Went to an organizational meeting for a new chapter of MDA today.

[branford]

72. Words have meaning, particularly in a legal context.

The "popularity" of the AR-15 platform, for whatever reason, is important, if totally not dispositive, in the context of regulation in light of the Heller and McDonald decisions. Whether you or others don't like or agree with the decisions (or reasons for the popularity of certain firearms) is irrelevant as these holdings are in fact the law of the land (just like Roe and its progeny are law despite the disagreement of pro-life advocates).

Arguing about what is truly "simple" or "common sense" is meaningless, depends entirely on personal perspective, and adds little to any political discussion. Simply state a position, defend its legality, and suggest a plausible means of enacting it into law or changing cultural norms. Everyone supports "common sense" and simplicity in the abstract, but debates involve actual policy proposals.

Lastly, I fail to understand why you are arguing about the definition of "assault rifle," as they are usually readily recognized, full-automatic, military combat arms that are already heavily restricted under the NFA. I assume you've either made a mistake or are attempting to conflate the term with "assault weapons," an actual subject of current firearms debate, in order to imply they are the same thing, a common, transparent and disingenuous (and unsuccessful) gun control strategy.

There simply is no recognized universal definition for "assault weapon," and most statutes define the term using components and accessories that have no bearing to the lethality of firearms (e.g., adjustable stocks, bayonet lugs, vertical hand grips, barrel shrouds, muzzle brakes, etc.). Your claim that these popular, widely-owned guns can be easily converted to fully automatic is ludicrous, and belied by the statistics that show virtually none of these weapons are used in crime, converted or otherwise.

Your further attempt to define "assault weapons" and/or "assault rifle" as just "previously designed for the battlefield" as a basis for regulation is similarly absurd. Virtually all weapons have some military "pedigree," although civilian arms are either demonstrably different from those on the battlefield (AR-15 vs. M16), or simply represent older, more widely distributed and effective basic technologies. Under your standard, everything from Revolutionary War muskets and your cited bolt-action rifles would be restricted. Your definition swallows the entire Second Amendment, and it's the reason why it's not the basis for most statutory restrictions, has no real popular support, and the proposed federal "assault weapons ban" after Sandy Hook couldn't even muster 50 votes when the Democrats controlled the Senate.