"AR-15 has been standard issue for American service members for decades..." I don't care if the post said it, it's still wrong and an AR-15 is not an M-16. You say that I can change a few parts and make them work the same. In the legal sense at least one of the parts required is what the law defines as AN M_16. So you're saying that an AR-15 can be converted to being an M-16 if I just buy and add the essence of AN M-16 to it. I could take out certain AR parts and add certain M-16 parts. That's kind of like me saying that I can list parts for you to remove from an AR and also list other items to add which turn an AR into tuna salad.
Who do you write for? Is it Bill Maher? Are you unemployed now that George Carlin has passed?
"assault rifle"... Oh yes, I forgot, words don't mean anything, assault weapon, assault rifle, a salt n' pepper... which way is the wind blowing now???
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole Look it up. Evading the intent of a statute through a private sale/transfer is plainly a load of crap. If said statute intended to cover private sales, it would have provided a means by which the private seller could run a BGC. Alternatively, the law could have forbidden private sales and transfers and mandated all such transactions take place via an FFL. It did not.
Thanks for your conjecture on what the Stoner meant. I think most of us are able to infer the same. However, my point in addressing the inaccuracy which was related to the POOR JOURNALISM which hit me over the head rather than someone's innocent mistake. The article's author and the editing staff evidently never heard of obscure events such the Whitman shooting at the University of Texas/Austin or the St Valentine's Day Massacre.
I leave it to you to 'impress the board' but I won't be holding my breath.
= new reply since forum marked as read
