Defining the assault weapons argument

Rasputin_The MadMonk

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

For a while now, I've seen a great deal of arguments concerning the AWB (assault weapon ban) legislation with most of the discussion focusing on the perceived definition of what an AW is.

The definition from the miriam webster dictionary is as follows. assault rifle Function: noun Date: 1975 : any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for 'military use' with large capacity magazines

And this from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language assault rifle NOUN: Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in 'combat'.

and finally, the U.S. Army definition assault rifle : a 'selective-fire' rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power

As no contemporary military uses a semiauto rifle for other than sniper operations, one can safely assume that assault weapons by their definition as 'selective fire combat firearms for military use' must be fully automatic.

By the above definitions, all assault weapons would have to be considered class three weapons and controlled by legislation well before the the '94 AWB. The AWB was enacted solely on the appearance of said "Assault Weapons". Since none of the banned imports met the criteria for being an Assault Rifle, the federal definition is intentionally (we all know what 'is' is right?) vague as to allow the definition to stretch to cover any ugly or scary "semi automatic" rifle that has a similar appearance to it combat "Fully Automatic" larger brother.

The argument that no one needs an assault weapon is at the best confused and at the worst misinformation. An assault weapon by it's definition is a fully automatic weapon of war used by for combat by soldiers. Weapons that are already strictly controlled and regulated under the class three laws. The weapons regulated by the '94 AWB are nothing of the sort. They are cosmetically similar to their fully automatic brethren, but that is as far as the similarity goes. At no point are they or can they (without illegal modifications which goes foul of other more draconian laws we shall not touch upon here.) be fully automatic weapons.

Before people throw around the phrase assault weapon and asking the question who needs them, perhaps it would serve all involved to understand just what you are talking about. ANY semiautomatic firearm could potentially be considered an assault weapon under the federal definition, including the .22 caliber Ruger 10-22 or a magazine fed, bolt action 12 gauge duck hunters shotgun.

The answer to the who needed an assault weapon question is anyone who chooses to shoot, because all firearms can be considered assault weapons if the definition is stretched to include them. When the government was allowed to make arbitrary decisions concerning the meaning of words, 'is' became 'isn't' and rights became privileges.

(This is my first stand alone post so please consider that before giving me any black eyes. ;-P~~ )

[blackbart.223]

The Kentucky rifle was considered an "assult rifle" in it's day.

Food for thought.

[Varmint Al]

In the last few weeks, the military calls them "small arms"! Maybe that is the term that should be used henceforth.

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

After watching the History Channel program Conquest, I was shown one of the earliest assault weapons, the battleaxe. Not only was it a terror weapon, it created massive wounds that were almost universally lethal.

Anything that can be used to inflict harm is an assault weapon in the hands of a determined attacker.

[glock rocks]

[blackbart.223]

"Anything that can be used to inflict harm is an assault weapon in the hands of a determined attacker."

Bingo!

[EternalVigilance]

In fact, the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the individual right to own and carry a fully modern military rifle.

IMO, the ban on automatic weapons infringes the spirit and the letter of the Amendment.

The Swiss and the Israelis all own fully automatic 'assault weapons', and nobody has kicked their butts yet.

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

"The Swiss and the Israelis all own fully automatic 'assault weapons', and nobody has kicked their butts yet. "

And as long as they hold to that, they won't have to worry about having it kicked.

Personally, I am opposed to any and all restrictions to private firearms ownership. Be it a .22 short or a towed artillery piece, a single shot rabbit rifle or a chain fed gatling gun. If you can afford to feed it and maintain it in safe working order, you should be able to own it.

I've always wanted a 20 millimeter antiaircraft cannon myself. Why? Because I might just decide I'm tired of the groundhogs getting into the garden and making off with all of the watermelons. Gives new life to the old saw of one shot one kill.

But I have always been considered a radical. :-)

[EternalVigilance]

My best friend and business partner's great, great grandfather, Robert Morris, the great financier of the Revolution and signer of the Declaration, owned warships...until he hocked all of his property to the French to pay for the supplies that saved the Continental Army at Valley Forge.

