Reply #47: The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch comes to mind...

[benEzra]

and Brady II (introduced early 1994 through most of the '90s) would have been far worse, if you've been following the issue long enough to remember it.

Banning protruding rifle handgrips, bayonet lugs, etc. is positively asinine when (1) stock shape is irrelevant to lethality and (2) all rifles COMBINED account for http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html">less than 3% of homicides, despite their popularity.

Bans on small-caliber civilian rifles are aimed squarely at the law-abiding, not at criminal misuse.

Another case in point is the hysteria about the FN FiveSeven, a .22 centerfire pistol that won't penetrate any vest rated to stop a .357. Kevlar-piercing ammunition for 5.7x28mm (and .357) is already restricted to military/police only by Federal law, but that hasn't put the brakes on the hysteria. Considering that the gun is considerably less lethal than a .40 or .357 (or even a 9mm), banning it is just silly.

BTW, if you want to see how silly the "assault weapon" rhetoric is, apply that exact rhetoric to something more familiar. Those arguments are asinine in that context, but for those familiar with guns, they're just as asinine in the context of small-caliber rifles.