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

perseveration

sceletera wrote:

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

Nope. Referring to a law about pistol grips, by addressing pistol grips, is not a red herring.

sceletera wrote:

Now anyone can cite examples of you being wrong.

Pointing out an isolated case where someone else found a single error (that didn't even impact the point under discussion) does not change the reality that these people are unable to cite any of the imaginary cases of wrongness that they use to avoid confronting the facts that I post.

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

sin·gle
ˈsiNGɡəl/Submit
adjective
adjective: single
1.
only one; not one of several.

The discussion is banning assault rifles.

Your use of you fallacious conclusion is a red herring since pistol grips are not what are being banned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

From here on out, everyone can point to a single thing you were wrong about.

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.

sceletera wrote:

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

Excluding things that have no relevance and focusing on the details that matter is not a logical fallacy.

sceletera wrote:

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

Multiple features that there is no good reason for banning.

‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as--
‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
‘(iv) Colt AR-15;
‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
‘(vii) Steyr AUG;
‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

sceletera wrote:

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 definition that is based entirely on features that there is no reason to ban.

sceletera wrote:

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.

My statement was accompanied with an explanation as to why you were wrong once again.

sceletera wrote:

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

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

sceletera wrote:

On what basis do you claim the law was unconstitutional?

On the basis of the fact that laws are only allowed to restrict a constitutional right if there is a very good reason to justify that restriction.

sceletera wrote:

From here on out, everyone can point to a single thing you were wrong about.

You always play word games when you are wrong on the facts. Which unfortunately is all the time.

Pointing out a single isolated instance where someone else found a minor error is far different from backing up an untrue claim that most people regularly find errors that I've made.

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

sceletera wrote:

The discussion is banning assault rifles.

Which is just a rifle with a pistol grip or other similar feature that there is no reason to ban.

Except the law doesn't ban pistol grips.

It bans assault weapons.

It then describes features of that make an assault weapon.

Here is a simple question that if answered honestly by you will show your dishonesty.

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban ban all firearms?

The law to ban assault weapons has no relevance on a ban of assault weapons? Do you realize how silly that argument sounds?

You are not focusing on the law, you are focusing on your fallacious conclusion.

They banned specific guns that are named in the law.

The list of features was to prevent gun makers from simply renaming their guns and continue to sell them. By concentrating on the features you are conceding that they could ban the following.

Quote:

‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as--
‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
‘(iv) Colt AR-15;
‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
‘(vii) Steyr AUG;
‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

oralloy wrote:

A definition that is based entirely on features that there is no reason to ban.

No, the definition was an attempt to prevent gun manufacturers from simply making minor changes to the banned assault weapons and continue selling them.

You statement was simply accompanied by your own fallacious conclusion. It had no supporting information from any other source. You opinion whether right or wrong is not evidence.

My statement is not an example of the appeal to authority fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I did not claim I was a judge. I did not claim my position was correct because I was smarter than you.

I posted a fact that is true. The US Courts have rejected every legal argument presented to them that argued that the Federal Weapons Ban was unconstitutional. The US Courts are the ultimate decider of Constitutionality.

And yet the courts that have the responsibility to make those decisions have on declared in every instance that the Federal Weapons Ban was constitutional.

Once again, the facts prove you wrong.

Here is the Maryland law banning Assault Weapons.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/Chapters_noln/CH_427_sb0281e.pdf

This law does not include pistol grips in the description of banned weapons.
Are you willing to concede that Assault Weapons can be banned if "pistol grip" is not part of the description?

To make unlawful the transfer or possession of assault weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act’.
SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

First of all, it was not an attempt to prevent them from making minor changes. It was an attempt to prevent them from selling the identical gun under a different name.

And second, the definition was indeed based entirely on features that there is no good reason to ban.

‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as--

Are you willing to concede that Assault Weapons can be banned if "pistol grip" is not part of the description?

That is, we are convinced that the banned
assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those
arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most
useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out
as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach.

The Ohio bill defines an assault weapon as "an automatic firearm that has not been rendered permanently inoperable, a semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine with the capacity to accept ten or more cartridges, and a semi-automatic firearm with a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept ten or more cartridges."

sceletera wrote:

I posted a fact that is true. The US Courts have rejected every legal argument presented to them that argued that the Federal Weapons Ban was unconstitutional. The US Courts are the ultimate decider of Constitutionality.

Appeal to authority.

sceletera wrote:

And yet the courts that have the responsibility to make those decisions have on declared in every instance that the Federal Weapons Ban was constitutional.

Appeal to authority.

sceletera wrote:

Once again, the facts prove you wrong.

No they don't.

Perfect: Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei joins left’s crusade to get guns out of U.S. citizens’ hands

Quote:

To make unlawful the transfer or possession of assault weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act’.
SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

The law was a ban on assault weapons.

Making the same gun and giving it a different name would be prohibited under the "copies and duplicates" phrase.
In order for a manufacturer to argue it wasn't a copy or duplicate they would have to make minor changes.