Terror at Orlando Nightclub, 20 Feared Dead.

If you don't know the difference, I'm not concerned at all.

oralloy wrote:

So do you now understand that all the law does is ban harmless cosmetic features?

That statement, as it stands, is still incorrect.

But it is certainly true that the ban, to be consistent, should ban all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines regardless of features such as bayonet clips. On this we agree.

oralloy wrote:

. . . While your description is factually correct, I question how your added
detail is at all relevant, and how my description is inaccurate for leaving
out this detail . . .

I assume that the "added detail" is that fact that for pistol grips or any other of the harmless cosmetics (as you describe them} to contribute to the ban, they must be in addition to the rifle being semi-automatic and having a detachable magazine.

That is why the "added detail" (and to have been correct you should have written "added details") is relevant.

It is the difference between AND and OR. You maintain that the ban is only about cosmetic features, but the fact of the matter is the ban is about both functional and cosmetic features. AND, not OR.

oralloy wrote:

. . . how my description is inaccurate for leaving out this detail. . .

Your description is "In fact, assault weapons bans are only about harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips and flash suppressors." Your description is inaccurate because you say the ban is only -- only -- about cosmetic features. The key word here is "only".

Since the only thing the law does is ban cosmetic features, it is not
inaccurate to state that the only thing the law does is ban cosmetic
features.

The fact that the ban on cosmetic features only applies to some guns
doesn't change what the law does regarding those guns.

oralloy wrote:

The fact that the ban on cosmetic features only applies to some guns doesn't change what the law does regarding those guns.

The fact that the ban on semi-automatic capability and detachable magazines only applies to guns with certain cosmetic features doesn't change what the law does regarding those guns.

And I have yet to hear you defend the military's desire to include the "harmless cosmetic features" you claim they are.

Once again, you are the one here who is making a series of untrue statements about guns.

Do some research for yourself;

Believe what you will.

Your bank robber analogy is BS.

Clearly the military doesn't consider them simply "cosmetic features". The designer of the gun didn't consider them "cosmetic features." The military thinks they have a purpose that is not cosmetic.

Even if you twist the law around backwards that way, I can still apply the
same arguments against it.

I've yet to hear anyone come up with a good reason for a law that will apply
only to guns that have certain harmless cosmetic features.

The Constitution only allows laws to impact our rights if the law can be
justified with a good reason.

let's ensure that people are safer where ever possible, let's ensure that every murderer gets caught because there is footage, evidence, faces to work with.

No, 2016.

Its clear that you would favor banning semi automatic guns with detachable magazines, pistol grip or not. How about a belt fed semi? And if your goal is really minimizing deaths and you manage to ban semi autos, why not make all guns single shot and ban revolvers? And then...

Oralloy is right about the only place an 'assault weapons' ban leads. A ban on guns or at least a desire to.