The evil Assault Weapons "Loophole"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

A loophole is:

A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.

At least that's the definition according to wikipedia.

Doctors and lawyers used to learn Latin and read subject matter published in that language because Latin offered a very precise vocabulary often found attractive by those who wrote for those disciplines.

The term "Assault Weapon" is used by some individuals and organizations who share a firearm restriction and control agenda. This terminology is itself a type of loophole because terminology is a quest for precision and the term "assault weapon" is anything but precise.

IMHO, most completely, "Assault Weapon" is a term which collects into a set certain cosmetic and non-interrelated firearm attributes. These attributes were collected from among firearms confiscated by law enforcement after their use in assaults and other crimes. In short, there exists no common thread, other than cosmetics, for most of these features to be grouped in this category.

There is no more material justification for additional attention by law enforcement than there is for cops to more often target red automobiles or black men wearing hoodies.

Why then would all these mostly unrelated and, in some cases, solely cosmetic features be the subject of a ban? The object of the gun control crowd is to ban firearms. In terms of degree, a "better" ban is one which bans MORE firearms.

[Hoyt]

1. So, why do gun stores and gun marketers use the term "assault weapons" or "tactical weapons"?

Because it turns on the potential purchasers by appealing to their baser instincts. These weapons are what the gun culture wants. And that's good enough reason to restrict them.

I love how pro-gunners will always ask "define 'assault' weapon." The definition is pretty clear to me, as is the reason they are so popular among the gun culture.

[PavePusher]

3. "The definition is pretty clear to me..."

Then surely you can state it for us. We'll wait....

[CokeMachine]

4. Good luck --

Hope you have a lot of time to wait. Hoyt is always goodfor a laugh

[PavePusher]

6. It's a beautiful day here in southern Arizona...... I got lots to do.

Yard work, 3 vehicles to repair, some mountain biking or a trail run, dishes, laundry, a promotion report...

[gejohnston]

9. writing EPRs are such a blast

[PavePusher]

13. That... was so on-target. Where did you hide the cameras? Please get out of my building...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. That is an absolute scream

[PavePusher]

5. 'why do gun stores and gun marketers use the term "assault weapons"'

Cite please? I've seen ads using the term "tactical".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tactical

Seems quite appropriate for weapons marketed for defensive and sporting use, and to fulfill the readiness purposes of the Second Amendment. So what's the problem with that use?

As far as the term "assault weapon" in advertising, the only reference I've seen was a post by someone (you, perhaps? I don't remember) of a copy of an ad from, IIRC, the mid- to late-80's. A single instance. Wow. Not quite a common term of the industry.

[Hoyt]

7. As they say, "goggle is your friend." Now, you should go gunless for 6 months.

Here are a few in the first 20 or so results:

http://www.assaultweaponsofohiollc.com/

http://www.eastcoastfirearms.com/default.asp?parent_id=112&is_gallery=0

http://www.proguns.com/


Look up "tactical" weapons too -- there's even more to pique your interests and waste your day.

[ManiacJoe]

40. Your google-fu is weak.

"Assault weapon" is not found on any of the those three pages, except for the name of the company.

[Hoyt]

42. If your vision is no better than that, you should not carry a gun.

Each site says "assault weapon." One even has a button for "assault" pistols that will likely turn you toters on.

[ManiacJoe]

48. You might be confusing "assault rifle" and "assault weapon".

To different things.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. MIGHT???

okay... benefit of the doubt...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Why?

why do gun stores and gun marketers use the term "assault weapons" or "tactical weapons"?

The term "tactical weapons" is of no interest to me here. I addressed "assault weapons". Please try to stay on topic. I haven't read very many gun store or marketer ads which featured the term "assault weapons". Could you, please, enlighten me with a few links?

However, I must congratulate you on a critical point of your characterization. In your sentence, "Because it turns on the potential purchasers by appealing to their baser instincts." you captured something essential in precise language. Perhaps not deliberately on your part, you have highlighted something that bears much consideration. We are all aware of "baser instincts". Lust, greed, envy; these don't exactly exemplify mankind's higher aspirations or achievements. But let me call your attention to another "baser instinct", the one called survival. Frequently firearms are maintained as a means of self defense. While the term "baser instinct" usually is used with a rather negative connotation, it is succinctly on target here.

These weapons are what the gun culture wants. And that's good enough reason to restrict them.

