Reply #12: The "assault weapon" meme is one of the most effective buzz terms I've ever seen.

[benEzra]

Quite frankly, no. I was unaware that death squads had rules about what kind of guns they can and can't use.

The "assault weapon" meme is one of the most effective buzz terms I've ever seen. The fact that you brought up "death squads" (presumably meaning paramilitaries equipped with military automatic weapons, a la Argentina/Columbia/Iraq) in the context of the term illustrates that point, I think, since the term "assault weapon" refers solely to U.S. CIVILIAN (NFA Title 1) guns like Ruger mini-14's, the AR-15 platform, civilian shotguns holding more than 5 shells, and so on.

Military automatic weapons are very tightly controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, which is found in 18 USC 922 and other places.

>Whenever a Democrat urges a ban on "weapons of war like AK-47's and Uzi's," he or she looks
>dishonest to gun enthusiasts familiar with the law, because military AK-47's and Uzi's are already
>tightly restricted by Federal law, the National Firearms Act of 1934--which, after all, has only been
>on the books for SEVENTY YEARS.

Nice phraseology. You are merely an "enthusiast", while your opponent is "dishonest". Yes,
classic propaganda technique. Snarl words and purr words.

The point of that paragraph was to get people to LEARN THE LAW before making dumbass statements that indicate they've fallen for a bait-and-switch. Possession of an actual AK-47 or Uzi is already a 10-year Federal felony under the National Firearms Act, so if a politician invokes the perceived need to "ban weapons of war like AK-47's and Uzi's", then they have obviously been misled as pertains to (1) existing Federal law and (2) what the legislation they are pushing actually covers, i.e. non-automatic NFA Title 1 civilian guns, not already-banned "weapons of war."

Gee, Glock handgun with 15 round clip. Where have I recently heard about that? Maybe Virginia Tech?
But, no matter. You tell me it is not a "weapon of war". Marvelous propaganda. You were really vindicated
on that one.

70% of police handguns in this country are Glocks, and they also account for a very high percentage of lawful non-LEO civilian sales. Unless you want to claim that the pistol your local police officer carries on her hip is a "weapon of war" with no legitimate non-military purpose, then one might want to reconsider that rhetoric.

The Glock is the quintessential ordinary civilian handgun in this country. You can agree or disagree with the desirability of non-LEO civilians owning ordinary 9mm pistols (and invoke the VT shootings if you want), but you can't claim special powers for them, and they are no more "weapons of war" than a Smith & Wesson 9mm, or a .38.

And finally, black and white thinking and exagerrated fear. "Gun prohibitionists" is pure agitprop. People don't
want all guns banned all the time (prohibition).

Jerry Falwell doesn't want to ban all abortions all the time--just those not necessary to save the life of the mother. Red herring. The 18th Amendment didn't ban all alcohol, either...

Banning half of all civilian guns is not significantly more acceptable to gun owners than banning all of them.

They want sensible, locale-aware regulation.

Which is precisely what I argued for in the piece you so stridently objected to. Leave it to the states, I said, and stop trying to shove California-style gun bans down the throats of people in other states that have repeatedly and consistently rejected such bans.

And first and foremost, LEARN what is already banned, and what new legislation would and would not cover, before framing the debate over 6-round shotguns/15-round pistols/protruding rifle handgrips in terms of "death squads."