| Final-Fan said:
2. I guess I was unclear on whether you were talking about the entire category of all forms of semi-automatic rifle, or the category contained within it of assault-style semi-automatic rifles. (It is only the latter that people are concerned will be subjected to restrictions or bans.) Your 50 million figure was originally given in response to "is that right infringed if assault rifles are not part of the picture? If you have the right to own a hunting rifle, you do have the right to bear arms." (emphasis added) |
So I think it is important that we disentangle semantics, because often this terminology is being confounded by various groups.
For example, when one uses the phrase "assault rifle" I think of the guns which exist in the Wikipedia article of for assault rifle. These are heavily regulated by the NFA and FOPA.
But I realize that when somebody uses assault rifle, they might be talking about some select group of semi-automatic weapons.
But why is this group special, other than their cosmetic features?
I mean during the assault weapons ban, the kids who committed the Columbine shooting got a remade model of a gun that was banned by the previous assault weapons ban, but which removed all of the banned features. The line between this arbitrary category of "assault weapon" and "hunting rifle" isn't all that clear, and it really won't have an effect on public safety.
Often you see memes like this one showing how such a distinction is silly.
On the other hand, gun control proposals like the one provided in the following link make much more sense because they focus on the lethality of the weapon and don't outright ban access for those who go through a little bit of a process.
http://qr.ae/TbS2PS