Thanks for confirming my opinion.

[Hoyt]

12. I gave you links a few minutes ago. Try to keep up.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. As much as your 'on target' characterization...

...impressed me, this feeble excuse for a reply leaves me sorting through a number of posts directed to users here who are decidedly NOT ME.

Your limited reply does follow your side in their selective and, generally, lacking responses. Thanks again for the confirmation.

[Hoyt]

20. Post # 7. Jeeeeez

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. Didn't say...

...I didn't find it; just highlighting that the sole substance of your reply is a combination of advertising and obfuscation.

You can stop now, further confirmation of that point from the OP is only redundant.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. Having more closely...

...examining the links you provided, I find no instances of the term "assault weapons".

As another poster has highlighted, the terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are materially different. Your claim that firearm retailers use the term "assault weapon" in advertizing remains completely without support.

As I said before, the term "assault weapon" as defined by the pro-control legislation in force for the 10 year ban collects into a set some firearms based only on their appearances and/or popularity. This flies in the face of logic and common sense.

What is your purpose in making up this stuff?

[Hoyt]

51. Assault weapon, assault rifle, assault pistol, guns sold with name assault -- all the same.

You guys just try to obfuscate things. It really is like talking to a a half-witted TBagger.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. Since it was the gun control proponents...

...who developed the "assault weapon" terminology, which only conflates firearms based on appearance, your subsequent and ironic characterization of pro-rights folks as obfuscational is a rather amusing.

Further, I think you came to this party unarmed.

[Hoyt]

53. Well Mr. "Pro-rights," what does it say about you guys if you buy guns based upon appearance?

Assault rifles/weapons/pistols are purchased by folks who like the thought. As the links I gave you demonstrate, manufacturers, guns stores and marketers use the term "assault" to promote their guns to people who like such crap. And, apparently a lot of folks do. I bet the term even got the pro-rights poster boy -- Zimmerman -- excited.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. Well Mr. "no-rights"...

...smirk, wink...

We buy what we buy. There's no reason for a law to force folks to buy "assault weapons" so we don't advocate for that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. I have never seen Assault Weapon used in a positive marketing context for firearms

I have seen it used it that manner by the VPC and Brady Bunch...

I have seen tactical slings, vest etc sometimes called assault *.

[Hoyt]

21. See post # 7, and you too can apologize for being wrong again.

[sarisataka]

22. Ok point conceeded

The term assault weapon is used in some marketing. I will not apologize since I did not make the claim.

Now your turn:

The definition is pretty clear to me

Please provide an objective definition of 'assault rifles' that clearly enables them to be distinguished for rifles intended solely for hunting and target shooting.
I must request a precise definition as if this is to be used in law I would hate to see a judgement reversed due to said law being vague.

[sarisataka]

46. Waiting...

[sarisataka]

54. Still waiting...

[Johnny Rico]

2. If I really wanted to enact a "better" ban (and I certainly don't!) it wouldn't be that hard

to write up. Ignore cosmetic features...what matters is functionality, not appearances. One could simply ban sale or possession of any feeding device which holds more than 6 rounds. If one wanted to go further, one could ban sale or possession of any semiautomatic firearm.

Please note that I'm not saying such a ban would be practicable. The black market would explode to an extent unimaginable today...and in any case, such a ban doesn't have the slightest chance of passing in the foreseeable future. But from a gun-banner's point of view, it makes more sense than the absurd "assault weapons" ban.

[Hoyt]

8. So, you'd continue buying them on the black market? How law-abiding of you.

[Johnny Rico]

10. When did I say I would do such a thing? Support your accusation or retract it.

I'm waiting...

[ileus]

18. You'll wait forever...he does this all the time.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. More false accusations against upstanding DU members?

[ileus]

23. you of course meant to say baser, gunner, toter, hidden criminal members...right?

[Kurt Hofmann]

19. Why should I aspire to being "law-abiding"?

One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

[link:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#Letter_from_a_Birmingham_Jail_.281963.29|]Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.[/link]

I submit that an individual who breaks the law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.

[link:http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth115046.html|]Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.[/link]

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them.

[link:http://www.dictionary-quotes.com/unjust-laws-exist-shall-we-be-content-to-obey-them-henry-david-thoreau/|]Henry David Thoreau[/link]

Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.

[link:http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henrydavid122587.html|]Henry David Thoreau[/link]

An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.

