Define "assault weapon"

[Son]

I have a .22 cal rifle that holds around 14 rounds... It looks like my grandpa's .22 that he used for hunting rabbits and squirrels in the early 70's. Would you consider that an assault rifle? The only thing that was assaulted were little critters for the dinner table.

[WD-40]

Don't run off and Google. Just say what you think it is.

The one I was born with??

[mrjamwin]

Assault makes an ass out of you and me! No, wait that's assume sorry.

[kjeopardy]

A pen in the hand of Barack Obama.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Any weapon used to assault someone or something....

Any weapon used to assault someone or something....

If I can kill ya with a spoon, cooking utensils are assault weapons.
If I burn your house down, a candle is an assault weapon.
If I punch you in the nose and force bone shards into your brain, my hands are assault weapons.
If I run you down, my pickup truck is an assault weapon.

Dang. I could go on forever.

Correct. It's anything used in the assault of another.

assault weapon=machine gun?

No. The term could just as easily be "scary looking gun". A machine gun, and I'm assuming you mean full auto, is already illegal so therefore the term assault weapon must mean other than "full auto machine gun". It's being left vague and to interpretation so politicians can give and take what they chose in the future. I don't know about you guys but politicians with leeway scares me.

I'll take the bait....

Any semi automatic weapon which can fire more than 11 rounds without reloading.

So to be straight, any Glock (for instance) would be an assault weapon and should therefore be banned?? Correct?

I was going to say a fully automatic machine gun, but after reading MC's post I think his answer is more accurate. Of course if you took the word "assault weapon" as verbatim, that would basically mean something that can harm another person.

I'll let someone else start the fire...

Your first answer is wrong and the second answer is wrong and your last answer is 100% correct.

The media has latched on to this term to sway the general population into whatever direction they want you to go in. In all honesty, the ban on full autos, stinger missiles, tanks, sawed off shotguns, etc is ALREADY an infringement on the 2nd amendment. But, we as a population decided that we were ok with that and allowed our rights to be chiseled away and the people at that time (80 years ago) never thought that their grand kids would be having a discussion about semi auto's and possibly banning them and limiting magazine capacity. So let's say we ban "Glock's", then what? What will our kids or grand kids be fighting for 30-40 years from now? Or possibly sooner? I honestly wish the gun rights talking heads would dig in and push back to repeal the 1934 NFA.

If we ban "assault weapons", we might as well ban unicorns and Narg posting niceties to newcomers.

[Son]

If we ban "assault weapons", we might as well ban unicorns and Narg posting niceties to newcomers.

Don't forget bathtubs and water....

[Col. Hstar]

I guess if you're problem is with the "terminology" as far as what an assult weapon is, your correct. An assult weapon could be anything from a pencil to 3000 lbs of steel reaching speeds of 80-90 mph. My definition of what should and should not be banned would run along the lines of what the normal use of the item is.

A car for example can be quite deadly, but its normal use is transportation. A pencil or writing implement can be used to stab, but its normal use is for communicating. A rope can be used to strangle someone, but there are many normal uses for it.

Now lets look at (for example) an AK-47. Can you tell me what the normal use of this weapon is? Other then to fill your target with bullets?

As with anything there must be a responsible user in control, and there is always going to be deranged idiots who will use whatever is at there disposal to commit horrible acts. But why have on the open market an item that has one and only one purpose?

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

The media has latched on to this term to sway the general population into whatever direction they want you to go in. In all honesty, the ban on full autos, stinger missiles, tanks, sawed off shotguns, etc is ALREADY an infringement on the 2nd amendment. But, we as a population decided that we were ok with that and allowed our rights to be chiseled away and the people at that time (80 years ago) never thought that their grand kids would be having a discussion about semi auto's and possibly banning them and limiting magazine capacity. So let's say we ban "Glock's", then what? What will our kids or grand kids be fighting for 30-40 years from now? Or possibly sooner? I honestly wish the gun rights talking heads would dig in and push back to repeal the 1934 NFA.

If we ban "assault weapons", we might as well ban unicorns and Narg posting niceties to newcomers.

To return to the beginning of the topic, I define an assault weapon as any high caliber rifle with the ability to shoot over 25 rounds successively.

Now, to address what you have stated. You see nothing wrong with the citizenry being able to purchase stinger missiles or tanks? I can understand how you feel about the 2nd Amendment, a treasured component of our Constitution, to be sure, but that not excuse advocating reckless behaviour. The 2nd Amendment was written in a time where a successful coup, overthrowing the government, was not too unlikely a possibility. Jefferson and many others believed that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing," but in this day and age, when instability is rife, the legitimacy of our government is not at stake. You are free to petition the government on your behalf, but any allusion to "taking up arms to keep our government in check," may very well seem reasonable to you but seems deliriously misguided in my eyes. As sentient beings, violence is not the method we should employ to achieving our goals or furthering our interests.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

I guess if you're problem is with the "terminology" as far as what an assult weapon is, your correct. An assult weapon could be anything from a pencil to 3000 lbs of steel reaching speeds of 80-90 mph. My definition of what should and should not be banned would run along the lines of what the normal use of the item is.

A car for example can be quite deadly, but its normal use is transportation. A pencil or writing implement can be used to stab, but its normal use is for communicating. A rope can be used to strangle someone, but there are many normal uses for it.

Now lets look at (for example) an AK-47. Can you tell me what the normal use of this weapon is? Other then to fill your target with bullets?

As with anything there must be a responsible user in control, and there is always going to be deranged idiots who will use whatever is at there disposal to commit horrible acts. But why have on the open market an item that has one and only one purpose?

So why build a car that exceeds the speed limit? Why have a 64oz Big Gulp? Let's also ban 99% of knives, all tobacco products and candy.

[THEWULFMAN]

Too many thoughts spinning around my head for me to put something down on paper.