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

Now that's an inspiring idea, a fleet at ones beckon call. Oh the trouble I would get into. Still, there would be few places that the U.S. Federal Government would have to get involved around the world if I had a nuclear aircraft carrier and a pair of boomers I could field.

Those were the days......

[dd5339]

Rasputin,

Good 1st post!

I received a fund raising call yesterday from the Republican party. I politely told them that until the 94 AW ban sunsets and is dead, I will give no more money to them in any way shape or form. The person on the other end of the phone was suprised as to what I had to say and was unaware of President Bush expressing his support for the ban. She was flagging my comments and bumping them up to her supervisor so they could have a better answer when dealing with people like me.

Personally, I am calling or writing, (pen and paper) my representative, senators, and President Bush to let them know my position. I'll still vote for GW even if he signs it, the alternative will be a lot worse.

Glock, nice pic! My wife's an Enfield junkie, she'll like it.

Semper Fi

[EternalVigilance]

;-)

[SkyPilot]

A Pope in the Middle Ages banned (or initiated bans) on Crossbows on the grounds they were "immoral weapons."

[SkyPilot]

"1139 CE --- Pope Innocent II condemns and forbids the use of the crossbow by Christians against Christians by saying they are "deathly and hateful to God and unfit to be used among Christians."

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

Thanks for the kind words. :-)

When I get that call, I'll not be quite so friendly. If GWB is anti second amendment, I'm antiGWB.

I realize that the alternative is abhorrent, but I can't in good conscience support a man who will betray his own oath. Until the second is repealed, he has the obligation to defend it. If we reward treachery, we receive treachery. We can only get real supporters of the constitution if we force our elected leaders to represent our views, not their own or those of special interests.

I hope and pray he is playing a game of politics to appease the liberalscum(tm) and has no intention of allowing the AWB to reach his desk thru pressure on the senate. I want to vote for him again, but if he screws us, that would be the moral equivalent of giving a child a new bicycle when he used his puppy for a soccer ball.

It's getting harder and harder to stand for ones beliefs when doing so costs more than just backing down and doing nothing. Here is where I make my stand.

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

I suppose old Innocence II (Yeah, sure, right....NEXT!) didn't have a problem where good old fashioned hack and slash was concerned.

This ban was an attempt to protect knights who were often landowners and church supporters from those who were not their equals. If a knight died in combat to another knight, his property was still a source of revenue for the mother church. If he died at the hands of a crossbowman, that was not the case.

The greatest threat to a knight before the invention of the crossbow was another knight. It was the medieval equivalent of two main battle tanks having it out. A foot soldier was outclassed on all counts. Until the crossbow leveled the playing field.

The crossbow (and shortly thereafter the musket) was the end of the armored knight as a viable weapon system. The ability to punch thru armor and kill a knight without risk horrified the powerful just as the ablilty of a civilian to defend himself without needing to rely on the police does today.

[philetus]

The swiss all own automatic weapons because they are a small country and the swiss elite need all the citizens armed to protect them.

The Israeli's all own automatic weapons because they are surrounded by people who want to kill them all.

[philetus]

but I can't in good conscience support a man who will betray his own oath"

In that case, WHO will you support?

Name one polititian who will NOT betray his/her own oath.
Or his/ her own mother if a dime is in it.

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

AS I said, I hope and pray that GWB is playing games and won't force me to make that decision.

However, that isn't the question, you asked who I would support considering that all politicians are liars and can not be trusted.

Does that fact excuse GWB if he proves to be a liar and an oathbreaker? No it doesn't, either you are a man of principle who takes oaths made before God as a sacred pact between you and your maker, or you don't. Either your word means something or it is worthless.

Your question seemed to indicate that you would gladly support a liar and oathbreaker if only because it was less distasteful than making another choice. That's not a position I can take myself.

Who will I support? That's between me and the ballot box, and with all due respect, none of your business.

[wastoute]

All of us NRA members have known all along that an "Assault Weapon" is what ever Diane Feistein can get put on the list. Before she is through that list will contain shotguns, .22 cal target pistols, basically anything with sights and a trigger. Count on it.