Gun Control needs to be instituted

So a rifle is not a weapon and a gun is not a weapon?

 

Can you actually answer any of the questions, posed to you, in one of your replies?

And all you do is throw around words, and claims, without any evidence to back them up.
So let's see who can better prove their allegations. I will save space by not quoting myself, if extra words are so troubling to you but, FYI, this is done to confirm my assertions, so you don't have to "take my word for it." But, if you will accept my summations, fine. You are answering a post that asks you, these things:

1) You believe that all gun owners being as careful as you, about sales without background checks, is more likely than that an accomplished law enforcement professional, from the ATF, is lying, in his expert article, about firearms, published by NBC?

2) I asked you to prove that which you'd claimed you have previously shown to be true: that the two background check laws, were ineffective.

3) I also asked if you had only planned to make a specious argument, through misleading terminology-- the way that you had, by pretending that banning assault weapons, was claiming that they were assault rifles. I'd asked, because while Cavanaugh had spoken of gun deaths and violent crime, you had translated it, in your claim, to just "crime rates."

So far, your entire, unfocused first paragraph, jumping from accusing me of pontification, to the war on drugs, for no explained reason, answered zero questions. You do have a second, longer paragraph, remaining; but I had a strong sense, with your first sentence, that you would never address any of my points. Even if my posts are long, those are two of their better qualities: I take the time to make my points clear; and I address the ideas, in the material that I quote. A post that fails to do those things-- no matter how few words it uses, in its failure-- is still worthless, IMO, and no improvement, despite its brevity.

So, here's the rest of your quote, hoping my expectation of your post is wrong.

And, unfortunately, I was dead on the mark-- you addressed none of my points or questions. Actually, you did exactly what my quote had said it hoped you would not do, while thinking of it as "proving" your point:

After you'd written this:

Turtledude said: ↑
it is akin to saying putting armed guards at one out of every three banks may have decreased those banks from being robbed but if the overall rate of bank robbery didn't decrease, the action did no real good

 

Actually, your words prove that this describes you. But look below, so I can kill two overly self-confident crowers, with one quote.

Bla-bla-bla, and all bullshit. This, BTW, adds considerably to my post lengths, when I have to clear up your fabrications; so if you want shorter posts from me, maybe don't fill your posts, with so much false information, to be corrected. Nowhere does Cavanaugh call AR-15s "weapons of war." Where do you come up with this crap? You'd believed that others could use your word, alone, as "proof"-- although you are ever spinning claims, from thin air. What I had said, was that I had heard Cavanaugh say that the AR-15 had been "designed for the military."

And it turns out, he'd been absolutely correct:

<Google Snip>

ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a MILITARY RIFLE, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt. In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War...

Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public, marketed as the AR-15.

Feb 28, 2018
https://www.npr.org › 2018/02/28
A Brief History Of The AR-15 - NPR
<End>

So you can insult Cavanaugh's knowledge & credentials all you want, but we know now, that his statements are more accurate than yours.

I have no doubt that you would trust your opinion over anyone's-- that doesn't prove dick, FYI. I guess I should ask-- was NPR also wrong, in the snip I'd just posted, confirming that the AR-15 was, originally developed for the military-- which supposed inaccuracy, you'd claimed, proved Cavanaugh's dishonesty? Then what do your own, multiple, inaccuracies prove?

The fact that others, in the news industry, trust Cavanaugh's expertise, based on his experience, counts for something, because being invested with that trust, does not come so easily as just saying, "I know better than everyone! Because I say so!"

But maybe I'm wrong-- why don't you contact a network news, and tell them how smart you are, and how dumb everyone else is, and see if they find that convincing?

 

find a country that issues an AR 15 rifle to its military or just stop your fluffing of a guy who is not an expert on firearms and is a political hack

MOST RIFLE ACTIONS were developed for the military other than SEMI AUTO rifles

 

the amount of nonsense in those verbose posts lead me to dismiss them as basically filibustering ignorance. WTF does he think the second amendment was supposed to protect. Can someone explain why the fixation on "developed for the military" psychobabble?

 

At one point they were designing single shot flintlocks for military use that were actually adopted by the military.

They act like there is something in the second amendment that bans military style rifles from civilian ownership.

Nothing could be further from the truth

 

Funny how the AR15 was on the civilian market before the M16 went into service - eh?

 

or that american hunters were using magazine fed semi auto rifles before WWI and semi auto rifles were not issued to the US Military until the WWII Era

 

FYI-- as you should know, from my post, this is not simply me, saying this. This was a snip, with a link for NPR. So, to be clear, you expect me, on nothing but your word, to assume that National Public Radio's info., was wrong?

