Let's call them what they are:
Semi automatic magazine fed rifles.
This phrase "assault rifle" is bullshit. Language should clarify thought.
The AR 15 is no deadlier than the M1 Garand nor the Mini 14. It is more ergonomic, customizable and modern looking, but with regard to the purposes that some people want to control and/or eliminate long guns the rifle that they used in WW2 is actually deadlier.
The item that some want to get rid of and others enjoy using is a long gun that shoots every time the trigger is pulled and can be quickly and easily reloaded with a magazine.
It would behoove those favoring tighter control to use accurate language, because otherwise you'll have an infinitely long dance as you try to restrict something you haven't defined. As long as it can be fed by a magazine and fire each time the trigger is pulled it will be capable of killing many people in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, whether it looks like something out of Star Wars or something great grandpa brought home from the war,
And, to enthusiasts, it appears you are being intellectually dishonest or ignorant because you are talking about banning one subset of something in such a way as to NOT address the problem (the ability of an individual to fire a lot of very powerful bullets very quickly with a potentially high degree of accuracy) while inconveniencing and pissing off a lot of law abiding citizens, and often voters in swing states.
What you want to restrict is a very broad category of firearm, but the fundamental features that make it deadly haven't changed since grandpa's time: it shoots every time you pull the trigger and you can slam in a new magazine in seconds. Banning "high capacity" magazines or adding features that make it slower and more difficult to change are chimeras, easy as hell to get around
Personally, I both like firearms and damned well know there are people who should *NOT* have them (regardless of what the Constitution says. violent idiots should not have guns, period). And I see the discussion in general as a positive for our democracy. I just think that if we defined and agreed about what we were discussing there would be more light and less heat.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Short answer, we don't. We can't predict the future so we can't lock up folks before hand.
People generally turn to crime when they're out of legal alternatives. Giving people more options and better social support will help.
People are hung up on the idea of crime prevention. Gun-control is a myth. The only control there is over a gun is that which the one who holds it subscribes to. I object to gun laws even being called gun-"control".
confiscate them all and melt them all down:
I engage some of those folks for a post or three and point out the scale of the task and resources required and then give up on them.
I used to live in San Francisco I was born there, I understand how someone who lives there, or in NY can consider someone wanting a semi automatic high powered rifle as fucking insane:
I was born in Philly. I grew up hearing about the mob hits during the 70s. I remember when the Chicken Man got hit. I remember watching Skinny Joey on the news with regularity. I moved to an NYC suburb and remember their news on TV. One of the first stories that really stuck with me was about a multi-car drive by at a pool party. We had that stuff in Philly too but unlike Philly the folks at party returned fire. I worked in El Segundo for several years. I stayed in Inglewood. A lot of the same stuff.
Guns don't bother me much. I think most folks aren't out to kill me. I shot competitively from when I was 15 until 22.
the discussion should be not about "assault weapons":
Of course not. But the media is after sound bites and buzz words. The politicians who use them know that. Unfortunately many using these terms think things like 'every full-auto assault weapon 30 clip magazine rifle fires 300 bullets per second.' Yeah, exactly your point. In short, many don't know what they're talking about. Ever try convincing them to learn? You get accused of "technicalities" and "talking points".
grandpa's M1 hits way harder for weighting a bit more and not being totally customizable, and it's 100 year old technology:
I've fired an M-1 several times, stripped it, cleaned it and reloaded ammo for it, 150 grain spitzers and 220s. It's a great rifle. A Garand is a rifle that can shoot over 500 yards and for me, that's where my interest is. It's not what you'd pick for an indoor gun fight.
Good luck.
An AR is physically incapable of firing at the cyclic rate of an M16, due to the fact that all civilian guns (like AR's) have to deal with trigger reset. If you are talking cyclic rate, you are thinking of a Title 2 restricted military/government M16, and even then that's only the instantaneous rate, not the actual rate of fire.
If you are talking about the cycle time of a semiauto, an M1 is only slightly slower, and only because the bolt has to travel further back to clear those big high-powered rounds. If you scale down the M1 Garand action to fit the little .223 cartridge, then you have a Ruger Mini-14, a wooden-stocked non-"assault-weapon" that fires at exactly the same (civilian) rate as the AR-15, and has the same range of magazine capacities.
...hire someone with advertising experience. Someone used to creatively connecting words such that they charismatically attach to emotion and inspire verve among the faithful. 
Someone like that would be.... 
This is a detachable box magazine for an AR or M16.
This is an M1 Garand's enbloc clip, which is used to load the rifle's fixed, internal magazine.
This is an Lee Enfield being loaded with a stripper clip.
But that's not the only way to load a Lee Enfield. This is a Lee Enfield stripper clip next to a loaded Lee Enfield magazine. Notice that the magazine is a detachable box magazine, like that of the AR/M16. The Lee Enfield can be loaded either way: with the magazine in place via stripper clips, or by swapping out the empty box magazine for a preloaded one, as with an AR or M16.
Yes. He had plenty of time. He also had a handgun.
Another factor to be considered is that shooting into a dense crowd with the .30-06 Garand would result in many more pass-through hits than the weaker .223. A .30-06 at close range, with full-metal-jacket ammunition, could easily pass through three or even four people before coming to rest.
