General Discussion

krispos42

(49,445 posts)

18. It's an arbitrary standard.

Sun Sep 7, 2014, 02:12 PM

Sep 2014

That's how they get "strenghened"... you add to (broaden) the definition. Because it's arbitrary, the definition is very expandable.

For example, the rifle used in the Newtown massacre was not an "assault weapon". Not when it was bought, not when it was used.

Since then, the law has changed, and now it is an "assault weapon". Retroactively.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Assault weapons DO NOT EXIST [View all] packman Sep 2014 OP

Never seen it defined that way Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #1

But, that is an apt description and the reason they are so popular among gun cultists. Hoyt Sep 2014 #4

Not really Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #9

Sure it is. I doubt you have one of those for duck hunting. Hoyt Sep 2014 #11

I do not hunt Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #15

What a peculiar choice of usernames then, Mr. Duckhunter who does not hunt Electric Monk Sep 2014 #30

Pretty good DashOneBravo Sep 2014 #60

As I have pointed out many times before Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #63

I worked with these Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #65

Right. Every definition is made up at some time. Eat your bow tie Tucker. rickford66 Sep 2014 #50

Wow... chervilant Sep 2014 #2

Define an assault weapon. Hemmingway Sep 2014 #3

Functionally identical, maybe. But, one appeals to yahoos, racists, and wannabe militia members. Hoyt Sep 2014 #5

They're the exact same thing with different clothes. Hemmingway Sep 2014 #6

That's the point Hemmingway. Hunters might be attracted to one, but yahoos, racists, Hoyt Sep 2014 #7

We know you want to ban guns Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #12

No, I really want to keep guns out of the hands of yahoos, racists, and milita wannabes. Hoyt Sep 2014 #13

Has to happen eventually, otherwise every single person and child will have 200 guns and randys1 Sep 2014 #38

Excellent post. The Australians bit the bullet in 1996, we can too. The sooner the better. Hoyt Sep 2014 #45

Yeah, the Aussie's did do that, IronGate Sep 2014 #49

The Aussie's can read, gun culture and 5 of the Supreme Court Justices can't. Hoyt Sep 2014 #52

Except that's not true and you well know it as has been pointed out IronGate Sep 2014 #56

you're right, let's ban both spanone Sep 2014 #8

So because you disapprove of the culture, you want to ban them. krispos42 Sep 2014 #19

Do you consider yourself part of the "yahoos, racists, and wannabe militia members" culture? Hoyt Sep 2014 #26

Considering you want your laws passed based on your definition... krispos42 Sep 2014 #32

So, your point is, they both are? Since they're both designed for the same thing, killing. nt Electric Monk Sep 2014 #10

Glad to see you made your way over here. NuclearDem Sep 2014 #22

You may be a gun nut if flamin lib Sep 2014 #14

Anything can be an "assault weapon" IronGate Sep 2014 #46

You may be a gun nut if flamin lib Sep 2014 #69

Wow. linuxman Sep 2014 #16

good thing hand guns Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #17

You make an interesting point, unintentionally Electric Monk Sep 2014 #27

It was quite intentional Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #31

It's an arbitrary standard. krispos42 Sep 2014 #18

The Sandy Hook weapon was not an assault weapon hack89 Sep 2014 #20

Yeah, but the gun lovers buy them for those cosmetic features. That tells you something Hoyt Sep 2014 #23

So? hack89 Sep 2014 #24

They are being used to intimidate a lot of people and many have them in preparation Hoyt Sep 2014 #37

Yes, it is called for safety Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #35

Yeah, these yahoos are worried about "safety." Do you really believe that? Hoyt Sep 2014 #42

Wow you can use the google Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #54

The dead children from Sandy Hook might beg to differ as to whether your semantics matter Electric Monk Sep 2014 #39

That response is both irrelevant and insensitive derby378 Sep 2014 #41

Did you mean to reply to Hack89 instead? They brought it up. Magazine size matters. nt Electric Monk Sep 2014 #44

Nice attempt at deflection, but no. derby378 Sep 2014 #47

not with VA Tech, those were low capacity versions Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #55

Wrong. 4b5f940728b232b034e4 Sep 2014 #58

Wrong. IronGate Sep 2014 #59

So you want their sacrifice to be in vaid? 4b5f940728b232b034e4 Sep 2014 #61

And just what kind would I be genius? IronGate Sep 2014 #62

The Origin of "Assault Rifle" Dirty Socialist Sep 2014 #21

And "assault weapon" was coined to confuse people hack89 Sep 2014 #28

We have Josh Sugarmann of VPC to thank for that derby378 Sep 2014 #43

It was coined to attract gun buyers. That's why people are attracted to them. Hoyt Sep 2014 #48

It was coined by gun control groups in the 90's hack89 Sep 2014 #51

Wrong, again. IronGate Sep 2014 #57

Well there you go. Send that Nazi info to Little Mr. Bowtie Boy. Paladin Sep 2014 #68

They don't!? Wow. Rex Sep 2014 #25

"Assault Weapon" is a legal term? SonofMarx Sep 2014 #29

Unless it's fully automatic, like that UZI, it's not an assault rifle. NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #33

I think you mean "Assault Rifle" Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #36

I did indeed. Thanks, edited! NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #53

As a supporter of strong gun control laws, Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #34

Tucker Carlson taking cues from a liberal Democrat like me? Wow... derby378 Sep 2014 #40

A pool noodle can be an assault weapon if used incorrectly. ileus Sep 2014 #64

The same reasoning that says assault weapons don't exist baldguy Sep 2014 #66

He's wrong. And has a point. Igel Sep 2014 #67

We're locking this since it does not meet the GD SOP. greatauntoftriplets Sep 2014 #70