Brian Pfleuger said:
I consider that contradictory.
For one, being "cosmetic" doesn't mean that there's no function whatsoever. It means that the function of the device isn't integral to the weapon. The gun functions without them.
No, it doesn't, particularly in the case of a pistol grip. The removed pistol grip must be replaced with a different design to replace the
functionality in order for the weapon to be operable, i.e. functional.
One of the definitions of "Cosmetic" is "not important or meaningful".
Whether those features are
important or
meaningful to any given person under given set of circumstance is highly debatable. What is not debatable is that they enhance the functionality of the weapon, or they wouldn't exist, let alone be ubiquitous. Therefore the word "cosmetic" is inapt to describe those features. If any doubt remains about that, note that antonyms to 'cosmetic' include "functional" and "utilitarian".
The most common understandings and usage of the word cosmetic is :
1: of, relating to, or making for beauty especially of the complexion
2: done or made for the sake of appearance: as
a : correcting defects especially of the face <cosmetic surgery>
b : decorative, ornamental
c : not substantive : superficial <cosmetic changes>
3: visually appealing
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmetic
Since none of these features are required by the gun and it's works just fine without them, they are cosmetic.
None of the feature are required
by the gun in order to lauch a projectile, but they may well be required
by the operator. If a rifle is used at night for self-defense and the flash blinds the operator, I would submit that the functionality of that weapon was severely compromised. If a person is forced to defend him or herself from a position that requires a shorter or longer stock to be effective, the functionality is compromised. Same, of course for magazine limits. What might be just fine and dandy on a range, might be woefully inadequate in actual use for the most important purpose of defense.
Two, for most users, most of the banned features ARE purely (or significantly) for looks. I've known plenty of people who have ARs with flash suppressors and none of them that shoot at night.
If called upon to use your weapon for lawful defense, there is a 50/50 chance it will be at night. I wouldn't use recreational shooting to set the bar for what functionality a weapon may have.
They are there to look cool. Pistol grips are the same. It's a basic part of the AR historic design, but it's not a requirement, as we've seen with the new designs.
Whether a person ever actually uses the functionally of those features is irrelevant to whether those features are functional or cosmetic.
If you replace the low-profile racing tires on your Lamborghini with passenger car tires, the car will still go down the road. Were those racing tires and rims purely cosmetic, or do they serve to enhance the functionality of the car?
The biggest problem with the misuse of the word 'cosmetic' when referring to common features of guns is that it's a double-edged sword. Claiming the features do little or nothing to degrade to functionality of the gun is a losing argument.
If there is no loss of functionality of the gun, then how can we argue against laws that would ban those features? Where would be the harm?