Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

Topic author
KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#1

Post by KLB » Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:16 pm

Surveying various "assault weapon" laws and bills, the article describes the always-shifting definitions. According to gun ban advocates, "assault weapons" have been claimed to include: air guns and paintball guns; most handguns; all semiautomatic rifles; most shotguns; all slide action shotguns; any semiautomatic the Secretary of Treasury wants to ban; guns listed by name; and guns with certain features, such as adjustable stocks.
http://reason.com/volokh/2019/01/02/shi ... lt-weapons

User avatar

RPBrown
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 11:56 am
Location: Irving, Texas

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#2

Post by RPBrown » Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:27 am

But they don't want to take away our guns!!!!! :smilelol5:
NRA-Benefactor Life member
TSRA-Life member
Image

User avatar

tbrown
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1682
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#3

Post by tbrown » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:33 pm

Never forget every 12ga shotgun can become a destructive device without any new laws, and it's easier than bump stocks becoming machine guns.
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country

User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#4

Post by G26ster » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:02 pm

I shut down any lib assault weapon harange with one question. Name any military in the world that issues AR-15s to any of its troops? End of so-called assault weapon discussion. Works well.


glock27
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:18 pm

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#5

Post by glock27 » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:46 pm

That’s the part to me that is so bogus. Your .223/5.56 round is a very puny cartridge in the firearm culture. They are fun to shoot and usually cheap. But the 55 grains average is not a grenade like the media makes it out to be. This remind me of a video I saw by Steven crowder. He pretends to be a liberal undercover to make a point at how dumb and uneducated people are. People are okay with the puny .223 for hunting. But when they see the size of a 30-06 they think it should be banned. And they want to ban the scary looking guns. It’s a shame how pathetic the world has come too. Here’s the YouTube video. I find this guy very entertaining. It’s about 15 minutes long, I find myself watching it again every so often



"Dont rush me, i get paid by the hour"
Mailed 7-5-10
9-16-10 PLASTIC!

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 24923
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#6

Post by The Annoyed Man » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:41 am

tbrown wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:33 pm
Never forget every 12ga shotgun can become a destructive device without any new laws, and it's easier than bump stocks becoming machine guns.
I’m not disputing this, but I don’t understand how. Please explain?
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#7

Post by srothstein » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:59 am

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:41 am
tbrown wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:33 pm
Never forget every 12ga shotgun can become a destructive device without any new laws, and it's easier than bump stocks becoming machine guns.
I’m not disputing this, but I don’t understand how. Please explain?
Federal code section 18 USC 921 (4)(B) defines destructive device as:
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter;
So all it takes is for an AG to determine a 12 gauge is not a sporting round.
Steve Rothstein

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 24923
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#8

Post by The Annoyed Man » Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:49 pm

glock27 wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:46 pm
That’s the part to me that is so bogus. Your .223/5.56 round is a very puny cartridge in the firearm culture. They are fun to shoot and usually cheap. But the 55 grains average is not a grenade like the media makes it out to be. This remind me of a video I saw by Steven crowder. He pretends to be a liberal undercover to make a point at how dumb and uneducated people are. People are okay with the puny .223 for hunting. But when they see the size of a 30-06 they think it should be banned. And they want to ban the scary looking guns. It’s a shame how pathetic the world has come too. Here’s the YouTube video. I find this guy very entertaining. It’s about 15 minutes long, I find myself watching it again every so often



What I’ve found is that people who are ignorant about firearms tend to lack a sense of perspective about them....simply because they don’t know anything. It’s that ignorance that informs their views about firearms. You can’t have perspective unless you have factual knowledge against which to compare your fears and suspicions. Until about a year ago, I used to carry around an inert (no powder or primer) .223 and .308 round, and a spent .375 H&H Magnum case in my pocket, and I would use them as props when discussing AR15s with people who were cautious fence-sitters on firearms. I always started by showing them the .375 case, explaining how it was used to hunt animals like large African game, and the largest most dangerous North America game animals. Then I’d show them the .308 round, and explain how it was frequently used to take medium sized game like deer, black bears, and hogs, and explain how it was like a weaker version of the .30-06 hunting round. Then I’d show them the .223 round and explain how it was originally designed for small game and varmints like prairie dogs and small predators.

Usually, up to that point, the person I was speaking with would be more or less engaged and interested, and they obviously understood the point that the the .223 is a fairly weak cartridge as far as rifle calibers go. Only then would I first reveal that the .308 was also the caliber fired in a “.30 caliber machine gun”, and that it was “adapted from” the more powerful .30-06 “hunting” cartridge; and then reveal that the weakest cartridge - the .223 small game cartridge - was also the caliber used in an AR15.

