Before I begin, let's remember the following, the Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I guess, technically, the right to keep and bear arms, whatever they might be, "shall not be infringed". But that all ended in 1934 with the Gun Control Act of 1934. Machine guns, short barreled rifles & shotguns, etc, became regulated. Regulation, no matter how you define it, is infringement.
So, we have already gone down that road.
Such a big deal is made about Universal Background Checks. Aren't all handguns, post 1899, subject to this already? Longarms, if a private sale, are not. These are a small portion of overall sales, so really they are not regulating all that much more, although it is nice to have the option of going to a gun show, and purchasing a long arm, should I desire to do so, without a paper trail, as a paper trail can lead to registration and potential confiscation. Personally, when I complete Form 4473, I consider that to be infringement, and I am surprised that is allowed and required, but it is.
A 4473 doesn't infringe on my buying a firearm IMHO. I support background checks. As a professional seller (ffl) I abhor the idea of selling a gun to someone who shouldn't be allowed to own one. The FDLE website shows only the last couple of days of background checks in complete and then it deletes the name and DOB of the checked name, merely leaving dates of checks and the relevant approval number. It doesn't purge non-approval details. The picture below is a screenshot just taken of my last few checks. I deleted the information for two and then you can see that FDLE has purged any identifying personal details. They are mandated by law to do that purging.
BUT, this leads up to the whole point of this thread. IF you already have Gun Control Acts, which already have infringed the rights of law abiding citizens, why is such a big deal made about banning assault weapons?
It comes down to who is defining the term "assault weapons"? By some definitions I have seen, it would take into account almost every semi automatic firearm. The clearest example of this idiocy is an AR-15 is an assault weapon/rifle and a Mini-14 is not. Shoots the same bullets. Capable of accepting the same number of rounds in a magazine. Same rate of fire. Yet one would be banned, the other not.
Just watch a few youtube videos when interviewers are asking lawmakers about gun control legislation and they clearly have no knowledge about guns in bills
they themselves are proposing. Biden suggests just popping off a couple of "blasts" (his words, not mine) from a double barrel shotgun from your balcony. I know of no city where firing a gun in the city limits other than inside of a gun range is legal. And just what is he recommending we "blast" away at? The neighbor's house? The ground? Up in the air?
One lawmaker had "barrel shrouds" as one defining feature of an assault rifle but clearly has no idea what that is. Who wrote put that part in the law? All of the criteria are just so arbitrary, which is to say meaningless.
Remember, we're talking weapons, not just rifles. I can see, once we have an assault weapon ban that the definition gets "refined".
Many perfectly good laws, passed with the best of intentions, get stretched to cover things not intended or even envisioned by the original lawmakers.
For example, granted, not firearm related, but apropos. It is illegal in Florida to drive drunk. Great law! Probably helped to save dozens of lives. However, it's been stretched to it now being illegal to be in control of a vehicle while drunk, which can mean sleeping it off in the back seat of a non-running, parked vehicle because you have the keys in your drunk pocket.
Again, like I said, I don't agree with paperwork and banning and infringement, but if this needs to be done, I don't have a problem with that per se.
And here's why? What purpose do they serve other than to fire many shots in a short period of time?
So? There's not a world of a lot of difference between 3 thirty round magazines fully loaded and 9 ten round magazines fully loaded time-wise. A few seconds to drop and swap. But, is the problem with the number of bullets fired or is it the number of projectiles flying downrange in a short period of time? If it's the latter, consider a shotgun, pump or semi-auto, in 12 gauge firing 00 Buckshot. with 3" shells, that's 15 pellets with each trigger pull. Fired shells can be replaced in the feeding tube, without having to swap out a magazine, while the gun is still loaded. Warped individuals bent on killing are attracted to the look of an "assault rifle" so we should selectively ban guns based on looks? Isn't that rather silly?
Can anyone explain why they are necessary over other available firearms, other than they could be fun to shoot? No real sportsmanship there, no skill in improving target practice skills, no needed for hunting or even self defense.
Is a reason needed other than they are fun to shoot? The only difference between some guns classified as assault rifles and some that are similar in function but so classified is cosmetic. Pistol grip, bayonet lug, barrel shroud, etc. Besides that, no sportsmanship? They fire semi-automatic, so where's the difference is firing an AR-15 at a target and any other rifle? And if they're not good for self defense, why are we arming police departments with them?
I would still keep my nose out of this except for I think that the cause was really really damaged or hurt when the term "assault" was used to define many such weapons. How ever was that term used to describe such weapons and who coined it and why is it flagrantly abused? Like I said, it certainly does not help the cause, and using "assault" and "weapon" in the same sentence looks terrible to the general public, especially those with no firearms experience.