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

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?

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 wrote:

they were, and will again be banned.

The NRA will not allow you to violate the Constitution again.

InfraBlue wrote:

They will be banned again.

No. The NRA will never allow you to violate the Constitution again.

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.

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.

I was referring to assault weapons. A semiautomatic AR-15 is an assault weapon as defined by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

Yes, my position on the banning of the AR-15 is clear and always has been. What's also clear is your misapprehension of my position on the banning of the AR-15, and the straw man arguments that you present in its stead to flail away at.

Quote:

It's no strawman argument to point out that your claim that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous. It is also no strawman argument to point out that you admit that your claim is based on a hunch because you have absolutely nothing in the way of proof that it is true.

Quote:

Semiautomatic weapons have been banned, and the only reason they aren't is because their ban was allowed to expire.

This is a variation on your appeal to authority. You are trying to make the point that the fact that a rifle had been banned in the past proves that its pistol-grip makes it an especially dangerous rifle. But no. All it proves is that it was previously banned, but is no longer banned. So you're still left with your hunch as the sole support for your unproven claim.

Quote:

If by now you don't know my reason for wanting the AR-15 banned, you will never know my reason for wanting the AR-15 banned.

Oh no, I understand completely why you want the AR-15 banned. It's because it has a pistol-grip that you believe makes it an especially dangerous rifle. I also know that you have nothing to substantiate that belief of yours except for an appeal to an authority that shares your lack of proof for the claim.

Quote:

So, if you do know my reason for wanting the AR-15 banned, why do you ask?

Oh I'm not asking for your reasoning. I already know your reasoning. I've been asking you to provide proof of your reasoning. So far, that reasoning is based on a hunch. I'm not asking you anything anymore. Basically I'm just here to point out that you have no proof of your claim, and to answer your denial with that fact.

Quote:

You've mischaracterized my position once again.

No I haven't. It's true that your position is backed by nothing but a hunch.

Pardon me, I was referring to, and meant to write assault weapons there.

Where did I shift my argument?

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.

oralloy wrote:

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.

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

A semiautomatic AR-15 is an assault weapon as defined by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

You're incorrect about the 1994 ban being unconstitutional.

Your opinon is duly noted.

Heh, what atrocity am I guilty of, exactly?

They will be banned again.

The justification was that assault weapons as defined by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act were commonly used in the commission of violent crimes.

Quote:

I was referring to assault weapons. A semiautomatic AR-15 is an assault weapon as defined by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

Yeah, and in this case the weapon is a rifle.

And you still have yet to provide one iota of proof that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes that rifle especially dangerous. And again you're appealing to an authority whose proof that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous is as sorely lacking as yours is.

Quote:

Yes, my position on the banning of the AR-15 is clear and always has been. What's also clear is your misapprehension of my position on the banning of the AR-15, and the straw man arguments that you present in its stead to flail away at.

It's no strawman argument to point out that your claim that a pistol-grip alone or in combination with other features makes a rifle especially dangerous. It is also no strawman argument to point out that you admit that your claim is based on a hunch because you have absolutely nothing in the way of proof that it is true.

Quote:

Semiautomatic weapons have been banned, and the only reason they aren't is because their ban was allowed to expire.

This is a variation on your appeal to authority. You are trying to make the point that the fact that a rifle had been banned in the past proves that its pistol-grip makes it an especially dangerous rifle.

But no. All it proves is that it was previously banned, but is no longer banned. So you're still left with your hunch as the sole support for your unproven claim.

Quote:

If by now you don't know my reason for wanting the AR-15 banned, you will never know my reason for wanting the AR-15 banned.

Oh no, I understand completely why you want the AR-15 banned. It's because it has a pistol-grip that you believe makes it an especially dangerous rifle. I also know that you have nothing to substantiate that belief of yours except for an appeal to an authority that shares your lack of proof for the claim.

Quote:

So, if you do know my reason for wanting the AR-15 banned, why do you ask?

Oh I'm not asking for your reasoning. I already know your reasoning. I've been asking you to provide proof of your reasoning. So far, that reasoning is based on a hunch. I'm not asking you anything anymore. Basically I'm just here to point out that you have no proof of your claim, and to answer your denial with that fact.

Quote:

You've mischaracterized my position once again.

No I haven't.

It's true that your position is backed by nothing but a hunch.

InfraBlue wrote:

Pardon me, I was referring to, and meant to write assault weapons there.

It doesn't matter. The terms are interchangeable. And neither one of them applies to common hunting rifles like a semi-auto AR-15.

InfraBlue wrote:

Where did I shift my argument?

About a week ago you suddenly started saying that you favored banning weapons merely for being similar to a weapon used by the military.

InfraBlue wrote:

Heh, I haven't violated the Constitution.

Restrictions on a fundamental right violate the Constitution unless the restrictions can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

InfraBlue wrote:

What is a fact is that your assertion that the banning of assault weapons violated the Constitution is an opinion.

That is incorrect. Restrictions on a fundamental right violate the Constitution unless the restrictions can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

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

No it doesn't.

That is incorrect. The Constitution requires the government to comply with the rights that it lists (and also the rights that it doesn't list, but that's a different topic). There are no exceptions in the text of the Constitution that allow the government to not comply with our rights.

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

That's not a fact. Without a good reason to justify the restriction, the restriction doesn't pass Constitutional muster.

The requirements for passing Constitutional muster are highly relevant to the question of whether something passes Constitution muster.

InfraBlue wrote:

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

That's not a fact either. There is no evidence that these weapons are commonly used in violent crimes.

If it had been a fact, it still would not be justification for a ban given the reality that these weapons are no deadlier than a common hunting rifle.

InfraBlue wrote:

A semiautomatic AR-15 is an assault weapon as defined by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

It's not an assault weapon as defined by the English language.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're incorrect about the 1994 ban being unconstitutional.

No I'm not. Restrictions on a fundamental right are unconstitutional if the restrictions cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your opinon is duly noted.

"That restrictions of a fundamental right are unconstitutional if they cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest" is a fact, not an opinion.

InfraBlue wrote:

Heh, what atrocity am I guilty of, exactly?

You are guilty of violating America's civil liberties, and of doing so for no reason other than the joy of violating people's civil liberties.