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

To clarify, the aggregate features that make up those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire make these weapons especially dangerous.

InfraBlue wrote:

That's incorrect.

No it isn't. Rights restrict the government from doing whatever activity the right forbids. That's basic law 101.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're confusing your opinion with fact.

No confusion. I am stating facts.

InfraBlue wrote:

You'd be better off writing, "It's my opinion that rights should bar the government from creating restrictions in the area of law covered by the right."

I disagree. I think I am best off defending facts and reality when people claim that facts and reality are not true.

Quote:

You're confused. I'm not making that case.

Sure you are. You want to ban rifles that are select-fire and rifles that are not select-fire. You've already made that obvious when you condemned both the select-fire AR-15 and the civilian version non select-fire AR-15. Like I said before, you want to have it both ways because that's the only way your argument works. But you can't have it both way.

So, in order to make an argument for banning the non select-fire civilian version of the AR-15, you will have to fall back on your old claim that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features make a rifle especially dangerous. However, when asked to provide something to prove that claim, you provided nothing. So that's really nothing to fall back on.

Heh, you need to rephrase that.

No you're not. Rights are not absolute.

What you are defending is your confusion of your opinion with facts and reality.

Selective fire rifles are already banned. In regard to non-selective fire rifles, I want to ban those whose only difference from their military issue counterparts is selective fire. It's only your assertion that I can't have both banned.

Quote:

To clarify, the aggregate features that make up those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire make these weapons especially dangerous.

Yeah, you keep saying that, and you have as many times failed to prove it.

You keep hoping that if you keep repeating that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, people will eventually forget that you have nothing to show that that is true. But that's not going to work since I am here to remind everyone that you haven't proven that claim.

Also, you repeatedly bring up the difference between a select-fire rifle and a non select-fire as if that difference means that the non select-fire rifle is as dangerous as a select-fire rifle because the that is the only difference between them. But all you're really pointing out is the reason one is banned and the other is not. Guess which one is not.

While I have no scientific proof, it's an assertion based on inference.
That a pistol grip makes a rifle especially dangerous is an assertion also based on inference.

My point is that the non selective fire counterpart is dangerous enough to warrant its banning because of its close similarity to its selective fire counterpart.

InfraBlue wrote:

Heh, you need to rephrase that.

My statement is 100% correct as it currently stands.

No you're not. Rights are not absolute.

What you are defending is your confusion of your opinion with facts and reality.

InfraBlue wrote:

Selective fire rifles are already banned. In regard to non-selective fire rifles, I want to ban those whose only difference from their military issue counterparts is selective fire. It's only your assertion that I can't have both banned.

It is more than just his assertion. Unless you can provide some sort of realistic justification for banning them, then banning them is unconstitutional.

I want to ban those whose only difference from their military issue counterparts is selective fire.

InfraBlue wrote:

While I have no scientific proof, it's an assertion based on inference.
That a pistol grip makes a rifle especially dangerous is an assertion also based on inference.

An assertion based on inference is otherwise known as a baseless assertion. Justifying a restriction on a fundamental right requires backing with actual evidence.

InfraBlue wrote:

My point is that the non selective fire counterpart is dangerous enough to warrant its banning because of its close similarity to its selective fire counterpart.

Being used by the military (or being similar to a weapon used by the military) isn't justification for outlawing a weapon. There has to be an actual good reason for outlawing a weapon before the Constitution allows you to outlaw it.

That is incorrect. The Constitution only allows rights to be restricted if that restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

While I have no scientific proof, it's an assertion based on inference.

That a pistol grip makes a rifle especially dangerous is an assertion also based on inference.

My point is that the non selective fire counterpart is dangerous enough to warrant its banning because of its close similarity to its selective fire counterpart.

"Rights restrict the government from doing whatever activity the right forbids," is a self-canceling statement.

This assertion is patently false as has been demonstrated through centuries of legislation and court decisions.

Much, much confusion.

Quote:

I want to ban those whose only difference from their military issue counterparts is selective fire.

Firstly, the select-fire setting on a rifle is what distinguishes it from one with only a semiautomatic setting. Instead of recognizing that difference for what it means, you choose to ignore it.

And your justification for ignoring it is your claim that the pistol-grip, alone or in combination with other features, is what makes a rifle especially dangerous.

But your failure to show that your claim is anything more than hysterics takes us back to that fact that a select-fire rifle is banned because it is not a semiautomatic rifle, and that a semiautomatic rifle is not banned because it is not a select-fire rifle.

Now, if you have nothing to show that a pistol-grip, alone or in combination with other features, makes a rifle especially dangerous, then you're arguing that an AR-15 should be banned because it is not a select-fire rifle. Silly, huh?

oralloy wrote:

An assertion based on inference is otherwise known as a baseless assertion. Justifying a restriction on a fundamental right requires backing with actual evidence.

No it doesn't.

oralloy wrote:

Being used by the military (or being similar to a weapon used by the military) isn't justification for outlawing a weapon. There has to be an actual good reason for outlawing a weapon before the Constitution allows you to outlaw it.

Their outlawing passes constitution muster.

oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. The Constitution only allows rights to be restricted if that restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

That is confused.

Their banning wasn't unconstitutional, and it won't be again.

Also, certain semiautomatic rifles have been banned, and they will be again.

Quote:

While I have no scientific proof, it's an assertion based on inference.

Or more accurately--and in your own words--a hunch. Sorry, but an unverified hunch in this case amounts to hysteria.

Quote:

That a pistol grip makes a rifle especially dangerous is an assertion also based on inference.

Or more accurately--and in your own words--a hunch. Sorry, but an unverified hunch in this case amounts to hysteria.

Quote:

My point is that the non selective fire counterpart is dangerous enough to warrant its banning because of its close similarity to its selective fire counterpart.

Uh huh. And by "similarity" you mean "a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features.

So now we're back to the strength of your hunch. But your hunch, which you are unable to verify, amounts to an effort to use hysteria as a substitute for reason.

So do you have anything other than a hunch?