Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Attempt to Assassinate the President

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:29:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Can we go back the debates on heavier gun regulation like we did after Gifford, or does someone tremendously important actually have to die before we get the point? How it was so easy for a man to get this close to the White House and actually fire at it with an assault rifle is unbelievable and inadmissible.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:20:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:29:01 PM, 000ike wrote:

Can we go back the debates on heavier gun regulation like we did after Gifford, or does someone tremendously important actually have to die before we get the point? How it was so easy for a man to get this close to the White House and actually fire at it with an assault rifle is unbelievable and inadmissible.

Obama's not even mildly important.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:26:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:20:43 PM, DanT wrote:

Obama's not even mildly important.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

lol this is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. So let innocent people be killed because an insignificant PRIVILEGE must be protected? There is one thing that rights simply do not ever surpass, and that is morality in the rawest sense, the necessity to preserve the safety and well being of each life far outweighs your trivial little "rights."
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:35:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
illegilizing guns wont get rid of them, felons still get guns whey are not allowed, so a ban would be a waste of time. Terrorists make AK-47 in huts in the middle of nowhere, and their countries say no guns allowed. Most of the bulk market for guns in the U.S is from Europe, if illegilized bad people would still guns. Also guns lower crime.
Read: http://www.justfacts.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:42:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:26:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/17/2011 9:20:43 PM, DanT wrote:

Obama's not even mildly important.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

lol this is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. So let innocent people be killed because an insignificant PRIVILEGE must be protected? There is one thing that rights simply do not ever surpass, and that is morality in the rawest sense, the necessity to preserve the safety and well being of each life far outweighs your trivial little "rights."

Yes only the trustworthy and always honest and faithful United States Federal Government should have firepower, because as we all know, private gun owners kill far more people than the government.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:44:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
want more? :)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:59:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:35:01 PM, 16kadams wrote:
illegilizing guns wont get rid of them, felons still get guns whey are not allowed, so a ban would be a waste of time. Terrorists make AK-47 in huts in the middle of nowhere, and their countries say no guns allowed. Most of the bulk market for guns in the U.S is from Europe, if illegilized bad people would still guns. Also guns lower crime.
Read: http://www.justfacts.com...

No one asked to illegalize guns. What I said was for heavier regulation.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 10:17:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd be curious to learn what exactly he was using. Half of the time weapons described as "assault rifles" end up being ARs or crappy AK variants.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 10:30:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not going to be happy until I have within my possession an M-388 Davy Crockett.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 10:34:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The second amendment debate is the largest reading comprehension debate in the nation. With simple reading comprehension and actually reading the amendment, we see what we should do.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What is a militia, a right, arms, or infringed? All f these are important and there definitions become clear from context.

Notice the appositive "being necessary to the security of a free State." It is referring to the Militia. What is the militia? Is it the national guard or armed citizens? Let's use the appositive and se if it makes sense for the national guard.

Is the national guard necessary to a free state? Notice necessary, a strong, powerful word, and the word free. (State in this means nation by the way) Without the national guard, can we still have freedoms? Yes, of course. Can we have the national guard without freedoms? Yes of course. Obviously the militia is no the national guard. Let's see if context can reveal the answer.

From reading it we can see that he militia, whatever it is, needs the right to bear arms. The right of who? The people. The national guard's existence does not depend on my or your right to own a weapon. The militia is obviously comprised of the people.

So what about infringement and arms? These two are explained simultaneously when we understand, as we do now the purpose of the amendment. The purpose is for a people militia to protect their freedoms from tyranny, from foreign or domestic oppression. This is specifically domestic as it is necessary for our freedoms. So as long as the people's militia is equipped enough to adequately defend themselves from the government then gun laws in place are okay.

Surely, our founders couldn't anticipate atomic bombs or any number of modern weapons. However, we an know that they did anticipate new weapons. They clearly stated that the people needs the weapons to defend themselves from the government.

So what is required for our defense? Well, I would argue that the minimum is above what we have now. We need all semi autos legalized. Regardless of grip, bayonet, or any feature. I would also argue that all autos be legalized. Currently the military would be overwhelmingly powerful compared to civilians. Night vision, air power, artillery etc. will give them the advantage. The people need adequate firepower to defend their liberty.
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 11:22:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:26:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/17/2011 9:20:43 PM, DanT wrote:

Obama's not even mildly important.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

lol this is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. So let innocent people be killed because an insignificant PRIVILEGE must be protected? There is one thing that rights simply do not ever surpass, and that is morality in the rawest sense, the necessity to preserve the safety and well being of each life far outweighs your trivial little "rights."

