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

Setting aside that fact that outlawing an ordinary hunting rifle for no reason would be a grave violation of people's civil liberties (which of course is your real goal here), if you got away with outlawing one ordinary hunting rifle, you'd quickly follow by outlawing more and more ordinary hunting rifles.

Until the other side realizes that there is not a single law that can be passed that will stop criminals from buying illegal guns there will be no middle ground. That has to be the start of the conversation.

It's like saying why do we have drunk driving laws if it won't stop criminals from driving drunk.

Quote:

I want those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire banned and confiscated.

Not reasonable.

Basically you're saying that a flash suppressor, barrel shroud, bayonet mount, or pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous. I have yet to see any proof of such a claim.

But that's neither here nor there anyway. Anyone who wants to ban "assault weapons" must be ignorant of the fact that assault weapons are already banned, as the only feature that distinguishes an assault rifle from a regular rifle is select-fire capability.

Quote:

It's like saying why do we have drunk driving laws if it won't stop criminals from driving drunk.

Yeah, that's why we have gun laws, too. We prosecute those who abuse the right.

arguments and dialog do not work. Only by electing responsible representatives can we make it happen.

InfraBlue wrote:

I don't want all guns banned and confiscated. I want those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire banned and confiscated.

In other words, you want to outlaw a bunch of ordinary hunting rifles.

You're confused as to what I'm saying.

Those assault weapons as defined and described by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act should be banned as well.

It's like saying why do we have drunk driving laws if it won't stop criminals from driving drunk.

Most likely not something that would satisfy your criteria.

Says you.

You're confused as to what I'm saying.

Those assault weapons as defined and described by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act should be banned as well.

Those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire aren't ordinary hunting rifles. They're human hunting rifles.

The intent of these laws is to reduce the incidences of these behaviors.

Criminals' ability buy illegal guns would be greatly curtailed if these guns were not available in the first place.

Those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire aren't ordinary hunting rifles. They're human hunting rifles.

Quote:

You're confused as to what I'm saying.

No. I'm pretty certain that you base your opinion on which guns should be banned on the presence of features that you have not proven to be especially dangerous.

Quote:

Those assault weapons as defined and described by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act should be banned as well.

You're appealing to an authority whose basis for banning a gun is just as lacking as yours is.

Like you, they cannot come up with even one instance in which a flash suppressor, pistol-grip, bayonet mount, or barrel shroud made any difference whatsoever in any shooting. They just make the claim, and people like you don't question it.

Quote:

It's like saying why do we have drunk driving laws if it won't stop criminals from driving drunk.

More people have been killed by drunk drivers than by guns. Plus alcohol is a substantial factor in violent crime. So you're all for drunk driving laws, but you don't agree that we should ban the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers. Why the inconsistent reasoning?

InfraBlue wrote:

Most likely not something that would satisfy your criteria.

I merely ask that our civil liberties not be violated.

InfraBlue wrote:

Says you.

Glenn is correct to say it.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're confused as to what I'm saying.

No. Glennn is accurately characterizing your position.

InfraBlue wrote:

Those assault weapons as defined and described by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act should be banned as well.

Setting aside the fact that they are not assault weapons, banning pistol grips for no reason is unconstitutional and is just an attempt to violate people's civil liberties for the sadistic pleasure of progressives.

To clarify, the aggregate features that make up those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire make these weapons especially dangerous.

Says you.

You're confused as to the claim they're making, as well.

To clarify, the aggregate features that make up those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire make these weapons especially dangerous.

Says you.

You're confused as to the claim they're making, as well.