Need Help!!!

[Arisaka99]

Hey everyone, I have a research project that I'm doing for english, and my topic is, "Do you think civillians should be allowed to own 'assault weapons"? I figured where better to go than good ole' Cast Boolits! So if y'all don't mind, post your opinion and a couple reasons why you say that. Thanks!!

[2muchstuf]

First, you must define "assault weapons".
According to our goberment, most of us already have them.

2

[bob208]

you beat me to that. first you need to define assault weapon.

give you an example. a guy walks in with a full auto ak. he lays it down picks up a chair an beats someone half to death. what was the weapon used in the assault? if you say the chair should not chairs be band as assault weapons?

[Mooseman]

Make sure to point out that the 2nd Amendment does not categorize weapons...only the antis and controlling elements label them...
Im still more scared of a sniper with a High power scoped rifle.

[Arisaka99]

Here is what I have so far, what do y'all think?

The subject of civilians owning “assault weapons” is a touchy issue. Personally, I support the ownership of assault weapons and think there should be no qualms about owning them. The only true assault weapon is a machine gun. Machine guns are regulated by the government and there are hundreds if not thousands owned by civilians while only one or two cases of them being used to commit a crime. In one of those it was an ex-cop that committed the crime. Semi-automatic weapons are nothing but lookalikes to the true assault weapon, but are nowhere nearly as accurate as a sniper with a bolt action rifle and a scope. The Second Amendment does not distinguish between types of guns; so therefore, it is our RIGHT to own them, not a privilege.

Comments, suggestions?

[Sasquatch-1]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


If you read this it is military type weapons they had in mind. The founding fathers wanted the private citizen to become an army at a moment notice.

[Reload3006]

The bill of rights was drafted such that American citizens could protect them selves from the government. Research the second amendment along with the Jeffersonian letters. If the U.S. Military can own it why shouldn't the Citizen be allowed to own it? When the whole thought process behind the second amendment was to enable the citizenry to protect its self from the U.S. Government.

[Ajax]

There is no such thing as an assault weapon, there is only assault with a weapon.


Andy

[DaveCampbell]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Is there any ambiguity in this statement?

[onesonek]

I would agree with what Mooseman said.
And with that said I will add,,, in my my mind there ain't no such thing as an assault weapon.
It is something,,,anything , in how it is used. A firearm's design has nothing to do with it. It boils down to Intent and MO., it seems to me with whatever is in hand.

[southpaw]

To answer your question about civilians owning assault weapons, The 2nd Amendment, it ain't about duck hunting.

Instead of worrying about making more gun laws they should try enacting some laws that would prevent repeat offenders and lessen the burden on the tax payers. I like the eye for an eye rule.

Jerry Jr.

[largom]

There is no such thing as an assault weapon, there is only assault with a weapon.


Andy

The perfect statement! A baseball bat could be an assult weapon. In fact more people are killed with clubs [including golf clubs] every year than with guns.

Larry

[Reload3006]

one other thing I wanted to point out is that "Assault" rifles as would be defined by the media and people are nothing more than an ugly semi automatic rifle. Not one of those people would be offended by a Browning BAR , or a Remington 7400 because they are wood stocked with checkering and look like a hunting Rifle. Where as an AR or AK is black ugly military and more deadly. Like a nickle plated pistol everyone knows is much more deadly than a blue one. These people need to get real. A semiautomatic Rifle is a semiautomatic rifle. And personally I believe that if a Citizen in good standing (not convicted of a felony) wants a machine gun he should be able to buy one. Yes I know you can apply for a class 6 ffl but IMO that is BS and a violation of the US constitution. Be that as it may Ugly guns are no more deadly than Pretty ones. As others have said Assault is the mode in which its used not the arm itself. I suppose if someone were to shoot you with a Winchester 94 30-30 you would not have been assaulted?

[DIRT Farmer]

Arisaka99 back to the scope of your school project. Yes I own the original goverment defineded assalt gun, the brown bess. The British governer decided the people didnot need large caliber fast firing guns so he sent the troops to take them. There was an incident at Concord bridge that settled the issue in our country.

[legend]

Dirt farmer, bravo !!

[lesharris]

A machinegun is a machinegun not an assault weapon.
People commit assault not objects such as guns, knives, hammers,chairs,etc.

