Discussing the Term "Assault" Rifle, Gun, etc.

[Shane Tuttle]

OK, OK. I know I'm being a bit of a snob here. But I cannot keep it bottled up any longer. Why in the world has the gun owning community become desensitized with the term "assault rifle"?

From what I understand, most normally accessible rifles such as the AK-47 and AR-15 are technically NOT an assault rifle. So, if the media states such casual stereotypical terms to these, why to we give in?

Both of these examples are semi-autos. Yes, I know the AK-47 originally is an auto, but I'm talking about ones that most people are willing to buy, trade, sell here and at dealers that don't have a Class III rating.

I'm so sick and tired of this term being used on these and other firearms in general that ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS. All it does is make someone think they're cool by using the term only to make the law abiding gun owners' community appear ignorant of facts and co-mingles our appearance in line with anti-gun crowds.

I'm drawing the line in the sand. I feverishly ask fellow members on the law abiding gun owning community to stand with me. Let's shun this term when it improperly refers to a gun an "assault weapon" just because it LOOKS like one.

Stand with me and kindly educate others when it is right and when it is wrong to use this term.

What say you?

 

[finrot]

I've been thinking about this lately and the way that lawyers and I would guess lawmakers write things, correct terms would be mandatory. However I don't foresee Obama trying to pass a sporting rifle ban.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

I think you miss the point. When Diane Fienstein and company holds up an AR-15 SEMI-automatic and claims that it's an "assault rifle" completely demonizes everything.

Of course, it you don't see Obama threatening to take away sporting rifles, I guess you wouldn't see him wanting to take away much of anything from us. Read my sig line. It says it all.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

I don't use the term assault rifle. To me, the anti's use the term to demonize semi auto rifles. The Brady campaign is also doing the same thing with "high powered sniper style rifles (deer rifles.)

 

[maestro pistolero]

I agree that we shouldn't reinforce the misuse of the term assault weapon. But we should also not engage in the re-definition game like the antis. The historical record on 2A has a rich basis for qualifying military related arms for 2A protection.

If we were to convince folks that these are, say "sport utility rifles" or some such nonsense, the end result may be that they are disqualified BECAUSE they are not militia or military related. Remember, in US vs Miller, the sawed-off shotgun was not protected, because it had no reasonable relationship to the militia.

We are better off in the long run, to call them what they are: Civilian versions of military STYLE small arms, limited to semi automatic fire. Or, just semi-automatic small arms, rifles. pistols, shotguns, etc.

If we play their word games we can back ourselves into a corner down the road. By saying an AR15 isn't anything like an M16 (which of course isn't exactly true) and therefore should be legal, we are, in a way, conceding that the law abiding among us shouldn't be allowed to carry small arms like the military does. Whether you agree with that or not, it's not a smart thing to concede from a negotiating standpoint.

If 2A is, at least in part, about resisting lawlessness should the government become tyrannical in the future, are we to be expected to resist tyranny with a 5 shot revolver?

If 2A is, at least in part, about resisting a foreign enemy if we are attacked on our own soil, aren't military weapons the obvious choice for repelling them? Let's not equivocate terms anymore. The most credible way to embarrass the Feinsteins and Schumers is not to try to minimize the lethality of these arms, but to call them by their true name and stand up and defend the multitude of reasons why they are needed to safeguard our liberty into the future, and why they are the MOST protected arms covered by the Second Amendment.

 

[vox rationis]

I agree, let's not give in and use the leftist propaganda terms which only makes it easier for them to undermine our position, especially to people that are not knowledgeable about firearms, which is most people, including some gun owners

 

[finrot]

Maybe my first post came off wrong. I was stating that antis use incorrect terms to describe rifles that are legal to own in most states, unfortunately CT where I live they are not.

 

[HOGGHEAD]

Terms

I have been saying it for years. We need to stop using terms like assault rifle, tactical, EBR, sniper rifle, and such. We feed the madness by using these terms. I hear so many people who are completely uneducated in firearms that use these terms, and they believe it!! Such as the word AUTOMATIC weapon, when we all know it is semi-auto, but they do not know that!! Let's stop using these terms. The industry is as guilty as we are. Tom.

 

[NormOps]

What actually IS and Assault Rifle?

