3
   

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

 
 
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 02:39 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
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.

Yes. It would be the enactment of the "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" process. If one gun is banned, and people are still murdering each other with different guns, the anti-gun crowd will arrive at the conclusion that they haven't gone far enough. And then they'll focus on the next scary looking gun.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 02:44 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

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.

That's just a defeatist attitude proffered to avoid gun control laws. It's like saying why do we have drunk driving laws if it won't stop criminals from driving drunk. 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.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 02:47 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 02:51 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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

Not reasonable.

Says you.

Glennn wrote:
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.

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

Glennn wrote:
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.

Those assault weapons as defined and described by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act should be banned as well.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 02:52 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

Good.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 02:53 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
arguments and dialog do not work. Only by electing responsible representatives can we make it happen.

Equating "responsibility" with "violating people's civil liberties for no reason" is rather absurd, but let's move on.

People in rural districts do not want progressives to violate our civil liberties. And we are never going to elect any politician who will do such a thing.

So this whole "let's elect politicians who will violate everyone's civil liberties" scheme that progressives are working on, it's not going to work. You may get the cities and the suburbs, but rural America will never go along with this progressive plot.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 02:55 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

Those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire aren't ordinary hunting rifles. They're human hunting rifles.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 02:59 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:05 pm
@InfraBlue,
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?
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:08 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Most likely not something that would satisfy your criteria.

I merely ask that our civil liberties not be violated.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:09 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:10 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire aren't ordinary hunting rifles. They're human hunting rifles.

Wrong! Your alleged human-hunting rifles double as animal-hunting rifles, and animal-hunting rifles double as alleged human-hunting rifles. Your use of the term is an attempt to appeal to the emotions. Fact is, you have nothing to show that the features you believe make a rifle especially dangerous actually make a rifle especially dangerous. And when faced with that fact, you appeal to an authority who shares your deficiency in reason.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:10 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
The intent of these laws is to reduce the incidences of these behaviors.

The only intent of laws against pistol grips is to provide sadistic pleasure to progressives by violating people's civil liberties.


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

People have the right to have them, and they will not give up this right. So guns are going to remain available.

Your claim is incorrect anyway. Prohibition did not prevent people from drinking alcohol. The war on drugs does not prevent people from consuming drugs.

Gun availability has little impact on crime in any case. Murder with a knife is just as deadly as a murder with a gun. Rape at knifepoint is just as brutal as rape at gunpoint.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:11 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire aren't ordinary hunting rifles. They're human hunting rifles.

Wrong. Human-hunting rifles always have a selective fire switch. Rifles without a selective fire switch are just ordinary hunting rifles.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:13 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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.

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.

Glennn wrote:

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.

Says you.

Glennn wrote:
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.

You're confused as to the claim they're making, as well.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:17 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

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?

Seeing as how this may be a case of a non sequitur fallacy on your part in regard to inconsistent reasoning, what's the actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers, exactly?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:19 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Most likely not something that would satisfy your criteria.

I merely ask that our civil liberties not be violated.

Nothing would satisfy your criteria for this, as well, I'm sure.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:22 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Says you.

Glenn is correct to say it.

Says you.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You're confused as to what I'm saying.

No. Glennn is accurately characterizing your position.

You're confused as well.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Those assault weapons as defined and described by the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act are assault weapons.

You're severely confused as to the purpose for banning them.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:28 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
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.

You have consistently failed to show anything to substantiate your claim. As proof of what I say, I will ask you to remind us of the last time a flash suppressor was recognized as something that made the difference between a shooting and an "especially" bad shooting. And you can go ahead and combine a barrel shroud with a bayonet-mount, or flash suppressor, or, hell, all three of those features, and explain how, all together they just really ramp up the danger factor of the gun.
Quote:
Says you.

No. It's actually true that NO ONE has explained how any of those features makes a rifle especially dangerous. If you believe someone has, then cite something that will validate that claim.
Quote:
You're confused as to the claim they're making, as well.

No I'm not. But you certainly appear to be confused as to what makes a claim legitimate.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jan, 2020 03:32 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
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.

A claim you do not back up with any evidence.


InfraBlue wrote:
Says you.

Glennn is correct to say it.


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

That is incorrect. Glennn has accurately characterized the law in question.
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 09:56:36