# Assault Weapon Definition **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 18, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456 "2012-12-18T21:31:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/41 "2012-12-19T22:04:51Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Pretty much this. It’s a gun (already scary right there) that looks even scarier to people who don’t know dick about guns, don’t want to know dick about them…other than they want to ban them. Assault Weapon SOUNDS scary, and is close to [Assault Rifle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle), which is the term used by most military’s about their main battle field rifle. I suppose the reason why liberals and anti-gun folks continue to pursue this Assault Weapons thingy is because it worked…even though the ban was non-nonsensical to anyone with a clue, it SOUNDS scary, the guns LOOK scary, and they were able to push through the ban for years without any major issues, other than grumbling from ‘gun nuts’ and the like. Why not stick with success? As I mentioned in another thread, I live in NJ. We still have an assault weapons ban. A friend of mine has a Chinese made SKS. Which to those who don’t know is variant of a Russian designed military rifle. His is perfectly legal under the assault weapon ban. His rifle has a spike bayonet which folds under the barrel. A bayonet lug would make it illegal. But having an actual bayonet permenantly attached to the barrel is not illegal. But a bayonet lug makes it look more like modern military weapons. Having one attached is old-fashioned I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/42 "2012-12-19T22:07:30Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > I’ve had Soldiers and Marines tell me all kinds of stuff about weapons that was just flatly untrue but that they believed nonetheless. I’m not talking about new boots, either. I heard that the M-16 fires tumbling bullets about half a million times, including from combat veterans. The bottom line for me is that military service does not de facto indicate a deep or accurate knowledge of weapons and their history. It is a subject that has to be studied like any other. The military has its own set of myths and misconceptions that get passed along generationally from one grunt to the next. > I’m not going to beat my head against the wall with you over rifle grenades any further and if the two or three people in the whole world who might actually have been following this and care want to do so, the historical information is out there in print and on the web. Edward C. Ezell’s copious firearms histories would be an excellent place to start, I’m sorry, what part of that has to do with the definition of assault weapon? I think you are buried way too far in the weeds to remember what we are even talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Terraplane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/74df32/32.png) [@Terraplane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terraplane)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/43 "2012-12-19T22:38:44Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Personally I think everyone needs to calm the hell down on both sides; give it say… 90 or 120 days and then revisit all this stuff and discuss it rationally. Any legislation passed anytime soon will likely be idiotic knee-jerk feel-good stuff meant to placate hysterical people, not well thought out, deliberate and measured legislation. At the rate we’ve been going another shooting will happen before the 90-120 day wait is up. Of course, then nobody will be thinking rationally because of _that_ shooting and we’ll have to reset the clock again. And again. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/44 "2012-12-19T22:41:19Z")
> [@August\_West](#): > > Actually, it gives the precise legal definition of what an “assault weapon” _was_ under a previous ill-conceived ban. > > There’s no reason that an alternative definition couldn’t be developed. Fine. make it mean whatever you want it to mean. That’s what they’ve been doing all week anyway, just making it up as they go along. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/45 "2012-12-20T16:03:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > A gun that scares liberals. Pretty much this. I’ve never heard any gun enthusiast say “I’m gonna buy a new assault rifle.” ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/46 "2012-12-20T16:40:17Z")
> [@Terraplane](#): > > At the rate we’ve been going another shooting will happen before the 90-120 day wait is up. Of course, then nobody will be thinking rationally because of _that_ shooting and we’ll have to reset the clock again. And again. That’s just silly. We’ve had a few incidents lately, but hardly one every 3 months. Fundamentally, all I’m saying is that right now, emotions on both sides of the issue are running high, and that’s hardly the time to try and craft logical, reasonable and practical legislation. And, I wonder how much of it is actually due to media coverage, rather than any intrinisic desire on the part of the perpetrators? As in, how many of these people would follow through on one of these atrocities if they weren’t the sole subject of the news media in the US for a long time afterward, and be infamous forever? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/47 "2012-12-20T16:45:41Z")
