assault rifles

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

For the purposes of this thread they are pretty much interchangeable. The historic naming of such devices is pretty much irrelevant unless it's to distract from the point at hand...

Yeah I guess. Kindasorta like how bicycles and motorcycles are the same because some idiots can't discern further than each having two wheels. I wouldn't be comfortable with those people being given the task of creating policy and laws for them.

Originally Posted by spence

There is a legal precedent that classified the AR 15 as an assault weapon.

Except when an AR wasn't an "Assault Weapon", like when the bayonet lug and flash suppressor was removed.

So, under the "assault Weapons Ban", which one is an "AR-15 Assault Weapon" and which one is just an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle?



OR

Originally Posted by spence

That the law expired doesn't change the description, it simply means those in charge of policy at the time didn't feel necessary to continue with the ban.

Well, if you really want to pick nits, if the "legal precedent" that defined what an "Assault Weapon" has expired, can you really say that "Assault Weapon" remains a valid descriptor of anything since legally no "Assault Weapons" exist?

All in all I see this exchange as validation for my earlier stated position:

"The hallmark of a typical vocal anti-gun Liberal / Progressive is a profound ignorance of the most simple functions of firearms as mechanical objects, (i.e., fully automatic vs semi-automatic) let alone technical aspects like ballistics (i.e., "hollow point armor piercing ammo") . . . Liberals / Progressives "just know" that guns are "bad" and no amount of logic, legal citation, stats or facts will dissuade their illogical and emotional based position. In fact, their ignorance is worn as a badge of honor because they don't want to share anything, even knowledge, with sub-human "gun-nuts". They will never acknowledge being corrected and will never modify their terminology; a pro-gun person can never be recognized as being correct about anything."

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Except when an AR wasn't an "Assault Weapon", like when the bayonet lug and flash suppressor was removed.

So, under the "assault Weapons Ban", which one is an "AR-15 Assault Weapon" and which one is just an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle?

Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.

Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.

Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?

-spence

This is demonstrative of you not knowing what you're talking about when it comes to this subject matter.

An "assault weapon" as federally defined during the AWB:

"Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)"

Since you say that "under the assault weapon ban they both were", then you tell us what two features in the above list are on the top-pictured gun. If you can't, then under the AWB, it is not an 'assault weapon' - plain and simple.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.

Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?

-spence

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Since you say that "under the assault weapon ban they both were", then you tell us what two features in the above list are on the top-pictured gun. If you can't, then under the AWB, it is not an 'assault weapon' - plain and simple.

Are going to let us know why both those pictured rifles would be 'assault weapons' under the AWB or just gloss over it because yet another one of holier-than-thou remarks was inappropriate due to you being incorrect?

I'll give you a hint: having a magazine and a synthetic stock to make it black and scary looking doesn't actually make a rifle an assault weapon, as defined in the federal AWB.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Are going to let us know why both those pictured rifles would be 'assault weapons' under the AWB or just gloss over it because yet another one of holier-than-thou remarks was inappropriate due to you being incorrect?

I'll give you a hint: having a magazine and a synthetic stock to make it black and scary looking doesn't actually make a rifle an assault weapon, as defined in the federal AWB.

I didn't even look at the pictures

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

I didn't even look at the pictures

-spence

That's as close to a "JohnnyD, you were right" as I'll get... so I'll take it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

That's as close to a "JohnnyD, you were right" as I'll get... so I'll take it.

I was just joking.

My understand is that the ban wasn't on the current state of the weapon but if it could be modified to meet the conditions of the law. So taking off the flash suppressor and changing the stock wouldn't change an AR 15's legal status under the AWB.

-spence

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.

Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?

-spence

Functionally they are identical, that's why the "Assault Weapons Ban" was a farcical useless law that only banned cosmetic items.

Legally, only one of those semi-automatic rifles was deemed an "Assault Weapon" . . . Under the 1994 law the criteria was if a semi-automatic rifle was able to accept detachable magazines and had two or more of the following components:

A) Folding or telescoping stock
B) Pistol grip
C) Bayonet mount
D) Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
E) Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

The top photo is a non-assault weapon AR-15 (post-ban) with a detachable magazine and was legally offered for sale during the "Assault Weapons ban" because it WAS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON! One could also buy extended mags that were manufactured before Sept 13, 1994 for this rifle and be compliant with the "Assault Weapons Ban".

The bottom picture is a AR-15 that was considered an "Assault Weapon" between Sept 13, 1994 and Sept 13, 2004.

Now, federally, neither are.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Functionally they are identical, that's why the "Assault Weapons Ban" was a farcical useless law that only banned cosmetic items.

Legally, only one of those semi-automatic rifles was deemed an "Assault Weapon" . . . Under the 1994 law the criteria was if a semi-automatic rifle was able to accept detachable magazines and had two or more of the following components:

A) Folding or telescoping stock
B) Pistol grip
C) Bayonet mount
D) Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
E) Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

The top photo is a non-assault weapon AR-15 (post-ban) with a detachable magazine and was legally offered for sale during the "Assault Weapons ban" because it WAS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON! One could also buy extended mags that were manufactured before Sept 13, 1994 for this rifle and be compliant with the "Assault Weapons Ban".

The bottom picture is a AR-15 that was considered an "Assault Weapon" between Sept 13, 1994 and Sept 13, 2004.

Now, federally, neither are.

I think there is an echo in here. Well put!