[ExI] Russians bots at work again?

[Stuart LaForge]

Quoting Spike:

>> There is a reason why I went off on that tangent: lawmakers do not  
>> know how to define that term either.  They are sure assault rifles  
>> are bad, but they cannot distinguish between assault rifles and  
>> non-assault rifles.  Can you?  How?

In the military parlance, an assault rifle is generally considered to  
be a gas-operated, magazine-fed, automatic rifle of medium range,  
small to medium caliber, and light weight capable of being carried and  
served with a full complement of ammunition by an individual  
infantryman.

Machine guns, on the other hand, are generally belt-fed large-caliber  
crew-served automatic rifles often mounted on tripods or bipods  
needing at least two infantrymen to transport with ammunition and  
generally used to defend positions rather than during a mobile assault.

That being said, when dealing with politicians rather than military,  
the term of art seems to be "assault weapon" which is certainly more  
nebulous and arbitrary. Of course these are the same lawyers and  
politicians that classify tomatoes as vegetables for bizarre purposes  
related to taxation despite the fact that they are scientifically fruit.

Of course who cares about facts anymore in this age of  
emotionally-driven identity-politics?


Stuart LaForge