You won't find one from me. Banning assault weapons is ridiculous and not effective in reducing gun violence.
No on any bans. There is no proof that the so called original Clinton AWB did anything but inconvenience law abiding gun owners, the FBI has proved time after time that criminals prefer concealed handguns, not large rifles. The semi-automatic firearms sold in gun stores are not assault weapons, such as Miltary issue M-16s or M60 machine guns etc...
Politicians declaring something to "be" based on their own prejudices (and merely cosmetic features) does not make it so. They can define "pig" to mean "dog". That doesn't change the actual nature of the
True.... but the fact remains: There is such a thing as an 'assault weapon' because there are laws that define 'assault weapon'. The definition may be silly, invalid, whatnot, but under law, they exist. This is no different than the legal definition of 'machine gun' covering everything from a VP-70M to an M134 mini-gun. - - - Updated - - - Of course they can.
the term assault weapon is based on a lie. The lie is an attempt to use a sinister definition of assault to tarnish ownership of weapons that are lacking the key component that would make them useful for "assault" in the military use of the term (advancing on a fixed position and using massed automatic fire by infantry in lieu of crew served machine guns, to suppress movement and counter-fire so as to allow engineers to destroy the fixed position with (WWII thinking-flame throwers-bazookas or satchel charges) Banoids use the term assault in a different way than the military uses and it was based on a dishonest definition coupled with the media's deliberate lies of making the slow witted members of the public think these modern sporting rifles were "machine guns" used to "assault" (i.e. physically threaten or injure) innocent civilians
Not here they don't. Now, what I currently own would be classified as an assault weapon in NY, CA, and maybe a couple a couple of hours. It was federally under the useless AWB. But considering the infinitesimal number of crimes committed with so-called "Assault Weapons" banning them is no more effective than pissing into a windstorm.
the purpose of banning weapons rarely used in crimes is to set a precedent to ban other weapons pure and simple
The stupid Clinton AWB specified, pistol grips, bayonet mounts, flash hiders, etc and based on cosmetics, the initial FBI review of the AWB indicated the AWB was a waste of resources better spent on increasing the budget for feild work.
The original assault rifle was the Sturmgewehr 44 or StG 44, Sturmgewehr meaning assault rifle. The term originally was assigned to a weapon that had all these characteristics... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle Under this definition, all ARs, AK, and similar varients made for the civilian market that are semiautomatic are not Assault rifles because they are not select fire. And, those varient sold in .308 are not for intermediate rounds snd are capable of very longcrange shooting. However, in many places that definition applies to guns having certain cosmetic features such as flash hiders, pistol stock grips, folding stocks, etc. Other than listing those features, I have yet to see any definition that definitively describes a specific class of gun that is functionally different than an acceptable weapon unless, as a couple states are attempting to do is throw a wide net around almost any semiautomatic with a detachable magazine. I often hear many describe ARs and AKs sold to civilians as military rifles when in fact they aren't. It is interesting, BTW, the AR 15 varient is now the most popular rifle in circulation, long surpassing the Winchester 30/30. - - - Updated - - - Yep, ban the scary looking guns...
I believe the legislatures can define certain weapons to be "assault weapons", and that would make it legally so. It doesn't make it so in the real world.
There is one good side to calling regular firearms assault weapons,, it is sufficient grounds to strike down the 1996 ban on new civilian manufacture of select fire firearms.
I say no reason. You might get more responses posting this in the Political Opinions Section. On a similar note, for our forces fighting in Islamic areas in the Mid-East: Let the locals who are acting innocent at the time keep their small arms like AK-47's, handguns, and bolt-action rifles with standard optics. However, if any adults out of uniform are found to have RGP's, grenades, IED's, heavy machine guns or obvious military sniper weapons such as Dragunovs---then take the adults outside and shoot them.
Some may comply in CA, but up in New York and Connecticut less than 10% have complied after two and a half years despite there beibg legal penalties. There are even a few organizated groups encouraging noncompliance. It was tried in my state and overwhelmingly shot down. At the moment, on a federal level there is a prohibition against any national registration system. They'd be silly to attempt it because there would be little compliance and it would put parts of the industry into a black market they couldn't control. As for me, lost mine on a camping trip along with mags and ammo...
There is no federal 'legal' definition of 'assault weapon' since the last AWB expired. There are individual State definitions in those States that have implemented bans.
That is debatable in and of itself since the legal definition is vague, ambiguous, and varies from one state to another. Some standards are stricter than others.
No one can give you what you ask for. At least not here. He will be attacked mercilessly for it and his arguments ignored.
