Please define your definition of Assault Weapon

What makes the AR-15 Rifle Popular the past 20 years: Now you really need to let go of the term "assault weapon". You have to. As stated in my bigger response you can see what you are referring to is a semi auto rifle and NOT an assault weapon. Because an assault weapon is a weapon that can fire automatic fire (aka machine guns) and not semi auto fire. But ok lets talk about the semi auto rifles. I"d assume more specifically rifles that are chambered in .223/5.56mm (AR 15 rifles). BTW ALL of these rifles for civilian use are STRICTLY semi auto fire as mandated by Federal law since the 1930s. I know I seem like a broken record but this has to be hammered in especially if you have never fired or owned a weapon. What makes these rifles so appealing and effective: 1)The round .223 or 5.56mm is a significantly small caliber bullet. So small this round is not even considered a "Battle" round like the .308 used in the M1A Rifles used during WWII. Because it is small and less weight it enables the magazine to carry more (20-30 rounds are the standard magazine). 2)The round does not over penetrate like other rounds. Therefore once it hits the target it rarely goes fully through and exits and cause unintended casualties. However, 00 buck shot, slugs, 9mm handgun ammo, .40 handgun ammo, .45 handgun ammo, 30-06 rifle ammo, etc has a high degree of over penetration. 3)The recoil is significantly less which allows for greater accuracy and follow up shots if you need to continue shooting to stop the threat. 4)Customization " Because this rifle can be easily customized it can altered to match the users height, length of pull, and eye sight (optics or scopes or iron sights) Because of these traits even the Dept of Homeland Security has explicitly stated that these properties makes the AR-15 style rifles extremely favorable for home defense! Yes the Dept of Homeland Security said this". Look it up if you don"t believe me. Why do you "NEED" anything: First you have to get off this "need" theory all together. We are talking about the Bill of Rights not the bill of needs. If you keep dancing on that "need" slope I can easily counter your need argument with: Why do you "need" a car that goes over 65 MPH when that is average federal limit? By FBI statistics and CDC Deaths car accidents and car related deaths are ALWAYS higher than firearm deaths every year. Why do you "need" a house that big? When all you need is something that is within a certain square footage to be more economical with the environment and less of a carbon footprint. I can go on with this whole "need" argument as you can see. But I don"t want to cut you off right there I will entertain this thought process and utilize real life circumstances as to why you would need a rifle that can hold a magazine of 20 or 30 rounds as opposed to a 10 round limit. Now who am I to tell anyone what they should use to ensure the safety of their self or family? How can I tell a free citizen what is the appropriate method of self defense when every self defense encounter is different? Especially since based on the Supreme Court ruling that police do not have a duty to provide me or you protection! 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? What if I am home and 3-5 armed criminals are breaking down my door. I call the cops and the response time is 10-20 minutes. You have a wife and kid. What would you rather have" a 7 round handgun now mandated in the State of NY or an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine? Chances are you want something that has more rounds until the police (back up) arrive and then you can concede your self defense actions to their authority. Now lets look at more real life instance: Natural Disasters leading to societal break downs " During the Superstorm Sandy my neighborhood was affected as was much of NY and Long Island. The police were not out stopping the looting. They were out securing the gasoline stations due to the limited supply. Looting became a significant problem. I had my shotgun with a capacity of 5 rounds (the same one I use for hunting). However, seeing how looters usually come in groups of 3-8 I was a bit nervous and wished I had something more. Luckily I never had to fire nor was my home directly affected by looting but it was a concern. Especially when I was away and my family was without me I was concerned. My wife isn"t very comfortable with the recoil of the shotgun. Having something with a smaller caliber with less recoil probably would have been a legitimate response for home defense. However, now based on the NYS SAFE Act that passed 1/15/13 I no longer have that option. And getting a handgun based on NYS standards takes over 6 months for a license approval. Yes 6 months! I"m still waiting for my license which I applied for in June 2012. And even so my wife cant fire the handgun without a license of her own (which she does not have). If she does, she gets charged with a felony even in a life or death situation. But that"s just one real life scenario. As a law abiding citizen I value the lives of others so my deployment of my firearm will be in self defense of my family, community or country. I already showed what I feel needs to be done to secure that firearms go into the right hands in my previous argument. So please defer to that. You have to understand that government is never there when it is really needed. Police will not be deployed to ensure your safety when the bad guy has the drop on you. Hell even in the LA riots in the 1990"s the entire LA police force vacated the city and left the civilians on their own for 3 days subject to looting, rapes and murders. The same when Katrina decimated Louisiana. You are your first line of defense. You are a free individual which is entrusted with the high responsibility of security of yourself, family, home, community and country. It"s a 200 year old document: Yes. A document made after the defeat of the greatest army in the world at that time by civilians. A document which for the first time in the history of the world acknowledges the inalienable rights of human beings. This was distributed on a printing press. The second amendment acknowledges that as a civilian you have the right and duty to come forth and create a militia to protect yourself, community, and country in times of dire times. And as you can easily see the rifle was the arm of choice granted to the militia. So any argument that involves the private ownership of a tank, F-15 fighter jet, nuclear arms is clearly not the intent of the second amendment and completely stupid by anyone who starts with it. It"s about the private ownership of a firearm. Rifle is the most common. As with the advancement in technology like the internet, newspapers, radio, and television the respect for the First Amendment has held solid. Why not with the Second Amendment? Can the police or government tap into your emails without a warrant? NO! Because that is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment! Since the document has been created there have been several nations which have been subject to tyranny " Germany, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, China, etc. Most of which happened in the mid 1900s and some of which is happening right NOW! All of which have disarmed the citizens prior to subjecting them to tyrannical activities. So as you can clearly see the threat of tyranny is no less today than it was in the 1800s.