[Dale53]

Arisaka99;

>>>Semi-automatic weapons are nothing but lookalikes to the true assault weapon, but are nowhere nearly as accurate as a sniper with a bolt action rifle and a scope. <<<

Not to nitpick, but this is not necessarily true. I have an AR that is a genuine ½ minute rifle. There are many examples in shooters hands that will do the same (just talk to a Big Bore Competitor).

Carry on!
Dale53

[shdwlkr]

In the eyes of the media and many political individuals any firearm or means of defense is an "assualt weapon" and therefore should be band from private civilian possession.
When you talk about assualt weapons everyone thinks if it is black it is an assualt weapon which puts shotguns into this category and the reason is the standard military shotgun round is the same thing the FBI used to use in shotguns double OO buckshot at close range it makes are real mess of things.
Now when you talk about fully automatic firearms that can be anything from a machine pistol to Ma Deuce or 50 caliber Browning machine gun.

Should the private citizens have these and other means of defense? The answer is yes and it is to protect us from our own government should it get so corrupt that we have to defend our liberties from our own government.

When we use the media term for firearms we are agreeing with them that yes in fact this firearm is an "????" you fill in what ever firearm you may choose. If when you think assualt weapon you mean what our military is currently using then it is an M4 or M16 or Beretta 9mm or sniper rifle or 50 caliber machine gun or a rail gun or a 20mm cannon or you get the idea don't be lead down the road of stupid because the media says that something is this or that.

Lastly the assualt weapon is anything that is used by one human to harm some other living thing be it a person , animal or even a plant if we want to carry it that far.

So when you talk about assualt weapons a stone is one, a shovel, a hammer, a fork, a knife, a spoon bar of soap, a pot a pan, anything you can pick up and hit something with is an assualt weapon. Your pencil and pen you use in school are assualt weapons!! the paper you use to write this topic on can be an assualt weapon, think paper cut here.
So when you are writing about assualt weapons think outside of the box, even salt and pepper can be assualt weapons. So if you were to be in favor of banning assualt weapons you would have to take everything including cloths, housing, fuels, vehicles everything away and you still have a fist left that is or can be an assualt weapon depending on the training you have had away.
This is a very dangerous road to travel as it can only lead to losing all your rights to freedom and also falling into the media trap that certain things can be branded dangerous labeled and then it must be so because the media wouldn't lie would they??

[GRUMPA]

The way I think the term "Assault Weapon" is somewhat "SCRIPTED" into the uneducated minds of the non thinking crowd. My term "NON THINKING" means that they have to be told what to think and how to think by someone in charge or in authority. As described above the term assault weapon is a phrase that someone higher up told you what it was and what to call a given object.

I'm somewhat old school, with my dad and grandfather being ex-law enforcement. I was brought up (through schooling by them both) what the supreme courts called assault weapons. What they were by definition back then and what people call them now are two entirely different animals.

By what I've read in that English report, by its definition it is being phrased in an inappropriate manner by what I was taught. It is being used in the more modern (incorrect way) of labeling something that someone higher up told you what to call a given object.

I have no clue how much effort you would want to put into that report, but if it were me I would first define that phrase "Assault Weapon" in a way to its basic meaning. For me the word "Assault" means anytime an individual threatens another and or invades a persons personal space. In this state I'm in that's pretty close to what the law reads.

The word "Weapon" is ANYTHING that can do bodily harm or injury to a person. Which pretty much means that list is endless as far as what a person can use to harm another.

I get really agitated when it seems like the somewhat modern generation has new and improved phrases/words taught to them from a person in authority. When the people in authority are so closed minded they wont listen to reason I just shake my head in disbelief.

And if it was me I don't think I would use the word civilian at all, it seems like there's a label being used to segregate people in general. I was taught what the Constitution Of The United States was, and what it was meant for and whom it was meant for. That's is what I (By my upbringing) was taught and what I believe the signers and the people that gave everything included there lives to make this a great nation.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

this free e-book "Gun Facts Version 6.0" by Guy Smith in PDF format should help you.
http://jpfo.org/pdf03/gun-facts-v6.0-screen.pdf
it's a large file (109 pages) if you have dialup internet, it will take a long time.
But it loaded in 15 seconds on my fairly slow (1 meg download speed) cable internet.
Anyway, the first six pages will offer you LOADS of info on what the banners call "Assault weapons"

