Assault rifle ban will fail without objective definitions because...

So have you decided to apologize for your post that called that definition a lie and me a liar.

" Sorry that's a false post and a lie about the actual description."

 

And such is ultimately why the definition is meaningless and serves no point in existing, as everyone has their own definition and/or definitions of just what it entails. It is nothing more than meaningless drivel.

 

Never called you a liar, I stated the definition is a lie.

None the less it doesn't apply to the AR-15 anyhow.

 

Those are all submachine guns.

An assault rifle is defined as a magazine fed rifle capable of selective fire (semi and either burst or auto) and chambered in an intermediate cartridge.

Submachineguns are chambered in pistol calibers.

 

Nonsense. You just write the definition into the law. This was done in the previous ban.

 

And various states have their own varying definition of just what a so-called "assault weapon" is and is not, with no uniformity between them, especially as the list of qualifying factors is expanded to become more and more inclusive of more and more firearms that previously did not qualify as so-called "assault weapons" due to lacking the previously established qualifying features.

 

You did not say "assault rifle". You said "assault weapon". Put down that goal post.

 

Yet again, third time: Explain, in your own words, EXACTLY what an "assault weapon" is.

 

I didn't move the goalposts, I agreed with Xen that the 'definition' you're using isn't a definition its a ****ing list that has no consistent logical scheme other than your whims. Making it arbitrary and capricious. You understand that arbitrary and capricious restrictions on rights are not constitutional?
I gave you the definitions that actually apply to the items you identified.

 

I would argue that semantics is merely a clever way of ignoring the lethality of certain weapons and their capabilities. Rather then focus on word definitions, ban capacities and outcomes. If you own a weapon or accessory that can fire more then 6 rounds without reloading, ban it.

 

And where did you come up with that ludicrous number of rounds and who are you to decide what others may need for lawful self defense?

 

The district of columbia attempted a similar approach after losing the Heller ruling. It tried to prevent the ownership and registration of any semi-automatic handguns by classifying them as fully-automatic firearms, through their own definition pertaining to any firearm that could be fired twelve or more times before reloading.

Ultimately the district of columbia acknowledged that their definition and distinctions would never stand up in a court of law, and after months of being stubborn, finally gave up and began accepting applications for semi-automatic handguns.

 

Follow the ‘any means doctrine’ to make gun ownership as difficult as possible for non criminals.

 

Why not 5? Why not 7? Why not 10?

What logical scheme did you use to come up with that number? Or is it simply arbitrary?

 

In other words: you have no idea and are simply emoting.

For the record, your ridiculous suggestion includes...
All semiautomatic rifles, going back ~115 years.
Many bolt-action rifles.
All semiautomatic pistols.
The 165-year-old Lemat revolver from the Civil War.
At least two Civil War-era rifles.
Almost all lever-action rifles, dating back almost 200 years.

No.

 

He squatted and bore down mightily.

 

Not so mightily considering his number.

 

Why would I bother to do that? Maybe you should supply your definition so I can pick it apart.

 

I need a nuke!

 

For the simple reason that failing to do otherwise, is allowing third parties to determine and define the matter for yourself, thus robbing you of any actual say in the matter. These third parties are telling you what to say, and you are saying it for them. It is no different than being an uninformed shill who is employed to spread a message but not think about the contents of that message.

There is little to no reason to define something that does not actually exist. The phrase "assault weapon" is a made up, politically motivated term that is exceedingly poorly defined, and holding no more legitimacy than the word jabberwocky.

 

Interesting that you have contradicted yourself. If you think assault weapons do not exist than it is rather idiotic for you to want a definition. Of course the NRA does believe that they exist and have even bothered to provide a definition for something that doesn’t exist.

 

In other words: you cannot.

 

What is sought is a definition on the part of yourself, rather than what was created on the part of someone else who is neither relevant nor involved in the current discussion.

Meaningless and irrelevant.

 

How do you plan to confiscate existing weapons?
How does this not violate the constitution?

 

Gun controllers objective plan is to control your guns... by taking them. That is their only plan. To think otherwise is to give them the upper hand.