[link:http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mohandasga150707.html|]Mohandas Gandhi[/link]

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. Welcome to DU

It's an honor to have your first post here in this thread.

[Kurt Hofmann]

26. Thank you.

That's a gracious welcome, and it's much appreciated.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. Best regards

I must also confess a decided preference for famous quotes. So many persons through history have conveyed with eloquence and precision the ideas I ponder today.

[Kurt Hofmann]

44. Thanks again

I agree. It wouldn't make sense, and could indeed be justifiably seen as arrogance on my part, to try to express with my own paltry command of language what such great men have already so eloquently stated.

I tried, by the way, to include links to establish the provenance of the quotes, but was having trouble figuring out DU's mechanics for posting links. Now that I have figured it out, I can't imagine why it gave me so much trouble earlier (it's not that damned complicated), but at least I should no longer need to ask anyone to take my word for the legitimacy of any quotes I post in the future.

[CokeMachine]

35. Welcome to DU!!

You'll no doubt hear that your low post count means you have nothing important to add but your first post shows that you indeed do.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. A happy welcome to you...

...as well.

[CokeMachine]

56. Thank You!!

Been lurking for a few years but was to intimated by a few posters to actually post. Take Care!!

[Kurt Hofmann]

37. Once again

The welcome is greatly appreciated.

[Johnny Rico]

43. Hoyt, I'm still waiting. Either support your assertion that I said I woud do such a thing

Or retract it.

[Johnny Rico]

47. Still waiting, Hoyt...

[Johnny Rico]

57. Not going to retract a false accusation? Doesn't do much for your credibility.

Granted, that's not saying much, under the circumstances...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

58. BTW...

...I like your quote. I like this t-shirt as well:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. "...what matters is functionality, not appearances."

You are so wrong here. What matters is appearances because appearances get legislation passed. It is fundamentally easier to rally support if one does not first have to educate the constituency.


BTW; The sale of magazines with capacities greater than 10 were banned. They were called "Clinton Clips".

[Johnny Rico]

30. Correction: the manufacture of magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds was banned.

You could still buy "pre-ban" mags back then, but you paid through the nose. $150 for a normal-capacity Glock magazine as I recall.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. Also banned...

...was the sale of magazines with capacities greater than 10 manufactured after 13 September 1994 with exceptions for the military and law enforcement.

[Johnny Rico]

32. The sale of such magazines was not prohibited at the national level.

Only their manufacture. Every gun show I went to from 1994 to 2004 had tables of pre-ban mags for sale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

During the period in which the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's definition of an "assault weapon" or "large capacity ammunition feeding device", except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. Possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms was outlawed as well, but the law did not ban the possession or sale of pre-existing "assault weapons" or previously factory standard magazines which had been legally redefined as "large capacity ammunition feeding devices". This provision for "pre-ban" firearms created a higher price point in the market for such items, which lasted until the ban's sunset.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. Exactly!

No where was it illegal to sell mags manufactured pre-ban. It was only illegal to sell mags < 10 capacity made after the ban was effective. DUMB!

[Johnny Rico]

34. I remember those mags, marked "Law Enforcement Only"

No premium for them these days!

[oneshooter]

38. Included in the description" "large capacity ammunition feeding device"

are the following"assault weapons"

1866 Henry rifles, both original and replica (15rds cap)

1876 Winchester rifles, both original and replica (15rd cap)

1892 Winchester rifles, both original and replica(12rd cap)

Gatling Gun mags,both original and replica ( 30-100 rd cap)

The BATFE was seriously willing to remove these from
both museums and private owners unless the mags were shortened to only 10 rds.

[Johnny Rico]

39. I thought the ban only applied to detachable magazines, not tubular ones.

And in any case, wouldn't an 1876 Winchester be a "pre-ban" rifle?

[oneshooter]

41. originally there were no exceptions, other than the one for LE and

22rimfire rifles. There were no "pre-ban" exceptions for any centerfire weapon, or rimfire that was not 22caliber. They were willing to destroy the value of original rifles in their quest for limiting ammo capacity of ANY rifle. This was only changed after a letter writing and phone call campaign to senators and congress critters. After being asked about this the BATFE backed off.

Oneshooter
Armed andf Livin in Texas

[ileus]

17. I call them recreational firearms...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. You again try to confuse the discussion with facts.

shame on you!