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

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.

The Fourth Circuit Appeals court held the law was Constitutional by a 10-4 ruling.

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."

Forget the pistol grip which is only important in oralloy's mind,

sceletera wrote:

The Fourth Circuit Appeals court held the law was Constitutional by a 10-4 ruling.

Appeal to authority.

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?

That is just your logical fallacy

which completely ignores the words of the law

No. It isn't an appeal to authority.

When it comes to laws, it is the legislation and the court rulings that matter.

The Supreme court is not on your side, and hopefully will stay that way.

sceletera wrote:

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?

Yes.

sceletera wrote:

Are you really arguing that the courts are not tasked with deciding constitutionality?

No.

Since the courts are tasked with deciding constitutionality of laws, citing their decisions can not be an appeal to authority.

You have now devolved into the argument from repetition fallacy

Definition
When it is claimed that, because no one cares to discuss your position with you any longer after repeated rehashing of the same arguments, that your position is correct.

Example
I’ve been arguing with my wife for 20 years about my gambling habit. She finally stopped arguing with me, demonstrating that she finally admits to the virtue of gambling.

combined with the ipse dixit fallacy.

The hunters will not be happy about you trying to ban their semi-auto hunting rifles

Some hunters will not be happy, put that against saving lives, I would rather inconvenience some hunters notions of hunting than have mass murders so easily attainable and carried out so quickly.

Just make the semi automatic rifles and handguns not capable of accepting magazines and they can have their guns. So that at least a mass murder is slowed down in his/her killing; perhaps in that time, apprehended by law enforcement or armed guard.

Just curious, but are you suggesting that all guns should be single-shots?

Guns could be designed to accept magazines limited to 5-10 shots, and no more.