Reason #1: Semi-automatic firearms are not fully-automatic military machine guns.
Reason #2: Semi-automatic firearms are not “more powerful” than other guns.
Reason #3: As the numbers of “assault weapons” and “large” magazines have soared to all-time highs, violent crime has been cut in half.
Reason #4: So-called “assault weapons” have never been used in more than a small percentage of firearm-related violent crime.
Reason #5: “Assault weapon” and “large” magazine bans have not reduced crime..
Reason #6: Criminals could easily get around a limit on newly-manufactured magazines.
Reason #7: Criminals could switch to more concealable guns.
Reason #8: Criminals could switch to more powerful guns. Reason 9: The Second Amendment protects the right to semi-automatic firearms and magazines designed for self-defense.
Reason 10: The slippery slope.
Okay, I could have told you all of that myself, in my own words; but actually --- I HAVE told you all of that myself, in my words. Several times, actually; although I might have under-emphasized some of the talking points which I consider "minor". (After all, the NRA needed to come up with "Ten Talking Points" somehow!)
You will follow the links .. or you will not. But it's important to me that you understand the underlying premises, which are:
(a) CRIMINALS are by definition not limited by law; whatever they want to do , they will find a way. If you enact a law restricting firearms (or ammunition .. whatever) ownership, only the law-abiding will abide by that law. What part of that statement is not intuitively obvious?
(b) The people who are so hopeful that enacting MORE restrictive laws, are equally as clueless in their definitions as they are hopeful that outlaws will obey their paper tigers. Specifically, they think that if they can define "forbidden firearms" with sufficient clarity, they will have made a wide range of firearms illegal. Unfortunately [sigh] their cluelessness knows no bounds. The more narrowly they define "forbidden features", the easier it is for firearms manufactures to avoid them .. and still provide the same features.
Face it: Firearms Manufactures are in the business of building and selling firearms. That's what they do. And they pay their lawyers MUCH more than the Federal Government does! If they find that adding a pistol grip to a rifle sells more rifles, they will call it an "ergonomic whatshisname" instead of a "Pistol Grip" and avoid all governmental sanctions. Those who honestly believe that they can ban pistol grips (which have very little ergonomic or military advantages .. but which are great selling factors) by fiat are not only fooling themselves, but are stupid. No, Liberal Lawyers and Governmental Goons can't move faster than Economic Eggheads in the War Against Guns. Accept it. Move On. Retire!
I don't know why Liberal Anti-gun Lawyers continue to accept the outrageous fees from Liberal Politicians and "Special Interest Groups"!
Yes, of course I do. There's money in it, and a lot of it, and the firearms manufactures pass it on to their highly paid lawyers. Liberals; has it ever occurred to you that Private Interests have more money .. and can hire better lawyers .. than you?
My advise to you is to just be as graceful as possible when you back off and yield the field to your betters. You know you will, eventually, and if you don't spend the money on your lawyers ..... well, then, you can consider your treasure as some convoluted form of "Take-Home Pay". You've done your best, you've lost, so why waste your contributions on ineffectual lawyers?
PS: Some hints which may serve you better than your cheap lawyers:
- Deliberately mus-interpreting technical terms is not serving you well; eg: semi-automatic vs fully automatic .. you think your constituency doesn't know the difference?
- "Look-ism" is not acceptable in Liberal politics: eg black vs white, male vs female. So why do you think that you can call a rifle "evil" just because it is black and reliably expect your constituents to not notice that you are racist?
- "Statistics" is the art of lying with numbers. Most of your "Statistics" have been discredited so thoroughly that one would expect you to be embarrassed when you trot out the same old "44%" references. Are you still unclear about WHY the Atlanta Center for Disease Control is not forbidden to render opinions vis a vis gun crime statistics? Answer: they are so obviously biased, and they have been caught in their lies so long, that the Lord Of Flies (the Federal Government, in the person of the Senate and the House) have told them to "BACK OFF". You need to find a new butt-boy, because the CDC is still bleeding.
As Bugs Bunny would say: "What a bunch of Maroons!"