Also, take the time to look at "Gun Control Proponents" pages 85 thru 91

thanks for asking,
Jon

[William Yanda]

I'm borrowing this, but; "If guns kill people, then the spoon made Rosie O'Donnell fat." The premise of those who would ban "assault weapons" is flawed. The operator rather than the implement is responsible. Yellow press journalism would eliminate "assault weapons", SUV's, global warming, trans fat, etc. etc. etc.
Thanks for daring to pick up this hot topic. I suspect the environment in which it is delivered will be liberal and hostile. Be pleasant, don't laugh at them too much and good luck.
Bill

[canyon-ghost]

The entire issue is a spinoff of Colt's use of the name Assault Rifle for ARs, I think they meant that if you are under assault- you need an AR. I live where my neighbors have as many firearms as I do. Am I afraid they'll set up a machine gun? No, I'm just glad they know when to kill an oppossum or skunk to protect the pets in the neighborhood.

Oh, and it's handy for rattlesnakes sometimes.

[Wayne Smith]

Chris, when is this due? If you have a chance and time come on over this weekend and we can work on an outline for you to use in constructing a paper. You don't "write" a paper, you construct a paper with a series of arguments and defenses of those arguments.

Those who say you need to define "assault weapon" formally and not accept the media definitions are right. Think of this as one of the foundational arguments for your paper. Ownership of guns is a right, defined in the Constitution, confirmed by the courts. Infringement on those rights must be carefully thought out, defined, and argued on the basis of fact and clear definition, not on emotion and poor definition. If you make these arguments you are going well beyond the specific purpose of the paper but are reaching the true issue behind the issue the assignment specifies.

[Finster101]

I can "assault" you with any weapon. I can assault you with a shovel and it becomes a weapon, a stick, a tennis racket the argument is endless.

[waksupi]

Assault weapons have been wrongly categorized so long by the media, they have made them unidentifiable to the general public. Crime stats show that they are used in a miniscule amount of crimes.
Going back even further than our Revolution, look at Agincourt. The French thought they had a superior assault weapon with their cross bows. The English taught them that the long bow still ruled, big time. An assault weapon is not only in the eye of the beholder, but also in it's actual effectiveness.

[runfiverun]

hmm, i call my AR's defensive weapons. [okay,okay, i really call them brass flingers]
but if i was gonna assault something, i'd do it with mortars,tanks and cannon fire, not a varmint rifle.
[i can own mortars,tanks and cannons however]

[SharpsShooter]

Look to how Sweden handles the q

[OBIII]

Chris,
When you construct your paper, use the term "Citizen" in lieu of civilian. Make sure it is capitalized. Good luck and do your math homework.
OB

[Ickisrulz]

When the anti-gunners claim that AR-15s, AK-47, etc. are good for nothing except killing people...I say that's the point in having them.

There's enough evidence to show that the founders wrote the 2A to ensure "the people" could defend themselves against a tyrannical government. It would reason that "the people" should be armed with weapons similar to those issued to the military. We cannot defend ourselves against machine guns with Ruger No. 1s. Therefore, I think access to full auto weapons over the counter is implied by the 2A.

[Arisaka99]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate all the input. This'll be the best paper ever! Wayne, we just had to do our thesis as of yet. I'll let you know when we start our main paper.

[Stick_man]

If they want our "assault weapons", I would strongly recommend, as an act of good faith, that they give up all of THEIR "assault weapons first: stones (I have a bunch in my back yard they can take), sticks, clubs, clothing, boots, bottles, papers, glass, etc., and the list could go on for quite a while. Of course, doing that would also infringe upon other amendments to the constitution as well. I have witnessed some pretty sever "verbal assaults", so people would have to give up their voices. Physical "assaults" also would require them to have all of their appendages amputated.

So, what is the difference between "Assault" and "Battery"? I had always heard "assault" was a verbal attack where "battery" was a physical attack. If this is true, the only true "assault weapon" would be the human tongue.

[Mossy Nugget]

An interesting note you might include: the earliest use I have heard of the term "assault rifle" was the Nazi Germany prototype StG44 which stood for Sturm Gewher, which means to storm or assault ( the enemy position) rifle. These and their many variants became the basis for modern designs for fully automatic weapons of this type. As well noted above, the semi-automatic versions of these rifles are no more deadly than traditional sporting arms, differing only in appearance.

