3
   

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

 
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jan, 2020 03:55 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
You are being dishonest as to what my claim is concerning semiautomatic weapons and the military.

You're interpreting your forgetfulness as my dishonesty. You did indeed claim that the military uses semiautomatic rifles. Of course, when pressed, you decided that since a select-fire rifle has a semiautomatic setting, then you can claim that the military uses semiautomatic rifles. But there is no one who does not see the desperation in that reasoning.
Quote:
Ok. I never said that a semiautomatic rifle is a selective fire rifle.

If the civilian version of the AR-15 is not a select-fire rifle, then why are you calling for it to be banned? I'll answer that for you. You believe that it should be banned because of certain features which you believe make a rifle especially dangerous. And it turns out that when asked to prove your claim that those features--alone or in combination--make a rifle especially dangerous, you have consistently failed to provide any proof. But that doesn't stop you from making that failed claim again. But that's okay. That's why I'm here.
Quote:
In regard to definitions, I defined the rifles that the military uses as two- or three-in-one rifles, semiautomatic being one of them.

Sure you did. But only after you were called out on your failed claim that the military uses semiautomatic rifles. You knew full well that when I made the point that the military doesn't use semiautomatic rifles, I was making the point that semiautomatic rifles are not effective enough for their purposes; in fact, those were my very words. And that's when you conjured your "but there's a semiautomatic setting on a select-fire rifle, so it's a semiautomatic rifle that the military uses."
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jan, 2020 04:08 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

As the topic suggests, why do people that argue for stricter gun laws afraid to just admit that they want all guns banned and confiscated? It obvious that is what they want. Either that or they only want the people they approve of to have guns...

Not sure why they are so hesitant to do so.


Strange given that a large percent of those that are for at least semi sane guns laws are gun owners themselves.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jan, 2020 04:21 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Yeah, those features make a rifle especially dangerous.

Yeah yeah yeah. I can point out your failure to prove that claim just as many times as you can repeat that failed claim. Or, have you come up with something better than your other failed claim that your could prove your initial claim if you wanted to. Can you see yourself in a real debate where you are asked to prove your claim that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous? And can you imagine the faces of the opposition when you tell them that you could prove it if you wanted to? I can imagine that very clearly.
Quote:
what I want banned are those weapons whose only difference between their military issue counterparts is selective fire capability.

And what everyone else is dying to tell you is that that only difference you're referring to IS the select-fire capability. Get it? The select-fire capability IS the difference between an actual assault rifle and the semiautomatic civilian version of that assault rifle. And the really odd thing about your thinking is that you believe that anyone who doesn't share your obsession with the semiautomatic civilian version of an actual assault rifle is the one who is obsessed. Yeah.
Quote:

Oh yes, absolutely. It had been established pages and pages ago

This is just more of your noisy silence. You have nothing to prove your claim that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous. You say that you have proven that claim, but you must have forgotten that you've already said that you could prove it if you wanted. Whether you like it or not, that was an admission on your part that you haven't provided any proof of your failed claim.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jan, 2020 08:40 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Strange given that a large percent of those that are for at least semi sane guns laws are gun owners themselves.

Gun owners who support gun bans are indeed hard to figure out.

They probably see themselves as being above the common rabble, and expect to be given special gun-owning privileges when the rest of us have our rights violated.

Those expectations would likely be in vain, but luckily for everyone we'll never have to find out, because the NRA takes defending the Constitution pretty seriously.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jan, 2020 09:11 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

BillRM wrote:
Strange given that a large percent of those that are for at least semi sane guns laws are gun owners themselves.

Gun owners who support gun bans are indeed hard to figure out.

They probably see themselves as being above the common rabble, and expect to be given special gun-owning privileges when the rest of us have our rights violated.

Those expectations would likely be in vain, but luckily for everyone we'll never have to find out, because the NRA takes defending the Constitution pretty seriously.


I can not see any repeat any sane reasons to have magazines with 50 or a hundred rounds for one thing right off the bat.

As for self defense reasons my large cal hands guns and shotgun along with a Japanese sword of all things are more then enough to offset any reasonable threat to my home.

I do not need a weapon design to kill large numbers of peoples such as a school pack with children that keep happening in recent years.

If someone wish to play with such weapons I would suggest that they join the military.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jan, 2020 10:58 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
I can not see any repeat any sane reasons to have magazines with 50 or a hundred rounds for one thing right off the bat.

