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

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

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

That's why semi-auto-only AR-15 rifles will never be counted as assault weapons.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

Setting aside the fact that machine guns weren't extensively used in murderous crimes, if they had been, that alone would not have been enough to ban them.

Handguns were used far more extensively in murderous crimes than machine guns were. That extensive use did not justify outlawing handguns.

Handguns today are used far more extensively in murderous crimes than AR-15 rifles are. That extensive use still does not justify outlawing handguns.

The banning of machine guns is only justified as serving a compelling government interest because people can make a credible case that machine guns are significantly more dangerous to the public than a normal weapon is.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. 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.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

It's not a question of either/or.

If there is no difference between "using a semi-auto-only AR-15" and "using other weapons" then there is no compelling government interest in singling out the AR-15 for a ban.

InfraBlue wrote:

Much public harm comes from the use of an AR-15 and other assault weapons in murderous crimes.

No more harm than comes from the use of other weapons instead.

Not to mention the fact that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

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.

I did not make such a case. With five round magazines, none of those weapons are a significant danger to the public.

MontereyJack wrote:

The logical consequent is that they all should be banned, not just ar-15s. Good work.

That is incorrect. There is no justification for banning any of those weapons. When equipped with five round magazines they are no deadlier than other typical hunting weapons.

Not to mention the fact that there is no need even for magazine restrictions. All we really need in order to prevent massacres is more concealed carry. Tighter background checks might help a little bit too though.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
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.

Setting aside the fact that machine guns weren't extensively used in murderous crimes, if they had been, that alone would not have been enough to ban them.

Wrong. Machine guns were extensively used in crimes; this fact was enough to ban them.

oralloy wrote:

Handguns were used far more extensively in murderous crimes than machine guns were. That extensive use did not justify outlawing handguns.

This is irrelevant to the banning of machine guns.

oralloy wrote:

Handguns today are used far more extensively in murderous crimes than AR-15 rifles are. That extensive use still does not justify outlawing handguns.

This is irrelevant to the banning of assault weapons such as the AR-15.

oralloy wrote:

The banning of machine guns is only justified as serving a compelling government interest because people can make a credible case that machine guns are significantly more dangerous to the public than a normal weapon is.

Machine guns were banned because they were extensively used in murderous crimes; "normality" was irrelevant.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

@oralloy,
@oralloy,

Nuh-uh.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

That is incorrect. 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.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You are confused about the process involving compelling government interest; you have it backwards. Challenges to the enactment of certain laws are based on compelling government interest, not their enactment itself.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Restrictions on fundamental rights are unconstitutional if those restrictions cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Wrong. Machine guns were extensively used in crimes; this fact was enough to ban them.

No they weren't.

And that alone would not have been enough to provide a compelling government interest in restricting access to them even if it had been true.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Handguns were used far more extensively in murderous crimes than machine guns were. That extensive use did not justify outlawing handguns.

This is irrelevant to the banning of machine guns.

It undermines your untrue claim that being extensively used in murderous crimes is enough to justify restricting access to something.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Handguns today are used far more extensively in murderous crimes than AR-15 rifles are. That extensive use still does not justify outlawing handguns.

This is irrelevant to the banning of assault weapons such as the AR-15.

It undermines your untrue claim that being extensively used in murderous crimes is enough to justify restricting access to something.

InfraBlue wrote:

Machine guns were banned because they were extensively used in murderous crimes;

Machine guns were not extensively used in murderous crimes to begin with.

Had they been, that alone would not have been enough to provide a compelling government interest in restricting access to them.

InfraBlue wrote:

"normality" was irrelevant.

Access to machine guns was restricted because they are significantly more lethal than normal weapons.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The first banning of assault weapons passed muster.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

The fact that progressives got away with violating people's civil liberties does not change the fact that they violated people's civil liberties.

The courts did not start enforcing the Second Amendment until Heller in 2008.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Wrong. Machine guns were extensively used in crimes; this fact was enough to ban them.

