Well, sure, so would I!!
But this story doesn't do anything to help us. Its illustrating that a simple shouting of 'Get out of here now' potentially works to thwart off a home invasion.
In terms of promoting gun Rights, this story is worst than ol' Joe saying all you need to is to just fire a couple rounds from your double barrel shot gun to scare them a way.
Its a legal term. Has nothing to do with full auto capability.I just scanned through all of the posts in this thread and not one person has questioned the use of the term "assault rifle"?
Its a legal term. Has nothing to do with full auto capability.
I was assuming you were referring the old gun guy definition of an assault rifle only being a select fire weapon. Kind of like the clip/magazine thing where we all know what someone is referring to when they reference a "clip" yet someone always has to pipe in that its a "magazine". Assault weapon and assault rifle are legal terms in this country.I don't see the connection between my post and your response, sir. Perhaps it's because I'm old with an addled brain.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Assault weapon and assault rifle are legal terms in this country.
Yet you understand what someone is talking about when they refer to whatever weapon you do not feel is an assault weapon/rifle as an assault weapon/rifle...whatever. Its a commonly used colloquial term. We're speaking the same language.Actually, I do not believe federal code has any sort of definition for "assault rifle."
Whatever legal meaning "assault weapon" had, sunsetted with the AWB, which no longer exists in federal law.
Now some few, very few, States may have defined those terms. But, A, they are not "this country" ipso facto, and B, are not universal amongst themselves, either.
Since, for example, NY, CT, MA, and CA each define "assault weapons"/"assault rifles" differently, the terms cannot inform me about any other State, or the Nation as a whole.
Yet you understand what someone is talking about when they refer to whatever weapon you do not feel is an assault weapon as an assault weapon/rifle...
Not buying that. The vast majority of people consider an "assault rifle" to be a black gun. Semiautomatic, not necessarily even full auto select fire. magazine fed, pistol grip etc. Pretty much what they were trying to "ban" when they did the 94 ban. trying to straighten out the terms to make them more "friendly" is a pedantic debate that wins no one over . While none of those things make a gun any more dangerous the fact is the majority of the general public and bureaucrats consider those features to be important when they are presented something that is represented as an "assault rifle" . Functionally they are just added features.No, actually, we don't.
When a lot of people use that term they don't even know what they think it means, they just use it because they hear it. And sometimes when you ask them what they mean, what they describe is actually a machine gun, or a short barrel rifle, or an AOW, or something vague and undefined like it's a "really big gun".
BTW silencer is a perfectly correct term according to both the inventor of the damn thing and the ATF
Not buying that. The vast majority of people consider an "assault rifle" to be a black gun. Semiautomatic, not necessarily even full auto select fire. magazine fed, pistol grip etc. Pretty much what they were trying to "ban" when they did the 94 ban. trying to straighten out the terms to make them more "friendly" is a pedantic debate that wins no one over . While none of those things make a gun any more dangerous the fact is the majority of the general public considers those features when they are presented something that is represented as a "assault rifle" .