General Discussion

jmg257

(11,996 posts)

10. You might want to read the Bill...

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:05 PM

Jan 2013

‘‘(38) The term ‘barrel shroud’—
16 ‘‘(A) means a shroud that is attached to, or
17 partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a fire
18 arm so that the shroud protects the user of the fire
19 arm from heat generated by the barrel; and
20 ‘‘(B) does not include—
21 ‘‘(i) a slide that partially or completely en
22 closes the barrel; or
23 ‘‘(ii) an extension of the stock along the
24 bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or
25 substantially encircle the barrel.

Sure sounds like the handguards on that AR to me.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

113 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What Makes a Gun an Assault Weapon? [View all] SecularMotion Jan 2013 OP

Down the road, guns, clips, and ammo will be 'well regulated' based on performance. onehandle Jan 2013 #1

Assault kwolf68 Jan 2013 #2

"Assault is supposed to mean fully automatic". Says who? jmg257 Jan 2013 #8

Maybe I am thinking of "assault rifle" kwolf68 Jan 2013 #13

You are right about "assault rifle", and it typically being distinguishable from "assault weapon" jmg257 Jan 2013 #20

Back Then, Military-Style Semi-Autos Were Openly Marketed As "Assault Rifles" Paladin Jan 2013 #21

Anyone who has participated in a military assault... Deep13 Feb 2013 #102

I can tell you have NEVER been anywhere near a real assault Bandit Jan 2013 #22

Yup, three-round bursts are what we were taught. You might go full-balls rock and roll ... 11 Bravo Jan 2013 #87

Wrong. Assault means military style. Fully automatic means nothing. Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #24

Can you clarify this? Assault RIFLE - traditionally has select fire. jmg257 Jan 2013 #25

Yes Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #27

Legally, no gun can ever be both an "assault weapon" and an "assault rifle" Recursion Jan 2013 #35

. Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #42

Yes, that's what I said Recursion Jan 2013 #43

I'm confused. Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #45

No. I'm saying it has to be capable of automatic fire to be an assault rifle. Here's a Venn diagram. Recursion Jan 2013 #47

That is crazy Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #88

Of course it's crazy. Our gun laws are not sane. Recursion Jan 2013 #89

Yes, rifles can be full auto or semi, "assault weapons" or not, and some pistols can also be "AW"s X_Digger Feb 2013 #94

This help any? X_Digger Feb 2013 #95

Thank you Recursion Feb 2013 #96

Just threw it together in photoshop.. X_Digger Feb 2013 #98

Just as a former topology grad student, "full auto" should be contiguous and include some shotguns Recursion Feb 2013 #99

Yeah, hard to do in 2d.. also nevermind DDs & SBRs, 'cane' guns, etc etc. X_Digger Feb 2013 #100

The part labelled "Barrel shroud" is actually a handguard or forestock slackmaster Jan 2013 #3

Have to disagree with you about collapsible stocks Animal Chin Jan 2013 #9

A person would have to be pretty big and wear very loose clothing to conceal any rifle slackmaster Jan 2013 #11

They also make it fit multiple people librabear Jan 2013 #15

4" difference makes it concealable?!? X_Digger Jan 2013 #26

You might want to read the Bill... jmg257 Jan 2013 #10

Further proof that the bill is mindless and probably not written with any intention of passing slackmaster Jan 2013 #17

How long do you think it will take? Hangingon Jan 2013 #46

Not sure - but this part should make it a little harder... jmg257 Jan 2013 #48

'94 ban had that too Recursion Jan 2013 #54

Ahh - I thought they used.. jmg257 Jan 2013 #58

Too vague. Law has to be precise. N/T GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #77

The part labeled "suppressor" montanto Jan 2013 #4

Yes, and the purpose of a flash suppressor is to deflect the flash out of the shooter's field... slackmaster Jan 2013 #5

Correct librabear Jan 2013 #12

What is the purpose of that? quakerboy Feb 2013 #112

When the combination of firearm and ammunition produce a brilliant flash at the muzzle slackmaster Feb 2013 #113

by definition capable of automatic fire = assault rifle iiibbb Jan 2013 #6

But it does describe a class of weapons. jmg257 Jan 2013 #16

the class is arbitrary iiibbb Jan 2013 #19

As codified in law - yes - I agree. But not as likely orginally used. jmg257 Jan 2013 #23

Barrel Shroud Animal Chin Jan 2013 #7

Doesn't matter what you think a barrel shroud is...only what Feinstein says it is... jmg257 Jan 2013 #14

I see a big list of cosmetic features. librabear Jan 2013 #18

How many people can you kill with it within a 20 foot radius, in 1 minute. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #28

