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

InfraBlue wrote:

They will be banned again.

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

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.

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.

Right. 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.

That's wrong.

That's wrong

and irrelevant.

That's wrong.

That was the determination of the Sixth Court of Appeals.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant therefrom.

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.

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

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.

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

Heh, how did I do that, exactly?

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

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?

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.

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

I haven't.

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

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.

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

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.

Your opinion doesn't make it any less wrong.

You continue to be wrong.

So you've demonstrated your wrongness. Very good.

Your assertion is wrong which makes the requirements irrelevant.

Nuh-uh.

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

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

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