Just Fred wrote:

I'll make it simple:  If it's legal to hunt with it, then it's legal to own it.  How about we start there?

 
So you think all handguns should be banned?

Goose wrote:

He's obviously talking about assault rifles.

 
That's not what he said though, that's why I asked him the question.  He said "If it's legal to hunt with, it's legal to own." Most handguns are not legal to hunt with.

And regarding assault rifles, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle.  It is a semi-automatic rifle.  An AK-47 is an assault rifle, a fully automatic machine gun.

Last edited by The Man (12/29/2015 3:53 pm)

Excuse me, friends, I said, "Let's start there". 

That's the problem in this whole discussion.  We need a place to start.  Let's begin with, "If you can hunt with it, then it should be legal to own".

If we can agree on type of rifle ownership in the public arena, then we can discuss handguns.  The "anything goes with weapon ownership or totally banning guns are both non-starters."

You take it from there.

Good point, Tennyson.. 

And,  a rifle need not be fully automatic to be defined as an assault weapon.

In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. 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
Some states have created even more restrictive definitions of Assault Weapons, such as the NY SAFE Act, which changed the restriction to one or more (rather "two or more") of the above features and expanded the restricted muzzle devices beyond just flash suppressors to include compensators and muzzle breaks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle



In any event, even unmodified, the AR in semi-auto mode with a large capacity magazine is a weapon much better suited for rapidly killing people than it is for hunting game. That is the key point.

Hence we use the the various terms, military styled, assault weapon, assault rifle, interchangably in casual conversations, even if a strict definition of rifle and weapon are slightly different.
And rightly so. We all know what is being described.

As a matter of fact,  The AR-15 was first built in 1959 by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces.*

And, I think everone already knew that.

I hate how gun "discussions" always turn into splitting hairs over definitions rather than addressing actual issues.
And, I have come to believe that the quibbling is a deliberate attempt to muddy the water and derail discussion.


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

Last edited by Goose (12/30/2015 6:18 am)

Just Fred wrote:

I'll make it simple:  If it's legal to hunt with it, then it's legal to own it.  How about we start there?

If at some point the AR-15 or AK-47 becomes the weapons of choice for deer hunting, then I'll reluctantly go along with it.  I suppose some would argue the AR should be a legal hunting tool.  In fact, I spoke with a guy not long ago who believed that very thing ................. "Who is the government to tell me what guns I must use to hunt with?" were his very words.

Fred
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Absolutely nothing.

Last edited by Common Sense (12/30/2015 9:04 am)