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

Under Harper's Tory regime, all bans on non-military long guns were repealed, and the long gun registry was abolished. In fact, when Québec kept the information from the long gun registry, Harper's people went after them in federal court. A case of "thy will be done" by the conservatives--all hail Harper.

So long guns became untouchable, which leaves hand guns only. Capisce?

When someone cannot argue (or understand) a complex issue, it's common practice (especially among the feeble minded) to "dumb it down" so to speak.

Which is it?

Can you not argue the issue?
Can you not understand the issue?
Are you feeble minded?

I think it's a complete inability to deal with reality.

Oralloy thinks things are a certain way. For him that's the 'truth.'
He will cling steadfast to that 'truth,' and ignore any facts that contradict it.

Those facts must be wrong because he knows what the 'truth' is.

when his errors are pointed out he refuses to accept it and resorts to the same pat phrases about nobody being able to point out anything he's said that's wrong and being some sort of super genius.

It does matter.

To exclude it is simple a repeat of what seems to be your favorite logical fallacy.

They banned guns with multiple features that would make them similar to other guns that were banned under the law.

The law banned semiautomatic assault weapons and then created a definition of those weapons which listed specific weapons and a description of what would count on any future weapons.

A declarative statement on your part doesn't make me wrong. It only further provides further evidence that farmerman's description of you is true.

Except every court case challenging the constitutionality of the assault weapons ban lost in court.

On what basis do you claim the law was unconstitutional?

Arguing about pistol grips is merely a red herring on your part.

A declaration without any support. Provide support for your statement. Simply declaring you are correct without any supporting documentation will always result in a failing grade.

He's pretty much been reduced to sputtering the same non sequiturs ad nauseum.

Sceletera and Zardoz, who have a lot more patience than I, have both exposed his limited capacity to learn when he's been bested.

Both Sceletera and Zardoz have great patience and have spent a lot of time proving him wrong only to be met with. 'You're unable to point out a single fact I've got wrong.'

perseveration

I try not to set it off. I don't think it's helpful for people around him/her in real life.

Given that I am not the source of whatever list you refer to--imagine my indifference.

izzythepush wrote:

I think it's a complete inability to deal with reality.

Says the person who can't point out a single thing that I'm wrong about.

Let me cite some of the examples:
1.) You claimed there was no focus on mental disabilities.
https://able2know.org/topic/131081-67#post-6601745
In fact, the focus was specifically on mental disabilities. The SS regulation required that someone be on disability and that the disability be because of a mental defect.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-19/pdf/2016-30407.pdf
page 91713

Quote:

(a) In accordance with the
requirements of the NIAA, we will
identify the records of individuals
whom we have ‘‘adjudicated as a mental
defective.’

Feel free to read the rest. It clearly shows your statement to be false.

2.)

oralloy wrote:

No. The rule covered everyone who receives social security checks and can't handle their financials. No limitations to mental illness.

No, the rule did not cover everyone.

Quote:

(4) Has attained age 18, but has not
attained full retirement age; and

ibid. Page 91714
It exempted everyone under 18 and those that had reached retirement age. (Retirement is different based on when a person was born.)
That is even before we get to the other tests for who is adjudicated as a mental defective.

3.)

oralloy wrote:

Nope. I post facts. You're the one who is ignoring them.

Your statement about the rule covering everyone is clearly not a fact. This comment was referring to that statement.

4.)

oralloy wrote:

No such focus. It covered people who receive Social Security for any reason, if they do not handle their own finances.

This statement is also not true. The first requirement is

Quote:

(1) Has filed a claim based on
disability;

ibid Page 91714
Only those that have filed a disability claim are covered under the regulation

5.)

oralloy wrote:

I'm on record repeatedly linking to the executive order when Obama had it on his White House page

Since this is a regulation and not an executive order you couldn't have provided links to an executive order. Executive orders are all listed here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders
When asked to point to the specific one, you posted links that use the term executive action which is in no way an Executive Order.
When I do a search for "oralloy" and "whitehouse.gov" which would be in any url linked to the whitehouse nothing comes up other than a link when you are discussing Bibi Netentahu. There are no other instances of you using "whitehouse.gov" on this site. Can you explain how you repeatedly did something that doesn't show up in a simple search?

Now anyone can cite examples of you being wrong.

sceletera wrote:

It does matter.

Nope. The fact that they are only banning pistol grips on certain weapons does not change the fact that there is no reason for banning those pistol grips.

Now anyone can cite examples of you being wrong.

Your argument about banning pistol grips is an example of the Illicit Major fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/illmajor.html

It is predicated on the following premise and conclusion
Premise A. The U.S. Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 banned guns with certain features.
Premise B. One of the features on the banned guns was a pistol grip
Conclusion: The U.S. Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 banned pistol grips.

Your conclusion is fallacious and easily shown to be fallacious since any bolt action rifle with a pistol grip would not have been banned under the law.

Everyone already has.