With all this talk of banning assault weapons, insane people using assault weapons to kill others, my right to own an assault weapon, etc. I propose that we as a nation define the phrase 'assault weapon'. I know I have asked many people and received just as many definitions. I even had some begin their definition with "well, isn't it...". How can anyone be in favor of banning something when they don't even know what that something is?

*edit: And what makes those horrible things in the definition so horrible?

Quote:


I already went over this.


   Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

       Folding or telescoping stock
       Pistol grip
       Bayonet mount
       Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
       Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

   Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

       Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
       Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
       Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
       Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
       A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

   Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

       Folding or telescoping stock
       Pistol grip
       Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
       Detachable magazine.

SO. If I have an AR 15 that comes with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip it's perfectly fine.
If I attach a bayonet lug (not even a bayonet, just the lug) it's an assault rifle.
If I put a folding stock on it the gun becomes an assault rifle. If I put a folding stock on it but I put a 1/8 roll in the back of it then by definition it now has a "fixed" stock and becomes legal again. I feel safer already.


--Steve

Serowbot wrote on 12/26/12 at 09:29:34:

I appreciate your attempt at a definition. I guess I should've added why does the definition make it an assault weapon? Because 11 rounds is deadlier than 10? Because after 10 rounds I press a button and slam another 10 in in under a second? All guns are spray and pray including revolvers as they fire each time the trigger is pulled. If this is the definition the public is using, it is a poor one. No offense.

I disagree,.. that definition works for me...
.. and under the right conditions, it is possible to to swap a mag in under a second... but, not in the real world...
If you think it is,.. then you'd make an excellent mass murderer... but, if I'm in that room being shot at,.. I'll take that half a second respite, thank you very much...
That half a second will have a chair flying at you, or anything in arms reach... and while the chair is flying I'll be charging...

"Loughner allegedly proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd. The weapon used was reported to be a 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine....Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, ... The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger, who himself had been shot, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders..."

Anything that even looks like an assault weapon is enough to elicit fear or terror in most people even if such guns are not capable of firing 30 round clips in a fully or semi-auto mode. And how is the causal observer able to tell if such a weapon fires a single shot, or 30 rounds a minute?

Everyone knows that true sportsmen do not buy these kinds of weapons to hunt deer or ducks. To want to own such a weapon puts into question the kind of thinking that's going on in such an individuals mind.

I don't think most folks want to take away the family deer rifle. Unfortunately, gun cultists are notorious for pushing the envelop on gun laws. If they were truly responsible, and gave a dang about society, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I think most gun control advocates are not thinking of the hunting rifles or such that rural folks use as a tool. We are more concerned with the arsenals that some people have with no practical need. And automatics, high capacity clips and hoarding are just concerning. If your guns are registered, kept secure, you are licensed, passed a background check with a mental health section, insured for the potential damage your gun may do, and you are willing to accept responsibility (criminal or otherwise for what your guns do) then that seems like acceptable and responsible gun ownership.

Keep your shotguns. Keep your hunting rifles, the assault weapons have got to go.

So according to Star, I can have a gun to hunt but not protect my family. Who will protect them? The police? Not their job. It is my job. In that case, it would be a defensive weapon, not an assault weapon, so is that acceptable? And I surely wouldn't want to fire a high powered deer rifle at an armed intruder and miss. It would go through the wall and potentially kill my neighbor's newborn. But that is acceptable. I just can't have a scary gun that holds enough ammo to defend against a few intruders.

Greg;

You’ve hit the nail on the head with the most valid point of all when it comes to assault weapons.

It is first and foremost, my job to protect my family in the manner I see fit based upon the circumstances I find myself in; no one else’s responsibility. To hand this responsibility over to the government goes to the heart of my problem with the feminization of America. I don't want people who think the way Star and Sew do to decide what's best for me and those I'm responsible for.

David Gregory of Meet the Press can pregnant dog and moan about gun control at schools all he wants but his kids go to the same school and the President's kids do. He has no security fears. This is the same as Rosie O’Donnell a few years ago on gun control when it was later revealed her bodyguard was armed. Liberals always have a double standard in place.

I currently do not own one of these ‘assault’ weapons (which is about to change…), but I live in a fairly secure area and never felt the need for one.  If I lived south 100 miles in the meth capital of the US, I’d have already bought one.

You can single out Rosie and David if you want... but,...
"Liberals always have a double standard in place."...
Singling out a couple of examples, and then making the blanket statement that "Liberals always..." is BS...
I don't,.. and Star don't...

... and this is a BS thread...  
Proposing that we define "assault weapon", and then stating that there's no such a thing... is automatically rejecting any answer before it's brought up...

Any definition based on the looks of a weapon, or on any additional functions besides firing power will just be worked around by manufacturers...
A simple, specific, definition is needed... and a maximum 10 round mag capacity will work for 99%...
I don't care how fast a reload can happen... and,.. if it's so simple, why complain?...
If anyone needs more than 10 rounds for home defense,. they need to rethink they're ability to use a gun for defensive purposes...
Spraying that kind of lead in a home, or public place makes you as dangerous as the threat...

I'm done with this argument... no one is expecting or accepting a serious discussion here anyway... Only denial of realities...

...