Tom

Well, now this isn’t something I honestly expected on my BINGO card…
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64992727
 
BBC News: ICC issues arrest warrant for Russian president

Well, now this isn’t something I honestly expected on my BINGO card…
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64992727
 
BBC News: ICC issues arrest warrant for Russian president

Well, now this isn’t something I honestly expected on my BINGO card…
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64992727
 
BBC News: ICC issues arrest warrant for Russian president

Well, now this isn’t something I honestly expected on my BINGO card…
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64992727
 
BBC News: ICC issues arrest warrant for Russian president

Well, now this isn’t something I honestly expected on my BINGO card…
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64992727
 
BBC News: ICC issues arrest warrant for Russian president

Well, now this isn’t something I honestly expected on my BINGO card…
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64992727
 
BBC News: ICC issues arrest warrant for Russian president

Well, now this isn’t something I honestly expected on my BINGO card…
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64992727
 
BBC News: ICC issues arrest warrant for Russian president

I didn't hear about the employment change.  Congrats I hope?

Yes.  I appreciate both Pattern Ghost and Tom talking and sharing more on subjects I don't know about, and having the patience to do so.

Although my Hero gaming is not what it once was, posts like this are a large part of why I still lurk and occasionally post on these forums.  Disputes happen even in this community, but by and large they stay civil and mutually respectful.  Posters also tend to show far more effort and articulate thinking than the average comment section on FB or a typical online news article.  While there are many well-written posts, for me, this one is a recent stand-out.  Thank you for putting in the time and effort it took to write it!

Coming back to this a bit, I thought I'd provide a bit of context for the typical (from a gun person perspective) on inclusion of selective fire as part of the definition of an 'assault rifle' and one possible explanation for why the term 'assault weapon' seems so hard to pin down.
 
For someone with a historic interest in military firearms, the 'assault rifle' is an actual thing.  We know what it is and what characteristics define it.  We can even point to a specific gun and say: "this is where it all begins..."
 
We might debate whether 'this' gun or 'that' gun is an 'assault rifle' or a 'battle rifle' (gun nerds can be as bad as Hero gamers tearing apart a character sheet -- well, maybe not that bad), but we can agree on what isn't an 'assault rifle' and selective fire is part of the core definition.
 
'Assault weapon' as we are seeing, is a nice vague term that sounds threatening, but that we're having a hard time (though we haven't really dug that deep into things here) actually defining it.  Sort of like 'pornography' - "I know it when I see it."  Or, more simply, it's whatever I say it is.
 
For anyone interested in a bit of military history:
 
 

Coming back to this a bit, I thought I'd provide a bit of context for the typical (from a gun person perspective) on inclusion of selective fire as part of the definition of an 'assault rifle' and one possible explanation for why the term 'assault weapon' seems so hard to pin down.
 
For someone with a historic interest in military firearms, the 'assault rifle' is an actual thing.  We know what it is and what characteristics define it.  We can even point to a specific gun and say: "this is where it all begins..."
 
We might debate whether 'this' gun or 'that' gun is an 'assault rifle' or a 'battle rifle' (gun nerds can be as bad as Hero gamers tearing apart a character sheet -- well, maybe not that bad), but we can agree on what isn't an 'assault rifle' and selective fire is part of the core definition.
 
'Assault weapon' as we are seeing, is a nice vague term that sounds threatening, but that we're having a hard time (though we haven't really dug that deep into things here) actually defining it.  Sort of like 'pornography' - "I know it when I see it."  Or, more simply, it's whatever I say it is.
 
For anyone interested in a bit of military history:
 
 

Coming back to this a bit, I thought I'd provide a bit of context for the typical (from a gun person perspective) on inclusion of selective fire as part of the definition of an 'assault rifle' and one possible explanation for why the term 'assault weapon' seems so hard to pin down.
 
For someone with a historic interest in military firearms, the 'assault rifle' is an actual thing.  We know what it is and what characteristics define it.  We can even point to a specific gun and say: "this is where it all begins..."
 
