04-05-2013, 03:23 PM
davester wrote:
This is a straw man without factual basis...
That such misrepresentations happen is indisputable. As for the intent? - well, that's open to interpretation...but why WOULD someone choose to perpetuate the myth that machine guns are easily obtainable?
davester wrote:
...most people don't know the difference, and in many cases the difference is pretty close to irrelevant when you consider that a handheld machine gun can only be fired in short bursts and is virtually equalled in killing power by a semiauto slightly modified to allow rapid fire.
? - speaking of ignorant masses - what, exactly, are the slight modifications you are speaking of? semiauto = pull the trigger, gun fires; pull the trigger rapidly = gun fires rapidly.
I don't think anyone would argue against the fact that a semiautomatic firearm can fire many bullets in a very short amount of time. For the purposes of this particular thread, though, the discussion is centered around the mischaracterization of such firearms as machine guns (which have been heavily controlled since 1934 - nearly 70 years, and for which no new ones have been introduced to civilians in the United States since 1986, approaching 30 years ago).
Intentionally or unintentionally framing the current debate as attempting to outlaw machine guns IS misleading, with the end result of swayed public opinion - the ignorant masses THINK machine guns are going to be outlawed, but have no clue what the law really is doing.
davester wrote:
...You are arguing semantics that are irrelevant.
It depends in what context the terminology is being used - folks having a casual conversation or discussion vs. being engaged in serious discourse about altering the laws of the land.