Originally Posted by itschy

s. And thats why we need mild regulations. Not to keep us safe from evil people (aka "them"), but to protect us from things that people like us are involved in.


Coming back to my initial statements in some very early post: Most US-Americans posting here really scare me because of their attitude. Sungrove may be the only exception. Well and qole obviously, but he's from Canada.
Cheers you two. I salute you for coping with fatalsaint!

Originally Posted by sungrove

fatal, I can go buy an assault rifle for a thousand dollars today. Period.

Originally Posted by itschy

The point is, they might be seen as low life afterwards, and from an outside point of view, but it isn't that easy to spot while its going on.

Originally Posted by fatalsaint

I challenge you to prove that. My definition of an assault rifle, like most people I know from gunsmiths to military to LEO, all consider an "assault rifle" to be a fully automatic firearm.

1 pull of the trigger. 30 rounds are fired.

I compel you .. LEGALLY go outside and purchase a Fully Automatic firearm for less than 1k dollars. Today.

I'll be waiting.

Originally Posted by Texrat

"LEGALLY" is a red herring. Sungrove did not qualify his post with that term.

I have seen people claim to do what sungrove posited. I cannot however determine the veracity of such claims.

A key concept in defining the military assault rifle is the ability to provide a large volume of fire through fully-automatic or burst fire modes. Every nation that uses the term assault rifle refers to a rifle with said capability. A semi-automatic rifle does not have the capability to lay down large volumes of fire required for modern military assault operations and has not been defined as an assault rifle by any nation. The term assault weapon is more encompassing and fluid than the term assault rifle and leads to confusion that these semi-automatic weapons are fully automatic or would be used by militaries in assault operations. Further, the National Firearms Act of 1934 specifically addresses fully automatic weapons, and the private ownership and usage of them is extremely regulated. To add to the confusion, the media often refers to these semi-automatic rifles as military-style assault weapons.[4] Military assault rifles are also designated under the heading of assault weapon systems by several countries but are capable of full automatic fire creating more confusion.[5]

There is also the perception that firearms that fall under this category can be easily modified for fully automatic fire. This is not the case since the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulations for manufacturers place certain restrictions on firearm product design to comply with the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and the amendments to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 that pertain to machine-gun ownership. These regulations require that semi-automatic firearms sold in the United States be especially difficult to convert to fully automatic operation.

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition.

A selective fire firearm can be fired in both semi-automatic and any number of automatic modes by means of a selector.

I would really, really hope we could avoid this sort of semantical entanglement...

The article cited wants to make the claim that the term "assault" only has a military context, but that isn't realistic.

Originally Posted by briand

...by agreeing that "assault rifle" should include any semi-automatic rifle, and thus be banned/illegal? Well, that would certainly help you make your point, wouldn't it?

I think the whole point (and I don't pretend to speak for fatalsaint) he was making was that the government made up the term, and purposefully gave it a very loose definition, specifically so that they could play the semantics game and thereby back-door a semi-automatic weapon ban.

I think the article cited was making the point that "assault rifle" only has a military context, not that the word assault has only a military context.