rberq wrote:Richard S. wrote:The problem is as a practical matter this gun would be banned based on the way it looks.
Says who? That is an OPINION in the linked-to piece, but where other than that opinion do you find that its appearance is the issue?
The main argument here seems to be that a .22LR is less dangerous than some other cartridges. That's very true -- and a hand grenade is less dangerous than a tub of TNT, so what? Either one will take you out.
If one's position is that NO guns are to be restricted, why raise the question of comparative danger, except to confuse fuzzy thinkers?
Says all the lefty politicians. They're the ones falling all over each other to make the point that an AR style rifle was used at Sandy Hook, "spraying innocent children".
Would it have made the left happy to see kids sprayed with .22 shorts? Point being, an "assault" weapon in an of itself as described is a JOKE. The ban is a left wing fantasy, right along the lines of purple unicorns. There is NO SUCH THING as an "assault" weapon, so why ban it? Their argument is as ridiculous as an environmental campaign on saving purple unicorns would be. About as effective too ....