What's an "assault weapon"?

MotoDC

Moonpig wrote:

So I'm assuming that as we all now have a description the OP has deemed acceptable we can chalk this thread down as cooked?

For the record, you asked for a definition, of which you got many and you dismissed all but the one you agreed with. I think that kind of sums you and some others up quite eloquently.

Oh to live in such a vacuum.

I think you're missing the point a little bit. He didn't agree with my definition of an assualt rifle per se (though he probably would, were I to put one out there), nor was he ever confused as to what HE thought an assault rifle was. He wasn't looking to be educated.

What he did was agree with my interpretation of the thread and the point that he was driving at. In the end, a few people on this forum (those that posted in this tread, at least) were able to define an assault rifle vis-a-vis what kind of firearm they'd like to ban. Point conceded. However, my point (and his, I think) was that many people outside of this forum who might otherwise support a "ban on assualt rifles" might be surprised by how the largely left-leaning viewpoint on AMT have defined that for them.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

MotoDC wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

So I'm assuming that as we all now have a description the OP has deemed acceptable we can chalk this thread down as cooked?

For the record, you asked for a definition, of which you got many and you dismissed all but the one you agreed with. I think that kind of sums you and some others up quite eloquently.

Oh to live in such a vacuum.

I think you're missing the point a little bit. He didn't agree with my definition of an assualt rifle per se (though he probably would, were I to put one out there), nor was he ever confused as to what HE thought an assault rifle was. He wasn't looking to be educated.

What he did was agree with my interpretation of the thread and the point that he was driving at. In the end, a few people on this forum (those that posted in this tread, at least) were able to define an assault rifle vis-a-vis what kind of firearm they'd like to ban. Point conceded. However, my point (and his, I think) was that many people outside of this forum who might otherwise support a "ban on assualt rifles" might be surprised by how the largely left-leaning viewpoint on AMT have defined that for them.

But ultimately... it really doesn't matter what people think an assault rifle is. The point the OP was trying to make and the one you were trying to promote means little. I think it's fair to say that most people have a pretty good idea on what an assault rifle is- even if they are not allowed to use wikipedia to define it for them.

With this said, Moto... sincere credit should be given to you for what I consider doing the best job in this forum of defending the position on the gun issue which is most difficult to defend. Despite not being in agreement, your arguments contain elements of logic and more often than not, at least make me pause and reflect for a moment.

I have to say though that I do not 'refelct' for very long: this issue is a slam dunk in my mind; but again, I respect your efforts.

pjradio

MotoDC

30 bills wrote:

But ultimately... it really doesn't matter what people think an assault rifle is. The point the OP was trying to make and the one you were trying to promote means little. I think it's fair to say that most people have a pretty good idea on what an assault rifle is- even if they are not allowed to use wikipedia to define it for them.

You may be right that it's not entirely germaine the voluminous debates we're having on the topic here on the AMT. However, it's entirely germaine to the likelihood of anything ever getting banned. In other words, in my opinion, if you folks on the AMT were to take out to the "real world" your very strict definition of what firearms should be banned vs. legal, you wouldn't get very far. Perhaps given the recent tragedy in CT, I'd be proven wrong. Solum scit deus.

With this said, Moto... sincere credit should be given to you for what I consider doing the best job in this forum of defending the position on the gun issue which is most difficult to defend. Despite not being in agreement, your arguments contain elements of logic and more often than not, at least make me pause and reflect for a moment.

Not being trite or anything, but this means a alot. We all put a decent amount of intellectual effort into this forum, so it's refereshing to know that one is at least making someone else ponder.

I have to say though that I do not 'refelct' for very long: this issue is a slam dunk in my mind; but again, I respect your efforts.

All good bud. I'm aware I'm putting up a very...conceptual...argument in defense of assualt weapons that ultimately, while logical and cohesive, isn't going to overpower most people's opinions on them, particularly after last week's horror. I get that it's just way too difficult to imagine a situation in the "West" where we would actually need to fight our gov't with force.

MotoDC

pjradio wrote:

Is that for real?

I think we boiled it down better, though It's pretty clear what they were going for:
- Pistol grip and threaded barrel -- so as to exclude shotguns
- Shrouded barrel for two-hand use -- so as to exclude handguns
- High cap or quick-swap mags -- for reasons we discussed here and elsewhere

I don't get the telescoping stock and bayonet mount. I suppose the telescoping stock plays into some form of concealment capability, but how is the bayonet mount any different than owning a sword or big knife?

unsung

Yeah, who cares about a bayonet? Can't have apistol grip, God forbid that is be easier to control. Can't have a barrel shroud, God forbid that you can use it without burning your hands. A telescoping stock? God forbid it actually is adjustable to fit.