It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by jsipprell
Well, sure then . . . if somebody added it to wiki, I guess it legit.
From your same soure:
Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate. As a political and legal term, it is highly controversial. Critics have asserted that the term is a media invention, or a term that was intended by gun control activists to foster confusion with the public over differences between fully automatic and semi-automatic firearms.
Original definitions and uses of the term for assault rifles in German, Sturmgewehr, literally "storm" (or assault) "rifle", included capability of fully automatic function. Later definitions from the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban only specified semi-automatic weapons. Actually possessing the operational features, such as full-auto, is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is now enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon.[
Wiki showing the very ambiguous political definition doesn't not discount the truth that before 1989 there was no political term "assault weapon" Assault rifle . . . yes. And they were banned. I was alive and remember full well the invention of this term, at the time.
It's a made up definition that suits only the political agenda of demonizing "scary" looking guns, in order to shape public perception about bans. If this definition is "accepted" then why, in the last decade, as it grown to only mean one characteristic, instead of three? Why were characteristics that made an "assault weapon" in 94, not considered characteristics today? Please answer the questions in my last post about the diffence between the AR platform, a Mini-14 tactical, and a Mini-14 ranch? Why are handguns now "assault weapons"?
You know why . . . so they can move the goal posts in any direction they choose to make something "scary" or "dangerous". Most Americans (and even some gun owners) don't know what it means, so they take the media and gov's word on it. Nothing they are banning is due to functionality or lethality . . . it's all perception and simply meant to demonize firearms that are effective defense weapons. Notice, they don't list any semi-auto "long guns", why? You know why . . . they make poor defensive weapons under 100yds.
The cruise missile analogy is a bit of a stretch,, but what is the limit?
Or do some people think there shouldn't even be a limit?
edit on 28-1-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by solomons path
I don't know you personally or your views (I'm not going to go through all your posts), so I don't want to put you in a box and write you off. However, you are using the same circular logic that Biden and Feinstein use.
G: "we are calling for a ban on all "assault weapons"
P: "what is an "assault weapon"?"
G: "here's the definition"
P: "that's not a real class of guns and the term didn't exist before 89"
G: "yes, it's a real class, here's the definition"
P: "well then, what weapons are classified as "assault"?"
G: "Military "style" weapons"
P: "What makes it military style"
G: "They look like military weapons"
P: "What makes them more dangerous then?"
G: "They are assault weapons"