HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » what is an assault weapon...

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:45 PM

what is an assault weapon?

and what isn't? This is a Benelli MP95e semi automatic pistol. It is commonly used in the Olympics and ISSF competitions. Since the magazine is outside the grip, it is legally an "assault weapon" in California and would be banned in many of the proposed federal laws. Ironic thing is, it can be purchased in most of Europe and Canada.

This is a Walter GSP, same thing.


How would you write a AWB? How "reasonable" and "common sense" is that?

67 replies, 6363 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 67 replies Author Time Post
Reply what is an assault weapon? (Original post)
gejohnston Sep 2012 OP
upaloopa Sep 2012 #1
oneshooter Sep 2012 #12
rfranklin Sep 2012 #2
gejohnston Sep 2012 #3
Missycim Sep 2012 #7
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #9
rfranklin Sep 2012 #10
ellisonz Sep 2012 #20
Clames Sep 2012 #54
rfranklin Sep 2012 #58
Clames Sep 2012 #59
rfranklin Sep 2012 #62
spin Sep 2012 #19
socialindependocrat Sep 2012 #4
oneshooter Sep 2012 #11
Simo 1939_1940 Sep 2012 #55
slackmaster Sep 2012 #5
gejohnston Sep 2012 #6
slackmaster Sep 2012 #15
ManiacJoe Sep 2012 #8
rDigital Sep 2012 #13
ileus Sep 2012 #14
trouble.smith Sep 2012 #23
ileus Sep 2012 #27
Euromutt Sep 2012 #16
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #17
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #21
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #24
Marinedem Sep 2012 #22
Euromutt Sep 2012 #25
gejohnston Sep 2012 #18
JustABozoOnThisBus Sep 2012 #26
oneshooter Sep 2012 #29
Clames Sep 2012 #60
littlewolf Sep 2012 #28
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #30
Remmah2 Sep 2012 #31
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #32
Remmah2 Sep 2012 #35
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #36
hack89 Sep 2012 #38
DonP Sep 2012 #39
Remmah2 Sep 2012 #41
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #43
hack89 Sep 2012 #44
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #46
oneshooter Sep 2012 #47
ManiacJoe Sep 2012 #50
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #52
PavePusher Sep 2012 #53
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #56
Dr_Scholl Sep 2012 #49
derby378 Sep 2012 #57
Euromutt Sep 2012 #61
gejohnston Sep 2012 #34
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #37
X_Digger Sep 2012 #40
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #42
X_Digger Sep 2012 #45
ManiacJoe Sep 2012 #51
Straw Man Sep 2012 #67
Euromutt Sep 2012 #63
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #64
gejohnston Sep 2012 #65
Euromutt Sep 2012 #66
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #33
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #48

Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:48 PM

1. Ban'm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:28 PM

12. You want to ban Olympic target pistols? Why? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:51 PM

2. Hey, did you hear that President Obama will be making a speech tonight?

 

Just wondering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 06:59 PM

3. don't have a TV, so I'll catch it when

CSPAN puts it on Youtube, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:26 PM

7. I mean as Democrats are we legally bound to watch it?

 

If we don't does that mean we aren't Democrats? Or can we watch it later? (with your permission of course)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:31 PM

9. In Colonial Times ...

 

... Puritans send men armed with clubs around to all the homes and businesses to make sure everyone was observing the Sabbath.

I can see that mentality isn't completely gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #9)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:23 PM

10. Yeah, I may be coming to club you...

 

better watch out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #10)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 01:13 AM

20. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #10)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 07:27 PM

54. Given the nature of the group you are talking to...

 

...it would be highly unwise. Then again, situational awareness is an acquired skill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #54)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 09:43 PM

58. I take advantage of my Second Amendment rights...

 

I am not, however, a gun nut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #58)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 09:48 PM

59. Not by going up to somebody and clubbing them.

 

That's misreading the Second Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #59)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 07:35 AM

62. It was a stupid reply reply to a stupid comment...

 

and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 01:07 AM

19. I thought there were three great speeches made during the Democratic convention and ...

were made by Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Joe Biden also delivered a very powerful speech. Of course there were many very good speeches to pick the best from. You might well have a different list than I do.

