Re: safety and politics
 

Thanks for the support itschy. Although I totally disagree with fatalsaint, I respect him/you for holding and expressing your belief.
I think it's good to talk these things out with those we disagree with.

Neil

Re: safety and politics
 

I challenge you to prove that. My definition of an assault rifle, like most people I know from gunsmiths to military to LEO, all consider an "assault rifle" to be a fully automatic firearm.

1 pull of the trigger. 30 rounds are fired.

I compel you .. LEGALLY go outside and purchase a Fully Automatic firearm for less than 1k dollars. Today.

I'll be waiting.

Re: safety and politics
 

I disagree. It IS easy to spot early on, and in this case, WAS. As I posted earlier, state governors a few years ago identified the warning signs and approached the Bush administration, which was (criminally IMO) predisposed toward allowing the shanigans.

So don't believe anyone who says malfeasance is hard to spot. It isn't. And in fact the signs are usually apparent to those close to the situation early on. The problems begin when you find that regulatory agencies are highly staffed with corrupt insiders, and whistleblowers are abused.

When you suffer the culture of corruption that we've had for some time, spotting a problem means nothing. Just ask Nancy Pelosi, who upon becoming Speaker of the House announced that no impeachment proceedings against Bush would be allowed to proceed under her watch. That's scary, too.

Re: safety and politics
 

"LEGALLY" is a red herring. Sungrove did not qualify his post with that term.

I have seen people claim to do what sungrove posited. I cannot however determine the veracity of such claims.

Re: safety and politics
 

Yes but "Legally" is the important part. You can not do what sungrove posted in a LEGAL way. Which, by definition, means that it is already illegal to do it.

Thus, we do not need more laws to make something that is already ILLEGAL, more.. Illegal?

Lets look at Drugs... there's already a outright ban on things like Marijuana, Cocain, LSD, etc, except for Medicinal Purposes. That's as close to a 100% ban as we'll probably ever see. And yet it's still buyable on the streets.. but the very act of BUYING, and of course SELLING that property is, already, illegal.

Anywhere that is selling a full on Military Assault Rifle and lets you take it home *same day*, A) is not likely to be under 1k, but B) is already an illegal transaction.

Now.. where sungrove is right, and I'm sure what he intended, is that I *can* go to my nearest gun store and buy me a new shiny Bushmaster AR-15 for less than 1k and walk out the door with it. However:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
And, for added measure (as this is directly the word used by sungrove): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
What is selective fire?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire
My AR-15 that I can purchase, legally, today, and take it home with me cannot be fired in BOTH semi-automatic, and fully automatic.. Thus, is certainly not an "assault rifle", and is only an "assault weapon" in the sense that that's what politicians call it.

Re: safety and politics
 

Fatalsaint, I recognize the appeal to authority, but to me (and many people) it's a hair split. The article cited wants to make the claim that the term "assault" only has a military context, but that isn't realistic. Assault upon civilians can have radically different contexts than assault between or by military activists.

I would really, really hope we could avoid this sort of semantical entanglement...

Re: safety and politics
 

The problem arises into what exactly is an "assault weapon".. since it's technically not definitively defined anywhere. IF an "assault weapon" is merely a gun that looks scary.. well that's just ridiculous. Why in the name of the heavens and earth would we ban anything just for "looking" scary? Should we ban cars that have flames and teeth painted on them because they "look" scary or intimidating? People might crash on the road if they "see" it?

Or, does the term "assault" put before, mean as this article describes:
"A key concept in defining the military assault rifle is the ability to provide a large volume of fire through fully-automatic or burst fire modes."

Now.. THIS makes sense (at least, from their arguments). Because firing into a crowd, large volumes of fire, through automatic mode, could obviously cause a massive amount of destruction.

A semi-automatic rifle does not have this capability.. and there are many, many, semi-automatic rifles used for Hunting, Varmints, Sporting, etc.

Just because the news called it a "military style assault rifle".. doesn't actually make it military style, an assault weapon, or even more dangerous than your average semi-auto rifle. It just sounds scary, and gets the news ratings.

Re: safety and politics
 

...by agreeing that "assault rifle" should include any semi-automatic rifle, and thus be banned/illegal? Well, that would certainly help you make your point, wouldn't it?

I think the whole point (and I don't pretend to speak for fatalsaint) he was making was that the government made up the term, and purposefully gave it a very loose definition, specifically so that they could play the semantics game and thereby back-door a semi-automatic weapon ban.

I think the article cited was making the point that "assault rifle" only has a military context, not that the word assault has only a military context.

Re: safety and politics
 

You're constructing straw men again.

I understand if you enjoy going off on those tangents for the sake of it, but it really does pollute a discussion...

You are also arbitrarily editing the argument by pedantically focusing on the military definition of "assault". That's unrealistic. We are not talking about military use of weaponry. We are not talking about a military theater. We are talking about civilian situations. Ergo, military contexts and definitions need not apply. While "assault" may mean, say, 30 rounds of automatic ammo in a military context, in a civilian context it could be as little as 10 (for example) semiautomatic (please don't run with that statement as if it was an absolute).

That's what is so frustrating about these "debates"-- defenders of an issue want to willfully and even capriciously exclude important context and force the discussion into unreasonable black-and-white boxes that they control. And then, ironically, gripe about the media's spin...

Re: safety and politics
 

I am not so petty and I resent your unwarranted implication.

And I am saying that "assault rifle" can have different viable connotations in a military versus civilian context. That is just my opinion, briand. it was not derived from any source playing word games, either. Here's a newsflash: I'm a grown-up, just like you, capable of making up my own mind and constructing my own arguments. I'll let the spinning government lawmakers and breakers speak for themselves... and they sure don't speak for me.