Yeah, I wouldn't oppose a ten-round magazine limit.
Quote:
I do not need a weapon design to kill large numbers of peoples such as a school pack with children that keep happening in recent years.

Someone recently mentioned that there's been 44 school shootings in 46 weeks in 2019. Does the following incident from that list of shootings in any way resemble a shooting occurring in a school packed with children?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

A 19-year-old student was shot by a masked gunman while getting out of a car at Achievement Academy, a high school. His injuries were non-life-threatening. Authorities believe an altercation occurred between the victim and shooter.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jan, 2020 11:34 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
You are being dishonest as to what my claim is concerning semiautomatic weapons and the military.

You're interpreting your forgetfulness as my dishonesty. You did indeed claim that the military uses semiautomatic rifles. Of course, when pressed, you decided that since a select-fire rifle has a semiautomatic setting, then you can claim that the military uses semiautomatic rifles. But there is no one who does not see the desperation in that reasoning.

More reading impared tail chasing. I explained what I meant when I first wrote, "the military does use semiautomatic rifles" with the following sentence, "semiautomatic mode is one of the selective fire options." There was no pressing or revision of what I wrote or meant. You get no points in your dumb gotcha game.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Ok. I never said that a semiautomatic rifle is a selective fire rifle.

If the civilian version of the AR-15 is not a select-fire rifle, then why are you calling for it to be banned? I'll answer that for you. You believe that it should be banned because of certain features which you believe make a rifle especially dangerous. And it turns out that when asked to prove your claim that those features--alone or in combination--make a rifle especially dangerous, you have consistently failed to provide any proof. But that doesn't stop you from making that failed claim again. But that's okay. That's why I'm here.

You're presuming to answer for me when I've already given my reason throughout your repetative pages on this forum. If anything, you're here to chase your own tail.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
In regard to definitions, I defined the rifles that the military uses as two- or three-in-one rifles, semiautomatic being one of them.

Sure you did. But only after you were called out on your failed claim that the military uses semiautomatic rifles. You knew full well that when I made the point that the military doesn't use semiautomatic rifles, I was making the point that semiautomatic rifles are not effective enough for their purposes; in fact, those were my very words. And that's when you conjured your "but there's a semiautomatic setting on a select-fire rifle, so it's a semiautomatic rifle that the military uses."

Since you needed clarification of what I first wrote, I clarified it for you. Apparently, "semiautomatic mode is one of the selective fire options" went over your head.

0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jan, 2020 11:40 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Yeah, those features make a rifle especially dangerous.

Yeah yeah yeah. I can point out your failure to prove that claim just as many times as you can repeat that failed claim. Or, have you come up with something better than your other failed claim that your could prove your initial claim if you wanted to. Can you see yourself in a real debate where you are asked to prove your claim that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous? And can you imagine the faces of the opposition when you tell them that you could prove it if you wanted to? I can imagine that very clearly.

More tail chasing.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
what I want banned are those weapons whose only difference between their military issue counterparts is selective fire capability.

And what everyone else is dying to tell you is that that only difference you're referring to IS the select-fire capability. Get it? The select-fire capability IS the difference between an actual assault rifle and the semiautomatic civilian version of that assault rifle.[/qupte]
You're repeating what I've said.

Glennn wrote:
And the really odd thing about your thinking is that you believe that anyone who doesn't share your obsession with the semiautomatic civilian version of an actual assault rifle is the one who is obsessed. Yeah.

You're the one who obsessively can't accept disagreement with your position on gun control, as evidenced by your endless pages of tail chasing.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:

Oh yes, absolutely. It had been established pages and pages ago

This is just more of your noisy silence. You have nothing to prove your claim that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous. You say that you have proven that claim, but you must have forgotten that you've already said that you could prove it if you wanted. Whether you like it or not, that was an admission on your part that you haven't provided any proof of your failed claim.

"Noisy silence," nice paradox.

I admitted it umpteen pages ago, but you obsessively cannot drop it.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jan, 2020 12:56 pm
@BillRM,
I agree with your analysis of large magazines. I do think 30 would be a perfect limit. I say that because carrying 3 10 round magazines on a plate carrier is more awkward than a single 30 rd.

I do know people that keep an AR platform rifle next to their beds as a home defense weapon. I don't, but I know people that do and they should be allowed to have readily available.

