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

As you wish...

Assault Rifle...

wikipedia wrote:

An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting in both fully automatic and semi automatic modes).

Assault Weapon...

wikipedia wrote:

Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a legal term,
separate from the technical definition, used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Conspicuous pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher
* Barrel shroud

And just for fun...

NRA-ILA wrote:

ASSAULT RIFLE
By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

I had an unfair advantage. I've had this exact same talk before and I knew exactly where the road of definitions leads. I had all the face cards.

T
K
O

David - You miss.

Quote:

You highlighting that "assault weapon" is a legal term
only supports what I originally said.

I don 't see it that way.
I am not aware that we were discussing the law;
I was not aware of that then nor now.

Quote:

I said what defines an assault rifle is the ability to fire in different modes. Check.

IF one of those modes is fully automatic, then yeah.
(My memory is about 90% certain that u have already said that it is.)
I challenged u qua your source of information
(tho I did not deny the veracity of your representations);
u have SATISFIED me n gratified me in that regard.
For that, u have well deserved credit
n your exultation is well justified. Thank u !
(Happiness is precious n extremely important, but that is another thread; I think I 'll start that.)

Quote:

I said what defines an assault weapon
is specific features/accessories on the gun. Check.

IF we had been discussing the state of the law
or the law of the state, then I 'd agree with u, as to definition,
but we were discussing weapons, not the law.
(We can discuss the law too, if u wish,
as long as we understand what the subject matter of the discussion is.)

I was addressing my attention to weaponry,
within the cognition of every-day, ordinary parlance,
not on unconstitutional, emotion-based laws from leftist politicians,
based on the semi-hysterical ignorance of leftist newspaper reporters.
Nikita Khrushchev 's shoe was an assault weapon
when he threatened to throw it at the ambassador in 1960.

Quote:

What a knife or rock is used for will not, for the purposes of law,
obtain the very specifically defined status as a "assault weapon."

That depends upon the judicial circumstances within which it is used;
e.g., a lawyer is perfectly free to draw a summons n complaint
alleging that defendant assaulted his client with a telefone
(by hurling it at plaintiff; that has happened) such that the fone
was an assault weapon. On the other hand, if the cause of action
is criminal, based on a statute that arbitrarily defines an "assault weapon"
his professional attention will focus on the statutory definition.
Legally, legislatures can indulge in different fictions; e.g.:
the ability to stop the flow of time. There is very ample (too ample)
legislative precedent for enacting statutes to stop the progress of time within the state capital edifice.
This is too ofen done to forestall a legal deadline.
Time does not REALLY stop
and if u see someone hurl a rock at u in malice,
while cleaning your blood off your face, u 'd need little more evidentiary proof
that the rock was an assault weapon.

Quote:

They may be defined as a "weapon," or a "melee weapon" etc,
but not "assault weapon."

That statement is both false n devoid of logical support.
If a legislature defines something as an "assault weapon"
that does not prevent citizens (anyone) from applying the English language
in its ordinary, every-day uses.
Nikita Khrushchev 's shoe was an assault weapon
when he threatened to throw it at the ambassador in 1960.

Quote:

The creation of such a term has meaning too.
The idea that the law that govern the ownership of a assault weapon should be
the same law the ownership of a rock or knife is ridiculous.

U falsely imply that I claimed that it is.
Your A2K profile indicates that u r an engineer.
Hence, u shoud be acquainted with the need
for precise accuracy in your assertions.

Quote:

You guys are supposed to be the pros about this stuff.

Lemme get this straight:
did someone in the gun freedom community
represent himself to be a professional "about this stuff" ?? Anyone ?
I think I missed that.
Will u reveal your source of information on this point ?
I DON 'T BELIEVE THAT U WILL, because it came from your imagination,
but I strongly doubt that u will ADMIT THAT.

Quote:

I'm not impressed with your academic understanding.

OK; in my never-ending quest to please U,
I 'll try to do better.





David

Bulls eye Dave!

One shot - one kill.

You are correct about Clinton losing congress. The NRA is a political force.

However, the ban was hardly unconstitutional.

The question is whether the government can, and should, ban military-style assault weapons. . . .

Logic gymnastics David. You're not good logic or gymnastics in this case.

This is a discussion on terms. It matters not who uses them.
The terms do exist, and as they exist you are attempting to (1) deny, or (2) redefine.
You may always say you are going to buy a "carton of eggs"
or "12 eggs" but because someone else says
"a dozen eggs" doesn't mean you can deny what a dozen is as
a term or redefine it for that matter.

It matters not what you think about these terms technical, legal or otherwise.
What matters is that these terms have established meanings
in realms of our society and because of the discussion of terms,
it stands that they are as I have posted. I didn't come up with
the qualifications for either term, but there is no purpose in
denying the definitions of these terms.

What is the problem anyway?

Do you feel like the terms threaten your viewpoint on firearms?

It should be noted that Clinton signed into law the ban on assault-type weapons in 1994,

and the craven Rep congress allowed it to expire in 2004.

It is telling that the law was not challenged during that ten years.
The reason there was no successful challenge is that opponents
of the law knew they had no case based on the constitution.

Easy access to guns leads to far too many easy killings of innocent people.:

I think the answer is above.

Not for more than a century, if ever.

Those irrationally attached to a "freedom" which results in the slaughter of thousands a year have too much influence for sanity to prevail.

I might have more sympathy for gun owners if the NRA stopped hiding it's cause behind the Second Amendment when the true reason is the gun industry. It's all about selling guns. It's all about money.

BBB

David´s argument is unlogical. Just because you are armed does not mean you cannot get shot.

Guns should only be sold to people who really need them - and not people who think they need them.

It should be illegal to have them at your bedside or carry them with you just because you think you need them.

You are only allowed to use a gun for the purpose you get an allowance for when you are a hunter only for hunting.

I for one do not trust your judgment. Too many gun-toters feel that the best response to any situation which seems at all threatening is to kill. I don't want to be around that.

I am not against guns and I nearly think that every American household should be REQUIRED to own a long rifle. But I don't agree with Pistols, a coward's weapon and the cause of much of the violence we see in our modern lives.

Cycloptichorn

I think many Americas care far more about their personal freedom to own guns than they do for human life itself.

The death of people by guns is just the price we pay for