Well that’s one explanation…
Let me clear up this assault weapon issue.
The term “assault rifle” refers to a real class of weapons and has a pretty specific definition. Essentially it’s a select-fire weapon (which means it can alternate between semi-automatic, and firing modes that fire more than 1 round per trigger pull) that fires an intermediate cartridge between the power of full rifle rounds and pistol rounds, designed to bridge the gap between submachine guns and full powered rifles. Examples are the M16, AK-47, G36, Aug, etc.
In the US, weapons that are capable of firing more than 1 round per trigger pull, including all assault rifles, have been heavily restricted since 1934, and their new importation and manufacture banned in 1986.
There are rifles designed for the civilian market which are the same basic design as assault rifles, but they lack the ability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull. By definition, these cannot be assault rifles or “machine guns”. There are a variety of reasons people like these weapons - they have the same ruggedness and durability as their military counterparts, people may appreciate the aesthetics and history of the weapons, they may simply be their preferred firearm for their need. But these weapons are functionally different from the military rifles they get their design from - they can only fire semi-automatically - one round per trigger pull.
The gun control advocates created the term “assault weapon” knowing it’s a term with no real definition (and hence they could make it up), yet that it would sound like “assault rifle”. They intentionally mislead the public into believing the semi-automatic civilian versions of assault rifles were actually capable of firing fully automatically. They want the public to think of “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” interchangably, and then they can define “assault weapon” as they wish.
These civilian rifles are functionally different from their military counterparts, and actually functionally identical to many conventional-looking hunting and target rifles (which they knew they wouldn’t have the political clout to ban). So they could not define “assault weapons” on functional grounds - so they definined them by mostly cosmetic (although with some utility value) features - the ability to fix a bayonette, a foldable stock, a threaded barrel for muzzle brakes or flash suppressors, etc. Essentially - they wanted to ban Scary Black Guns even if the guns of this type owned by civilians were functionally different from the ons used by the military.
Much effort was put into deliberately fooling the public into thinking that these guns that American civilians were able to own as easily as any other rifle were actually the select-fire capable military versions of these weapons.
So when gun advocates on this board argue this issue, it’s not mere nitpicking - it’s attempting to combat the deliberate misrepresentations and lies by the gun control lobby about this issue.
Clearly, we need better news articles. Anyone got some reports closer to the issue than the Times?
Also, I repeat, these guys all need to go to pound-me-in-the-ass federal prison for a long time.
<Mod hat ON> Jimmy Joe Meager, do NOT sign another poster’s name. That’s being a jerk, big time. This is a Warning.
Lynn,
For the Straight Dope
<Mod hat OFF>
I’m taking this to infer that Jimmy’s not a sock for Shodan then? :dubious:
Noted.
With all due respect, anyone who thought I was using his sig as, you know, an actual signature, i.e. implying that my post came from him, was wooshed. There has been plenty of debate and discussion (much of it fueled by **Shodan **personally) on what “Regards, Shodan” actually means in any given context. As an example: “Hi Opal!” is a euphemism for the third bullet point in a list, it is no longer actually a shoutout to OpalCat. I thought “Regards, Shodan” had similarly entered the lexicon to mean something other than “I am Shodan, I have written this post, and I offer my regards.”
(Notice the creative use of bolding to denote the difference in usage. Kind of like “Deaf” and “deaf”, same word, two way different meanings.)
So no, I did not mean it as “I am Shodan, I have written this post, and I offer my regards”, neither am I socking for **Shodan **nor trying to get him banned.
Count me among the whooshed then because this is exactly what came to mind. I hope you apologize to Shodie.
I kind of figured that’s what you meant, Jimmy, but I think you fucked up the joke a little. It was just the “Regards” part that people were co-opting as a half-assed “fuck you,” not the Shodan part.
Ahhh… I’m not as witty as I thought I was. Thank you, sincerely, for the explanation.
too the 10% of NRA members to whom this does not apply-I apologize.
I’ve met a number of NRA members, I’d be willing to wager a fair number more than you – how many have you met, by the way? Or are you just basing your stereotype and bigotry off of something you read online somewhere? – and none of them, and I mean none of them, would consider the described situation a good thing.
You’d be surprised just how many people who have divergent political ideologies with your own aren’t racist/bigots who want nothing more than for their lands to be ethnically cleansed.
There’s some quote that comes to mind… I can’t seem to remember… oh wait… yes I can.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. " -Friedrich Nietzsche
Apology accepted.
The 10% allegation is as much of an insult as the original statement… that is talking out of a different hole than his mouth and was a deliberate move on his part IMO… YMMV