Replies

"The terms are not exactly intuitive, and they get erroneously swapped back and forth quite a bit, which doesn't help matters.
"

That's true. What else is true is that the distinction is irrelevant to the issue. That's why I hate to see these discussions reduced to arguments about such details. Such a reduction only serves to alienate, not to convince.

There are good arguments to be made. Yet, every one of these threads quickly deteriorates and becomes useless. One group wants to begin a revolution, a prospect that does, and should, alarm most folks.

Another group wants to show off just how much they know about firearms and is quick to call those who know less names. A third group threatens to vote for anyone but Republicans. That's really helpful.

Clip, magazine....nobody really cares. The two refer to mechanisms to hold rounds. Even the precise definition of "assault rifle" is a waste of time. Under the AWB, there is a definition that is used in that law. That definition is the only one that matters.

Yes, we all know the difference between semi-auto and select-fire. The bulk of the public does not, and does not care. They just want those ugly-looking military-style firearms out of the street and the schoolyard. It's an easy sell to the public to ban them.

But, what do we do? Tell them they're idiots and don't know what they're talking about? That seems to be the general run of things here and elsewhere.

Frankly, I'd rather have my old bolt-action deer rifle and stand off a couple hundred yards. If I have to be in close combat, I want my Mossberg 12-ga. in hand, unless I'm facing the military, which is unlikely to occur. I wouldn't trade either for an AR-15 or anything similar. Not ever.

The arguments are wrong. They do not convince. Therefore, we get such things as the AWB. We need new arguments.