posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 12:29 PM
Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by ANNED
Can you explain the difference between a "Assault Weapon" and a AR type weapon.
What constitutes Assault?
I am a relative laymen when it comes to firearms. Perhaps clearer definition would help the issue.
Second question; Technically cant any firearm be used for military purposes?
Apologies if this was answered elsewhere, as I did a quick look and didn't see where it was. The term "assault weapon" is nothing but a slang
phrase, like "saturday night special" which describes how a gun looks, and it cannot be legally defined. Every time they try, they come up with
Case in point- Connecticut had a "semiautomatic assault weapon" ban since 1994. They tried to define it by the number of military features a
weapon had (I.E. bayonet lugs) but quickly found out it still didn't cover all the guns they wanted to ban (I.E. they wanted to ban UZIs but UZIs
don't have bayonet lugs) so they had to resort to banning them by name. The end result was that manufacturers simply took off the bayonet lugs and
they became legal again. One rifle, called the Mini-14 is illegal if it had a collapsible stock, but it's perfectly legal if it has a wood
stock...even though it's literally the exact same rifle. The German HK91 is specifically mentioned by name so it's banned, but the Spanish CETME,
which is almost literally the exact same design, is legal literally because it has a different name.
In short, "assault weapon" is literally any gun that you want to call an "assault weapon". Feinstein was intending to declare my P226 pistol an
"assault weapon" because it has a threaded barrel for a recoil compensator. In NY my World War I Luger is an "assault weapon" because it's a
semiautomatic weapon that can hold more than seven rounds. I keep asking how many school shootings were ever committed with a World War I Luger and I
have yet to receive an answer.
Not even the word "retarded" can adequately describe this whole gun control bit going on now.