3
   

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

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:41 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

Your statement is a confused convolution.

oralloy wrote:

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.

M'kay.

oralloy wrote:

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.

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

oralloy wrote:

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.

Ok.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Much, much confusion.

No confusion on my end.

There is a lot of confusion on your end.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:47 am
@InfraBlue,
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.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 10:51 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

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

Glennn wrote:

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

No it doesn't.

Glennn wrote:

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.

Their outlawing passes constitution muster, their reasoning justified.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:05 am
@InfraBlue,
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.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:14 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

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.

oralloy wrote:

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.

More confusion. See my reply above to this selfsame confusion.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:16 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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?

Because it won't pass the Republican controlled Senate.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:21 am
@InfraBlue,
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.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:22 am
@InfraBlue,
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.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:23 am
@InfraBlue,
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?
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:25 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
the banning of assault weapons wasn't unconstitutional

What makes an AR-15 an assault rifle? We know that it can't be the pistol-grip since the "especially dangerousness" that you attribute to it is based on a hunch. So it must be the non select-fire nature of it, eh?
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:25 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
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.

Your confusion comes from your erroneous claim that the 1994 ban wasn't unconstitutional.

It was blatantly unconstitutional. You are guilty of a grave atrocity against the American people.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:32 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

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.

Glennn wrote:

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

That's exactly right.

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?


Glennn wrote:

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.

Your straw man argument has nothing to do with why they were, and will again be banned.

Glennn wrote:

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.

What's been set up is your silly straw man mischaracterization of my position that you're flaying away at.
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:45 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Says you.

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

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

Glennn wrote:

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?

No, says you about your opinion that an unverified hunch in this case amounts to hysteria. Everything else is your flailing at your own silly straw man argument.

Glennn wrote:

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.

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

Glennn wrote:

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!

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

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
The previous banning of these weapons.

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

They will be banned again.

Glennn wrote:

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.

Says you.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:48 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
they were, and will again be banned.

The NRA will not allow you to violate the Constitution again.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:49 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
They will be banned again.

No. The NRA will never allow you to violate the Constitution again.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:58 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
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.

Your position on the banning of the AR-15 is clear and always has been. You believe that the pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features make it an especially dangerous rifle. And you admit that that belief is based on a hunch. So that strawman argument that you believe I'm presenting is nothing more and nothing less than your actual position which--according to you--is based on a hunch.
Quote:

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?

I'm saying that the reason that one is banned is because it is a select-fire rifle. I'm also saying that the reason that the other is not banned is because it is a non select-fire rifle. Since you have nothing more than a hunch to validate your claim that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous, your position amounts to wanting the AR-15 banned for some other reason. What would that reason be?
Quote:
What's been set up is your silly straw man mischaracterization of my position that you're flaying away at.

Your position is that a non select-fire AR-15 should be banned because of its similarity to an actual select-fire rifle. By this you mean that because an AR-15 has a pistol-grip, it should be banned. But when asked what proof you have of that claim, you refer me to your hunch. That is your position in a nutshell.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 11:59 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Says you.
Again, says you.

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

That's not logic, that's an opinion.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Pardon me, I was referring to, and meant to write assault weapons there. Where did I shift my argument?

oralloy wrote:

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.

Heh, I haven't violated the Constitution.

What is a fact is that your assertion that the banning of assault weapons violated the Constitution is an opinion.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 12:07 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Your statement is a confused convolution.

My statement plainly describes the function of a right.

In your own mind, perhaps.

oralloy wrote:

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

I was referring to "the text of the Constitution."

Referring to bringing up the Constitution, you brought it up here.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
There is a lot of confusion on your end.

No there isn't.

Yes there is.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 12:09 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
No, says you about your opinion that an unverified hunch in this case amounts to hysteria.

Well what name would you apply to that unverified hunch of yours? Hysteria or obsession works nicely I think.
Quote:
No. Re-read what I wrote that you've continually defenestrated and replaced with your silly straw man.

No. By your own admission, you actually 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.
Quote:
I gave you my assertion about pistol grips and other features, which you have been obsessionally fixated on throughout these threads.

Would you rather I stop pointing out that your hysteria concerning pistol-grips is unfounded and unproven?
Quote:
Says you.

No. It is literally true that those who were responsible for that ban shared your hysteria and your propensity for having nothing at all upon which to base their justification for banning the AR-15. If you believe otherwise, then produce their justification for banning rifles with pistol-grips. If you can't, then we will call a spade a spade.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 12:24 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

That doesn't negate the fact that you lose track of your own argument about "actual evidence" that you shifted to "something more substantial than baseless speculation."

oralloy wrote:

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.

No it doesn't.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Their outlawing passes constitution muster,

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

That's irrelevant to the fact that their outlawing passes constitutional muster.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
their reasoning justified.

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

Ultimately, the reasoning for outlawing these weapons is the fact that they have been commonly used in the commission of violent crimes.
 

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 0.04 seconds on 05/29/2022 at 12:43:12