I also felt that the Democratic convention was more uplifting than the Republican convention and that the Democratic delegates showed far more enthusiasm. That doesn't surprise me as Romney is a weak candidate and enjoys only lukewarm support even from Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 07:13 PM

4. Good point - who makes up the list of criteria on these bans?

I would hope that the someone knowledgable would be on the committee to point out the
problems with the criteria.

Going back to the original attempt to scare people into supporting such a ban:
The words "assault weapon" sounds ominous and scares people

The last ban (lasted 10 years I think) showed no significant use of
these banned guns in crime (0.7% of the crimes involved banned guns)

One stupid thing was to ban rifles with a bayonet
This just says that the rifle is a military rifle and
a lot are collected as military memarobelia.
I remember when they used to sell M1 Garands and M! carbines in Kresgees

I law was implemented in order to get a foot in the door for future gun bans.

After 10 years it was proven to be an ineffective law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:27 PM

11. There are several posters here that would argue this point with you.

I would hope that the someone knowledgable would be on the committee to point out the
problems with the criteria."

Several posters claim to have little or no knowledge of firearms and can not describe what a "assault rifle" is. They will tell you though that they "Know one when they see one". They do not know how they work and have claimed that they don't need that information to ban them.

A sorry state of affairs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #11)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 07:29 PM

55. "A sorry state of affairs".


Indeed.

I make it a point when I'm hangin' with progressive/liberal friends talking politics to innocently ask......"What IS an assault weapon?" and "What exactly IS the gun show loophole?" (etc.) -- in a tone which suggests I'm seeking information. The vast majority can not even define those things which they oppose. Pathetic. I thought we were supposed to be better than this.

Gun control is to many "progressives" what climate change denial is to many on the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:06 PM

5. I'm glad you chose those particular handguns as examples - The original California AWB banned them.

 

That made life difficult for several members of the 2000 US Olympic Team.

When the problem became evident, an exceptionally rational and reasonable member of the California Assembly named Charlene Zettel quickly wrote a bill carving out exceptions for a dozen or so firearms that are popular with competitive shooters.

So first they weren't Assault Weapons. Then they became Assault Weapons because of an arbitrary decision by the state government. They they miraculously went back to not being Assault Weapons.

My point is that the term is just a name for firearms that have some arbitrary set of features that really don't distinguish them from other firearms in terms of lethality or potential for misuse. It's just ink on paper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #5)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:20 PM

6. That is why I chose those two.

I read someplace where one of the Assembly members told one of the Olympic shooters something to the effect of "tough shit move to Arizona if you don't like it"

I am disappointed, but not astounded, that more "antis" have not chimed in on this and the one about Ted Strickland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:39 PM

15. They're not scary like the TEC-9 because it has one of those shoulder things that go up

 

The rationale for putting those precision target pistols under the original California AWB is that the magazine attaches to the gun forward of the pistol grip rather than incorporated into it.

I'm not kidding. That's why they suddenly became AWs in 2000. Pure insanity IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:26 PM

8. This is what happens when you create artificial definitions

to group things in ways that make no sense in the Real World when the Real World definitions work perfectly well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:32 PM

13. It's just another "Sugarman Sugarism". We should ban Sugarist words from the RKBA group. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:36 PM

14. It's whatever is used in an assault....knives, keys, rocks...

even a pool noodle can be an assault weapon.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #14)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 02:34 AM

23. It's pretty much whatever they say it is and that means it's pretty much everything

 

I think I'll buy a couple more regardless. I want another Uzi but a gas piston operated AR15 sounds good too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #23)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 06:29 AM

27. Don't be afraid of DI's they're just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:37 PM

16. An assault weapon is a manportable weapon for use against fortifications

We're talking about stuff like Bangalore torpedoes, demolition (satchel) charges, flamethrowers, certain rocket launchers, et al. This is an example of an assault weapon:



To be precise, the Mk-153 Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW), as used by the Marine Corps. Its primary purpose is wrecking enemy bunkers and other fortifications.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Euromutt (Reply #16)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:46 PM

17. Mmmmmmm ...

 

... I want one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #17)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 01:16 AM

21. Well

 

Having fired everything from an M16 to a Howitzer let me give you a tip. When you say "back blast area clear" double fucking check because some dimwit is going to be in the cone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #21)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 02:36 AM

24. So, what you're saying is ...

 

... if you're going to fire it from the speeding car -- roll down all the windows, right?

