Yes he can. He simply doesn't want to. The states that have an "assault weapons ban" definely have definitions in their laws, which are utterly stupid on purpose.
The idea is to get the ban on the books with any stupid as fuck definition to get political support for the passage, and then slowly change the definition over time by slow increments.
The definition of an assault weapon is any weapon that is capable of receiving a magazine or clip. They simply don't have the political support for that definition.
Legal abortion was no different. Legal abortion was x-number of weeks pregnant where X is whatever number they can passed in legislation, with the intent on increasing that number to be any time prior to birth, with some advocates going so far as to suggest up to 2 years post birth.
The definition of an assault weapon is any weapon that is capable of receiving a magazine or clip
So you're telling me a Ruger American .22 LR or CZ 457 trainer (both bolt action .22 but can be mag-fed) are considered "assault rifles?" Hell, a Henry Golden Boy 22 LR is a mag fed lever action... shit, I can't think of any lever action rifle that isn't mag fed... you're telling me cowboy action is an "assault rifle?"
Bullshit. A cursory glance at internet definitions say "select fire" or "rapid fire" i.e. capable of burst or F/A i.e. 1 pull of the trigger = multiple rounds fired. If it's "any weapon capable of receiving a mag or clip" then you're outlawing like every pump and lever action (and of course semi-auto) gun.
Though it would be interesting to see the solution - is a cylinder of a revolver considered a magazine? Lol every "semi-auto" gun turning into a revolver would be pretty funny. Just pop cylinders in/out to reload.
No. You don't understand how the law works. What the military defined as an assault rifle (not weapon) in some military document in the 60's is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the words they are using today. Especially, since you seem intent on replacing the word "weapon" with the word "rifle" in order to justify your own definitions. They want an assault WEAPONS ban, not a assault rifle, as defined by the military, ban.
And, what anti-2a talking heads define as an assault weapon not only includes rifles, but handguns, and shotguns that can accept a magazine. They don't understand what a "caliber" is, so there is no difference between a .22 ruger and a 50 cal mini. Joe Biden himself called for an assault weapons ban immediately after talking about 9mm handguns being used in crime, stating that they can blow the lungs right out of a person. They don't understand the intricacies of guns. All they know is guns are bad and should all be banned. Like Diane Feinstein said in the 90's, "round up every single one of them. Mr. and Mrs. American, turn them all in."
The only people using the "select fire" bullshit are gun nuts saying "assault weapons are already banned", referring to the NFA, or "that's not an assault weapon" idiocy argument trying to defend AR15's. They are fucking retarded and should shut the fuck up. They aren't helping.
No. A cylinder that's fixed to the pistol is not a magazine, nor is a tube of a shotgun, however, if the pump shotgun had a magazine orva clip (like the garand), it would be an assault weapon and they would want it banned.
Especially, since you seem intent on replacing the word "weapon" with the word "rifle" in order to justify your own definitions
Well yea, because I have yet to see the high-capacity knife, billy club, or other "weapon" that accepts a magazine. I later substituted "rifle" for "gun" when I started thinking about pump shotguns. It's obviously not about "intent" to replace words if you read the entire context. It's an internet comment not a legal document.
Just to be clear, since you are intent upon using the word "weapon" - we're only talking about guns, right? I suppose I've seen weird repeating crossbow setups, but I don't think those are common. Otherwise my only knowledge of weapons that receive clips/mags is limited to firearms (and I think some pellet rifles here lately).
A cylinder that's fixed to the pistol is not a magazine
Right, but you can remove cylinders in many revolvers with the cock of a hammer and push of a button. So now we get to talk about what qualifies as a "clip" or a "magazine." The tube of a shotgun/lever action rifle/etc. is absolutely classified as a magazine... literally a tubular magazine. Magazine = "stores ammo and feeds," which the tubular magazine does. So if you're gonna get pedantic, you should specify "detachable" magazine, which seems to be what you're talking about.
That said, the cylinder isn't a mag I suppose because the ammo storage and feeding mechanisms are separate, even if it's a double action revolver (the gun is feeding and the cylinder is storing). Still the point remains - if they outlaw detachable mags, I would be interested to see the innovation that would follow to get around that law, like quick-swap cylinders (or maybe speed loaders would still reign, even though those are very clip-like).
Not interested enough for them to enact any of that stupid legislation, but gunsmiths and manufacturers are fairly notorious for finding innovative ways to operate around stupid legislation.
We are talking about "assault weapons", the term which was suggested by the OP couldn't be defined by the jew in the video. These "assault weapons" are weapons which can accept a magazine or clip. Therefore, knives, clubs, pump shotguns with tubes, revolvers, etc. are not assault weapons. However, most pistols, some shotguns, and many rifle, are assault weapons.
