3
   

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

 
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 12:10 am
@InfraBlue,
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.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 09:25 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

Heh, you need to rephrase that.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You're confusing your opinion with fact.

No confusion. I am stating facts.

No you're not. Rights are not absolute.

oralloy wrote:

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.

What you are defending is your confusion of your opinion with facts and reality.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 09:32 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

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.

Glennn wrote:

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.

This conclusion of yours is a non sequitur because it doesn't address my position that I've explained above on the banning of rifles such as the AR-15.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 09:34 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Heh, you need to rephrase that.

My statement is 100% correct as it currently stands.


InfraBlue wrote:
No you're not. Rights are not absolute.

As far as the text of the Constitution is concerned, rights are 100% absolute.


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

No such confusion.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 09:38 am
@InfraBlue,
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.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 09:44 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

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

Glennn wrote:

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.

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

Glennn wrote:
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.

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.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 09:49 am
@InfraBlue,
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.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:03 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Heh, you need to rephrase that.

My statement is 100% correct as it currently stands.

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

InfraBlue wrote:
No you're not. Rights are not absolute.

As far as the text of the Constitution is concerned, rights are 100% absolute.[/quote]
This assertion is patently false as has been demonstrated through centuries of legislation and court decisions.

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

No such confusion.
[/quote]
Much, much confusion.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:04 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

Their banning wasn't unconstitutional, and it won't be again.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:07 am
@InfraBlue,
That is incorrect. The Constitution only allows rights to be restricted if that restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:08 am
@InfraBlue,
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?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:09 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

No it doesn't.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Their outlawing passes constitutional muster.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:12 am
@oralloy,
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.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:22 am
@InfraBlue,
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?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:23 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
"Rights restrict the government from doing whatever activity the right forbids," is a self-canceling statement.

My statement plainly describes the function of a right.


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

Court rulings that vary from the text of the Constitution do not change what the text of the Constitution says.

Plus, you are arguing in circles now. You referred to the text of the Constitution to avoid addressing what the courts say. Now you are referring to the courts to avoid addressing what the text of the Constitution says.

But if you would like to return to addressing what the courts say, we have 75 years worth of Supreme Court rulings saying that restrictions on a fundamental right are allowed only if those restrictions can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.


InfraBlue wrote:
Much, much confusion.

No confusion on my end.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:23 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing it out.

Glennn wrote:
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.

This conclusion is moot, seeing as how it's based on your fallacious premise and a non sequitur.

Glennn wrote:
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.

You're wrong on both assertions. Selective fire rifles aren't banned because they are not semiautomatic rifles. Selective fire rifles are banned because they have automatic—either full or burst—fire capabilities. Also, certain semiautomatic rifles have been banned, and they will be again.

Glennn wrote:

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?

What's silly is your mischaracterization of my position that you've set up as your straw man.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:26 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
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.

The Supreme Court disagrees. They have always required restrictions on our rights to be backed with something more substantial than baseless speculation.

And of course, the strict text of the Constitution itself says no restrictions regardless of justification.


InfraBlue wrote:
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.

Not without a good reason to justify outlawing them it doesn't.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:27 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
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.

No confusion. That is the same rule that the Supreme Court has used for the past 75 years.


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

That is incorrect. Restricting a fundamental right is unconstitutional if the restriction cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:30 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Also, certain semiautomatic rifles have been banned, and they will be again.

So how come you can't even get your ban voted out of committee in the Democratically-controlled House?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:32 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

Says you.

Glennn wrote:

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.

Again, says you.

Glennn wrote:

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.

No. By similarity I mean that the only difference is selective fire.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Not in regard to my reason for banning assault rifles, which you are confusing with your hysterical obsession with pistol grips and other features.

Glennn wrote:

So do you have anything other than a hunch?

The previous banning of these weapons.
 

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 © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2020 at 03:48:04