New Republican bill would make the AR-15 the ‘national gun’

yet you cannot prove your schemes would do that. reductions of unnecessary restrictions on freedom is to be striven for.

 

1) you don't know what an assault rifle is
2) no American civilian has EVER been murdered by a privately owned legally possessed assault rifle
3) that study has so many flaws it is worthless. the clinton ban only was cosmetic

 

the last 'assault rifle' ban didn't ban assault rifles. it just banned certain ones and allowed other manufacturers, namely Ruger, to corner the market on them.

 

it didn't ban ANY assault rifles. They were already banned by Hughes' Poison pill that was improper attached to the Firearms owners protection act of 1986. The clinton gun ban only banned some semi auto firearms that dishonest scumbags call "assault weapons" and those bans were based merely on cosmetics. the only significant ban was on new normal capacity magazines but because billions were in circulation and since pre ban ones could be sold (including ones police and military had), it had no impact other than raising prices on such magazines

 

If you are just going to ignore my points, I am not going to bother to address yours. What would be the point? But I do not accept your contentions as presented, just because you say so. #1 is an irrelevant straw man, #2 is not an absolute, and #3 & #4, are nothing but your subjective, personal opinion.

 

what do you think the Second Amendment does? and tell me why someone willing to commit mass murder (and thus is not deterred by the punishment or consequences of doing that ) is going to be stopped by gun law?

 

By that line of argument, you should also be claiming that laws against murder of any kind, are useless, and therefore should not even be on the books.

IOW, if you'd thought that was a good argument you were making, you were incredibly wrong.

 

And it still had an effect

((((Sigh))) once again I find myself having to explain about a phenomena called the “weapons effect”

https://dictionary.apa.org/weapons-effect

 

What a bunch of BS. Oh sure just the mere sight of a gun is going to stir someone up to aggression....

 

Have you banned knives and bats in Australia?

 

wrong-murder is Malum per se. we punish that rightfully. Punishing non harmful behavior to stop someone from also committing murder is stupid and a waste of resources.

 

If the Democrats would stop wasting time trying to pass unconstitutional gun bans, this wouldn't be happening and you wouldn't be so frustrated about it.

 

But, you're ok with the Democrats trying to pass unconstitutional gun control laws?

 

Weapons effect? There's no such thing...lol

 

This was your argument:

Turtledude said: ↑
what do you think the Second Amendment does? and tell me why someone willing to commit mass murder (and thus is not deterred by the punishment or consequences of doing that ) is going to be stopped by gun law?


How would those exact words-- only substituting the word "criminal" for "gun"-- not apply, if we were talking about a serial murderer-rapist, who does not use a gun? The logic, behind the argument, remains the same.

 

You are essentially using an oxymoron. The answer to your question, is "no." I am not "OK with the Democrats trying to pass unconstitutional gun control laws." On what are you basing your assertion, about me? What would even be the point, of passing a law that was only going to be overturned, as being "unconstitutional?"

What you are really saying, is that you expect me to accept your judgement, as to what is or is not constitutional. Sorry-- you don't strike me (no offense) as an unquestionable authority on this.

P.S.-- And logically speaking, why should you even be so concerned about this-- since, if any gun legislation which was clearly unconstitutional (and even that which is not) is 100% guaranteed to face forceful legal challenges, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary? IOW, if you are sure that the law is unconstitutional, it will surely be overturned, by the Judicial branch.

If they didn't overturn it, well then I guess it would be very debatable, that the law was "unconstitutional."

 

I'm a United States citizen. I've read the Constitution. I have as much authority to opine as anyone. Remember, The United States is a government of the People, by the People and for the People.

Members of government aren't the only voices allowed an opinion on what's constitutional and what isn't. I'm a freethinker, unlike those on the Left.

 

You must not like your grandmother.

 

I’m sure you are aware this is a theory that has little (no) supporting evidence? You know the cited study results have never been replicated in subsequent studies?

Anyway, you got to love the work of psychologists that talk people into repeatedly administering electrical shocks to each other to see what happens.

 

Depends on the methods used to accomplish that reduction.

 

what? gun banners pretend that if we just banned gun ownership (and punish those who violate the law-ignoring the failures of prohibition and the "war on drugs") criminals planning mass murder would not kill folks because a) they were deterred by the thought of being punished for possessing a banned firearm or 2) a ban would prevent them from getting one

which of those two myths do you subscribe to?

 

if I supply the matches do you think we could have a bonfire?

in reality those who resort to this kind of logical fallacy often do so because they have run out of solid rebuttals

 

We are considering bringing in UK style legislation in relation to knives but for the “weapons effect” to be operative the object has to be solely identified as a weapon

 

I thought I was responding to another poster. I guess I was wrong. why do you think your wet dream of a gun ban in a country in which you are not relevant would actually work?

 

I never said that you didn't. That opining, though, is nothing more (or less) than just your one opinion. It has no objectively higher value than, say, my own opinion (100%, born & bred, U.S. citizen).

And there are at least a hundred million Americans, who would disagree with that opinion of yours (at least, with the last half of it).

No need to worry-- I never forget that.
Don't you forget that you are on a debate forum, in which it is expected that your replies will eventually have some point to them.

From a practical perspective, for the purposes of this thread, the only opinions that really matter, are those of judges; and the higher they are in the judicial pecking order, the more their opinions count.