[shooter93]

At the risk of getting into long winded deabtes with the opposisiton and possibly being branded as a right wing lunatic...( i had that title in school and i'm sure many here hold it now)...squelch the idea of an assualt weapon right off in your paper. It's a non existent device perpatrated my the media and the other side. As mentioned you can be assualted with any gun or any device for that matter. As to the what or why we should own them go right to the true INTENT of the 2nd. We need to have readily available to us the weapons to defend ourselves from an abusive or tyrantical government and use them to aquire the weapons from that governments troops to provide us with the means to stop their abusive....period.
I'm not negating the rights to personal defense which we have ofcourse but the root of the 2nd is to be able to stop THEM. Not something that one would relish but appears atleast to me that it's becoming increasingly necessary. Following those lines just the very fact that the public owns and knows how to use such weapons could thwart that scenario but again I'm begining to doubt that.

[gray wolf]

Do you folks ever get tired of these loaded questions ??
I would tell them to stick there survey ( question) In a place the sun don't shine.
I would also say it's not up for debate.
and there opinion or anyone one Else's don't amount to ****.
If they wanted to continue They would have to define assault weapon,
Then after proving them wrong, I would leave them with this and say
" case closed, next question "

The bill of rights was drafted such that American citizens could protect them selves from the government. Research the second amendment along with the Jeffersonian letters. If the U.S. Military can own it why shouldn't the Citizen be allowed to own it? When the whole thought process behind the second amendment was to enable the citizenry to protect its self from the U.S. Government.
Or just neatly print the second amendment on a nice piece of paper and hand it in.

[John 242]

An interesting note you might include: the earliest use I have heard of the term "assault rifle" was the Nazi Germany prototype StG44 which stood for Sturm Gewher, which means to storm or assault ( the enemy position) rifle. These and their many variants became the basis for modern designs for fully automatic weapons of this type. As well noted above, the semi-automatic versions of these rifles are no more deadly than traditional sporting arms, differing only in appearance.

Yes, that's what I understood a "assault rifle" to be, as patterned on the original; The Sturmgewher.

What are the characteristics of a Sturmgewehr or what is considered an assault rifle?
- it fires a intermediate cartridge (Ie, 5.56x45, 7.62x39 or 7.92x33)
- it's selective fire
- it's shorter in length than a full-size rifle
- has a detachable box magazine

The assault rifle concept fits well into mechanized warfare. The weapon is shorter and handier than a large bolt-action or semi-auto rifle, can provide a higher volume of fire and is significantly more powerful than a submachine-gun.

The "assault" part of the designation refers to the tactic of achieving a overwhelming volume of fire (suppressive fire) on an enemy position while attacking (assaulting) it.
The AK-47 design fits this designation perfectly.
The original M16 and M16A1 also fit into this classification, but I would argue that the M16A2, M4 and M16A4 DO NOT fit into this role, due to their 3-shot-burst mechanisms.

I don't agree that there is no such thing as a "assault rifle". The designation seems pretty straight forward to me.
I would say that term "assault rifle" DOES NOT apply to anything available to the average gun buyer.

[geargnasher]

The fact that that's even a subject for a paper is screwball.

First, the second amendment guarantees lawful citizens the right, IT ISN'T UP FOR DEBATE, no matter what the socialist retards want to think. If you debate it, you accept THEIR terms, which is first the assumption that the subject is up for review.

Second, what's an "assault weapon"? The US military uses Remington bolt-action repeaters, and I have numerous friends that hunt deer with Garands, M14s, and a thousand varieties of the AR. What difference does it really make?

You want to write a paper? Do some research and show Jefferson's intent, also the Supreme Court's findings on the original intent of the 2A to allow PRIVATE citizens to own and use guns. Also note that Jefferson and a couple of others were OPPOSED to defining the specific rights granted by the first ten amendments because they knew that when you start defining, you also start excluding by inference. If it isn't specifically granted, it's assumed to be witheld.

Gear

[raingauge]

If I remember my english correctly, the word assault is a verb, as in action, something a firearm can't do. For me, calling a firearm an "assault" rifle rates right up there with assault cars, assault motorcycles, assault fishing poles, everybody should own them.

[Blacksmith]

Chris
First be prepared to receive some flack from school because your topic won't be popular and may not get the grade it deserves. I salute your effort.