I do take issue with your statement "I do not need a weapon design to kill large numbers of peoples such as a school pack with children that keep happening in recent years." Every weapon you own is "designed" to do that. There are far more shootings involving hand guns than "assault rifles".

0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Jan, 2020 09:17 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
I can not see any repeat any sane reasons to have magazines with 50 or a hundred rounds for one thing right off the bat.

The primary reason why there are no such restrictions is because progressives sabotage gun control efforts by making everything about pistol grips, and that undermines attempts to pass gun control of any kind.

One reason why I personally oppose restrictions on magazine capacity is because I oppose all gun control of any kind until progressives have compensated their victims.

Another reason why I oppose restrictions on magazine capacity is because I'd like to see if massacres can be curtailed solely with red flag laws and tighter background checks before resorting to magazine restrictions.

However, should progressives pay adequate compensation to their victims, and should red flag laws and tighter background checks fail to curtail the massacres, I would be willing to support placing large magazines under the National Firearms Act. But only if I got some pro-freedom legislation in return.

But good luck trying to get such a law passed with progressives sabotaging gun control and making everything about pistol grips.


BillRM wrote:
As for self defense reasons my large cal hands guns and shotgun along with a Japanese sword of all things are more then enough to offset any reasonable threat to my home.

Good luck trying to punch through Kevlar with a shotgun.


BillRM wrote:
If someone wish to play with such weapons I would suggest that they join the military.

Does this mean that you think that police officers should not be given massive magazines?
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jan, 2020 08:15 pm
@InfraBlue,
I'll put this as succintly as possible. You want the AR-15 banned. The reason you want it banned is because you believe that a pistol-grip, alone or in combination with other features, makes it an especially dangerous rifle. When asked to explain the reasoning behind that belief, you refuse to provide it. You claim that you have provided it, but it is nowhere to be found. So when you fail to provide it in your next post, you will have proven my claim that you have no proof of your claim. You will not acknowledge this, but your acknowledgement is not required. All that is required is your failure to offer proof of your claim. So now that we've once again established your failure to provide any proof of your claim, let's move on to your next claim.

You also claim that the AR-15 should be banned because the only difference between it and a rifle used by the military is that one is select-fire and one is not. You are genuinely oblivious to the fact that that difference that you speak of is the exact reason why it doesn't need to be banned. The civilian version of the AR-15 has only one setting--semiautomatic. Your argument is that since that setting is found on a select-fire rifle, that's a reason to ban the non select-fire civilian version, which is ridiculous reasoning.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jan, 2020 10:45 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
I'll put this as succintly as possible. You want the AR-15 banned. The reason you want it banned is because you believe that a pistol-grip, alone or in combination with other features, makes it an especially dangerous rifle.

No. I want the AR-15 and other assault weapons, e.g. the AK-47, banned because the only difference from their military issue counterparts is selective fire.

Glennn wrote:

When asked to explain the reasoning behind that belief, you refuse to provide it. You claim that you have provided it, but it is nowhere to be found. So when you fail to provide it in your next post, you will have proven my claim that you have no proof of your claim. You will not acknowledge this, but your acknowledgement is not required. All that is required is your failure to offer proof of your claim. So now that we've once again established your failure to provide any proof of your claim, let's move on to your next claim.

All of this is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with my reason for banning assault weapons.

Glennn wrote:
You also claim that the AR-15 should be banned because the only difference between it and a rifle used by the military is that one is select-fire and one is not. You are genuinely oblivious to the fact that that difference that you speak of is the exact reason why it doesn't need to be banned.

That's your opinion based on your misapprehension of my position on the banning of these weapons. Needless to say, I do not agree with your opinion.

Glennn wrote:
The civilian version of the AR-15 has only one setting--semiautomatic. Your argument is that since that setting is found on a select-fire rifle, that's a reason to ban the non select-fire civilian version, which is ridiculous reasoning.

That is not my reasoning. My reasoning is that assault weapons such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are too close to their military issue counterparts in terms of their purpose, assault, to be available to the public.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jan, 2020 10:58 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
My reasoning is that assault weapons such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are too close to their military issue counterparts in terms of their purpose, assault, to be available to the public.

Being similar to a weapon used by the military is not justification for outlawing a weapon. There has to be something that makes a weapon an actual danger to the public.
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Jan, 2020 11:01 pm
It is perfectly reasonable for a person to want to ban weapons. Even selectively as wanting to ban specific weapons.

This is the way.

Have an opinion and then discuss it. Arguing about is not constructive and I am glad to see that for the most part the discussion has remained civil.

