See here for why existing assault weapons bans are just pointless demagoguery. There is no functional difference between the assault version and non-assault version of the same rifle.
Hmm, interesting question. Maybe you would just have to remove the standard explosive that is designed to blow up tanks, and replace it with one that would only blow up people. That's the ticket!
I don't get it. If, as my NRA-oriented friends keep reminding me, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", why can't I have grenades?
I think there is simple way to classify whether a firearm is an "assault weapon". Define it like this: A firearm is a assault weapon if it can shoot more than N bullets in ten seconds. I am not sure what N should be, let's say N=10 for now. This definition is based on functionality not how the weapon looks or how many times one needs to pull the trigger.
(s) So, I could have a grenade launcher if I loaded the magazine of 100 rounds through the chamber?? (/s)
Hmm, interesting question. Maybe you would just have to remove the standard explosive that is designed to blow up tanks, and replace it with one that would only blow up people. That's the ticket!
If you're actually curious, grenade launchers (being essentially a piece of pipe) are perfectly legal. Grenades themselves are very, very not.
I don't get it. If, as my NRA-oriented friends keep reminding me, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", why can't I have grenades?
"Grenade Launchers" can also be "Line Launchers"
Line Launchers or Line Throwers are often used to connect two ships during a replenishment at sea.
I think there is simple way to classify whether a firearm is an "assault weapon". Define it like this: A firearm is a assault weapon if it can shoot more than N bullets in ten seconds. I am not sure what N should be, let's say N=10 for now. This definition is based on functionality not how the weapon looks or how many times one needs to pull the trigger.