There are hunting rifles, and there are sport rifles. >They are optimized to deliver a large number effective rounds down range, from a variety of positions at

There are hunting rifles, and there are sport rifles. >They are optimized to deliver a large number effective rounds down range, from a variety of positions at a variety of distances. This is precisely where a blanket term like “assault rifle” becomes pretty impossible to specifically define, and consequently regulate. >large number effective rounds down range Based on this comment, you’re referring caliber? And capacity? And perhaps action? So what about a semi-auto 5.56 with a pencil barrel and a 5 round magazine? Still an “assault weapon?” >from a variety of positions at a variety of distances How would you interpret this into characteristics of a rifle? Does this mean it has to have a folding bipod? It has to be under a certain weight? *Any* rifle can be more or less effective at a variety of ranges. The cartridge and shooter have more influence over that criteria than the rifle. >It's the shape, flexibility and effectiveness of the platform This is feels territory. Because none of these are concrete characteristics inherit to this claim. Define “effective”, or define “ineffective”. Tell me how the “shape” would designate or exclude one specific rifle over another…