I can tell you this, under the assault weapon ban, the ar-15 was not sold. So, under the federal definition, the ar-15 is an assault weapon.
Oh Come on Slingblade - - you can't even define exactly what you want banned?? you sound like a liberal politician and your answer is a bs answer because a whole bunch of other weapons were also banned - weapons that no military person or police officer would ever even consider adequate for that kind of work
Go look at the California "assault weapon ban - they name a few guns by name like the AR-15 or the AK-47 and then they have a stupid list of cosmetic things that they say any gun that has them is an "assault weapon"
I am not for any gun bans, but having said that I might, and it a big might, be persuaded to support some limitations, but when you start throwing guns on the list just because of how they look - - seriously???? And people like you wonder why you can't get support from gun owners?? really??
I own a 9mm carbine, it only holds 10 rounds of pistol caliber ammunition, no military person would even think of taking it to assault anything, but it does have a pistol grip - under current California law I have to keep a plastic fin attached over the pistol grip so that my thumb can not go around the grip - - if I do this it is legal for me to have, if I take the fin off the grip it suddenly magically becomes an "assault weapon" and I could get in trouble - - do you really think this is realistic? that a fin over a grip should make a difference???
If people like you want "assault weapons" banned and you can not clearly define exactly what an "assault weapon" is with a definition that is based solely on the weapons fire power - - - how the hell do you ever expect any gun owner to support the idea? when at any moment they can re-define what qualifies simply by how it looks, which the prior federal ban allowed just like the current California ban does, how do you expect bi partisan support? why would any gun owner ever support a law when that law has a definition of "assault weapon" that is so vague that they can outlaw a gun just because they dont like how it looks, even if that gun would never be considered a weapon of war??
Seriously - you and all of the people who want limits need to educate yourselves about the subject of guns and come up with a real, firepower based definition of at what point you think certain guns cross a line to where people shouldn't have them - - - I can't speak for others, but I can tell you that if do this and come back here I will talk to you, I will hear you out and I will give it consideration - - tell me exactly what calibers you think are too much for peoples needs in hunting and home defense - tell me why and have facts, tell me how many rounds you think a gun should hold for these needs, and again have facts and reasons that you believe support you - - - do this and I will listen and we can debate
but - if all you can say is "ban assault weapons" and you dont even know the difference between the stopping power of a 9mm pistol or a 5.56 carbine or how many rounds it might take or what caliber could be trusted to drop a guy on meth coming into your home with a Glock 19 I have no reason to give anything you say any consideration - - no point if its just uneducated liberal get out the vote political speech
Now go educate yourself so that you can actually know what exactly it is you think gun owners should give up and why.