[El Paso Joe]

In post 19, the reference to NYC's assault rifle definition made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. The only thing that scares me worse than politicians trying to legislate some form of morality is handing the final word on what is moral to a civil servant (the Commissioner). I read Huxley and Orwell in high school with an amusement that I now see as naivety. I agree that there is a limit to free speech even though it is guaranteed - if it is used for harm (e.g. screaming fire in a crowded theater) for example. Most of the useful laws regarding RKBA are already on the books (and some that aren't reasonable).

I am not sure that a common sense definition of an assault rifle would be useful to the current politicians who feel an need to define these things for partisan purposes.

My most recent post graduate degree was in Social Work - I was the Vietnam vet in the back of the class who would discuss these issues (2A & RKBA) in the context of culture and diversity. And often answer questions with "I am the NRA and I vote..." I did complete the course. And was not forgotten... In that context, when asked about assault weapons I would talk about Trapdoor Springfields and rolling blocks and put them in a historical context where they were highly effective assault weapons... The hope was to bring the discussion in the classroom to the point of reductio ad absurdium. Most of them did not know what a common sense definition of an assault rifle was.

On a personal note, and agreeing with other posters, I am not sure how I would identify one. And if I understand the mindset of the authors of the Constitution, assault weapons were EXACTLY what was meant. In my (not so) humble opinion...

Kafkaesque???