You know what I meant. People hear Assault Weapons Ban and they think machine guns. Hey that is how the liberals framed the debate. Your job and it is a tough one is to convince people why the AWB is bad and giving a generic arguement of the Founding Fathers is going to right over the head of 80% of the American population. Hey I don't like it either, but thats the way it is.
All I was suggesting is for you to make arguements that can be explained simply in 2003 terms why the AWB is bad. Cursing 80% of the population does no good, but trying to educate them may do some good.
As to arguing the issue in today's terms, many, many are doing just that, including myself. Those arguements are rooted in the same philosophical grounding put forth by the founders but brought into modern times. Simply stated, it is clear from every demographic and serious study, that armed people are safer than those not armed, and that the attempts to try and undo any of that by tieing registration, control, etc. to the look and feel of a weapon are nothing more than facia for a failed arguemnt.
My point on this thread was simply that by adopting the opposition's tactics (which is exactly what you did) in framing your arguement, you further the misrepresentation. And that is, for the reasons I stated earlier, a very dangerous thing and should be opposed at all costs.