Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
But there is - gasp! - some room for negotiation as to how many schoolchildren someone should be able to shoot before reloading, so I guess we can never have one holy and perfect definition of "assault weapon." Meaning we can never do anything about regulating them.
That was your point, right?
Umm, . . . no.
DonDiego's point was that if one "agrees" with someone on the "subject of assault weapons", one should know what an "assault weapon" is.
DonDiego doesn't know if he agrees with forkushV and The Obama and President Reagan on the subject of assault weapons if the definition is in question.
DonDiego doesn't follow how "school children" would fit into the definition; perhaps he is just too dense. Or perhaps forkushV offered that as an emotional appeal on the matter, intended to discourage rather than foster a rational discussion.
And DonDiego doesn't understand the reference to "one holy and perfect definition" either. He trusts it is not just another device to preclude rational discussion.
The National Firearms Act already distinguishes among firearms based upon factors which one might consider pertinent to an assault or utility in combat-like situations:
Title 1 firearms typically comprise the handguns and long guns one is likely to encounter among one's fellows at a firing range or hunting, . . . or in a nightstand.
Title 2 firearms [aka Class 3 weapons] comprise machine guns, sound suppressors, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, destructive devices (e.g. bombs, grenades), and some unique items like multi-grip pistols, large bore firearms, and gadgets (e.g.) cane guns).
The Government already places additional restrictions/regulations on ownership of Title 2 firearms. Although he might like to own a silencer or a machine gun, DonDiego has no objection to tighter regulation of such devices. He supposes if he really wanted such items he might well qualify for the necessary license.
