Gun banning Groups

[Rucker61]

Correct, that is precisely why they are not interchangeable: they are not equivalent.

If someone is trying to ban "assault weapons", are they trying to ban guns that are currently legal at the federal level?

 

[Rucker61]

You just need to present any evidence they want to ban anything

"The proposed legislation falls in line with National PTA’s positions on gun violence prevention and
National PTA agrees with Sen. Feinstein in that Congress must act to:
 Ban the sale and possession of military-style assault weapons;
 Ban large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds;"

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...438FC1167F.awb-parent-teacher-association.pdf

Edit: there's fifteen seconds of my life I'll never get back.

 

[vegas giants]

"The proposed legislation falls in line with National PTA’s positions on gun violence prevention and
National PTA agrees with Sen. Feinstein in that Congress must act to:
 Ban the sale and possession of military-style assault weapons;
 Ban large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds;"

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...438FC1167F.awb-parent-teacher-association.pdf

Edit: there's fifteen seconds of my life I'll never get back.

One down....how many left? LOL

 

[Absentglare]

If someone is trying to ban "assault weapons", are they trying to ban guns that are currently legal at the federal level?

You already answered this question when you acknowledged that "assault weapons" are distinct from "guns" due to the fact that the former is a subset of the latter.

Are they trying to ban all of the guns thar are currently legal at the federal level? No, not even close. Now you can argue that you omitted the "all" in order to maintain leeway for exceptions. However:

Are they trying to ban most of the guns that are currently legal at the federal level? Again, the answer is obviously not. The exceptions outnumber the rule in both scope and quantity, and overwhelmingly so.

So, AGAIN, you are defending a debunked, dishonest, and rhetorical reduction of terms.

 

[Rucker61]

You already answered this question when you acknowledged that "assault weapons" are distinct from "guns" due to the fact that the former is a subset of the latter.

Are they trying to ban all of the guns thar are currently legal at the federal level? No, not even close. Now you can argue that you omitted the "all" in order to maintain leeway for exceptions. However:

Are they trying to ban most of the guns that are currently legal at the federal level? Again, the answer is obviously not. The exceptions outnumber the rule in both scope and quantity, and overwhelmingly so.

So, AGAIN, you are defending a debunked, dishonest, and rhetorical reduction of terms.

Interesting that you included ALL and MOST, but not SOME, which is also a alternative logical reading of the phrase "they are trying to ban guns". If we said "the shooter is killing people", we wouldn't assume ALL or MOST in front of "people". Context is important, and you cannot assume what the poster is saying if there are multiple valid interpretations.

 

[Absentglare]

Interesting that you included ALL and MOST, but not SOME, which is also a alternative logical reading of the phrase "they are trying to ban guns". If we said "the shooter is killing people", we wouldn't assume ALL or MOST in front of "people". Context is important, and you cannot assume what the poster is saying if there are multiple valid interpretations.

No, that is not an "alternative logical reading" of that phrase because the phrase "assault weapons" is not equivalent to the word "guns".

Context is important, so in the context of an assault weapons ban, it's important to retain that context, rather than dishonestly changing it to firearms in general in order to mischaracterize the opposition.

 

[Rucker61]

No, that is not an "alternative logical reading" of that phrase because the phrase "assault weapons" is not equivalent to the word "guns".

Context is important, so in the context of an assault weapons ban, it's important to retain that context, rather than dishonestly changing it to firearms in general in order to mischaracterize the opposition.

It most certainly is. "They are trying to ban guns" can be read as "they are trying to ban all guns", "they are trying to ban most guns" or "they are trying to ban some guns". To deny this is to admit you don't understand English sentence structure and/or logic.

And even "they are trying to ban some guns" is an unacceptable activity.

 

[jaeger19]

Did you not read what i wrote?

The list is of organizations that support a ban on assault weapons.

If you substitute "guns" for "assault weapons", knowing that the terms are not equivalent, then you are LYING.

Assault weapons are not guns? Sorry but they are.

Saying that you "don't want to ban guns".. knowing that you support a ban on certain weapons.. is LYING

 

[jaeger19]

No, that is not an "alternative logical reading" of that phrase because the phrase "assault weapons" is not equivalent to the word "guns".