You, then, tried to redefine an assault weapon to be the military definition from an obscure army manual from the 60's that defined an "assault rifle" as a rifle capable of select fire, and suggested that many people on the internet use this definition. But the people on the internet that try and use this definition are fucking retarded. OBVIOUSLY, when anti-2a fags refer to the term assault weapons, they are not referring to "assault rifles capable of select fire" and the fucking idiots that retort shit like "an AR15 is not an assault rifle" are dodging the issue when they should face the issue square on and demand that the people calling for an assault weapons ban should define the term. Anti-2a retards can't define an "assault weapon" in terms that would include the AR15 without barfing out retardisms that show that they know nothing about guns and therfore can and should be ignored and laughed at.
A tube that is fixed to a shotgun is not a magazine that is accepted. My Mossberg cannot accept a magazine, even though it has a tube that feeds shells into the chamber. A cylinder, which can be removed from a revolver is not a magazine. It doesn't feed ammo, the pistol doesn't accept it, and the cylinder is the majority of the firing chamber. You're trying, desperately, to play word games, but fine, if you need the clarity of a detachable magazine, then go with that.
And, getting around the law isn't the issue. It goes back to my original point. They won't define an assault weapon because they would be drawing limits on their intent. Just like they will not place a limit on abortion when asked. They will ban "assault weapons" using any definition of assault weapon that can get passed into law, then expand the definition, step at a time, until all guns that accept a magazine are banned. Once they get rid of assault weapons, and crime still doesn't go down, cause it won't, they will move on to shotguns, lever actions, revolvers. Then, when all the guns are illegal, they will move on to knives. Just like in the UK.
The point of the story is that the guy is perfectly capable of defining an "assault weapon" but refuses to define the term because it will limit their agenda.
Oh that's cute he is going to go after "hate crimes". His job is to oppress the American people and infringe on their rights to bear arms but how thoughtful of him to add hate crimes to his mixture of priorities
Well ya know it's black and big and scary it is for millitary use only and dangerous very dangerous. They shoot rapid-fire fully transautomatic! They look scary and are scary!
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 7 points 2 yearsApr 18, 2023 21:36:03 ago (+7/-0)
Yes he can. He simply doesn't want to. The states that have an "assault weapons ban" definely have definitions in their laws, which are utterly stupid on purpose.
The idea is to get the ban on the books with any stupid as fuck definition to get political support for the passage, and then slowly change the definition over time by slow increments.
The definition of an assault weapon is any weapon that is capable of receiving a magazine or clip. They simply don't have the political support for that definition.
Legal abortion was no different. Legal abortion was x-number of weeks pregnant where X is whatever number they can passed in legislation, with the intent on increasing that number to be any time prior to birth, with some advocates going so far as to suggest up to 2 years post birth.
[ + ] InYourFaceNancyGrace
[ - ] InYourFaceNancyGrace 0 points 2 yearsApr 19, 2023 10:52:52 ago (+0/-0)
So you're telling me a Ruger American .22 LR or CZ 457 trainer (both bolt action .22 but can be mag-fed) are considered "assault rifles?" Hell, a Henry Golden Boy 22 LR is a mag fed lever action... shit, I can't think of any lever action rifle that isn't mag fed... you're telling me cowboy action is an "assault rifle?"
Bullshit. A cursory glance at internet definitions say "select fire" or "rapid fire" i.e. capable of burst or F/A i.e. 1 pull of the trigger = multiple rounds fired. If it's "any weapon capable of receiving a mag or clip" then you're outlawing like every pump and lever action (and of course semi-auto) gun.
Though it would be interesting to see the solution - is a cylinder of a revolver considered a magazine? Lol every "semi-auto" gun turning into a revolver would be pretty funny. Just pop cylinders in/out to reload.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2 yearsApr 19, 2023 11:35:41 ago (+0/-0)*
And, what anti-2a talking heads define as an assault weapon not only includes rifles, but handguns, and shotguns that can accept a magazine. They don't understand what a "caliber" is, so there is no difference between a .22 ruger and a 50 cal mini. Joe Biden himself called for an assault weapons ban immediately after talking about 9mm handguns being used in crime, stating that they can blow the lungs right out of a person. They don't understand the intricacies of guns. All they know is guns are bad and should all be banned. Like Diane Feinstein said in the 90's, "round up every single one of them. Mr. and Mrs. American, turn them all in."
The only people using the "select fire" bullshit are gun nuts saying "assault weapons are already banned", referring to the NFA, or "that's not an assault weapon" idiocy argument trying to defend AR15's. They are fucking retarded and should shut the fuck up. They aren't helping.
