Twitter feed: Claim that “Assault Weapon” Definition is Unimportant

“Assault weapon” under proposed Florida ballot initiative. “Assault weapon” in New Jersey, 1990-2018. Banned in Australia.

U.S.A.-( A political activist on twitter posted a non-argument about “assault weapons” on 4 August, 2019.  He got over 8 thousand retweets and 57 thousand likes. How many of those were bots is unknown.

Jason Isbell wrote if you argue about the definition of an “assault weapon” you are part of the problem. He claimed his opponents know what an assault weapon is, and know they do not need one.

The rifle pictured above has been one of the most popular hunting rifles in the United States. It was legally an “assault weapon” in New Jersey from 1990 to 2018. It is proposed as an “assault weapon” in the Florida petition to amend the state Constitution. It is banned in Australia.

The term “assault weapon” has never been clearly defined in dictionaries. It is a legal term. From the outset, those pushing for a disarmed population have deliberately sought to confuse the public about the term and what it means.

They point to fully automatic firearms on TV ads, then they include common, everyday rifles, pistols, and shotguns in their legal definitions.

Below is the tweet meant to convince people that facts and definitions are not important. Tweet that assault weapon definition is unimportant.


Isbell may or may not be as clueless as he appears. Some activists that wish for a disarmed population have done their homework and know how slippery the legal definition of an “assault weapon” is. They do not want the electorate to know.

The most important part of any law about “assault weapons”, after the obvious infringement against Second Amendment rights, is the legal definition. Arguing that ignorance is strength is an old, Orwellian tactic.

Most of the people who are liking this tweet probably fall into the category of the consciously unarmed. They have chosen to be unarmed, and they do not want anyone else to be armed, because they are acutely aware of the power differential between armed and unarmed people.

There is an easy way to understand how many of people who want you unarmed think.

Assume you have deliberately chosen to be unarmed. Being armed requires effort. Being unarmed requires far less effort. Being armed requires you to be responsible, to practice safety and to train. You have to face unpleasant choices and prepare for them. It takes money and time and thought.

Being unarmed does not require these things. It is much easier. Part of choosing to be unarmed is not having to learn about weapons, weapons technology, or tactics, or even the history of weapons and tactics.  People who have chosen to be unarmed, often don’t want other people to be armed, except for the government, which they have to assume is always beneficent and available to provide armed security, when it is necessary.

This is how the desire to disarm the population works. It appeals to emotion, bypassing fact and argument. Those who have chosen to be unarmed do not care if gun owners are harmed or if gun owners rights are trampled on. They are not gun owners. They do not intend to be gun owners. If they gain a tiny advantage, while gun owners rights are destroyed, they think they have achieved something for nothing. They are wrong.

It is the responsibility of gun owners to educate them.

The consciously disarmed need to realize that gun owners are a positive force in society. They need to realize they are getting a free ride on gun owners’ responsibility, training, and use of firearms.

The left has done everything it can to demonize gun ownership. Isbell’s tweet illustrates the educational challenge Second Amendment supporters face.

It can be done. We are winning. Show someone who thinks they support banning “assault weapons” what they really ban. Show them they are being manipulated. I remember explaining the “assault weapons” ban to a fellow veteran 15 years ago. He was shocked. He thought the meant machine guns!

People do not like to be manipulated. Remind them that semi-automatic guns have been common in the United States for over a hundred years, but mass murder with semi-automatic guns is a recent phenomena, promoted by the media. Remind them the media makes profits from the tragedies and use them for ideological purposes.

Take a non-shooter to the range. Have them shoot a .22, with hearing protection, at a close target.

Many people become gun owners from such an experience.

Show people, who are not gun owners that guns are used for defensive purposes every day.  From the Center for Disease Control:

 Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

Second Amendment Supporters are winning. The facts, the Constitution, and the culture are on their side.

About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

No Jason Isbell, you and the rest of the gun grabbers are the real problem because you lie and mislead people.


The tradition of taking people to the range is up-ended with universal background checks. They don’t just regulate sales, they cover all transfers. That means letting someone use your firearm is prohibited without a background check for each “transfer.” I watched this nonsense go down when Washington State passed their’s, via I-1639. That’s just one of the issues created with these ridiculous laws.


Most politicians must be real idiots. They have led sheltered lives and never served in the military to protect our great nation. I remember one night on the news when Kevin Deleon held up a magazine from a semi automatic rifle and said that this “gun” holds 30 rounds and with it I can shoot you 30 times just by pulling this trigger one time. He was pointing to the magazine. I don’t where he thought the trigger was located since magazine do not have triggers. . Remember I said he held up a MAGAZINE not a rifle. He did… Read more »


Didn’t he get into trouble for importing guns to sell to gangs?


Wanna have some gun fun? Find a group of busy body meddlers, and ask them what they think about the recent “assault weapon bans” or laws that have forced Boy Scouts, summer camps, etc, to use “assault weapons” in their summer camp shooing ranges. WHAT? THEY ARE USING ASSAULT WEAPONS NOW? WE CAN”T LET THAT HAPPEN. Then inform them that new state laws have redefined the standard el cheap twenty two calibre plinking rifles as “assault weapons”. Same rifle, but now because of the new laws redefined thus have become “assault weapons”. And YOUR KIDS are using them at summer… Read more »


A baseball bat is an “assault weapon” if use to smack someone. The reason that there is no definitive definition of assault weapons is because it is an arbitrary term. The gun grabbers want it that way so that any legislation, or in the FL situation amending the state constitution, would be broad based and include just about all semi-auto rifles & shotguns, and yes eventually handguns. The Left isn’t interested in banning say just the AR -15 or M1 A, semi-auto versions of what THEY term weapons of war, because THEY want to ban all of our guns. I… Read more »


Just hope Lucille doesn’t get thirsty.

Get Out

IMOA Jason Isbell is a putz. Jason you do know a hammer, kitchen knife, crowbar, pencil, glass pop bottle, screw driver, length of chain etc. aren’t considered assault weapons until it’s used in a crime to subdue or attack someone right? BTW, yes I still need those things just to go about in my daily routine.

Wild Bill

@GO, Don’t you just love it when someone decides for you what you don’t need? Just looking at Jason’s picture tells me that he does not need any more fast food. We will confine his eating to steamed vegetables in the winter and salads in the summer (because Jason eats more than his fair share and is an energy use abuser.) See how easy it is Jason Isbull?


The term “assault weapon” is not a legal term. It was made up by the “Leftist Drive By Media” as a scare tactic. The term “assault weapon” is not nor ever has been used by any branch of this country’s military. I never heard of assault weapons or assault rifles during my enlistment in the Army. To argue what it is happens to be an exercise in ignorance and stupidity. That is where the Leftists and Democrats have the world in an ignorant tizzy. Use the proper terms for firearms and their parts and you will look like you know… Read more »


Will, right on, we should never use that term.


“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” – Sigmund Freud. Jason you’re an immature sexual and emotional retard.

John Dow

“The term “assault weapon” has never been clearly defined in dictionaries. It is a legal term.”

No, it is an advertising term. It has no fixed meaning, other than what whoever is using it at the moment wants it to mean.

A big stick could be classified as an “assault weapon”, if it suited those who want control.


Make America 1950 Again!
(The culture, not the technology).

Will Flatt

Antigun statists are the problem.
Leftists calling for the genocide of all conservatives is the problem.
Leftists assaulting, nearly murdering, and actually murdering their opponents is the problem!!

These people need to be physically removed from our nation – they have no business being here!!


Jason Jessabelle would be a better name for this snowflake.