They defined "assault weapon" based on how the weapon looks. For example, one attribute of an "assault weapon" was a bayonet lug -- when was the last time someone was bayonetted in this country?
Why are gun rights supporters worried about bans on so-called assault weapons?
Prof. Volokh is a right-leaning libertarian actually. He is blogging at Pravda on the Potomac where he can do the most damageThe author of the article is a professor at UCLA and makes an awful lot of sense for someone you would assume is fairly liberal in his views (I know that to assume makes an ass out of u and me )
"Assault weapon" means NOTHING. It's whatever any particular anti-gun cultist wants to ban at any given instant.For the purposes of US law the term "assault weapon" has been defined whether its what we like or not and it has nothing to do with select fire capability.
Absolutely right. Hunters in the Pyrenees Mountains on the border between France and Spain used matchlock muskets to hunt bear and wild boar. Matchlocks are very slow to reload, so they carried huge knives to defend themselves against wounded critters.As a sidenote, the history of bayonet is in hunting, not by any means in military applications. When hunters were restricted to single shot muzzleloaders, it gave an extra measure of safety against game animals that could charge when wounded, wild boar being the most common and obvious example.
Military adopted it much later.
I didn't really intend the thread to be for you guys answering the question in the title.Well, perhaps one of the reasons might be concern over the recent trend of some people (like some college students) expressing how they think it would be reasonable to start curtailing the first amendment. How much more likely might that make curtailing the second, or even other, amendments at some point?
Ignoring the lessons of history can potentially have more dire consequences than a bad grade.
Assault weapon has a definition in US code. Or at least it did prior to the clinton ban sunset. Sturmgewehr is a German word that CAN be translated at assault weapon but like many translations it can also be translated differently. Given that German and English arent terribly different in the grand scheme of things it is a bit inconvenient that we already have the word "storm" in English as in "storm the parapets" . It is synonymous with "Assault" but "storm weapon" doesnt roll off the tongue. In any case just because "Modern Sporting Rifles" do not have a select fire ammo wasting switch doesnt make them any less deadly in the hands of a killer. Personally I don't have any issue with referring to any of my firearms as assault weapons."Assault weapon" means NOTHING. It's whatever any particular anti-gun cultist wants to ban at any given instant.
"Assault RIFLE" has a fixed meaning... which NOTHING they want to ban fits.
NEVER, EVER let the other side set the terms of debate.
Assault weapon has a definition in US code.
So did "slave".Assault weapon has a definition in US code.
It can be INCORRECTLY translated as "assault weapon", just as "Halbkettenfahrzeuge" can be INCORRECTLY translated as "cuff link".Sturmgewehr is a German word that CAN be translated at assault weapon but like many translations it can also be translated differently.
That's hardly a valid point.Well maybe the Germans used the term "assault rifle" - but we should keep in mind that they lost the war even though they had the world's only "assault rifle". Any military leader who even considers the concept of "assaulting" an enemy position with only rifles as a valid tactic is either extremely desperate - or stupid.
You might want to read the Collector Grade books "Sturmgewehr!" and "MG34-MG42: German Universal Machineguns".Well maybe the Germans used the term "assault rifle" - but we should keep in mind that they lost the war even though they had the world's only "assault rifle". Any military leader who even considers the concept of "assaulting" an enemy position with only rifles as a valid tactic is either extremely desperate - or stupid.
You may recall one of our Justices described herself as "a wise Latina" implying that her "wisdom" trumps the Constitution.I think the author was spot on... I also get very concerned when a SCOTUS justice opines that a "perceived benefit" to public safety, which may not in reality have any benefit is nonetheless of substantial benefit to the public [I'm paraphrasing].