- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 70% of Young Americans think we should be allowed to own Assualt Rifles
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:49 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:49 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
All of those features listed are cosmetic.
Dude, seriously - you're not using the same definition of words as the entire rest of the world uses.
A flash suppressor clearly has a functional purpose, as do detachable magazines and grenade launchers.
quote:
The first definition was set up to specifically ban AK-47 and AR-15 variants. The second was to ban the Tec-9, and the third was mainly the Spas-12 and Streetsweeper.
These weapons are probably specifically listed then - nothing nebulous there.
quote:
The way the legislation was drafted was that Feinstein (and others) and her staffers leafed through a catalog of firearms and picked out those they wanted to ban based on appearance (this is not seriously in dispute) - figured out the most features they had in common and voila.
The very definition of nebulous.
Again - you aren't really using the same dictionary as the entire rest of the word. I think the word you are looking for in your argument is "arbitrary" - not "nebulous". Flipping through a catalog to ban specific weapons and others with the same specific features may be considered "arbitrary" - but the resulting definition is not "nebulous"
I would seriously be interested in reading about any cases that occurred when the federal ban was in effect in which whether or not the ban applied was a fact reasonably in dispute.
1
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:01 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
not "nebulous".
I stand by it - if a weapon that is designed to get around that "feature set" (the post-ban configurations) they will redefine it because what they want to ban is semi-autmatic weapons (on the way to banning all privately held weapons), and will modify the definition to meet the new designs.
They reason they chose cosmetic features, rather than truly functional ones is that the function they want to ban is "firing bullets" - but they can't do that, politically, so they ban the ugly guns.
Deny it all you wish, but it doesn't change this fact - the 1994 "ban" only applied to ugly guns - and ugly as defined cosmetically, arbtrarily and nebulously by people who lack even a basic familiarity with firearms - outside of what they see on television and film.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News