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

[Recursion]

82. There is a group of weapons that are all essentially the same, functionally

These are semi-automatics with detachable magazines. They are capable of firing one bullet per pull of the trigger, and having their magazines quickly swapped out for new magazines.

A sub-class of these weapons were labeled in the 1990's as "assault weapons". Briefly, these are the semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines that "look military", or at least that's what the law tried to target, but it wasn't written very well and things like the Bushmaster slipped through.

On the one hand, I understand the desire to strengthen the assault weapons ban so that the Bushmaster doesn't slip through. On the other hand, I don't see the point of banning one subset of semi-automatic rifles based on how they look, while leaving identically-functioning weapons that look more traditional (in many cases literally different stylings of the same model) alone.

Sippy Cupp's display on MSNBC yesterday was a perfect example. When Howard Fineman used the term "rapid fire", she was happy to demand that he define that term exactly, when he asked her how SHE would define it, she stammered like an idiot, because the last thing she wants is a complete and accurate definition.

OK, but here's the thing: semi-automatics (the only weapons we're really talking about) all fire at the same speed. Really. It's not that I want a line at "rapid fire" at one place and you want it at another, it's that you are simply factually mistaken about there being a line at all: any semi-automatic fires just as quickly as any other. So how would you define rapid fire? Because I would say "all modern guns are rapid fire", or "no modern guns are rapid fire".