57
   

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

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2020 05:53 pm
@InfraBlue,
Semi-auto-only AR-15 rifles lack the selective fire capability that is necessary for them to be considered assault weapons.

The same restrictions that have applied to machine guns since 1934 have also applied to assault weapons since 1934.

The same restrictions that have applied to machine guns since 1986 have also applied to assault weapons since 1986.

The 1994 law did not address assault weapons in any way.

The 1994 law only placed unconstitutional restrictions on ordinary hunting rifles like the AR-15.

The fact that I like to defend civil liberties is extremely relevant to the fact that I defend civil liberties.

When you defended Mr. Biden's demand to outlaw pistol grips on semi-auto rifles, you brought up pistol grips.

You are wrong to refer to purported errors as straw man arguments.

Neither Glennn nor I have ever attributed to you the argument that assault weapons have selective fire capabilities.

Selective fire capabilities are part of the definition of assault weapon. That is why semi-auto-only AR-15 rifles are not assault weapons.

When you say that people who point out your errors are making a straw man argument, you are misusing the term.

There is nothing erroneous about pointing out the fact that "pointing out that your errors" is not a straw man argument.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2020 06:31 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. Selective fire capability is part of the definition of the term assault weapon. That is why semi-auto-only AR-15 rifles are not assault weapons.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. Both terms refer to exactly the same thing: selective fire weapons that have not been available to the general public for 85 years.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. The same restrictions have also applied to assault weapons since 1934.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
This tautology is irrelevant to your inaccurate assertion.

That wasn't a tautology.

Uh-huh.

oralloy wrote:

This statement has 100% accuracy: Additionally, people are only allowed to own an assault weapon if it was manufactured and registered more than 33 years ago.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:
The fact that "it isn't possible to be 'more' accurate than a statement that has 100% accuracy" is highly relevant considering your untrue assertion that a statement was more accurate.

Wrong.


oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
This statement is inaccurate.

This statement has 100% accuracy: Additionally, people are only allowed to own an assault weapon if it was manufactured and registered more than 33 years ago.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Actually, people are only allowed to own a machine gun if it was manufactured and registered before 1986.

Additionally, people are only allowed to own an assault weapon if it was manufactured and registered more than 33 years ago.

Refer to quote.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2020 06:33 pm
@oralloy,
Nuh-uh.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2020 06:38 pm
@InfraBlue,
Your denials of reality are pretty silly in my opinion.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2020 06:39 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. Selective fire capability is part of the definition of the term assault weapon. That is why semi-auto-only AR-15 rifles are not assault weapons.


InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. Both terms refer to exactly the same thing: selective fire weapons that have not been available to the general public for 85 years.


InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. The same restrictions have also applied to assault weapons since 1934.


InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. This statement has 100% accuracy: Additionally, people are only allowed to own an assault weapon if it was manufactured and registered more than 33 years ago.


InfraBlue wrote:
Wrong.

Not wrong. The fact that "it isn't possible to be 'more' accurate than a statement that has 100% accuracy" is highly relevant considering your untrue assertion that a statement was more accurate.


InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. This statement has 100% accuracy: Additionally, people are only allowed to own an assault weapon if it was manufactured and registered more than 33 years ago.


InfraBlue wrote:
Refer to quote.

People are only allowed to own an assault weapon if it was manufactured and registered more than 33 years ago.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2020 06:40 pm
@oralloy,
Not as silly as the b s you post. "In my opinion."
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 01:10 am
@oralloy,
What's psychotic is the psyche behind your opinion.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 01:13 am
@oralloy,
Nuh-uh.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 02:15 am
@InfraBlue,
Your denials of reality are pretty silly in my opinion.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 08:34 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Really. I didn't bring up select-fire at all

You said that an AR-15 is, in every way, an assault rifle/weapon. But an assault rifle/weapon is capable of select-fire. The civilian version of the AR-15 is not capable of select-fire. Therefore, the civilian version of the AR-15 is not an assault rifle/weapon. So, you inadvertently brought up the issue of select-fire when you incorrectly claimed that a non select-fire rifle is an assault weapon.
Quote:
There is nothing to correct save your confusion of the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon

And since I have already asked you to explain the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon, i
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 12:12 pm
@oralloy,
Your opinions are pretty silly.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 04:44 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
There is nothing to correct save your confusion of the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon

And we're still waiting for you to explain the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 06:23 pm
@oralloy,
See previous reply.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 06:27 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Really. I didn't bring up select-fire at all

You said that an AR-15 is, in every way, an assault rifle/weapon. But an assault rifle/weapon is capable of select-fire. The civilian version of the AR-15 is not capable of select-fire. Therefore, the civilian version of the AR-15 is not an assault rifle/weapon. So, you inadvertently brought up the issue of select-fire when you incorrectly claimed that a non select-fire rifle is an assault weapon.

Wrong. I've differentiated between assault rifles and assault weapons. Your argument is based entirely on your confusion of my argument.

Glennn wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
There is nothing to correct save your confusion of the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon

And since I have already asked you to explain the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon, i

I already have. You need to read before replying.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 06:32 pm
@Glennn,
See reply above.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 07:07 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
I've differentiated between assault rifles and assault weapons.

Yes, we all know that you differentiate between an assault rifle and an assault weapon. Now if you would just explain what you perceive to be the difference, we can continue.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 08:03 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Your opinions are pretty silly.

The progressive view that freedom and civil liberties are silly is why it is important to vote for Mr. Trump and the Republicans.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 10:05 pm
@oralloy,
the conservative view that civil rights are silly is silly. That's why Trump is tanking and should be voted out. He's ******* up the coronavirus response so badly that's looking far more likely.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2020 10:50 pm
@MontereyJack,
I'm a conservative and I don't think civil rights are silly.

Speaking of civil rights, shame on the Democratic Party and Barack Obama for disenfranchising Michigan in 2008.

If Mr. Obama couldn't earn our votes legitimately, that didn't make it OK for him to cheat.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2020 12:12 am
@Glennn,
What part of "differentiate," and my explanation thereof do you not understand?
 

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 0.08 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 12:35:13