How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[Feynman Lives!]

Like putting people down to build yourself up.

Sounds fun!

Anyway.... I'm here to discuss how to ameliorate the assault weapon epidemic. And since you have nothing to contribute... all I can say is good luck!

 

[CLAX1911]

Sounds fun!

You would think that I don't think it's fun though I think it's a compulsion

Anyway.... I'm here to discuss how to ameliorate the assault weapon epidemic.

There is no such thing as assault weapons and assuming you leave rifles it is the farthest thing from an epidemic you can possibly imagine.

So you're here to promote a conspiracy theory and find solutions for something that doesn't exist.

No wonder you're so belligerent and sensitive when people point this out.

And since you have nothing to contribute... all I can say is good luck!

I have plenty to contribute it's just you don't see value in it and that's a compliment. When conspiracy theorists don't see value and you're telling them their conspiracy theory only exists in their head it's not really a big deal.

 

[JMB1911A1]

I don't care. GUNS are designed to kill.. If you can demonstrate that some gun is not designed to kill, then, when the time comes, you can argue for it being excluded from the list of assault weapons, then you can make your case. It makes ZERO difference as far as any of my proposals.

Not the way it works when you want to impinge on a constitutional right. Maybe you should become familiar with “strict scrutiny”.

strict scrutiny

www.law.cornell.edu

Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts in the United States use to determine the constitutionality of government action that burdens a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification (including race, religion, national origin, and alienage). Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review that a court will use to evaluate the constitutionality of government action, the other two standards being intermediate scrutiny and the rational basis test .

Once a court has determined that it applies, strict scrutiny starts from a presumption of unconstitutionality , shifting the burden of persuasion to the government, which must then produce evidence sufficient to show that its actions were constitutional. To that end, the government must show that its actions were “narrowly tailored” to further a “compelling government interest,” and that they were the “least restrictive means” to further that interest.

AWBs are neither “narrowly tailored” nor the “least restrictive means”.

I care. And that's the only thing that matters to me. I only research and post about things I CARE about.


What premise?

 

[RF667799]

Sounds fun!

Anyway.... I'm here to discuss how to ameliorate the assault weapon epidemic.

So you're here to discuss something you manufactured. And even at that, your claim is in bad faith. You don't exempt all the "not assault weapons" from your desire to ban guns. So "assault weapons" is a red herring.

And since you have nothing to contribute... all I can say is good luck!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

No you didn’t show me how YOU would define assault weapons.

Are you out of your f.... You want me to MAKE UP a definition? Why would I when others already HAVE?

You said your best argument was that we couldn't address something without a definition. I GAVE you the definition. THE definition. I don't have MY definition for.... ANYTHING. I look up any definition I need. Be it in a dictionary or in the laws or.... wherever they may be. But I don't INVENT them.

End of story!

Oh no. I want to have an actual intellectual discussion which you are completely unable to provide.

Denying that you GOT what you asked for is NOT the way to an intellectual discussion. I have seen it a hundred times. It is ALWAYS used by posters who don't expect to be taken seriously. So I don't!

You got what you asked for. And in MORE detail than you expected. The rest is denying reality.

If you DO want to be taken seriously.... CHOOSE a topic from the OP. Give it your best SHOT! If you don't, then just declare victory and stop wasting our time....

 

[JMB1911A1]

Sounds fun!

Anyway.... I'm here to discuss how to ameliorate the assault weapon epidemic. And since you have nothing to contribute... all I can say is good luck!

Rifles, all rifles, not just modern sporting rifles, kill less people than hands or feet every year. There is no “assault weapon epidemic”.

And since there is no such epidemic, you can stop polluting this forum.

 

[JMB1911A1]

No you didn’t show me how YOU would define assault weapons.
I want to hear how you define an assault weapon and how you define especially “assault ammunition .” For your ban on ammunition.


No it’s about your proposed assault weapons ban and ban on accessories and ban on assault ammunition

Don’t get him started on “cop killer” bullets. He will throw an editorial at you that claims rifle ammo are you”cop killer bullets”. I think he got his info from Lethal Weapon 3.

I just asked you for your explicit definitions and you failed.

Cool. This definition would then outlaw a huge number of firearms used for hunting and competition.

Tell you what. Explain what a pistol grip is and how it makes a firearm an assault weapon.

Oh no. I want to have an actual intellectual discussion which you are completely unable to provide.

Tell me exactly why a pistol grip makes a firearm an assault weapon.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

There is no such thing as assault weapons ...

