My view regarding guns in the USA as a foreigner.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, the real AR-15 was designed specifically to be an selective fire automatic rifle for military purposes in the late 1950 and was meant to be distinguished from prior military rifles by being both lighter than existing full powered military rifles like the M-14, and capable of being controlled by the typical infantryman while firing on full automatic from the shoulder which guns firing full rifle cartridges can’t do.    It was sort of ground breaking mainly in that it used a smaller caliber full length round rather than rifle caliber short round like the AK-47 or StG-44.

Full auto isn't a requirement of assault rifles.  Selective fire that -can- include full auto is, though we opt for burst.   Our "battlefield weapons" like the m4 may look like an ar-15..but they are mechanically distinct from them in ways that the current selection of ar-15s and knockoffs is -not- mechanically distinct from my sears .22lr..... which is also not an assault rifle or battlefield weapon despite being the functional equivalent of any ar 15 chambered in .22lr...and thus, if not for specific grandfathered exemptions would fall into the category of "assualt style" rifles..or Brian's even more ambiguous "battlefield weapon".  

Modern guns sold commercially as AR-15 style range from guns that are essentially identical to the original AR-15, similar to M-16 and M-16A2, and guns that retain the external styling cues of the AR-15 family but mechanically substantially different.

Factually inaccurate.  No ar-15 or ar-15 knockoff is "essentially identical" to either the m-16 or the a series.  Not only would extensive modification be required, a special stamp would need to be procured for their purchase.  Aint nobody got time for that shit, and so the rifle sold to civvies was designed for that market when the patent on the action expired in 77.  

An assault rifle is any rifle that is shorter than your typical full length rifle from the WWII era and fires a less powerful round than the typical WWII rifle so it is handier in close combat and can be fired accuractely at higher rate than any rifle firing full powered rifle cartridges, while at the same time the round it fires is more powerful than pistol rounds fired by full automatic submachine guns, so it can be used like a rifle out to medium range.

You know that's not the definition of an assault rifle, right? Worse, perhaps..is that a substantial number of ar-15s will evade this novel interpretation, itself.

Most rifles the media call “Assult style” fit that definition. So most assult style rifles are full on assult rifles.  Even those prevented from firing full automatic are still arguably assult rifles.   M-16A2, the standard assault rifle used by the US military during the 1980s, lacked full auto capability.

No "assault style" rifle meets the definition of an assault rifle.  Assault rifles do, "assault style" rifles fall short..thus the distinct moniker.  Ironically, you mentioned many assault rifles up above.  The STG 44 and AK47, the m-16, and the a series.   Neither the ar 15..nor my sears 22..are assault rifles...even though they -are- mechanically and "essentially" identical.....the latter being a grab by sears in the late 70's on the recently public DGI action...but in a nice traditional wooden stock that doesn't evoke that joe-tingle (it wasn't a thing yet, that would wait until the direct industry support of 3-gun). 


All of this..but the underlying point is simple.  There's no need to mis-classify firearms or defend inaccurate classifications.  This makes the work of gun control -harder- and isn't required to justify regulations in the first place.  Can we at least agree that removing some valid article of objection from gun nuts would probably be better than planting our feet in the ground and making ourselves the idiots in the discussion who don't know guns but imagine themselves qualified enough, at least, to regulate them?  "Assault style" rifles and "battlefield weapons" are empty signalling terms. Their use and acceptance tells us about a persons political affiliation but nothing about the difference between my 22 and an AR-15, or an ar-15 and an m4. Over and above and around all of this is the simple fact that all firearms are dangerous. Some more inherently dangerous than others. Not even because of crime, or school shooting..certainly not because of their "military styling". In the best of conditions, popping off 30 rounds outside of a range or known backstop provides 30 unique opportunities for tragedy.

This is a valid and technically accurate underlying justification for why one rifle or group of rifles x needs to be regulated in ways that another or another group does not. The NRA and gun nuts would have to eat safety crow if we went this route, rather than attempting to polarize public opinion by making boogeymen out of black rifles. In this case, the slogans and talking points that help work people up don't actually help to move or craft effective legislation. The last "assault weapons" ban failed to reduce gun crime, gun death..or even hit assault rifles. It hit sport shooters...a group uniquely unlikely to go on a shooting spree or rob a liqour store....and that got them all het up about the govmint coming to take their silly guns based upon an undelying ignorance of both guns and their users and their very own data on the subject.

So we can keep doing that..if we want to fail.....but.......

