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

That is incorrect. When it comes to claims that guns with a set of features are more deadly, the question of whether or not those features make a gun more deadly is entirely relevant.

6 out of the 10 highest casualty mass shootings involve assault rifles.

Whether a specific feature is more deadly or not is irrelevant to whether a ban on assault weapons is constitutional

The courts have consistently ruled that such a ban is Constitutional.

sceletera wrote:

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

You always lie about people when you have no facts to support you. It's not a very honorable trait.

I'm not the one who causes the gun banners to devote all of their energy to trying to ban pistol grips for no good reason.

sceletera wrote:

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

Nope. There continues to be no justification for banning any of the prohibited features.

‘(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

Have you given a definition of what an "Assault weapon" is? The standard definition would be a fully automatic weapon capable of firing more than a single bullet with each pull of the trigger.

That is incorrect. Restrictions on a right are allowed only if there is a good reason for the restriction.

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.

Laws tend to try to define a lot of things. Without legal definitions the ways to get around a law would be legion.

You always run from any discussion of whether a ban on assault weapons is Constitutional by introducing your pistol grip red herring.

My statement is not a lie.

Your argument is not directed to the question but only attempts to divert from that question.

The question is:
Is it Constitutional to ban assault style weapons?
The answer as given by the US courts is "yes."

The answer as given by oralloy?

Quote:

I'm not the one who causes the gun banners to devote all of their energy to trying to ban pistol grips for no good reason.

Let's examine why this is an argument that doesn't address the question.

1. He claims "gun banners" are doing something. This is nothing more than an attempt to demonize his opponents by using an emotional appeal that attempts to paint them as extremists since he dislikes those that would ban guns.

2. He claims they are devoting "all of their energy to trying to ban pistol grips". This statement is a basic strawman. It misrepresents the position of the argument on the other side. No one for gun control is devoting all their energy to ban pistol grips. In fact, pistol grips are a very small part of the gun control argument. It is only a minor detail that is used to identify some of the guns that might be banned.

3. By concentrating on pistol grips, oralloy is creating a red herring that avoids the basic question of whether it is Constitutional to ban assault style weapons.

It seems he thinks he is getting away with it when it actually shows how weak is argument is.

By changing the question to only be about features, you ignore the main question.

This is a list of firearms to be banned.

Quote:

‘(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

By naming the firearms there is no mention of features.

The features on each weapon are irrelevant since it is the total weapon with a specific name that is being specified.

Which one's have a pistol grip is irrelevant.

I doubt you can argue for any of these weapons without mentioning "pistol grips."

The weapons on that list have either been used in mass shootings or are very similar to a weapon used in a mass shooting.

When that type of weapon is used in a mass shooting it results in more fatalities than any other type of weapon.

The state has a vested interest in reducing the number of fatalities in mass shootings.

The courts have repeatedly ruled that a ban on those specific weapons is Constitutional.

Your argument is what?

Assault style weapon may be a better phrase if you prefer that. A weapon designed to look and function like a current military style weapon other than it doesn't have a fully automatic capability would seem to fit that definition.

preserving the lives of a large number of individuals,

What's to understand? Do assault weapons kill people? Does the government have a responsibility to protect it's citizens from death?
We can disagree on what level of death is acceptable but no one can deny that the guns defined in that law have caused the deaths of many.

Focusing directly on the features that would be banned is not a read hearing. [sic]

‘(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;

read hearing [sic]

sceletera wrote:

preserving the lives of a large number of individuals,

Bans on pistol grips do not save a single life.