Ok. The part where they just outright deny reality is the one where I know it's just a waste of time.

If you ever think back to the OP and think you can ADDRESS any of those points, let us know.

Otherwise.... Thanks for playing...

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Not the way it works when you want to impinge on a constitutional right.

Maybe it doesn't. But I'm not "impinging" any constitutional right. So I guess the rest of your post was for naught....

THIS thread is about ways to address the assault weapons epidemic. Even if DID address any right in the Constitution (which it doesn't), the question is if they would WORK. Judging from the lack of counter arguments, it looks like there is NO reason to believe that they wouldn't.

 

[JMB1911A1]

It doesn't. But I'm not "impinging" any constitutional right. So I guess the rest of your post was for naught....

You want to ban the most common rifle in the U.S. That is a direct impingement on the Second Amendment. Which is part of the Constitution if you were keeping up.

 

[Spock]

Actually I have done research on factors that cause violence .

Highly doubtful

And provided a number of citations.

No. Not as regards the psychological elements to firearm violence.

Yours.

Or it’s not as common, for example knowing that the gun owning neighbors who have no intent of killing you are not a threat compared to the person with a rock that wants to kill you.

Typical and poorly reasoned hypothetical.

Depends where. Shot by a 45 in the hand versus cut severing a major artery?
Take the .. 45.

Firearms are the weapon that causes death most often because they are highly lethal. Stop fabricating meaningless situational exceptions unless you really do prefer to be shot in the head rather than stabbed in the head.

Men are more likely to be suicide completers . It’s the same reason they are more likely to use deadlier means such as hanging when a firearm isn’t available. We’ve been over this. I’ve shown you multiple citations.

Men use the efficient and most lethal available means. Firearms preferentially.

Sure it does.

INTENT without intent the rest is moot.

Yeah… I think everyone else loves the irony of your statement. Lmao

cool. Show me the vast majority of tge general public can’t pass a background check.
That’s the only disqualifying thing for a carry permit.

No. Apparently you have never applied for a permit.
It would be interesting in those constitutional carry states to compare age, intelligence, sex, occupation, net worth etc between carry and the non-carry public, however.

So just show the vast majority of people can’t pass a background check. We will wait.

Learn about the process of carry permits and get back to me.

First error of statistics is not understanding statistics.

No. It would be thinking you understand statistics when you don't.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Rifles, all rifles, not just modern sporting rifles, kill less people than hands or feet every year

Yeah... well.... That's mentioned as an irrelevant argument in the OP. Because we can't ban hands and feet. We CAN get rid of some guns and save SOME lives.

Looks like you didn't read the OP in its entirety. I would encourage you to do that.

 

[CLAX1911]

Ok. The part where they just outright deny reality is the one where I know it's just a waste of time.

The only way I engage with propaganda is to point out that it's propaganda.

If everyone must accept the lies you post in order to engage with you and your time is worthless.

If you ever think back to the OP and think you can ADDRESS any of those points, let us know.

If you're Opie meant that much you could remind people of it instead of just referencing it over and over again.

Otherwise.... Thanks for playing...

Again whack a mole is a pretty easy game.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yeah... well.... That's mentioned as an irrelevant argument in the OP.

So you can't contend with arguments related to your op. Everyone must accept your lies in order to engage with you well then engaging with you is not that important. Outside of course of pointing out your propaganda and watching you crash out over it.

Because we can't ban hands and feet. We CAN get rid of some guns and save SOME lives.

I don't think you can get rid of these guns but you can't even define them.

Looks like you didn't read the OP in its entirety.

This means it looks like you didn't accept the propaganda and therefore are engaging to point out the propaganda instead of pretending like it's reality.

I would encourage you to do that.

Even if it's lies.

 

[RF667799]

Yeah... well.... That's mentioned as an irrelevant argument in the OP. Because we can't ban hands and feet. We CAN get rid of some guns and save SOME lives.

Looks like you didn't read the OP in its entirety. I would encourage you to do that.

Your OP doesn't indicate how removing some guns at random will save any lives.

Having no definitive notion of what you would remove- thus random removal- how do you know you won't remove the guns that are not designed to kill?

 

[Bum]

Yeah... well.... That's mentioned as an irrelevant argument in the OP. Because we can't ban hands and feet. We CAN get rid of some guns and save SOME lives.

Looks like you didn't read the OP in its entirety. I would encourage you to do that.

