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

@oralloy,

InfraBlue wrote:

See previous repsonse.

@InfraBlue,

Wrong again. The NRA will not allow progressives to violate people's civil liberties again.

Whatever political capital the Democrats expend trying to violate people's civil liberties will simply be wasted energy that the Democrats will not be able to use to achieve anything.

But if the Democrats choose to waste their energy not achieving anything, the NRA will certainly be able to help them do that.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

See previous response.

Wrong again (again). You did say "the features found on assault weapons do make them especially dangerous":

https://able2know.org/topic/131081-417#post-6981976

Deny reality all you want, but your post is there for all to see.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

your entire ;post is opinion masquerading as fact. You've got progressives wrong. You've got your "facts" wrong., as I've pointed out repeatedly. You said americans supported you. I've demonstrated they don't. You've got court decisionsMost Americans disagree with you despite your statement they dont. The courts under the constitution are the arbiters of what is constitutional and what's not and they consistently find sufficient reason kto let laws banning assault style weapons stand, so your whining about that is mere opinion not fact. That restrictions are unjustified is your opinion, not fact, and the courts ruled there I sufficient reason for the restrictions, which further reinforce the fact that your "facts" are merely your opnion not fact at all. And that;s the fact.
0 Replies

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

your entire post is opinion masquerading as fact.

That is incorrect. "That unjustified restrictions on our civil liberties is a violation of those civil liberties" is a fact, not an opinion.

MontereyJack wrote:

You've got progressives wrong.

When people violate other people's civil liberties, it is entirely proper to accuse them of violating other people's civil liberties.

MontereyJack wrote:

You've got your "facts" wrong.

That is incorrect. "That unjustified restrictions on our civil liberties is a violation of those civil liberties" is a fact, not an opinion.

MontereyJack wrote:

as I've pointed out repeatedly.

You cannot provide any examples of you ever pointing out an error in my posts.

MontereyJack wrote:

You said americans supported you.

You cannot provide any examples of me ever saying such a thing.

MontereyJack wrote:

The courts under the constitution are the arbiters of what is constitutional and what's not and they consistently find sufficient reason to let laws banning assault style weapons stand, so your whining about that

The only people who are whining are these folks:

https://images2.imgbox.com/e0/42/4oZ8Jstr_o.jpg

https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/966078572321562625

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/2018/02/20/USATODAY/USATODAY/636547353091154050-04.JPG

MontereyJack wrote:

is mere opinion not fact.

That is incorrect. "That unjustified restrictions on our civil liberties is a violation of those civil liberties" is a fact, not an opinion.

MontereyJack wrote:

That restrictions are unjustified is your opinion, not fact,

So what is the justification for outlawing pistol grips on a semi-auto rifle?

Your failure to provide any such justification is evidence that it is a fact.

MontereyJack wrote:

and the courts ruled there is sufficient reason for the restrictions, which further reinforce the fact that your "facts" are merely your opinion not fact at all. And that's the fact.

That is incorrect. Your appeal to authority fallacies do not undermine my facts in any way.

Not to mention the reality that the Supreme Court has not made any such ruling.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

See previous repsonse

1 Reply

@oralloy,

See previous response.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I notice your reply to me, #69825576 has no content at all. Speechless, eh?

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

See previous repsonse

No matter how much you deny reality, the NRA will not allow progressives to violate people's civil liberties again.

Whatever political capital the Democrats expend trying to violate people's civil liberties will simply be wasted energy that the Democrats will not be able to use to achieve anything.

But if the Democrats choose to waste their energy not achieving anything, the NRA will certainly be able to help them do that.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

See previous response.

Nope. People can see your statement right here:

https://able2know.org/topic/131081-417#post-6981976

You did say "the features found on assault weapons do make them especially dangerous".

