What is an assault weapon? Is an AK-47 an assault weapon? Is a revolver
an assault weapon? I hear many, many people who throw around the term “assault
weapon” and I have to ask myself, do they even know what one is? Our own
government hasn’t defined what an assault weapon is since 1994.

In 1994, Congress passed and
President Bill Clinton signed into law a ban on some semi-automatic rifles and
handguns that were deemed “assault weapons.” Defining the term was tricky then
and remains controversial today.

“If gun control actually did work, Washington, D.C. and Chicago would be
the safest cities in your nation. But [they are] not, they have the toughest gun
laws and the highest crime and murder rates,”

Under that now-expired law, some new
guns were banned by name, including the Uzi, the AK-47 and the Colt AR-15,
which is similar to the military’s standard issue M16.

The law also covered some other
semi-automatic rifles that are used with detachable magazines — devices that
hold ammunition and feed the bullets into the firing chamber automatically.
Such rifles were banned only if they had two or more additional characteristics
listed in the law, such as a folding stock or a pistol grip.

Guns already sold to buyers before
the ban were exempt and could be resold. Meanwhile, manufacturers skirted the
ban by producing similar guns under new names or making minor design changes,
such as removing a bayonet mount.

Obama says he wants Congress to ban
what he calls “military-style assault weapons,” but he hasn’t defined the term, so it’s unclear which guns
would be covered. He describes his plan as reinstating and strengthening
the 1994 assault weapon law. Without defining it, playing on your ignorance, he
could pass the law, then define it to mean whatever he desires.

"No Gun zones" save lives (did you read the first quote in this article?  Do bad guys come to rob you and see your "No gun zone and go next door?)

That 1994 law, however, wouldn’t
have covered the military-looking Bushmaster .223 rifles used in the Aurora,
Colo., and Newtown, Conn., shootings, had it still been in place in 2012. The
old law did apply to another aspect of those shootings — high-capacity

Lets recall the tragic shooting at
Sandy Hook. The killer used an “assault weapon” as that’s the only way he could
have killed so many innocent people right? The news even said he used the scary
“assault weapon. The governments main talking point was that Sandy Hook would
not have been as bad if he didn’t use a “assault weapon”. Time, and time again
it has been pushed that he used the semi automatic weapon (everyone is nodding
their head yes, Major, what’s your point?) Well, he
didn’t use the AR15
. It was found in his car trunk after the fact. It was
never fired. So, will the gov classify those guns he did use as “banned guns”?
If so, you probably have the same guns at home. (
Glock pistol and a Sig Sauer pistol)


Why would a person use an assault
weapon? They are considered by some people to be fun to shoot; they can be used
for hunting, depending on the weapon and the size of the animal; and because
they resemble military rifles they can appear particularly menacing when used
for personal defense or home protection. The fact is, it doesn’t matter “why” a
person wants an“assault” weapon, it’s their right to own whatever gun they desire.  Unless, you think, the government, knows
better than you and knows what you do or don’t deserve to have, then the
government will be like that of foreign countries where “they” say what you can
or cannot do against your rights. Does the government know what’s better for
you or do you know what’s better for you? Interesting question.


The term assault
, when used in the context of assault-weapon laws, refers primarily
(but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that
possess the cosmetic features of an assault
that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational
features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons
to Title II weapons. Merely the possession of
cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired,
automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into
the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine
gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.[3]

In the former U.S. law, the legal
term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm
models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by
three manufacturers, and Uzis)
and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of
cosmetic features from the following list of features:

A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2

An Intratec TEC-DC9 with
32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault
Weapon under Federal Law.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept
detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable
magazines and two or more of the following:

  • Magazine that attaches outside the
    pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel
    extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel
    that can be used as a hand-hold
  • Unloaded weight of 50 oz
    (1.4 kg) or more
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of
the following:

  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
  • Detachable magazine.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 amended Section
921(a) of title 18 of the United States Code to define semiautomatic assault
weapons and specifically named the following nineteen (19) semi-automatic
firearm models and/or model types, as well as any copies or duplicates of these
firearms, in any caliber, as assault weapons.

  • Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly
    Technologies AK-47 (all models)
  • Action Arms Israeli Military
    Industries UZI
  • Action Arms Israeli Military
    Industries Galil
  • Beretta AR-70 and
  • SC-70
  • Colt AR-15
  • Fabriqué National FN FAL
  • FN LAR and
  • FNC
  • MAC-type handguns, including MAC-10
  • MAC-11
  • MAC 11/9 and
  • MAC-12
  • Steyr AUG
  • TEC-DC9 and
  • TEC-22
  • Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as
    (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and
  • Striker 12.


Ok, now that you know what the law was in 1994, but back
up the train a minute. I love the argument how many believe the proposed “gun
control” is only for those big scary AR 15 and the like scary “assault weapons”.
Nope. If you look at the 1994 law, it included some semi-automatic pistols as
well. That’s right, not just those big scary assault weapons but your pistol as
well (i.e. semi automatic pistols that weigh over 50oz empty) that’s pretty
much all of them.

The Gun Control issue. Is it about guns? If you say yes,
think about this. Is it about guns or when it all settles down, is it about
your rights as described in the Bill of Rights? What does it say in the Bill of

 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.