If they were intellectually honest - and usually, fence sitters actually ARE that - they get the point and they admit that maybe the AR15 isn’t the “destroyer of worlds” that the antis hyperventilate about. If they’re still willing to talk about this stuff, I’ll tell them about the relative ballistics of 7.62x39 versus .30-30 - a cartridge that has arguably taken more deer in North America than any other cartridge - and prove that the 7.62x39 is weaker than the .30-30, making the point that a lever action .30-30 hunting rifle is more powerful than an AK47.

Along the way, it provides ample opportunity to make plain that what people are reacting negatively to is the visual aspect of a MSR, not the power/lethality - because it is easily empirically proven that MSRs are not as lethal/powerful as many common hunting rifles. When these points truly sink in, it becomes readily apparent that people are reacting emotionally rather than logically to the whole issue. You can begin to disconnect people’s feelings about how a MSR looks, from how it actually works, and its actual lethality relative to the kind of hunting arms they are prefectly comfortable with.

Before anyone says, “Hey, I use .223/5.56 to hunt deer and hogs,” YES, I know some people do. That’s not the point. The point is to give people who know NOTHING about firearms and ballistics some sense of perspective about the utility and lethality of various cartridges and the rifles that fire them, with the goal of changing their minds about how they view MSRs in particular as compared to “traditional” hunting rifles.

I stopped carrying those inert cartridges about the time we moved in October of 2017, because I misplaced them in the move. I know they’re around somewhere, but I haven’t seen them yet. And a year later, I’ve more or less given up on trying to have those discussions....mostly probably because I’ve become more reclusive in the past year....but also because I am very tired of fighting it. Stupidity is like entropy. You can’t fight it. It simply exists... as part of the “law of human nature thermodynamics”. I vote according to my conscience, and I live my life accordinginly. I accept the the probability that, some day, people like me will be outlaws - not through any agency of my own, but because dumbasses vote too.

I’m still happy to take someone to the range for their first time and introduce them to shooting, because I think that this is by far the most effective tool for enlightening others. But, for that to happen, the other person has to be open-minded enough to be willing to investigate shooting for themselves, without being burdened by all the drama and stupidity. You can’t argue an anti into changing their mind. You can only show them ... and most of the antis don’t want to be shown anything. They’d rather exist in ignorance than face the possibility that maybe they’ve been wrong all this time. The number of people who are big enough to admit when they’ve been wrong about something and adjust their thinking accordingly without feeling like their identity is being assaulted, are vastly outnumbered by the number of people who completely lack an ability for introspection and self-assessment, who are categorically unable to unlink their self-worth from their ideological certainties.

Every year, that disparity in numbers grows larger. That’s why I am very pessimistic about our national future and a due regard for the human right to keep and bear arms.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3516
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#9

Post by chasfm11 » Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:01 am

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:49 pm

I’m still happy to take someone to the range for their first time and introduce them to shooting, because I think that this is by far the most effective tool for enlightening others. But, for that to happen, the other person has to be open-minded enough to be willing to investigate shooting for themselves, without being burdened by all the drama and stupidity. You can’t argue an anti into changing their mind. You can only show them ... and most of the antis don’t want to be shown anything. They’d rather exist in ignorance than face the possibility that maybe they’ve been wrong all this time. The number of people who are big enough to admit when they’ve been wrong about something and adjust their thinking accordingly without feeling like their identity is being assaulted, are vastly outnumbered by the number of people who completely lack an ability for introspection and self-assessment, who are categorically unable to unlink their self-worth from their ideological certainties.

Every year, that disparity in numbers grows larger. That’s why I am very pessimistic about our national future and a due regard for the human right to keep and bear arms.
I found myself in a political conversation just before Christmas at a party with a man that I'd never met. This topic came up and he was adamant that assault weapons had to be banned. I asked him to define them. He didn't even try. I told him that many of the current definitions would include every hunting rifle in the U.S. He was fine with that. But he insisted that he wasn't for repealing the 2nd Amendment. I asked him to reconcile banning all modern rifles with not repealing the 2nd Amendment. He dodged. I asked him what the 2nd Amendment guaranteed and he dodged. He reverted to and repeated the gun control talking points like a parrot.