No they weren't.

And that alone would not have been enough to provide a compelling government interest in restricting access to them even if it had been true.

Yes they were.

Wrong. These reasons were enough to pass muster.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Handguns were used far more extensively in murderous crimes than machine guns were. That extensive use did not justify outlawing handguns.

This is irrelevant to the banning of machine guns.

It undermines your untrue claim that being extensively used in murderous crimes is enough to justify restricting access to something.

No it doesn't.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Handguns today are used far more extensively in murderous crimes than AR-15 rifles are. That extensive use still does not justify outlawing handguns.

This is irrelevant to the banning of assault weapons such as the AR-15.

It undermines your untrue claim that being extensively used in murderous crimes is enough to justify restricting access to something.

No it doesn't.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Machine guns were banned because they were extensively used in murderous crimes;

Machine guns were not extensively used in murderous crimes to begin with.

Had they been, that alone would not have been enough to provide a compelling government interest in restricting access to them.

Yes they were.

Wrong. These reasons were enough to pass muster.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
"normality" was irrelevant.

Access to machine guns was restricted because they are significantly more lethal than normal weapons.

Machine guns were banned because they were extensively used in murderous crimes; "normality" was irrelevant.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Machine guns were not extensively used in murderous crimes to begin with.

Had they been, that alone would not have been enough to provide a compelling government interest in restricting access to them.

Access to machine guns was restricted because they are significantly more lethal than normal weapons.

Neither are AR-15 rifles used extensively used in murderous crimes today.

Merely being used extensively in murderous crimes is not in itself enough to provide a compelling government interest in restricting access to something.

That is why it is unconstitutional to restrict access to handguns despite the fact that they were used far more extensively in murderous crimes than machine guns were.

That's why it is unconstitutional to restrict access to handguns despite the fact that they are used far more extensively in murderous crimes than AR-15 rifles are.

Providing an example of something that is used far more extensively in murderous crimes than machine guns were, that it is unconstitutional to restrict access to despite that more-extensive use, undermines your claim that extensive use alone would provide a compelling government interest in restricting access to machine guns.

Providing an example of something that is used far more extensively in murderous crimes than AR-15 rifles are, that it is unconstitutional to restrict access to despite that more-extensive use, undermines your claim that extensive use alone would provide a compelling government interest in restricting access to AR-15 rifles.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Physically, it doesn't. Legislatively . . . it does.

Very good. You are acknowledging the fact that falsely calling a non assault weapon an assault weapon does not change anything about the non assault weapon. You are also acknowledging that some misguided legislators choose to remain ignorant concerning the difference between style and function.

And since we've already dealt with the foolish notion that a pistol-grip--alone, or in combination with other features--makes a rifle especially dangerous, I believe that we are in agreement.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Nuh-uh.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Physically, it doesn't. Legislatively . . . it does.

Very good. You are acknowledging the fact that falsely calling a non assault weapon an assault weapon does not change anything about the non assault weapon. You are also acknowledging that some misguided legislators choose to remain ignorant concerning the difference between style and function.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Glennn wrote:

And since we've already dealt with the foolish notion that a pistol-grip--alone, or in combination with other features--makes a rifle especially dangerous, I believe that we are in agreement.

Given your confusion of what's already been dealt with, not even close.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Given your confusion of what's already been dealt with, not even close.

But I'm not confused about what has been dealt with. Perhaps you recall claiming that a pistol-grip--alone or in combination with other features--makes a rifle especially dangerous. If so, then you must also recall that when asked to support that claim, you failed to do so. The best you could do was to make yet another claim. You claimed that you could prove it if you wanted to, but that you just don't want to. So, yes, I recall quite clearly how I dealt with you and your false claims.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Yes, you're thoroughly confused. You're confounding your straw man arguments about pistol grips and other features as if they were the reason behind the banning of assault weapons, and conflating it with your opinion about legislation concerning assault weapons.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know