General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I am sincerely perplexed by the "it's not an assault rifle" meme... [View all]TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)2+2=2
Words have definitions, if you honestly wish to craft an effective law then it doesn't work to have nonsense definitions. The funny thing is you have already failed on the exact same tact and did a lot of damage not only to your own agenda but the vast common good while putting into place a law without any impact on the very concerns it was supposed to address.
You are being told that your willful ignorance that you take such pride in is cutting you off at the knees and counter-productive in other areas. Most importantly, your are being informed why what you call for is of no effective consequence.
When you pass a law you have to think about how it will work in the real world not how you want or hope for.
What is to "not buy" when you are being advised that two very different looking pieces of hardware are the same in function? The best arguments in the thread were about the grip and stock but since that exact same configuration was permissible under the goofy ass assault weapons ban from the 90's, one just skipped another cosmetic feature like a bayonet lug or vented barrel and guess what? If you are going to try to make a hit on a member of Congress or shoot up a movie theater, any penalty for modifying can't really be argued as a deterrence factor of even the nuisance level. The only possible people impacted are otherwise lawful citizens made fodder for the prison complex on a stupid round of flinging shit at the wall.
The honest answer almost has to be that people on that side of the issue no damn well that the game would be over if they actually called for what they apparently want which is really to ban and hopefully confiscate any post black powder gun (and maybe including those) so they will take a slice if they can't get a loaf, even if the slice is symbolic that or their perception is so shallow that the connection between the trim types cannot be bridged because of the prejudices of a person's imagination.
I bet in some cases folks would vote to ban an AR-15 and declare an AK-47 ok based on the stock. In fact, the AK in the picture could be full auto and some would prioritize banning the middling caliber semi-auto.
I'm not here to pretend I support restrictions on either but the function and the appearance are far from one to the point of being immaterial which leads us to the more honest discussion of which calibers and functionality you wish to restrict or ban so we can get on with that or the movement needs to admit what their endgame is and go from there.
You are saying that you have a treatment for a problem, you are responsible for explaining how the treatment affects the problem. A law isn't a spell. Angry defiance in response to questions about your process mechanics isn't going to resolve a damn thing.
Again, you either don't understand well enough to do what you say you want or you are being deliberately dishonest about what you want because you have an obvious action/goals mismatch.
The movement has never passed or even proposed legislation that would have stopped virtually any of the events they seize on for momentum that would not be rejected with extreme prejudice by a heavy majority of the population on a nonpartisan basis without racial bias. I would reject economic bias as well but there are indications that upper earners in the largest urban centers have a special predilection.
There must be honest objectives so that you know what it takes to get to them and so those you court as allies know what they are signing up for.