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

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Wrong. The argument I have for outlawing the AR-15 is because it's only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire capability,

The flaw in your argument is, merely being a military weapon does not create a compelling government interest in outlawing it.

There has to be something about a weapon that actually makes it a public danger before there is a compelling government interest in restricting access to it.

InfraBlue wrote:

and the fact that it's extensively used in murderous crimes.

One flaw in your argument is, you cannot establish that AR-15 rifles are extensively used in murderous crimes.

Another flaw in your argument is, you cannot make a case that the semi-auto-only AR-15 is any deadlier than other semi-auto rifles when used in crimes.

In other words, even if it had really been true that the AR-15 is extensively used in murderous crimes, no public harm comes from the use of an AR-15 instead of some other kind of semi-auto rifle.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

No it's not.

The true definition of assault weapon applies the term only to weapons that have burst or full-auto capability.

InfraBlue wrote:

No they don't.

Only weapons that have burst or automatic fire capability meet the true definition of the term assault weapon.

InfraBlue wrote:

Yours is an incorrect definition of the term "assault weapon."

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.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Wrong. The argument I have for outlawing the AR-15 is because it's only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire capability,

The flaw in your argument is, merely being a military weapon does not create a compelling government interest in outlawing it.

There has to be something about a weapon that actually makes it a public danger before there is a compelling government interest in restricting access to it.

There is no flaw in my argument. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act Your of 1994 passed challenges based on the compelling government interest.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
and the fact that it's extensively used in murderous crimes.

One flaw in your argument is, you cannot establish that AR-15 rifles are extensively used in murderous crimes.

Another flaw in your argument is, you cannot make a case that the semi-auto-only AR-15 is any deadlier than other semi-auto rifles when used in crimes.

In other words, even if it had really been true that the AR-15 is extensively used in murderous crimes, no public harm comes from the use of an AR-15 instead of some other kind of semi-auto rifle.

My argument is not flawed. Production of the AR-15 was previously banned based on my argument, it could be banned again.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Nuh-uh.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

That is incorrect. The true definition of assault weapon applies the term only to weapons that have burst or full-auto capability.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

There is no flaw in my argument.

The fact that "merely being a military weapon does not create a compelling government interest in outlawing it" is a flaw in your argument.

There has to be something about a weapon that actually makes it a public danger before there is a compelling government interest in restricting access to it.

InfraBlue wrote:

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act Your of 1994 passed challenges based on the compelling government interest.

The fact that "progressives have gotten away with violating people's civil liberties" is not "evidence that they are not violating civil liberties".

Progressives will have to pay massive compensation for their deliberate and malicious violation of people's civil liberties before I will support any new gun control laws of any sort.

InfraBlue wrote:

My argument is not flawed.

The fact that "you cannot establish that AR-15 rifles are extensively used in murderous crimes" is a flaw in your argument.

The fact that "you cannot make a case that the semi-auto-only AR-15 is any deadlier than other semi-auto rifles when used in crimes" is another flaw in your argument.

In other words, even if it had really been true that the AR-15 is extensively used in murderous crimes, no public harm comes from the use of an AR-15 instead of some other kind of semi-auto rifle.

InfraBlue wrote:

Production of the AR-15 was previously banned based on my argument, it could be banned again.

The fact that "progressives try to violate people's civil liberties, and for no reason other than their sadistic enjoyment over violating people's civil liberties" is why Mr. Trump is such a great president.

Leaders like Mr. Trump protect Americans from progressives.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Nuh-uh.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

That is incorrect. Only weapons that have burst fire or automatic fire capability meet the true definition of the term assault weapon.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
There is no flaw in my argument.

The fact that "merely being a military weapon does not create a compelling government interest in outlawing it" is a flaw in your argument.

There has to be something about a weapon that actually makes it a public danger before there is a compelling government interest in restricting access to it.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act Your of 1994 passed challenges based on the compelling government interest.

The fact that "progressives have gotten away with violating people's civil liberties" is not "evidence that they are not violating civil liberties".

You're confusing facts with your opinions.

oralloy wrote:

Progressives will have to pay massive compensation for their deliberate and malicious violation of people's civil liberties before I will support any new gun control laws of any sort.

