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

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
The military does use semiautomatic rifles. Semiautomatic mode is one of the selective fire options.

Now you're being deliberately dishonest. You don't want to admit that the military doesn't use semiautomatic rifles, and so you are using the fact that on a select-fire rifle, semiautomatic fire is one mode of fire available to the shooter, and that therefore the military uses semiautomatic rifles.

You reitterated what I said.

[/quote=Glennn]What you're playing dumb about is that burst-fire or automatic fire is not available on the civilian version of the AR-15.[/quote]
Where did I say that burst-fire or automatic fire is available on the civilian version of the AR-15, or are you playing dumb?

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
That's what oralloy's repetitive replies amount to.

That's kind of funny coming from a guy who keeps repeating nonsense about how a flash suppressor, barrel-shroud, bayonet-mount, and pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous despite having been shown that he has nothing at all to support his claim.

What's funny is that you and oralloy can't leave it at that. You chase your own tail and oralloy is third grade repetitive in your obsession.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
That's only your opinion,

Yeah, but my opinion is based on the fact that no one, including you, has provided any proof of your claims concerning a flash suppressor or barrel-shroud or bayonet-mount or pistol-grip making a rifle especially dangerous.

Which affirms my contention that this opinion of yours is based on your appeal to your own reasoning—that since an animal-hunting rifle can function as a human-hunting rifle, and vice versa animal hunting weapons should not be banned, and you bring up straw man arguments about rifle features to bolster your claim—which certainly you believe is valid outside of your mind as well, and what you're saying is that your appeal to reason is valid, but mine is not. Sorry but that dog won't hunt.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
That's not my claim.

There's not one person reading this thread who does not understand that you have made the claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, or that a barrel-shroud in combination with a pistol-grip and bayonet-mount makes a rifle especially dangerous. It's way too late for you to back-peddle now. Waaaay too late!

Where did I claim that a barrel shroud makes a rifle especially dangerous, again?

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
More percisely, it's an agreement with the reason and logic of that authority

If only that authority had provided their rationale or reason for their claim, you wouldn't be guilty of a mindless appeal to an authority who has offered no reason for their claim. If you honestly believe that they have provided the reasoning for their claims, then go fetch it and bring it here. But you're not going to do that because their claims are as void of reason as yours are.

I've addressed your claims of mindless appeals to authority above.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
. . . your ridiculous focus on gun features instead of the assault weapons

But those features are what you claim make the rifle especially dangerous. But here you are now telling me to not focus on those features, but on the rifle. You need to go away and regroup so that you can get your story straight. Otherwise, you're going to continue to come across as an individul who holds conflicting views and doesn't even know it.

The conflicted views are yours in trying to pick apart an assault weapon and pointing out that it's separate features are harmless and therefor the assault rifle shouldn't be banned. That bird won't fly.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

I used to have an M-16 because my first husband liberated it from the Armory when he was in Special Forces reserves.

Heh.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Now, why do you think I'd follow this bulll **** straw man argument of yours if I haven't followed the endless others?

You described how a flash suppressor aids a shooter. However, like your claim about pistol-grips, your claim about a flash suppressor are unfounded. You are being asked to provide some proof of your claim. I would start with something from the media or law enforcement. Ya know, something--ANYTHING--to validate your claim that a flash suppressor just really proved to be a benefit to a murderer. But we both know that you're not going to find anything.

So you have made a claim about flash suppressors that you cannot show to be true. We can ass this unproven claim to your claim concerning pistol-grips. Your only option is to admit your failure, or try something lame like calling your failure my strawman argument. But the fact is that your claims are bullshit so far.

Quote:

I do not believe that it is a military issue rifle.

Good to hear you say that.

Quote:

To continue with your games, I asked you first.

You don't want to answer that question because you know the position it will put you in. If you defend alcohol, and condemn the drinker, you'll be forced to admit that condemning the gun instead of the shooter would be foolish.

Quote:

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

damn skippy.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Where did I say that burst-fire or automatic fire is available on the civilian version of the AR-15, or are you playing dumb?

You're continuing with the dishonesty. I pointed out that the military doesn't use semiautomatic rifles. So you dishonestly made the claim that the military does use semiautomatic rifles. And you dishonestly based that on the fact that one of the setting on the select-fire rifles that the military does use is for semiautomatic fire.

You're not doing yourself any favors when you resort to that kind of bullshyt. Makes it more than a little difficult to take you serious.

Quote:

What's funny is that you and oralloy can't leave it at that.

