|
|
|
|
|
|
by Retric
3522 days ago
|
|
|
If it where purely cosmetic people would not be fighting it. Instead, there is opposition specifically because it is a meaningful, though small change. A purely cosmetic change would be requiring all guns to be panted orange. PS: Most people don't have tools or mechanical know how, making 'simple' changes difficult. |
|
|
Simply not true. People fought the AWB because it was largely cosmetic (not entirely). Even those in support of the bill have said many of the banned items were cosmetic.
> Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts.
From the Violence Policy Center, a pro-gun control group.
If a manufacturer can make strictly cosmetic changes to a weapon and have it be compliant, it's kind of hard to argue there was "meaningful change." That's not a loophole, that's banning a cosmetic feature and a manufacturer getting rid of that cosmetic feature.