Skip to main content

View Diary: Assault Weapons Question (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  my understanding about the original (0+ / 0-)

    assault weapons ban law was that it focused on cosmetic differences not by design, but because of lobbying efforts from the gun lobby itself. once those often silly definitions were written in the law, they could be designed around and the law rendered useless. an expiration date was also built into it, so when the law came up for renewal the built in flaws could be sued to kill it altogether.

    i think the debate about design features of AR weapons misses the point. the lines between weapons classes can be blurred, but to me its not about design. its about the intent of a given level of firepower. you might be able to do as much damage with a shotgun or a 9mm pistol as you can do with an AR-15, but the AR-15 makes it easier. so why do you want it? its obviously overkill for hunting and personal defense, unless you expect to be in a firefight. the onus should be on the guy buyer to justify the level of firepower they are seeking, and the level of scrutiny should go up accordingly.

     

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site