What IS the definition of "assault weapon", officially?

[rbird7282]

Surprised to see this crapfest still eating bandwidth.

Exactly. What a complete waste.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Slhaney]

Not a good idea. You don't need to read every comment, but you need to read enough of the thread to realize that origin of the "assault weapon" definition is only a small piece of what we're debating in here.

Doesn't really matter if it's only a small part of the debate. It is the part that I chose to comment on.

 

[MattFinals718]

Surprised to see this crapfest still eating bandwidth.

Thank you for your continued incisive observations. The intellectual rigor you have demonstrated is very impressive, about on par with everyone on this topic whose contributions have been along the lines of, "An assault weapon is anything used to assault someone."

Why do you guys keep feeding the troll?

I'm not a troll just because you say I am. I've made it quite clear where I am coming from (too many times now).

Boats' behavior is far more trolling than anything I've said/done here, no matter how many Logic 101 fallacy accusations he throws out to offer his debate tactics the veneer of legitimacy.

My last reply to him was over a month ago. It was not I who restarted this abortion, even though I was recently quoted.

I'm just trolling the troll...

Your real agenda, as we've seen repeatedly (in this topic and others), is to maintain the ideological orthodoxy.

 

[BurkeM]

ASK MSP.

 

[outrider58]

Your real agenda, as we've seen repeatedly (in this topic and others), is to maintain the ideological orthodoxy.

You give me far too much credit.

And you've taken it upon yourself to pull down that orthodoxy?

 

[MattFinals718]

And you've taken it upon yourself to pull down that orthodoxy?

This debate/trollfest (on the part of Boats) started out as my response to an article that made a point that I agreed with.

Anyway, I could ask you the same question: You've taken it upon yourself to try and suppress information that you feel hurts your cause, in order to preserve orthodoxy? I've seen you do that repeatedly now, so I could just as well ask: Who appointed you to police this forum? Do you hold moderator status?

 

[Worsley]

Assault weapons are weapons used to threaten or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person.

Still the right answer!

 

[outrider58]

This debate/trollfest (on the part of Boats) started out as my response to an article that made a point that I agreed with.

Anyway, I could ask you the same question: You've taken it upon yourself to try and suppress information that you feel hurts your cause, in order to preserve orthodoxy? I've seen you do that repeatedly now, so I could just as well ask: Who appointed you to police this forum? Do you hold moderator status?

Don't stop there!

You have a habit of confusing opinion with fact. Am I opinionated? Yes. Do I argue others opinions incessantly? NO.

Why are you here? Why do the majority of you contributions here devolve into running arguments?

 

[Defense Initiative]

There is no such thing as an assault weapon, but weapons can be used in many types of assaults.

 

[MattFinals718]

Why are you here? Why do the majority of you contributions here devolve into running arguments?

I'm here to post my opinions about firearms and learn more about MD's ridiculous laws, same as anyone else. I know that you think you're cleverly posing a rhetorical question, but saying that the "majority" of my contributions here are running arguments is a much better example of what your buddy Boats would probably call an "appeal to anecdotal evidence" fallacy. So far, I've been a part of three running arguments that I recall:

- This topic (obviously)
- A topic on running non-HBAR AR-15 uppers on post-2013 AR lowers, which triggered a certain member who brags about his amazing hair - he chided me for not being willing to break the law. (Or, his reading comprehension sucked and he thought we were discussing pre-2013 lowers - I haven't figured out which yet.)
- The other HBAR barrel topic in the "Rifles" forum which you deemed to be a waste of bandwidth, and where you tried to shame us for discussing nuances of MSP's interpretation of the law. That's one which became a running argument due to your criticism (though yes, I partook in it).

I also feel the need to point out that I've observed quite a few other users here who seem to partake in flame wars and trolling on a fairly regular basis (or, just toxic behavior in general). Seems to be fairly common on this forum, and also a lot of other 2A forums I've visited over the years.

You have a habit of confusing opinion with fact. Am I opinionated? Yes. Do I argue others opinions incessantly? NO.

