pastera
NES Member
Understand your point nowI could have been clearer. I agree that the point is to do away with weapon bans. I like your phrasing as opposed to his. I was just saying we could skip the paragraph altogether, make the rest of the argument against the ban, and simply refer to them as so-called.
That said, I think your method makes a stronger argument against banning, while mine really exists to attack the assault weapon term.
That paragraph makes them sound like a petulant child mad that he didn't get a long enough turn on the swing.
No judge wants an emotional pissing match in their court and because guns we need to present a level headed facts based position devoid of any emotion even if we know the state's case will be purely emotional dribble.