• Malyca@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Is here a legal definition or is it still a blanket term for “guns that scare me”?

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          There’s a definition in the military but the laws typically call them machine guns or simply ban full auto/burst fire

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Why would anyone consider the AR-15 an assault rifle? It’s not any functionally different than your grandad’s hunting rifle. It doesn’t do full auto or burst.

          • iceberg314@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            It’s classified as an “assault rifle” in my state. But yeah, I suppose it varies from state to state.

            • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              I promise you it’s not classified as an assault rifle. It’s probably classified as an assault weapon. That’s a made up term meant to cause this sort of confusion, usually defined by non functional aesthetic features like a foregrip or a heat shroud over the barrel. Its essentially a “scary looking gun” ban. The AR gets lumped in because it’s one of the most common rifles in the country. It’s like trying to end car crashes by banning the Honda Civic.

  • kubica@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    ·
    3 days ago

    The Federal Communications Commission announced July 28 that it has banned two new categories of devices: “Advanced robotic devices” and connected power inverters produced in foreign countries. According to the FCC, “robotic devices” includes mobile robots, such as humanoids and quadrupeds, and devices “capable of locomotion, obstacle avoidance, navigation, or movement on the ground.” Yes, that means Roombas and other robot vacuums may be considered illegal if they’re produced outside of the United States of America.

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      ·
      3 days ago

      Thanks for the clickbait-skip. There’s still an important point missing: this doesn’t apply to ownership, use, or sale of existing devices. It doesn’t even block importation of existing models. It blocks certification of new models

      • tidderuuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 days ago

        I think the goal is to make people either numb to this noise or become radicalized to do something stupid and get caught.

        • Zak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          3 days ago

          I think the goal is to grant exceptions in exchange for bribes or political favors, because the FCC has already behaved that way with a similar rule about routers.