No. A cylinder that's fixed to the pistol is not a magazine, nor is a tube of a shotgun, however, if the pump shotgun had a magazine orva clip (like the garand), it would be an assault weapon and they would want it banned.
[ + ] InYourFaceNancyGrace
[ - ] InYourFaceNancyGrace 0 points 2 yearsApr 19, 2023 14:16:45 ago (+0/-0)
Well yea, because I have yet to see the high-capacity knife, billy club, or other "weapon" that accepts a magazine. I later substituted "rifle" for "gun" when I started thinking about pump shotguns. It's obviously not about "intent" to replace words if you read the entire context. It's an internet comment not a legal document.
Just to be clear, since you are intent upon using the word "weapon" - we're only talking about guns, right? I suppose I've seen weird repeating crossbow setups, but I don't think those are common. Otherwise my only knowledge of weapons that receive clips/mags is limited to firearms (and I think some pellet rifles here lately).
Right, but you can remove cylinders in many revolvers with the cock of a hammer and push of a button. So now we get to talk about what qualifies as a "clip" or a "magazine." The tube of a shotgun/lever action rifle/etc. is absolutely classified as a magazine... literally a tubular magazine. Magazine = "stores ammo and feeds," which the tubular magazine does. So if you're gonna get pedantic, you should specify "detachable" magazine, which seems to be what you're talking about.
That said, the cylinder isn't a mag I suppose because the ammo storage and feeding mechanisms are separate, even if it's a double action revolver (the gun is feeding and the cylinder is storing). Still the point remains - if they outlaw detachable mags, I would be interested to see the innovation that would follow to get around that law, like quick-swap cylinders (or maybe speed loaders would still reign, even though those are very clip-like).
Not interested enough for them to enact any of that stupid legislation, but gunsmiths and manufacturers are fairly notorious for finding innovative ways to operate around stupid legislation.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2 yearsApr 19, 2023 19:40:47 ago (+0/-0)
You, then, tried to redefine an assault weapon to be the military definition from an obscure army manual from the 60's that defined an "assault rifle" as a rifle capable of select fire, and suggested that many people on the internet use this definition. But the people on the internet that try and use this definition are fucking retarded. OBVIOUSLY, when anti-2a fags refer to the term assault weapons, they are not referring to "assault rifles capable of select fire" and the fucking idiots that retort shit like "an AR15 is not an assault rifle" are dodging the issue when they should face the issue square on and demand that the people calling for an assault weapons ban should define the term. Anti-2a retards can't define an "assault weapon" in terms that would include the AR15 without barfing out retardisms that show that they know nothing about guns and therfore can and should be ignored and laughed at.
A tube that is fixed to a shotgun is not a magazine that is accepted. My Mossberg cannot accept a magazine, even though it has a tube that feeds shells into the chamber. A cylinder, which can be removed from a revolver is not a magazine. It doesn't feed ammo, the pistol doesn't accept it, and the cylinder is the majority of the firing chamber. You're trying, desperately, to play word games, but fine, if you need the clarity of a detachable magazine, then go with that.
And, getting around the law isn't the issue. It goes back to my original point. They won't define an assault weapon because they would be drawing limits on their intent. Just like they will not place a limit on abortion when asked. They will ban "assault weapons" using any definition of assault weapon that can get passed into law, then expand the definition, step at a time, until all guns that accept a magazine are banned. Once they get rid of assault weapons, and crime still doesn't go down, cause it won't, they will move on to shotguns, lever actions, revolvers. Then, when all the guns are illegal, they will move on to knives. Just like in the UK.
The point of the story is that the guy is perfectly capable of defining an "assault weapon" but refuses to define the term because it will limit their agenda.
[ + ] ModernGuilt
[ - ] ModernGuilt 5 points 2 yearsApr 18, 2023 23:35:38 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] jigganiggaboo
[ - ] jigganiggaboo 1 point 2 yearsApr 19, 2023 00:59:05 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior 1 point 2 yearsApr 19, 2023 02:39:34 ago (+1/-0)
Well ya know it's black and big and scary it is for millitary use only and dangerous very dangerous. They shoot rapid-fire fully transautomatic! They look scary and are scary!
[ + ] TheViciousMrPim
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 0 points 2 yearsApr 19, 2023 06:37:21 ago (+0/-0)
You racist bastard
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2 yearsApr 19, 2023 11:41:44 ago (+0/-0)
Why is that?
[ + ] RepublicanNerd
[ - ] RepublicanNerd 1 point 2 yearsApr 19, 2023 05:16:09 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] SirNiggsalot
[ - ] SirNiggsalot 1 point 2 yearsApr 19, 2023 08:43:48 ago (+1/-0)