Guns

[NobleHunter]

If this is true, do you really think the Founders expected foreign aggression to come to U.S. soil such that these militias would be necessary? History has shown that approximately zero powers have ever attacked the U.S. on its own soil outright with the idea of full invasion (we can put aside skirmishes with Canada in the War of 1812). Was this a misjudgment on their part? I know the U.S. originally had no navy, so I guess they could have been paranoid that a seafaring power could land on their shores. But realistically this would be very difficult, for logistics reasons and many others. It doesn't seem to me the Founders would have confused the Revolutionary War with being a war of aggression by a distant kingdom; England was all around them in their own territory, since it was an English colony.

Do you have evidence that they weren't worried about foreign invasion? It seems reasonable for them to be concerned that the British might try and get their colony back. Or that other colonial powers would try and take advantage of poorly defended real estate.

The War of 1812 showed the British could invade if they chose, so it was more historical accident that the US was mostly left alone rather than being attacked.

[Tom]

The specific potential threats cited in payments to those states whose militias were used to form the First American Regiment were: Native Americans, the French, the British, and domestic thieves hoping to raid military storehouses of post-Revolution surplus.

[Fenring]

Do you have evidence that they weren't worried about foreign invasion? It seems reasonable for them to be concerned that the British might try and get their colony back. Or that other colonial powers would try and take advantage of poorly defended real estate.

The War of 1812 showed the British could invade if they chose, so it was more historical accident that the US was mostly left alone rather than being attacked.

My suggestion was that the Founders would have been a little foolish if they thought that they needed state militias to defend against foreign invasion. I didn't actually say whether or not they did think it.

[NobleHunter]

My suggestion was that the Founders would have been a little foolish if they thought that they needed state militias to defend against foreign invasion. I didn't actually say whether or not they did think it.

Given that the British successfully invaded, it appears to not have been that foolish. A foreign invasion was clearly possible even if one only happened in response to American aggression.

Though it may have been foolish to think state militias could have been used against invasion. Though the changing nature of war soon made them redundant anyways.

[cherrypoptart]

What do protests look like in a country with no right to bear arms, no 2nd Amendment?

Iran.

> Biden says, "For those brave right-wing Americans who say [the Second Amendment] is all about keeping America independent and safe, if you want to fight against the country, you need an F-15. You need something a little more than a gun,” Biden said while delivering remarks on his “Safer America Plan” at Wilkes University in Pennsylvania.

Hmmmm... Why doesn't he tell that to the women of Iran and their supporters who are fighting against their country without an F-15. And without much in the way of guns either while they have Revolutionary Guards taking off their uniforms to blend in and riding ambulances to get to positions on which to fire on and kill unarmed protestors who are standing up for women's rights.

[TheDeamon]

Do you have evidence that they weren't worried about foreign invasion? It seems reasonable for them to be concerned that the British might try and get their colony back. Or that other colonial powers would try and take advantage of poorly defended real estate.

The War of 1812 showed the British could invade if they chose, so it was more historical accident that the US was mostly left alone rather than being attacked.

They were concerned to a degree, but I think both they, and those same foreign powers realized that subjugation of the United States was not viable with the technical capabilities that existed at the time. The advent of the Railroad and telegraph made it that much worse for an invader.

The reality the British faced during the Revolutionary War was that the American Colonies were already too large in terms of both area and population for them to viable occupy. Emphasis on the term "viably" in this case. The economics of the situation simply made it not worth doing. As their attack on Washington DC demonstrated in the War of 1812(and various other locations during the Revolutionary War), they could exercise supremacy over part of the United States at any given time, but they would require a much larger, and far more expensive force, to be able to hold most of it, never mind attempting to hold all of it.

The colonies simply were not that valuable to them in the short/medium term, and their treasury couldn't support such an undertaking in any case. The war of 1812 proved the Americans were tenacious enough to look after their own interests, even if their performance against the British was rather lackluster, the Brits weren't concerned about that part. They were more concerned about other powers(France) being able take over. The war of 1812 set that aside. If the Brits couldn't pull it off with control of Canada giving them a land border, in addition to other Caribbean and Atlantic claims the Royal Navy could stage from, France and every other European power had no chance.

It was more economical for the UK to foster strong, long-term diplomatic and trade ties with the United States and let the Americans have to concern themselves with their own defense. Rather than make the crown have to both worry about "keeping the Americans in their place" and worry about defending them at the same time. Through trade they could get everything they would have obtained through the colonial control in any case, and they didn't need to worry about most of the other overhead. Yes, it was mildly annoying that they weren't "locked in" to trade with the Empire, but still, a lower cost option with better returns than the alternatives available.

[DJQuag]

It's why I consider the idea of the army holding control over the US to be so extreme. We all laugh at the idea of Russia holding control over Ukraine with it's 40 million odd residents. The US is the size of a literal continent and has hundreds of millions of residents. The needed size for an occcupation army alone is laughable, you think the people themselves would put up with it? Molotovs for every government office, which I will note is becoming more commenplace in Russian "recruitment" offices these days.

[wmLambert]

It's why I consider the idea of the army holding control over the US to be so extreme. We all laugh at the idea of Russia holding control over Ukraine with it's 40 million odd residents. The US is the size of a literal continent and has hundreds of millions of residents. The needed size for an occcupation army alone is laughable, you think the people themselves would put up with it? Molotovs for every government office, which I will note is becoming more commenplace in Russian "recruitment" offices these days.

The Founders were concerned about a small community of citizens who could protect themselves from either local elements trying to seize power in small lots, or outside agents coming in to steal power or treasure. We are no longer a small community, but Lincoln accepted a war to prevent the dissolution of the Union which could protect itself, because local issues solved by military force is not a solution we wanted to endorse.

Biden said: "...if you want to fight against the country, you need an F-15. You need something a little more than a gun." That is why there are armories all over the country to provide those modern heavy-duty weapon systems that local citizens wouldn't have. Given the millions of arms in the hands of the public, it would be foolish for any outsiders to believe they could just walk in easily.

[NobleHunter]

They were concerned to a degree, but I think both they, and those same foreign powers realized that subjugation of the United States was not viable with the technical capabilities that existed at the time. The advent of the Railroad and telegraph made it that much worse for an invader.

The reality the British faced during the Revolutionary War was that the American Colonies were already too large in terms of both area and population for them to viable occupy. Emphasis on the term "viably" in this case. The economics of the situation simply made it not worth doing. As their attack on Washington DC demonstrated in the War of 1812(and various other locations during the Revolutionary War), they could exercise supremacy over part of the United States at any given time, but they would require a much larger, and far more expensive force, to be able to hold most of it, never mind attempting to hold all of it.

The colonies simply were not that valuable to them in the short/medium term, and their treasury couldn't support such an undertaking in any case. The war of 1812 proved the Americans were tenacious enough to look after their own interests, even if their performance against the British was rather lackluster, the Brits weren't concerned about that part. They were more concerned about other powers(France) being able take over. The war of 1812 set that aside. If the Brits couldn't pull it off with control of Canada giving them a land border, in addition to other Caribbean and Atlantic claims the Royal Navy could stage from, France and every other European power had no chance.

It was more economical for the UK to foster strong, long-term diplomatic and trade ties with the United States and let the Americans have to concern themselves with their own defense. Rather than make the crown have to both worry about "keeping the Americans in their place" and worry about defending them at the same time. Through trade they could get everything they would have obtained through the colonial control in any case, and they didn't need to worry about most of the other overhead. Yes, it was mildly annoying that they weren't "locked in" to trade with the Empire, but still, a lower cost option with better returns than the alternatives available.

Certainly, the UK had better places to go be imperialist than the US and bigger fish to fry on the continent. Also, while it taking the whole of the US would be prohibitively difficult, taking some portion of it would have been much easier. I recall the Ohio Valley may been a plausible concession at some point and if they hadn't been business in 1812, the war might not have ended with the status quo.

[Fenring]

Certainly, the UK had better places to go be imperialist than the US and bigger fish to fry on the continent. Also, while it taking the whole of the US would be prohibitively difficult, taking some portion of it would have been much easier. I recall the Ohio Valley may been a plausible concession at some point and if they hadn't been business in 1812, the war might not have ended with the status quo.

Speaking of the War of 1812, I was in Niagara Falls a few weeks ago, and went to the park where they have a GIGANTIC General Brock memorial statue. It towers over the vicinity, standing majestically in triumph over the historic defeat of the Americans just across the way. The information posted suggests that he died in battle, winning the victory over an American incursion into what is now the edge of Ontario's border. In driving around the area, familiarizing myself with the local roads and highways, I noticed that one of the customs bridges from the U.S. into Ontario opens up onto the General Brock highway, so that the first experience of an American entering Canada through that crossing is to drive on the "we kicked your *** highway". I wonder whether that's a coincidence.

[DJQuag]

It's why I consider the idea of the army holding control over the US to be so extreme. We all laugh at the idea of Russia holding control over Ukraine with it's 40 million odd residents. The US is the size of a literal continent and has hundreds of millions of residents. The needed size for an occcupation army alone is laughable, you think the people themselves would put up with it? Molotovs for every government office, which I will note is becoming more commenplace in Russian "recruitment" offices these days.

The Founders were concerned about a small community of citizens who could protect themselves from either local elements trying to seize power in small lots, or outside agents coming in to steal power or treasure. We are no longer a small community, but Lincoln accepted a war to prevent the dissolution of the Union which could protect itself, because local issues solved by military force is not a solution we wanted to endorse.

Biden said: "...if you want to fight against the country, you need an F-15. You need something a little more than a gun." That is why there are armories all over the country to provide those modern heavy-duty weapon systems that local citizens wouldn't have. Given the millions of arms in the hands of the public, it would be foolish for any outsiders to believe they could just walk in easily.

I get what you're saying here, but to operate an F-35 or even modern artillery without killing yourself requires more then Joe Six Pack storming the local base with his buddies. You can remove that equipment from use of the other side, certainly, but it's unlikely anyone is going to be able to use it. In that scenario, best to blow it up and move on to the next base.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“I've said before and I'll say again. Banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines will not stop mass shootings but they would lower the body count. Assault rifles and high capacity magazines serve no purpose for self defense or hunting.”

If you are hunting mass shooters, singular shooters, or varmints, a semi-auto 223 is useful. I will grant that it is not a first, or even second choice for large game. An AR-10 would be a much better option. You clearly do not understand the efficacy of a semi-auto action for staying on target. That is the reason that we adopted the M-1 in the 1930s. The Mauser K-98, Carcano M-38, and Arisaka, bolt guns were thoroughly outclassed by U.S. forces during WWII as a result.

Regarding hunting, I agree that 223 is not ideal for large game, but the semi-auto AR-15, chambered in 223, is an excellent choice for criminals, small game, and varmints. It is easier to stay on target with follow-up shots. The AR-10, in 308, is a better general purpose hunting option in my opinion.

“Is the counter argument the second amendment is absolute and we should quit regulating 50 caliber machine guns?”

Yes, stop regulating machine guns beyond a clean background check for the purchaser.

I am not certain what you mean by “absolute”, but Federalist #46 makes it pretty clear that the Second Amendment had an “absolute” function of guarding against government use of force upon its citizenry. Any citizen can own an M-2 with a clean background check, and a class 3 stamp. I personally do not need one because it is not a close quarters firearm (100 yards or less), for which a side arm is more applicable. I can outshoot any 50 BMG cartridge at distance with a 375 Cheytac, or even a 338. You have no idea how lethal a trained citizenry can be.

“Is it I like my gun and I don't care how many people get killed by AR-15's with high capacity magazines I want to keep mine. I don't understand people supporting the weapon of choice for mass shooters.”

No, it is more like; “I want to maximize my ability to kill criminals in a timely manner.”

“I know this only addresses a very small subset of gun violence, but it seems to be the lowest hanging fruit.”

Good reasoning; do it just because you can.

“The bigger step would be to find a way to track guns to find out how gangs and criminals are being armed. Shut down the bad gun dealers and straw purchases and get guns out of the hands of criminals.”

That one seems pretty obvious; shoot criminals.

[Tom]

I would like to submit that a thief does not in fact deserve to die, and that few enough innocent people are threatened by lethal violence that expecting them or their compatriots to equip themselves with the means to easily kill someone in the rare event that their own life is threatened may actually create more opportunities for escalation, confusion, and wrongful death. I personally wish that the federal government were allowed to fund studies using data collected on this subject, but of course it currently is not.

[noel c.]

Tom,

“I would like to submit that a thief does not in fact deserve to die, and that few enough innocent people are threatened by lethal violence that expecting them or their compatriots to equip themselves with the means to easily kill someone in the rare event that their own life is threatened may actually create more opportunities for escalation, confusion, and wrongful death. I personally wish that the federal government were allowed to fund studies using data collected on this subject, but of course it currently is not available.”

Data on victims of homicide is available.

In 2019, 19,100 people were killed by criminals. You, and Y-22 appear to want it both ways. He thinks that too many people are killed by firearms to allow the citizenry to own them, ant you think too few people are killed in violent crimes to justify lethal defense. Do you believe law enforcement personnel should be allowed to carry side arms, and why?

[Tom]

I don't think most LEOs can be trusted to routinely carry guns, but recognize that at present there are simply too many guns on American streets to use more successful international policing models that would restrict their use to specific dispatch. I think we'd have to accept all the costs of demilitarization -- which I personally would prefer, but which I recognize would require some seriously courageous cultural maturity -- to preemptively de-escalate in that fashion. I think the "defund the police" model, which despite its facile and reductive slogan is a pretty good idea, might be a useful step along that path.

[noel c.]

Tom,

“I don't think most LEOs can be trusted to routinely carry guns, … “

I know personally of one officer, a Sergeant, that does not handle his sidearm professionally. That is a training issue which some smaller departments suffer from. In my opinion, most law enforcement is well trained, even in small communities.

“… but recognize that at present there are simply too many guns on American streets to use more successful international policing models that would restrict their use to specific dispatch.”

That luxury is a function of demographics, cultural values, and even climatic conditions. The Scandinavian countries provide a good case study; https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/police-use-firearms-constant-swedish-and-norwegian-experience.

In Sweden all of that began to change in 2000. Would you like to know why?

“I think we'd have to accept all the costs of demilitarization -- which I personally would prefer, but which I recognize would require some seriously courageous cultural maturity -- to preemptively de-escalate in that fashion.”

Pollyannish.

“I think the "defund the police" model, which despite its facile and reductive slogan is a pretty good idea, might be a useful step along that path.”

Why am I not surprised?

[Tom]

Honestly? I believe it's because you equate de-escalation with an ineffectual lack of force, and ineffectual lack of force with feminized liberalism. As a liberal "Pollyanna", of course I would endorse an approach that, to casual analysis, would appear to simply strip the power from police.

But.

I don't think disarming typical police patrols will make the police markedly less effective; in fact, I think dramatically increasing the number of unarmed police patrols would make the police more effective. I do, however, think that it would take a generation of this for the increased danger to police to peter out, and tolerating this increased risk to police (even though I think it would be fairly small) for a decade or two might not be practical for a variety of reasons. Encouraging police departments to refer disruptive emergencies that are not necessarily criminal in nature to non-police experts would, I suspect, significantly help reduce the burden on police and remove fear of state violence from the equation in some potentially hostile conflicts (which is of course the true spirit of the "defund the police" movement.) 

