I really dont understand what the point is of arguing about what constitutes an assault rifle vs. a hunting rifle, when realistically, many posters here would be opposed to any regulation against "assault rifles", no matter what definition the lawmakers eventually agree upon anyway ? (unless of course you think that it's possible to achieve a definition so restrictive, that nothing shy of a fully-automatic M60 would qualify, so practically speaking, what you can own would not change).
And speaking of that, how come people have not been saying that the 2nd amendment has been trampled for decades now, since the fact remains that you have never been able to buy a fully automatic M60 at Walmart. How is that not a violation of the 2nd amendment? If you need to provide a deterrent against the gov, and the gov is using an M60, then shouldnt you get one too, otherwise the asymmetry of power is so great that little deterrent exists anyways?
If the government is going to use an M60 to oppress you, and you already cant have one yourself, then it seems to me that going from 10 rounds per mag to 7 wont really make your chances to stop tyranny any worse than they already are.
Gov: "to keep your freedom, it will be 1-on-2 hoops, you vs. Lebron James and Chris Bosh".
Patriot: "ok sure".
Gov: "oh, and by the way, we're going to put a 1-pound wraparound weight on your waist".
Patriot: "holy shit, stop right there, now THATs trampling my rights to a fair fight"