Seems the New York Times, Paper of (making up the) Record, found it worthwhile to put an op-ed on its front page for the first time in forever. The topic? Banning "assault weapons" - oh, wait, I'm sorry - "End(ing) the Gun Epidemic in America." Excerpt:
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.As was the Brown Bess musket, the 1903 Springfield, and now the AR-15. Your point?
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.Considering that our fellow citizens in Connecticut, New York and California won't even register them, I think your idea of banning them is a complete non-starter.
So, how does "NO" work for you?