Esanders2008
Regular Member
So I am writing a paper for my English Composition class, and I chose a rather risky topic, considering how liberal (and almost openly anti) my professor is. I was told to write a definitional argument essay, and I chose to write about how I believe the term 'assault weapon' is a joke, and how the term 'modern sporting rifle' could better be used in its place.
This is my rough draft so far. Not accounting for the conclusion that I have not yet written, it still needs about 450 words. If anyone would like to comment about what else I can logically place in my paper, I am all for suggestions. (Also if you see mechanical errors, PLEASE let me know!) The paper is in MLA format, and I have not completed my works cited page either, but that will come.
Here is my draft.
There has always been a considerable amount of debate when it comes to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Recently, however, the government is attempting to restrict possession of certain ‘assault weapons’, such as the AR-15. The government argues that by banning these weapons, gun violence will be reduced. The problem with this theory is how to define such weapons. I believe the traditional definition is flawed, and I offer an alternative: semi-automatic firearms, such as the AR-15 and others like it, are not ‘assault weapons’, but merely modern sporting rifles. By reviewing the laws previously and currently on the books, as well as some proposed legislation, we can ascertain that the current trend of labeling firearms as ‘assault weapons’ is incorrect.
The government used to define the term ‘assault weapon’ differently than it does today. In 1994, Congress passed a federal ban on ‘certain semi-automatic assault weapons’, according to Babay. Babay goes on to inform that these weapons were characterized by a rifle having a detachable magazine and at least two military style features, such as flash suppressors and pistol grips, as well as others. This was the old definition.
The new definition, as proposed by Diane Feinstein in her bill short titled the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013”, reduces the number of ‘military features’ allowed to just one. This bill lists six properties that a semi-automatic rifle can have to make it on the list of banned weapons: A pistol grip, a forward grip, a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, a grenade or rocket launcher, a barrel shroud, or a threaded barrel.” The bill also lists a host of makes and models of firearms that would be banned, including all AR type models. (United States).
The problem with the definition of ‘assault weapon’ is that a majority of the features that Feinstein claims are evil are simply cosmetic in nature. For example, under her ban, the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle would be allowed. According to Ruger’s website, it has a traditional stock, no pistol grip, and lacks any of the other features that are prohibited. Conversely, Ruger also makes a Mini-14 Tactical Rifle, which would be prohibited. The tactical version of the rifle, in certain configurations, has a collapsible stock, barrel shroud, and a pistol grip. The problem with relying on the definition provided by Feinstein is that both rifles are in the same caliber (.223) and both of them will accept magazines holding more than ten rounds. (Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifles). The capabilities of these rifles are identical, but again, the government is looking at cosmetic features that really do little, if anything, to enhance the capability of the firearm.
Even the phrase ‘assault weapon’ is misused. By the very design, all firearms have the capability to assault. In fact, many things can assault: pencils, knives, hammers, cars, and the list goes on. ‘Assault weapon’ is merely a political term, with no real functional meaning.
The term ‘assault rifle’ is also sometimes thrown in the mix. The term ‘assault rifle’, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, is a “military firearm… that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire” (Assault Rifle). This is an important distinction. Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1986, when the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act was passed (18 USC § 921).
The previous distinction is an important one. Firearms such as the AR-15 and its clones are civilian versions of the military M16. The M16 is capable of semi-automatic, burst, and fully automatic fire. The AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire (Tilstra 97). While the AR-15 is cosmetically the same as the M16, the function is very different. It is also noteworthy that the ‘AR’ in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle, like many people think, but for the Armalite Corporation, who first manufactured it (A Historical Review of ArmaLite).
This is my rough draft so far. Not accounting for the conclusion that I have not yet written, it still needs about 450 words. If anyone would like to comment about what else I can logically place in my paper, I am all for suggestions. (Also if you see mechanical errors, PLEASE let me know!) The paper is in MLA format, and I have not completed my works cited page either, but that will come.
Here is my draft.
There has always been a considerable amount of debate when it comes to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Recently, however, the government is attempting to restrict possession of certain ‘assault weapons’, such as the AR-15. The government argues that by banning these weapons, gun violence will be reduced. The problem with this theory is how to define such weapons. I believe the traditional definition is flawed, and I offer an alternative: semi-automatic firearms, such as the AR-15 and others like it, are not ‘assault weapons’, but merely modern sporting rifles. By reviewing the laws previously and currently on the books, as well as some proposed legislation, we can ascertain that the current trend of labeling firearms as ‘assault weapons’ is incorrect.
The government used to define the term ‘assault weapon’ differently than it does today. In 1994, Congress passed a federal ban on ‘certain semi-automatic assault weapons’, according to Babay. Babay goes on to inform that these weapons were characterized by a rifle having a detachable magazine and at least two military style features, such as flash suppressors and pistol grips, as well as others. This was the old definition.
The new definition, as proposed by Diane Feinstein in her bill short titled the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013”, reduces the number of ‘military features’ allowed to just one. This bill lists six properties that a semi-automatic rifle can have to make it on the list of banned weapons: A pistol grip, a forward grip, a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, a grenade or rocket launcher, a barrel shroud, or a threaded barrel.” The bill also lists a host of makes and models of firearms that would be banned, including all AR type models. (United States).
The problem with the definition of ‘assault weapon’ is that a majority of the features that Feinstein claims are evil are simply cosmetic in nature. For example, under her ban, the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle would be allowed. According to Ruger’s website, it has a traditional stock, no pistol grip, and lacks any of the other features that are prohibited. Conversely, Ruger also makes a Mini-14 Tactical Rifle, which would be prohibited. The tactical version of the rifle, in certain configurations, has a collapsible stock, barrel shroud, and a pistol grip. The problem with relying on the definition provided by Feinstein is that both rifles are in the same caliber (.223) and both of them will accept magazines holding more than ten rounds. (Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifles). The capabilities of these rifles are identical, but again, the government is looking at cosmetic features that really do little, if anything, to enhance the capability of the firearm.
Even the phrase ‘assault weapon’ is misused. By the very design, all firearms have the capability to assault. In fact, many things can assault: pencils, knives, hammers, cars, and the list goes on. ‘Assault weapon’ is merely a political term, with no real functional meaning.
The term ‘assault rifle’ is also sometimes thrown in the mix. The term ‘assault rifle’, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, is a “military firearm… that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire” (Assault Rifle). This is an important distinction. Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1986, when the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act was passed (18 USC § 921).
The previous distinction is an important one. Firearms such as the AR-15 and its clones are civilian versions of the military M16. The M16 is capable of semi-automatic, burst, and fully automatic fire. The AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire (Tilstra 97). While the AR-15 is cosmetically the same as the M16, the function is very different. It is also noteworthy that the ‘AR’ in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle, like many people think, but for the Armalite Corporation, who first manufactured it (A Historical Review of ArmaLite).
Last edited: