3
   

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

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:35 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
They will be banned again.

The NRA will not allow you to violate our civil liberties again.

Nuh-uh.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:48 pm
@InfraBlue,
Here's a reality check:


passed by House, ignored by Senate

Bipartisan Background Checks Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr8

Enhanced Background Checks Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1112

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1585


passed out of committee, NOT passed by either House or Senate

Keep Americans Safe Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1186

Extreme Risk Protection Order Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1236

Disarm Hate Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2708


not even passed out of committee

Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1296
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:49 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
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.

Why didn't that stop other gun control legislation from being passed out of committee in the Democratically controlled house?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:50 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
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.

I'm not wrong. The terms are interchangeable. Fraudulent definitions written into legislation do not change the actual meanings of words.


InfraBlue wrote:
Right. I haven't violated the Constitution.

You have. When you impose restrictions on a fundamental right that cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest, you are violating the Constitution.


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. The absence of any compelling government interest makes it a fact that the 1994 ban on ordinary hunting rifles (they are not assault weapons) violated the Constitution.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:53 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
That's wrong.

No it isn't. The text of the Constitution does not provide for exceptions. The government is required to comply with all of our rights.


InfraBlue wrote:
That's wrong

No it isn't. Restrictions on fundamental rights have to be justified as serving a compelling government interest or they do not pass Constitutional muster.


InfraBlue wrote:
and irrelevant.

The requirements for passing constitutional muster are far from irrelevant.


InfraBlue wrote:
That's wrong.

No it isn't. It is a fact that there is no evidence that these weapons are commonly used in crimes.

It is a fact that even if there was such evidence, the reality that these are no more deadly than other ordinary guns means that there would still not be any justification for outlawing them.


InfraBlue wrote:
That was the determination of the Sixth Court of Appeals.

Their determination is at odds with reality.


InfraBlue wrote:
The rest of your argument is irrelevant therefrom.

The requirements for passing Constitutional muster are not irrelevant.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:54 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

That's wrong. That was the determination of the Sixth Court of Appeals.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:55 pm
@InfraBlue,
It's not wrong. The determination of the Sixth Court of Appeals is at odds with reality.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:56 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
It's not an assault weapon as defined by your language, perhaps, otherwise that's false.

That is incorrect. According to the English language, assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,

b) accept detachable magazines,

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.


This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:59 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
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.

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

That is incorrect. "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, how did I do that, exactly?

By supporting an unconstitutional ban on weapons that they have the right to have.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 03:59 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Rejecting the Democrats' fraudulent definition of "assault weapon" is not confusion. That's merely adherence to the English language.

Your opinion is duly noted.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 04:00 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
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.

Why didn't that stop other gun control legislation from being passed out of committee in the Democratically controlled house?

For the selfsame reason.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 04:02 pm
@InfraBlue,
That "rejecting fraudulent definitions" is "adherence to the English language" is a fact, not an opinion.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 04:04 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
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.

I'm not wrong. The terms are interchangeable. Fraudulent definitions written into legislation do not change the actual meanings of words.

You're wrong no matter how many times you reiterate your wrongness.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Right. I haven't violated the Constitution.

You have. When you impose restrictions on a fundamental right that cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest, you are violating the Constitution.

I haven't.

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. The absence of any compelling government interest makes it a fact that the 1994 ban on ordinary hunting rifles (they are not assault weapons) violated the Constitution.

Repeating your opinion doesn't make it anything other than your opinion, and a redundancy.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 04:09 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
You're wrong no matter how many times you reiterate your wrongness.

I'm not wrong. The terms are interchangeable. Fraudulent definitions don't count.


InfraBlue wrote:
I haven't.

That is incorrect. When you impose restrictions on a fundamental right that cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest, you are violating the Constitution.


InfraBlue wrote:
Repeating your opinion doesn't make it anything other than your opinion, and a redundancy.

"That the 1994 ban on ordinary hunting rifles (they are not assault weapons) violated the Constitution" is a fact, not an opinion. Restrictions on fundamental rights are unconstitutional if the restrictions cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 04:29 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
That's wrong.

No it isn't. The text of the Constitution does not provide for exceptions. The government is required to comply with all of our rights.

You continue to be wrong.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
That's wrong

No it isn't. Restrictions on fundamental rights have to be justified as serving a compelling government interest or they do not pass Constitutional muster.

So you've demonstrated your wrongness. Very good.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
and irrelevant.

The requirements for passing constitutional muster are far from irrelevant.

Your assertion is wrong which makes the requirements irrelevant.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
That's wrong.

No it isn't. It is a fact that there is no evidence that these weapons are commonly used in crimes.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:
It is a fact that even if there was such evidence, the reality that these are no more deadly than other ordinary guns means that there would still not be any justification for outlawing them.

Well you're just chock-full of opinions that you confuse with fact.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
That was the determination of the Sixth Court of Appeals.

Their determination is at odds with reality.

I'm sure you're confusing this opinion with fact, as well.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The rest of your argument is irrelevant therefrom.

The requirements for passing Constitutional muster are not irrelevant.

That doesn't alter the fact that the rest of your argument is irrelevant therefrom.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 04:31 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

It's not wrong. The determination of the Sixth Court of Appeals is at odds with reality.

Your opinion doesn't make it any less wrong.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 04:34 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
It's not an assault weapon as defined by your language, perhaps, otherwise that's false.

That is incorrect. According to the English language, assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,

b) accept detachable magazines,

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.


This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.

Thanks for your language definition of assault weapons.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 04:39 pm
@InfraBlue,
That is the definition used by the English language.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 04:41 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Your opinion doesn't make it any less wrong.

It's not wrong, and is not an opinion.

"That the determination of the Sixth Court of Appeals is at odds with reality" is a fact.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2020 04:43 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
You continue to be wrong.

I'm not wrong. The Constitution requires the government to comply with our rights. It does not provide any exceptions to this requirement.


InfraBlue wrote:
So you've demonstrated your wrongness. Very good.

I'm not wrong. Restrictions on fundamental rights are unconstitutional if the restrictions cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest.


InfraBlue wrote:
Your assertion is wrong which makes the requirements irrelevant.

My assertion isn't wrong. Restrictions on fundamental rights are unconstitutional if the restrictions cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest.


InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

Wrong again. There is no evidence that these weapons are commonly used in crimes.


InfraBlue wrote:
Well you're just chock-full of opinions that you confuse with fact.

No confusion. "That there would be no justification for outlawing ordinary weapons even if there were evidence that criminals used them" is a fact, not an opinion.


InfraBlue wrote:
I'm sure you're confusing this opinion with fact, as well.

No confusion. It is a fact that the determination of the Sixth Court of Appeals is at odds with reality.


InfraBlue wrote:
That doesn't alter the fact that the rest of your argument is irrelevant therefrom.

That is incorrect. The requirements for passing constitutional muster are not irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
 

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 01/18/2022 at 11:34:13