Reply #107: Corrections needed to your post...

[SteveM]

If you are concerned about "owning the things," then you should be intellectually honest enough to define your terms. "Assault rifle" is a recognized term (used by armorers, gun writers, the military, etc.) to denote a hand-carried short barrelled rifle (carbine) capable of full-automatic fire, and usually firing rounds considerably smaller than "rifle-sized" ammo, but of longer range and accuracy than pistol-sized ammo. The term "assault weapon" was popularized by gun-controllers/banners to confuse the knock-off replicas of AK-47s, and AR 15s (both semi-auto versions of the "real thing") with assault rifles. This was an intentional confusion to better get the public to accept a ban on what is essentially a semi-auto carbine of medium power. (A Remington Model 742 in .30-06 is far more powerful than the average AR-15 and AK-47 clone, and has been sold for generations to hunters.)

Sir, it is YOU who need to change your opinion if you intentionally perpetuate this slight-of-hand by saying: "A pretty high percentage have no business even owning the things much less putting people in danger by carrying them into public." Clearly, you have defined "the things" by not using a definition at all: you call any type of gun an "assault weapon," any time you want, and under any circumstance which support you view. This is pure dishonesty on your part. You need to change THAT before you have any credibility with your arguments about "gun nuts." Please note that is unacceptable to the moderators.