TexasCHLforum.com

mr.72 wrote:The whole concept of the use of the word "assault" to refer to guns is to give the connotation that these guns are only used in the commission of a crime, or to impart a passive criminal intent to the owners of such guns. Your pappy's Remington 700 is a hunting rifle, your gandma's S&W .38 is a self-defense gun, but your AR15 clearly makes you a potential criminal because it's an "assault rifle".

I think it goes further than that. I have always thought that term "assault" was in the context of a military assault rather than assault and battery. Most, if not all, of these "assault weapons" have a military heritage that were designed for superior firepower, in magazine capacity, bullet velocity and firing speed. Government agencies including law enforcement, the military, border patrol, ATF, and the FBI don't want to be outgunned by enemy soldiers, criminals, terrorists or anyone else. So, only government agencies should be allowed to have "assault weapons." That's my two cents.