I'm pretty sure shooting at people is against the law. With that in mind, why on Earth would you believe that someone would follow the law if guns were more heavily restricted? Also, the "trivial little right" you're referring to is the most significant. An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject. I don't want the government to be the only ones with weapons. Look at history, just the last century. Literally hundreds of millions dead either by the hand of their governments, or fighting for their governments.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 11:23:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 10:34:07 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
So what is required for our defense? Well, I would argue that the minimum is above what we have now. We need all semi autos legalized. Regardless of grip, bayonet, or any feature. I would also argue that all autos be legalized. Currently the military would be overwhelmingly powerful compared to civilians. Night vision, air power, artillery etc. will give them the advantage. The people need adequate firepower to defend their liberty.

Ahh yes, the "we need guns to be able to compete with the US Military" viewpoint. If anyone's interested, here is my favorite depiction of this argument:
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 11:27:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 11:23:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/17/2011 10:34:07 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
So what is required for our defense? Well, I would argue that the minimum is above what we have now. We need all semi autos legalized. Regardless of grip, bayonet, or any feature. I would also argue that all autos be legalized. Currently the military would be overwhelmingly powerful compared to civilians. Night vision, air power, artillery etc. will give them the advantage. The people need adequate firepower to defend their liberty.

Ahh yes, the "we need guns to be able to compete with the US Military" viewpoint. If anyone's interested, here is my favorite depiction of this argument:


One question, why should there be competition between the U.S. Military and citizens in the first place, according to this viewpoint?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 11:32:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 11:27:43 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 11/17/2011 11:23:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/17/2011 10:34:07 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
So what is required for our defense? Well, I would argue that the minimum is above what we have now. We need all semi autos legalized. Regardless of grip, bayonet, or any feature. I would also argue that all autos be legalized. Currently the military would be overwhelmingly powerful compared to civilians. Night vision, air power, artillery etc. will give them the advantage. The people need adequate firepower to defend their liberty.

Ahh yes, the "we need guns to be able to compete with the US Military" viewpoint. If anyone's interested, here is my favorite depiction of this argument:


One question, why should there be competition between the U.S. Military and citizens in the first place, according to this viewpoint?

The argument is that governments, by nature, become corrupt and that the people are justified in overthrowing oppressed governments. If the citizens have arms to begin with, a revolution is much easier.

I doubt there is a single person in the entire United States who thinks that face to face and toe to toe the gun owners of America would have even a slight chance against the military. However, if war between an oppressive government and citizens ever erupted even small arms would help significantly as opposed to nothing at all. A .22 caliber bullet to the head can still kill quite effectively.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 11:37:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No more regulation, its an infringement of my legal rights. Also more regulation means more government control which is very...bad to put it nicely. Also banning assault rifles is just dumb, my 2 AR-15's are actually similar to a ruger semi-auto .223 ranch rifle, yet those don't get restricted. The only difference for an 'assault' rifle is that it looks cool, that is the only major difference. I know more about guns then most people :) http://www.guncite.com... more info about assault weapons
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 11:48:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 11:27:43 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 11/17/2011 11:23:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/17/2011 10:34:07 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
So what is required for our defense? Well, I would argue that the minimum is above what we have now. We need all semi autos legalized. Regardless of grip, bayonet, or any feature. I would also argue that all autos be legalized. Currently the military would be overwhelmingly powerful compared to civilians. Night vision, air power, artillery etc. will give them the advantage. The people need adequate firepower to defend their liberty.

Ahh yes, the "we need guns to be able to compete with the US Military" viewpoint. If anyone's interested, here is my favorite depiction of this argument:


One question, why should there be competition between the U.S. Military and citizens in the first place, according to this viewpoint?

Simple reading comprehension and the second amendment says it is necessary for our freedom. Not sovereignty this distinction is key to understanding.Our freedom can only be taken by those who have the power and the government has the power. Thus owning guns protects us from the government and the government controls the military.

And yes corruption of the state would lead to conflicts. Now it isn't going to be shaped up like I have it. It will be all too convincing with propaganda techniques. Sure some won't buy it and they will fight against it but the battle will be uphill without arms.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:20:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If it ever got to the point where armed citizens had to fight against a crazy government, it is likely the military would be splintered. Also, those kinds of revolutions tend to get interesting if the government cannot immediately roll the tanks over the civilians with few casualties on their side. The government knows that other countries will gladly "help" the armed citizens and take their slice of the pie afterwards. The armed militia does not need to overpower the Government Military, they just have to keep them from rolling over them.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:35:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:26:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/17/2011 9:20:43 PM, DanT wrote:

Obama's not even mildly important.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

lol this is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. So let innocent people be killed because an insignificant PRIVILEGE must be protected?

