Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Colt Offers Two New California-Legal Carbines [View all]Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)51. "tote" = "own" ?
And if CA has not adequately defined "assault weapon" for the purpose of their own regulation, who has?
I'm not trying to play semantic games -- ownership and carry are very different, particularly in my home state. As for the marriage comparison...I agree with the basic premise that Constitutional rights (of which SCOTUS and I both believe encompass individual RKBA as well as marriage) should not be subject to frivolous and arbitrary restraint.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
59 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
With all the problems in the world, who needs such a rifle? And, who really cares it's available?
Hoyt
May 2012
#2
Computers aren't guns. Do you consider strutting down the street with a gun a "hobby?"
Hoyt
May 2012
#4
Some people in California appear to need it, otherwise Colt wouldn't be marketing it.
Johnny Rico
May 2012
#5
That's twice you've called firearms that aren't assault rifles "assault rifles".
friendly_iconoclast
May 2012
#47
A firearm is either classified as an AW under California law, or not an AW.
slackmaster
May 2012
#53