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

Thanks for proving my point. Instead of being able to define 'assault weapon' you resort to ad homs. Just admit it, you can't define 'assault weapon'.

 

It’s not an AR. The photo of the gun I posted is of a LANTAC rifle (used by no army in the World).

Despite it’s appearances, not only is it not capable of full auto or burst fire, it isn’t a semi auto. The action design is over 100 years old and is call a Straight Pull action. It is a very popular action for hunting rifles in the EU and where semi-autos have been banned.

But, in this configuration, it looks scary.
Assault weapon ban advocates, who can’t define a standard for defining the criteria for what an assault weapon is, will either refer to it’s resemblance to some guns used by the military suggesting it is a military ‘style’ rifle, will point to specific, cosmetic features such as mag size, pistol style grip, collapsing (it’s not folding) stock, and flash hider (doesn’t have one... it’s a muzzle break).
But, remove the offending items and you have something like the following,

A Browning Maral (I used to own one on 30.06).
My browning was nearly as fast to fire as any SEMI Auto (far faster than my Lee Enfield) and could be loaded with stripper clips... some were En-Bloc enabled (like the Garand) as quickly as using a detachable mag. The LANTAC, even configured with non removable 10 rd mags, Can be loaded with
Mean Arms loaders as fast as a removable mag.


The Gun grabbing clack are continually working to confuse the gun ignorant public on weapons, trying to use Hollywood imagery to demonize certain weapons (really their owners), but can’t define definitive criteria on what an assault weapon is...so they wish to make laws that restrict or ban certain classes of guns based on criteria that is derived from ignorance. What they can’t ban is innovation that nullifies their ignorance.

BTW, I got the chance to range test a LANTAC chambered in 5.56 last week. The action and trigger ware not only butter smooth, better than the browning I used to own, but I could fire it as fast as my AR. Surplus WWII Swiss K31’s, many sporterized, have been around for many decades (friend had one in Ireland), but there are a number of makers making modern versions like the HELIX, found in EU markets.

So, over the years, Left has managed to take a label ‘assault rifle’ which was originally defined as a rifle the shot an intermediate cartridge (between a military pistol and rifle cartridge of the time) that had selective fire capability and through the depictions of Hollywood U, manage to conflate the semi auto with the M16/4 selective fire design, so many of the ill educated accepted a label of ‘assault rifle’ for that class of civil weapons. Then as many of the public became informed of the deception by those knowledgeable, they shifted their terminology to expand the definition of this class of weapons, base on similarity of looks, to calling that class of weapons ‘military Style’, adding pseudo justification that the guns fired the same ‘powerful’ cartridge designs as the military selective fire versions (never mind that the civilian and military markets have always shared use of cartridge designs). In recent years, again, with those knowledgeable of gun design began having an impact drawing a distinction between SEMI auto civilian and military/LE selective fire versions of gun design, the anti gun clack shifted to interchangeably calling ‘assault weapons’ and ‘military style’ weapons to Semi Autos; it was an opportunity to expand demonizing terminology to a broader class of guns, now, including hand guns.
So, enter (or re enter) straight pull designs, essentially bolt actions.
At some point, the ‘military style’ label will mean any gun that is a firearm. There are in use by the military, specialized Pneumatic guns... coming ... laser and energy particle guns?
BTW, Is there a ‘military style’ knife design? Military Style Hammer? Baseball bat?

 

None of which has anything to do with the flawed concept of the owning of firearms being due to the notion of masculinity.

 

This is why they want to outlaw these guns.....

 

Even the NRA and their spokespersons uses the term. But then again they are just a sales arm of the gun manufacturers.

 

Total BS.

Once again you are lying.

 

Why don’t you just do a simple google search.

 

Don't need to it is your job to prove me incorrect.

 

Nonsense Bundy and his little troop could have been eliminated in about ten seconds if the federal agents had wanted to do so.

 

Totally misinformed, a number of the federal agents where killed in the first invasion which failed.