[TheDrake]

Are they well trained to keep their gun in the holster? As opposed to pointing it at anyone who argues their rights in a situation? Are they well trained to give someone the benefit of the doubt, that they might be dealing with someone who is deaf or has a learning disability? We can't even keep cops from gunning down harmless pets because they walk the earth terrified of getting hurt. Are they well trained to fire blindly into apartment buildings.

But I'll take an armed cop all day compared to the proud boys, oath keepers, and other self styled gun toting patriots.

[yossarian22c]

...
In 2019, 19,100 people were killed by criminals. You, and Y-22 appear to want it both ways. He thinks that too many people are killed by firearms to allow the citizenry to own them, ant you think too few people are killed in violent crimes to justify lethal defense. Do you believe law enforcement personnel should be allowed to carry side arms, and why?

Where have I said that citizens shouldn't be able to own firearms? I have only argued for the limits on the type (particularly around rate of fire and magazine capacity). If you are going to paraphrase my position at least get the general idea right.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“Where have I said that citizens shouldn't be able to own firearms? I have only argued for the limits on the type (particularly around rate of fire and magazine capacity). If you are going to paraphrase my position at least get the general idea right.”

Is that really where your comfort level ends, or what constitutes your perception of possible limits, ie.; “… the low fruit”?

You are hiding behind a distinction without a difference. If I find myself in a situation where the use of lethal counterforce is justified, I do not give a damn what you believe my magazine capacity should be, or whether my action has select-fire capability. I am not in the least interested in a “fair” fight.

As an aside; unless you are being intentionally misleading, you do not understand what an “assault rifle” is, and are ignorant regarding to the defense advantages of semi-auto firearms such as the AR-15.

Stick to what you know.

[Tom]

If I find myself in a situation where the use of lethal counterforce is justified, I do not give a damn what you believe my magazine capacity should be...

It seems to me that a more realistic hypothetical would be "if I find myself in a situation where I'm buying a potentially lethal weapon for the purposes of self-defense." Not that I think you'd care what anyone else believes your magazine capacity should be at the time of purchase, either.

[yossarian22c]

Y-22,

“Where have I said that citizens shouldn't be able to own firearms? I have only argued for the limits on the type (particularly around rate of fire and magazine capacity). If you are going to paraphrase my position at least get the general idea right.”

Is that really where your comfort level ends, or what constitutes your perception of possible limits, ie.; “… the low fruit”?

You are hiding behind a distinction without a difference. If I find myself in a situation where the use of lethal counterforce is justified, I do not give a damn what you believe my magazine capacity should be, or whether my action has select-fire capability. I am not in the least interested in a “fair” fight.

As an aside; unless you are being intentionally misleading, you do not understand what an “assault rifle” is, and are ignorant regarding to the defense advantages of semi-auto firearms such as the AR-15.

Stick to what you know.

How many times have I used the term "assault rifle"? And when I used it how many times have I been clear that I mean semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines? Learn to read or quit attributing ideas to me.


How many times have you (or someone you know personally) used a high capacity magazine in a semi-automatic rifle to defend yourself from criminals? Is it more or less than the number of school shootings using those weapons during the same time span?

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“How many times have you (or someone you know personally) used a high capacity magazine in a semi-automatic rifle to defend yourself from criminals? Is it more or less than the number of school shootings using those weapons during the same time span?”

Red Herring. All that I need to know is that if my eyes can remain on the sight picture, a followup shot takes less time. A 1911 semi-auto, in hand, would have helped this guy. :

https://youtu.be/VZErTGLCdRI

It did help this guy. :

https://youtu.be/ISFU5ehObC0

I can hear your objection already; but the latter did not use an AR platform.

This guy did, and held off a mob. Imagine Rittenhouse trying to cycle a bolt in this situation. :

https://youtu.be/iryQSpxSlrg


Drake,

Most people would “… choose a cop all day”. Unfortunately, law enforcement is rarely present when needed, and officers have no obligation to risk their safety to protect you. There are a lot of dead school children because local police exercised their right to remain safe.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“How many times have I used the term "assault rifle"? And when I used it how many times have I been clear that I mean semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines?”

Okay, so you are being intentionally misleading. You honestly believe that your argument is aided through equivocation?

[Tom]

Imagine Rittenhouse trying to cycle a bolt in this situation.

To be fair, any scenario that made it harder for Rittenhouse to fire would have produced a better result.

[noel c.]

Tom,

“To be fair… “ really?

That kid did a superb job of exercising restraint. You will notice that when one of his assailants raised his hands, Rittenhouse backed down. To be fair, most LEOs would have been more aggressive.

[Tom]

I did previously note that I don't trust most LEOs with guns. Rittenhouse unnecessarily murdered two people, having first created a situation in which he felt it necessary to defend his life by murdering people. It is not substantially to his credit that he did not murder more.

[noel c.]

Tom,

“Rittenhouse unnecessarily murdered two people, “

He took one boot to the head, and a skateboard edge to the neck. He was justified is responding with deadly force, and a jury agreed. You do not count, Tom.


“… having first created a situation in which he felt it necessary to defend his life by murdering people. It is not substantially to his credit that he did not murder more.”

There you go again.

You would have probably been part of the mob but for your age, and address.

[yossarian22c]

Y-22,

“How many times have I used the term "assault rifle"? And when I used it how many times have I been clear that I mean semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines?”

Okay, so you are being intentionally misleading. You honestly believe that your argument is aided through equivocation?

I don't remember using the term "assault rifle" I usually stick with the specific mechanics of what I think should be banned. That's why I asked when I used it, and if there was ever a time I didn't use it without clarifying meaning. You've been contributing a lot of ideas specifically to me without quote or context. Please stop because you have reading comprehension and/or memory problems.

[Tom]

noel, how much force should you use to disarm an unknown shooter that would not retroactively justify your murder?
I ask facetiously, because you've previously asserted that attempting to disarm someone is itself life-threatening to a gunman and therefore merits lethal response.

As I don't want to live in a world where the only legal way to keep myself safe at a protest is to carry a gun, I'm disinclined to find that argument compelling.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“That's why I asked when I used it, and if there was ever a time I didn't use it without clarifying meaning.”

To “use it without clarifying the meaning” is double talk. The term has a meaning independent of your memory.

[Tom]

I have personally observed that conservatives like to change up the definition of "assault rifle" every few months, so that they can claim that liberals don't know what they're talking about when they use the term. This is almost certainly why most people who've experienced this will specify what they mean when they use the descriptor, although of course that doesn't stop someone from pretending not to understand.

[noel c.]

Tom,

“noel, how much force should you use to disarm an unknown shooter that would not retroactively justify your murder?”

You are clearly referencing an idiot, presumably someone other than yourself. If a shooter is “unknown” to you, get out of the way, Tom.

By your reasoning undercover police officer can become fair game as targets of lethal force. You respond with force when you, or someone else, is threatened with serious, or fatal, bodily injury.

[noel c.]

“I have personally observed that conservatives like to change up the definition of "assault rifle"

This statement is very likely false. I believe that you made it up. Do you need the definition of an assault rifle clarified for you?

[Ouija Nightmare]

Tom,

“noel, how much force should you use to disarm an unknown shooter that would not retroactively justify your murder?”

You are clearly referencing an idiot, presumably someone other than yourself. If a shooter is “unknown” to you, get out of the way, Tom.

By your reasoning undercover police officer can become fair game as targets of lethal force. You respond with force when you, or someone else, is threatened with serious, or fatal, bodily injury.

So three dozen armed people are in a restaurant. You’re dining and suddenly gunfire is exchanged.

Who do you shoot?

[noel c.]

If you do not know the answer, I would give you the same advice that I just gave Tom.

[noel c.]

Um, Ouija, you really did not need me to tell you that, correct?

[Tom]

Noel, is your argument in response really that no one should try to stop an active shooter unless they know the shooter is not an undercover cop?