Do the people in Hollywood know this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #17)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 01:18 AM

22. Used to fire them.

 

"Loud" doesn't touch it.

Of course it's an assault weapon. Look at that forward grip!

Clearly meant for hip firing into crowds at a rapid rate.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Reply #22)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 04:40 AM

25. Speaking of firing from the hip

I did that exactly once, during a range trip with Royal Netherlands Air Force personnel (I was Royal Netherlands Army attached to an air force HQ unit as a liaison). Ten bods with Uzis, ten rounds each, firing at 100 meters, from the hip, in 3-4 round bursts. Of the 100 rounds fired, exactly one hit a target, and we had no way of knowing whose round it was. Part of the lesson, of course, was that "snap firing" is inherently inaccurate, and therefore only to be performed at extremely close range in dire emergencies. If you want to deliberately make casualties, you fire from the shoulder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Euromutt (Reply #16)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 11:54 PM

18. True

any idea why no, for the lack of a better word, "antis" bothered to chime in so far? This or the Ted Strickland one, kind of makes me feel I'm on ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Euromutt (Reply #16)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 05:13 AM

26. Clearly not an assault weapon

There's no bayonet lug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #26)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 08:51 AM

29. And it does'nt have the "shoulder thingy that goes up" either.

I guess I am getting old. All we carried was a LAWS rocket. Use once and then destroy the tube.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #29)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:40 PM

60. So does the M60 Machine Gun.

 




These guys usually had one.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 08:13 AM

28. OMG you guys have to STOP

I am laughing so hard the wife is going to check on
me in a minute .... this is comedy GOLD ...
thank you for a good laugh ...
few and far between ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to SecularMotion (Reply #30)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 09:16 AM

31. That was the definition by government committee.

 

An elephant is a mouse designed by a committee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #31)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 09:22 AM

32. It is the definition from the Assault Weapon Ban

that was in effect from 1994 until 2004 when the Republican Congress allowed it to expire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #32)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:19 AM

35. Yes, and it had no effect on crime.

 

I'm well aware of the content and history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #35)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:40 AM

36. Here's one effect of the Assault Weapons Ban

Last year in Virginia, guns with high-capacity magazines amounted to 22 percent of the weapons recovered and reported by police. In 2004, when the ban expired, the rate had reached a low of 10 percent. In each year since then, the rate has gone up.

"Maybe the federal ban was finally starting to make a dent in the market by the time it ended," said Christopher Koper, head of research at the Police Executive Research Forum, who studied the assault weapons ban for the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Justice Department.

Congress is considering legislation to reinstitute the assault weapon ban's prohibition on high-capacity magazines, a measure strongly opposed by gun rights advocates.

The pattern in Virginia "may be a pivotal piece of evidence" that the assault weapons ban eventually had an impact on the proliferation of high-capacity magazines on the streets, said Garen Wintemute, head of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012203452.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #36)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:00 AM

38. So now compare that data to the number of people shot, killed and injured

before and after the AWB.

Since gun violence continued to decline after the AWB expired and the number of high cap mags seized went back up what do you think the relationship between high cap mags and gun violence is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #38)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:03 AM

39. C'mon admit it, the AWB stopped that rash of drive by bayonetings

There hasn't been one since they passed it in 1994.

You can't argue with facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #39)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:12 AM

41. There HAS been a graphic increase in drive by barrel shroudings. nt

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #38)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:17 AM

43. Keeping military style weapons out of the hands of criminals

How can that not be a good thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #43)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:27 AM

44. But your article was talking mainly about handguns

do you support a ban on semi-automatic handguns?


And you ignored my question - if the rate of gun violence is steadily going down even after the AWB then what difference did the AWB actually have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #43)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:46 AM

46. They started doing that in 1934

 

All fully-automatic and select fire ("military style") weapons are heavily regulated. The mechanics of an AR-15 are virtually identical to those of any semiautomatic hunting rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #43)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:52 AM

47. "military style weapons" are they the same as "military weapons"?

