Please define your definition of Assault Weapon

Sorry if I am confusing you. I tend to think in complete thoughts and actually show reason and actual statistics in my arguments. I'll try to make this brief as I have been shoveling 25 inches of snowfall all day and I'm tired. My 2 "need" examples are actually quite relevant. Because this is not about gun control... it is just about control. How can you tell a free citizen what they need? When will it stop? Hell even NYC which has one of the strictest gun control measures out there (DC and Chicago trump it) recently passed a ban on the size of soda drinks! Your argument is based on what you perceive someone should have... my argument is that as a free citizen who are you to judge anyone on what they utilize as long as it is within their rights granted by the Constitution. Ya know, the same document you said you would die to defend but in the same breath want to limit others from receiving equal rights within it. Because that is what you are doing whether you believe it or not. And I again wish you would stop using the term "assault weapon" because you should know by now your definition is inaccurate. It is a semi auto rifle. This firearm does not have the same function as a fully automatic military style firearm. It never did since the 1930s. So you either aren't getting it or refuse admit that your term is incorrect. Give you 10 examples... well I gave you a few in my last discussion. Did you even read that? But the answer should be just one reason - because I am free and having this semi auto rifle is what I deem necessary to defend my life and the lives of others if the need ever arises. But I will give you some personal experiences and recent events: 1) Looting during a natural disaster where multiple people are present. I lived in the dark for over 2 weeks while these things were occurring in neighborhoods around me and my family. 2) Since the NYS SAFE Act was created there have been 8 home invasions on Long Island which involved 3-5 armed criminals (some with rifles). This resulted in one 21 year old resident losing his life. Seems like the only life these laws are saving are the criminals. There is now a disparity of force... criminals with rifles clearly banned in NY vs Law Abiding Citizens armed with only 7 rounds if they choose to exercise their diminished 2nd Amendment Right. 3) Recently a Georgia woman home alone with her 2 infants was the victim of a home invasion by one man. She hid and when he found her she fired her 6 shot revolver till it was empty. It hit the man 5 times in the neck and face. He lived got up and drove away then crashed. She needed more bullets... because every encounter is different. 4) LA riots the use of AR-15 rifles with 30 round magazines were utilized by the Korean market merchants to protect their stores from looting and being burnt to the ground. They were successful despite the LA PD vacating the city for their own safety. How successful would they have been with a 6 shot revolver? 5) Flash robberies - Apparently there's a new crime going on where 20-30 people will raid a store at once and commit mass looting. Several store employees have been severely beaten during the process. Again a disparity of force. Having a large capacity magazine would be appropriate in that instance. 6) Hurricane Katrina - people were without power for over a month. Looting was occurring within days. Communities had to ban together and use firearms to secure their blocks and neighborhoods.... then the government illegally came in and disarmed the law abiding citizens leaving them to the mercy of their looters. The national guard never stationed troops in the neighborhoods. 7) Australia disarmed their entire country in the late 1990s. The law abiding citizens handed their firearms in. Crime, especially home invasions, rose over 20%. Criminals do not abide by the laws and will thrive when their life is no longer threatened. I bet they wished they never gave up their arms. 8) UK banned guns and had similar results. Now the UK is looking to ban kitchen knives because there is a stabbing problem.... yes you read that correctly they want to grind down the point on knives. Take away the weapon, new weapons will be used. Focusing on the object never stops the operator. 9 & 10)Tyranny is present in ALL forms of government. Nazi Germany, Communist China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc... What makes you think this wont happen here? None of these regimes happened over night. It was the systematic dismantling of rights from their citizens... which became their subjects. (I'm cheating on the numbers I know... I'm tired) The likelihood of any attack is low. I will not argue you on this. In fact over the last 30 years violent crimes in the USA have steadily been declining. But does that not mean we shouldn't prepare ourselves? People do martial arts, based on your reasoning would that just make them paranoid and their efforts are not "needed" due to the low probability of getting into a fist fight? And keeping with that, the actual deaths that occur with semi auto rifles is actually in the extreme minority. Based on your reasoning why would you want to place a ban on a firearm which causes the least amount of deaths? Because to me it seems the reason is because it looks scary. That's it. The AR-15 chambered in .223 is significantly ballistically inferior to all other hunting rifles. So inferior it is only deemed a varmint rifle commonly used to harvest coyote. PS... Don't select quote me without using the entire subject because I wasn't saving any face: "But lets take a look at the police - when an active shooter is present the police show up with body armour, comparable FULLY AUTOMATIC AR-15 rifles, a sniper team, and a SQUAD of men. However, when the active shooter is present either at a home or in a public setting the civilians who are always the ones on the front lines do not have the advantage of these things. My question to you is what makes the life of a police officer more so than a civilian? In America all are created EQUAL. So why shouldn"t a civilian have a method of protection that is comparable like a Semi Auto styled version?" I believe my point above is clear when you see it as a whole. I never said you referred other Americans were inferior but was showing how the argument that only police and military should only own the AR-15 creates an inferior class.