Context is important, so in the context of an assault weapons ban, it's important to retain that context, rather than dishonestly changing it to firearms in general in order to mischaracterize the opposition.

Whoa their cowboy.

You support a ban on certain firearms.. in fact a nebulous "assault weapons".. for which the definition is extremely broad.

You know you are lying when you state "I don't want to ban guns"... you are purposely trying to mischaracterize your position.

I understand you are intelligent enough to know that. Just like I know when texas politicians claim that don't want to "ban abortion".. but then put in all sorts of regulations that make if virtually impossible for a woman in texas to get a legal abortion that they are purposely lying about their position.

 

[gfm7175]

I don't. Do you?

I don't either. YAY WE AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!

But I thought that you wanted something to be done about gun control so that mass shootings can be stopped/dramatically reduced, and I thought that you wanted to do away with semi-automatic weapons? Or did you just want more regulations or something?

 

[gfm7175]

Context is important

You mean like using context to realize that Trump's intent by using the name Pocahontas was to personally insult Elizabeth Warren and her lie, NOT to racially slur Native Americans?? That kind of context?

 

[vegas giants]

I don't either. YAY WE AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!

But I thought that you wanted something to be done about gun control so that mass shootings can be stopped/dramatically reduced, and I thought that you wanted to do away with semi-automatic weapons? Or did you just want more regulations or something?

Yeah clearly you don't know me. I am against gun bans. But I am for reasonable gun control like universal BC's and registration.

 

[gfm7175]

Yeah clearly you don't know me. I am against gun bans. But I am for reasonable gun control like universal BC's and registration.

Exactly, I'm trying to figure out what your position actually is...

So okay, you want universal BC's and registration... Even with the most extensive of extensive background checks and registration, how would that have stopped Steven Paddock, since he in fact passed background checks? How does it stop someone who has passed background checks in the past, but then suddenly gets triggered (pun intended) to use those guns to do harm?

Short of programming people like robots, or forcefully controlling every single aspect of their lives, there's no stopping people from making bad choices... There's many questions to answer concerning background and mental health checks also, such as, who will perform these checks? how often do people need to be re-checked? what disqualifies someone from owning a gun? etc. etc. etc.

And that's ignoring the black market and many other means of acquiring guns which would get around background checks and regulations... And that's ignoring stealing/borrowing/purchasing a gun from a friend or family member...

 

[Absentglare]

It most certainly is. "They are trying to ban guns" can be read as "they are trying to ban all guns", "they are trying to ban most guns" or "they are trying to ban some guns". To deny this is to admit you don't understand English sentence structure and/or logic.

And even "they are trying to ban some guns" is an unacceptable activity.

Again, you are incorrect in claiming that you can dramatically change the meaning of a sentence without changing the meaning of the sentence. To deny this is to admit that you don'f understand English sentence structure or logic.

 

[Absentglare]

Assault weapons are not guns? Sorry but they are.

Saying that you "don't want to ban guns".. knowing that you support a ban on certain weapons.. is LYING

You must have replied to the wrong post, as i made no such claim.

 

[jaeger19]

Yeah clearly you don't know me. I am against gun bans. But I am for reasonable gun control like universal BC's and registration.

Well other than using examples like Australia and the UK that instituted gun bans as good gun control.

 

[jaeger19]

You must have replied to the wrong post, as i made no such claim.

Nice diversion.

Sorry.. but you claimed that its lying to say a person is for gun bans.. when they want to ban guns that are deemed assault weapons. Certainly you can see how absurd your position is, right?

I pointed out accurately.. that when "a person" claims to be against banning guns... but actually supports banning guns like "assault weapons".. they are lying.

 

[Rucker61]

Again, you are incorrect in claiming that you can dramatically change the meaning of a sentence without changing the meaning of the sentence. To deny this is to admit that you don'f understand English sentence structure or logic.

"Cars are blue"

Is this statement true if:

1. All cars are blue - yes.
2. Most cars are blue - yes
3. Some cars are blue - yes
4. One car is blue - no
5. No cars are blue - no.

