5 ms·
Yes, I recall you argued for an older proposal regulating "weapons of war" unmoored from any functional criteria as determined by cabinet appointees + a banned
by wl 2y ago
Yes, I recall you argued for an older proposal regulating "weapons of war" unmoored from any functional criteria as determined by cabinet appointees + a banned list from the legislature instead of the feature tests that have actually become law. I don't recall you arguing for any functional distinction between banned and not-banned magazine-fed semi-automatics.
- tptacek 2y agoI dispute that characterization but my bigger question is: stipulating what you say here, if you knew that to be my position, why did you write a comment about pistol grips and adjustable stocks?
- wl 2y agoI was summarizing the general debate. Your position is idiosyncratic.
- tptacek 2y agoMy position is idiosyncratically well-informed. When you begin your comment with "we've argued this before" and go on to lay out the position you're opposing, you impute that position to me. Why?
- kasey_junk 2y agoI don’t actually think it’s that idiosyncratic a take. I think most people that want an assault weapons ban would be perfectly fine with “detachable fed, semiautomatic or select fire rifle (you can use the federal definition of rifle)”. The cosmetic feature bans come from the mismash of court cases that define gun rights.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]