severely lacking. That's the cause of your propensity for straw man arguments.

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.

I've explained my reasoning

Your conjecture is incorrect.

And reasonable governments have anned them and the courts have let those bans stand.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're confusing assault rifles with assault weapons.

InfraBlue wrote:

Incorrect on account of confusion.

InfraBlue wrote:

Incorrect on account of confusion.

I am neither wrong nor confused. The terms are interchangeable.

And progressives are being deliberately misleading when they apply either term to a semi-auto-only weapon.

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

A semi-auto-only TEC-9 fails the definition of an assault weapon on two counts. In addition to not having full-auto or burst-fire capability, it also is not effective at 300 meters.

Once again, assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,

b) accept detachable magazines,

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.


This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.

InfraBlue wrote:

Yes it is. No they don't.

Wrong. All human-hunting rifles have either full-auto or burst-fire.

InfraBlue wrote:

Repetition doesn't make your assertion any less incorrect.

My assertion is 100% correct in every respect. That law did not address assault weapons. It only addressed ordinary weapons that are no more dangerous than a common hunting rifle.

InfraBlue wrote:

My previous reply applies here as well.

My assertion here is also 100% correct in every respect. There is no justification for outlawing ordinary hunting rifles like the ones that you are referring to.

InfraBlue wrote:

See above.

I am completely correct to point out the reality that 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:

No it's not.

Nonsense. I defy you to point out any difference other than selective fire between "an ordinary hunting rifle" and "a military issue weapon".

InfraBlue wrote:

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

Fraudulent definitions do not change the reality that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon without selective fire".

InfraBlue wrote:

That's incorrect.

No it isn't. 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:

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.

Wrong. There is a clear constitutional requirement a law is only allowed to restrict a fundamental right if there is a compelling government interest to justify that restriction.

That's basic Constitutional Law 101.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

InfraBlue wrote:

Only in your own mind, that is.

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

InfraBlue wrote:

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

No they won't.

The fact that you've not paid compensation to your victims justifies blocking the passage of any new gun law whatsoever.

So what the nation is going to do is: not pass any new gun laws of any sort and just let the massacres continue unabated.

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

The fact that you've not paid compensation to your victims justifies blocking the passage of any new gun law whatsoever.

So what you and the rest of the nation is going to do is: not pass any new gun laws of any sort and just let the massacres continue unabated.

Quote:

Your reading comprehension is severely lacking. That's the cause of your propensity for straw man arguments.

No. I comprehend that your use of the term "human-hunting rifle" ignores the fact that an "animal-hunting rifle" is also capable of hunting humans. But if you'd like to give us all your take on just why an animal-hunting rifle cannot be used as a human-hunting rifle, that would be highly entertaining, I'm sure.

Quote:

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.

What with your inability to prove that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, I'm sure you'll strike a chord with intelligent people . . . NOT!

Quote:

I've explained my reasoning

No you haven't. You've made claims, but when asked to explain your reasoning behind those claims, you accuse the one making the request of engaging in a strawman argument. Face it, you've been asked to back up your silly claims, and you can't. That's all that's happened here.

Quote:

Your conjecture is incorrect.

'fraid not.

The fact is, you've been asked to back up your claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. It is not conjecture on my part that you cry "strawman argument" when asked to support your claim. You actually do that! And in that sense, you must believe that doing so is akin to pleading the Fifth Amendment.

But anyway, let's get back to finding out if your answers to the questions below will support your claims, or invalidate them.

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?

Entertain yourself chasing your straw man argument. I decline to participate.

in an urban firefight a shortened barrel and pistol grip will show a marked increase rate of accurate fire than a standard rifle.

Thats why they were considered part of a "two or more" features on a semi-auto with large clip capacity, and were thus part of the banning.

You wont see any sniper rifles used in an assault company. The snipers will be stationed separate from the assault group.

I find that assault weapons should have been banned for any gun having just those two features.