Why gun owners oppose ban on "assault weapons"

Look how dumbasses in Connecticut defined assault weapons.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a46008/supreme-court-gun-control-connecticut/

 

I'm actually in Connecticut right now.

 

Then that makes you a dumb ass according to lsutiga

 

He's a dumbass wherever he is.

Hope you have some duct tape. You know how you're driving is in unfamiliar places.

 

I would have bet more than a dollar that response was coming.

 

Takes one to know one? Something you both have in common?

That one too?

 

I'm getting a strong feeling of deja vu from this thread

 

Finally, you've made a post that made a shred of sense

Yeah, I know I'm never going to live that one down. How is that little girl? They charged my Ins co 10k for that wreck. We fixed it with duct tape and bailing wire in your driveway, WTF?

 

We fixed YOUR car, not hers.

I guess she's okay. Hadn't heard anything. She played ball for us a couple of years and I graduated with her step dad but haven't run into them.

I'm an asshole, asshole.

 

The problem is that there is no such thing, in the civilian world as "an assault rifle."

Since they only exists in the minds of the anti-gun crowd, they cannot be strictly defined. Since one can't be strictly defined, it is IMPOSSIBLE to limit a ban on just "assault weapons." It would look pretty stupid if the liberals tried to ban scary, black guns. That is about as close to a definition as you are going to get, that does not sweep in many, many legitimate hunting rifles.

A more rational venture would be limiting magazine capacity. Not saying I am for that, but at least it would be quantifiable.