We've heard a lot about Americans' "rich hunting tradition," and evil "assault weapons." As such, I believe it is necessary to provide a warning against ever accepting their terms as the nomenclature for the gun debate. Tansnational Progressives (Trannies) (shamelessly stolen from the AoSHQ) like to use words that sound innocuous for things that are bad, and words that sound scary for things that are not. They love to use double-speak and word games to make it harder to argue against them.
For instance, when a Tranny talks about our "rich hunting tradition," they're a) lying (no such "rich tradition" exists- more in a minute) and b) laying the ground work for banning all guns. See, if it is true that I don't need ten bullets to kill a dear, it is also true that I don't need a gun at all. People hunted dear, and even bigger game, with bows and arrows, and with spears and javelines before that, long before gunpowder was even invented. So if we're going to limit gun ownership based on what is "needed" for hunting, then we can ban guns outright.
Now, to that "rich hunting tradition." That's bull crap made up by Democrats to give them cover to steal your guns. While it is true that many people have hunted for a long time, it is a) not something unique to American or Americans, and b) has never been (as far as I can tell) a majority of the population. And hunting as a purely recreational activity certainly did not first arise in America. So while it is true that we have had hunters, even recreational hunters, from before the beginning of our nation, to call it a "rich hunting tradition" is a sleight-of-mouth trick to make you equate the 2nd Amendment with hunting- a relationship which simply does not exist.
As for "assault weapons," as the Reason author so ably points out, Trannies don't even know what makes a weapon and "assault rifle." An assault rifle is a selective fire weapon, meaning it can fire in semi-automatic, burst (usually), and/or fully-automatic modes. We also call them "machine guns" (though that's not correct either, as machine guns are not typically selective fire, and are only capable of fully-automatic fire). To be an assault weapon, there has to be a way for me to pull the trigger once, and more than one bullet to come out. No weapon used in Aurora, CO, or Sandy Hook Elementary met that definition. So they must actually mean something different.
Based on their words, to them the difference is magazine capacity. So a weapon holding 7 bullets in New York is just fine, but one holding 8 is suddenly an "assault weapon." Congratulations owners of virtually all semi-automatic pistols: your handgun is now an "assualt weapon." So are many bolt-action rifles.
If they're so willing to defraud the language with these terms, what are they doing with terms like "dangerous person" (a little vague, no?), or "gun safety devices?"