And it is pink. No way an evil assault rifle can be pink.

Note that this is not an assault rifle. It's California compliant .223 self loading AR like rifle. Find out more at Calguns.net where this rifle was originally posted and where we're slowly taking California gun laws apart even before Heller.

My first thought, I kid you not, was, "I wonder how this would fit into the fair use doctrine."

My second was, "Aww, Hello Kitty with a rifle is cute!"

I can just picture myself intoning "Goodbye Kitty" in a thick Austrian accent and then opening fire.

It is just barely not an assault rifle by CA law. The primary reason being that it "is based on an 'off-list' lower receiver made by Stag Arms"--i.e. the receiver is functionally identical to a Springfield armory AR-15 receiver that California would consider an "assault rifle" but isn't on the official "this is an assault rifle" list.

Also, you don't need full auto to be an assault rifle.

All that being said, nice work. If an assault rifle could ever be called cute, this is the one.

When I first learned to shoot, my dream was to shoot well enough that I could use a pink-colored firearm. I won't be in the market for this example any time soon.

I've seen actual rifles with pink stocks at gun shows. My 11-year-old daughter expressed interest in the .22.

Feminine protection?

I think that you have to distinguish here between the traditional definition of an assualt weapons, which require either select fire or possibly fully automatic fire, and have been heavily regulated and mostly illegal for around 75 years now, and the redefinition used when banning scary looking weapons that look like traditional assualt weapons. I like the suggestion above of calling the later "assault-style" weapons.

I enjoyed the picture of the weapon, as well as the comments, with it pointed out that pink was picked because of its well known ability to calm people.

I hear in Africa, they are giving one of these away with each One Laptop Per Child.

Assault an enemy position you have been ordered to overthrow and you will immediately appreciate the difference between a semi-auto look-alike and a selective-fire or fully automatic *assault* weapon.

Assault an enemy position you have been ordered to overthrow and you will immediately appreciate the difference between a semi-auto look-alike and a selective-fire or fully automatic *assault* weapon.

Say you're an infantry platoon that comes into contact with the enemy in a wooded area. It's dense enough that cover is abundant and you are traveling in a file, but you can still move more or less freely about.

Your platoon performs initial response to contact (return fire, seek immediate cover.) You have two elements of riflemen, the forward element continues to engage and hold their position, while the flanking element will move around to attack the enemy's flank. You also have a pair of machine gun crews, the support element, who set up and begin to engage, firing timed bursts during initial response.

The flanking riflemen, upon reaching the enemy's position, will give the forward riflemen and supporting machine guns a signal to shift fire, that is, to move their aim left or right so they don't shoot their own people. The flanking element will continue to move through, and give another signal to lift fire, that is to fire in the air. The flanking element moves completely through and beyond the enemy position and takes up security.

The supporting machineguns take up rear security while the forward riflemen moves directly through and beyond the enemy position, to mop up any remaining resistance. Finally, you reassemble, take care of casualties, and continue mission.

For riflemen burst isn't very useful in actually killing people. It's more effective when suppressing the enemy, but that's really what a machinegun is best suited for, so you have burst, IMHO, for situations where you don't have a machinegun. Suppressive fire, whether from a machinegun or a rifle, only kills the dumb 10% who stick their head out, its tactical value is in keeping the enemy's heads down and immobile. Semiautomatic fire is far more effective for actually killing people because you have far more control over it.

make that here:

Anybody want to bet that they're receive a cease-and-desist letter or takedown notice from the owners of Hello Kitty?

Scote,

All assault rifles are select fire. A rifle that does not provide firing options is either a semi-automatic or automatic rifle. The AR-15 is only semi-automatic. Calling the AR-15 an "assault rifle" is a propaganda ploy by those who want to ban them.

False. There is no one definition of "assault rifle," otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. Second, "assault rifle" is really a civilian term meant to denote military rifles from sporting arms. A gun that is full auto is a gun that is full auto, not necessarily an "assault rifle." An UZI submachine gun has select fire, but I wouldn't call it an assault rifle or even a rifle because it is a submachine gun (a full auto gun that fires pistol rounds) not a rifle. (Only the civy semi auto versions have the 18" rifle barrel that allows them to be called a "rifle.")

False. An assault rifle has only one meaning

Demonstrably false. There is no international body of "English" who defines "assault rifle" with a single and unalterable definition. As much as the definition you provide may be accurate in a certain context it is not the only one in use. Words and terms take on different and new connotations, even ones that are offensive to some and contrary to their original meanings. That is just a fact. Your desire to be right and have a valid point will do nothing to affect this fact. And you are picking a fight with the wrong person. I've made no negative comments about weapons in this thread.