No it doesn't.
That is incorrect. The term "assault weapon" applies only if a gun is capable of full-auto.
Confused and wrong. The 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act was not a law against pistol grips; it specifically addressed assault weapons.
You are wrong. The 1994 law was not against pistol grips nor did it focus on banning ordinary hunting rifles; it banned assault weapons.
Confused and wrong, again. The 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act was not a law against pistol grips; it specifically focused on banning assault weapons.
That is incorrect. Your 1994 law focused on pistol grips on ordinary hunting rifles, and did not address assault weapons in any way.
You're massively delusional.
I did not outlaw a bunch of ordinary hunting rifles.
You support the 1994 law that outlawed a bunch of hunting rifles for no reason.
Your assertion of enjoyment of violating people's civil liberties is risibly irrelevant.
The fact that your violation of people's civil liberties was motivated by pure malice influences the amount of compensation that I require from you before I will support any new gun laws.
Your other risible, irrelevant assertion of compensation aside, moderates will support the passing of gun regulations.
I'm a moderate and I will not do so until you have provided adequate compensation for your past atrocities.
I have no 1994 atrocity.
That 1994 ban on pistol grips that you support was an atrocity.
Your risible assertions of compensation are irrelevant in regard to your need to support gun regulation laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.
I will not support new gun laws until you have paid compensation for your past atrocities, and you cannot make me do otherwise.
Yours is a straw man argument and as such is irrelevant to the need for comprehensive gun regulation laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation which you need to support.
You have voiced support for the 1994 ban on pistol grips, so it is no straw man to point out that you supported violating people's civil liberties.
You are delusional, but that does not negate your need to support comprehensive gun control laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.
Everything that I say is true, and you have no power to make me support new gun control laws.
You are failing miserably in keeping up with the argument. We have every possible need to enact comprehensive gun control laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.
Not when those gun control laws are merely you violating people's civil liberties for fun.
The NRA will be extinguished and relegated to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history.
Your desire to destroy organizations that protect our civil liberties is chilling and Orwellian.
Thankfully you are again wrong. Progressives have no power to destroy the NRA.
Wrong. People only have a possibly legitimate reason for owning one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun, and the restricting of the number of weapons someone can possess is thoroughly justified.
A single person could have:
a) a .22lr for rabbit and squirrel hunting and also for general target shooting
b) a .17 HMR to protect his garden from gophers
c) a 22-250 to protect his chickens from foxes and coyotes
d) a lever-action .30-30 for deer hunting in the woods
e) a bolt action 6mm Remington for deer hunting at even longer ranges
f) a single shot 6.5 x 55 for hunting mountain goats
g) a .270 Winchester for elk hunting
h) a .338 Win Mag for bear hunting in Alaska
i) a sporting rifle suitable for competing in the biathlon
j) a 12 gauge shotgun for hunting various birds and also for skeet and trap shooting
k) a handgun for concealed carry
l) a backup handgun for concealed carry
m) an AR-15 for home defense
And maybe the guy likes full auto guns and owns a sear to convert HK semi-autos to full-auto, and has the following weapons to install his sear into:
n) a HK-21E belt fed general purpose machine gun chambered in 7.62x51
o) a HK-33 assault rifle chambered in 5.56x45
p) a HK MP5 submachine gun chambered in 10mm
q) an HK MP5K machine pistol chambered in 9mm
That's a legitimate reason for owning 17 different guns.
Much more importantly though, is the fact that you don't have a legitimate reason for restricting the number of guns that someone can have.
Unjustifiable gun restrictions are unconstitutional gun restrictions.
We need to establish a national registry for the ownership and possession of firearms.
Form 4473s already fulfil that function. If comprehensive background check legislation is ever passed, that will result in Form 4473s being filed for secondhand sales as well.