Skip to main content

View Diary: Why the "Styling" of Assault Weapons Matters: Think Baseball Bats (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  that's a good question, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    particularly from the point of how to write "regulation".  It is very difficult to codify "intent".  But we both know that the purpose of those modifications is to improve accuracy of aimed fire, not to encourage rapid or "spray' shooting.  That is to say they "sporterize" rather than "weaponize" the gun (but they do nothing to discourage snipers).

    We also know what people actually do . . . all those 18 1/8 inch barrel shotguns might give a hint what the legal  "sawed off" limit is.

    But I'm not so sure about adopting the "no regulation is possible" position . . . because the alternative, which has been realized in many places, is outright ban.  That's the downside of the "the differences are merely cosmetic" argument . . . the obvious rejoinder is "then don't ban the cosmetic changes, ban anything that can accept the cosmetic changes".  It seriously bothers me to see that Ruger is now selling "cosmetic kit" to make what should be a clear case of "reasonable hunting rifle" into "one of those things".  The "right" to make anything and everything look like (and perhaps occasionally work like) military hardware is not a hill that I want to . . . well, you know . . .

    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

    by Deward Hastings on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:37:28 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site