Later, I learned he had been a college professor (now retired) who taught sports finances in Colorado. If I had understood any of that before we started talking, I would have excused myself. He clearly could not extricate himself as a person from his ideology. The scariest part was his feeling of moral superiority. When talking about banned rifles, I said "I have one - does that make me an evil person?" He wouldn't answer directly but it was clear that he believed that I am evil. There is no effective way to have a discussion with a person who believes that you are inherently evil. I share your pessimism.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 24923
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#10

Post by The Annoyed Man » Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:36 am

chasfm11 wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:01 am
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:49 pm

I’m still happy to take someone to the range for their first time and introduce them to shooting, because I think that this is by far the most effective tool for enlightening others. But, for that to happen, the other person has to be open-minded enough to be willing to investigate shooting for themselves, without being burdened by all the drama and stupidity. You can’t argue an anti into changing their mind. You can only show them ... and most of the antis don’t want to be shown anything. They’d rather exist in ignorance than face the possibility that maybe they’ve been wrong all this time. The number of people who are big enough to admit when they’ve been wrong about something and adjust their thinking accordingly without feeling like their identity is being assaulted, are vastly outnumbered by the number of people who completely lack an ability for introspection and self-assessment, who are categorically unable to unlink their self-worth from their ideological certainties.

Every year, that disparity in numbers grows larger. That’s why I am very pessimistic about our national future and a due regard for the human right to keep and bear arms.
I found myself in a political conversation just before Christmas at a party with a man that I'd never met. This topic came up and he was adamant that assault weapons had to be banned. I asked him to define them. He didn't even try. I told him that many of the current definitions would include every hunting rifle in the U.S. He was fine with that. But he insisted that he wasn't for repealing the 2nd Amendment. I asked him to reconcile banning all modern rifles with not repealing the 2nd Amendment. He dodged. I asked him what the 2nd Amendment guaranteed and he dodged. He reverted to and repeated the gun control talking points like a parrot.

Later, I learned he had been a college professor (now retired) who taught sports finances in Colorado. If I had understood any of that before we started talking, I would have excused myself. He clearly could not extricate himself as a person from his ideology. The scariest part was his feeling of moral superiority. When talking about banned rifles, I said "I have one - does that make me an evil person?" He wouldn't answer directly but it was clear that he believed that I am evil. There is no effective way to have a discussion with a person who believes that you are inherently evil. I share your pessimism.
The political wheat and chaff have been thoroughly sifted for the past half century, and we’re near the point where there is nothing left to sift. The wheat and chaff have been separated, one from the other, and there’s really nothing left to discuss. I believe that this is now a time of waiting for the collapse, and all one can do is continue to prepare for it.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.

User avatar

tbrown
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1682
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#11

Post by tbrown » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:26 pm

srothstein wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:59 am
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:41 am
tbrown wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:33 pm
Never forget every 12ga shotgun can become a destructive device without any new laws, and it's easier than bump stocks becoming machine guns.
I’m not disputing this, but I don’t understand how. Please explain?
Federal code section 18 USC 921 (4)(B) defines destructive device as:
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter;
So all it takes is for an AG to determine a 12 gauge is not a sporting round.
:thumbs2:

It's not a big step to go from "nobody needs a 30 round magazine to hunt deer" to "nobody needs a 12ga to hunt ducks." How can the fudds disagree if the the government says a 16ga is more "sporting" than a 12ga? And in a few years, they can say a 20ga is more "sporting" than a 16ga. All without passing a single new gun control law.
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country


MaduroBU
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 530
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:11 am

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#12

Post by MaduroBU » Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:50 pm

The m17s was specifically not an assault rifle.

User avatar

AndyC
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 10403
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:34 pm
Location: Garland, TX

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#13

Post by AndyC » Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:31 pm

What irritates me is the ignorance on our OWN side. I've lost count of the number of times I see pro-gun people saying "Assault rifles don't exist - it's a made-up, political term".

Newflash - you're not helping.
Remember Kitty Genovese

Image

Amateurs skip safety-checks - pros don't.
Preferred Travel Agent - 72 Virgins Dating Club
There's nothing quite like the offer of 230 grains to a man's chest to remind him of his manners


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#14

Post by K.Mooneyham » Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:47 am

AndyC wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:31 pm
What irritates me is the ignorance on our OWN side. I've lost count of the number of times I see pro-gun people saying "Assault rifles don't exist - it's a made-up, political term".

Newflash - you're not helping.
I always try to explain that an assault rifle is an actual thing, give a definition, and examples. Then I let them know the made up term is "assault weapon". I also let them know a gun controller came up with that term to purposely confuse people to get more support to ban semi-automatic rifles and carbines. But I do agree Andy, it is very exasperating to have to explain that.

User avatar

gtolbert09
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:35 pm
Location: Flower Mound,Tx

Re: Article on Slippery Definitions of "Assault Weapon"

#15

Post by gtolbert09 » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:44 am

Last time I checked the Military Nomenclature for a M16a2, the word "assault" doesn't show up anywhere in the description.
USAF 1983-1994
NRA LifeTime Member
TSRA Member

Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”