[homonculus1]

It means you lack basic knowledge of the subject, which is a red flag that your viewpoint is not well-formed or generated from fact.

Imagine somebody tells you that abortion should be more strictly regulated, but can't properly describe women's anatomy or the standing law for abortion restrictions.

Imagine somebody tells you that strong crypto should be reserved for the military, intelligence, and law enforcement, but shows a thorough lack of understanding of features like public keys, password hashes, etc. That would be an indicator that they do not really have exposure to the topic and are reacting out of fear rather than a deep consideration of the fundamental freedoms at stake.

Yet such a basic ignorance of the issue is a staple of gun control proponents, even career activists. It is an absolute farce that politicians and lobbyists are demanding to ban tools they cannot even properly identify and that ought to send chills down the spine of any clearheaded person.

[hcknwscommenter]

Can you actually point to any ignorance of the subject? No you cannot. I never said full-auto was not regulated. You lack basic reading comprehension skills.

[QuarterReptile]

Your ad hominem attack is neither helpful nor civil. Furthermore, the idea it uses as a basis is false.

"... In reality, actual DEM proposed legislation places controls on certain features that increase likelihood of successful mass-killing (fully auto, bump stocks, very high capacity mags) ..."

You stated that full auto was a feature that Democrats were proposing to control to decrease likelihood of mass killing. In reality, that problem has not existed for 85 years; proposing to make it less likely is meaningless.