[CapnAwesome]

1.  Stop the manufacture, importation or sale of anything more rapid fire than a revolver.  Place a huge tax on ammunition for what remains.  Shotguns and actual hunting rifles will remain legal.  So too shall muskets for ceremonial militia groups.  People need to be reminded of what the fucking militia was

2.  Set a date for a National Gun Buy Back period.  I know 2d amendmentards never read the rest of the fucking thing but the 5th Amendment requires that no one be deprived of property without due process and just compensation.  Expensive?  Yes.  But we can save a lot of money on health care from all these shootings and divert money from arming the cops with tanks to getting guns off the street.  Once the deadline has passed anyone with a weapon which does not pass muster is, by definition, no longer a Law-Abiding Responsible Gun Owner ( a L-ARGO) and is subject to having their guns confiscated.

3.  Take all the weapons recovered in step two, melt them down and cast a monument to the victims of the NRA's unholy crusade for profit.  It can be in the shape of a gigantic prick with FUCK THE NRA inscribed on the balls and placed opposite the Washington Monument.  I hope it isn't bigger but that can't be helped.

4.  We can all meet on the National Mall, burn Wayne LaPierre at the stake and congratulate our fellow survivors of Gun Nut Nation's reign of terror.

Trying to confiscate guns from diehard gun fanatics is going to create a way bigger shooting problem then you are trying to solve.

---

Isnt there a little irony the people who think our current government is run by a mordern version of Hitler also don't want the people who live under it to have assault rifles?

How do you suggest we rebel against the fascist takeover youve been preaching about non-stop since Trump was a candidate?

[Macoleco]

Doubt citizens with rifles can stop the USA Army...

[The Grand Nudger]

They can, example 1, the middle east.  It wont be the militia fuckwads that do it though. Imagine trying to control our cities and infrasturcture under military law ..or the rockies, any of our deserts, the appalachian range..or a swamp against Yall Qaeda and The Christian State In America. It starts with bolts and antique pieces.....and then they knock out a truck or find a clutch of 105HE, and it's pewpewpew till the apocalypse.

[Silver]

Doubt citizens with rifles can stop the USA Army...

That's what's so ridiculous about gun fondlers' insistence that they need to be prepared to protect themselves in case a corrupt government comes after them. Sorry, but your puny gun collection isn't going to do squat against an army. Therefore, that argument for guns is invalid.

[The Grand Nudger]

A better use of most of americas guns, in the militia nut dreamland scenario...is to pry tips and pool the powder for ieds. The only real opportunity for direct action starts around .50..and the point is to isolate a few joes and get -their- equipment.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Doubt citizens with rifles can stop the USA Army...

That's what's so ridiculous about gun fondlers' insistence that they need to be prepared to protect themselves in case a corrupt government comes after them.  Sorry, but your puny gun collection isn't going to do squat against an army.  Therefore, that argument for guns is invalid.

Why fight the army when you can simply blow the leader's head off? It works in cowboy and Indian movies.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's what's so ridiculous about gun fondlers' insistence that they need to be prepared to protect themselves in case a corrupt government comes after them.  Sorry, but your puny gun collection isn't going to do squat against an army.  Therefore, that argument for guns is invalid.

Why fight the army when you can simply blow the leader's head off? It works in cowboy and Indian movies.

"Red Dawn" made a lot of idiots a lot more stupid.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Wyrd
It works in asymmetric engagements as well.  You learn the process response and times.  You engineer a situation which brings in critical personnel...and -then- you see the light. No one ever "fights". The medics get blasted, the bomb squad gets hit. The column of cooks and accountants playing infantry get t-d up. You respond to phantom calls and the cell tower behind you gets felled like a tree while you're looking somewhere else. Potholes appear in the roads, bridges disappear, the water mains keep getting cut and you can't keep the power on in a city block with any confidence.

The idea that armed citizens can curb stomp a conventional force is well attested to in history and the present..it's the militia concept fighting conventional battles against a legitimate conventional army that's -always- been absurd. It was absurd when they wrote the second amendment, lol. The authors were being just a tad bit duplicitous when they wrote it, and it had more to do with politics and being dead broke than any military reality.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

@Wyrd
It works in asymmetric engagements as well.  You learn the process response and times.  You engineer a situation which brings in critical personnel...and -then- you see the light.  No one ever "fights".  The medics get blasted, the bomb squad gets hit.  The column of cooks and accountants playing infantry get t-d up.  You respond to phantom calls and the cell tower behind you gets felled like a tree while you're looking somewhere else.  Potholes appear in the roads, bridges disappear, the water mains keep getting cut and you can't keep the power on in a city block with any confidence.  

The idea that armed citizens can curb stomp a conventional force is well attested to in history and the present..it's the militia concept fighting conventional battles against a legitimate conventional army that's -always- been absurd.  It was absurd when they wrote the second amendment, lol.  The authors were being just a tad bit duplicitous when they wrote it, and it had more to do with politics and being dead broke than any military reality.

The people who wrote the New Hampshire State Constitution didn't beat around the bush =

"[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

June 2, 1784"
https://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html