No, not really....SCOTUS has our backs, and more importantly, we have the bang sticks.
We will keep them and you can just find some therapy to work through it.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

So you can't contend with arguments related to your op.

Yes! My whole point is in the OP.

Reading the attempts to rebutt my proposals so far, the large majority of them were already addressed and rreponded to on the OP. My hope was that, by including all the responses there, somebody might come up with a new one that was not so easily rebuttable as "but but but.... the Constitution". Very few exceptions so far....

Everyone must accept your lies in order to engage with you ...

They need to REBUTT my proposals. But they're not going to accomplish that either by attacking ME personally, nor by changing the subject. And most DEFINITELY not by denying reality with nonsense like "assault weapons don't exist". It's just nonsense that deserves ZERO serious attention and SHOULD be mocked!

Now... do YOU have anything to say about any of my proposals? Apparently not! So my case is made!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Your OP doesn't indicate how removing some guns at random will save any lives.

It doesn't. Because it would be idiotic to point in a SERIOUIS OP that you can't shoot somebody if you don't have a gun. We reserve those kind of things for people who can't make a serious argument.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

SCOTUS has our backs,...

This SCOUTS legislated. The next one can undo that legislation.

 

[jaeger19]

Are you out of your f.... You want me to MAKE UP a definition? Why would I when others already HAVE?

Well yes. You proposed a rule you make up a definition. If you like the ones you’ve read before great. Detail them. Let’s have you put them into words and then you explain what they mean.

You said your best argument was that we couldn't address something without a definition. I GAVE you the definition.

No you did not give me a definition of ammunition and you gave me a definition in the past that was nebulous at best.

THE definition. I don't have MY definition for.... ANYTHING. I look up any definition I need. Be it in a dictionary or in the laws or.... wherever they may be. But I don't INVENT them.

The question is whether you can understand them and what they mean.

End of story!


Denying that you GOT what you asked for is NOT the way to an intellectual discussion. I have seen it a hundred times. It is ALWAYS used by posters who don't expect to be taken seriously. So I don't!

You got what you asked for. And in MORE detail than you expected. The rest is denying reality.

If you DO want to be taken seriously.... CHOOSE a topic from the OP. Give it your best SHOT! If you don't, then just declare victory and stop wasting our time....

Nah. Look you don’t get it.
Let me put it another way.
Imagine you were listening to someone talk about global warming and they started talking about greenhouses gases and then they stated that we needed to ban greenhouses to stop them from releasing gas.
Now I’d hope you would realize this person has no idea about greenhouse gases nor what they are composed of and you certainly would not trust any law they proposed.

Well it’s the same when talking about “ assault weapons”
Even you put it into quotes because the definition is nebulous and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of firearms and how they work.
Heck I asked you what a pistol grip was and you couldn’t even answer. Nor could you answer why it’s important to an “ assault rifle”.

Why don’t you just admit you don’t know what you are talking about ? It’s okay. We all know it .

 

[CLAX1911]

Yes! My whole point is in the OP.

So accept the propaganda and don't question it?

Okay L ron Hubbard.

Reading the attempts to rebutt my proposals so far, the large majority of them were already addressed and rreponded to on the OP. My hope was that, by including all the responses there, somebody might come up with a new one that was not so easily rebuttable as "but but but.... the Constitution". Very few exceptions so far....

You wouldn't listen. Arrogance is compensation for ignorance

They need to REBUTT my proposals.

Rebutting your proposals requires believing propaganda

But they're not going to accomplish that either by attacking ME personally, nor by changing the subject.

Pointing out that the concept of assault weapons as a category is propaganda isn't a personal attack. It's attacking the principles of your proposals.

And most DEFINITELY not by denying reality with nonsense like "assault weapons don't exist".

You can't show they exist. You refuse to define them

It's just nonsense that deserves ZERO serious attention and SHOULD be mocked!

Again you think ignorance is a virtue.

Now... do YOU have anything to say about any of my proposals?

They are based on propaganda I posit that you don't know what an assault weapon is you just heard a term and you're throwing it around out of ignorance.

How is that or do I have to accept your fantasy in order to address your nonsense?

Apparently not! So my case is made!

Again that you see ignorance as a virtue. You don't have to keep making this appointment I understood it the first time.

 

[Bum]

This SCOUTS legislated. The next one can undo that legislation.

Link or post your facts supporting that statement.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Well yes. You proposed a rule you make up a definition. .

