- Joined
- Apr 26, 2016
- Messages
- 8,744
I was not advocating an opinion one way or the other. I was responding to another poster who literally said an "assault weapon" has never been defined. My answer was just pointing out that the original "assault weapon" ban did give a definition of them, an inaccurate and poor definition by your standard, but they were defined in 1994. If and when a new "assault weapon" ban were to be enacted, it will have a definition in it as well.That isn’t a definition, that’s a bucket list. That bucket list includes meaningless, or non-basic functional features, enough of them, so that the “scary“ weapons will be included on the list. The fact that you’re quoting that proves that you don’t really know very much about weapons. When you defined a weapon it’s important to discuss the actual functioning parameters of the weapon in terms of expelling a bullet from the muzzle and how that is achieved. This is the most laughable thing I’ve ever seen posted ever. But of course this is not surprising, because it comes from Congress.
“A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously…” and that’s just one example.
OMG - I can’t stop laughing.
I could go on… “Accept a detachable magazine“, another lol.
You just quoted a clueless source to fortify your clueless opinion.
to repeat, this is NOT a definition of an assault weapon. It’s a grab bag of features.
I do agree with you that the functioning parameters of the weapon should be listed in the definition. How many rounds can it shoot in a minute? How many rounds can it hold per magazine? and the like.