This site has an excellent discussion on the second ammendment, what it means and why it was written.
http://barefootsworld.net/constit1.html

+1 on writing a paper is a construction process. Be certain that you carefully define all your terms because your readers will not know what you mean by "Machine Gun", "Semi Automatic", even "Assault" has different meanings to different people. Your reader does not have your background and knowledge of guns so you must educate them.

You have taken on a task that will probably mean more work for you than your classmates because to make an unpopular (to your readers) subject understandable and to convince them to change preconcieved ideas will take more work on your part.

Your paper needs a Beginning, the Body, and an End. In the beginning state your position and what you will show. The body section will contain your facts and arguement. The end is the summary of how you proved your position. Be certain you properly quote sources and footnote. English teachers love that. Spell and grammer check and recheck, not like we do on the forum.

If you make an outline it will help you organize your facts and arguments.

Good luck.

[John 242]

If I remember my english correctly, the word assault is a verb, as in action, something a firearm can't do. For me, calling a firearm an "assault" rifle rates right up there with assault cars, assault motorcycles, assault fishing poles, everybody should own them.

...or assault courses, assault vests, air assault, assault ladders...

Not trying to be an jerk, (I have that bad habit) but the term is meant to describe the roll in which the weapon or equipment is to be used.
There used to be assault tanks, assault gus, landing craft assault (assault type landing craft or LCAs)...
I could go on and on.

[400short]

Chris, you started a great thread! Just playing the devils advocate here, you realize that this audience has a heavy pro-gun bias. I don't know where you are trying to go with your report, but it seems to me that you need to represent the opposition also, somehow, hopefully in a bad light. I applaud your enthusiasm.

Dirtfarmer, No the issue was NOT decided at Concord. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance!

[gray wolf]

Or as my Italian friend use to say,
" Escusa --Passa a DA assault'a for da Macaroni "

[Blacksmith]

Chris
In your post #5 you need to make the distinction that only one or two LEGALLY OWNED machine guns have ever been used in crime. Many illegal machine guns and illegally converted guns have comitted crimes, for example the Thompsons used in the Valentines Day incident and Bonnie and Clyde used BAR's, today it is illegal AK's.

[Sasquatch-1]

Do you folks ever get tired of these loaded questions ??
I would tell them to stick there survey ( question) In a place the sun don't shine.
.

I have always been of the opinion that you can get any results you want from a poll. It all depends on how you word the question.
If multiple choice what answers are given to choose from.
And the location you take the poll.

If you ask a question in an area within the beltway in the Washington D. C. area you are bound to get a more liberal response. If you ask the same question 75 miles away here in the Eastern Panhandle of W. Va. you will tend to get a more conservative answer.

If all the people you poll are women you will get answer that may lean in a different direction then if you asked all men.

Polls are the tool of the Poller (is that a word?).

[Wayne Smith]

Let's keep this thread at least somewhat on track. This is about a High School English paper of a page or two. Not a Dissertation, or even a thesis. This is an Essay, or an attempt. He will do well, we have had a couple of good conversations about it.

[Arisaka99]

Thanks again guys. I handed in my thesis today. I have no idea what kind of grade I'll get, but hopefully it's a good one. Yes I realize that I posted it on a biased pro gun site, and I got the desired effect! Haha I really appreciate all your support, and will cite the thread as well.

[Bloodman14]

Chris, I did a research paper and a class presentation on Concealed Carry on Campus in college; if you would like, I will send you a copy, so that you will have some idea of format, as well as some 'corroborating evidence', if you will.

[wv109323]

Yes I believe we should be able to own " assault weapons" by what ever definition you want to give it.
If they are so bad why does our government own so many.

[GREENCOUNTYPETE]

first i would look up the gun control act of 1938 - Germany read it in English
i would start with letting them think how reasonable it is , don't tell them what it is
then look up holands registration of arms i think 1938 or 39 again let them think how reasonable it was

then you give them the 1-2 punch
and explain who's idea modern gun control was

then you need stats , for the US and our 10 year "assault weapons" ban 1994 to 2004 the reason it was allowed to expire was that it didn't reduce crime.

advocates of the ban cried and screamed how blood would run in the streets - but it didn't

state after state has enacted concealed carry - every time we hear blood will run in the streets but it hasn't now 49 of 50 states have some form of concealed carry
30 some with shall issue

and the new trend is constitutional carry , no permit no back ground checks , and yet the blood doesn't run in the streets.

