(same goes for those arguing clip vs magazine. What a bunch of twits)

https://youtube.com/shorts/KSGTbN_L07g?feature=share

It’s assault “weapon” that gets fuzzy.

I dont see how that is fuzzy at all.

there is a difference, an assault rifle is a select fire weapon, whereas, an assault weapon is whatever Congress deems it is.
Personally, I would like to see the NFA opened up to include certain types of semi auto rifles.

nowhere did I say anything like that.

That's what you got out of my post?
Apparently, you didn't bother to read the rest of my post.
Sad, sad, sad.

and didn't see where he said that. A rifle is a weapon. A weapon is not necessarily a rifle.

If so, why?

Who would you use to decide what it is?

As most everyone knows, ads aren't always accurate or even truthful

35 years in the Marines, I think I know what I'm talking about.

That because an AR-15 lacks the mechanism to make the rifle fire automatically or in short bursts, it's not an "assault rifle". It's not like the AR-15 can't be modified to convert it back to automatic fire.

an illegally converted semi auto.

I would support opening the NFA for certain semi autos, I know with some, this isn't very popular, but I really don't give 2 cents worth what they have to say.

All AR-15's made today are semi-auto only. M-16's are full auto/burst. VERY early AR-15's were issued in full auto to the military, but these are few and far between. A current AR-15, converted to full auto, is illegal without filing the proper paperwork.

After all, a 9-iron or a baseball bat could be considered an assault weapon...

are all you have...

My post was very clear and didn't involve any of that.

It really should have been clear that I was talking about the NRA crowd. Bizarre... Why would you think otherwise?

This made me think you were talking about me. "are all you have.."
Once again, My bad.

And have been for decades.

try "Modern Sporting Rifle". Assault Weapon has been around at least since WWII. "Modern Sporting Rifle" was made up by the NSSF sometime in '80s or '90s.

What 'sport' is it designed for? Competitive Mass Murder?

large capacity military magazine rifles.

All that aside, when the NSSF tells me that they coined the term I tend to believe them. They made up a new name for a semiautomatic assault rifle.

A semiautomatic rifle (only) is not. Thus, the separate name/definition.

is not entirely correct. 1st page, it talks about the Vepr rifle not being included, as "it does not fall within this type
because it does not have the ability to accept a large capacity military magazine." It has a detachable magazine. All one has to do is make a 20 round mag for it, and you have a listed arm. This is why details are important, and to have someone that knows what they are talking about when discussing a particular topic. When you have a diesel mechanic dicussing ways to regulate appendix removal, you're gonna get some crazy regulations.

to propose and support laws that will save lives in this crazy ass world. For 40 years I've asked for input from those 'law abiding responsible gun owners' and got nothing. All I've got is more of this nit picking bull shit about what a gun is.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

waiting for someone to be wounded or killed which is what you continue to propose.

So follow or get out of the way.

Deciding guilt on a crime not yet committed is not currently allowed.

If you can't respond to thingsthat have been suggested this exchange is a waste of my time.

Good day.

before they commit a crime, have you not?

but at one time I suggested banning all semi autos but then modifed my view to add them to the NFA. Not confiscating existing firearms unless paid for.

From the post you cite.

If you believe the access is too easy, therefore, logically, you would wish to reduce said access. To reduce said easy access, before a crime is committed, you would have to reduce/remove the availability of said guns to fewer people. To do that, some lawful citizens would end up being denied the right to purchase a lawful arm, unless you made such arms totally illegal. Criminals will still get access to guns (they are, after all, criminals), and when the "new" laws don't work, well, we'll have to reduce availability some more. If you don't agree with my assessment of "reducing availability" not working, see: NFA 1934, GCA 1968, failed AWB 1994, etc. These laws were passed to "reduce availability" of certain arms, registration, background checks, etc, and we still have a gun crime problem. They didn't stop the "44 mass shootings since Jan 22".

Good day.

citizens. Give it up.

