How does saying "I support banning these weapons" address me saying "people shouldn't support banning weapons when they can't define them"?
I find it genuinely difficult to believe you really think this. Absolutely nothing in this debate, or any other political debate for that matter, gives us reason to believe this is how things would play out. Instead, people would move on to another restriction or another model of gun. Not to mention that "let's just ban this thing so you can prove your point" seems like a bad way of making law.
(This is ignoring the very real and very important issues of legal precedent, which are often treated as some kind of incidental detail.)
(This is ignoring the very real and very important issues of legal precedent, which are often treated as some kind of incidental detail.)
BUT I will say my ultimate rational behind this theory is the fact that AR-15's seem to be the weapon of choice for these mass shootings. For some reason. No one seems to know why. But they are. So why shouldnt we AT LEAST be focusing on them SOMEhow. Doesnt that make sense?
And as far as legal precedent, this would be legislation not a court case. No different from the original assault weapons ban but with just ONE gun. The original assault weapons ban (which included the AR-15 by the way) set no legal precedent toward greater bans in and of itself. And in fact several localized bans were rejected when they attempted to piggy back on the wording of the 1994 law. So Im not sure thats a major issue.
__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...