For those that havent read that before (infringed) is defined by websters as: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

  With that defined, and looking at the current situations
of ‘terror” that the media has been focusing on, what is the common element
throughout? It’s not “assault weapons” we already debunked that above with
Sandy Hook, guns are a common element but so is the continuous meadia  headline that the “attacker” was mentally ill.
Hmm, how many headlines have you seen where the government is addressing the
real issue of mentally ill Americans? Why, because it costs a TON of money to
aid the mentally ill, and a lot less to ban guns.

If you are for the government implementing a gun control
then what you are saying is that you are in acceptance to forfeit your rights
to the government. Now if you forfeit something, you don’t get them back. If
you agree, to forfeiting your second amendment right, then why not your first
or others? If the gov can tear apart the Constitution and rewrite your rights
for the 2nd amendment, why wouldn’t they do it for the first?

Just a quick side bar pertaining to the first amendment. Currently
there are a series of pictures of Obama holding a shot gun that the White House
distributed to show how the president is familiar with guns. Now, the White
House has come out
and warned those
“altering” the president photo that they could be held
liable for altering it. Hmmm  does that
sound like a restriction on your first amendment rights?

Now, I know there are some out there  saying, Major, the government isn’t going to
use a building block approach over time and eventually take all of our guns
away or to quote an emailer “Pro-gun folks
portray control as taking away all your guns.  You know that is not and
never has been proposed by any rational person.”  Has anyone, saying this asked Australia? Last
time I checked they didn’t have a Hitler or ill rational person in charge,
however only
bad people in Australia
, have guns.


Its not about guns people, its about your rights………….


Time for a C-Gar


Data taken from other sources
for this article


  1. Excellent explanation as always Major. Those of us who know firearms have tried to explain to the liberal unwashed (sometimes literally unwashed) that a semi-auto only fires once when the trigger is pulled, but they do not want to hear. My wife is a psych nurse with 25+ years experience in psychiatric assessment. The reason the behavioral health issues are not to the forefront is because the individual states determine the criteria for involuntary commitment (and that ranges from ‘someone’ stating the subject person is bats**t crazy to swinging from the chandelier with a machete in one hand and a firearm in the other). The biggest problem with the mental health aspect is the HIPPA laws block any sharing of medical information. Next comes the person’s civil rights and privacy issues, after that is getting the diagnosing agency/person to be willing to state legally that the person is mentally unstable. Now some are pretty obvious, but those weren’t the ones pulling all the mass shootings. As my wife will tell you, one person can pass all tests/observations and be as ‘sane’ as the next – only to wig out two minutes later, or the reverse, be hanging from the ceiling, only to be as laid back as William F Buckley Jr when the assessment person arrives.
    The biggest problem, and one that is NOT mentioned is the use (or non-use) of psychiatric prescription drugs. By all acknowledgements, Lanzo had a history of behavioral problems of some type. Besides the fact that the ‘assault weapon’ non-use is being buried by the LSM, as are the autopsy reports on the caliber/type of the wounds, what type of psych drug medications were found a) at the house, b) in the treating doctor’s file, c) in the drug scan at Lanzo’s autopsy? Psych drugs require ramp up and ramp down times that can make the patient unstable. If Lanzo quit taking his prescribed medication, it would have had an adverse effect on his mental state. Add another scenario, and I’ll talk of my own history – I have a CHL, a semi-auto pistol I purchased legally at a gun show from a FFL licensed dealer who performed a background check (I had to wait an hour for the bg check to clear) before I could pick up my purchase. Recently, I began taking Chantix to quit smoking – Chantix is a prescribed psychiatric drug that requires a ramp up to become effective – it also has numerous detrimental side effects for some people that include increased aggression, depression, and homicidal /suicidal thoughts (Chantix’s actual medical name ‘varenicline’ was originally an anti-depressant that was found later to aid in smoking cessation). What to do – does my MD (MD’s are grossly underqualified to make psychiatric assessments)report me? Do they come and confiscate my pistol? At what point do I become a ‘danger to self and others’?

  2. txrenegade, great discussion and clearly explained to
    we sane people in America that treasure the second amendment
    and love our freedom.
    I own a M1 Garand made in 1940 and I have run seven, 8
    round clips through it in just under a minute. I suppose I
    could get faster than that w/ more practice and it’s not
    the fire volume of a modern weapon but it was the premier
    assault weapon of it’s day.
    I’d better shut up or some lunatic lefty “legislator”
    may try to ban Garands also.

  3. I still maintain that, as far as an actual military definition is concerned, practically the only real assault weapon is the Kalashnikov (family).
    1) The rear sight is forward of the bolt (don’t stop & take careful aim — assault!)
    2) The bayonet is cruciform or dagger (you can only thrust with the thing, not stop & fight it out — assault!)
    3) The selector switch goes first to automatic fire, then to semi-automatic fire (assault!)
    All mention of an assault rifle in the press is strictly political, & therefore deceptive, if not stupid.

  4. The problem is that the law is not equally implemented to everyone. For me, gun should be regulated. Making sure that the handler is responsible and not influenced of anything that can cause lives. The Obama example above, makes me think of a line from star wars, saying, “what if the democracy we know no longer exists?”

  5. There is a bond between warriors. Some of those warriors are four legged. Some of those four legged warriors have saved many two legged warriors lives. Sometimes it’s best to let sleeping dogs be

  6. The filter was designed so that the water is heated. Nearly all models have a matching cover for when the tub is sub-par, than your invested money is vulnerable to being wasted on a product that will deteriorate quickly and last only a short time. Here are some tips on what to look or buy when you want a classy looking spas and hot tubs should have. The jets are the same – of course not.

Leave a Reply