The definition has little to nothing to do with “needs” under the 2nd Amendment, nor my comment.
The military had a definition for a battle rifle, and the “assault rifles” we’re too puny to meet those needs, especially lacking in range, and power...which is the exact opposite of the impression most people have.
Most people have this silly idea - from the name - that “assault weapons” are big powerful weapons, and that “military rounds” are especially powerful and damaging, when the opposite is true: they fall into the lower end of hunting rifles (large varmint), in many states are not considered powerful enough to humanely kill deer and thus not legal to hunt deer with for that reason, and the military rounds they use are jacketed in order to limit fragmentation compared to typical hunting rounds.
I have had an AR-15 for years now, my favorite rifle, hence my interest in the subject.
I agree with you in saying the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with “needs”.
My point with the issue of “Needs” is that nobody and no government has a right to define my “needs”.
When someone says “what do you need that for” or “you don’t need that” the only response from a freedom loving individual is “mind your own business”. Or perhaps I might point out what exactly their real needs are, which is one meal a day and a 9 by 9 cell and a bucket to crap in. Liberal/socialist/Marxist consequence of equality at the lowest common denominator.
Freedom is to define your needs wants and dreams. And you don’t have to justify anything to anyone as long as you don’t infringe on anyone else’s constitutional rights.