So the media again is helping stir the pot. When you use vague language like “assault-style” weapons, it makes it open to wide interpretation as to what an “assault-style” weapon is. You. the reader, are assuming and envisioning the AR-15, the AK-47 but it can also include semi-automatic hand guns or some types of shotguns. If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc. They should also quit banning by cosmetics to define “assault-style” weapons. You can easily change your fully-automatic rifle to look like a Nerf gun (fully automatics are illegal anyway). Here’s a bit more on the term:
People should actually read the laws on the books and quit relying on the media or their politicians to do the reading for them. They may find there’s already several bans on “assault-style” weapons because specific language is used. People should also focus on the loopholes instead and campaign to get those closed. Politicians won’t do it so long as the NRA keeps shoving cash into their pockets.
I think we all stopped charging the enemy waving a pistol during WW1 didnt we ? This feels like something from a Blackadder episode.
It’s referenced in the newsweek article. I read the wiki which says Hawaii have defined it, but the wiki links dont actually go to a definition.
The vast majority of pistols sold are semi auto, and they all have a pistol grip which, as I understand it are 2 of the main characteristics used to define assault weapon in the US
The confusion is why the assault weapons ban in the 90’s failed. They did not specify semi-automatic handgun, revolver, or pistol grip short barrel shotgun. You are correct. “Assault pistol” is extremely vague. In my opinion, politicians do this to appease the NRA and the gun nuts while completely disregarding what responsible gun owners are asking for. Most responsible gun owners want the loopholes closed. The politicians can just shrug and say “Well we tried!” Or use it as an excuse to kick incumbents out that didn’t kiss the ring.
Most of this theater is at the federal level. The state level is what will make the difference which is why I encourage people to check the firearms sections of their laws.
None of what you said is true. Assault rifles were effectively banned for civilians by the national firearms act in 1934, and reinforced by the firearm owners protection act in 1986.
You seem to be confusing “assault rifle”, which has a legal definition and are illegal nationally, with “assault weapon” which is a poorly defined term (it’s basically a “scary looking gun” ban) and no longer illegal federally since the 1994 AWB expired in 2004.
If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc
That’s how you get weird-ass weapons designed specifically to work around the law though. E.g in Russia they regulate harder any weapon that has rifling on more than half of the barrel (otherwise it’s considered a hunting shotgun iirc), so of course there are tons of Russian civilian weapons that are basically military stuff with shitty rifling and locked to semi auto
It does turn into a game of “one-up” but this is why you get actual weapons experts to advise on the language of the law and not business owners and lawyers who have no idea what a gun is other than it makes them a lot of money or its scary.
Lots of cops and ex-military in favor of gun control.
Cops and ex-mil are not usually people I’d say know guns. When I say “know guns”, I don’t mean just that they know how to shoot–which most cops and mil people can’t do for shit----I mean know how they work, and why they’re designed the way that they are. I mean, how many cops or military people can tell you exactly what the difference is between, say, a direct impingement and a piston system? Or what the different kind of delayed blowback mechanisms are? Or what the technical differences are between and AR-15 that’s capable of being select fire, and one that isn’t?
And, even more than that, when you look at history, it’s clear that the second amendment was intended to ensure that the people had access to militarily-suitable arms. We’re right at the point of gov’t tyranny right NOW, and Dems want to disarm people? So, what?, we can have a King Trump I?
When I say “know guns”, I don’t mean just that they know how to shoot–which most cops and mil people can’t do for shit----I mean know how they work, and why they’re designed the way that they are.
None of this is rocket science. Your side hobby isn’t a PhD program that no lowly normie could comprehend without years of jerking off to gun specs.
We’re right at the point of gov’t tyranny right NOW
And I notice a conspicuous lack of “patriots” reacting at all. We’ve had years excusing dead kids in the name of deterrence against a tyrannical government and now people are getting kidnapped by masked men without identification or documentation and the people getting in the way and showing up at detention centers are unarmed women.
And yet, none of the people writing laws can understand these things. Nor do cops, most people in the military, or–in all likelihood–you. But by golly, they’re going to write laws about them, even if they have no idea what the laws they’re writing will actually do!
And I notice a conspicuous lack of “patriots” reacting at all.
Yeah, it’s almost like what passes for a “political left” in the USA is a completely watered down, neutered version of the left, and is more interested in circular firing squads than actually doing something, huh?