As I already told Boats: Yes, I base my opinions on my experiences. Pretty sure that's how life works. I certainly try to avoid confirmation bias by seeking out factual evidence that is tested/observed by others.

It is certainly a subjective statement on my part to observe that I find my Steyr SPP to be a more controllable weapon in rapid-fire when compared to my Glocks. However, it is a perfectly objective statement to note that an SPP has mechanical differences that are designed to reduce felt recoil impulse that are found on submachine guns, but not Glocks or any common semi-automatic pistols with short recoil operations.

My experience in dealing with you is that your opinions tend to be critiques of others' posts/topics and issuing judgments where you act holier-than-thou and deem them to be unsuitable for this forum. To me, that seems like trolling behavior - I have trouble imagining that you're not aware that you're asking for a fight. But I'll stop short of saying that the "majority" of your contributions are characterized by this behavior. What has become evident to me, as I've said previously, is that you feel the need to suppress information that you feel hurts our cause.

 

[outrider58]

I'm here to post my opinions about firearms and learn more about MD's ridiculous laws, same as anyone else. I know that you think you're cleverly posing a rhetorical question, but saying that the "majority" of my contributions here are running arguments is a much better example of what your buddy Boats would probably call an "appeal to anecdotal evidence" fallacy. So far, I've been a part of three running arguments that I recall:

- This topic (obviously)
- A topic on running non-HBAR AR-15 uppers on post-2013 AR lowers, which triggered a certain member who brags about his amazing hair - he chided me for not being willing to break the law. (Or, his reading comprehension sucked and he thought we were discussing pre-2013 lowers - I haven't figured out which yet.)
- The other HBAR barrel topic in the "Rifles" forum which you deemed to be a waste of bandwidth, and where you tried to shame us for discussing nuances of MSP's interpretation of the law. That's one which became a running argument due to your criticism (though yes, I partook in it).

I also feel the need to point out that I've observed quite a few other users here who seem to partake in flame wars and trolling on a fairly regular basis (or, just toxic behavior in general). Seems to be fairly common on this forum, and also a lot of other 2A forums I've visited over the years.



As I already told Boats: Yes, I base my opinions on my experiences. Pretty sure that's how life works. I certainly try to avoid confirmation bias by seeking out factual evidence that is tested/observed by others.

It is certainly a subjective statement on my part to observe that I find my Steyr SPP to be a more controllable weapon in rapid-fire when compared to my Glocks. However, it is a perfectly objective statement to note that an SPP has mechanical differences that are designed to reduce felt recoil impulse that are found on submachine guns, but not Glocks or any common semi-automatic pistols with short recoil operations.

My experience in dealing with you is that your opinions tend to be critiques of others' posts/topics and issuing judgments where you act holier-than-thou and deem them to be unsuitable for this forum. To me, that seems like trolling behavior - I have trouble imagining that you're not aware that you're asking for a fight. But I'll stop short of saying that the "majority" of your contributions are characterized by this behavior. What has become evident to me, as I've said previously, is that you feel the need to suppress information that you feel hurts our cause.

Well bless your heart.

 

[Boats]

Boats' behavior is .

This debate/trollfest (on the part of Boats)

your buddy Boats ...

As I already told Boats:

Im sorry, I'm not interested in a relationship/stalker. It's not me, it's you.

I should probably point out that putting someone on your ignore list and then continuing to talk trash, knowing they cant address it speaks volumes about your character. See below.

 

[Boats]

Wow, congrats, you've demonstrated that you know how to Google the syllabus of a Logic 101 course. How ironic that you've also exhibited nearly all of the same fallacies that you've accused me of employing.

Anyway, at this point, I'm done with this shit. Welcome to my Ignore list.

 

[smokey]

It's May 6th, 2024 and "Assault weapon" is still a purposely nebulous and "scary sounding" term used by antigunners for the purpose of banning any gun they can get away with banning. It still has no definition, by design, and can include anything an antigun politician wants it to include

 

[Biggfoot44]

Well bless your heart.

Maybe so