Reply #26: He's actually pretty close to the mark.

[backscatter712]

The problem with proposals to ban "assault weapons" is that you can't come up with a clean definition.

One gun's black and scary, the other has a wood stock and looks like grandpa's hunting rifle.

But they work the same and fire the same bullets.

The assault-weapon ban in the Brady Act was a total mess - it's definition of a banned assault weapon was a hodge-podge of various models of weapons, along with features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, pistol grips and other such cosmetic features.

The gun manufacturers responded by changing their models a bit to comply with the law - pretty soon, you could buy an AR-15 without a flash suppressor that was perfectly legal, oh, and the flash suppressor's sitting on the shelf over there - it's illegal to install it, but all you need is a screwdriver.

I'm all for sensible gun laws - enhanced penalties for using firearms in crimes, refining the background checks and closing the loopholes, and so on. But the laws against "assault weapons" were nonsensical.

I know, I'm agreeing with a Republican - mmmmm, sacrelicious!