Guns: how much longer will it take ....

By fitting under the definition in that law.

No, I'm asking you how a flash suppressor or pistol grip turns a gun into an assault weapon?

What is it that you don't understand? A gun with a flash suppressor or pistol grip is an assault weapon under some of the jurisdictional definitions.

Baldimo has a good point. Just because the left writes a fraudulent definition into law, should we cede the English language to them? Perhaps we shouldn't.

I've often ceded the language war to the left and just pointed out that there exists no good reason to ban pistol grips on rifles. Perhaps I should alter my tactics and point out that assault rifles have already been banned except for a few difficult-to-acquire antiques made more than 30 years ago.

I don't understand why you can't explain to me how a flash suppressor or pistol grip turns an ordinary semiautomatic gun into an assault weapon. So far you've appealed to an authority even though other authorities differ from the one you've decided to echo.

Seriuosly, you're doggedly chasing semantics?

It's obvious that laws differ on what an assault rifle is, and which means there's no surprise that people differ on what an assault rifle is. What then does your determination to obtain a personal definition from Infra, which some laws agree with, achieve? Nothing. It doesn't change the laws. It doesn't change that people differ on definitions of such. The best you can hope for in such a circumstance is 'you're wrong'...'no, you're wrong'....'am not, you're wrong!'

My guess is the problem lies in the word 'assault', which is a very subjective word. As an adjective, people don't divorce it from its general use, just because it's attached to the noun rifle.

Oh no, I just call a spade a spade. Those involved in semantics are those who decide to call a semiautomatic gun an assault weapon. I'm sure the implication of calling a semiautomatic gun an assault weapon is not lost on you.

Not at all. When I was a teenager, I owned a semi-auto .22 (well, my brother did, but we used it equally as much) . I doubt anyone would ever have called it an assault rifle.

That though, wasn't the point of my post. If there are laws calling a gun in question an assault rifle, then it's pointless arguing about it, even if other laws differ. The 'appeal to authority' you don't like is 'quoting a valid legal definition'. Little point arguing against a persons use of it, even if other jurisdictions disagree.

But if the gun they want to call an assault weapon doesn't fit the description, then there is no argument about it. It's not an assault weapon; it's a semiautomatic weapon that looks like an assault weapon.

An inaccurate definition is not valid.

So, the issue is semantics? The definition of a word? And you weren't doggedly pursuing semantics?

You want to define assault rifle one way, and another wants to define it another way (and some laws that agree). No matter how you want to say otherwise, no matter how you disagree, not matter your view on it's validity...your view is simply not the definition / not the reality in those States that have such laws.

As I said, in such circumstances, you can only achieve 'You're wrong'...'No, you're wrong'...'Am not!. You're wrong!' Yet the semantics makes it problematic talking about the rights & wrongs of possessing assault rifles...

The definition of an assault weapon has always been a weapon with select-fire capability. An AR-15 is not a select-fire weapon. What's happened is that some jurisdictions decided to ignore the definition of an assault weapon and create their own definition. And you are apparently following them wherever they lead you. Care to explain yourself?

Laws get amended all the time, particularly when new problems arise. What has always been, has frequently found need to change, as the world around it changes. Those States that perceive a new change as a problem, amend their laws (in this case, the definition of an Assault Rifle).

If you doubt that laws frequently get amended due to new issues, you only need search 'legislative amendments 2019' (or legislative bills) for whatever state you live in, or for the U.S. at federal level.

As for "following them wherever they lead you", you will recall that I'm Australian, and have no stake in U.S. laws. I was commenting on the futility of arguing against a definition a person is using - when that persons definition is written in law.

Again, you are appealing to authority. But authority cannot change a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic weapon. All an authority can do is say that they're going to pretend that a semiautomatic weapon is an automatic weapon, and that you must pretend, too.

So no comment on how the world changes, and how it affects definitions and laws?

In any event, I have a few of questions for you:
- Where are you getting your definition of Assault Rifle from?
- What makes your source more valid than s States law?
- how does your source change the reality of laws that define an AR-15 as an assault rifle?

You can call my stating a law defining it as an assault rifle is an appeal to authority - which seems to me a pointless exercise in wasted words. I'm saying that it is reality, and no disagreement can change that. I'm also saying it's a legal definition, and no disagreement can change that. The only way for it to change is for the law to be changed.

This is obviously something you don't like...but that doesn't change the reality, and whether you view it as legitimate or not - such is just a subjective view that you hold. Others aren't bound to hold to your subjective view. The reality though, is fairly black and white in those states that classified it as such.

Assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Because they are light and portable yet still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 feet (300–500 metres), assault rifles have replaced the high-powered bolt-action and semiautomatic rifles of the World War II era as the standard infantry weapon of modern armies.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle

Would you like me to provide you with some more?

Ummm...actually, that was only the starter question - the least meaningful, but necessary in order to pose the two questions that followed. You failed to answer the 2 much more important questions that followed. I'm presuming you omitted doing so on purpose, as answering them would admit the futility of arguing semantics?

You’re merely choosing one authority over another. I’m quoting those regulatory jurisdictions that define "assault weapon" thusly. Also, you’re confusing the terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifles."

My first husband had an M-16 he took (stolen) from an armory in Towson, Maryland. He was reserve Army Airborne during the VietNam era and decided to give himself a going away present when his hitch was up. It was fully automatic, but I don't know who modified it. I was very young and although I never fired that weapon, I had a fair understanding about handguns, rifles and shot guns. The M-16 was designed to be used in combat, not hunting....and frankly after looking down the wrong end of that weapon I can no longer remember if it had a flash suppressor (probably not) or a pistol grip (maybe it did) but he had a fully loaded banana clip and it was in my face until I freaking passed out in fear.

So, I'm still not in favor of banning guns, but I find it difficult to split hairs over 'assault weapons' versus 'non-assault weapons'. People can argue about flash suppressors, pistol grips, silencers, magazines that can hold a hundred rounds all they want. But, now I have to get on Ebay because someone is bidding more for a flamethrower I am very keen on, plus it comes with 5 pineapples. Have to get back in the game.

There’s a virtual ban on automatic weapons. Would you be in favor of making them more available?

Oh God no, certainly not in civilian hands. I've been out of DOD for a number of years, and have not kept current with semi-or fully automatic military weapons. What I was trying to say is my first husband tried to kill me and the baby in 1976, I managed to live and save my baby......I hope no one else ever has to look down the barrel of an automatic weapon because they are married to a controlling asshole who threatens to kill everybody in the house. I didn't know the M-16 was modified until my Dad came over to secure the weapon......You can call it my fault because never in a million years did I ever think that the father of my son and my husband would load up that weapon and threaten to kill me.

I'm joking about the flame thrower and grenades...I know, weapons are not funny.