You're posts not objective.

Objectivity is based on facts, while subjectivity is based on opinion.

The facts proved that the assault weapons ban did not work, yet you are making excuses as to how it didn't have enough time, which is your opinion.

I agree, the assault weapons ban did not work. The question that is relevant is why. As long as we fail to address or prove the why part of if then it continues to be a double edged sword.

If you take a medicine for an ailment and you see no effect, do you automatically know that it means the medicine is worthless? Or do you then also have consider dose, conflicts with other medicines, diet, etc?

I agree, the assault weapons ban did not work. The question that is relevant is why. As long as we fail to address or prove the why part of if then it continues to be a double edged sword.

If you take a medicine for an ailment and you see no effect, do you automatically know that it means the medicine is worthless? Or do you then also have consider dose, conflicts with other medicines, diet, etc?

People in favor of the ban have no interest in it working.  They have one goal:  ban guns.  As many as possible now, and all of them eventually.

Question. Do you take a medication that has no bearing nor use what so ever on a certain type of identified ailment, and then expect it to do anything to cure said ailment?

Ie...  Would you take pepto bismol for a headache?

Do please tell me how you somehow know the secret real intentions of all of those who voted for the AWB and are able to speak for all of them.

Do please tell me how you somehow know the secret real intentions of all of those who voted for the AWB and are able to speak for all of them.

"Despite his assurance to Fox News that he understands the Second Amendment, it's a good bet that the positions Obama took on guns during his time at Chicago reveal his true convictions."

The chapter documents the actions that Obama has taken on guns, citing the following:

    In 1996, Obama supported a ban on handguns
    In 1998, he supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns
    In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park, which would have shut down nearly all gun stores

In Chapter Three, Mr. Lott discusses gun-control and takes the reader back to his time at the University of Chicago, where he and then-professor Barack Obama spoke on numerous occasions about guns in America.

"I don't believe people should be able to own guns," Obama told Lott one day at the University of Chicago Law School.

Lott explains that he first met Obama shortly after completing his research on concealed handgun laws and crime.

Do please tell me how you somehow know the secret real intentions of all of those who voted for the AWB and are able to speak for all of them.

It's "worth considering" whether the United States should emulate Australia by instituting a national gun buyback program,
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Friday at a town hall in New Hampshire.

A man in the audience asked Clinton whether she thought it would be possible for the U.S. to enact such a program, and if
not, why. Gun buybacks have happened at the metropolitan level in the U.S., but any effort at the national level would be sure
to run into intense political opposition.

Clinton, for her part, seemed open to the idea.

"Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Because each of them have
had mass killings" she said. "Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the
U.K. And, in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws."

It's never been a secret.  There are plenty of examples of Obama and Hillary saying the same, but here's a quote specifically talking about the assault weapons ban of 1994 ...

I didn't ask for anecdotes, I asked for proof that you spoke for them all. No one doubts that there are those who want any and all guns banished but you are creating a false dichotomy. It is not a black and white situation where anyone who supports some gun control is therefore in favor of absolute bans on all guns.

Do please tell me how you somehow know the secret real intentions of all of those who voted for the AWB and are able to speak for all of them.

I don't want to get into an analogy nitpicking war but I suppose I could alter my analogy slightly to better fit the situation.
So you have a condition and the doctor gives you a medication that does not work because it does not actually target the condition. Do you then come to the conclusion that no medication will ever work?

Don't think it is nitpicking at all.  If the doctor has misdiagnosed the condition, the medication given to treat the misdiagnosed condition will not work. 

It is a proven fact, even by left hand studies, that "ass alt weapons" are NOT a significant threat to society.   So, the condition is misdiagnosed, therefore, the medication(Ass alt bans) will not work, no matter how much dosage is applied. 

Question why it has been purposefully and obviously misdiagnosed? Reason, they don't care if their cure works, they just want that chip chip chip of your rights, eventually they will reach the goal of total confiscation, all the while, the condition is never cured, because the condition stated is NOT the problem that needs curing.

That's HILARIOUS, considering you seem to speak for ALL ANTI-GUN SUPPORTERS and how they feel and think!!


                             

Do you know the NY Times? Arguably the most liberal rag on the planet. Here is an interesting article admitting the lies of the left and the role the media played in it all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0

Don't think it is nitpicking at all.  If the doctor has misdiagnosed the condition, the medication given to treat the misdiagnosed condition will not work. 

It is a proven fact, even by left hand studies, that "ass alt weapons" are NOT a significant threat to society.   So, the condition is misdiagnosed, therefore, the medication(Ass alt bans) will not work, no matter how much dosage is applied. 

Question why it has been purposefully and obviously misdiagnosed? Reason, they don't care if their cure works, they just want that chip chip chip of your rights, eventually they will reach the goal of total confiscation, all the while, the condition is never cured, because the condition stated is NOT the problem that needs curing.

Using the analogy, I am in agreement that clearly there was a misdiagnoses. but that misdiagnoses does not rule out any and all medications as there could theoretically be a medication that would work.

My personal suspicion is that they would prefer to get handguns banned but that they didn't think they would get enough support.
But I do consider it very plausible that someone who wrote the bill had no idea on the statistics involving gun crimes vs gun types and wrote the law out or ignorance. (as opposed to the chip chip chip theory)

I have no doubt that some want all guns banned by any means possible, but what I am looking at is the logical reasoning and scientific method involved in using studies to prove or disprove certain conclusions. I want to soundly defeat their arguments but to do this I must also admit and address weaknesses in my own arguments. Hence my mention of the double edged sword.
If they wanted to implement the same ban again I think we have a decent argument against it. But if they wanted to submit a different type of ban, I don't think the failure of the AWB is some sort of trump card against any and all newly proposed legislation.

Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of gun murders each year, but gun control advocates
had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to
kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there
was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)

We got us a dad-gum genius here!

From the NYT article you supposedly just read: