Sniper rifle v assault (weapon) rifle
Both of these rifle types have been the subject of ban campaigns by the pro-regulation tribes. I have a few questions for anyone that cares to offer an opinion.
Anything that can accurately be called a "sniper rifle" AFAIK is designed to hit targets (at a minimum) more than a third of a mile away. This is beyond the range of typical combat rifles like an M1 Garand or an M16. I've read things like .50 cals can be used to shoot down aircraft. I've never heard of any instance of this and doubt that the combination of skill and weapon capability actually exists. I live in a Philly suburb. The direction where a possible target could be placed further about 200 yards from my house is up. I don't understand why this rifle would be a cause for concern. At a cost of $6,000 - $12,000 each I don't see someone not securing them nor could a child lift or aim one.
An actual "assault rifle" fires full-auto at least 500 rounds per minute. This means the rifle would expend all the ammo in a 30 round mag in about 3 seconds or less. The principle use of rapid fire is suppression. It gains you the ability to keep enemy heads down. These rifles use smaller ammo like .223/5.56.
Is there a range of calibers that pro-regulation folks do not campaign against? I've the infamous "assault weapon" definitions be "adjusted" so often it's a joke. I invite anyone to explain to me why I should believe anything other than many pro-regulation folks want almost all guns banned or heavily regulated.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Agreed
I know there are folks that can make very long shots with iron sights and most rifles in .30-06 and above can be used by a long range hunter or sniper. I think of today's sniper rifle being scoped.
IIRC one of the reasons for moving to the M16 and away from the M1 was lighter ammo and the realization that most battlefield fire targeted personnel within a few hundred yards at most.
...my memory isn't what it used to be. 
thanks
...have some holiday happiness and thanks for some of your recent thoughtful posts. 
The Mosin is impressive and has quite a range. I'm struggling to understand what it is the pro-regulation folks have as a criteria to use in singling out certain guns. (Other than they go "bang".)
gun controllers are happy with any kind of restriction or ban that they can pass. They are the special interest equivalent of vulchers. Opportunists, happy to enjoy any "meal" they find deceased and rotting along the road.
I've seen legislation introduced in various states that goes after toys, bb/pellet/paint ball, antiques, C&R, title 1, title 2, etc. It doesn't matter to them. What matters is whether or not they can pass something, anything, the public safety merits of which are of no consideration. We've even seen them go after and cannibalize their own gun controls, ex. bullet buttons, if and when it suits them.
Always remember, there is no "lower bounds" to which gun controllers will not see the need to regulate, restrict, and ultimately ban. It is for this reason I fundamentally oppose "universal infringements". Once gun controllers have private sale background checks in your state - they WILL move on to bans, measures to weaken due process protection, costly licensing and registration schemes, tax penalties, medical approvals/records review/physicians approval for purchase, ever extending waiting periods, limiting gun sales to approved product rosters, magazine capacity restrictions, and anything else they can think of. All of these infringements on our right to self defense have been implemented in places across the country and much more.
So it would seem. 
I can't imagine why. 