Well, if you would stop saying that it's not about the features after having said that these same features make the rifle especially dangerous, both separately (pistol-grip) and in combination, we wouldn't have to keep shoving that contradictory statements and your unproven claims back into your face.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Which affirms my contention that this opinion of yours is based on your appeal to your own reasoning

Wrong! I'm not appealing to anything. I don't have to. My opinion is based on your failure to prove your claim.

Quote:

Where did I claim that a barrel shroud makes a rifle especially dangerous, again?

Are you hoping that no one will remember how you mentioned the term aggregate? Now, why don't you explain to us the context in which you used that word. If you fail to do so, I will hunt down the post in which you used the term and post it for the benefit of others.

Quote:

The conflicted views are yours in trying to pick apart an assault weapon and pointing out that it's separate features are harmless and therefor the assault rifle shouldn't be banned.

You're pretending to not understand what I'm pointing out. You claimed that those features make the rifle especially dangerous. Then you turned around and told me to not focus on those features, but on the rifle. You're forgetting what you've said, but I haven't. So, how do you reconcile your claim that those features are what makes the rifle dangerous with your request that I not focus on those features, but on the rifle?

1 Reply

Oh well, this is giving me a major caliber headache. Have fun kids.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:

Now, why do you think I'd follow this bulll **** straw man argument of yours if I haven't followed the endless others?

You described how a flash suppressor aids a shooter. However, like your claim about pistol-grips, your claim about a flash suppressor are unfounded. You are being asked to provide some proof of your claim. I would start with something from the media or law enforcement. Ya know, something--ANYTHING--to validate your claim that a flash suppressor just really proved to be a benefit to a murderer. But we both know that you're not going to find anything.

So you have made a claim about flash suppressors that you cannot show to be true. We can ass this unproven claim to your claim concerning pistol-grips. Your only option is to admit your failure, or try something lame like calling your failure my strawman argument. But the fact is that your claims are bullshit so far.[/quote]
Look at the gun enthusiast websites for verification of the aid that flash suppresors provide shooters. Look at Wikipedia.

One thing is that flash suppresors aid shooters, another thing trying to base that claim on police and witness reports. One doesn't need police and witness reports to verify that flash supprsors aid shooters.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
I do not believe that it is a military issue rifle.

Good to hear you say that.

M'kay.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
To continue with your games, I asked you first.

You don't want to answer that question because you know the position it will put you in. If you defend alcohol, and condemn the drinker, you'll be forced to admit that condemning the gun instead of the shooter would be foolish.

Quote:

So, there is no actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers, exactly, the cause is all about trick questions. Ok.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Where did I say that burst-fire or automatic fire is available on the civilian version of the AR-15, or are you playing dumb?

You're continuing with the dishonesty. I pointed out that the military doesn't use semiautomatic rifles. So you dishonestly made the claim that the military does use semiautomatic rifles. And you dishonestly based that on the fact that one of the setting on the select-fire rifles that the military does use is for semiautomatic fire.

You're not doing yourself any favors when you resort to that kind of bullshyt. Makes it more than a little difficult to take you serious.

How is that dishonest?

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
What's funny is that you and oralloy can't leave it at that.

Well, if you would stop saying that it's not about the features after having said that these same features make the rifle especially dangerous, both separately (pistol-grip) and in combination, we wouldn't have to keep shoving that contradictory statements and your unproven claims back into your face.

It's not contradictory to say that it's not about the features even though the features make a rifel especially dangerous. You're trying to pick apart an assault rifle instead of taking it as the whole that it is, a rifle whose only difference with a military isssue rifle is selective fire.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

a rifle whose only difference with a military isssue rifle is selective fire.

Being a military rifle is not in itself justification for outlawing a weapon. There has to be some feature (selective fire for instance) that makes the weapon a danger to the public before there is justification for outlawing it.

When that dangerous feature is not present in the rifle, there is no longer justification for outlawing the rifle.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Which affirms my contention that this opinion of yours is based on your appeal to your own reasoning

Wrong! I'm not appealing to anything. I don't have to. My opinion is based on your failure to prove your claim.

Self-deluded! Your opinion is based on your appeal to own flawed reason and logic on every level and every point of your argument. That you can't see it doesn't make it any less a fact.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Where did I claim that a barrel shroud makes a rifle especially dangerous, again?

Are you hoping that no one will remember how you mentioned the term aggregate? Now, why don't you explain to us the context in which you used that word. If you fail to do so, I will hunt down the post in which you used the term and post it for the benefit of others.

That's right aggregate, not in and of itself. The context was assault weapons that have that feature.

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
The conflicted views are yours in trying to pick apart an assault weapon and pointing out that it's separate features are harmless and therefor the assault rifle shouldn't be banned.

