Liberal Forum

Misty » 08 Oct 2017 3:57 pm » wrote: I'm not going to argue with you about what is or is not an assault weapon.
That's just the usual attempt at deflection by people like you who tell us that unless we are gun experts, we are not entitled to an opinion on this subject.

I'll go by the definition used in the 1994 law.

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified a definition of an assault weapon.

It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
a grenade launcher

So basically, a weapon that LOOKS MILTARY but is not functionally an assault weapon. Too funny. None of what you mentioned makes a weapon a functional assault weapon. You can take a ruger mini 14 and add those plastic pieces and you still have a semi automatic sport hunting rifle.

The grenades for the launcher are banned for civilian use. They can fire smoke, parachute flares, or chalk markers for training.

What you just described is an old school M16 or Ar 15 with those ACCESSORIES removed. You still have a semi automatic weapon that fires 5.56 or 223.

And how would that have prevented the Vegas massacre?

Again, you are addressing looks, not functionality.

Next question, if you pass such an asinine law are you then going to have the authorities grab all the guns that are now? But you are not a gun grabber, right?