Skip to main content

View Diary: Instead of "Assault Weapons", how about a fire-rate restriction? (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So you agree that haggling over the AWB and that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, high uintas, Smoh

    definition is fruitless AND pointless, which supports my idea of changing the focus to actually help impair and prevent massacres.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 10:31:59 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I believe you are on the right track, certainly (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas, BlackSheep1, Smoh

      looking outside the traditional box, although I can't say for sure if your proposed alternative is the tree would should be barking up instead.

      I think what we should do is clarify that in order to be an "assault weapon" by name it should fit the military definition, and we should focus on the civilian versions so as not to confuse the issue. I still run across people who think, in all seriousness, that an ordinary schmoe can walk into a gun shop and buy a "machine gun" because of the lack of clarification and definition.

      I'd call the civilian weapons "militia weapons" or "militia rifles", or perhaps "tactical rifles" or whatnot, and re-define and clarify the militia, and formalize it.

      Part of the problem we are all facing in the gun control debates is that everyone bandies words and definitions around, and not everyone is on the same page. We're talking past each other.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (144)
  • Community (71)
  • 2016 (57)
  • Environment (46)
  • Elections (44)
  • Media (40)
  • Republicans (39)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Iraq (32)
  • Barack Obama (32)
  • Law (32)
  • Civil Rights (31)
  • Culture (31)
  • Jeb Bush (30)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Economy (25)
  • Labor (25)
  • Bernie Sanders (21)
  • White House (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site