Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Last edited Tue Apr 12, 2016, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)
Well, howsoever it evolved, somewhen it has become a political term used today to mainly define rifles with a high muzzle velocity which often have an automatic rifle equivalent in the military {AR15 to M16, AK47, 74}, and which can often be converted back from civilian semi-auto to full automatic by use of a conversion kit or sometimes a simple tool such as a file (not that many assault rifle owners do this, it would be counter productive, just that the capability exists).
"Defined" by those a) unfamiliar with (or are simply lying about) how modern semi-automatic rifles are actually made- the ATF regards rifles as you described as automatic weapons
for legal purposes, so rifles and carbines made and sold over the last 25 or 30 years are designed to not be capable of accepting the mythological 'conversion kit' or having their sear filed down - and they're still not assault rifles, James.
Gun lobby tactics 101, water down gun control then bash it as useless when it doesn't live up to expectations.
Since the 'expectations' of those plumping for assault weapon bans were based on
false premises, I see no problem with this. Crime rates have gone down, so your
culture war was and is both unnecessary and a failure.
Still only a small fraction maybe 1 to 3% americans own one (multiples per one owner), less than 3% of national gunstock is ar15; Most all gun owners would NOT want to own one, moreso & especially democrats.
Assumption of facts not in evidence- you presume here to speak for "
m)ost all gun owners" *and* Democrats.
One of the biggest concerns with the AR15 should be that it has such low recoil for a high muzzle/high kinetic energy 0.223 bullet. There is such little rifle rise as with a heavier bullet, so the AR15 shooter does not need to compensate much at all for recoil, does not have to return the rifle to a shooting position, nor re-aim. Adam Lanza killed 26 teachers & kids, and he was a light guy. The San Bernadino recent shooting, the lady involved weighed about 100 lbs, and carried an AR15 (if report was valid), whether she shot it dunno, but the mere fact that she chose it is crystal clear was because of it's low recoil.
1) Nice use of the passive voice in the first sentence, which elides the fact that
it is merely your own opinion.
2) More assumption of facts not in evidence in your last line- again this is only your opinion
And I'll ask you as I did Ezra, what good are assault rifles for? what do they accomplish which another rifle or handgun couldn't do better? They are a well to do white man's toy.
1) Again, these aren't assault rifles- you are either ignorant of the definition of 'assault rifle'
or are dissembling. I'll leave it to the disinterested reader to decide which...
2) "
W)hat do they accomplish?" I can tell you one thing they haven't accomplished, which
is a rise in crime rates- your objections are moot.
3) "They are a well to do white man's toy." Arguable, and even if it were true your quibbling
amounts only to minor-league reverse classism and is racist, to boot
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read