3
   

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

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 09:58 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
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.

Merely being a military weapon, or merely being similar to a military weapon, does not create a compelling government interest in restricting a weapon.

A compelling government interest would be if there were something about the weapon that made it an actual public danger.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 12:00 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

The Constitution is not irrelevant. When you violate people's civil liberties you are committing a grave atrocity.

What I was referring to was the part about "a fundamental right to be restricted if that restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest." That is not in the Constitution, which moots your entire assertion.

oralloy wrote:

This is why you have to pay massive compensation to your victims before I will support any new gun laws.

M'kay.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 12:02 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
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.

Merely being a military weapon, or merely being similar to a military weapon, does not create a compelling government interest in restricting a weapon.

A compelling government interest would be if there were something about the weapon that made it an actual public danger.

A compelling government interest has been irrelevant in the banning of assault weapons.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 12:13 pm
@InfraBlue,
That is incorrect. That fact that progressives violate the Constitution does not make the Constitution irrelevant. It just means that progressives are bad people.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 12:13 pm
@InfraBlue,
I'm going to take away your wriggle room by taking this one step at a time.

You are on record as saying that you believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous.

Good so far?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 12:17 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
What I was referring to was the part about "a fundamental right to be restricted if that restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest." That is not in the Constitution, which moots your entire assertion.

If you want to go by "what is in the Constitution" there is no authorization in the Constitution for any restrictions of any kind on any fundamental right.

So if you want to invalidate 75 years worth of Supreme Court rulings to instead strictly follow the text of the Constitution, that would make all gun control of any sort unconstitutional.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 08:21 pm
@oralloy,
You're confusing judicial review with the Constitution. "A compelling government interest" is not found in the Constitution. The banning of assault weapons through the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection
Act was deemed to not violate the Equal Protection Clause by the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 09:47 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

I'm going to take away your wriggle room by taking this one step at a time.

Heh. Shoot cowboy.

Glennn wrote:
You are on record as saying that you believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous.

Good so far?


It's déjà vu all over again.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 09:49 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
What I was referring to was the part about "a fundamental right to be restricted if that restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest." That is not in the Constitution, which moots your entire assertion.

If you want to go by "what is in the Constitution" there is no authorization in the Constitution for any restrictions of any kind on any fundamental right.

So if you want to invalidate 75 years worth of Supreme Court rulings to instead strictly follow the text of the Constitution, that would make all gun control of any sort unconstitutional.

There is nothing that completely restricts gun regulation in the Constitution.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 09:54 pm
@InfraBlue,
Since you are obviously reluctant to own up to what you have stated, I will do it for you. You are indeed on record as saying that you believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous.

That wasn't so hard, now was it.

Now, since you believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous, do you also believe that such a rifle should be banned?
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 10:05 pm
@InfraBlue,
Still thinking about it?

Can't make up your mind?

Need more time?

I understand.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jan, 2020 11:50 pm
@Glennn,
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Since you are obviously reluctant to own up to what you have stated, I will do it for you. You are indeed on record as saying that you believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous.

That wasn't so hard, now was it.

Now, since you believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous, do you also believe that such a rifle should be banned?

Start here
Quote:
It's déjà vu all over again.

And follow the yellow brick road.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 03:47 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
There is nothing that completely restricts gun regulation in the Constitution.

That is incorrect. The fact that the Constitution does not authorize restrictions on fundamental rights means that all such restrictions are unconstitutional.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 03:50 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
You're confusing judicial review with the Constitution.

No confusion. Judicial review allows restrictions on fundamental rights if they can be justified as serving a compelling government interest. The Constitution itself authorizes no restrictions of any sort on a fundamental right.


InfraBlue wrote:
"A compelling government interest" is not found in the Constitution.

Correct. According to the strict text of the Constitution, there is no authorization for any restrictions at all on a fundamental right.

So if you want to ditch judicial review and go strictly by the text of the Constitution, that means no gun control of any sort.


InfraBlue wrote:
The banning of assault weapons through the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act was deemed to not violate the Equal Protection Clause by the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals.

Progressive judges routinely allow the Constitution to be violated. That does not mean that it is actually OK to violate the Constitution.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 08:51 am
@InfraBlue,
Okay, since you believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous, it's a no-brainer that you would want any rifle with a pistol-grip, alone or in combination with other features, to be banned.

So we'll start with the pistol-grip. How does a pistol-grip make a rifle especially dangerous?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 11:09 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Okay, since you believe that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous, it's a no-brainer that you would want any rifle with a pistol-grip, alone or in combination with other features, to be banned.

So we'll start with the pistol-grip. How does a pistol-grip make a rifle especially dangerous?

Follow the yellow brick road.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 11:14 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
There is nothing that completely restricts gun regulation in the Constitution.

That is incorrect. The fact that the Constitution does not authorize restrictions on fundamental rights means that all such restrictions are unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not disallow restrictions on the bearing of arms either.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 11:16 am
@InfraBlue,
That is incorrect. It is the very nature of a right to disallow the government from interfering with people's exercise of that right.

For example, Freedom of Speech disallows the government from interfering with people's speech.

And the Right to Keep and Bear Arms disallows the government from interfering with people's ability to have arms.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 11:22 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You're confusing judicial review with the Constitution.

No confusion. Judicial review allows restrictions on fundamental rights if they can be justified as serving a compelling government interest. The Constitution itself authorizes no restrictions of any sort on a fundamental right.

Confusion indeed, you're still muddling judicial review with the Constitution. In regard to judicial review, the banning of assault weapons passed US Appeals Court muster.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
"A compelling government interest" is not found in the Constitution.

Correct. According to the strict text of the Constitution, there is no authorization for any restrictions at all on a fundamental right.

So if you want to ditch judicial review and go strictly by the text of the Constitution, that means no gun control of any sort.

There is no disallowance of restrictions according to the strict text of the Constitution, as well.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The banning of assault weapons through the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act was deemed to not violate the Equal Protection Clause by the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals.

Progressive judges routinely allow the Constitution to be violated. That does not mean that it is actually OK to violate the Constitution.

Your opinion is duly noted.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 11:28 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Confusion indeed, you're still muddling judicial review with the Constitution.

No I'm not.


InfraBlue wrote:
In regard to judicial review, the banning of assault weapons passed US Appeals Court muster.

That progressive judges allow progressives to violate the Constitution just shows what a menace to America progressives are.


InfraBlue wrote:
There is no disallowance of restrictions according to the strict text of the Constitution, as well.

That is incorrect. That's what rights do. They disallow restrictions.

For example, Freedom of Religion disallows restrictions on religion.


InfraBlue wrote:
Your opinion is duly noted.

That progressives are of the opinion that it is OK to violate the Constitution proves that progressives are a menace to America.
 

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 08:09:42