“Yes, they are. Thanks for recognizing that fact”
No, you miss the point. The killing people part is right, and there’s nothing wrong with making something with the sole purpose of killing. But what you quoted went further by saying “assualt weapons” have the sole purpose of hunting people down and killing them, which would mean self-defense doesn’t apply. For even in “stand you ground” states you are not allowed to hunt people down in order to kill them.
That would mean there are effectively no legal uses for “assualt weapons,” and as such it would make sense for them to be banned. Except you can use them for self-defense, which is obvious to anyone with common sense or a passing familiarity with various real life instances. But nothing ever stopped politicians from radically distorting real life.
OK. Good point. I was just responding as I always do to a liberal who says that an “assault rifle” is only good for killing people. I agree with them. I didn’t notice the “hunting down” part of the quote. My point is that we shouldn’t shy away from the anti-human purpose of an “assault rifle”. That’s what it was built for and that’s what the 2nd Amendment was written for.