re: 70% of Young Americans think we should be allowed to own Assualt Rifles

To call an AR-15 an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" is disingenuous at best.

It paints whoever uses that weapon in a corner as if they are going to be assaulting people with it.

And honestly that's just bullshite.

quote:

---

Assault weapon is the term for ignorance-based scare propaganda used by gun-control advocates.

---

You're wrong.

Yesterday as I was driving back to Louisisna from North Carolina I was listening to the radio in Alabama. On came a commercial for a sporting goods store whoch advertized, "With a large selection of assault weapons to choose from". Here is an entrepreneur using the term to his benefit. Those of you saying that it is a made up term for scary guns are inadvertantly falling for the propagamda. There is nothing inherently bad with the term 'assault weapon', and the sporting goods store owner recognizes that. Many posters in this thread don't.

We shouldn't be arguing that there's no such thing as an 'assault weapon', we should instead be arguing that we shouldn't ban assault weapons. They want to call them assault weapons? I don't care what they call them, I only care about the legality of these weapons - whatever they want to call them. Don't get caught up in the semantics, it's a diversion from the real issue.

quote:

---

You're clueless. If you are unable to understand the importance of semantics when dealing with written laws then you are part of the problem. "Assault weapon" is a deliberately nebulous term that gives laws using it broad discretion in defining it.

---

Wrong.

Once it is defined legally, it is a valid term - no matter how you feel about it.

The fact is that sitting on the sidelines just saying, "there's no such thing as 'assault weapon'" doesn't help. They will define it and ban as they see fit unless people start accepting terms and debating the actual merits of the argument.

Ultimately it doesn't matter how the term is defined, what matters is securing our right to bear arms - whatever they want to call them. the shop owner on the radio thought, "Hey, 'assault weapon' sounds kind of cool, I'll use that to sell products." And there's nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing inherently wrong with the term "assault weapon". If you think there is, you're letting the propaganda get to you.

Call it what you want, just don't inhibit my lawful ability to stock my safe with it is all I'm saying.

quote:

---

Try again when you can cite a legal definition of that term that doesn't reflect the deliberate ambiguity of its use.

---

The legal definition will come when they try to ban certain weapons - just like last time. At that point we will debate the merits of such a ban. It will not matter one whit what they call them. They can call an AR-15 a popsicle, and then say they are going to ban popsicles. I say keep our right to own ALL popsicles. Let them call it whatever they want as long as I maintain a right to own it.

When they go to ban certain firearms, they will be precise on what fits into the class they want to ban.

Do you not realize that they ALREADY banned 'assault weapons' whereas they provided a precise definition of what constituted an 'assault weapon'? The only way they could pass it was to include a sunset provision. Well, the sun has set on that piece of legislation, and I propose we don't allow them to re-enact it. What I don't propose we do is go around and around the issue by crying about what is and what isn't an assault weapon. We should focus more on what firearms and features we desire to remain legal.

And like I said, the numbers in that presentation say it all, what, 0.6% of gun crimes were committed using weapons they would classify as 'assault weapons'? That right there says they are not addressing the problem that they themselves perceive. Get them to clearly define what they believe to be a problem first, and then argue for rational solutions to the problem. Getting caught up in semantics is a waste of time.

quote:

---

The Liberal indoctrination attempts are failing miserably in this department

---

Or, perhaps, not everyone is as caught up in political branding as you are.

I know of a community that is filled with the artist socialist type and they feel we should be able to own any gun we wish.

quote:

---

you never realized the 1994 AWB banned NOTHING. Notta, zip, zilch. That "precise" definition based on ambiguous cosmetic features wasn't very precise which is why the loons that wrote the law still complain that manufacturers violated the "spirit" of it. The focus should be on making sure such terms are known to be emotional pandering and never see the light of day in any piece of legislation. Your focus implies that the ground already lost is gone for good.

---

Just a quick trip over to wiki shows:

Title XI-Firearms, Subtitle A-Assault Weapons, formally known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, but commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban or the Semi-automatic Firearms Ban, barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms, classified as "assault weapons" (a non-technical term), as well as any semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and which has two or more cosmetic features, such as a telescoping or folding stock, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, and a bayonet lug.

This law also banned possession of newly manufactured magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

The ban took effect September 13, 1994, and expired on September 13, 2004, due to a sunset provision. Since the expiration date, it is again legal to own or possess the subject firearms as well as magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The National Rifle Association and other organizations argued that the ban was unconstitutional and that it violated the Second Amendment.

Any time you have a market demand for an illegal product you will get two things:

1. A black market in banned products
2. Legal products on the market that violate the spirit of the law

You can't stop the signal, Mal.

quote:

---

Your focus implies that the ground already lost is gone for good.

---

No, my focus is on the specifics of any bill presented that would serve to infringe on our right to bear arms. What they call it is immaterial to me. What, exactly, they intend to outlaw is the material argument.

But, yes, the 1994 law did ban some very specific things:

In this expired U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms because they possessed a minimum set from the following list of features:

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 mount
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 safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
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.


The ban defined the following semi-automatic firearms, as well as any copies or duplicates of them in any caliber, as assault weapons:


Name of firearm / Preban federal legal status

Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models) Imports banned in 1989*
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil Imports banned in 1989*
Beretta AR-70 (SC-70) Imports banned in 1989*
Colt AR-15 Legal
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNC Imports banned in 1989*
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12 Legal
Steyr AUG Imports banned in 1989*
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Legal
Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12 Legal



As ridiculous as that list may look, that is what I'm talking about. Attack the list, don't attack the nomenclature. Attacking the nomenclature is falling into their trap, imo.

quote:

---

70% of Young Americans think we should be allowed to own Assualt Rifles

---

The other 30% are mostly politicians, criminals, or gun phobics. They definitely have issues.

Upvote for the HST avatar.

Wish we could hear his opinion on the matter.

Hunter creating gun art... starts ~1:00 mark.
Hunter

quote:

---

it seem Wiki is pretty much the extent of you knowledge on this topic.

---

That's a false assumption on your part, wiki just happened to provide the first easily quotable link in a google search.

quote:

---

none of these weapons were outright banned. In fact it was still legal to manufacture, posses, and sell those exact same weapons during the 1994 AWB

---

+

quote:

---

If you wanted to buy an AR-15 with bayonet lug, bird cage, pistol grip, and folding stock then you could legally do so.

---

+

quote:

---

Millions...were legal to buy and possess.

---

+

quote:

---

Except it was never illegal to own or possess such firearms during the 1994 AWB.

---

+

quote:

---

Sooner or later you'll figure out that the terminology matters

---

Does not compute.

quote:

---

You still haven't figured out that "assault weapon" isn't limited to rifles, shotguns, and funny looking pistols but also includes the ubiquitous Glock 26 et al.

---

And all of those are legal. As a matter of fact, recently the term was re-defined and is different from the 1994 definition.

But you pretty much have an empty arument here. You say that terminology is so important, yet nothing seems to be illegal. So what's your problem? They may make some nebulous term up and then come up with a completely toothless law that doesn't ban anything?



I still submit it's more important to focus on the actual items they want to ban rather than the terminology. So we disagree, big deal. Neither one of us wants them to ban assault weapons - or any other weapons.