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

When we are discussing the constitutionality of banning assault weapons, it isn't relevant that the courts have stated continually that such bans are not unconstitutional?

Not only is it relevant,

it is a fact that points out that the courts have discarded your arguments long ago as being without merit.

You do realize that all those standards have been set by the courts, don't you?

Are you now arguing that court rulings are not an appeal to authority?

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

1. It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
2.The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.

1. We have several instances of assault weapons being used in mass shootings.

The mass shootings when using assault weapons have resulted in casualties that exceed the average number of when pistols are used.

But 4 out of the 5 highest casualty shootings involve assault rifles. 6 out of the 10 highest casualty mass shootings involve assault rifles. This would clearly point to assault rifles being far more deadly than any other weapon when used in a mass shooting.

sceletera wrote:

1. We have several instances of assault weapons being used in mass shootings.

The pistol grips and other assault weapon features did not contribute to making any of those shootings any deadlier.

sceletera wrote:

The mass shootings when using assault weapons have resulted in casualties that exceed the average number of when pistols are used.

Rifles being more deadly than handguns may be a reason to treat "rifles" differently from "handguns".

Rifles being more deadly than handguns is not a reason to treat "rifles with pistol grips" differently from "rifles without pistol grips".

sceletera wrote:

But 4 out of the 5 highest casualty shootings involve assault rifles. 6 out of the 10 highest casualty mass shootings involve assault rifles. This would clearly point to assault rifles being far more deadly than any other weapon when used in a mass shooting.

Not at all. There is no logical basis for arguing that pistol grips or any other assault weapon feature contributed to the deadliness of the shootings in any way.

The fact that courts have continually upheld bans on assault weapons is hardly idle trivia.

It falsifies your argument that a ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional.

If you replace the term “assault rifle” with “semi-automatic rifle” you may get further in discussion with him.

sceletera wrote:

The fact that courts have continually upheld bans on assault weapons is hardly idle trivia.

Sure it is. If the reference to the courts is not in support of your position, then it is very much idle trivia.

sceletera wrote:

It falsifies your argument that a ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional.

No it doesn't. Things that do not even address the issue under discussion cannot possibly falsify my argument.

If you replace the term “assault rifle” with “semi-automatic rifle” you may get further in discussion with him.

What the specific features of those assault style weapons have is irrelevant to showing they are more deadly.

Assault style weapons have murdered more in mass shootings than other types of rifles.

You are retreating to your red herring.

Pistol grips are not the only defining feature of an assault rifle.

Your red herring about pistol grips is getting boring as hell.

For someone that supposedly has argued they are very intelligent, you can't seem to make a logical and relevant argument about the banning of assault weapons.

You simply resort to red herrings and logical fallacies.

As I previously pointed out, the Maryland law says nothing about pistol grips but still bans assault weapons.

If you stick to your pistol grip argument, then you are admitting that assault weapons can be banned as long as no mention is made of pistol grips.

You answered my question with a link to a wikipedia article that clearly states: "The Supreme Court has established standards for determining whether a statute or policy's classification requires the use of strict scrutiny."

Running from the argument seems to be all oralloy is capable of doing.

He certainly has not made any cogent point about whether assault weapons can be banned or not.

I see. So you concede that assault weapons can be banned.