53
   

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

 
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2018 05:03 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
perseveration

I took this to mean a variation of perseverance when I originally responded. izzythepush's talk of Googling it however prompted me to look it up.

"the repetition of a particular response (such as a word, phrase, or gesture) regardless of the absence or cessation of a stimulus"

Your comment is untrue. I do not rebut imaginary posts. Every single time I correct an untrue statement, it is response to an actual untrue statement that someone has just made.
0 Replies
 
sceletera
 
  5  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 06:58 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.


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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
sceletera
 
  6  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 07:13 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

Let me repost your statement
Quote:
Says the person who can't point out a single thing that I'm wrong about.


Anyone Pointing out a single error on your part would disprove your claim they can't point out a single thing you were wrong about.
Quote:

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


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

oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 07:38 am
@sceletera,
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.


sceletera wrote:
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

Wrong again. Pistol grips are exactly what is being banned on these guns.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 07:39 am
@sceletera,
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.
sceletera
 
  6  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 07:46 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.
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?


Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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;



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


Quote:
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.
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.


Quote:
sceletera wrote:
Except every court case challenging the constitutionality of the assault weapons ban lost in court.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
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.


Quote:
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.
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.
sceletera
 
  5  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 07:59 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.


Perhaps you should stop using this phrase.
Quote:
Says the person who can't point out a single thing that I'm wrong about.


Your statement is pretty specific it says "a single thing that I'm wrong about." It doesn't list anything beyond that.

This brings up another thing you seem to do. You ignore words when they don't help your argument such as you, ignoring everything in the Federal Weapons Ban but the words "pistol grip" and you ignoring everything in SS Regulations about reporting the NICS. But when you make a statement you want to include words you never said if your statement as written is factually untrue.
0 Replies
 
sceletera
 
  6  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 08:05 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.


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?
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 09:02 am
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
Except the law doesn't ban pistol grips.

Yes it did.


sceletera wrote:
It bans assault weapons.

Which is just a long gun with a pistol grip or similar feature that there is no good reason for banning.


sceletera wrote:
It then describes features of that make an assault weapon.

And pistol grips are at the core of that definition.


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

No such dishonesty.


sceletera wrote:
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban ban all firearms?

Of course not. Nor did I ever say it did.


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

I realize that I never said that.


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

Wrong again. I am focusing on the law. And there is nothing fallacious about my arguments.


sceletera wrote:
They banned specific guns that are named in the law.

Specific guns that were targeted only because they possess features that there is no good reason to ban.


sceletera wrote:
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;

All of these guns were targeted only because of features that there is no good reason to ban.


sceletera wrote:
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 managed to be wrong twice in one sentence here.

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.


sceletera wrote:
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.

You were shown to be wrong based on straightforward logic. Cites are for when facts are being claimed.


sceletera wrote:
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.

Appeals to authority don't require that you claim yourself to be the authority.


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.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 09:03 am
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
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?

I see no good reason for banning flash suppressors, grenade/flare launchers, and folding stocks.

But I find it noteworthy that they are excluding many of the other cosmetic features that there is no good reason to ban. They much have realized that their law was doomed as written and did their best to save it.
sceletera
 
  5  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 10:54 am
@oralloy,
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.
sceletera
 
  6  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 11:00 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
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.

There was no need to prevent them from selling the identical gun under a different name by providing features. The already did that
Quote:
‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as--


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.
revelette1
 
  6  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 11:00 am
@sceletera,
Quote:
Are you willing to concede that Assault Weapons can be banned if "pistol grip" is not part of the description?


I doubt he will be willing to concede. I doubt there is more frustrating poster than Oralloy. He gets a fixation in his head and he just goes on with it until you want to scream or make yourself quit trying to argue with him.

But it is good you are getting information out there which is helpful in a gun debate.
sceletera
 
  7  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 11:09 am
@oralloy,
The Fourth Circuit Appeals court held the law was Constitutional by a 10-4 ruling.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/141945A.P.pdf

Quote:
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.
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 11:21 am
For the purpose of the gun debate, since it seems there are different definitions of what constitutes an assault weapons, I think the term should be based on the Ohio definition.

Quote:
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."


source

Forget the pistol grip which is only important in oralloy's mind, the attachable or fixed magazine with the capacity to hold ten or more cartridges are the important feature which should be included in federal ban if we are so fortunate to pass one. If not, perhaps more stores will do it on their own, and/or more states.
sceletera
 
  4  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 12:51 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:





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.

You are arguing that citing a case decided by the courts is a faulty argument because it is an appeal to authority? Is that correct?

Are you really arguing that the courts are not tasked with deciding constitutionality? Can you tell us what entity is tasked with that under the US Constitution then?
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 01:19 pm
Looks like the anti-gun people have a new ally. This ought to be a hint.
Quote:
Perfect: Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei joins left’s crusade to get guns out of U.S. citizens’ hands

http://dougpowers.com/2018/03/04/perfect-irans-ayatollah-khamenei-joins-lefts-crusade-to-get-guns-out-of-u-s-citizens-hands/
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 02:51 pm
https://lidblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/25q4vx-1080x675.jpg

https://lidblog.com/supreme-leader-calls-gun-control-us/
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 04:52 pm
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
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.

Which are just long guns with a pistol grip or similar feature that there is no good reason for banning.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2018 04:53 pm
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
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.

I guess it depends on how much change someone considers as minor. To me, any change of a cosmetic feature is minor.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/26/2021 at 02:36:43