The term is acceptable in the debate, your logic is not, and your parsing is pathetic.
No, it's not acceptable. It's an application you are using without good cause, then basing your argument on the fact that the application is made. The arguments we are hearing is that "we should ban such and such because they're "assault" weapons. You are now telling us that they are "assault" weapons because YOU say so. When your inaccuracy is pointed out, now you want to complain that all of a sudden words don't have meaning after all.
The term "assault weapon" ranks right up there with terms like "partial birth abortion" or even "fascist." They are terms that people insist on using, despite the fact that they are grossly inaccurate, because the users hope and intend to create an emotive appeal because fact and logic fail to provide any other possible appeal. So here you are now, DEMANDING that your emotional appeal be accepted. And if one does not, they are deemed "pathetic." When in truth, it is you who are being pathetic, for desperately clinging onto a failed position based on nothing more than irrational emotions, all while expecting the rest of us to embrace your own irrational emotive response as well.
But ignoring that you are a gun nut homer
Actually, I'm not. The difference between you and myself is just that I'm
educated on gun usage and their various applications. Therefore, I do not
fear them as you do. Instead, I understand them in a way that you probably never will, because you are unwilling to remove your irrational emotions from your perception.
eliminate the weapons and the large capacity magazines as well as the decreasing number of gun owners, the killing numbers will decrease.
Give me one good reason to believe that. Why should I expect prohibition of something already widely available and in high demand, to somehow lead to willful abstinence? When has that ever worked? It didn't work for alcohol, it hasn't worked for other drugs, it couldn't stop homosexuality, it couldn't stop abortions, it hasn't stopped illegal immigration, it hasn't stopped prostitution, it hasn't stopped murders. The simple fact of the matter is that eliminating the weapons is impossible. They will still be there, and they will be just as easy to find as a dime bag and cheap hooker.
The prohibition approach simply is not feasible. Why can't you understand that? In every case when you prohibit a good that has demand, the good does not cease to be available, it merely becomes available through criminal channels. In case you don't remember, the rise of organized crime in our country was due to prohibition. Do you really want to create another Al Capone?
note: should your legislators pull that type of nonsense in the legislatures, the growing immense anger among the electorate will result in you guys having almost no representation by 2016.
Who the Hell are "we" guys to have whatever representation?
