YankeeTarheel wrote:Look at the specific proposals in the article:
1) A 2nd conviction for domestic abuse becomes a felony, rendering one ineligible for gun ownership.
2) In-person training required to obtain a concealed weapon permit.
3) Outlawing bump-stocks.
4) Universal background checks.
5) Assault Weapons ban.
Other than #5, I think 1-4 are not just acceptable but something I can fully support 100%.
But if #5 means semi-automatic rifles, like AR-15s and AR-10s,...
It undoubtedly _includes_ those rifles. As a political term, "assault weapon" is intentionally vague, but the huge, nebulous bucket of firearms it encompasses has universally included semi-automatic carbines that are black and scary.
YankeeTarheel wrote:If it refers to fully automatic weapons, semi-automatic shotguns, "street-sweepers", then I don't have a problem with that either.
Automatic weapons and the SWD Streetsweeper are already so tightly regulated under the NFA of 1934 they are statistically irrelevant, but I'm sure any "assault weapon" ban supported by Democrats would include those, too.
What is the problem with semi-automatic shotguns? Can you make the case as to why all those here who own semi-automatic shotguns should have to give them up?
YankeeTarheel wrote:Northam is an army vet so he should be able to define EXPLICITLY what he means by "assault weapon" so it can be either opposed or accepted.
I would not count on that. Massachusetts has one of those--Seth Moulton--who has no problem both making "assault weapon" unclear and calling for bans on semi-automatic carbines. He says you don't need one. The appeal to authority fallacy is alive and well. Moulton toes the party line and supports party gun prohibition bullet points just like his fellow Democratic representatives who are not veterans. The whole point of "assault weapon" is to be vague, so other firearms can be banned procedurally--without having to involve legislators--later by being declared "assault weapons."