I do buy the argument about the slippery slope, though I probably would never have interest in an "assault" weapon myself.
Legislators always try to push the envelope to justify their existence, so once those weapons are banned someone will try to ban the most powerful or efficient of the remaining weapons, and so on down the line until forced disarmament of the population is on the books.
Then only the criminals will have the guns.
It doesn't even need to go that far. If the anti-gun people allow us to have 1789-style muskets, in keeping with when the second amendment was first drafted, the police, and military and any criminal would be superiorly armed. As you're packing your powder and ball shot, you'd be getting perforated like swiss cheese.
I put the quotes around "assault" above because the distinction has always been subjective outside of military circles. Any weapon used in an assault can be called an assault weapon, much like any man with a gun is, on the TV news, referred to as a "gunman".
|