It's simple logic. "They are trying to ban guns" is true if:

1. They are trying to ban all guns.
2. They are trying to ban most guns.
3. They are trying to ban some guns.

Have you taken any logic or higher level mathematics courses?

 

[Absentglare]

Whoa their cowboy.

You support a ban on certain firearms.. in fact a nebulous "assault weapons".. for which the definition is extremely broad.

You know you are lying when you state "I don't want to ban guns"... you are purposely trying to mischaracterize your position.

I understand you are intelligent enough to know that. Just like I know when texas politicians claim that don't want to "ban abortion".. but then put in all sorts of regulations that make if virtually impossible for a woman in texas to get a legal abortion that they are purposely lying about their position.

It's "whoa there cowboy."

There is nothing "nebulous" about the strict legal definition used in the assault weapons ban.

I am clarifying that the assault weapons ban is being dishonestly paraded around as evidence that all of these groups somehow also want to ban guns, in general, which is laughably unsupported by the provided evidence. Your false accusation is your lie of your own.

There is absolutely no basis for your comparison since the assault weapons ban does not make it "virtually impossible" to buy other firearms.

Your post was a unanimous failure.

 

[jaeger19]

Again, you are incorrect in claiming that you can dramatically change the meaning of a sentence without changing the meaning of the sentence. To deny this is to admit that you don'f understand English sentence structure or logic.

Except its you that doesn't understand English or logic.

How can you claim that its incorrect to say "someone wants to ban guns.".. When the person WANTS TO BAN GUNS?

Assault weapons are guns.

And assault weapons ban.. means that you are banning guns.

Please explain to anyone how that is "faulty logic"..

 

[Absentglare]

Nice diversion.

Sorry.. but you claimed that its lying to say a person is for gun bans.. when they want to ban guns that are deemed assault weapons. Certainly you can see how absurd your position is, right?

I pointed out accurately.. that when "a person" claims to be against banning guns... but actually supports banning guns like "assault weapons".. they are lying.

Again, my argument is not that they don't want to ban any guns. That is your dishonest mischaracterization.

 

[Absentglare]

"Cars are blue"

Is this statement true if:

1. All cars are blue - yes.
2. Most cars are blue - yes
3. Some cars are blue - yes
4. One car is blue - no
5. No cars are blue - no.

It's simple logic. "They are trying to ban guns" is true if:

1. They are trying to ban all guns.
2. They are trying to ban most guns.
3. They are trying to ban some guns.

Have you taken any logic or higher level mathematics courses?

Your post demonstrates that you are thoroughly confused.

There are literally an infinite number of examples where you are logically incapable of honestly interchanging "guns" for "assault weapons".

 

[Rucker61]

Again, my argument is not that they don't want to ban any guns. That is your dishonest mischaracterization.

No, your argument seems to be that they have to be in favor of banning all guns or most guns before the statement "they want to ban guns" is true. That's an incomplete solution set.

 

[jaeger19]

It's "whoa there cowboy."

There is nothing "nebulous" about the strict legal definition used in the assault weapons ban.

I am clarifying that the assault weapons ban is being dishonestly paraded around as evidence that all of these groups somehow also want to ban guns, in general, which is laughably unsupported by the provided evidence. Your false accusation is your lie of your own.

There is absolutely no basis for your comparison since the assault weapons ban does not make it "virtually impossible" to buy other firearms.

Your post was a unanimous failure.

Exactly.. you are claiming that when people are for a ban on guns.. that they are not for a ban on guns.

Assault weapons are guns (actually firearms.. but lets not quibble). If you want to ban them.. you are for banning guns.

Oh.. by the way.. it is VERY nebulous on the definition of assault weapons. there is no "strict legal definition".. that strict legal definition included the shotgun I used to hunt turkeys with. What it was designed for.. pretty much nothing else.

 

[Absentglare]

Except its you that doesn't understand English or logic.

How can you claim that its incorrect to say "someone wants to ban guns.".. When the person WANTS TO BAN GUNS?

Assault weapons are guns.

And assault weapons ban.. means that you are banning guns.

Please explain to anyone how that is "faulty logic"..

"Banning guns" means "banning the things that are described by the word 'guns'" which is an obvious falsehood when the overwhelming majority of available firearms will not be impacted by the legislation in question.