> On Apr 18, 2007, at 12:22 AM, Jordan Hayes wrote:
>
> > Do you mean the debate about what exactly is an 'assault rifle' ...?
>
> I know this is an obsession of yours, but I'm not sure why. I'm
> guessing that most people use it to describe a weapon that's more
> military than something that would normally be used for hunting -
> i.e., something designed to kill people in some quantity, though not
> as many as a machine gun.
>
> Wikipedia has no prob with what appears to be a rigorous definition -
> could you tell us what's wrong with this?
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle>
I would say nothing. This is the sticky bit though:
> Semi-automatic rifles, including
> commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to
> firing single shots are not assault rifles as they are not selective
> fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed
> magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.
Under this definition, assault rifles have been tightly regulated in the USA since the NFA back in 1934. No new ones can be imported, and getting a license for one requries thousands of dollars in fees, months to a year of waiting, requires fingerprinting, background checks, and registration with both the BATF and the local Sheriff. These weapons are bought by collectors for price ranges of $5000-$20,000.
Most of the hysteria and panic by people is about **assault weapons**, which is not a technical term and was invented for legislative purposes:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon>
Matt
-- PGP RSA Key ID: 0x1F6A4471 aim: beyondzero123 PGP DH/DSS Key ID: 0xAFF35DF2 yahoo msg: beyondzero123 http://blogdayafternoon.com
This is a good game, it's called, The Truth.
-Dimitri Moisevitch