We might debate whether 'this' gun or 'that' gun is an 'assault rifle' or a 'battle rifle' (gun nerds can be as bad as Hero gamers tearing apart a character sheet -- well, maybe not that bad), but we can agree on what isn't an 'assault rifle' and selective fire is part of the core definition.
 
'Assault weapon' as we are seeing, is a nice vague term that sounds threatening, but that we're having a hard time (though we haven't really dug that deep into things here) actually defining it.  Sort of like 'pornography' - "I know it when I see it."  Or, more simply, it's whatever I say it is.
 
For anyone interested in a bit of military history:
 
 

I'm going to insert a quibble here.
 
Even if you don't know the sharp edge cuts and the pointy end goes in the other person, as long as you can at least figure out which part to hold onto you can do a lot of damage with a knife.
 
On the other hand, while firearms are certainly more dangerous than a knife in most situations, I can't tell you how many new shooters I've worked with who can't figure out how to load a firearm without physical  assistance and multiple repetitions or have shown up to shoot without the correct ammunition to even fit into their firearm.
 
While one should always assume a firearm is loaded as a matter of best practice, an unloaded firearm is no more dangerous physically than any other paperweight of similar size and mass.
 
Yeah, I really don't have an issue with a training requirement before someone is allowed to own a gun.

It's less a political system than an economic system. However, as you note, it fails because it relies on human nature being voluntarily overridden. We are not altruistic by nature.
 
 
Like the Bible.  Like Marx's communism.  Like any scientific study. Few have the interest to read and consider the entire discussion, but pull out the points that, taken out of context, justify what we wanted to do anyway, and we're good to go.
 
There's that human nature again.
 
 

True enough, that’s not the 20th century use really. The point definitely is supported by that, that these terms in common usage tend to change and don’t belong to the originators (who would have balked at the “classical liberalism” evolution which is typically socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and extremely moderate by today’s political standard). Individual autonomy, limited government, social freedoms, and particularly a focus on political freedoms and freedom of speech. Government by rule of law. All of that remains very appealing to me. 
 
 

Open bolt designs are typical only in submachineguns and machineguns.  You don't generally find them in firearms intended to fire in semi-automatic even with military/police guns (they do exist though).  Open bolt does terrible things to your accuracy, so anything where 'semi-' isn't included as an afterthought is generally closed bolt.
 
 
And this is why even 'reasonable' gun people tend to be resistant to additional legislation.  Owning an unregistered fully automatic weapon is illegal in the US.  Owning unregistered parts to make a firearm fully automatic is illegal in the US.
 
Typical response - let's make more stuff illegal...
 
Even before 3D printers, it's not particularly hard to build a submachinegun.

Through what time period are we considering?  And does the firearm have to have had adaptations made to its form or functions?  How different does a civilian firearm have to be from a military-issued firearm of similar type and capabilities in order to not be considered a 'weapon of war'?  Can a rifle chambered in .22LR ( a rimfire cartridge) be considered a 'weapon of war'?
 
 
So pretty much every semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine and a barrel length of less than 20" (roughly), assuming by 'weapon' we are only referring to rifles.
 
Fairly broad, but I can think of a few rifles that would not be covered by it such as any Pistol Caliber Carbine (PCC - based on cartridge length and I'm assuming you're going by overall length and not case length) and rifles such as the Springfield Armory M1A (civilianized M-14, overall length is 44.33" in Standard Issue configuration) or the Soviet SKS rifle (doesn't have a detachable magazine) which would likely still cause appropriately minded activists and politicians heartburn.
 
I'm also assuming you're not intending an overlap in definitions with 'weapon of war'.
 
What is the concern with semi-automatic?  The action type has been in use since the 1890s, though it didn't see much in the way of military adoption in rifles until the 1940s - which is still 80(ish) years ago.

Just as an observation, the 'extremism' issue can likely be put down to the regular use of both vague and inflammatory rhetoric by politicians and activists - mostly to garner attention in a saturated media environment and to generate passion in their targeted base.
 
Simply put, it's click bait.  Not to say there aren't people who hold extreme views, but rather that you have to state extreme positions to get anybody else to pay attention to you - all while not actually saying anything legally actionable which can be held against you.
 
The Tennessee drag bill - one of the arguments I've heard made is it doesn't really define what it means and does, which makes it easy for both sides to claim it does something different.
 
Moving to gun control, which I at least can claim to have somewhat more knowledge of the topic, I routinely hear politicians going on about 'assault weapons' and 'weapons of war' and I honestly have no idea what they think they're talking about.  Especially if they're waving around a rifle chambered in .22LR and claim they're 'protecting the children'.
 
("Protecting the children" - I think I've heard that one before from other politicians on other topics...)
 
Would anyone here care to define for me what exactly an 'assault weapon' is, or better yet a 'weapon of war'?  Other than buzz words which are supposed to let you know you're supposed to be outraged - sort of like 'woke' and 'socialism' if you're listening to someone speaking on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
 
According to the internet, only around 7% of US adults are veterans so I shouldn't be too surprised that a majority of the people in the US have absolutely no actual experience with military firearms.
 
As a thought experiment, I suggest everyone think back to any time they've watched a news reporter (or political figure) talking about a subject that they have actual personal experience with (your job/field of study - not just read it on the internet somewhere) and consider how many times you've caught yourself talking back to the screen because the person on the air is saying something that is misleading, factually wrong, or just plain nonsense.
 
The reporter, at least, has the excuse that they're reporting on a subject which they really aren't that knowledgeable in (and may have their own axe to grind) and reporting is their job.
The political figure also may be speaking on a subject they really aren't that knowledgeable on (and probably have their own axe to grind) and swaying opinions is their job.
 
Now consider that the above likely holds true on the subjects on which you don't have personal experience...

One of the oddities of the US. 
 
Whether it’s guns, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+, or any one of a host of other things - how the law can impact you varies from state to state. 
 
People literally do plan trips around how the laws of various states affect how they want to live their lives. 

Probably not…. (With caveats….)
 
That looks like a Glock mag, so if we assume it’s a Glock it’s only legal if it’s Gen 3 or earlier. However it’s got an RDS, so unless it was milled after-market it’s probably Gen 4 or 5 which makes it a no-go. Barrel threading would also have to be after-market for a Glock as well unless I’m seriously mistaken.

Unfortunately, I think discriminatory thinking is part and parcel of the social schism.  It's a minefield, with all the mines on a hair trigger.  For example, for a Democrat..."how can it be acceptable to be a Republican when that's the party of Trump, DeSantis, etc. etc.?"  Overgeneralization is the tripwire, and I'd be surprised if any of us avoid them all.

I have a bit of a tangential question here, having recently seen an argument that essentially compared the marketing of sugary cereals to kids with the marketing of rifles like the JR-15.
 
Now I can see (and remember) the arguments back then. The specific focus was on Saturday morning cartoons.
 
Yeah, the commercials were on programming aimed at kids with the intent the little darlings tell their parents to buy the product. 
 
I don’t watch much TV, hardly any in fact, so I’ve got a question.  Can anyone tell me where they’ve seen firearms advertised where they think children/minors could be targeted?

I have a bit of a tangential question here, having recently seen an argument that essentially compared the marketing of sugary cereals to kids with the marketing of rifles like the JR-15.
 
Now I can see (and remember) the arguments back then. The specific focus was on Saturday morning cartoons.
 
Yeah, the commercials were on programming aimed at kids with the intent the little darlings tell their parents to buy the product. 
 
I don’t watch much TV, hardly any in fact, so I’ve got a question.  Can anyone tell me where they’ve seen firearms advertised where they think children/minors could be targeted?

Tangentially referring back to Hermit’s “oathbreaker” comment, and the rioter’s (likely?) belief he was following the orders of ‘his’ POTUS, he may have believed he was following his oath.  
 
It has been my personal observation that at least some people who claim to closely adhere to a particular text can be very selective in their reading and interpretation.