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

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.

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

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.

What's silly is your mischaracterization of my position that you've set up as your straw man.

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.

Says you.

Again, says you.

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

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

The previous banning of these weapons.

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.

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?

Says you.
Again, says you.

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

The previous banning of these weapons.

Your statement is a confused convolution.

I didn't bring up the text of the Constitution, you did.

There is a lot of confusion on your end.

You lose track of your own argument. One thing is actual evidence, another thing is something more substantial than baseless speculation.

oralloy wrote:

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

No it doesn't.

Their outlawing passes constitution muster,

their reasoning justified.

the banning of assault weapons wasn't unconstitutional

That doesn't dispel the fact that your argument that, "unless you can provide some sort of realistic justification for banning them, then banning them is unconstitutional," in light of the fact that the banning of assault weapons wasn't unconstitutional—the challenge on their banning didn't even get to the Supreme Court, is verily confused.

Quote:

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

Yeah, you're pointing out the difference, but that's where you and reality part company, and you hysterically express your hunch that both select-fire rifles AND non select-fire rifles should be banned.

Quote:

Selective fire rifles are banned because they have automatic—either full or burst—fire capabilities.

That's exactly right.

Quote:

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

Well they're not going to be banned for being select-fire rifles. Therefore, we're back to your hysterical hunch concerning pistol-grips making a rifle especially dangerous, which you have no proof of; hence your appeal to hunches.

Quote:

What's silly is your mischaracterization of my position that you've set up as your straw man.

Sorry, but you set yourself up. You have nothing to show that a pistol-grip, alone or in combination with other features, makes a rifle especially dangerous. Therefore, you're arguing that an AR-15 should be banned because it is not a select-fire rifle.

Quote:

Says you.

No. Says you. You've admitted that you have no proof of your hunch.

Quote:

Again, says you.

No. By your own admission, you have nothing more than an unverified hunch to validate your claim that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous. Therefore, your position amounts to calling for the banning of the AR-15 based on the fact that it is a non select-fire rifle. Silly, huh?

Quote:

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

Right. By similarity, you mean it has a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features, all of which you have nothing but a hunch to show that they make a rifle especially dangerous.

Quote:

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

You keep forgetting that it is you who are obsessing on pistol-grips. No one else here is claiming that they make a rifle especially dangerous with nothing but a hunch to back their claim. That would be you!

Quote:

The previous banning of these weapons.

I believe that "previously" is the operative word there.

Unfortunately, those who were responsible for that ban shared your hysteria and propensity for having nothing at all upon which to base their justification for banning the AR-15 on.

they were, and will again be banned.

They will be banned again.

What's a break from reality is your hysterical straw man argument that you present instead of my position on the banning of assault weapons.

So "a select-fire rifle is banned because it is not a semiautomatic rifle," or is a selective fire rifle banned because it has automatic—either full or burst—fire capabilities, or are you saying that they're banned because of both reasons?

What's been set up is your silly straw man mischaracterization of my position that you're flaying away at.

InfraBlue wrote:

Says you.
Again, says you.

"That an unsupported claim does not amount to anything" is pretty straightforward logic.

InfraBlue wrote:

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

You made your switch to this new justification for trying to ban these hunting rifles (they're not assault rifles) when you were talking to me. And our posts were so long that most people likely skipped over them. Glennn might not have noticed when you switched your arguments.

Although, seriously, your new position is just as untenable as your old one.

InfraBlue wrote:

The previous banning of these weapons.

The fact that you've violated the Constitution in the past is not justification for violating the Constitution in the future.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your statement is a confused convolution.

My statement plainly describes the function of a right.

InfraBlue wrote:

I didn't bring up the text of the Constitution, you did.

Your words:

"That is not in the Constitution"

http://able2know.org/topic/543280-14#post-6948460

InfraBlue wrote:

There is a lot of confusion on your end.

No there isn't.

No, says you about your opinion that an unverified hunch in this case amounts to hysteria.

No. Re-read what I wrote that you've continually defenestrated and replaced with your silly straw man.

I gave you my assertion about pistol grips and other features, which you have been obsessionally fixated on throughout these threads.

Says you.

InfraBlue wrote:

You lose track of your own argument. One thing is actual evidence, another thing is something more substantial than baseless speculation.

Anything that lacks supporting evidence is baseless speculation.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

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

No it doesn't.

That is incorrect. The Constitution forbids restrictions on rights. It does not provide any exceptions to this rule.

InfraBlue wrote:

Their outlawing passes constitution muster,

Not without a good reason to justify outlawing them it doesn't.

InfraBlue wrote:

their reasoning justified.

So what is the good reason for outlawing them that provides this justification?