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

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

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

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

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.

Yeah, those features make a rifle especially dangerous.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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."

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.[/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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.