Or is this one illegal?
Ok, I'll bite. I am curious what the difference is. As someone who is pro second amendment, it would help me make an informed opinion on such an issue to understand the difference between the two, as well as why anyone would need an assault rifle. Thank you.
Perhaps you can educate us on the difference between the Bill of Rights and the Bill of Needs.
Or is this one illegal?
Easiest way to explain it. It's political-speak more than anything else.
1. "Assault weapons" do not equal "assault rifles". Assault RIFLES are firearms that can fire full auto AND semi-auto. They have been illegal since 1933 or 1934 without a NFA Class III license.
2. Assault WEAPONS are a different matter. The original ban was a Bill Klinton special to try and get a camel's nose under the tent. It was more symbolic than anything else. The federal(States are different) - 10 round magazine limit. Bayonet lug. Flash suppressor. These were cosmetic features mostly. It was also a demonization of all semi-autos and many wanted to ban all of those. Most guns out there today ARE semi-auto. 2/3 of the pistols are(including all glocks, 1911's, Sigs, Kimbers). Most .22 rifles are semi-auto. The first gun I fired was a Ruger 10/.22. That's a semi-auto. If the magazine held 11 rounds instead of 10, it would be considered an assault weapon under the Klinton law. That's a gun that dad buys for the kids to teach them how to shoot.
3. The problem also with supporting the extension besides the current ban is that the new ban would have to be a seperate bill. That means that whole new classes of firearms can be added. Daley wants to ban all guns over .50 caliber in Illinois. He's including almost all shotguns in his ban. Those are over .50 caliber.
4. Lastly, the term assault weapon I believe was first coined by Josh Sugarmann. He's one of the heads of VPC, a radical left wing gun grabbing think tank. The term was coined strictly to demonize firearms on their looks so they are easier to ban by scaring people.