M'kay.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
My argument is not flawed.

The fact that "you cannot establish that AR-15 rifles are extensively used in murderous crimes" is a flaw in your argument.

The fact that "you cannot make a case that the semi-auto-only AR-15 is any deadlier than other semi-auto rifles when used in crimes" is another flaw in your argument.

These arguments were good enough to ban machine guns; they're good enough to ban assault weapons.

oralloy wrote:

In other words, even if it had really been true that the AR-15 is extensively used in murderous crimes, no public harm comes from the use of an AR-15 instead of some other kind of semi-auto rifle.

Wrong. Much public harm comes from the use of an AR-15 in murderous crimes.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Production of the AR-15 was previously banned based on my argument, it could be banned again.

The fact that "progressives try to violate people's civil liberties, and for no reason other than their sadistic enjoyment over violating people's civil liberties" is why Mr. Trump is such a great president.

This is a non sequitur based on an opinion.

oralloy wrote:

Leaders like Mr. Trump protect Americans from progressives.

Trump is the ruin of America.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Nuh-uh.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

That is incorrect. The true definition of assault weapon applies the term only to weapons that have burst or full-auto capability.

That's why semi-auto-only AR-15 rifles do not count as assault weapons.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. The fact that "merely being a military weapon does not create a compelling government interest in outlawing it" is a flaw in your argument.

There has to be something about a weapon that actually makes it a public danger before there is a compelling government interest in restricting access to it.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're confusing facts with your opinions.

It is a fact that the 1994 gun ban was a major violation of people's civil liberties.

InfraBlue wrote:

This is a non sequitur based on an opinion.

Commentary on how great Mr. Trump is for protecting Americans from progressives is a natural response to a proclamation that progressives are able to violate people's civil liberties.

InfraBlue wrote:

Trump is the ruin of America.

Not for those of us who don't want progressives to violate everyone's civil liberties.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The fact that "you cannot make a case that the semi-auto-only AR-15 is any deadlier than other semi-auto rifles when used in crimes" is another flaw in your argument.

These arguments were good enough to ban machine guns; they're good enough to ban assault weapons.

People can make a credible case that machine guns are significantly deadlier than semi-auto-only rifles.

People cannot make a credible case that semi-auto-only AR-15 rifles are even slightly deadlier than other semi-auto-only rifles.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:
In other words, even if it had really been true that the AR-15 is extensively used in murderous crimes, no public harm comes from the use of an AR-15 instead of some other kind of semi-auto rifle.

Wrong. Much public harm comes from the use of an AR-15 in murderous crimes.

Can you explain how any public harm comes from the use of a semi-auto-only AR-15 in a murderous crime instead of using a different semi-auto-only rifle?

If you can't, that failure to back up your claim will be evidence that your claim is untrue.

In fact, let's expand the question a bit. Let's put "the semi-auto-only AR-15" up against "any semi-auto-only, pump-action, or lever-action rifle or shotgun that accepts detachable magazines". What public harm comes from the use of a semi-auto-only AR-15 in a murderous crime instead of any of those other weapons?

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Nuh-uh.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Nuh-uh.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Uh-huh.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

It's not a question of either/or. Much public harm comes from the use of an AR-15 and other assault weapons in murderous crimes.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The fact that "you cannot make a case that the semi-auto-only AR-15 is any deadlier than other semi-auto rifles when used in crimes" is another flaw in your argument.

These arguments were good enough to ban machine guns; they're good enough to ban assault weapons.

People can make a credible case that machine guns are significantly deadlier than semi-auto-only rifles.

People cannot make a credible case that semi-auto-only AR-15 rifles are even slightly deadlier than other semi-auto-only rifles.

In regard to the banning of machine guns, it wasn't a comparison with semiautomatic weapons. The fact that they were extensively used in crimes was enough to ban them.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Thank you for making the case that all semi-autos with detachable magazines and lever actions and such are very good at denying Americans' civil rights by gun violence, not just ar-15s. The logical consequent is that they all should be banned, not just ar-15s. Good work.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know