Is there any way we can past by the “Assault Weapon” definition.
There are single shot rifles, repeaters, semi-automatic & fully automatic rifles.
Other than that, they are all the same. How powerful they are depends on the type of cartridge they use, not whether they are “hunting rifles” or “military rifles”.
Doesn’t matter to the unwashed masses, many of whom either have never fired a gun in their life, or last handled a gun during a military hitch that they may not have fond memories of. And, the anti-gunners know it.
The left doesn’t like it, but here’s the `bright line’: a necessary element in the definition/for a firearm to be considered an “assault weapon” is that it must be capable of fully automatic fire, e.g. `Automat Kalashnikov, 1947.’
The three round burst on our service weapon complicated the definition, but not really.
A semi-automatic firearm fires as fast as you depress, release and then again depress the trigger. It is not an “assault weapon.” If a semi-auto firearm is an assault weapon, then the Ruger 10-22 and Jennings .22 are included. The spaz’s on the left (Piers, Bloomie, et al.) don’t have to like it, that’s what it is, QED.
RE: There are single shot rifles, repeaters, semi-automatic & fully automatic rifles.
Other than that, they are all the same. How powerful they are depends on the type of cartridge they use, not whether they are “hunting rifles” or “military rifles”
________________________________
Therefore, the questions that arise are the following:
1) Should citizens be allowed to own fully automatic rifles?
2) Should citizens be allowed to own military rifles?
3) Should citizens be allowed to own semi-automatic rifles?
If the answer is ‘yes’ to all three above, is there any LIMIT to what non-military, non-police citizens can own without infringing on the second amendment?
If the answer is ‘no’ to all three above, what can a non-military, non-police citizen own without infringing on the second amendment?