View Single Post
 
Old 02-22-2017, 09:40 PM
franzas's Avatar
franzas franzas is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 587
Likes: 378
Liked 333 Times in 179 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BB57 View Post
The term "assault weapon" just represents more drift in terminology.

An "assault rifle" was a fully automatic carbine or rifle firing a intermediate cartridge.

The media applied that term to the AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and carbines and to a whole host of other "military style" semi-automatic rifles and carbines.

At some point the press made them sound more evil by calling them "assault weapons".

The court in this has further sowed confusion referring the semi-automatic rifles and carbines banned in MD as "weapons of war".

"Weapon of war"? I have a P.08 Luger, a Walther P-38, an 1895 Nagant, a Victory Model, a No 4 Mk II Lee Enfield, a P-17 Enfield, a 1903A1, a 1903A3, a 1911A1, and an L66A1 that are all legitimate "weapons of war" that are also legal to own in MD. Go figure.

I also have a couple of 12 plus pound heavy barrel varmint AR-15s, an 11 pound AR-15 service match rifle and a dedicated .22LR AR-15 none of which anyone would ever consider taking to war, but that are not legal in MD, because they violate some arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", and now apparently "weapon of war".
spot-on.

"Assault rifle" was strictly a class of firearms used by militaries. Not a legal definition. You're right about the press (and at the time, the clinton admin) creating this new class of firearms based on cosmetics, that are somehow more "deadly." And now this "weapon of war" is just a further arbitrary way to attempt to delegitimize common semiautomatic rifles.

Sad more than anything.
__________________
an actual conservative
Reply With Quote