Good day.

"We must stop fucking around trying to pacify the gunners and just get rid of semi automatic weapons of all kinds that accept removeable magazines. Long guns, short guns restrict them ALL"

To get rid of ALL kinds of semi auto's, you're going to have to "take" them from law abiding citizens. Did you even read your post before responding? If you can't see what you wrote yourself, I guess I will have to give it up.

however taken with the entirety of years of posts you SHOULD know that I've posted that any "taking" must be compensated. I've said that government does this all the time; it's called eminent domain. It CAN be done, it IS constitutional and it requires compensation. I once proposed a mandatory gun buy program with a grace period. After the grace period you're no longer 'law abiding'.

If that's what you're talking about then I'm guilty. I've since modified my position to moving all semis to the NFA. You see, I'm not in need of a plexiostomy because I don't suffer from cranial rectal inversion. I can change my views. Can you?

I kind of do have to take it literally, as inflection shows poorly through a computer screen.

points instead of having a meaningful discussion of 150,000 people killed and wounded by fire arms, about half of which were done by "law abiding gun owners", what I said in your cited quote was "restrict them ALL" and not take anything away.

I'd rather have a discussion about reducing the carnage that the gun culture has willingly and knowingly brought upon us. I've asked the supposed experts on guns to help. So far they all seem to resist that hopeful request.

I once had an ignore list of ~15 people. After a couple of years I went back and took them all off ignore. All but two had posting privileges revoked or were under permanent review. Who'da thought there'd be that many gun trolls?

I'd rather not start another list and I'm still looking for meaningful suggestions from those who hold themselves out to be gun experts. On the other hand there's only so much time in my day for dealing with minutia of wording and flawed application of logic.

without taking them away. (BTW, you did say "get rid of" a few words earlier). If you "restrict them all", then no one has one. Which means, those already in circulation are going to have to be "removed". Buybacks? What's fair market value for all the semi-auto's you want restricted? Bet that amount will sink the budget for years. And those that don't want to sell? You'll have to "take" them, then. Can't wave a wand and make things disappear.

And, we've gone round and round about ideas to reduce carnage. Some of ours are similar, some not. That's the idea behind a discussion board, to hash out differences.

ETA: Clarified quote.

Play all the silly word games you wish. Post all you want. Say all the dumbass shit you want.

I won't see it and won't react.

I don't have an ignore list. I prefer to see the disagreements.

Jus sayin.

point of view and manufactures things I have said out of whole cloth is a waste of my time. Only so many hours in the day and I don't need to spend them on dipshits who have no interest an honest exchange, only scoring high school level debate points and poorly applied "logic".

Some hills are worth dying on, some not.

Peace out
Dan.

You have also identified a major impediment to progress on lowering crime and improving regulation.

For clarity, "assault weapon" is term used mostly in the media and advertising. "Assault rifle" denotes a very specific set of functional characteristics to anyone with military knowledge or experience. I remember reading that "assault weapon" was initially used in an advertising campaign by a manufacturer. Various state governments and feds have defined "assault weapon" differently. To add to the confusion the media has used these 2 terms interchangeably.

I would really like to see Congress do some work to resolve the confusion.

Here are some links to the Code of Federal Regulations:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-I/part-73/subpart-A/section-73.2
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-2641/subpart-C/section-2641.301

The CFR often has sections defining terms used which is a big help to understanding the scope, spirit, intent and effect of the regulations therein.

between the real world definition of "assault rifle" and the made up silliness of "assault weapon".

The only reason the term "assault weapon" exists is to purposely confuse the masses into thinking of assault rifles. Regardless of what silly definition you use for "assault weapon", none of the common definitions ever include actual assault rifles.

And I call them assault rifles.
Because they are.
Actually I call my first one the War Machine.
The difference I see between military ARs and mine are the military ones have selective fire.
And the kicker is that gun manufacturers actually called them assault rifles first. Had it right in the advertisements.