Posted on 04/09/2018 8:18:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
There is no better example of muddy thinking than the expression "assault weapon." This expression is a combination of two inexact lay terms that are together even more unclear. The expression has something of a visceral punch that news reporters and pubescent demonstrators find as useful as aging senators do. The muddiness suits them. Therein lies its danger.
A weapon, after all, can be anything. In the case of London, the weapons of choice these days are knives and acid. At the other end of the spectrum, some people are so assertive that a dirty look can instill fear. Consider "rapier wit."
So what is the difference between a knife in a housewife's kitchen for chopping vegetables and a knife wielded against an innocent London tube passenger? The difference is intent. Any weapon becomes an "assault weapon" when the user attacks another party with it. The "assault" nature of any weapon lies in the heart of its possessor.
Many Americans who seem to accept that this vague phrase means "big bad guns in the hands of madmen." Under its banner, a lot is happening.
The expression "assault weapon" is a semantic Trojan horse that represents a real threat to our constitutional rights. Since it does not define the weapons in question, it can be used to define anything people want to get rid of, starting with semi-automatic long guns and ending with revolvers and even ammunition. "Banning" such weapons means a whole lot more than merely ceasing their sale; it addresses the guns already in the hands of citizens. It addresses this issue through the holy grail of lefties everywhere: confiscation. Criminals don't give a damn about this expression or any other you might want to use to interfere with their lives,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons. The others are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons, the center said.Jun 20, 2016
An assault weapon is any physical item used to commit an act of physical violence against another person. A baseball bat is a tool used in Baseball. If you strike someone with it, it becomes two things:
1. A Weapon used to hit someone.
2. An “assault weapon” because the act of hitting them was assault.
Guns are just tools. A nail gun and a hammer are the same thing. It’s just one does the job more efficiently.
Same with semi-auto rifles and pistols compared to muzzle loaders.
This is an outgrowth of the anti-military attitude from 1963 when John Kennedy was murdered with an Italian military bolt action rifle.
From then on there was a movement to ban 5 shot bolt action army surplus rifles from the USA, the only excuse was they were “Military”.
They got the ban with the 1968 gun control act.
After all was said and done, it was found that the REAL REASON for the ban was army surplus rifles undercut the sales of American made Remington, Winchester, and Savage rifles.
Poor rural folks could not afford a then $45.00 rifle but they could a $10.00 army rifle, often buying three or four single cartridges for hunting.
Next will be “sniper rifles”, i.e. anything with a scope.
Look up “ assault weapon “ on Wikipedia. You will see that they use an AR 15 as an example of an assault weapon. When you look a little further into the definition it specifically outlines capabilities that the AR does not possess!
Assault Rifle:
What you call a Rifle after you hit somebody over the head with it.
Have you noticed the latest move/position in semantic yoga on this issue has become “assault-style weapon”? This appears to be an effort to overcome the truth challenge relating to real assault rifles being capable of select-fire. Of course, the best part of this is the lefties are effectively admitting it’s all about cosmetic “scary-looking” rifles. The Facebook fun really breaks out when you pull that semantic judo on them.
In the late 50’s you could buy a “War Surplus” WWII German Anti-Tank Rifle by answering an Ad in the back of a Magazine.
It cost $179.00 including Ammunition.
Imagine if Oswald used one of those to take out Kennedy.
Of course it was POTUS Kennedy’s Brother Teddy who killed the same number of People as Oswald did, he just used an Oldsmobile to do it.
Bookmark
The term “Assault weapon” implies a weapon adopted by a military for use in waging war. Modern assault rifles have full automatic or automatic bursts of fire capability when selected by the shooter meaning multiple rounds fired with one pull or the continuing pull of the trigger. The AR-15 is a one pull of the trigger per shot rifle that has never been adopted by the U.S. Military for war. Therefore , if it has never been used in war it cannot be considered an assault rifle. On the other hand, the Remington 700 was developed as a bolt action big game hunting rifle that was adopted by the U.S. Military as a very effective sniper rifle in America’s wars and is more of an assault rifle than an AR-15.
It’s time to ban rocks. Cain killed Abel with a rock. How long do we have to wait to ban this deadly weapon?
A pen can be an assault weapon in the wrong hands.
There are only ‘assault hands’. Any object held by them may temporarily become an assault weapon. The object of its own is only an inanimate, intentless object.
Logic in America is sorely lacking.
In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons...”
In Virginia,there are no more regulations for “assault weapons” than for any other firearm. If you can pass the FBI background check, and you don’t have any domestic violence problems, then you can buy what you wish.
Exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.