deeqin

I'm a police officer, my wife is a police officer.
We both have come into contact both assault weapons and automatic weapons. And the NRA distinction is quite correct that many people do misconceive the two.
However, one little omission that I noticed in the NRA's reasoning is that one of the most defining factor of an assault weapon is the ability to carry armour piercing ammo.
NOT that this means that everyone who owns one wants to kill cops. Point of fact nearly all legal owners are Nascar dads and such (not to say hick/country-ass/redneck... but c'mon), and can not be held accountable for the actions of those who use assault weapons outside of the law.
The only questions I would pose are that what manner of game wears a bullet proof vest or fires back ?,
And for those that have them for home invasion/protection purposes... who do you think is going to invade your home... the Terminator ??
For home protection (if that is REALLY what it is to be used for), a 9mm handgun would be the most convenient and effective for of weaponry, and as far as game hunting... if you need a 3-burst to put down a deer, or a duck or whatever... then you REALLY need try another sport 'cos you suck at marksmanship.
And for the constitutional aspect of the argument... then as upholders, protectors and idolisers of the constitution... then they should be 100% supportive of the indiviuals rights to freedom, and whole heartedly embrace gay marriage ???
(I'm gonna go ahead and assume our country bretherin are gonna still object to that one)

Not everyone in the NRA is nuts, just most of them.