Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,297
1907
1908
1908
I addressed that a while ago in the other thread, and you communicated that you were incapable of differentiating facts from your opinion.
And you keep coming back to that example like it is actually relevant of something. Like it somehow proves your point that the definition of an assault weapon is irrelevant and we need to argue that assault weapons are MORE protected than other weapons.
They are both 9mm handguns. They can both accept extended magazines. One is recoil operated, one is locked-breech blowback. Neither is used by the US military. They have similar barrel lengths. There are other weapons similar to the SPP and Glock 34 that are select fire. Those are facts.
You shoot the SPP faster with better accuracy. You believe that an inexperienced shooter would shoot the SPP better as well. You believe that because the SPP is a semi-auto version of a select-fire smg it is not a sporting firearm, much like because the AR15 is a semi-auto version of a select fire assault rifle, it too isn't a sporting weapon. You would feel better armed to deal with a threat with an AR than a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Those are opinions.
The argument of "assault weapons are MORE protected" is a fallacy, they are already all protected. It is the same argument that the antis present that some weapons are LESS deserving of 2A inclusion because of public safety concerns but phrased differently.
The pushback you have gotten is because of this. The concept that some weapons are extra protected by 2A rights must mean that some are less protected. You have presented a zero sum argument, which doesn't apply because the 2nd Amendment is universally inclusive.
It's THE critical difference.
Also irrelevant to 'perception,' because Bloomberg and Brady believe the AR-15 is fully automatic.
I always laugh when people juxtapose an AR next to a wood stocked semi-auto hunting rifle and say they are functionally the same. I think to myself; oh great, they'll target those next...
Obviously this thread has been around for a while but this is the first time Ive seen it and I obviously have not read every comment. But I'll offer my perspective anyway. I dont really see what difference it makes where the term " assault weapon " came from. Its how its used that is the issue. Its a term with no real definition that the media and the anti 2a crowd have hijacked in an effort to make it mean whatever they want it to mean to meet their objective. Its not uncommon to highjack a word or phrase and if its used enough in that way than people just start associating with that automatically. God, for instance, created rainbows with beauty for all to enjoy. We all know what rainbows have come to mean in recent years. So, be it intellectually correct or not to say the anti 2a crowd coined that particular phrase, they definitely hijacked it and use there own self serving definitions to instill fear of a common object in an effort to gain support for their inevitable goal.