Art, I do not believe it is a far stretch at all. And I began by asking these folks to tell me what it is that turns something from a firearm that is used for legitimate purposes and turns it into an assault weapon for which the implied argument is that there is no legitimate use. I would respect the arguments much more, if there was honesty in the arguments.

As to the definitions given, if that is all the discussion is, then I reject the definition.

As to the definitions you cited, let me ask you another question. You and I grew up in roughly the same era. Did you ever hunt with a surplus weapon? The first rifle I hunted with was a surplus M1. It had a bayonet lug on it. I also had a surplus 30 cal. carbine. I bought a paratrooper stock (Korean era collapsible) from the surplus store. I had killed deer with the weapon, and then put the stock on it just for grins. Was it now an "assault weapon"? The point is that folks are avoiding the real issues in this debate in favor of a non issue that feels good, yet won't resolve the problems they are looking to resolve.

And bobad, if you could live in the society you described, what would you do with marauding animals, and people who would do you harm? I don't think the world you seem to envision has ever existed anywhere.

Mick