57
   

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

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 01:11 pm
@oralloy,
so your argument boils down to assault style weapons are no more deadly than ordinary hunting rifles. But both of them are perfectly capable of killing a hundred people in about a minute and a half. And you think that's perfectly all right. I have to tell you, most people thin that's wacked.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 01:18 pm
@MontereyJack,
No. My argument boils down to pointing out that progressives are being deliberately misleading when they wrongly refer to ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15 as assault style weapons.

The idea that an AR-15 could kill that fast using five round magazines seems a bit far fetched.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 01:28 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
You don't get to define what the compelling government reason is. The people we elect do. That's why we elect them.

Nonsense. The courts rule on whether there is a compelling government interest. Elected officials have nothing to do with it.


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

There is nothing reasonable about progressives maliciously violating people's civil liberties for fun.


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

Wrong. "That you cannot provide any compelling government interest to justify outlawing pistol grips on a semi-auto rifle" is a fact.


MontereyJack wrote:
so STFU.

Request denied. I will not stop pointing out the reality that progressives are maliciously violating people's civil liberties for no reason.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 01:31 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
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.

There is nothing constitutional about progressives violating people's civil liberties for fun.

And if you don't pay compensation to your victims, then you don't get my support for any new gun laws. No soup for you!

Have fun helplessly wringing your hands while the massacres continue unabated.





MontereyJack wrote:
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.

Wrong. Your victims deserve compensation. And you'll not get my support for any new gun laws until you pay that compensation.


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

What an empty demand. What are you going to do if I don't?

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 01:46 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 02:02 pm
@InfraBlue,
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
?
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 02:07 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
And reasonable governments have anned them and the courts have let those bans stand.

Then why can people in 43 states purchase an AR-15?
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 06:25 pm
@Glennn,
Because wild-eyed conservatives and right wing lackeys of the NRA don't give a **** that their fellow citizens are being gunned down.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 06:40 pm
@MontereyJack,
Oh I'm not opposed to background checks and limits on magazine-size. But when you start in with your bullshit about pistol-grips and flash suppressors, that's when you come across as a hysterical anti-gun nut.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 07:07 pm
@Glennn,
Your confused. Ollie is the one obsessed with handles on guns.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 07:11 pm
@RABEL222,
No. You're confused. He is not obsessed with pistol-grips. But others are.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 10:39 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

Yes, you are confused. In regard to the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act the terms are not interchangeable.
oralloy wrote:
And progressives are being deliberately misleading when they apply either term to a semi-auto-only weapon.

No they're not. Not when they specifically define the term.

oralloy wrote:

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.

According to the terms and their definitions set forth by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act they are assault weapons. Your disagreement is irrelevant.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Your alternate definition and opinions are duly noted.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Yes it is. No they don't.

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

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

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".

That's your straw man argument, not mine.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 11:01 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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".

They are not fraudulent definitions.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Yes it is.

oralloy wrote:

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.

No there isn't.

oralloy wrote:

That's basic Constitutional Law 101.

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

In your mind that basic constitutional law. Strict Scrutiny was irrelevant in the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. It's irrelevant in amending the constitution.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 11:10 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The nation will say to the NRA "**** off."

No they won't.

Uh-huh.

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

Um, M'kay.

orally wrote:
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.

No, the status quo will reach a breaking point where the people will say enough and implement much needed regulatory weapons laws, even to the point of amending the Constitution if necessary.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 11:17 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

M'hm. Your break with reality is increasingly unsettling. Seek professional help.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 11:20 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

Entertain yourself chasing your straw man argument. I decline to participate.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2019 11:30 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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!

Intelligent people want gun control.

Glennn wrote:
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.

You're being redundant, again.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Your conjecture is incorrect.

'fraid not.

'Fraid so.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Reiterating yourself doesn't make your conjecture any less incorrect.

Glennn wrote:

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
?

Chase that tail fido!
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Dec, 2019 04:16 am
@InfraBlue,
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.


Out in the field, several mfrs make .22 and larger calibre semi-autos that can take banana clips. I find that assault weapons should have been banned for any gun having just those two features. Congress was just being its normal toady self.

Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 23 Dec, 2019 08:40 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Entertain yourself chasing your straw man argument. I decline to participate.

Oh you're not going to be let off the hook that easily. You created a new term to serve your agenda, and now you're going to have to answer for it. So, tell us why an animal-hunting rifle can't also function as a human-hunting rifle.

I don't think I'm going to let you be done participating.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 23 Dec, 2019 08:43 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
in an urban firefight a shortened barrel and pistol grip will show a marked increase rate of accurate fire than a standard rifle.

Nonsense. Where is the evidence to support this preposterous claim?


farmerman wrote:
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.

That is incorrect. The only reason why you try to ban pistol grips is because you enjoy violating people's civil liberties for fun.


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

Has the military eliminated the role of designated marksman?


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

So that explains why you never complain when leftist extremists sabotage all other gun control in an effort to outlaw pistol grips, and why you fly into a rage whenever I oppose bans on pistol grips.

Your many claims that you don't care about outlawing pistol grips were just a lie -- kind of like when progressives lie and say that they aren't out to ban guns.

I wonder if any progressive in human history has ever told the truth about anything at all.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 12/05/2024 at 04:10:33