Originally Posted by movethechains
No I'm not.
Not sure I got your point, the remington qualifies as a hunting rifle, the AR-15 and the like should be illegal.
This is a basic Venn. Something not illustrated is what is called the "population". Basically, just picture a big box (named D) that surrounds all of the circles.
Look at circle A. Part of it overlaps only circle C. Part of it overlaps only circle B. Another part of it overlaps parts of both B and C. One part of it doesn't overlap either of the other circles. Lastly, if Box D was drawn in, circle A would only encompass part of Population D. Hope that makes sense.
Reason to even discuss this: As I said, "From a political standpoint, an "assualt weapon" is basically any weapon that looks really menacing, regardless of actual function."
Some guns might fall into categories bounded by circles A, B, and C. Other guns might fall into AC, or BC, AB, or perhaps even A, B, or C specifically.
In short, that a gun might actually be an "assault rife" doesn't negate the truthfulness of my statement. Say that guns that really are assualt rifles would fall into the area that A, B, and C intersect. The problem is, politicians are defining "assualt weapons" as any gun that would be in circle A, or B, or C, even though all the guns outside of that small intersection area AREN'T actually assault weapons. They just might share some characteristic such as how they look, i.e. something purely cosmetic.