laws do nothing to stop crime , well prepared people who refuse to be victims do make a change in crime. most every state that has shall issue concealed carry has seen a decline in crime

gun control was never to protect the citizens from themselves , it was to protect the government who didn't trust their citizens

now i am assuming this is a younger audience , they have a lot of disgust that they will be paying into a Social security , that they will never see a dime from, anger at the mismanagement of funds , the injustices of the justice system , and that wall street gets a bail out while they will be hunted to the ends of the earth if they default on their student loans

so do you research an lay it in , let them see gun control for what it is, a tool to control the populous, that the way it is implemented is like slowly adding heat to the pot with the frog a degree at a time , one act at a time , rationalize make them sound reasonable that who would possibly need 30 round magazines. flash suppressors , pistol grip stocks , these ugly black guns that they "See no sporting Purpose for" then remember who coined that phrase

joe stick up man doesn't rob a liqueur store for a few hundred dollars with a 2000 dollar rifle
do a search for actual "assult rifles" used in convenience store robberies, street muggings and such

head of the question , if the goal of an assault weapons ban is to keep these guns from the drug cartels , we would be better off to disarm the entire Mexican government and every police man in mexico , and while we are at it the AFT can go on the chopping block , for their gun running operation to the cartels.


well if the police need 30 round magazines , we should have them

the answer remains the same it was in 1776 , the people maintain the responsibility for securing their own land , families and possessions. the people always have been and will continue to be the first line of defense. we have seen were outsourcing our manufacturing and jobs has gotten us , outsourcing our responsibilities as US citizens and citizens of our states may give us that high of the 1990s but the bubble will burst , but it won't be your job , your 401k , or your investments that take the hit, it will be your life and your liberty.

Japan didn't invade the US mainland in WWII even though they knew our west coast military defenses were down, one of Japan's generals at the signing for the treaty ending WWII with Japan said they knew "there was a rifle behind every blade of grass"

as much as Hitler wanted Switzerland his generals warned him there would be a sniper in every house.

[Bloodman14]

To add to Pete's post; a journalist was interviewing the mayor of a Swiss town. She asked the mayor what his town would do if Hitler invaded. His reply was "We will all fire one shot and go home." That's why Switzerland was never invaded!

[GREENCOUNTYPETE]

belonging to a race that is 6 million fewer partially because of gun control , makes you think real hard about gun control and it's real motive.

thankfully My German and Polish Jewish relatives were all here before that , and my grandfather served in the USN during WWII , his grandfather was US ARMY in the civil war. so we where here long before the the nazi extermination of the Jewish people , but it still makes you mad.

[waksupi]

Nazis weren't the first exterminators. Look at the history of the Indian wars in this country. We pre-dated Hitler by 60 plus years with genocide. It was apparently acceptable then.

[runfiverun]

and....
even before that, slavery,servitude,serfdom,poor farms/houses.
being taxed/forced/going willingly [but coerced by other means] into any of them what's the difference.
genocide, or any of the former.
hard choice to make ain't it?

the ability to fight back makes the difference between any of those choices and the ones we face today [the last 80 years]
the american indians were the last truly free people on this planet.

[largom]

Nazis weren't the first exterminators. Look at the history of the Indian wars in this country. We pre-dated Hitler by 60 plus years with genocide. It was apparently acceptable then.

Actually, genocide of the American Indian started when Columbus first arrived. By the time the pilgrims landed Indian populations had been reduced by at least 50% due to white man's disease. The intended genocide started about 1650 and lasted until 1900. Still today the American Indians are being robbed of their culture and treaty promises made in the past.

Larry

[Arisaka99]

Im starting my rough draft today, wish me luck!

[rockrat]

I believe ""assault" is the term for when you are in fear of immediate injury. That is, when someone pulls back his fist getting ready to hit you. His "mens rea" or state of mind gives rise to the assault. The "battery" part is when you are acutally hit.
people have been charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" when they have intentionally hit someone with their car. This makes the car an "assault weapon".
As said, a "assault weapon" can be just just about anything capable of causing injury, i.e. pencil, pen, a straw, coffee cup. the list goes on and on.
I think there has been 1 (one) crime committed by someone with a legally owned machine gun, and it was IIRC a retired LEO. All the others have been illegally obtained or converted illegally from their semi-auto counterparts.

Good luck on your paper