Define 'assault weapons,' please. I have a M1903 Springfield and a Mauser 24/47 - both were the primary battle rifle of their day and are large-caliber military weapons, not hunting rifles. Are they assault weapons, even though they are bolt-action and are both close to 100-years old? I also have a Saiga .223 carbine, which is based upon the AK47 (e.g. a semi-automatic long-stroke gas piston design) but is a hunting rifle (good for feral pigs, coyotes, mountain lions, etc. - similar to the Ruger Mini-14, which is based upon the M14 battle rifle in that it shares the same action design) - is that an assault weapon? The problem with using the nomenclature of 'assault weapon' is that it is an extremely vague notion. Sure, you can bolt parts onto a Saiga or a Mini-14 and make it into something that looks similar to a military rifle, but it won't be a military rifle because it won't be fully automatic (and FYI - converting a rifle to fully-auto will get you sent to "Federal Pound Me In the Ass Prison" - so don't try it).m0002a wrote:Personally, I would not allow ordinary citizens to possess most kinds of assault weapons. I am not sure of the current status of such bans, but I believe that some are already outlawed, and some laws to outlaw them apparently expired, but not 100% sure.andyb wrote:Classic question dodge. Let me rephrase it for you. If you were the President, had both houses full support (and had been democratically elected), would you (as you DO have the power), dramatically cut down on the gun ownership of your people if there was solid proof that the murder rate would halve in 12-months, even though this would not affect people being able to legally kill wildlife.? Yes, or No.?
I am all in favor of stricter gun laws with regards to longer waiting periods, eliminating any loopholes that may allow people to purchase weapons without background checks and improving background checks to cover scenarios like mental illness.