LinkVPit said:
Well they are classed as assault rifles. It doesn't matter if you attack someone or not.
|
no they arent.
however under the expired 1994 gun ban, they would be labled as "assualt weapons" which is a completely made up political term that means absolutely nothing. my .22 rifle would be considered an"assault weapon" under the law if i put a pistol grip on it and a carrying handle.
anti-constitutionalist gun-grabbers created this term to garner support by scaring people. with words like "assualt: and "weapon" they could have called them anti-material photon plasma cannons, and they would have if they thought it further their agenda. the "assault weapons ban" banned nothing more than aesthetics. purely cosmetic features.
if they wrote legislation banning "assualt rocks" it doesnt make the term valid, or something more realistic, banning all "sport vehicles" red cars with rear spoilers, and spinning hubcaps arent allowed.
assualt is a verb, a gun by itself cannot assault anything. My fists can be assault fists. if i punch somebody with my fist, guess what i get charged with? any gun can therefore become an "assault weapon". as you can see the term "assault weapon" is compltely made up, and meaningless, it doesnt ban anything more than the scary looking guns. so while the scary black AR-15 chambered in .223, your standard wood grain hunting rifle chambered in .30-06 is fine. even though one is capable of putting a hole in you arm, the other is capable of blowing that arm off.
