Quote:
Originally posted by debaser
But your personal definition is completely irrelevant (as well as arbitrary).
|
Hmm. I think not. Since I operate in no legal or law enforcement capacity, my personal definition becomes relevant. Since that sort of personal definition is at the core of my personal opinion, it is totally relevant, if arbitrary. Huzzah, welcome to humanity. My personal opinion irrelevant? No more so than yours is, dear.
Quote:
|
Why twelve rounds instead of eleven or thirteen?
|
Le'ts call it years of casual observation, combined with a perhaps misguided desire to be as flexible as possible.
Quote:
|
Define "heavier than .45 calibur", are we talking bullet weight, TRW, speed?
|
Yes. I take particular exception to .50 caliber handguns. What earthly need has anyone for that much bullet?
Quote:
|
Jacketed rounds are now off limits? Every rifle round is jacketed (except .22), and 90% of pistol rounds are too. Some modern pistols cannot fire a non-jacketed round.
|
Hmmm. So you say technology has made more powerful bullets mandatory? I think not. My definition stands, and you'll note that I made mention of some weapons needing alternate classification. Rifles would be a good example. Just because your pistol fires cop-killers doesn't mean that such bullets and weapons should be legal.
Quote:
|
You just defined my single shot target pistol as an assault weapon.
|
You're saying your target pistol is a .50-caliber pistol loaded with teflon or tracer rounds, carrying thirteen or more rounds? You have just defined your "target pistol" as vastly in excess of what you could almost ever conceivably need to defend yourself, unless perhaps you are regularly assailed by platoons of elephants wearing body armor.
(... alternate definition of assault weaponry, notably excluding any post-ban weapon converted to full-automatic fire trimmed for space)
I'm so glad you have an opinion, but I think perhaps you shouldn't be quite so quick to call other folks' opinions irrelevant.