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

quote:

---

Then I guess I am part of the problem

---

fify

quote:

---

Again I ask you, what is an assault rifle?

---

LINK

quote:

---

"Assault weapon" is a deliberately nebulous term that gives laws using it broad discretion in defining it.

---

Seems pretty specific to me.
LINK

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm no expert on firearms obviously - but it seems like the above list is specific enough that you could definitively say whether a given firearm qualified under that law as an "assault weapon". If you disagree - please tell me which of the above terms are "nebulous". Thanks.

You're not an expert on hardly anything but still you try. If you actually knew about the law AND the firearms it targeted you'd understand that concept of using cosmetic features to define something as an "assault weapon" is idiotic at best. Start with flash supressor, how would you know the difference between that and a linear compensator or a muzzle brake? You, since you lack the technical knowledge, won't and those that quote the law didn't feel necessary to define the term such that any muzzle device could be called a "flash supressor".

quote:

---

I'm no expert on firearms obviously - but it seems like the above list is specific enough that you could definitively say whether a given firearm qualified under that law as an "assault weapon". If you disagree - please tell me which of the above terms are "nebulous". Thanks

---

The entire term was made up to ban a certain group of weapons based on cosmetic features.

All of those features listed are cosmetic. How can a cosmetic feature make something more lethal?

And weapons are inherently lethal - so, inventing a term to ban weapons that have been in private hands for over a century seems somewhat of a stretch.

The first definition was set up to specifically ban AK-47 and AR-15 variants. The second was to ban the Tec-9, and the third was mainly the Spas-12 and Streetsweeper.

The way the legislation was drafted was that Feinstein (and others) and her staffers leafed through a catalog of firearms and picked out those they wanted to ban based on appearance (this is not seriously in dispute) - figured out the most features they had in common and voila.

The very definition of nebulous.

quote:

---

SpidermanTUba explaining what an 'assault rifle is

---

LINK

Young people resent the government and the idea of the government telling them what to do.

quote:

---

So a .22 can be an assault weapon?

---

Of course.

quote:

---

That's how stuipid that definition is.

---

Calling a .22 is neither stupid nor smart. OUTLAWING .22s would be stupid.

That's the difference I'm talking about.

quote:

---

If i threaten to smack you up side the head with a base ball bat is it now an assault bat?

---

in liberal lala land, yes.

quote:

---

Simple math is hard for some.

---

Wait a minute, you provide a list of all sorts of things that the law did NOT outlaw, and then you say terminology matters?

quote:

---

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
+
If you wanted to buy an AR-15 with bayonet lug, bird cage, pistol grip, and folding stock then you could legally do so.
+
Millions...were legal to buy and possess.
+
Except it was never illegal to own or possess such firearms during the 1994 AWB.
+
Sooner or later you'll figure out that the terminology matters

---

Does not compute.

---

You can't be this dense. In order for your argument to make any sense, you would have had to list things that were banned that were not technically defined as 'assault weapons'. You did just the opposite. What did the terminology matter if you could still legally buy half the things on the 'banned' list?

quote:

---

So a term that can be easily redefined...isn't nebulous?

---

The term "battle rifle" is nebulous, and has changed over time, but that doesn't make the term bad or wrong. 'Nebulous', maybe, but it is what it is.

I remember back before the 1994 AWB, a semi-auto pistol used to commonly be called an 'automatic' for it's auto-loading function. But then you terminology Nazi's got your panties in a wad, and now we have to call them 'semi-autos'. Same with 'clips'. It used to be perfectly fine to refer to a detachable magazine as a 'clip', but not any more. What's the big fricking deal? Why the obsession with terminology over function? To me, that is being diverted from the real issue. Ultimately, you're being manipulated by the very ideologues you are fighting against.

I get tired of anyone telling me what I can and can't say - whether they be on the left or the right. As a matter of fact, I think I'll go out this weekend and buy me some assault weapons.