One thing I find sort of ironic in this whole discussion is that we often hear the anti-gun side focus on the “militia” part of the 2nd amendment. If that were primary, then it would seem that an “assault rifle” is exactly the sort of weapon that shouldn’t be banned. What sort of “well regulated militia” would be denied access to assault rifles? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/48 "2012-12-20T17:01:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > One thing I find sort of ironic in this whole discussion is that we often hear the anti-gun side focus on the “militia” part of the 2nd amendment. If that were primary, then it would seem that an “assault rifle” is exactly the sort of weapon that shouldn’t be banned. What sort of “well regulated militia” would be denied access to assault rifles? I was thinking about that very thing last night as well. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/49 "2012-12-20T17:05:25Z")
I think you guys are missing the point from the anti-gun perspective. By saying that the 2nd is all about militias they can associate it with them…then by dismissing the need for militias today, they can make a case (solid to them using their logic and accepting their interpretation) that the 2nd is outmoded and unnecessary. We don’t NEED militias anymore, so since the 2nd is only about militias and regulating them, we can get rid of it and get rid of personal firearms ownership for ordinary citizens. Q.E.D. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/50 "2012-12-20T17:31:46Z")
What most people don’t seem to get is that most of the US is rural and guns are as much a part of daily life as . . . well, indoor plumbing. And not to be snotty, but in some places, even that probably comes in second. Guns are tools. They’re seen as such and used as such. I know because I was raised in the deep south. I went hunting with my dad when I was just a toddler - and we ate what we killed which in our case was just game birds since we hunted with shot guns and 2 retrievers. The point is that there was no “gun culture” or “gun glorification.” That’s just pure unadulterated bullshit. The guns were were beautiful and regarded as objects of great craftsmanship, but that’s about as far as it went. Beyond that, they were just tools. I will admit that there is some glorification of violence in our culture, but that has nothing to do with the roots of gun ownership and the 2nd amendment. That’s more the product of gang and mob violence and it’s glorification in various media channels. One only needs to look at the popularity of shows like say the Sopranos to see the appeal that this sort of thing seems to hold for most people. Is there any connection between the Sopranos and the second amendment? No, of course not. Most of the other arguments related to it are similarly ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/51 "2012-12-20T18:50:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > One thing I find sort of ironic in this whole discussion is that we often hear the anti-gun side focus on the “militia” part of the 2nd amendment. If that were primary, then it would seem that an “assault rifle” is exactly the sort of weapon that shouldn’t be banned. What sort of “well regulated militia” would be denied access to assault rifles? And the pro-gun side seems to gloss over the “well regulated” part. I don’t think the founding fathers had a bunch of drunken rednecks blowing up watermellons with a machinegun in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/52 "2012-12-20T18:53:55Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > And the pro-gun side seems to gloss over the “well regulated” part. I don’t think the founding fathers had a bunch of drunken rednecks blowing up watermellons with a machinegun when they wrote the Second Amendment. They gloss over it because there are two parts to the 2nd Amendment, and the ‘well regulated’ part pretty clearly is about the militia…and doesn’t mean the same thing as ‘lots of regulation’ does today. ---
**Author:** ![Terraplane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/74df32/32.png) [@Terraplane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terraplane)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/53 "2012-12-20T19:47:59Z")
> [@bump](#): > > That’s just silly. We’ve had a few incidents lately, but hardly one every 3 months. Not in the long term, that’s true, but we had one in July, one in August, one in September, and one in December (two if you count the two people killed in that Oregon mall). One every three months would be an improvement over what we’ve had lately. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456/54 "2012-12-20T20:28:38Z")
> [@XT](#): > > They gloss over it because there are two parts to the 2nd Amendment, and the ‘well regulated’ part pretty clearly is about the militia…and doesn’t mean the same thing as ‘lots of regulation’ does today. In the context of the times, “well regulated” generally meant well trained, organized and equipped. In the context of the 2nd Amendment itself, the emphasis was probably on the latter part, i.e. “equipped”. Back in the day, pretty much all able-bodied men of the right ages were considered to be part of the militia, even if they never actually trained, so “the people” more or less equates to the militia. Hence the concept that the private bearing of arms was vital to this citizen militia; they weren’t much good without guns. Another consideration is that the Founding Fathers generally considered the militia to be a very valuable bulwark against tyranny; if the citizenry was armed, it was a lot less likely to put up with too much infringement of their freedoms than if they were disarmed. That’s the 'being necessary to the security of a free state" part. So in the context of what **John Mace** and I were saying, owning AR-15 type rifles is completely and entirely within the intention of what the amendment was written toward. And, IMO, any sort of gun registration scheme runs totally counter to the idea of the militia being a bulwark against tyranny, after all, if the tyrants know who has what guns, they’re that much easier to take. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assault-weapon-definition/644456.md?page=2)