SE Cupp doesn't know what "rapid-fire" or Military grade weapons" means

[The Magistrate]

37. Do You Honestly Have Such An Inflated View Of Yourself, Sir, As That?

What began all this was the usual practice of marketing ex-military rifles as hunting arms; no problem with Springfields and Garands and the like, but once standard infantry arms went fully automatic, there was a problem. Those sold to civilian trade were de-natured, by removing a bit which enabled full automatic fire. Leaving aside that it is not particularly difficult to 'fix' this, and other tweaks, the potential remains that semi-automatic fire, combined with magazine capacities in excess of the five to eight typical of bolt action military rifles, and the Garand, can produce results very different from those of an old military arm turned deer rifle, and well in excess of what is needed in hunting.

It is true enough that 'assault weapon bans' are in some degree cosmetic measures, and political chips, since the great bulk of criminal shooting is done with pistols. Laws ought to aim at curbing trade and transfer, making it a frightening thing to serve as a straw buyer or to engage in underworld traffick in fire-arms, even in informal trafficking, and at tracking and tracing fire-arms in circulation. It is exactly such measures that in fact the NRA and gun lobby work hardest against. People who propose 'assault weapon bans' seem to hope that if something can be passed, it may be possible to move on to more substantial and beneficial enforcement measures.

But the kind of semantic swill you have tried above is exactly as I have described it; laughable, and deserving of mockery. As others have pointed out, it is simply a diversionary tactic aimed a derailing discussion. Best to leave it go, if you want to be taken seriously. I have seen some of your other comments, and by and large you seem a reasonable enough fellow --- don't fuck it up.