Reply #56: Thanks, I'll give a point-by-point as best I can

[slackmaster]

This is what I want to know, seriously, not as a judgement: if these weapons are used mostly for harmless purposes, why are they called assault weapons?

The term was fabricated by gun control extremists in an attempt to create a wedge issue: "Good" guns vs. "Bad" guns. In reality all guns are lethal weapons and can be misused, and any type of gun is safe as long as it's in the hands of a responsible person.

Why did the Fraternal Order of Police lobby to have this ban renewed if these weapons represent a minimum percentage of threat?

The FOP does not represent the view of all police. They're a lobbying organization, and some of them would be happy to ban all civilian gun ownership. They'd also love to be able to tap all phone lines at will, or carry electronic devices that would make any car engine stop running. I don't believe society would be any safer with any or all of the above.

What are the advantages (besides the gun vote) of letting the assault weapons ban expire?

Without the largely cosmetic AWB in place, people like me have more choice in how we configure our personal firearms. Choice is freedom. More freedom is good.

In this age of a steadily rising crime rate in this country and in this age of "terror," is it in the best interest of this country to lobby to put these kind of weapons "out there"?

What "steadily rising crime rate"? :shrug:

There isn't any hard evidence that semiautomatic firearms with bayonet lugs or removable muzzle devices or folding stocks present any more of a danger to society than other semiautomatic firearms that use the exact same ammunition but lack those features. The weapons we're talking about - Semiautomatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns, have been "out there" for about a century now and were always available even during the 10-year moratorium on certain features.

Nothing important has changed with the expiration of the ban. Restrictive laws that don't carry their weight by returning positive benefits to society are dead weight and inherently bad.

If the Democrats go "pro-gun" how can they do it in a way that still distinguishes them as being "different" from the Republicans?

I don't want Democrats to go pro-gun, rather pro-CHOICE on guns. Those who don't like those things have the right not to get them. We propose opening up the choice of whether or not to marry your life partner up to you regardless of the genders involved; we leave the option of aborting a pregnancy up to the woman. We should do the same with guns.