You're pretending to not understand what I'm pointing out. You claimed that those features make the rifle especially dangerous. Then you turned around and told me to not focus on those features, but on the rifle. You're forgetting what you've said, but I haven't. So, how do you reconcile your claim that those features are what makes the rifle dangerous with your request that I not focus on those features, but on the rifle?

I'm not pretending to not understand. It is you that can't see the forest for the trees, or in this case the rifle for the features. Once again, those features in aggregate, not in and of themselves, make the rifle dangerous, and that's because these rifles are no different from military issue rifles save selective fire.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Oh well, this is giving me a major caliber headache. Have fun kids.

Yeah, the dead horse has been beat to a fine mush. Sorry.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
a rifle whose only difference with a military isssue rifle is selective fire.

Being a military rifle is not in itself justification for outlawing a weapon. There has to be some feature (selective fire for instance) that makes the weapon a danger to the public before there is justification for outlawing it.

When that dangerous feature is not present in the rifle, there is no longer justification for outlawing the rifle.

That's wrong. There doesn't have to be a single feature that makes the weapon a danger to the public to justify outlawing it. The danger is that these weapons are specifically designed for assault.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

That's wrong. There doesn't have to be a single feature that makes the weapon a danger to the public to justify outlawing it.

That is incorrect. The government is not allowed to restrict a fundamental right unless the restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

InfraBlue wrote:

The danger is that these weapons are specifically designed for assault.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that only the versions with a selective fire switch were designed for assault, merely having been designed for assault does not mean that a weapon is necessarily a danger to the public.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

One thing is that flash suppresors aid shooters, another thing trying to base that claim on police and witness reports. One doesn't need police and witness reports to verify that flash supprsors aid shooters.

It's one thing to say that flash suppressors aid murderers. It's another thing to say that a rifle should be banned because it has a flash suppressor. The reason being that there is no instance on record to show that a flash suppressor made a murderer more successful. You're going to have to produce an instance in which a flash suppressor changed anything about a shooting or mass shooting. Perhaps if you could find some news report or law enforcement official claiming that a murderer's location was a mystery because of a flash suppressor. So, you go find an incident in which that was the case. Otherwise, your claim here can be chalked up to hysteria.

Quote:

So, there is no actual cause of innocent people being killed by drunk drivers, exactly, the cause is all about trick questions.

There's nothing tricky about my question. What you don't like about it is that it's straightforward and it calls your reasoning into question. So let's go back and find out why you hold the contradictory position of condemning the drunk driver instead of the alcohol for the loss of life, but condemning the gun instead of the murderer for the loss of life.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

How is that dishonest?

You made the claim that the military does use semiautomatic rifles. Of course they don't. But having made the claim, you needed to extricate yourself from the position of having been caught making yet another unproven claim. So you decided that since one of the settings on a select-fire rifle is for semiautomatic fire, you could push the idea that that makes that rifle a semiautomatic rifles.

Quote:

It's not contradictory to say that it's not about the features even though the features make a rifel especially dangerous.

That statement itself is contradictory. And to make matters worse, it contains your original contradictory claim that, though it's the features that make the rifle especially dangerous, I should focus on the rifle, and not the features that make it dangerous.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Self-deluded!

I see. So now, basing my opinion on your claim on your failure to prove that claim makes me self-deluded. Only in your mind.

Quote:

That's right aggregate, not in and of itself. The context was assault weapons that have that feature.

Uh huh. And now explain how a flash suppressor in combination with a pistol-grip or bayonet-mount makes a rifle especially dangerous. And when you draw a blank on that, explain your lack of explanation.

Quote:

Once again, those features in aggregate, not in and of themselves

I see. So once again, how does a pistol-grip in combination with a bayonet-mount make a rifle especially dangerous?

Quote:

these rifles are no different from military issue rifles save selective fire.

Yeah, and select-fire is what makes them different from rifles used by the military.

1 Reply

Joe Biden: "Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9-millimeter bullets that can hold 10 rounds?"

http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/joe-biden-visits-seattle-for-fundraising-events/1009238597/

---

Michael Bloomberg commenting on the private citizen who recently stopped a church massacre: "It's the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot. You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place."

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Considering that there were almost four million burglaries each year between 2003 and 2007, and that a household member was at home in about a million of those burglaries, Bloomberg must believe that the best way to avoid being a victim of violence during these home invasions is to call the police and hope that the burglar respects your need for enough time to make the call and for the police to arrive and assist you in your hour of need. Either that, or he believes it is best for you to engage in hand to hand combat . . . assuming the burglar doesn't have a gun.

Rich people who are so far removed from the reality of the common man can be so funny.

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know