Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,669 posts)
3. I maintain that if you're not able adequately define the object of the ban:
Mon Oct 10, 2016, 06:45 AM
Oct 2016

- then, in effect, there is no ban nor is one possible or...
- you have too little knowledge or experience to know what you're talking about.

Assault weapon bans are about not liking a black rifle and attempts to villainize its owners or the rifle itself.


The idea that a firearm, which by definition and common accusation is a deadly weapon, is harmful because it is "too deadly" is on its face, ludicrous. The NFA has drawn a line identifying by function that full-auto firearms require lengthy registration, investigation and controls. Semi-auto firearms are legal. Period. Attempts to say that, among deadly weapons, certain 'state-of-the-art' deadly weapons are 'too good' for civilians makes no sense.

Similar to the campaign that sought ban the M82A1 for a variety of unbelievable reasons, AWB laws attempt to say in essence that new rifles which represent today's finest in function and ergonomics are unfit for the public. Would it be reasonable to say that the Lancia Delta is too (insert adjective here) for the civilian to own?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Would it be fair to say t...»Reply #3