No! I'm not Trump. i don't make up definitions!

Now I’d hope you would realize this person has no idea about greenhouse gases nor what they are composed of and you certainly would not trust any law they proposed.

I'm not asking anybody to trust anything. I'm asking them to rebut them. If the "experts" cant rebut that the proposals that this person, who doesn't know what greenhouse gases are, made... if they can't find any reason why they WOULDN'T work... I'd say he never NEEDED to know what greenhouse gases are.

In fact (off-topic alert, but as a counter example) if we ever debate AGW, you'll see that my MAIN argument is that you don't NEED to know what greenhouse gases are in order to be aware that we need to control them. Just like you don't need to know what a cancer is in order to get chemotherapy. The ONLY thing you need to know in either case is that SCIENCE (peer-reviewed scientific studies) have ALL determined that AGW or cancer (depending on which example you use) could KILL you.

And BTW, NONE of these proposals is mine. All I did was compile the proposals that have been made and that COULD pass without creating a civil war. I'm sure MOST responsible gun owners wished that guns were only in the hands of OTHER responsible gun owners. And that's what these proposals are intended to do.

 

[jaeger19]

Highly doubtful

Well except for all those citations I provided. Like the most recent ones on alcohol and its effects on the brain and connection to violence.

No. Not as regards the psychological elements to firearm violence.

Sure.

Typical and poorly reasoned hypothetical.

Nope.

Firearms are the weapon that causes death most often because they are highly lethal. Stop fabricating

Well no. Firearms don’t CAUSE death. They are used in crime because yes they can be highly lethal when the intent is to harm or kill. So can other weapons as well be highly lethal.

meaningless situational exceptions unless you really do prefer to be shot in the head rather than stabbed in the head.

Well even that depends. Stabbed in the head with a pick axe. Or shot from 200 yards with a. 22. I’ll take the . 22.
It’s a tool in the tool box. Not some special magical entity that you think it is

Men use the efficient and most lethal available means. Firearms preferentially.

Yes. General they are more likley to be suicide completers. If firearms aren’t available they simply turn to other highly deadly methods like hanging or jumping from a great height.

No. Apparently you have never applied for a permit.
It would be interesting in those constitutional carry states to compare age, intelligence, sex, occupation, net worth etc between carry and the non-carry public, however.

Yeah no. In some states the requirement is passing a background check and applying for the permit. That’s it. In most states for a permit that gives you reciprocity. For example my permit is good in 39 states. It requires a background check and that you participate in a state approved 8 hour gun handling course .
That’s it. The only disqualification for the permit is the inability to pass the background check.
As I said. Anyone that can pass the background check can get a carry permit.

Learn about the process of carry permits and get back to me.

See above.

No. It would be thinking you understand statistics when you don't.

Exactly. That why you flub up all the time. It’s quite amusing.

 

[Spock]

Well except for all those citations I provided. Like the most recent ones on alcohol and its effects on the brain and connection to violence.

Whatever violence is connected with alcohol ingestion is made much worse by access to firearms. Is that your point?

Sure.

Nope.

Well no. Firearms don’t CAUSE death.

Of course they cause death. Just like any other agent of injury.

They are used in crime because yes they can be highly lethal when the intent is to harm or kill.

Their lethality is unchanged by intent. They are lethal whether or not the intent is to kill.

So can other weapons as well be highly lethal.

No other weapons are so manifestly lethal as firearms available to civilians.

Well even that depends. Stabbed in the head with a pick axe. Or shot from 200 yards with a. 22. I’ll take the . 22.
It’s a tool in the tool box. Not some special magical entity that you think it is

Once again, your appeal to extreme and anecdote does not support your claim. If you really believe your own statements you would not defend self-defense with a firearm.

Yes. General they are more likley to be suicide completers. If firearms aren’t available they simply turn to other highly deadly methods like hanging or jumping from a great height.

You no the result of every self-harm attempt. I'm impressed.

Yeah no. In some states the requirement is passing a background check and applying for the permit. That’s it. In most states for a permit that gives you reciprocity. For example my permit is good in 39 states. It requires a background check and that you participate in a state approved 8 hour gun handling course .
That’s it. The only disqualification for the permit is the inability to pass the background check.
As I said. Anyone that can pass the background check can get a carry permit.

Doubtful. To prove your point you would have to no one is rejected based on incomplete application or failed NICS or police/ sheriff assessment

See above.

Exactly. That why you flub up all the time. It’s quite amusing.