The Assault Weapons Ban

Not a huge fan of realpolitik, as it tends to 'compromise' over issues that can be better addressed, oftentimes the compromise being something worse. What makes me say that argument is populist is that knowledge is power, in a way. Those who have knowledge are opposed, those who don't are in favor. So essentially the large numbers of ignorant people who are being catered to are the populists. Terrorism is a complete red herring that would derail us, so I won't waste characters on it. Your claim I didn't offer any solutions is also wrong, as I specifically pointed to Saturday Night Specials as a target for legislation, and I discussed limits on magazine capacity. While some judges may be politicians, Judges should not be political. Their job should be to examine the law, and only the law. Period. What I really want to discuss are these so-called 'anti-personnel' features you mentioned. You see, the silencer is already under ATF control like machine guns or sawed off shotguns. Grenade launchers are really just adapters integrated to the barrel that were used in the past to fire rifle grenades with a special cartridge. It seems to me that worrying about someone getting a 1960s rifle grenade from Yugoslavia and a special cartridge is a bit silly. Bayonet mounts? All of my rifles have them. That's because they're from WW1 and WW2, when people actually used bayonets. Now can you point to any murderers who used bayonets fixed to their rifles to prove why this feature is dangerous? What are the other features? Flash suppressors, which prevent a shooter from being blinded at night. Valuable for hunting. Pistol grips. More comfortable on any weapons, nothing aggressive about it. Folding stocks. Easier storage, hardly dangerous. You claim none of these are useful for hunting, target shooting, or home defense. That claim is wrong. The .223 Remington round of the AR-15 is one of the most common rounds used for varmint hunting, namely small game like rabbits, squirrels, and even things as large as coyotes. As to target shooting, the AR-15 and M1A are both used in competitions as the gold standard. There are AR shooters who pride themselves on putting bullets through the exact same hole. And defense? Many people with rural property rely on rifles, such as the Ruger Ranch Rifle (again in .223) to defend larger areas. So as you can see, these 'assault weapons' are useful for all of these functions. What makes this weapon somehow better for killing many people? Absolutely nothing. There is nothing that sets an 'assault weapon' apart as somehow more lethal or more dangerous. In fact, I can say with certainty that if we went back to WW2 and showed them an AR-15, they'd say it's too fragile, difficult to maintain, and fires a tiny bullet. They'd rightly say it's less lethal. Essentially, what proposing bans based on these features is tantamount to is... Banning clothing in the color black, because you're clearly trying to blend in with the night. Banning camouflage clothing, because it's military-style. All that such a ban would accomplish is taking away freedom of expression because ignorant people are frightened. It seems obvious to me, as a rational individual, that the solution is to end the ignorance, and not encourage it. If my neighbor told me that African-Americans have no souls, I wouldn't just nod and agree. I'd tell them they were wrong, even if it hurt feelings. Simply put, we cannot and should not, ever cater to the whims and wishes of ignorant outrage when someone else's rights are at stake. Otherwise, it will never end.