Quote:
Originally Posted by EdV
I’m not making you the issue T. I am debating with those of you that insist on making a particular gun type (AR-15) the issue merely based on its similar appearance to the military’s fully automatic M16 rifle. A rifle which was not used in any of the shootings have been mentioned.
I accept your opposition to the NRA proposal. But understand that those of you that want to re-instate a ban on certain gun types are asking us to once again try what was unsuccessfully implemented in the past.
The NRA is saying “we did that before and it didn’t work” so how about a new approach to the problem.
Let’s move on, shall we?
|
We did that before but it did not work because the arms manufacturer's lawyers kept on finding loopholes in the law. You just need a more carefully crafted law that shuts the loopholes down. A reasonable person standard for the definition of weapons that needed outlawing would close many of these loopholes and put the onus on trial lawyers to come up with a workable definition of "assault rifles".
Or, perhaps, you modify the law banning certain weapons to keep up with the ingenuity of the arms manufacturers' lawyers. That happened with Prohibition all through that social experiment.