Well, I do believe all firearms should be licensed, require training, and be restricted from many people, ex-cons, the mentally ill, etc. But it is not logically inconsistent to take a half a win. These weapons, the M-16, AR-15, AK-47, UZI and such were designed as infantry weapons, they are not better for hunting, they had no purpose but to kill people on a battlefield from a great distance. The desire to get rid of these before trying to get rid of small cheap pistols that are not useful except for killing people at extreme close range, and other such pointless weapons is the next step. But there is no logical inconsistency in the current desire to ban "assault weapons". The term does have meaning. It refers to a weapon that is based on a template of a weapon that was designed explicitly for use by soldiers to kill soldiers. But there is no flaw in thinking here. It is tactics rather than strategy, start with one pointless weapon banned, then continue with the next, that is all.