Basically, it's a gun that *looks* scary.
*That* is what all the hype is about?? They're alright with a .30-30, but are fired up about .223 semi-automatic that looks like it could be an automatic weapon?
What in the *hell*?
I'd never bothered to look it up before and just assumed they were talking about something like an M-16.
What rational do they have to targeting *this* particular issue? Is it the amount of ammo the gun holds?
They have no rationale, other than to use it as a stepping stone to total gun confiscation and banning.
First they go after the non-sporting-looking weapons, like the semi-auto ARs and AKs by calling them “assault rifles”. Then they go after the “high powered sniper rifles” aka your big game or long range hunting rifle. Then they froth some more and take the remaining hunting rifles, also as “sniper weapons”.
Pretty soon, no more guns.
“They’re alright with a .30-30...”
They won’t be forever, but they have to do it piecemeal.
“First they came for the assault rifles, but because I was a hunter and not a rightwing militia nut...”
Two things, having in particular to do with rifles and handguns. First of all, the left is afraid of citizens owning guns - especially rifles - that would be the most useful during a revolution. If the radical left takes over the government, they don't want citizens, armed with effective rifles, fighting the secret police or whatever. They want isolated, unarmed subjects who can be easily rounded up to the reeducation camps. The Founding Fathers did not know about reeducation camps, but they did understand tyrants. That is why they envisioned a citizenry owning the same type of military small arms that the army has.
Secondly, the left supports violent criminals because violent crime destabilizes society and a destabilized society is easier for Marxists to try and take over. So the left does not want you to own a handgun to protect yourself even in your own home. Also, the liberals think that the safety of a criminal is more important than your property rights, so they think it is wrong for you to use force against someone stealing your property.
A lot of the gun control proposals sound very technical - all about whether a rifle has a bayonet lug or not, whether a handgun can hold more than 10 rounds, etc. Don't get distracted by those little details. The big picture is, the left wants citizens to be disarmed and helpless against tyrants and common criminals.
Don’t just buy weapons and ammunition, buy high capacity magazines?
Exactly. Welcome to the light.
“Assault weapons”, as defined in the Clinton AW ban, are semiautomatics that have a few scary-looking features - features which are downright harmless (and provide only a discernible advantage in the depths of full-blown warfare). The great joke of the AWB was that you could still buy exactly the same gun, just without the largely pointless flash suppressor.
You’re right. It wasn’t about M16s or machineguns, as those have been strictly regulated since 1934, and any made after 1986 are outright prohibited.
There was a limit on magazine size: 10 rounds max, when the norm was 12, 15, 17, 20, 30 or more for various guns. While that was certainly an annoyance for guns designed to hold/use more, a curious result was the explosion of the “subcompact handgun” and “big bore handgun” markets: if you can’t have over 10 rounds, then either make the gun really small (subcompact 9mm Glock 26) or really powerful (full-size .45ACP M1911).
The only “guns” actually banned in the last “assault weapon ban” were extremely large handguns which are little more than novelties.
So yes, an “assault weapon” is basically a gun that looks scary. “Looks” is the important part.
Now, with all that background...
Obama intends to restore the ban and make it permanent. This time, it won’t be just about looks. Expect a ban on any semi-automatic that uses detachable magazines.
...thing is, it wasn’t, and won’t be, about machineguns. They’re already effectively banned completely (save for a very few, very old, very very overpriced ones).