Why are anti-gunners so afraid to admit they just want all guns banned and confiscated?

It's misleading to someone with reading comprehension issues, perhaps.

Man, nothing gets by you, does it.

The fool is the one who bases their straw man argument on their reading miscomprehension.

Like I said, nothing gets by you, boy, does it?

I support laws tracing gun purchases and tracking firearms. Police should be able to identify a weapon used in a crime and spot patterns in data that could reduce violent crime.

I support a ban on assault rifles. I'll let the experts define what an assault rifle is, but all the shooting enthusiasts and hunters I know do not see any value either for protection or hunting of owning an assault rifle. I have heard they are fun to shoot, so go to licenced ranges to shoot their weapons under supervision for fun much like you go to an amusement park to ride a roller-coaster.

I don't want to take away your hand gun or hunting rifle, nor do I care if you own one or not.

engineer wrote:

I support laws tracing gun purchases and tracking firearms. Police should be able to identify a weapon used in a crime and spot patterns in data that could reduce violent crime.

We've had that for the past 50 years already.

Quote:

Oh I have justification enough for my case for banning assault weapons.

So do I. I don't believe that people outside the military should own a select-fire rifle. And so they are banned. You, on the other hand, believe that your unproven claims concerning features making a rifle especially dangerous is enough justification for banning rifles that lack select-fire.

Quote:

Chase that tail fido!

Citing your inability to provide an explanation for your claims can hardly be characterized as me chasing my own tail. I'm just citing you inability to provide an explanation for your claims.

Quote:

It's misleading to someone with reading comprehension issues, perhaps.

It's misleading to anyone who has read it.

Quote:

Man, nothing gets by you, does it.

That's not an answer to what I said. Let me repeat it.

Glennn wrote:

Tell me, if the military version of the AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle, where do I go to purchase one of those? Oh wait! I can't purchase one of those because it's an actual assault rifle. And it's an actual assault rifle because of its select-fire capability. Guess I'll have to settle for a legal semiautomatic rifle.

Quote:

The fool is the one who bases their straw man argument on their reading miscomprehension.

So let's see where you stand. Semiautomatic rifles are not used by the military. You claimed that they are. However, when asked to prove that claim, you decided that though the military doesn't use semiautomatic rifles, the rifles they do use have a semiautomatic setting, and that therefore you can call a select-fire rifle a semiautomatic rifle. But that's just you being desperate to not look like a fool for having declared that the military uses semiautomatic rifles before looking into it.

Tell me what part of the above you disagree with, and we'll see if your claim about my reading comprehension can stand up to scrutiny.

Quote:

Like I said, nothing gets by you, boy, does it?

If a select-fire rifle is a semiautomatic rifle, then is a semiautomatic rifle a select-fire rifle? The answer is no. And the reason the answer is no is because a semiautomatic rifle is not a select-fire rifle. And as such, the military does not use them. This goes to your attempt to set up a win/win scenario for yourself by insisting that two different things are in fact the same thing. That amounts to a lie. Telling me that nothing gets by me doesn't change that.

You're confused as to what you're agreeing with, and you're wrong about what I believe, again.

Like I said, chase that tail fido!

Heh, you shot that one right over your own head. You answered your own question.

The military uses semiautomatic mode for most purposes."

Quote:

You're confused as to what you're agreeing with, and you're wrong about what I believe, again.

Nope. You said you have justification for wanting assault weapons banned. I said that I do, too. And my justification for wanting assault weapons banned is that people outside the military should not own select-fire rifles. You, on the other hand, believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with a flash suppressor or bayonet-mount is what makes a rifle so especially dangerous that it must be banned. However, you have yet to prove that your claim is anything more than just your hysteria on a soapbox.

Quote:

Like I said, chase that tail fido!

Pointing out your inability to provide an explanation for your claim that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with a flash suppressor or bayonet-mount can hardly be characterized as me chasing my own tail. I'm simply asking you for you to show something to prove your claim. And instead of proving your claim, you repeat your meaningless little mantra, which includes calling me fido.

Now, if you can provide nothing to prove your claim, be honest and just say so. If you can provide something to prove your claim, then provide it.

Quote:

Heh, you shot that one right over your own head. You answered your own question.

Yes. And the question was why I can buy an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, but not an AR-15 select-fire rifle. And the answer is that a select-fire rifle is an assault rifle, whereas a semiautomatic rifle is not an assault rifle. That's why the military doesn't use the semiautomatic rifle, and instead uses the select-fire rifle. You're pretending that you can't understand what I've just told you because then you don't have answer for your unproven claim.

Quote:

The military uses semiautomatic mode for most purposes."