We have a document called the Bill of Rights. I've never heard of a Bill of Needs. slackmaster Jan 2013 #30

I say .... Screw the semantics of "need". JoePhilly Jan 2013 #33

The federal government already regulates commerce in firearms slackmaster Jan 2013 #36

The stupidity of the AWB in two pictures hack89 Jan 2013 #29

Message deleted by the DU Administrators SailorMike Jan 2013 #57

"Assault" is a verb, not an adjective. k2qb3 Jan 2013 #31

Except of course that grandpa's M1 carbine is specifically exempt. jmg257 Jan 2013 #39

Message deleted by the DU Administrators SailorMike Jan 2013 #59

Oddly enough the SKS, the Russian Garand is included in the ban.....nt ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #91

there is no such things as global warming Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #32

+10000 JoePhilly Jan 2013 #34

the ability to fire bullets....... bowens43 Jan 2013 #37

Legislative imagination. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #38

"Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement" NCTraveler Jan 2013 #40

All these laws carve out exceptions for law enforcement and retired law enforcement X_Digger Jan 2013 #60

Thanks for the reply. I understand it is that way for current law enforcement. NCTraveler Jan 2013 #83

Really makes you think about all those who tout 'supported by law enforcement' re new bills, eh? n/t X_Digger Jan 2013 #85

If it causes an erection quickly. TheCowsCameHome Jan 2013 #41

Any firearms that can allow a novice to kill 20 children in a blink of an eye NoOneMan Jan 2013 #44

OK, that technology is called a "gun", unfortunately Recursion Jan 2013 #52

"not nearly as much difference among different firearms" NoOneMan Jan 2013 #65

What about Virginia Tech? Recursion Jan 2013 #66

Did he use a bolt-action rifle? NoOneMan Jan 2013 #68

No, he used semi-automatic handguns, like 95% of people who kill with guns Recursion Jan 2013 #69

So maybe those qualify as "mean" guns NoOneMan Jan 2013 #72

I don't have an argument in principle against banning pistols Recursion Jan 2013 #74

I do ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #92

Bullshit. Utter and complete NRA bullshit. morningfog Feb 2013 #97

Hm. OK. Tell me what you think was wrong with what I said (nt) Recursion Feb 2013 #101

You derailed with this: morningfog Feb 2013 #103

26 in 10 minutes? One shot every 23 seconds? Recursion Feb 2013 #104

Your attempt to muddy the water is still failing. morningfog Feb 2013 #106

It wasn't a blink of an eye... it was several minutes. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #55

If someone can be trusted with a gun, they can pretty much be trusted with any gun Recursion Jan 2013 #61

I agree. Feinstein's bill says a Glock with 15 rounds is too unsafe but 10 rounds is acceptable. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #70

Im convinced that's just nonsense NoOneMan Jan 2013 #67

People haven't made single-shot pistols since the mid 1800s. Recursion Jan 2013 #71

Yes they have NoOneMan Jan 2013 #75

Aren't those air pistols? (nt) Recursion Jan 2013 #76

Single-shot .22 pistols NoOneMan Jan 2013 #78

Fair enough. So there are break-action pistols. Recursion Jan 2013 #79

Oh, I was just nit-picking the "any design" comment :) NoOneMan Jan 2013 #81

Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #80

And improved upon in the 20th Century NoOneMan Jan 2013 #82

Your NRA gun apologia is telling. morningfog Feb 2013 #107

The only feature on that picture that effects lethality in any way is the magazine. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #49

AW's deathrind Jan 2013 #50

The term "assault weapon" is legally defined, though Recursion Jan 2013 #53

Markedly better definition here ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #51

It becomes an assault weapon Zoeisright Jan 2013 #56

Second Amendment has never been read to only protect muskets. dairydog91 Jan 2013 #62

You're fucking wrong. Zoeisright Feb 2013 #109

You lot get *so* angry when we decline to sing from your hymnal... friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #111

Message deleted by the DU Administrators SailorMike Jan 2013 #63

(sigh) didn't take long did it Mikey........ DainBramaged Jan 2013 #84

That's why I'm here... derby378 Jan 2013 #86

Basically, yes: if you want to make mass shootings impossible you have to go back to muskets Recursion Jan 2013 #64

If it comes with a guardian Jan 2013 #73

If it's designed to assault an opposing force, TransitJohn Jan 2013 #90

Armies do not assault anything these days with semi automatic rifles ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #93

If it shoots bullets, it can assault people at a distance. That's sufficient. nt longship Feb 2013 #105

Whatever the law says it is. It has no historic meaning. Deep13 Feb 2013 #108

Can you assault people with it? Yes? mwrguy Feb 2013 #110