I don't know you personally or your views (I'm not going to go through all your posts), so I don't want to put you in a box and write you off.
However, you are using the same circular logic that Biden and Feinstein use.
G: "we are calling for a ban on all "assault weapons"
P: "what is an "assault weapon"?"
G: "here's the definition"
P: "that's not a real class of guns and the term didn't exist before 89"
G: "yes, it's a real class, here's the definition"
P: "well then, what weapons are classified as "assault"?"
G: "Military "style" weapons"
P: "What makes it military style"
G: "They look like military weapons"
P: "What makes them more dangerous then?"
G: "They are assault weapons"
Saying it's a political definition just backs up what I am saying . . . do they use the term, sure. Is it describing anything of substance that holds
up when put against other "non-scary" weapons, no.
It's not really about having a "better" definition. There is nothing to define. It's a made up class of weapons, so shouldn't be relevent to any
control debates to begin with. But, yes . . . Biden and Sara Brady started crusade against them in the late eighties, so if they say they're real . .
. they must be. The media keeps talking about them, so it must be so. You walk in to any gun store in the country and ask to purchase "an assault
weapon" and see how they respond to you.
Whether you want to debate this is beside the point . . . there is no class or platform of weapon called "assault" that is available in the US. If
this was a real class of weapon . . . they wouldn't need to change the definition every time they bring legislation.
With that said . . . agree to disagree on the semantics of it, I suppose.
edit on 1/28/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)