And when they need something more, they select burst-fire. And that's why they use select-fire rifles, and not semiautomatic rifles.

You're still shamelessly attempting to set up a win/win scenario for yourself by insisting that two different rifles are in fact the same rifle. That amounts to a lie. And when I point out your lie, you call that a strawman argument. But all that's happened is that in order to make your argument work, you had to call two different things the same thing, which is the same as saying that your argument doesn't work.

You're merely restating your confusion

Chase it, boy, chase it!

Quote:

You're merely restating your confusion

You said that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with a flash suppressor or bayonet-mount is what makes a rifle so especially dangerous that it must be banned. Do you recall saying that?

Quote:

Chase it, boy, chase it!

Finding that you have nothing at all to prove your claims does not prove that I am chasing my own tail. It proves that you have nothing at all to prove your claims. In that respect, you are the one running, and guess who's chasing you.

I'm not pretending anything. You're going around in circles answering your own questions.

That's correct.

There is no reason or cause for shame, there is merely your incomprehension. That selfsame selective fire rifle is either a two- or three-in-one rifle, just like a two- or three-in-one printer, a two-in-one PC, etc.

I do not recall saying that. Where did I say that?

It's been established

Quote:

I'm not pretending anything. You're going around in circles answering your own questions.

My question to you was why the military does not use the civilian semiautomatic version of a select-fire rifle. And it seems that you are not going to answer that.

When I said that the difference between the two versions of the AR-15 is that one is select-fire, and that that's why the military uses select-fire rifles, and not semiautomatic rifles, you responded with:

Quote:

That's correct.

And yet you are still claiming that the military uses semiautomatic rifles based on the ridiculous idea that a semiautomatic setting on a select-fire rifle means that it is a semiautomatic rifle You're talking out both sides of your mouth again.

It would be humorous to see you go into a gun store and ask for a semiautomatic rifle with a burst-fire selection on its settings.

Quote:

There is no reason or cause for shame, there is merely your incomprehension. That selfsame selective fire rifle is either a two- or three-in-one rifle, just like a two- or three-in-one printer, a two-in-one PC, etc.

Nobody--least of all me--is buying that.

Quote:

I do not recall saying that. Where did I say that?

So you're saying that you now believe that, even though a pistol-grip alone or in combination with those other features makes a rifle especially dangerous, you don't think that that is grounds for banning the rifle?

Quote:

It's been established

So you're saying that it's been established that you have nothing at all to prove your claims?

That wasn't a question. That was an assertion, a declaration.

what I said means that that selective fire rifle is a semiautomatic rifle among other things.

Your straw man argument is what's humorous.

where did I say that "a pistol-grip alone or in combination with a flash suppressor or bayonet-mount is what makes a rifle so especially dangerous that it must be banned"?

You've been chasing your tail throughout these last umpteen thread pages, unclear as to what's been established throughout these last umpteen thread pages

Quote:

That wasn't a question. That was an assertion, a declaration.

Sure, let's go with that then. My assertion is that you are not going to answer the question of why the military does not use the civilian semiautomatic version of a select-fire rifle, but instead uses the actual select-fire version of the rifle. And I declare that the reason you are not going to answer that question is that it would shine a light on your dishonest attempt to claim that the military uses semiautomatic rifles when in fact they don't.

Quote:

what I said means that that selective fire rifle is a semiautomatic rifle among other things.

Yeah, and what you're trying to avoid acknowledging is that a semiautomatic rifle is NOT--among other things--a select-fire rifle.

Quote:

Your straw man argument is what's humorous.

In order for your claim that the military uses semiautomatic rifles to be true, you had to define a select-fire rifle as a semiautomatic, which is dishonest of you. So I just showed you how crazy you are by presenting you with a scenario in which you would be forced to face reality after asking a gun store owner for a semiautomatic rifle with a burst-fire selection on its settings. You have a vested interest in not understanding what that makes of your claim.

Quote:

where did I say that "a pistol-grip alone or in combination with a flash suppressor or bayonet-mount is what makes a rifle so especially dangerous that it must be banned"?

The only part of that that you did not add to your claim was "that it must be banned." However, we both know that you did indeed say that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous. I took the liberty of assuming that that is the reason you think it should be banned. Are you going to now say that though those features make a rifle especially dangerous, you don't think that's a basis for banning them? I don't think so . . .

Quote:

You've been chasing your tail throughout these last umpteen thread pages, unclear as to what's been established throughout these last umpteen thread pages

Oh no, not at all. It's been established beyond any doubt that you have nothing at all to prove your claims? Nothing unclear about that. And to emphasize that truth, I'll let your silence concerning that truth speak for itself.