 

Nonsense....Federal agents didn't want casualties. They knew they would get them. You get all buttsore that American Civilians have weapons with military capabilities, then when they show force, you deny they know how to use them! What a joke. Do you realize how many combat trained civilians held those weapons??? Ten seconds my foot....Ruby Ridge got serious after one federal agent died. Sure they killed a baby holding wife and a teenage boy but they took it serious when they experienced casualties.

 

When the NRA uses the term they put it in quotes, denoting it as a term used by GCAs, not one recognized as legitimate as applied by GCAs. Easy enough to see by visiting the NRA’s and NRA/ILA sites.
https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/assault-weapons-large-magazines/#_edn31
The strategy of GCAs to normalize euphemism for semi auto weapons like the AR15/10, civilian semi auto AK variants, etc. date back, in large part, to the Brady Center’s search for a strategy for creating anti gun sentiment by deliberately and dishonesty playing on ignorance of firearms by trying to conflate in the public’s mind that civilian semi auto versions of guns resembling full auto versions were full auto. Thus, guns like the following,

were represented as “assault rifles”, yet the gun pictured above is based on the popular Ruger 10/22 .22 cal rifle; yet it has none of the criteria that is used to designate an assault rifle...it shoots a pistol round and is not selective fire.
Then of course, we have the following scary thing;


An assault pencil. It too can put lead down range...lot’s capacity.

 

And it was yourself who introduced the nonsensical concept of "masculinity" to the discussion about firearms in general, suggesting only those who needed feel masculine were the ones who were purchasing firearms, and that such individuals would be sufficient to financially support the continued existence of firearm manufacturers and federally licensed firearm dealers in the state of Florida if a total prohibition on all semi-automatic rifles were to be implemented within the state.

 

It is hard to do so. There is no functional difference between an assault type rifle than any semi-automatic rifle.

 

I disagree. It was pretty specific, not vague at all. It clearly bans all new semi-auto rifles and shotgun, and requires the existing ones to be registered.

Here is the text of the FL proposed constitutional amendment to ban "assault rifles."

Prohibits possession of assault weapons, defined as semiautomatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition-feeding device. Possession of handguns is not prohibited. Exempts military and law enforcement personnel in their official duties. Exempts and requires registration of assault weapons lawfully possessed prior to this provision’s effective date. Creates criminal penalties for violations of this amendment.[3] ”

https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Ban_on_Semiautomatic_Rifles_and_Shotguns_Initiative_(2020)

This requires me to register my .22 Nylon 66 semi-automatic rifle which has a 14 round tube magazine that is slow to reload. Totally absurd proposal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Nylon_66

 

No federal agents were killed by the Bundy family and their cohorts.

 

Probably true although it seems to have been done successfully in the last assault type rifle ban. But you may be right in which case maybevall semi- automatic rifles should be banned.

Or as they say we can just accept the slaughter of innocents as the price to pay for the freedom to have a gun that really very few people actually need.

 

Nope introduced the masculinity concept within a discussion of assault style guns not guns in general.

 

I like the comparison. Maybe since you see an equivalency we should require semi- automatic rifles to have the same projectile propellant system and magazine and flash suppressor as your pencil gun. That would certainly cut down on the casualties in mass shootings.

 

I have yet to hear of any conclusive study that shows the 1994-2004 Assault weapons ban actually did anything substantial to lower crime. It's silly to ban technology because you are afraid of it. Rifles (of which assault rifles are a subset) were responsible for less murders (403) than either knives(1591) or fists (696) (per 2017 stats (last the FBI has made available). It's a waste of police and judicial resources to ban them.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

 

There is no meaningful difference between firearms classified as so-called "assault weapons" and other types of commonly available firearms. Therefore a discussion about one is a discussion about all. Therefore the claim on the part of yourself is that legal firearms ownership is a result of individuals who wish to exercise "masculinity" whatever that may amount to.

 

And I thought a pretzel was twisted.

 

And yet there is no meaningful difference between firearms classified as so-called "assault weapons" and other types of commonly available firearms.

 

Well if you really believe that all semi automatic rifles are the same guess we will just have to ban them all.