1 Reply

@oralloy,

those features include semi auto fire and detachable magazines, which do in fact make them especially dangerous. that those features are shared with other weapons does not make them less dangerous, it merely means the other weapons should also be in the category of especially dangerous and subject to banning as well. It's hard to argue that a weapon that can fire a hundred aimed shots in under a minute and a half is anything other than especially dangerous.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

A semi-auto rifle with detachable five round magazines is no more dangerous than an ordinary hunting rifle.

It would be pretty difficult to fire 100 aimed shots in 90 seconds from a rifle using five round magazines.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

yep, so the hunting rifle should le banned too. There is of course no reason to think that only five round magazines would be used. The six round magazines is a limiting case not a maximum case, and the video evidence clearly shows it's possible.. I've been thinking, back in the days when everybody wore digital chronograph wrist watches, I used to test my reflex speed with mine, and I could start the stopwatch and stop it in an average 0.12 seconds. That works out to 9 pushes a second, or 100 pushes in about 12 seconds. Now an AR15 has a longer trigger pull than a wristwatch chronograph, which would slow it down, but if your retrigger finger held out with a widely available 100 round magazine you could fire a hundred shots in maybe 20 seconds, and yes I think that makes it especially dangerous. It only took 30 seconds for the Dayton shooter to kill or wound 36 people, and that seems to be nowhere near the maximum capacity of the weapon,, so yes it is especially dangerous..
0 Replies
0 Replies
0 Replies

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

yep, so the hunting rifle should le banned too.

There is no justification for outlawing hunting rifles, and doing so would still be unconstitutional even if there was justification.

MontereyJack wrote:

There is of course no reason to think that only five round magazines would be used.

Sure there is. Rifle magazines larger than five rounds could be subjected to the National Firearms Act.

MontereyJack wrote:

The six round magazines is a limiting case not a maximum case, and the video evidence clearly shows it's possible..

I've not seen any evidence showing that rifles can be fired as fast as you claim using five-round magazines.

MontereyJack wrote:

I've been thinking, back in the days when everybody wore digital chronograph wrist watches, I used to test my reflex speed with mine, and I could start the stopwatch and stop it in an average 0.12 seconds. That works out to 9 pushes a second, or 100 pushes in about 12 seconds. Now an AR15 has a longer trigger pull than a wristwatch chronograph, which would slow it down, but if your retrigger finger held out with a widely available 100 round magazine you could fire a hundred shots in maybe 20 seconds, and yes I think that makes it especially dangerous. It only took 30 seconds for the Dayton shooter to kill or wound 36 people, and that seems to be nowhere near the maximum capacity of the weapon,, so yes it is especially dangerous..

I've never claimed that 100 round magazines are not especially dangerous.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Watch the damn video before you make stupid counterfactual statements.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Your definition of what is unconstitutional is purely your opinion and not necessarily what the courts, who have the authority to determine what is actually unconstitutional have actually decided is unconstitutional.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Hardly. The Supreme Court has routinely used the same rules for protecting fundamental rights in their rulings for the past 75 years. What those rules are is not my opinion.

It is a fact that restrictions on a fundamental right are allowed only if the restrictions can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

It is a fact that restrictions on a fundamental right are not allowed to be so draconian as to impede the exercise of that right even if the restrictions can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Watch the damn video before you make stupid counterfactual statements.

You have not provided any video showing that semi-auto rifles can be fired as fast as you claim with five round magazines.

My statements are neither stupid nor counterfactual.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I repeatedly say six shotmagazines. Given the demonstrated rate of fire, you can do pretty much the same with 5 shot magazines. If that's your only cavil, you still fail. five shot magazines versus six would still add only about 6 seconds to fire 100 shots, still within the time range. do the math. ar15s are thus especially dangerous. since they aren't the only such guns, it's clear more should be banned. I have no problem with pushing for that, since I respect Americans' civil rights and hate to see them violated.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Except you cannot demonstrate that it is possible to fire as fast as you claim with small magazines.

Your claim is implausible to say the least.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know