I eventually agreed with the "badly written" part after reading about the endless discussions of what constitutes an "assault weapon" and what distinguishes one from other rifles. The list of superfucial and aesthetic features that were used to designate those weapons too dangerous to allow in the public hands, even to me seemed a cumbersome way to get to the point. Then I learned that some weapons that were named as being "assault weapons" were simply modified slightly and produced afterwards, being, essentially the same weapon. The whole business is poorly written.
I came to agree with the nonsensical part when it was pointed out to me that "assault weapons," or even rifles in general, were not the problem, pistols were. I was told that all the talk about "assault weapons" was silly because they made up less than 1% of the overall picture. I agreed, the whole business is poorly written and nonsensical.
Then while reading about the Tiarht Amendments, I came upon an interesting piece of information. From the Brady report Without a Trace.
The ATF report Assault Weapons Profile (1994) revealed the total number of traces for each assault weapon that would be banned by name in proposed legislation. ATF also determined that, while assault weapons make up only 1% of the guns in circulation in the United States at the time, they accounted for up to 8% of the guns traced to crime.
Now that's a little different, isn't it? I wonder if the numbers have risen in the intervening years. I wonder what the percentage is today. The problem is we'll never know the answers to those questions. The Tiarht Amendments prevent access to that type of information.
Don't you find it strange that the pro-gun folks who continually talk about freedom, have given us the Tiarht Amendments, which we talked about plenty recently. These provisions effectively ensure that the very information needed to make legislative decisions that make sense, is lacking. To me that's not freedom.
What's your opinion?