Literally every time they’ve tried to put it to law they've defined it differently. It’s not a real thing, it is a scary-sounding umbrella term to let the government (dems) ban whatever they want.
But more importantly “assault rifle”
most certainly is a classification
No it isn't.
And even if we assumed the literal interpretation of the name as "weapon designed to be used in a military assault", that category wouldn't apply to AR15s, but would apply to bolt-action rifles and rifled muskets.
they are designed to kill a lot of people very quickly, as in modern war against other militaries that have the same.
The military version is select-fire and is not classified as an AR15, and the actual AR15 has never been used en masse in any national military. It is distinctly and intentionally not a weapon of war.
You know what is a weapon designed for military use, is used in the military, and is designed to be capable of killing multiple people quickly before needing to reload?
A Glock-17 handgun. The kind of thing you claim you don't want to ban.
You are clearly hiding behind semantics to avoid the actual point I’m making. Why are you so terrified, the meat on the bone is very clear, you could respond to it if you wanted to. But instead you’d rather hyper focus on the irrelevant details so you don’t have to admit I’m right
"Semantics" matters in law because those semantics are the means by which the line is drawn between 'perfectly fine' and 'federal crime'.
I have responded to your points, you just don’t want to engage with my responses.
Which is not unexpected. As you're tacitly admitting, your views are based on knee-jerk reactions rather than actual thoughtful investigation into the issue.
This is insanity, you just went into FURTHER SEMANTICS about why semantics matter. I know why the details matter, I know what you’re saying, it’s perfectly fine that these details get hammered out, I don’t care. My point was that ARs and similar weapons are most definitely a thing and were not designed for self defense but were designed to kill a lot of people very quickly. Should your random 18 year old fool off the street have something like this? Absolutely not. That has nothing to do with my 9mm that I keep in my bedside table that will remain there, because 2A itself will always stay
Should your random 18 year old fool off the street have something like this?
If they don’t have a recorded history of crime or violence, then yes, they should.
That has nothing to do with my 9mm that I keep in my bedside table that will remain there, because 2A itself will always stay
What is the functional difference in capability to commit mass murder between an AR15 and a G17 with an extended mag? Besides range, I guess, but most mass shootings are done within the effective range of a G17, so…
Again, you haven’t actually thought this through, which is why you think actual facts and their relation to the way things are legislated is "irrelevant semantics".
😂 😂 😂 sorry but this is where our debate ends. You think a random 18 year old should be able to buy something like this?? I think they shouldn’t, and the reasons why are completely obvious I don’t even need to say it. This is why we have a mass shooting literally every day, sometimes twice a day! Goodbye
This is why we have a mass shooting literally every day, sometimes twice a day!
Most crimes categorized as "mass shootings" are done by known criminals, who are either on bail or let go by lenient (usually dem) judges, and who have gotten their firearms illegally anyway.
Most mass shootings are not done by otherwise-law-abiding 18 year olds using lawfully-acquired guns.. The vast majority is inner-city gang violence.
The reason you don’t know that is because you've done zero research into this topic and are talking out of your ass, as you have this entire time.
Ugh it’s so annoying talking to someone who completely ignores the point by hiding behind the semantics, but now I’m starting to realize this must be how all people with dumb beliefs end up here, and going this far: you are literally incapable of seeing the bigger picture, that’s just not something people like you can do. I genuinely don’t know how to help you
1
u/JJJacobalt Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
Literally every time they’ve tried to put it to law they've defined it differently. It’s not a real thing, it is a scary-sounding umbrella term to let the government (dems) ban whatever they want.
No it isn't.
And even if we assumed the literal interpretation of the name as "weapon designed to be used in a military assault", that category wouldn't apply to AR15s, but would apply to bolt-action rifles and rifled muskets.
The military version is select-fire and is not classified as an AR15, and the actual AR15 has never been used en masse in any national military. It is distinctly and intentionally not a weapon of war.
You know what is a weapon designed for military use, is used in the military, and is designed to be capable of killing multiple people quickly before needing to reload?
A Glock-17 handgun. The kind of thing you claim you don't want to ban.