I am used to taking flack from both sides, as I support RKBA and also know idiots who shouldn't have guns, regardless of what the Constitution or anything else says. I think a discussion is needed but the extremes of neither side are really looking at the whole picture
As I said, I like guns, I have guns, I have no ethical problems with using lethal force in self defense or the carrying of guns by people who have demonstrated the knowledge skills and abilities that someone carrying a lethal weapon in public should be required to possesses.
I also have no problem with using the full force of the State to remove guns from and keep them from people who shouldn't have them and understand why people who hate them do so.
to me the point of stasis is how much of the problem is the technical capabilities of "modern" firearms and how much is the dire lack of mental health (and screening and training of potential gun users). Reflexively defending all firearms ownership by nearly anyone, while a valid philosophical stance, does almost as little good as wanting to ban them all and melt them down.
And I think that if the control folks used the right nomenclature it would help the discussion along. Both because if they want to ban or more tightly regulate something they should be clear - for the purposes of their own objectives (with which I agree - the objectives that is but not the methodology-, making it as rare as possible for someone to do what mass shooters do) and so that any legislation actually addresses the issue; otherwise all they do is get cosmetic features banned which does NOTHING to lower MY chances of being killed by a shooter. Also it's almost impossible to NOT be contemptuous of someone who is so factually in error that one assumes they are either willfully ignorant or dishonest, and again, that's where communication breaks down.
I don't have nor do I really care for any semi automatic rifles and my handguns are all revolvers, my 300 win mag is a bolt action (not counting a 10/22) and my next one will be a lever gun... No real emotional involvement so ......personally, the day I can't defend myself with 6 is the day Darwin can damned well take my ass away
Anyway, thanks. A always appreciate your posts, too.
"The AG in MA has foregone all the minutia about appearance and boiled it down to function"
And THAT is my point.
Let us. progressives all, talk about "function". Not advertising hype nor prohibitionist hand ringing and hair pulling but functionality.
The ability to fire 20+ rounds per minute of highly deadly bullets with accuracy limited by the competency of the shooter and their ability to reload.
I'm only trying to clarify nomenclature. I make no secret of the fact that I fall on the side of the RKBA spectrum (but that does not mean I ascribe hostile motives of someone who disagrees with me), but dialog is what matters. There are those of us DEMOCRATS who feel that any high capacity hi velocity firearm in private hands is a mass murder waiting to happen. And there are those of us DEMOCRATS who feel that any restriction on something we can hold and own is bullshit that should be ridiculed and ignored. In my own case- I'll disarm as soon as the last tea bagger does...
Not an "assault weapon", either, not even in Massachusetts or California.
[
"All the rest is rabid defense of a piece of equipment that is designed to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible and has very little other function than satisfying a sub primal urge to dominate."
This is exactly how gun control activists shot themselves in the foot in the 1990s. The fact that the guns you're talking about are both the most popular rifles in U.S. homes, and simultaneously among the least misused of *all* weapons (even less than shotguns), belies that argument. You're making lurid statements about guns that are considered suitable for civilian use in Canada and most of Europe.
Some actual numbers, that might mean something if the cognitive dissonance weren't so strong:
Yes, out of 1300 murders, all rifles put together accounted for only seven of them.
Everyone has them:
The reality, is that this is all a reaction to a rabid attack on a piece of equipment and its supporting technology, which is owned by tens of millions of Americans, and I can prove it. Heres your characterizationof the firearms/technology in question "designed to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible and has very little other function than satisfying a sub primal urge to dominate".
If that isn't an attack, along the same lines as every anti-semi-auto/anti-'assault weapon' taking point, what is?
First of all, I was remiss in my last reply. Let me say thank you now for the thoughtful dialog and chance to exchange ideas.
Having thoughtful Democrats with whom to discuss issues is a great opportunity. I also view respectful exchanges as progress even when neither party changes their views much or at all. Information is power and the understanding I get for why folks feel as they do is appreciated.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.
You should take that up with someone who asserted otherwise.
Did someone say they weren't?
Uh...what? Theres no "competing rights" here. My right to own a gun has nothing, zero, zip, nada, to do with how someone unrelated and unconnected to me in any way might misuse theirs, and I'm not interested in letting the likes of you put those rights into opposition of each other. That's the methodology of an anti-gunner you're trying to engage in there, by the way. Coincidence, I'm sure.
That's bear arms, and for what its worth, were talking about KEEPING arms, not bearing them, here.
Nobody opposes limits which are actually reasonable , but licensing a right, registration and gun bans are far far from it.
Only if you consider public carry and simple ownership to be the same thing. They aren't.
So what?
Right. Jump right to "your desire to allow dangerous people to have guns". Yeah, you aren't an anti-gunner, no siree.
I disagree with gun control that treats a right as if its a privilege being used as a means of mitigating dangerous people.
Theres tons of room outside of gun control, to attempt to combat dangerous people and what they may or may not do. Exercise those avenues before you come demanding that the people who aren't the problem in the first place bow to your demands.
But that's not gun control enough, right?
...of dumb ideas either but here you are. 
