Could you explain why? If you mean the semantic mistake of saying “guns” when they mean “firearms” then I’m with you on the nitpick, but you seem to be objecting to the naming of specific weapons, and I’d like to consider your argument, should you choose to make one.
On the other hand,
could you offer a citation for the bolded charge? Do you know that said panoply is exempted from the high-capacity magazine ban (no more than 10 rounds), or is not covered in the suspect “specifically named” list?
Terribly simple, really. If one is interested in banning weapons based on firepower, one can lists ranges and/or combinations of calibers, actions, and magazine capacities that are banned or restricted in use.
The way I see it, there is no reason to name specific weapons (either banned or exempted) unless either A) those weapons are SO unique that they don’t fit under a useful category of firepower-based bans (I am not aware of any weapon on either list that can be described that way) or B) the intent is to garner more support among non-knowledgeable people by banning the “scary” Bushmaster XM-15 but not grandpa’s Ruger Mini-14, even though they’re the same in terms of rounds put downrange per unit time.
At least the magazine capacity ban is honest. It’d also be both more honest and more effective to ban 5.56NATO/.223 than listing AR-15 variants by name–but that will NEVER pass, because no one in the general public perceives a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle as an “assault weapon” despite the bare facts of ballistics.
Yeah, I agree with Zeriel here. Gun-control legislation that’s designed to be arbitrary and inconsistent for political reasons makes politicians look unserious if not corrupt. It doesn’t make a lot of sense from either side.
In addition, I specify “ranges of calibers” as the only sensible approach because even specific caliber bans often turn out bizarre or ineffectual in practice: see, for example, Italy, where 9x19 pistol ammo (9mm Parabellum) and 5.56 NATO rifle ammo (what the AR-15 uses) are banned for civilian weapons…but you can buy 9x21, 10mm, and .40SW pistols and .223 Remington rifles, which are respectively more powerful and capable of being functionally equivalent.
Frankly, while I can condemn HSBC for this (although wondering if the Mexican bank employees were offered the usual plata o plomo deal), I also wonder what the rational basis is for a US court to convict a company from one foreign country for activities in a second foreign country which are possibly not even crimes under the laws of the other countries.
Drugs are the least of it. They were aiding terrorists and enemies of the state. If the govt. treated them the same as others the execs would be in navy brigs somewhere being “interrogated.”
“Obama thinks of himself as the god-emperor of the USA”? No wonder no one takes you seriously.
And the complaint? Filibuster reform … making it harder to … filibuster. It used to be used for “debate on a contentious issue,” but the Republicans have turned it into a simple, no-frills obstructionist technique.
The pros and cons of filibuster reform aside, you’re a fucking idiot.
“-- Make it easier for one party to pass legislation, even if half the Senate disagrees: To stop debate on a contentious issue, 60 votes are now required. But the proposal being floated would create a way for the Majority Leader to pass any proposal with only 51 votes.”
Oh My (Muslim Communist) God!!! Passing any proposal by majority vote! What will these godless heathens think of next?
On the other hand, considering the current Republican mania of gerrymandering and changing allocation of electoral votes (to gain an Electoral College advantage over and above the popular vote), it shouldn’t be a surprise that “half plus one” are dirty words to the Heritage Foundation.
Yeah, it makes it easier to get stuff in the Senate to a vote.
Bills still have to get 51 senators, or 50 senators and the VP, to vote for them, and get the House of Representatives to vote on them and get a majority to vote for it, and get the president’s signature to become law.
What you think is happening, isn’t actually so. Because of your intense gullibility and vapid acceptance of anything RW radio tells you, you’re seething in rage at nonsense.
It’s fucked up because gullible twats like you vote against your self-interests to fight a foe that doesn’t exist.
" I’ll give you three guesses; first two don’t count." 