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

Canada
1To buy a handgun, join an accredited shooting club. 2Complete a safety course and pass both a written and a practical test. 3Ask for two references. 4Apply for a permit, and wait 28 days before processing begins. 5Pass a background check that considers your criminal record, mental health, addiction and domestic violence history. 6Buy a gun. If you bought a handgun, register it with the police before taking it home.

sceletera wrote:

This seems to be a common practice on your part. It is a failing of logic.
If the requirement is A, B & C be met before D can occur then all three A, B & C must be met. You see that A is met and then declare the D occurs without testing for B & C.

No failings, logical or otherwise. I skipped those other steps because they were not relevant to the issue under discussion.

If someone is anorexic to the point of being debilitated, that is not a good reason for depriving them of their guns.

If someone is claustrophobic to the point of being debilitated, that is not a good reason for depriving them of their guns.

That Obama's policy would have done this was shameful and unacceptable. When Trump signed the law overturning it (and forbidding future presidents from resurrecting Obama's shameful policy) it was one of the high points in American civil rights.

Not when the links prove me right.

Phobias and anorexia are covered by the regulation.

If someone is anorexic to the point of being debilitated, that is not a good reason for depriving them of their guns.

If someone is claustrophobic to the point of being debilitated, that is not a good reason for depriving them of their guns.

sceletera wrote:

Farmerman made a statement that was true and correct

And the only thing he offered to back up his true and correct statement was a logical fallacy and an untrue accusation about me.

sceletera wrote:

and you without evidence claimed it was not true.

A perfectly reasonable response given:

a) my sincere although mistaken belief that his claim was untrue, and

b) Farmerman backing up his claim with nothing but a logical fallacy and an untrue claim about me.

Youre right, he is, once again arguing against the facts, hoping by bold assertion he can convince those who are too busy to look it up, that he, oralloy, knows of what he speaks.

No good reason to ban pistol grips.

This seems to be a common practice on your part. It is a failing of logic.
If the requirement is A, B & C be met before D can occur then all three A, B & C must be met. You see that A is met and then declare the D occurs without testing for B & C.

Pistol grips on rifles are not the cause of even one of these murders, so it certainly isn't enough to justify a ban on pistol grips.

and became a lobby for S&W,

and started making the 2nd Amendment unapproachable.

Under Harper's Tory regime, all bans on non-military long guns were repealed, and the long gun registry was abolished.

Pistol grips were not banned under the assault rifle law.
The text of that law can be found here -
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr4296/text

The law did not ban pistol grips. It banned some rifles with pistol grips that met other standards as well. In order for a gun with a pistol grip to be banned under the law it had to meet the following requirements.
A. It had to have a pistol grip
B. It had to be a semiautomatic
C. It had to accept a removable magazine
D. It had to include one of the following:
- (i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘(iii) a bayonet mount;
‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
‘(v) a grenade launcher;


A, B, C & D all had to be true before a gun with a pistol grip was banned.

oralloy wrote:

Pistol grips on rifles are not the cause of even one of these murders, so it certainly isn't enough to justify a ban on pistol grips.

Merely a repeat of the same logical failing.

It doesn't matter.

The fact that they were only banning pistol grips on certain rifles does not change the fact that the pistol grips did not make the guns any deadlier or cause a single murder and there was no reason to ban them.

So that's one more time you are wrong.

By the way, there was no reason to ban any of the other features either. "Pistol grip" is just an easy way of referring to the fact that the entire point of the law was to ban harmless cosmetic things.

But even if the pistol grip had been the only thing that there was no point in banning, that alone would have been more than enough to render the entire law unconstitutional.

Legal Challenges to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several
constitutional provisions. While arguments that the act constituted an impermissible Bill of
Attainder,42 is unconstitutionally vague,43 and is contrary to the Ninth Amendment44 were readily
dismissed by the courts, challenges to the ban based on the Commerce Clause and the Equal
Protection Clause received more measured consideration.

Nope. Adding a pistol grip to a rifle doesn't cause any murders.

Obviously the reason why you're wrong in this post is because you've been wrong everywhere else. F-

the same non sequiturs ad nauseum