Firearms are not only supposed to be dangerous, but deadly, unless strictly target rifles.
It has been established over and over again by our legislative, judicial, and executive branch that the second amendment allows for the regulation of firearms. The SCOTUS would not be impressed by your childish semantics, nor would they be swayed by such blatant garbage.
My argument is that there are no legitimate functions for an assault rifle. Using them for defense is no better than using a pistol for defense. Using them for hunting - same thing (and in many cases, using a bushmaster for hunting or protection would be much less suitable). What does that leave us with? Recreation, and I don't care if people can't shoot them for recreational reasons. And then killing a lot of human beings. So that's my argument. Notice my argument isn't a riddle.
A working class hero is something to be
ANY rifle or shotgun that holds a magazine is, according to you, an "assault rifle" as all firearms that hold a magazine can hold any size magazine. Most handguns sold in the last 2 decades hold magazines. So do many hunting rifles.
It would be nice if anti-gun folks would explore a little bit the reality of the topics.
its like a faith healer who has no training in pharmaceuticals, biochemistry or medicine telling an oncologist that a certain chemotherapy regiment has no use in treating say pancreatic cancer