Rights and Privleges are two different things.

A right is something you are entitled to.
A privilege is something you are granted.

There is one thing that rights simply do not ever surpass, and that is morality in the rawest sense, the necessity to preserve the safety and well being of each life far outweighs your trivial little "rights."

Typical left winger

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:46:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 10:17:52 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
I'd be curious to learn what exactly he was using. Half of the time weapons described as "assault rifles" end up being ARs or crappy AK variants.

It could be a M1 grand. It doesn't have to be full auto to be classified an assault weapon.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:53:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Attempting to assassinate the president is like the United State's national sport.

*gets flagged by the FBI*
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 1:05:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It was semi-auto, and it was a romanian cugir SA
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 1:10:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 12:53:38 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Attempting to assassinate the president is like the United State's national sport.

*gets flagged by the FBI*

No license needed
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 1:19:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 12:46:20 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/17/2011 10:17:52 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
I'd be curious to learn what exactly he was using. Half of the time weapons described as "assault rifles" end up being ARs or crappy AK variants.

It could be a M1 grand. It doesn't have to be full auto to be classified an assault weapon.

Yes... it does. An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire settings alowing the user to choose between auto and semi-auto. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com...
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 1:47:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 1:19:20 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
Yes... it does. An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire settings alowing the user to choose between auto and semi-auto. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com...

      Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition. (a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, "assault weapon" means:

      (1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol;

      (2) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person;

      (3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:

      (A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

      (i) A folding or telescoping stock;

      (ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

      (iii) A bayonet mount;

      (iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

      (v) A grenade launcher; or

      (B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

      (i) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

      (ii) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;

      (iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

      (iv) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

      (v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; or

      (C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:

      (i) A folding or telescoping stock;

      (ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

      (iii) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and

      (iv) An ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

      (4) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

      (b) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, the term "assault weapon" does not include any firearm modified to render it permanently inoperable.

      (P.A. 93-306, S. 1; P.A. 01-130, S. 1.)

      History: P.A. 01-130 amended Subsec. (a) to delete reference to Sec. 53a-46a(h), make technical changes in Subdiv. (2) and add Subdivs. (3) and (4) re physical characteristics criteria applicable to definition of "assault weapon" and amended Subsec. (b) to delete reference to Sec. 53a-46a(h).
http://law.justia.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 8:00:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
this is hillarus to watch, no more arguing about the assasnnation or rights, but instead what you need to be an 'assault' rifle. Yes a semi-auto weapon can be an 'assault' weaopn.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 10:54:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:59:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/17/2011 9:35:01 PM, 16kadams wrote:
illegilizing guns wont get rid of them, felons still get guns whey are not allowed, so a ban would be a waste of time. Terrorists make AK-47 in huts in the middle of nowhere, and their countries say no guns allowed. Most of the bulk market for guns in the U.S is from Europe, if illegilized bad people would still guns. Also guns lower crime.
Read: http://www.justfacts.com...

No one asked to illegalize guns. What I said was for heavier regulation.

It's called a strawman argument.

Here's a question. Of guns used in the US for crimes, how many use assult rifles, and how many use handguns and how many use "other" (hunting rifles, shotguns, etc)?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 10:56:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 1:47:16 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/18/2011 1:19:20 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
Yes... it does. An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire settings alowing the user to choose between auto and semi-auto. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com...

      Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition. (a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, "assault weapon" means:

      (1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol;

      (2) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (1) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person;

      (3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:

      (A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

      (i) A folding or telescoping stock;

      (ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

      (iii) A bayonet mount;

      (iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

      (v) A grenade launcher; or

      (B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

      (i) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

      (ii) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;

      (iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

      (iv) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

      (v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; or

      (C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:

      (i) A folding or telescoping stock;

      (ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

      (iii) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and

      (iv) An ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

      (4) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

      (b) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, the term "assault weapon" does not include any firearm modified to render it permanently inoperable.

      (P.A. 93-306, S. 1; P.A. 01-130, S. 1.)

      History: P.A. 01-130 amended Subsec. (a) to delete reference to Sec. 53a-46a(h), make technical changes in Subdiv. (2) and add Subdivs. (3) and (4) re physical characteristics criteria applicable to definition of "assault weapon" and amended Subsec. (b) to delete reference to Sec. 53a-46a(h).
http://law.justia.com...

While those definitions matter in court, they do not matter to the media. If it is a rifle and "looks" like an assault rifle, they'll call it an assault rifle.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"