Not that I am saying they are beyond being wrong. I just feel that an unknown person, posting in an online forum, is less beyond, being mistaken. NPR's journalism is respected, and credible, which means that they do have standards, and practices to ensure those standards. It is reasonable, then, to assume that the author had done adequate research, to verify the accuracy of the information. I have less of an assurance of this, I hope you can see, with anything you post.

On top of that, in this case, I know that you have a very strong bias. Without even going into the idea of journalistic integrity, even if we assumed (without basis) an anti-gun bias, in the article, there is no reason to see this one particular detail, of the gun's evolution, to be of any real significance, to the journalist. As their published facts seem that they would be verifiable, and as you are-- for some reason-- offering no link to back up your alternate narrative, I think it should be clear to any who understand how debates work, that your argument is a loser.

Please back it up-- and I don't mean with Turtledude's opinion.

Also, if in some way there was some truth to what you say, it would not automatically invalidate that the current AR-15, was made by Colt, as a semi-automatic version, of the military M-16. I don't see the point, however, in my randomly speculating possibilities, to explain something which you are asserting, without having provided, even in your own words, any details. What year did this supposedly occur? Who was the manufacturer of this civilian rifle? And so on. IOW, it is laughable-- even if it were true!-- that you would feel your just saying that one line, would be taken seriously, as authoritative fact, on the matter.

Sorry, to break your bubble.

 

so just what exactly are you saying

what firearms was the second amendment intended to protect?
when the gun banners were fixated on handguns-they claimed that handguns were not "militia weapons" since they were not ones soldiers normally use (a complete lie but lets run with it)
now they want to ban the guns that are the closest things to infantry rifles that we can own after Democrats banned real military rifles being able to be owned by civilians

bottom line-gun banners wanna ban guns and logical consistency is irrelevant to them

 

cavanaugh's a joke and his comments prove he has no expertise in this area.That you worship him because he supports your gun banning desires is proof enough. He'd get laughed out of court on this topic.

 

And yet, they are.

Let's assume this is true.
So what?

 

Have any of those who constantly complain about "military weapons" or military style weapons ever told us what firearms the second amendment was supposed to protect, especially since they pretend it is only about the militia?

 

It was for the most technologically advanced weapons of the times.. rifled barrels, and Napoleonic cannon. I beleive the original wording of the Constitution allows the US citizen the same rights and many private individuals do own operation tanks, attack helicopters and jets, tho' nobody has claimed to have a home made nuke ... so far,, But there is the prohibition of select fire (full auto) is now law and but can be owned with the now required FFC3 license

 

I hope the USSC strikes down the 1934 NFA as to suppressors and firearms

 

Muskets.
Duh.

 

That's their plan.

 

Do you have a citation for this?

 

Here ya go...
What is the definition of an "assault weapon" in California? (shouselaw.com)

 

That is incorrect. The terms are the same and do not refer to semi-auto-only rifles like the AR-15.

They are being referred to by different names because progressives are spreading lies.

Appeals to authority are logical fallacies.

Note:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

 

Please explain your point, with more specifics; I am not sure what it is, exactly, you are trying to contend. For example, you are replying to my quote, answering this post:

NMNeil said: ↑
Not at all. But we need to be fair because banning assault weapons, (despite the misleading classification of a semi auto AR-15 as an assault rifle) could possible save lives.


To which I had replied:

DEFinning said: ↑
LOL-- look who's talking about misleading. You even admit, yourself, that you are calling the desire to ban assault weapons, "misleading," because they are not assault rifles. The two things are different-- that's why they have different names.


Do you not realize this fact, that "assault rifles," is a military term, and that "assault weapons," is a legal term, that came about afterwards, which applies to certain semi-automatic weapons, both rifles and hand guns? Or are you merely rejecting the fact, that this is the legal designation? I will grant you, that it is confusing; and that others have objected to the term. But this does not change the fact that assault weapons is a term, defined in law. That you have a problem with that definition, does not justify your false contention, here, that "the terms are the same and do not refer to semi-auto-only rifles like the AR-15." In truth, though, that is the difference between assault rifles & assault weapons: assault weapons are semi-automatic only, and assault rifles have a switch to shift between being fully automatic and being semi-automatic.


<Google Snip>
An automatic weapon (“assault rifle”) can shoot more than one round when you pull the trigger. A semi-automatic weapon (“assault weapon”) does not. Automatic weapons have not been used in recent mass shootings.Aug 3, 2019
https://www.daytondailynews.com › ...
Assault weapon vs. assault rifle: What is the difference? - Dayton Daily News

 

why would any honest person use the term "assault" to describe a firearm that is missing the one essential feature necessary for a weapon to be used for military assault tactics?

 

Automatic weapons have been used is mass shootings.

https://www.wbrc.com/2023/04/26/ale...ille-mass-shooting-altered-with-glock-switch/

These firearms are neither assault rifles or "assault weapons".

 

nor legally owned