[quote]There can be several adjustments made to the design that would at least make it harder to do.[/quote]Such as? Adjustments to the stock fitting, or to the trigger group, or . . . ? As I'm sure you know, that stock relies on the recoil of the weapon and a spring mechanism to function. I don't see how you could design away from those things (if recoil could be avoided, we'd have done so long ago!), but I'm interested to hear your ideas about it. Note that for those design adjustments to have any effect on the market, you'd have to require the new design and somehow not allow the manufacture or use of the prior design. Seems there's a word for that kind of prohibitive action. Starts with a B, maybe? Ban. That's the one. You'd have to ban the prior design. ;-)

No need to ban legacy weapons. Just mandate that the new ones be made in such a way. That's how CA handled catalytic converters on cars. The guns all have serial numbers that are loosely held to the date they are created. Just give the cut off number to the government. If you do something that allows the police to look at your AR-15, and it has the design change after the serial number range, you are OK. If you changed it, then you are not. As far as the specifics, I will not go into that with you. I'm not an expert on such matters, and I won't pretend ti be one (as most on here do.) I've spoken with several armorers from the Army, SDPD and Riverside PD, and all have pointed out ways of sealing the trigger mechanism, and ways to adjust the bolt. I trust the experts on this, as all were pro-AR-15, and just wanted to eliminate reasons for its eventual ban. They chalked the problem up to lazy manufacturing between the M-16 and AR-15 lines. The problem to them was that there aren't enough differences between the two designs. Some simple designs changes and no one could say reasonably that an AR-15 is an Assault Rifle.

[quote]Just mandate that the new ones be made in such a way.[/quote]Still a ban (of the old design), it just applies to manufacturers and not consumers. But, still a ban. :-) As for the rest, interesting. Sealing the trigger mechanism seems to me like it would prevent folks from servicing the trigger group, which is unacceptable, so I guess I'm misunderstanding? Either way, interesting points. I'll try to remember to bring this up next time I'm talking ARs with someone very knowledgeable about them.

By the loosest definition, sure, its a ban. (we both know its not) And likely I am the one misunderstanding. Like I said, I won't try to pass myself off as an expert. I know enough that with a YouTube refresher, I could make an AR-15 fully auto. I could not tell you how to prevent it in specifics.

[quote][url=https://www.google.com/url?q=ban&url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ban&rct=j&sa=X&ei=w4BUUd3uHqGi2gWHnIDICQ&ved=0CDAQkg4oAA&usg=AFQjCNFzqeecAo0qK-78lG5DyLPDXdJytg&cad=rja]Verb Officially or legally prohibit: "he was banned from driving for a year". Noun An official or legal prohibition: "a ban on cigarette advertising".[/url][/quote] It is a ban by [i]the [/i]definition of the word. It's a ban on certain activity by certain people. I only nitpick this to drive home the point that governments only act by removing previously-existing freedom. Absent government, all freedoms exist -- gov't therefore does not grant freedom, it can only restrict it. Sometimes, this is perfectly acceptable (e.g., we're better off not having the freedom to murder others at will), but not always.

Is getting the last word in it THAT important to you?

[quote]sure, its a ban. (we both know its not)[/quote]It's important that I retort when you assert that I hold a belief that I do not. I'm sure you agree. :-)