Skip to main content

View Diary: Assault Weapons Question (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Those are indeed good rationales, (0+ / 0-)

    but if they were the rationales intended it would have helped if they had been included in the bill. The thing is, the bill as it was written didn't seem to get that deep.

    There would also have to be some sort of study that backs up the claims. Has a person in a spree killing benefited from a collapsible stock? Were they able to do more damage because of that feature? You might actually be able to form an argument about that.

    On the other hand, bayonet lugs or shoulder slings were never a defining feature of a spree killer's ability to inflict more casualties. Now, if a spree killer had bayonetted someone trying to take him down while he was reloading, I could see the argument being made, but it never happened. Of course, personally speaking, even the military barely uses bayonets anymore (except as utility knives) and I think the lugs are silly and pointless. But regardless, I get the feeling that Feinstein's staff just looked at "military stuff" on firearms and went with that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (153)
  • Community (68)
  • 2016 (46)
  • Environment (43)
  • Elections (41)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Culture (38)
  • Republicans (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Education (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (26)
  • Labor (25)
  • Media (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • GOP (23)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Congress (22)
  • Spam (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site