I wouldn't like proposals that banned semiautomatic weapons with detachable or high capacity fixed magazines, either, but I'd concede that such proposals make a rational distinction in potentially dangerous functionality. My problem specifically with this proposal as well as subsequent ones that include feature tests and the like is that they fail to make any rational distinction.

You're entitled to your opinion that the bill in question is a "sane and straightforward" approach in contrast to subsequent proposals that aren't because of irrational feature tests. I just don't think that's a defensible one. Giving the Attorney General and Secretary of the Treasury wide latitude to say "this semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine is ok but this other one isn't" is just as arbitrary as later feature tests. And if anything, this proposal is worse public policy: one administration could add every eligible semi-automatic rifle to the list and the next one could make the list empty.

Either ban semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines or don't. Maybe exempt rimfire from any ban or don't. If there's a rational distinction beyond that to be made, make it.

You can use the word "sane" to mean anything you want it to. As you well know, since you're the one who brought that long, detailed previous thread into this one, the meaning I'm giving it "not based on cosmetic features like grips and barrel shrouds". The basis for my argument is factual, and you should concede that, because you yourself set the tone and expectation of rigor on this thread, and you aren't living up to that standard.

That I'm not even advocating for that particular proposal is besides the point. You accused me of arguing in bad faith, and I am now pointing out that it's in fact you that are doing that now. It's an easy problem to correct; you simply have to say "I was wrong about that, let's move on".