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

[Biggfoot44]

1907

1908

 

[MattFinals718]

I addressed that a while ago in the other thread, and you communicated that you were incapable of differentiating facts from your opinion.

Once again, you demonstrate that you excel at psychological projection.

Oh, and by the way: No, you didn't, except in your own mind.

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.

Well, it proves that you are an intellectually dishonest and self-deluded person who feels the need to lie to himself and others, yes. If you were a self-reflective person (which you're not), you'd realize the harm that you're really causing to us, and undermining the legitimate points that we can and should make to fight against AWBs.

Alas, I acknowledge that true believer types like yourself are too common in this community.

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.

All true.

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.

No, I'm afraid that they're discernible facts.

And by the way, you speak about opinions as if they're entirely subjective and not based on facts? Are you also one of those people who thinks that gender identity is a social construct? Because you're demonstrating just about the same intellectual abilities as the people on the left who would make such claims.

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.

Nope, it's the opposite, actually.

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.

Nope, the pushback that I have received (the vast majority of which is from one person - you) is that in order to make the argument I've made, we have to admit that some of our long-standing arguments that we've trotted out in these debates are incorrect. Your problem is that you're a true believer type. You'd much rather continue to pretend that the guns we're defending are "sporting weapons" because you're afraid that implying they are functionality very similar (i.e., almost indistinguishable) to military weapons will make it easy for the antis to argue that they should be banned. Unfortunately, you're demonstrating cowardice, and really, you're trying to silence me because you are a coward and you are afraid.

It's not a question of "more protected" (bad phrasing); but rather, what was the intention of the 2A. Weapons don't become "less" protected simply because we're acknowledging that the 2A would seem to discredit the antis' belief that only "sporting" weapons are GTG.

It's THE critical difference.

According to whose definition? A 50-year old IC guidebook that was clearly written without the U.S. civilian firearms market in mind?

Also irrelevant to 'perception,' because Bloomberg and Brady believe the AR-15 is fully automatic.

Do they now? Haven't looked at their web site in a long time, but I recall them stating the opposite. If you're going to make such claims, please do cite evidence.

On the other hand, Josh Sugarman of the VPC once wrote (in the 1980s) that he expected that public ignorance of what "assault weapons" are was likely to benefit the gun control movement's attempts to ban them. More recently: We've seen evidence that some anti-2A politicians like Sheila Jackson Lee believe the same (but then again, that woman's IQ is so low that her ability to intellectually grasp any issue is non-existent).

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...

Yeah, this is why the Boats of our community are not thinking about the second-order effects of their intellectual dishonesty.

 

[MattFinals718]

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.

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.

 

[Boats]

Once again, you demonstrate that you excel at psychological projection.

Ad hominem fallacy

Oh, and by the way: No, you didn't, except in your own mind.

Gaslighting.

Well, it proves that you are an intellectually dishonest and self-deluded person who feels the need to lie to himself and others, yes. If you were a self-reflective person (which you're not), you'd realize the harm that you're really causing to us, and undermining the legitimate points that we can and should make to fight against AWBs.

Ad hominem fallacy, bandwagon fallacy, tu quoque fallacy, no true scotsman fallacy

Alas, I acknowledge that true believer types like yourself are too common in this community.

Bandwagon fallacy, no true scotsman fallacy

No, I'm afraid that they're discernible facts.

Anecdotal fallacy

And by the way, you speak about opinions as if they're entirely subjective and not based on facts?

Special pleading fallacy

Are you also one of those people who thinks that gender identity is a social construct? Because you're demonstrating just about the same intellectual abilities as the people on the left who would make such claims.

Tu quoque fallacy, strawman fallacy, special pleading fallacy, ad hominem fallacy

Nope, it's the opposite, actually.

Black or white fallacy

Nope, the pushback that I have received (the vast majority of which is from one person - you) is that in order to make the argument I've made, we have to admit that some of our long-standing arguments that we've trotted out in these debates are incorrect. Your problem is that you're a true believer type. You'd much rather continue to pretend that the guns we're defending are "sporting weapons" because you're afraid that implying they are functionality very similar (i.e., almost indistinguishable) to military weapons will make it easy for the antis to argue that they should be banned. Unfortunately, you're demonstrating cowardice, and really, you're trying to silence me because you are a coward and you are afraid.

Ad hominem fallacy, burden of proof fallacy

It's not a question of "more protected" (bad phrasing); but rather, what was the intention of the 2A. Weapons don't become "less" protected simply because we're acknowledging that the 2A would seem to discredit the antis' belief that only "sporting" weapons are GTG.

Special pleading fallacy.


This is why you've gotten push back from me. You have yet to make a compelling argument without resorting to logical fallacy.

Basically, you stink at arguing, as evidenced above. It is the only thing you have convinced me of.