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

InfraBlue wrote:

I have provided a purpose for the law.

You've made a claim as to an alleged purpose. You've failed to provide any evidence or logic to support your claim.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're merely being redundantly obtuse.

Rejecting your unsupported claims does not mean that I don't understand them. It merely means that your claims have no credibility due to their lack of support.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your obtuseness is anything but factual and truthful.

Unlike you I can actually provide cites or logic (or both) to support my claims.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're thoroughly confused. A law has to be shown to violate the Equal Protection Clause before it is subjected to strict scrutiny.

Confusion is understandable since your comments about the Constitution are legal gibberish.

If a law violates the equal protection clause, that doesn't mean that strict scrutiny begins applying to the law.

If a law violates the equal protection clause, that law is outright unconstitutional right then and there, merely for violating the equal protection clause.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your opinions as to which laws violate the Equal Protection Clause are irrelevant seeing as how the courts make that decision.

Nice appeal to authority fallacy. But note that I don't have any opinions about which laws violate the equal protection clause.

If I did have such opinions, they would be backed up with facts and/or logic.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

The motivation of reducing gun violence behind these laws is a fact.

Your failure to provide any evidence to support your alleged fact shows otherwise.

Wrong.

Not wrong. Your failure to back up your claims is ample reason to believe that your claims are untrue.

InfraBlue wrote:

See my response above about your redundant obtuseness.

Rejecting your unsupported claims does not mean that I don't understand them. It merely means that your claims have no credibility due to their lack of support.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

It's not my opinion that you did not provide any evidence to support your claim. Your lack of supporting evidence is clear for all to see.

Wrong.

Not wrong. Everyone here can see your failure to support your claims.

InfraBlue wrote:

See my response above about your redundant obtuseness.

Rejecting your unsupported claims does not mean that I don't understand them. It merely means that your claims have no credibility due to their lack of support.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Those are statements of fact, and they are proven by your inability to provide any alternative motivation.

Wrong.

Not wrong. Your inability to provide any alternative motivation is ample reason to believe that there is no other motivation.

InfraBlue wrote:

See my response above about your redundant obtuseness.

Rejecting your unsupported claims does not mean that I don't understand them. It merely means that your claims have no credibility due to their lack of support.

It is evidenced by the fact that in the challenges to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, the Sixth Circut found that the list of prohibited firearms was developed to target weapons commonly used in the commission of violent crimes.

You're wrong; my claims are supported.

oralloy wrote:

Unlike you I can actually provide cites or logic (or both) to support my claims.

No you can't.

Your redundant babbling only confirms your thorough confusion.

Yeah right, you opine along the lines of those of the conservative courts.

I've backed up my claims.

You haven't yours.

See my response above to your redundant erroneousness.

See my response above to your redundant erroneousness.

See my response above to your redundant erroneousness.

See my response above to your redundant erroneousness.

See my response above to your redundant erroneousness.

InfraBlue wrote:

It is evidenced by the fact that in the challenges to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, the Sixth Circut found that the list of prohibited firearms was developed to target weapons commonly used in the commission of violent crimes.

That finding has absolutely nothing to do with New York's law or the motivation for that law. The finding does not support your claims about the motivation for New York's law.

If you are changing the subject from "New York's law" to "laws against pistol grips on semi-auto long guns", an untrue claim by a judge does not erase the reality that there is no reason to believe that these guns are preferred by criminals. Neither does it erase the reality that there would be no reason for anyone to care even if it had actually been the case that criminals preferred such guns.

I haven't changed the subjects that you brought up.

It's merely your opinion that the judge's claim is untrue, and does not negate the fact that the mitigation of gun violence is the motivation behind these laws.

Your emotionally irrational thoughts are irrelevant to this fact, do not negate this fact, and are hardly facts themselves.

The rest is of your post is, as is your wont, redundant confused babbling.

I have pointed out your errors.

You're being redundantly erroneous.

InfraBlue wrote:

I haven't changed the subjects that you brought up.

Yes, but that wasn't the question. The question was whether you were shifting from one of the subjects that I brought up to the other subject that I brought up.

Your reference to that old court ruling does absolutely nothing to back up your claims about the motivation for New York's gun law.

InfraBlue wrote:

It's merely your opinion that the judge's claim is untrue, and does not negate the fact that the mitigation of gun violence is the motivation behind these laws.

The absence of evidence to support the finding is a reason to believe that the finding is untrue.

The absence of any plausible explanation why anyone would even care if criminals used these weapons is a second reason to believe that the finding is untrue.

The finding's lack of credibility means that it says nothing about the true motivation for any gun law.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your emotionally irrational thoughts are irrelevant to this fact, do not negate this fact, and are hardly facts themselves.

You cannot provide any examples of me being irrational. This is just an ad hominem to distract from your failure to support your claims.

InfraBlue wrote:

The rest is of your post is, as is your wont, redundant confused babbling.

Confusion is understandable since your comments about the Constitution are legal gibberish. If a law violates the equal protection clause, that doesn't mean that strict scrutiny begins applying to the law.

If a law violates the equal protection clause, that law is outright unconstitutional right then and there, merely for violating the equal protection clause.

It's the same motivation as that behind the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

It is merely your irrelevant opinion that you find the explanation implausible, the finding untrue and lacking credibility.

Your risible opinion that, "progressives deliberately violate people's civil liberties solely because progressives derive sadistic enjoyment from violating people's civil liberties," in regard to gun control laws evidences your emotionally irrational feelings about these gun control laws.

More redundant, confused babbling.

More redundant, irrelevant babbling.