• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Define assault weapon

TurtleDude said:
so what makes a semi automatic firearm useful for military assault?
Click to expand...

That would appear to be the potential for increase in the rate of fire and slightly reduced recoil to allow for slightly faster follow-up shots. That then begs the question: why aren't all semi-auto guns "assault weapons"?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That would appear to be the potential rate of fire and slightly reduced recoil to allow for slightly faster follow-up shots. That then begs the question: why aren't all semi-auto guns "assault weapons"?
Click to expand...

well since so many seem ignorant-the term assault when applied to rifles, is a tactic where several soldiers use "assault rifles" in fully automatic mode when a crew served machine gun is not available-to suppress defensive fire from a fixed position-thus allowing engineers to get close enough to take out the fixed position with satchel charges or flamethrowers. Semi auto rifles are not useful for this tactic so anyone who applies the term "assault" to semi auto rifles is dishonest or stupid, or both. Anti gun advocates use 'assault', hoping that stupid people will demonize common sporting rifles as being intended for "CRIMINAL ASSAULT"
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That would appear to be the potential for increase in the rate of fire and slightly reduced recoil to allow for slightly faster follow-up shots. That then begs the question: why aren't all semi-auto guns "assault weapons"?
Click to expand...


IMO that is one reason the anti rights crowd likes to keep the definition as vague as possible so once they get an assault weapons ban they can include all semi autos after it passes
 
Chillfolks said:
[/B]

IMO that is one reason the anti rights crowd likes to keep the definition as vague as possible so once they get an assault weapons ban they can include all semi autos after it passes
Click to expand...

Why are we focused on the definition of a what should be legal type of gun to own when the focus should be on what is the basis for wanting to change that? The argument being put forth is that criminal abuse of gun type X (in "mass shootings"?) should be cause to ban gun type X. We all know that rifles of any kind are not the weapon of choice for criminals - handguns are by a huge margin.

Does anyone not see how moronic that the "let's ban crime tools" premise is? Is that "logic" used for any other tool/substance commonly abused by criminals? Do we debate banning the sale of gasoline in "to go" containers based on arson? Do we debate banning "high performance" cars based on speeding? How about halloween or ski masks? Pry bars and bolt cutters?
 
KevinKohler said:
That's it. Simple. This is a thread for both gun nuts and gun haters to posit and work put exactly what an assault weapon is.

Full auto, semi auto, bolt action, flint lock? How many rounds per minute? Magazine capacity? Barrel length? Caliber?
Click to expand...
Depends on your state.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Depends on your state.
Click to expand...

Hmm... is that because the right of people to keep legally owned property varies depending on where they travel or live? Could a state outlaw vehicles with engines of over 100 hp? How about outlawing vehicles with high capacity fuel tanks of over 10 gallons?
 
vegas giants said:
Again....in your opinion
Click to expand...
Since it is apparently OK for people to pretend that words mean whatever they want them to mean, I'm glad that you just agreed that everything that I've said is true and factual.


vegas giants said:
Actually the federal definition was quite specific
Click to expand...
Specific or not, it is hard to see how a fraudulent definition is relevant to anything.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... is that because the right of people to keep legally owned property varies depending on where they travel or live? Could a state outlaw vehicles with engines of over 100 hp? How about outlawing vehicles with high capacity fuel tanks of over 10 gallons?
Click to expand...
States do have state-specific regulation on private vehicles, such as smog certification. In Oregon, you're not even allowed to pump your own fuel. I think your analogy just backfired. Some states do have exact technical definitions of 'assault weapon', like NY and CA, and their definitions are not identical. As I said, it depends on the state.
 
mrjurrs said:
When the definition includes the words semi-automatic, I would say the term is used because it is correct.
Click to expand...
You'd be wrong. Semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.


mrjurrs said:
This isn't a technical discussion. This is real life.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. This is very much a technical discussion.


mrjurrs said:
That was more in response to the previous poster, but yes, I'd be completely okay with a repeal. That wouldn't outlaw guns, but it could allow for registration and liability requirements.
Click to expand...
Why would you think that repealing the Second Amendment would be necessary for registration or liability requirements?

We've had gun registration for some 50 years now. That's what a Form 4473 is.

The main reason why liability requirements are off the table is because your side has already made such liability difficult to get. If you guys wanted people to have liability insurance, you guys shouldn't have attacked liability insurance.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Some states do have exact technical definitions of 'assault weapon', like NY and CA, and their definitions are not identical. As I said, it depends on the state.
Click to expand...
If various states write various fraudulent definitions for "assault weapon" into law, that doesn't change the fact that the legitimate definition for "assault weapon" is the same regardless of location.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
If various states write various fraudulent definitions for "assault weapon" into law, that doesn't change the fact that the legitimate definition for "assault weapon" is the same regardless of location.
Click to expand...
Legitimacy is determined by the law and there is no Federal definition, so each State definition is legitimate within those respective states.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
That is incorrect. Writing a fraudulent definition into law does not make that fraudulent definition legitimate.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's exactly what makes it legitimate, because that's all it took to make "assault rifle" and "battle rifle" legitimate terms. In fact, it can be argued that "assault rifle" and "battle rifle" are less legitimate terms than "assault weapon" given that those are just US Army classifications, not law.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Actually, that's exactly what makes it legitimate,
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. Writing a fraudulent definition into law does not make it legitimate.


