Try this: one trigger squeeze results in one round going down range. Pull the trigger and you get a shot off.
But that doesn't suit the agenda, does it? You can't disarm a people when you apply that definition.
How about these firearms:
- Pistol, i.e. semi-automatic weapon. Every cop in the land carries one. Most citizens who buy a hand-gun will choose one. They come in a variety of calibers from puny to significant and with magazines (not clips!) that carry anywhere from five to twenty rounds.
- Revolver. One trigger squeeze results in a round going down range and a chamber positioned to do it again, hence "semi-automatic".
- Shotgun: multiple flavors but other than single-shot versions, all can be described as delivering one shot per trigger actuation.
- Hunting rifle (whatever that might mean today). Other than single-shot and bolt-action, they all turn out to be semi-automatic.
- AR-platform rifles. All semi-automatic. Come in a huge range of calibers, barrel lengths, sighting formats, accessories, and magazine capacities. Used for everything from squirrels and prairie dogs to elk, moose and bear. They aren't "military" anymore. They are modern, efficient, quality and in demand.
We've been down the "assault weapon" highway before. The result wasn't reduction in availability, it was a huge prod for development of new and more efficient systems. Prices went up because of demand, but the end game was that sportsmen, 2nd Amendment supporters, target shooters and collectors got more guns. The "high capacity magazine" ban didn't do diddly for supply, only for price.
Then, while Dianne Feinstein rants about 100 round "clips" and military assault weapons notice the attack scenario in Aurora.
Enter theater in full body armor. Deploy incendiary grenades (not gun first). In confusion commence firing with shotgun, not "assault weapon". Then when the AR is brought into play, the uselessness of the 100 round magazine becomes apparent. It jams. (If anything, Feinstein should seek elimination of smaller mags and demand only 100 round versions!)
Please, humor me this morning. Dig out a copy of the Constitution and read the 2nd Amendment. Read it to someone you love. Find the words "hunting" or "handgun" or "self defense" in the short sentence.
Don't pontificate about "militarization" because that is precisely what the amendment deals with. It recognizes that the Revolution was fought by citizens against an oppressive government with their personal firearms.
Don't tell me that can't happen again. It happened in the Balkans in WW II. It happened with the Resistance in France. It happened when the Viet Cong resisted the most powerful military in the world with a peasant army. It happened when the mujaheddin resisted the Russians in Afghanistan. It's going on again in several places around the world.
When you hear some fool blustering about not taking your hunting rifle away, explain the concept to him. Use small words so he/she can understand.