And if not then what are the differences? If you propose a ban on military style weapons how far back would it go?

Oneshooter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #43)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 05:12 PM

50. That is a very good thing.

> Keeping military style weapons out of the hands of criminals.
> How can that not be a good thing?

That is a very good thing. But it has nothing to do with any "assault weapons" ban. "Military style" weapons are not any special class that needs more regulation than "traditional style" weapons.

The goal you should be reaching for is "keeping all weapons out of the hands of criminals."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #50)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 05:42 PM

52. But since this is...

...all about what makes the grade as a media cash cow, 'assaulter weapons ban' and 'criminal weapons ban' just don't have a ring to them.

Most importantly, they don't take weapons away from pre-criminals, which is a big part of whole f~~~ing plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #52)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 06:52 PM

53. "pre-criminals"!! I like that word!

 

> > I'll channel one of our friends here:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #53)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 07:45 PM

56. In the world where...

..."certified, pre-owned" is so much more preferable than "used", I suppose I should say something more politically correct but, it's been a long week and just don't feel that creative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #36)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 02:45 PM

49. Meanwhile, murder and violent crime are at record lows in the state.

 

Since 2004, Virginia's homicide rate has declined from 5.3 to 3.8 per 100,000 in 2011.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #32)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 09:19 PM

57. It's still not a definition, and I can prove it

If I take an AK-47 and remove the bayonet lug and muzzle brake, use only a solid wood or polymer stock that cannot fold or collapse, throw away the pistol grip, and weld a 10-round magazine into the receiver that can only be reloaded by either opening the magazine from the bottom or by some other time-consuming means, is that AK-47 still an "assault weapon?"

According to the 1994 crime bill, the answer is "Yes" because the name alone is sufficient to classify it as an "assault weapon."

I win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 05:43 AM

61. No, a camel is a racehorse designed by a committee (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #30)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:19 AM

34. under the proposed 2003

law, those pistols would also become "assault weapons".
this is the important point
Assault weapon is a political term, often used by gun control advocates, typically referring to firearms "designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range," sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat. it is not a technical term. Euromutt's pic is an example of an assault weapon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #34)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:43 AM

37. The term was created by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

The Act created a definition of 'assault weapons' and subjected firearms that met that definition to regulation. Nineteen models of firearms were defined by name as being 'assault weapons'. Various semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns were classified as 'assault weapons' due to having various combinations of features.

The Act addressed only semi-automatic firearms, that is, firearms that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Neither the AWB nor its expiration changed the legal status of fully automatic firearms, which fire more than one round with a single trigger-pull; these have been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Provisions_of_the_ban

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #37)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:05 AM

40. So, what, did California legislators use a delorean to go back to 1989?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberti-Roos_Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989

No, the term has been defined in different ways by different legislatures.

That you think it was created in 1993 just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #40)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:15 AM

42. You're right. I should have used definition instead of term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #42)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 11:32 AM

45. *A* definition was created in 1993. Another was created in 1989. Another was created in 1994 by MD..

.. another by NY.. another by HI..

And another was proposed in 2003, 2006, and 2007.

And guess what, those 'definitions' don't match each other.

So no, there is no one definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #37)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 05:16 PM

51. And the term is completely useless in the Real World.

See post #8.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #37)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:34 PM

67. Wrong out of the gate.

Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)

The Act addressed only semi-automatic firearms, that is, firearms that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled.


I don't know whose definition of semi-automatic that is, but it's a faulty one. In those terms, this is a semi-automatic firearm:



That definition might serve to distinguish semi-auto from full-auto, but as written it would also include single-shots and manual-action repeaters: pumps, levers, and bolts. You could clear up that confusion by adding something about not needing any manual manipulation to chamber subsequent rounds, but the double-action revolver would still qualify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #30)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 02:58 PM

63. That's a legal definition, and thus not necessarily applicable for practical purposes

Peruse any piece of legislation, and you'll come across phrase like "for the purposes of this Act, x is defined as y" where x can be "black" and y can be a description that boils down to "white." By way of example, the DoJ succeeded in convicting Paul "Max Hardcore" Little of "distribution" of obscene material, where "distribution" (for the purposes of the law in question) included shipping the material to a customer (actually an undercover FBI agent) at that customer's explicit request. It's not as if Little was shipping his (admittedly vile) material to every gas station and convenience store in Florida in hopes of unsuspecting customers buying it; he shipped it to a specific address in Florida at the request of someone posing as the resident of that address. In other words, not what one would commonly define as "distribution" but in this case, the legal definition differed from the commonly used definition.

Case in point in this particular context: the Olympic Arms PCR, "PCR" being short for "politically correct rifle." The PCR was specifically made to comply with the 1994 AWB as not being an "assault weapon" under that particular legal definition. So, for federal legal purposes, the PCR is not an "assault weapon." However, the state of California has classed the PCR as an "assault weapon," simply by designating it as such by name. So we can't really say there is a single, even halfway clear definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon" when a particular model of rifle simultaneously both is and is not an "assault weapon."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Euromutt (Reply #63)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 03:57 PM

64. It's the definition from the Assault Weapon Ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004

when the Republican congress allowed the law to expire. Many Democrats are calling for this bill to be reinstated. While there have been bans at the state level with differing definitions of assault weapons, when we talk of reinstating the federal Assault Weapon Ban, this is the definition that should apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #64)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 04:10 PM

65. did a Democrat introduce a bill to reauthorize it?

other than the 2003 bill that would have included the above pistols? How many Democrats would actually vote for it? The aftermath of the 1994 "ban" amounted to this:
Nixon predicted it
Clinton experienced it after being told by several Democrats that it was a bad idea.
Pelosi told Holder to STFU, not wanting history to repeat itself.

There was a Republican named Peter Smith that voted for it, and the NRA supported Bernie Sanders to unseat him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #64)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 12:53 AM

66. Can you define what is an "assault weapon" in one or two sentences?

And by that I mean provide a definition that is both comprehensive (applicable to all firearms classed as "assault weapons" under the 1994-2004 AWB) and exclusive (not applicable to firearms not covered by the 1994-2004 AWB such as the Ruger Mini-14 and the Olympic Arms PCR series).

See, I've summed up earlier what constitutes an "assault weapon" in military terminology: a manportable weapon designed and intended to allow infantry to defeat enemy fortifications. It's fairly easy to define an "assault rifle"; something along the lines of "a rifle capable of both semi-automatic and automatic fire, firing a cartridge of intermediate power, and effective to up to 600 meters range." I do have to acknowledge that definitions like that incorporate a number of sub-definitions, such as what constitutes a rifle or "intermediate power," but by the same token, so does the 1994 federal definition of "assault weapon."

But what, simply put, is an "assault weapon"? Broadly put, you might say it's a semi-auto-only version of a military firearm originally designed for selective fire (i.e. both semi- and full-auto capability), but is neither comprehensive (there are very few, if indeed any, semi-auto shotguns adapted from weapons originally designed to fire on automatic) nor exclusive (why was the Mini-14 not an "assault weapon"?). Moreover, the very that makes assault rifles and sub-machine guns weapons suited for assault is their capacity to fire on automatic; when you remove that, you ipso facto remove the "assault" part of the term. Which is why the term "assault weapon" is bullshit, and has been from the moment it was coined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 10:07 AM

33. You see gangs using those guns all the time

 

That's why their accuracy is so good on those drive-bys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2012, 01:36 PM

48. To be quite direct...

...assault weapon has multiple definitions. SecularMotion has provided a wiki-link to the 1994 federally defined, mutant brained, cerebrally decayed and objectively questionable qualification summary. In reality, as ileus has said, an assault weapon is a weapon used in an assault. Since aggressive assaults are crimes, all weapons used therein IMHO are illegal and become illegal concurrent with the crime.

The sarcastic definition provided by trouble.smith is functionally consistent: "It's pretty much whatever they say it is..."

Banning a type of object becomes difficult when the type of object is readily available. When such objects have existed for hundreds of years, the task becomes impossible.

Unless a law incorporates focused action and attention, it will accomplish nothing and be counterproductive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread