CSNbbs

State YOUR definition, and whether you consider yourself liberal, conservative, libertarian, authoritarian, anarchist, totalitarian, Democrat, Republican, what have you. I'm curious to see how people define these weapons that many think should be illegal.

...and I don't think that should be illegal either. A well-placed sniper round would incapacitate anyone going off the reservation with one.

This is the one these idiot libs need to be concerned with:




...and explosives can be made from clay, household chemicals, and FFFG gunpowder.

Aren't all weapons meant to assault?

(07-24-2012 01:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]Aren't all weapons meant to assault?

exactly

(07-24-2012 01:33 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2012 01:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]Aren't all weapons meant to assault?

exactly

(07-24-2012 02:10 PM)OLD DIRTY Wrote: [ -> ]

LOL....nice. True though.

(07-24-2012 01:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]Aren't all weapons meant to assault?

Depends on how one defines "assault". See how slippery this can be?

As to the OP, its really a pointless question. Libs, especially far left ones, think all guns should be banned because guns are bad. They see no need to defend themselves. They see no value in hunting. The government will always be there for them.

(07-24-2012 02:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2012 01:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]Aren't all weapons meant to assault?

Depends on how one defines "assault". See how slippery this can be?

As to the OP, its really a pointless question. Libs, especially far left ones, think all guns should be banned because guns are bad. They see no need to defend themselves. They see no value in hunting. The government will always be there for them.

Dictionary
Assault: A violent physical or verbal attack.

Common Law:
Assault: An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. The act required for an assault must be overt. Intent is an essential element of assault.

(07-24-2012 02:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2012 02:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-24-2012 01:29 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]Aren't all weapons meant to assault?

Depends on how one defines "assault". See how slippery this can be?

As to the OP, its really a pointless question. Libs, especially far left ones, think all guns should be banned because guns are bad. They see no need to defend themselves. They see no value in hunting. The government will always be there for them.

Dictionary
Assault: A violent physical or verbal attack.

Common Law:
Assault: An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. The act required for an assault must be overt. Intent is an essential element of assault.

Well, strike the "verbal attack" from the dictionary definition and are left with a violent phyical attack. Anyone with any gun can commit those, so the new question is who or what is capable of being assaulted? If the definition applies only to people then anyone shot would be the victim of assault and every gun would be an assault weapon.

I take issue with the common law definition. Merely having a gun on ones person or holding a gun during a disagreement could potentially lead to a common law assault charge. It leaves no room for a gun to be a deterrant. If person 1 is 120 pounds and 5'3" and arguing with person 2 who is 260 and 6'5" I'd hardly say person one holding a gun while arguing is assaulting person 2.

Now how congress and liberals in particular define assault weapons is the problem.

Quote:A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states.
However, current "assault weapon" legislation defines certain semi-automatic weapons as "assault weapons." A semi-automatic weapon is one that fires a round with each pull of the trigger, versus an automatic weapon which continues to shoot until the trigger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted. These kinds of "assault weapons" are sometimes referred to as military-style semi-automatic weapons.

Quote:Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. (There has been no consistent trend in this rate from 1978 through 1996.) Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.)

There are close to 4 million assault weapons in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock.

If assault weapons are so rarely used in crime, why all the hoopla when certain military-style-semi-automatic weapons were banned by the Crime Control Act of 1994? A Washington Post editorial (September 15, 1994) summed it up best:

No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.

Facts

The word "assault" in "assault weapon" doesn't mean the criminal act of assault. When a military force assaults a hill, that doesn't mean they're yelling at it or hitting it. It means they're in combat with opposing forces.

Here's Merriam-Webster's take on it:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault

1a : a violent physical or verbal attack. b: a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c: a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary).

(07-24-2012 06:26 PM)SouthGAEagle Wrote: [ -> ]The word "assault" in "assault weapon" doesn't mean the criminal act of assault. When a military force assaults a hill, that doesn't mean they're yelling at it or hitting it. It means they're in combat with opposing forces.

Here's Merriam-Webster's take on it:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault

1a : a violent physical or verbal attack. b: a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c: a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary).

Exactly, but liberals have taken the term 'assault weapons' and applied them to civilian arms. I don't know how many times I've heard libs say these are the same weapons that the military uses, but they're not!

The entire assault weapon thing is pretty arbitrary and doesn't make a whole lot of sense on the face of it. But if it's just a term used, and then defined using specific, quantitative criteria in legislation (say magazine size/caliber/fire-rate/etc) then it's fine I suppose. I do agree though that the term is thrown around like it means something well accepted, when in reality, it doesn't.

I consider assault weapons to be ones in can be automatically fired with a single pull of a trigger. Everything else is the same IMO.

I can understand that viewpoint, and I think burst-fired weapons would also fit under that.

(07-24-2012 09:11 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I consider assault weapons to be ones in can be automatically fired with a single pull of a trigger. Everything else is the same IMO.

I like that view, semi-auto is ok, full or burst auto is an "assault weapon"

(07-24-2012 01:24 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ]...and I don't think that should be illegal either. A well-placed sniper round would incapacitate anyone going off the reservation with one.