It wasn't an 'assault weapon'.

[mljdeckard]

I really couldn't see where else to add this,

If the rifle used was legal in CT, was it not already CT/AWB compliant? With restricted evil features, no bayonet lug, pinned stock, etc? Why are we letting them call it an 'assault weapon' if it was then, and would be now, legal?

So, when they say he used an 'assault weapon', aren't they already wrong under their own definition?

 

[md2lgyk]

Of course they are. But gun-banners don't care about the truth.

 

[jmr40]

Lots of conflicting reports. I think the NRA is taking "the high road" by waiting until more "facts" come out to make a statement. Unlike many who are rapidly taking advanage of this tragedy to push their own agendas.

It is possible it is an older pre-ban rifle that was grandfathered in. If he used a rifle at all. There are conflicting reports that he actually used the handguns and the rifle was found in the car.

I'm waiting for more facts before I develop much of an opinion. We may never get them however.

 

[eazyrider]

I am as pro gun as anyone but this is a silly debate. Like down here in Texas everything is a coke, even if it's a Dr. Pepper. Everyone knows what your talking about. The only real difference is that our weapons don't have selective fire. Other than that my AR is not a whole lot different than the M16 I had in the military. All I am saying is that it is such a moot point. They are not against assault rifles they are against rifles that can hold 30 rounds and are black. Just like to most people an automatic pistol is automatically a Glock. Or every pistol, they can't define it but they know it when they see it.

Another example would be the difference in alcohol and liquor, I mix up the terminology all the time but who cares, they know what I am talking about.

 

[Onmilo]

"assault weapon" is a very broad and dangerous term.
Everything from the flintlock Brown Bess musket to the 1911 Colt has been used as an "assault weapon" at one time or another.

"High Capacity Magazine" is another dangerous term.
Right now it is anything over 10 shots, what will it be next time?
Anything over two shots...

 

[eazyrider]

Facts are not going to cool this down, kids were shot, doesn't matter by what. AR style rifles are the low hanging fruit. Hence the anti's are going to go after them. Hell the rifle could have been left in the house and they would still blame it.

 

[JShirley]

"Assault weapon" as used by our military refers to one of a couple of rocket launchers. Assault rifles have a known, recognized definition, while assault weapons as used politically in the US is a broad category made up to lump together firearms containing several of a number of "evil" features such as bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and barrel shrouds. Without this (over-) broad category, something like a Tec-9 would never be grouped with a FN-FAL or M1A.

John

 

[mljdeckard]

Of course, but even under THEIR definition, was it not a 'neutered' non-'assault' weapon?

 

[stonecutter2]

First off, who is "them" and "they?" The media?

The media has wrongfully identified/categorized firearms for decades. There's no reason they'd suddenly get more responsible about it. They're in such a frenzy I'm surprised they're not calling teddy bears "assault weapons."

It became obvious the first day of reporting on the CT incident that they didn't care a thing about accuracy in what they do anymore. Nearly every single outlet was irresponsible. That's the element of this whole situation that no one seems to really be talking about...

How about we have a cultural discussion about the fact that our "news" agencies report rumor and innuendo, and law enforcement officials can't seem to keep their mouth shut 1 hour after a tragedy, with unsubstantiated information, speaking anonymously to the media?

 

[Duane M]

On the View yesterday Whoppi Goldberg said the firearm was a weapon of mass destruction.

 

[Duane M]

Just an after thought. If you shoot me with your BB gun even I would think that was an assault weapon.

 

[stonecutter2]

On the View yesterday Whoppi Goldberg said the firearm was a weapon of mass destruction.

People really need to chill out, just a bit. WMD? Yeesh.

 

[mljdeckard]

We must reinstate this 'assault weapons' ban, to protect people from this recent crime, which was committed using a rifle which would still be avaliable after the ban is reinstated.

 

[mljdeckard]

(By the way, 'whoopi' is a gun owner too.)

 

[OpelBlitz]

Huh?

 

[mljdeckard]

Are you asking huh to the original question?

 

[OpelBlitz]

No, your post - "We must reinstate this 'assault weapons' ban, to protect people from this recent crime, which was committed using a rifle which would still be avaliable after the ban is reinstated."

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I realized yesterday it wasn't an "assaut weapon" and posted here - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=689876

It's merely a semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine.

 

[mljdeckard]

I should have put that in quotes and provided context. Diane Feinstein et al are trying to say that we need to reinstate the ban, but the ban would have allowed this weapon.

 

[mljdeckard]

And Shawn, before I started this thread, I glanced to see if anyone else had asked the question, I was either scanning to fast or it had dropped off the first page. I would not be offended at all if the mods want to merge them.

 

[razorback2003]

It can be a Winchester model 70 and then it is a 'sniper assault rifle'. It doesn't matter if the gun was used or at his friend's house, it would all be the same to the news. The media is a part of this country's brain washing.

 

[Tommygunn]

It wasn't an 'assault weapon'.

I'm sorry, but despite whether or not it lacked features that would make it an ...."assault weapon" under Ct. law, it really is, atleast to the extent that any semi auto rifle with replaceable magazines can be said to be one -- and it is being perceived as one by most people.

These semantic games are annoying. During the original AWB in 1994 the Bushmaster ARs (and other brands) were being labeled "assault weapons" and we were told they were "weapons of war," even though they were NOT the later, since the guns issued our soldiers were full auto not semi auto.
I owned -- and still do -- an M-1 Carbine my father brought back from Korea which functions, for all real purposes, just like the Bushmaster that Adam Lanza used Friday. No one said it was an "assault weapon" in 94 or mentioned, really, M-1 carbines.
Yet, having been issued to troops in WW2 & Korea, and early Vietnam, it really can be said to BE a "weapon of war."
It's all rhetoric.
It's meant to "scare" the uninformed into compliance. Let's not play that game.

 

[Hokkmike]

In any argument definition of terms is important. In educational debate if both parties agree on definitions then they are set. Other wise a judges decides. In this case the public will be the judge. Unfortunately, most are woefully ignorant of what is and what is not an assault weapon. Bottom line to them, if it looks scary and/or has a lot of add on features then it is.

I am sure that any legislation will be very specific about which weapon are and are not included. It is at this point that getting it right becomes critical. Anti's will stretch it as much as they can. Defenders of the 2A, if there are any left, will need to be careful in the terms and definitions they are willing to accept.

Truly, none - well, maybe VERY few of us, call what a practioner would consider an "assault rifle".

But take note - if they antis decide to go after scoped hunting rifles they will become "sniper rifles". They play dirty!!!

 

[Shawn Dodson]

These semantic games are annoying.

It's not "semantics". The weapon used was NOT an "assault weapon" AS DEFINED BY LAW.

 

[Steve CT]

I live in CT and own what is commonly (and incorrectly) being referred to as an Assault Rifle/Weapon. CT still functions under the AWB, including the named brands and models, and the characteristics described, with the exception of the magazine capacity. State legislators here regularly attempt to reintroduce the magazine restriction, and just as regularly fail.

The new rhetoric on this is "military style" weapons, which strikes me as pretty tough to define, and given the growth in "AR type" manufacturers since 1994, it will be equally difficult to ban by brand and model. The magazine capacity question is much easier to define, and I expect that to be a much more difficult battle to fight.