Today's JPFO Alert notes that a "ban" that only means that the government isn't buying the "banned" item for you is one gun owners could get behind.
A nitpicking, irrelevant distinction? I don't think so. Look at it this way--what if proposals to ban private citizens' ownership of so-called "assault weapons" meant only that the federal government would not be subsidizing all or part of the purchase price? What if attempts to "ban" .50 caliber rifles were only attempting to clarify that it will be the responsibility of the aspiring rifle owner, and of no one else, to pay for it? What if the abandoned (for now) attempt on the part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to "ban" M855 ammunition simply meant that the federal government could not give it to us for nothing?