What is an assault weapon?

You can't find a clear answer because there isn't one.

0 Replies

It is a made-up term for certain kinds of firearms that look scary to liberals. You can read more about it in the Wikipedia.

See also: assault weapons ban, assault rifle

The term "assault rifle" is an actual military term that comes from the German "Sturmgewehr" which literally translates to "assault rifle." The link above takes you to a Wikipedia page about the subject, and it includes this picture of a Sturmgewehr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/2/2f/SG44.jpg

0 Replies

I went to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to get a definition for you, G_Loc, but i am at work, and have to rely upon a dial-up here, so i found i was unable to download their PDF files. I would suggest that you google "ATF" and go to the official ATF site. They have resources there which might include the definition you seek.

0 Replies

A weapon is anything used to hit people, at various speeds. "Assault" is a bit redundant.

0 Replies

This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:

A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
A grenade launcher.

0 Replies

Tax cuts for the rich?

The elimination of the earned income deduction for the working poor?

Rush Limbaugh?

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

It is a made-up term for certain kinds of firearms that look scary to liberals.

I don't know, man. I think it would look scary to anyone it was pointed at.

I've been fortunate enough to have had the chance to shoot a number of such weapons (including Mac-10's, AK's and semi auto shotguns). It was just enough exposure to know that such weapons really have no purpose in society than to cause serious harm to other people.

I say, get rid of 'em all. No civilian should have ac cess to anything higher caliber than 9mm (unless your a legit hunter. But then, what would a hunter need with a semi-auto shotty?).

0 Replies

Target shooters? Clay pigeon shooters? Really bad hunters? People that just want one?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Target shooters? Clay pigeon shooters? Really bad hunters? People that just want one?

Hmmm... nope. The number of "Target shooters/clay pigon shooters/really bad hunters" who want a mac-10, uzi's and semi auto shotty's are WAY outnumbered by the wrong people who "just want one". Mainly gangsters, mobsters, and murderers.

I'm sure the people in your category will be understanding to that point.

0 Replies

Why did you have access to them or shoot them if you have no interest in them?

0 Replies

The definition depends on which end of the ordinance you are closest to.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Why did you have access to them or shoot them if you have no interest in them?

Read my posts again. I never said I had no interest in them.

The manner in which I had ac cess to them is of no relevance. My point was that no civilians should ever be able to get such weapons.

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

It was just enough exposure to know that such weapons really have no purpose in society than to cause serious harm to other people.

Nonsense. Guns put holes in things, that's all.

0 Replies

JO - with the collapse of the Taliban in Afghanistan, you could pick up a AK-47 for $3-4 on the street, with that sort of personal weaponry available the definition of 'civilian' blurs somewhat. Scary stuff.

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Why did you have access to them or shoot them if you have no interest in them?

Read my posts again. I never said I had no interest in them.

The manner in which I had ac cess to them is of no relevance. My point was that no civilians should ever be able to get such weapons.

Justan, do you think that the average citizen should be allowed to purchase magazines like Playboy and Hustler or any other 'pornographic' types of literature.

They seem to serve no other purpose but a prurient one and yet people seem to get pleasure from them. Yet these things, although they have no other purpose, are covered under the First Amendment.

Firearms are covered similarly under the Second... just because you do not like my M-1 carbine because it is semi automatic, doesn't give you the right to ban it or take it from me. I get pleasure from target shooting as it takes me back to my youth, shooting with my father.

I will make you a deal... I won't try to ban your porn ... you don't try to ban my guns. Laughing

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Justan, do you think that the average citizen should be allowed to purchase magazines like Playboy and Hustler or any other 'pornographic' types of literature.

Oh, hell yes! Very Happy

Fedral wrote:

They seem to serve no other purpose but a prurient one and yet people seem to get pleasure from them. Yet these things, although they have no other purpose, are covered under the First Amendment.
Firearms are covered similarly under the Second... just because you do not like my M-1 carbine because it is semi automatic, doesn't give you the right to ban it or take it from me. I get pleasure from target shooting as it takes me back to my youth, shooting with my father.

Well, I don't know of anyone who's used a porn magazine to kill another person, so that argument is a bit of a stretch (I'm sure you'll agree, if you step back and look at it objectively).

I don't have a problem with guns per say. My problem is with *particular* guns. You know the ones I'm talking about. The ones that are practically designed with the sole purpose of killing other people.

An M-1 Carbine is a beautiful piece of machinery (haven't shot that one yet, but I did fire an AR15- damn near soiled my shorts). But due to its size (and ammo), your not going to be seeing many gangsters strolling around with it tucked into their pants.

I'm talking about the small, full and semi auto machine pistols/guns that are easily concealed in clothing, which makes them particularly dangerous and useful to the wrong kind of person.

Eventually, when all the pros and cons are boiled down to it, the only justification is because "people like it" and "its in the constitution". Well, I like riding my motorcycle on one wheel going the wrong way down the street, but we've got to put some reasonable limits to "what people like". As for the consitution, it does allow us to "bear arms", but there should be some reasonable limits to that as well. I'm not saying take away guns, I'm just saying we should limit the kind that are out there.

Fedral wrote:

I will make you a deal... I won't try to ban your porn ... you don't try to ban my guns.

Hey! Leave my porn out of this...

And to Tarantulas:
You say "Nonsense. Guns put holes in things, that's all".
As far as bad arguments go, I think that just about takes the cake. I can say the same thing about Tanks and bazookas, but I sure as hell don't want your average joe to have one.

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

And to Tarantulas:
You say "Nonsense. Guns put holes in things, that's all".
As far as bad arguments go, I think that just about takes the cake. I can say the same thing about Tanks and bazookas, but I sure as hell don't want your average joe to have one.

We talked about this in the "Glorifying Guns" thread. So rather than type it all in again...

Tarantulas wrote:

Baseball bats and cars and golf clubs are designed for a certain purpose, to play baseball, to transport people from one place to another, and to play golf. Any of these objects can be used to kill someone unlawfully. A knife is used to cut things. If you use a knife to cut a person, that's illegal. And it's exactly the same with guns. Guns are designed to put holes in things. You can use a gun to put holes in a target or in an animal during hunting season. If you use a gun to put a hole in a person, and it's not self defense, that's illegal.

Tanks and bazookas are military weapons, and so is a fully-automatic rifle. But "assault weapons" are only semiautomatic, and made for civilian use. Therefore civilians should be able to own them, no matter whether they have a folding stock or a pistol grip or a large-capacity magazine.

A single shot pistol will kill you just as dead as an AK-47. Banning the AK-47 is nothing but a feel-good method and it doesn't make anyone safer.

0 Replies

This subject's boring. Let's all go somewhere else.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

We talked about this in the "Glorifying Guns" thread. So rather than type it all in again...

Oops!

Thanks for bringing it to my attention...

0 Replies

What is an assault weapon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know