Let's just remember that we are allowed to have differing opinions on many topics and sometimes those beliefs will be challenged by others.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jan, 2020 11:36 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
My reasoning is that assault weapons such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are too close to their military issue counterparts in terms of their purpose, assault, to be available to the public.
There has to be something that makes a weapon an actual danger to the public.

According to whom?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Jan, 2020 11:56 pm
@InfraBlue,
According to the Constitution.

The Constitution only allows a fundamental right to be restricted if that restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Jan, 2020 03:59 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
No. I want the AR-15 and other assault weapons, e.g. the AK-47, banned because the only difference from their military issue counterparts is selective fire.

What you fail to understand is that that difference is what makes a select-fire rifle illegal. Do you understand now? A select-fire rifle is illegal because it is select-fire. A non select-fire rifle is not illegal because it is not a select-fire rifle.

You made the claim that a pistol-grip, alone or in combination with other features, makes a rifle especially dangerous. Are you telling me that even though you claim that those features make a rifle especially dangerous, you don't think a rifle should be banned because they have those features?
Quote:
All of this is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with my reason for banning assault weapons.

Yes. We've now established that though you believe that a pistol-grip, alone or in combination with other features, makes a rifle especially dangerous, you nevertheless believe that rifles with those features should not be banned. Does that kind of reasoning make sense to you?
Quote:
That's your opinion based on your misapprehension of my position on the banning of these weapons. Needless to say, I do not agree with your opinion.

Right. So now we've established that besides believing that a rifle should not be banned even though it has features that you yourself believe make it especially dangerous, you also believe that a rifle should be banned because it is not a select-fire rifle. Does that make sense to you?
Quote:
That is not my reasoning. My reasoning is that assault weapons such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are too close to their military issue counterparts in terms of their purpose, assault, to be available to the public.

So now we've also established that you claim that what differentiates an assault rifle from a non assault rifle is select-fire AND non select-fire. You can't have it both ways. But since having it both ways is the only way your argument makes sense, that's what you've decided to do. But it doesn't work.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 09:35 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

According to the Constitution.

The Constitution only allows a fundamental right to be restricted if that restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

That's irrelevant when it comes to banning assault weapons.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 09:43 am
@InfraBlue,
The Constitution is not irrelevant. When you violate people's civil liberties you are committing a grave atrocity.

This is why you have to pay massive compensation to your victims before I will support any new gun laws.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 09:51 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
No. I want the AR-15 and other assault weapons, e.g. the AK-47, banned because the only difference from their military issue counterparts is selective fire.

What you fail to understand is that that difference is what makes a select-fire rifle illegal. Do you understand now? A select-fire rifle is illegal because it is select-fire. A non select-fire rifle is not illegal because it is not a select-fire rifle.

What you fail to understand is that those rifles whose only difference between their military issue counterparts is selective fire are too similar to their military issue counterparts. They should also be banned.

Glennn wrote:

You made the claim that a pistol-grip, alone or in combination with other features, makes a rifle especially dangerous. Are you telling me that even though you claim that those features make a rifle especially dangerous, you don't think a rifle should be banned because they have those features?

Rifles shouldn't be banned just becasue they may have these features. Rifles should be banned if they're based on military issue rifles whose only difference is selective fire.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
All of this is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with my reason for banning assault weapons.

Yes. We've now established that though you believe that a pistol-grip, alone or in combination with other features, makes a rifle especially dangerous, you nevertheless believe that rifles with those features should not be banned. Does that kind of reasoning make sense to you?

It makes sense when you complete the reasoning, those rifles shouldn't be banned simply becasue they may have those features.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
That's your opinion based on your misapprehension of my position on the banning of these weapons. Needless to say, I do not agree with your opinion.

Right. So now we've established that besides believing that a rifle should not be banned even though it has features that you yourself believe make it especially dangerous, you also believe that a rifle should be banned because it is not a select-fire rifle. Does that make sense to you?

That is not my argument.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
That is not my reasoning. My reasoning is that assault weapons such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are too close to their military issue counterparts in terms of their purpose, assault, to be available to the public.

So now we've also established that you claim that what differentiates an assault rifle from a non assault rifle is select-fire AND non select-fire. You can't have it both ways. But since having it both ways is the only way your argument makes sense, that's what you've decided to do. But it doesn't work.

That's not my argument.
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2022 at 07:58:16