Muzzle loaders? 
Dan, your OP relies on how the weapon looks, not it’s function. Any firearm can take human life, the fact that one does or does not appear to be designed for this purpose is irrelevant.
I have an AR-15 for fun and target practice, and in the off chance I need to defend the home against short to mid range threats in case shit hits the fan (SHTF).
I thought that was the case, but I wasn’t sure.
Thanks for clearing up my ignorance.
Anytime, that’s why I’m here. That, and to clear up my own.
[feigned offense]You tricky, tricky bastard! [/feigned offense]
And Bolt Actions, Pumps, Levers or whatever other odd reloading mechanism you could come up with that isn’t semiauto… but you know what I mean… 
Yes, THAT WAS MY POINT!!!
And that MAKES my point. BTW, is there a special course to learn that mall-cop dialog?
It would have to be wider. The criteria you were using would include hunting rifles and such after all.
Military rifles with either selective (3 round burst) or full automatic are ALREADY banned…AWB doesn’t even address this. AWB bans weapons that LOOK like they are assault rifles, but are in fact just standard rifles (firing semi-auto…just like many hunting rifles that aren’t banned) that simply look like military weapons. They fire the exact same rounds (so have very similar firing profiles), have the same rate of fire, and in a lot of cases the same magazine capacity.
In effect you can put two .308/7.62mm rifles firing the exact same ammo with the exact same rate of fire next to each other…but if one looks scary or military it will be on the AWB list, while the other rifle will be your ‘more traditional civilian arm’. Again, this is why gun advocates look on this with such disfavor because the general public has been told that the ABW list of weapons is assault rifles (even you, intelligent and well read 'doper that you are think this), while the reality is quite different. See why the pro-gun crowd tend to be so gloom and doomy on this subject?
Well, that’s the thing though…you can’t BUY a military grade M16 to shoot your theoretical deer with, not unless you are a law enforcement or other military type with a need for such a gun. The general public doesn’t have access to them however and can’t GET access to them…and this has nothing to do with AWB. Rapid fire (3 round burst or full auto) weapons have been banned in the US since (IIRC) the 30’s.
-XT
Licensed since the '30s, banned since 1986.
Ironically, to no purpose. As banning them did not limit stop the LA shootout (which was done with illegally modified Semi-automatic weapons), and legal ones haven’t been involved in any notable crimes since the '30s. Less, per firearm, than any other category of firearms (Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Pump, Lever, Semi, etc. Barring, perhaps, muzzle loaders… ).
Assault Weapons, as a loose definition pulled out of the ass of a late meeting and some ‘Guns and Ammo Magazines’ is not a good way to write a law.
Especially by people that clearly know nothing about firearms.
Assault RIFLES can better be defined. They are, and are highly regulated.
Neither class of weapon has been used in many crimes. It’s hardly worth a data point.
I’m not really ‘pro’ gun. Never thought I would have to be. I’m quite liberal actually.
But when the pro gun control folks admit that this is just a step to ban all guns……I put the brakes on. I have had enough of the obvious misdirection and complete lies about guns from the gun control crowd and the politicians that are looking for nothing more than votes.
When elected officials lie and deceive the public to get votes from the uninformed I take a dim view of them. I also expect exceptional proof and research from them from there on out.
:smack: Thanks for the correction. I knew that but had forgotten.
And you are right that the ban seems to be fairly pointless, as most crimes committed in the US with guns are not automatic (or selective fire) weapons…IIRC (and correct me if my memory is once again flawed) they are mostly committed with handguns (semiautomatic or revolvers).
-XT
The most commonly used firearms in crimes are low capacity pistols, yes.
I’m of two minds on this.
On the one hand, it’s a silly ban, the equivalent of banning red cars. These “assault weapons” are functionally identical to regular weapons, just with different styling.
On the other hand, can you honestly say that your right to keep and bear arms is being infringed, if the ban still allows you to buy a weapon that is functionally identical to the weapon being banned?
I can’t tell which side is being sillier, the gun haters for wanting a ban based entirely on a gun’s look, or the gun lovers who are mad about being unable to buy guns with that particular look, when functionally identical weapons are freely available.
It’s an incremental ban, and this has been freely admitted by those in the Brady Campaign (among others) who have called it a “first step towards civilian disarmament and peace.”
It’s like banning the use of the word “the” because criminals use it when saying “Give me all the money!”
On the face of it, it seems like an innocent enough, silly law. But it’s the precedent which it sets that is dangerous.
I think you are missing the point here. If they can ban things based solely on the way something looks, what will they use NEXT? It’s the slippery slope that most pro-gun folks worry about…which is why they are fighting so hard on this issue, so as not to have to fight again when the banners decide that all guns with sights or barrels should be banned next…or all guns made of metal, or all guns that look like guns, or that use bullets, etc etc.
-XT
Quoth Todderbob:
Under the current definition, certainly, “assault weapons” are functionally no different from other weapons. But it came about because someone thought those types of weapons were typical of military weapons. So a sane AWB would define “assault weapons” in a way which really does correspond to the sorts of weapons actually used for military purposes.
From what I’m reading here, the primary distinguishing factor between weapons that really are used militarily and civilian weapons is that the genuinely military weapons are generally capable of full-auto or at least burst fire, while civilian weapons are not, and with that as the standard, military weapons are already very highly regulated, and have been for a long time. In that sense, then, we already had a law that does what the AWB purported to do, and does it better. Is that correct?
We already have a law that does what you thought the AWB was supposed to do.
That, however, is not what the AWB was supposed to do at all. The AWB was meant to get people comfortable with the idea of gun control, and incrementally add more and more weapons to the list, or pass more and more laws.
Yes…we already had laws on the books banning or heavily regulating military grade weapons. The AWB is a ban on weapons that LOOK like military grade weapons.
-XT
“Purported” and “was supposed to” are two different things. I will not comment on the actual reasons why lawmakers passed the bill, but the way it was presented to constituents was as removing military weapons from the civilian public. It did not do that, since those weapons were already removed. And any law which does not do what it purports to is a bad law, regardless of the motives behind its passage.
Would it be OK if a bunch of homophobic politicians passed a law that made it illegal for a man to look effeminate? Gays could still have sex with whoever they wanted to, they just wouldn’t be allowed to wear certain clothes or jewelery, or to have certain mannerisms.
That’s a perfect analogy, because we all know that inanimate objects have civil rights. I think it’s shame guns can’t vote. Maybe that will be the NRA’s next crusade.
That buzzing sound you hear is the Black Helicopters. Hide your guns.