Wayne Jr said:
because that's all it took to make "assault rifle" and "battle rifle" legitimate terms.
Click to expand...
They were already legitimate terms.


Wayne Jr said:
In fact, it can be argued that "assault rifle" and "battle rifle" are less legitimate terms than "assault weapon" given that those are just US Army classifications, not law.
Click to expand...
Anything can be argued. But that doesn't mean that all arguments are correct.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Since it is apparently OK for people to pretend that words mean whatever they want them to mean, I'm glad that you just agreed that everything that I've said is true and factual.



Specific or not, it is hard to see how a fraudulent definition is relevant to anything.
Click to expand...

The government may define things as they wish. You do not have to like it
 
Logician Man said:
I saw them being advertised on tv recently. I thought it was a spoof, but was rather surprised when I fed the website in, and it was a real thing. Both liberal mosquitos and conservative mosquitos are calling for an all out ban. I guess mosquitos aren't quite as partisan as humans on certain issues. :)
Click to expand...

"Mosquitoes get their revenge on Alaskans - film at 11!"
Alaska_2010_356.JPG

We do try to warn people with signage, but it doesn't seem to be enough.
0ea52739d4e661250cdc7851e275d1b5--street-signs-mosquitoes.jpg


Considering their numbers, I think you will need more than just rock-salt rounds. ;)
mosquito-hell-feat.jpg.653x0_q80_crop-smart.jpg
 
Wayne Jr said:
Legitimacy is determined by the law and there is no Federal definition, so each State definition is legitimate within those respective states.
Click to expand...

Actually, Congress did define an "Assault Weapon" in the Assault Weapon Ban Act of 1994. Furthermore, the FBI defined "Assault Rifle" in 1934 after the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

According to the FBI's definition of "Assault Rifle" the firearm must have selective fire capabilities. Meaning, if the firearm can be selected between firing semi-automatically, in a burst, and fully automatically then it is an "Assault Rifle." "Assault Rifle" actually has a functional definition. Whereas the definition of "Assault Weapon" that Congress enacted in 1994 is purely cosmetic and has nothing to do with the functionality of the firearm.

According to the FBI's definition of "Assault Rifle" the M16 is an Assault Rifle whereas the AR15 is not. According to Congress' definition of "Assault Weapon," anything that "looks scary" qualifies as an Assault Weapon.
 
Last edited:
KevinKohler said:
That's it. Simple. This is a thread for both gun nuts and gun haters to posit and work put exactly what an assault weapon is.

Full auto, semi auto, bolt action, flint lock? How many rounds per minute? Magazine capacity? Barrel length? Caliber?
Click to expand...

This sounds like the real answer to me. Selective fire.

Assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.
 
rickc said:
This sounds like the real answer to me. Selective fire.

Assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.
Click to expand...

That is the FBI's definition for "Assault Rifle." However, the definition of "Assault Weapon," as defined by Congress in 1994, is considerably different. It has nothing to do with the functionality of the firearm and everything to do with the firearm's appearance. It is purely a cosmetic definition, designed to be changed to suit the agenda of those who wish to ban firearms.
 
Glitch said:
Actually, Congress did define an "Assault Weapon" in the Assault Weapon Ban Act of 1994. Furthermore, the FBI defined "Assault Rifle" in 1934 after the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

According to the FBI's definition of "Assault Rifle" the firearm must have selective fire capabilities. Meaning, if the firearm can be selected between firing semi-automatically, in a burst, and fully automatically then it is an "Assault Rifle." "Assault Rifle" actually has a functional definition. Whereas the definition of "Assault Weapon" that Congress enacted in 1994 is purely cosmetic and has nothing to do with the functionality of the firearm.

According to the FBI's definition of "Assault Rifle" the M16 is an Assault Rifle whereas the AR15 is not. According to Congress' definition of "Assault Weapon," anything that "looks scary" qualifies as an Assault Weapon.
Click to expand...
"Looks scary" is not part of the 'assault weapon' definition in the Assault Weapon Ban Act of 1994. They're banning things they think look scary, but let's not lie and say that's part of the definition.
 
Wayne Jr said:
"Looks scary" is not part of the 'assault weapon' definition in the Assault Weapon Ban Act of 1994. They're banning things they think look scary, but let's not lie and say that's part of the definition.
Click to expand...

Why would any honest person apply the term "assault" to a firearm that

1) is not useful for the military tactic of assault

2) is not used for "criminal assault" except in rare circumstances and is certainly not designed nor marketed for such an illegal use?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom