General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Here's a gun question: [View all]"Further, gun advocates dismiss calls for sensible restrictions unless those restrictions are put forth by gun advocates."
This is bs. There are many gun owners on this forum who call for more restrictions, they are just generally against blanket bans. Now, if you are talking about non-DU gun owners in general, you are more correct. However, I am limiting my responses to DU members since they are the ones who have to read the dick-jokes.
"Nice and general, and subsequent laws can work to specify the particulars. "
Well duh, but you admit those laws must not be vague. I agree. This is what I am arguing about; this is the precision I am talking about. When people argue over whether an AR-15 is technically an "assault rifle", they do so because there are laws that make the distinction.
"That's exactly why I think that firearm-specific bans are futile."
I agree; that is not what I am arguing for. For instance, the NFA does very well in curbing automatic weapons ownership. It does so not by naming specific guns (like the M-16), but by naming specific features (e.g., automatic mode).