3
   

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

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 12:29 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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?

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.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 12:32 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

You're incorrect about the 1994 ban being unconstitutional.

oralloy wrote:

It was blatantly unconstitutional.

Your opinon is duly noted.

oralloy wrote:
You are guilty of a grave atrocity against the American people.

Heh, what atrocity am I guilty of, exactly?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 12:33 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
they were, and will again be banned.

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


@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
They will be banned again.

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

We'll see.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 12:50 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

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.

Glennn wrote:

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.

That's faulty reasoning, as well as being incorrect. Semiautomatic weapons have been banned, and the only reason they aren't is because their ban was allowed to expire. They will be banned again.

Glennn wrote:
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?

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. Explaining it to you has been a futile effort.

Glennn wrote:

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.

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

Glennn wrote:
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.

You've mischaracterized my position once again.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 01:05 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

Says you.

Glennn wrote:

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.

You're loosing track of your own argument. I was referring to "similarity" meaning that the only difference is selective fire between the two rifles. Try to keep up.

Glennn wrote:

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?

If it will stop your hysterical obsession with redundant posting, yes.

Glennn wrote:

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.

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.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 01:06 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 01:29 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 04:22 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 04:23 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 04:24 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 04:26 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 04:27 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
They will be banned again.

The NRA will not allow you to violate our civil liberties again.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2020 04:53 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
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.

There is no evidence that they were or are commonly used in violent crimes.

And if there was such evidence, the fact that they are no more deadly than any other common hunting rifle means that there is still no justification for outlawing them.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 02:00 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

Yeah, and you're confusing assault rifles, which have selective fire capability, with assault weapons, as defined by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, be they rifles or other types of firearms, which do not have selective fire capability. Try to get it straight, M'kay.

Glennn wrote:

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.

Understood.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 02:03 pm
@InfraBlue,
Rejecting the Democrats' fraudulent definition of "assault weapon" is not confusion. That's merely adherence to the English language.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 02:40 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

Sure, but that is not my position on the banning of the AR-15. That's your straw man argument based on your miscomprehension of my position.

Glennn wrote:

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.

No I'm not.

Glennn wrote:
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.

Try to keep up with your own argument. You're falling behind—again. I was responding to your assertion, "I'm also saying that the reason that the other is not banned is because it is a non select-fire rifle," which is entirely incorrect.

Glennn wrote:

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.

BZZZ! WRONG!-again.

Glennn wrote:

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.

You're confused as to why I want the AR-15 banned.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
You've mischaracterized my position once again.

No I haven't.

Yes you have.

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

What's true is your confusion about my position.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:07 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

You're wrong, seeing as how the terms are being confused by the various posters on these threads; it does matter. The terms are not interchangeable, especially in regard to federal legislation.

oralloy wrote:

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.

I've said that since the beginning of these endlessly redundant threads.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Right. I haven't violated the Constitution.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Like I said, what is a fact is that your assertion that the banning of assault weapons violated the Constitution is an opinion.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:12 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

That's wrong.

oralloy wrote:

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.

That's wrong and irrelevant.

oralloy wrote:

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.

That's wrong. That was the determination of the Sixth Court of Appeals.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant therefrom.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:23 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

It's not an assault weapon as defined by your language, perhaps, otherwise that's false.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:33 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

Yes you are.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Your assertion that, "it was blatantly unconstitutional," to which I was responding, is an opinion.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Heh, how did I do that, exactly?
 

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 0.03 seconds on 01/17/2022 at 05:02:41