3 ms·

So the real problem you're saying is that we should never try and define things because definitions themselves can always be changed? This problem has already

So the real problem you're saying is that we should never try and define things because definitions themselves can always be changed? This problem has already been solved in other areas. Look at drug laws. They cover designer drugs easily - which is the exact same problem as you describe here. And also - it can be a meta category, and it's helpful to have that. We can define semi-automatic pretty well, and the law has ways to cover "equivalents". Your scare quotes don't change that.

gozur88 10y ago
No, what I'm saying is when you're reporting on, or worse making laws about, a subject you should understand the words you're using. It wouldn't kill the media (or people in Congress) to spend twenty minutes learning enough about firearms to avoid looking like complete idiots. And yes, you can define semiautomatics pretty well. But semiautomatics will not be banned. The problem is you can't define "assault weapons" in a way that they don't cover all semiautomatics. It's completely reasonable to put scare quotes around a nonsense term like "assault weapons". If you say that at your local range people will point at you and laugh.