[noel c.]

Tom,

“Noel, is your argument in response really that no one should try to stop an active shooter unless they know the shooter is not an undercover cop?”

You must be baiting me, because that question is just too stupid.

Okay, I’ll bite; you stop an “active shooter” (your pejorative)

1- When you know from personal knowledge that the subject is, in fact, an active shooter.

2-  They are threatening serious bodily injury to you, or someone else, which is essentially synonymous with the definition of an “active shooter”.

[noel c.]

Tom,

Do you still need the definition of an “assault rifle”, or have you taken the trouble to find the answer yourself?

[Tom]

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a photographic recollection of the faces of local law enforcement and a solid tactical risk assessment, apparently.

[noel c.]

“The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a photographic recollection of the faces of local law enforcement and a solid tactical risk assessment, apparently.”

You need to be less anxious to use an answer that enamors you, in the event that it is unresponsive, Tom.

[Tom]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, Noel. I don't actually give a damn how you personally define the term "assault rifle," since that's not remotely pertinent to the conversation. Is there something else you'd like to know?

[noel c.]

“I'm not sure what you're talking about, Noel.”

I believe you, Tom.

“I don't actually give a damn how you personally define the term "assault rifle," since that's not remotely pertinent to the conversation.”

You actually focused upon precisely that issue a few posts ago, Tom.

“Is there something else you'd like to know?”

Is there something else you know, Tom?

[Tom]

I didn't "focus" on it. I pointed out that conservatives like to disingenuously say "but what IS an assault rifle? You, as a liberal who does not own a hundred guns, probably don't even know the real DEFINITION. So shut up and stop talking about regulation, you pansy. Don't sit down at the big boys' table unless you can tell me what a <insert favorite bit of jargon> is. I mean, how can you seriously ban 'assault rifles' when this rifle over here meets all those requirements except for <insert exception here>?" So I wholeheartedly endorse talking about any individual problematic components or capacities or capabilities (whatever, in fact, someone considers problematic) over trying to use whatever definition a gun nut is going to pretend he doesn't understand.

[noel c.]

Tom,

Focus please; do you believe that the definition of an “assault rifle” is fluid, and is that issue relevant to liberal aspirations to “ban” them?

[Tom]

I think it misrepresents liberal intent to say that they aspire to ban "assault rifles." For what it's worth, though, I believe the previous ban on "assault weapons" was unambiguous enough in its definitions to be reasonably effective.

Seriously, though, why do you think I should focus on this topic? It is of virtually no interest to me.

[TheDrake]

Here's your definition, Noel.

Assault Weapons Ban of 2022

It really doesn't matter what anybody thinks the term means, this is how it is defined for the purpose of legislation to reduce mass slaughter. There is nothing fluid about the proposed legislation.

[noel c.]

“I think it misrepresents liberal intent to say that they aspire to ban "assault rifles." “

How should that misrepresentation be corrected?

“For what it's worth, though, I believe the previous ban on "assault weapons" was unambiguous enough in its definitions to be reasonably effective.”

Would you please provide that definition as originally drafted?

Politicians (at least liberal ones), are not qualified to differentiate, or define, anything firearms related. As an example; California attempted to ban the 50 BMG “cartridge” because it was “big”, and scary. That was stupid. An enterprising competitive shooter simply bumped a 50 BMG case neck back a few thousandths, and it was no longer the same cartridge. It was, however, more accurate than the parent loading.

“Seriously, though, why do you think I should focus on this topic?”

Because, for reasons known only to you, this exchange is happening.

“It is of virtually no interest to me.”

Seriously then… why are you participating?

Drake,

You just proved my point.

“A semiautomatic assault rifle” is oxymoronic terminology. That is why we laugh at, and deride you.

[Tom]

Seriously then… why are you participating?

Because you keep asking me questions, and seemed quite put out in this very thread when I previously ignored a couple questions of yours that did not interest me. I figured that at some point you'd move on.