Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night?

I'm not saying the military chose these guns because of the presence of pistol grips. I'm saying the military implements pistol grips on these guns.

A compelling government interest was irrelevant in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

You've written something altogether different than your initial comparison.

That is incorrect. I wrote the same thing.

No you didn't.

Exactly, you're making the comparison, "a flash suppressor verses some other method," not I.

They're worried about assault weapons in general.

I'm not deciding that at all. You've completely mischaracterized what I wrote. Go back and re-read. Also, I have no irrational fear or otherwise, of pistol grips.

No, try keeping up. They're worried about assault weapons, e.g. AR-15's, semiauto AK-47's, SKS's, etc. Automatic weapons are rare, so they're not as worrisome as assault weapons.

If any police officers have a phobia of pistol grips, psychological counseling might help them.

I'm going by the definition provided in the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, thank you very much.

To clarify pistol grips do not give me "the willies." I do not have an irrational fear of pistol grips. I do not fear pistol grips.

What should be banned are weapons defined by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. Pistol grips are but one feature of some of these weapons.

Yes, I'm asking you to back up your assertion that the military implements features such as pistol grips on their weaponry "because it gives the willies," as you would have us believe.

Actually, it sound like you can't come up with proof that the military implements features such as pistol grips in their weaponry "to give the willies."

No. The legislators knew exactly what they were banning and why. These weapons are based on military ones, ones that have the purpose of being used effectively against human beings.

That you attempt to obfuscate ridiculous notions of style against function only reveals their disingenuousness behind your anti-regulation, gun nut fanaticism.

The ban wasn't about pistol grips, it was about assault weapons.

This law, or a law along its lines will pass through congress again. I don't know when, but it will.

Putting your slant on what she said and changing the meaning of her statement makes you almost as big a liar as Ollie. Post on. I'm sure you will be as big a previcator as Ollie in a few more posts.

No. Pistol grips do not give me "the willies." What's giving me the willies is your psychotic obsession with pistol grips and AR-15 rifles. Get a grip, man.

You're not keeping up. The ban was about assault weapons, not assault rifles.

the reality of what the public wants is entirely another thing. The public will have its way.

Those word of yours reveal your hysterical gun zealotry. I didn't say a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle results in more deaths. That's your straw man argument.

Your hysteria is driving you to cast aspersions and ad hominem arguments, and it's driving you to make your ridiculous straw man arguments.

You have an obsession with the AR-15.

It isn't only about pistol grips. What need to be banned are weapons based on those that the military uses with the only difference being selective fire, like those in the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

Where did I write about "special powers," and "magical properties"?

Actually, I didn't assign "special powers to a rifle by virtue of a shift of the wrist." Those are your straw man words.

You came up with these ridiculous arguments because of the vacuousness of your extremist stance on gun control.

Get it straight, man. I'm campaigning for the banning of military based weapons like the AR-15 whose sole distinction is the lack of selective fire.

Like I said, you've got to get over your psychotic obsession with pistol grips and AR-15 rifles.

The public wants gun control, they will have their way. Point.

Glennn wrote:

No. You said that a pistol-grip on a rifle makes it especially dangerous and also that it doesn't result in more deaths.

Where did I say that?

I've already explained why pistol-grips, flash suppressors and other such features make a rifle especially dangerous; it's because it makes a rifle more effective in its purpose.

I didn't say a shift of the wrist when holding a rifle results in more deaths. That's your straw man argument.

Who has gone over the deep end with obsession is you, what with you endlessly banging on about pistol grips and AR-15 rifles.

InfraBlue wrote:

It your opinion that it isn't true, much like the tobacco companies' opinion about disease and tobacco use.

That is incorrect. That a pistol grip does nothing to make a semi-auto rifle shoot faster or more accurately is a fact, not an opinion.

InfraBlue wrote:

You forgot the modifier "revolutionary." No they don't. What's more those are not my words, they're Glennn's. Stick to what I wrote, not Glennn's straw man arguments.

I think Glennn was assuming that you were using the normal English language understanding of the term "especially dangerous".

A change that would make a gun "especially dangerous" as those words are understood in the normal English language would be quite revolutionary.

InfraBlue wrote:

I'm not saying the military chose these guns because of the presence of pistol grips. I'm saying the military implements pistol grips on these guns.

You have provided no evidence that the military implements pistol grips on these guns.

And, if you think that "implements pistol grips on these guns" means something different than "chose these guns because of the presence of pistol grips", I think we need an explanation of what you mean by "implements pistol grips on these guns".

In normal English language, those two phrases amount to the same thing.

InfraBlue wrote:

A compelling government interest was irrelevant in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

That is incorrect. That you committed a grave violation of people's civil liberties matters quite a lot.

I oppose all new gun laws, even if those new laws would save lives, and even I have no objections to those laws, until you have paid heavy compensation to your victims.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

You've written something altogether different than your initial comparison.

That is incorrect. I wrote the same thing.

No you didn't.

In the normal usage of the English language, my two phrases say the same thing.

When I speak, I use the normal usage of the English language.

InfraBlue wrote:

Exactly, you're making the comparison, "a flash suppressor verses some other method," not I.

That is incorrect. You were the one who singled out flash suppressors as an objectionable method of concealing a position.

InfraBlue wrote:

They're worried about assault weapons in general.

If any police officers have a phobia of pistol grips, psychological counseling might help them.

InfraBlue wrote:

I'm not deciding that at all. You've completely mischaracterized what I wrote. Go back and re-read. Also, I have no irrational fear or otherwise, of pistol grips.

The only reason why progressives try to outlaw pistol grips is because progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

InfraBlue wrote:

No, try keeping up. They're worried about assault weapons, e.g. AR-15's, semiauto AK-47's, SKS's, etc. Automatic weapons are rare, so they're not as worrisome as assault weapons.

What you are wrongly referring to as an assault weapon is just an ordinary hunting rifle with a pistol grip attached to it.

A real assault weapon is an automatic weapon.

"A shift of the wrist when holding a rifle does not result in more deaths," is not my assertion. That's your straw man argument.

"Shift of the wrist" is not synonymous with pistol grip.

The error is yours in pursuing your straw man argument.

Your projecting your obsession of the pistol grip onto me.

Simply put, it would make a shooting more efficient.

I'm not the one banging on about pistol grips and AR-15 rifles. You are.

The discussion ended some time ago. You've merely gone in circles trying to hook me into chasing your straw man arguments.

"A shift of the wrist" is your argument, not mine, that's why it doesn't jibe with my argument.

I'm claiming that "shift of the wrist" is your wording, not mine, and for you it's synonymous with pistol grip. It isn't for me.

You're arguing in circles about a straw man of yours.

You're the one banging on about it. My argument is about the banning of assault weapons. You've gone in circles about pistol grips.

That's not obsession that's inference. Take it or leave it.

Sorry, but for you "ergonomic improvement" means "more comfortable." "Ergonomic improvement" has other implications.

Yes you have. Those are your straw man arguments and you've arrived at conclusions about them that you've attempted to attribute to me.

I've got an inference. My claim that pistol grips along with other attributes make a rifle more effective in its purpose isn't obsessional. What's obsessional is your inability to take it or leave it by banging on and on about pistol grips.

No, I'm not. I'm merely pointing out your obsessive repetition of your straw man arguments about pistol grips and AR-15 rifles.

I haven't made erroneous claims about pistol grips. You're the one banging on and on with your straw man arguments about pistol grips.

You're the one banging on and on with your straw man arguments about pistol grips.

Sure, that is one possible end of a discussion. The end of this discussion, however, ended when you disagreed with my stand on the banning of assault weapons. The rest has been you chasing your own tail. Rest assured I'll continue to point out that fact to you.