In response to:

The Need for Semi-Automatic "Assault" Weapons

Happy Jake Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 10:31 AM
An assault rifle is capable of fully automatic or "burst" (a short sequence of automatic fire) mode. Anything incapable of fully automatic or "burst" mode is, by definition NOT an assault rifle. Automatic weapons (full or burst) are already heavily regulated at the federal and state levels. They aren't banning assault rifles, they are banning perfectly legal, but scary-looking semi-automatic rifles. You notice that it's always "military-style" weapons, not military weapons, that are the target of these bans. "Military-style" means something that LOOKS like it belongs to the military, but does not.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 10:57 AM
Right, semi-automatic weapons are good for making individual shots, but not great for assaulting an enemy entrenched position I would think.
conservative_one Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 10:43 AM
HJ: Sadly, you make sense. The politicians simply want more control of all of us. They want all guns banned.

By now, we’ve heard the argument about semi-automatic "assault" rifles: nobody needs one. We’ve heard the only reason why someone would obtain this kind of weapon is so they can kill people, which is far from the truth. We’ve also heard the argument from both the Left and the Right that a pistol is how someone protects their home.

"I really don’t know why people need assault weapons. I’m not a hunter but I understand people who want to hunt," Republican Rep. Peter King said on Morning Joe earlier this week. "I understand people who live in rough neighborhoods...