Why The Assault Weapon Ban Failed, And A New One Would, Too

[mzmadmike]

I will try to make this a layman's presentation.

First, we have to look at the definition of "assault weapon."

There is a military definition of "Assault rifle," which is a rifle of intermediate caliber, firing from a closed bolt, in select fire (both self-loading, and automatic or burst), intended for engagements primarily under 200 yards.

Comments

[septithol]

So, I hear that now our vice president is back to babbling about the gun 'epidemic'.

Sigh. Here we go with the grammatically incorrect bullshit again. An 'epidemic' involves disease, which is caused by bacteria or viruses. As they are alive, bacteria and viruses behave in an autonomous fashion, which guns do not. For instance, you can have a bacteria or virus in your body without being aware or it, bacteria and viruses reproduce, and they also infect and kill others, generally without any deliberate malevolent action on the part of those who have them.

Contrast this to guns. People generally do not have a gun without being aware of the fact, guns do not reproduce, nor does the mere fact that someone has a gun cause harm to others in the nearby vicinity without either a deliberately malevolent or criminally negligent act on the part of the owner.

I might also point out that the fact that the vice president apparently is unable to grasp the nature of an epidemic indicates severe mental deficiency, which IMHO renders him unfit for

[septithol]

Speaking of gun 'bans', Mike, your use of the term indicates your buying into some feel-good grammatical incorrectness promoted by those who support such pretend 'bans'. I say pretend 'bans', because very few countries that I am aware of have ever proposed or instituted anything actually resembling a bona-fide gun 'ban'. Whatever pretend 'bans' are proposed never propose to take guns away from EVERYBODY. The rich and poweful (ei, politicians and their proxy agents such as the police and army) are always allowed to continue owning guns.

A more accurate terms for such proposed laws would not be a gun 'ban', but rather, a gun MONOPOLY. But the accurate term doesn't sound nearly as feelie-good, because instead of conveying the false cushy impression that 100% of all human beings will have their mean nasty guns taken away (at least in theory), it describes the far more accurate situation that the lower classes will be disarmed, while the upper classes continue to retain weapons, and rule over them like medieval tyrants.