"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Doug Kanter"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> > Perhaps you read it but don't remember what it said. It said basically
>> > that an assault rifle is an assault rifle, because it's an assault
>> > rifle.
>> >
>> > I'm still waiting for Sandi to post a definition of an assault rifle
>> > (what
>> > makes it different from a hunting rifle).
>
>
>> Dan, you know as well as I do that the term "assault rifle" raises
>> giggles
>> in gun discussion groups. If the "real definition" exists, I think its
>> purpose is to provide the basis with which to shut down unruly newspaper
>> reporters who think anything with a flashlight attached is an assault
>> rifle.
>
>
> You know and I know, but John Q. Public wants to ban assault rifles
> because they are so dangerous.
>
>
>
>> I love words.
>
>
> But usually they mean something. Most laws have decent definitions in
> them. The failure to find any kind of decent definition in the California
> law banning their sale is why I keep bringing this up.
>

I don't know about you, but what always scares me about them thar a-salt
weapons is the bayonet lug mentioned in the old federal law. That thing
could pinch a victim's skin and raise one helluva welt. They *should* be
illegal.
:-)