Let's call them what they are: [View all]

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.