So the media again is helping stir the pot. When you use vague language like “assault-style” weapons, it makes it open to wide interpretation as to what an “assault-style” weapon is. You. the reader, are assuming and envisioning the AR-15, the AK-47 but it can also include semi-automatic hand guns or some types of shotguns. If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc. They should also quit banning by cosmetics to define “assault-style” weapons. You can easily change your fully-automatic rifle to look like a Nerf gun (fully automatics are illegal anyway). Here’s a bit more on the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
People should actually read the laws on the books and quit relying on the media or their politicians to do the reading for them. They may find there’s already several bans on “assault-style” weapons because specific language is used. People should also focus on the loopholes instead and campaign to get those closed. Politicians won’t do it so long as the NRA keeps shoving cash into their pockets.
What in hell is an “assault pistol” please ?
I think we all stopped charging the enemy waving a pistol during WW1 didnt we ? This feels like something from a Blackadder episode.
It’s referenced in the newsweek article. I read the wiki which says Hawaii have defined it, but the wiki links dont actually go to a definition.
The vast majority of pistols sold are semi auto, and they all have a pistol grip which, as I understand it are 2 of the main characteristics used to define assault weapon in the US
Confused foreigner.
The confusion is why the assault weapons ban in the 90’s failed. They did not specify semi-automatic handgun, revolver, or pistol grip short barrel shotgun. You are correct. “Assault pistol” is extremely vague. In my opinion, politicians do this to appease the NRA and the gun nuts while completely disregarding what responsible gun owners are asking for. Most responsible gun owners want the loopholes closed. The politicians can just shrug and say “Well we tried!” Or use it as an excuse to kick incumbents out that didn’t kiss the ring.
Most of this theater is at the federal level. The state level is what will make the difference which is why I encourage people to check the firearms sections of their laws.
These terms are just shorthand. They’re defined in law.
Each state has their own definition of what an assault rifle is, and that’s what decidedes what’s banned. (Bans are by state, and most have no ban.)
For some its a pistol grip, a detachable mag, and one of like 3 other features. Two or more of those and its an assault rifle.
Pistols are regulated seperately.
None of what you said is true. Assault rifles were effectively banned for civilians by the national firearms act in 1934, and reinforced by the firearm owners protection act in 1986.
You seem to be confusing “assault rifle”, which has a legal definition and are illegal nationally, with “assault weapon” which is a poorly defined term (it’s basically a “scary looking gun” ban) and no longer illegal federally since the 1994 AWB expired in 2004.
What’s funny/sad/confusing about that is AR pistols. It basically comes down to the stock.
That is to say- manufacturers will have a product ready to skirt any ban in the hours after a bill is signed.
That’s how you get weird-ass weapons designed specifically to work around the law though. E.g in Russia they regulate harder any weapon that has rifling on more than half of the barrel (otherwise it’s considered a hunting shotgun iirc), so of course there are tons of Russian civilian weapons that are basically military stuff with shitty rifling and locked to semi auto
It does turn into a game of “one-up” but this is why you get actual weapons experts to advise on the language of the law and not business owners and lawyers who have no idea what a gun is other than it makes them a lot of money or its scary.
You will get zero people that have real knowledge and understanding of weapon systems advising legislators on ways to ban them.
Well I guess we’ll just keep running in circles about this issue then won’t we.
Lots of cops and ex-military in favor of gun control. Not all people who know guns love them being easily and widely available.
Cops and ex-mil are not usually people I’d say know guns. When I say “know guns”, I don’t mean just that they know how to shoot–which most cops and mil people can’t do for shit----I mean know how they work, and why they’re designed the way that they are. I mean, how many cops or military people can tell you exactly what the difference is between, say, a direct impingement and a piston system? Or what the different kind of delayed blowback mechanisms are? Or what the technical differences are between and AR-15 that’s capable of being select fire, and one that isn’t?
And, even more than that, when you look at history, it’s clear that the second amendment was intended to ensure that the people had access to militarily-suitable arms. We’re right at the point of gov’t tyranny right NOW, and Dems want to disarm people? So, what?, we can have a King Trump I?
None of this is rocket science. Your side hobby isn’t a PhD program that no lowly normie could comprehend without years of jerking off to gun specs.
And I notice a conspicuous lack of “patriots” reacting at all. We’ve had years excusing dead kids in the name of deterrence against a tyrannical government and now people are getting kidnapped by masked men without identification or documentation and the people getting in the way and showing up at detention centers are unarmed women.
And yet, none of the people writing laws can understand these things. Nor do cops, most people in the military, or–in all likelihood–you. But by golly, they’re going to write laws about them, even if they have no idea what the laws they’re writing will actually do!
Yeah, it’s almost like what passes for a “political left” in the USA is a completely watered down, neutered version of the left, and is more interested in circular firing squads than actually doing something, huh?