Okay, I see the point in the first post, but my understanding on assault rifles is as follows:
AR-15's and AK-47's ARE assault rifles, less the full auto in most cases. An assault rifle, so far as I know, is by definition a light (cartridge and weight wise), easily handled battle rifle. The purpose of use is by a single, mobile operator.
They are NOT a high powered, destructive device, like a .50 BMG, for instance.
The fact that the PC and anti gun crowd has latched onto the term "assault" as being something far beyond the scope of your normal battle rifle seems to be the problem.
But then, hoplophobes fear and despise any weapon, and nothing is going to change that. The fact is, the term "assault rifle" has been blown into proportions of catastrophic and apoctolypic connotations when anti gunners describe the latest tchnology in offence weapons.
In reality, the bolt action 30 '06, the M1 Garand, and the Winchester lever action before those are all assult rifles, but that was before the term surfaced, and before anti 2A movements reached this level of force.

Eli W.

 

[Keltyke]

I hate "name police". Next you'll have us all chanting, "This is my rifle, this is my gun...", and grabbing our anatomy.

The antis will take and twist WHATEVER name we put to our weapons. If we point out the similarities between an AR15 and a Remington varmint rifle (in an attempt to "de-assault" the AR), we'll soon find they're trying to ban both.

We need to be honest with ourselves - it's a RIFLE, it's designed to KILL something. -OR- It's a 9mm, 15 round, 4" pistol loaded with JHPs, it's designed to kill something, and that something ain't squirrels, either. We tell ourselves we train to shoot to stop. Well, COM might work - might kill, too. If we're REALLY training to "shoot to stop", we'd be training to shoot the weapon out of the BGs hand. How many of us REALLY believe "stopping" will usually fall short of "killing"? Hopefully so, but maybe not.

There just isn't any way to sugar-coat it.

Me? I prefer EBG (Evil Black Gun).

 

[Shane Tuttle]

But we should also not engage in the re-definition game like the antis.
If we were to convince folks that these are, say "sport utility rifles" or some such nonsense, the end result may be that they are disqualified BECAUSE they are not militia or military related.

It isn't a RE-definition game. It's correction to the original proper term for a gun. I'm not talking about a measly "magazine vs. clip" here.

I don't want them to have to say "sport utility rifles" or other "nonsense". I want them to be called for what they are. If there's a line drawn, maybe fence sitters and others in the general public will see the truth. From there, I can deal with what transpires and people will be better informed of the difference.

If we play their word games we can back ourselves into a corner down the road. By saying an AR15 isn't anything like an M16 (which of course isn't exactly true) and therefore should be legal, we are, in a way, conceding that the law abiding among us shouldn't be allowed to carry small arms like the military does. Whether you agree with that or not, it's not a smart thing to concede from a negotiating standpoint.

How do you think we got to this point in the first place? If we stood up and corrected the definition of which gun is an isn't an assault weapon, maybe we wouldn't be knee deep in defending the AR15 and AKs now. The anti's have pooled them all together under one roof of the term assault weapon. And many gunowners stood by silently and let the public become numb.

Worse yet, many gunowners just shrugged it off and implimented the term wrongly, too.

Where the heck did I say that the AR15 isn't anything like the M16? A male and a female is separated by only one chromosome(sp), yet they're two different types of humans, aren't they?

Meastro, with all due respect, I think you're missing the entire point of my thread. Why give in to the truth and bow down to allowing yourself to tag an ignorant name to a gun? You can back yourself into a corner by going along with a lie and then when the time comes to defend your true stance, you have NOTHING to support your beliefs based on your voting record.

Maybe my first post came off wrong. I was stating that antis use incorrect terms to describe rifles that are legal to own in most states, unfortunately CT where I live they are not.

My apologies for misunderstanding your post, finrot.

I have been saying it for years. We need to stop using terms like assault rifle, tactical, EBR, sniper rifle, and such. We feed the madness by using these terms. I hear so many people who are completely uneducated in firearms that use these terms, and they believe it!! Such as the word AUTOMATIC weapon, when we all know it is semi-auto, but they do not know that!! Let's stop using these terms. The industry is as guilty as we are. Tom.

Thank you, Tom. THIS is my point.

The antis will take and twist WHATEVER name we put to our weapons. If we point out the similarities between an AR15 and a Remington varmint rifle (in an attempt to "de-assault" the AR), we'll soon find they're trying to ban both.

So, you really think by not spreading the truth will keep this from happening? What if the gunowning community nipped this in the bud to begin with? What if we education John Q. Public that the so called "assault" rifle we have isn't? The antis are trying to include guns that aren't classified as such to get them banned anyway by using this percieved more dangerous term. If we stop calling them what they technically aren't to begin with, maybe we would gain enough credibility for the uneducated to listen to us instead of the anti gun liars. Ever thought of that?

I never said to sugar coat anything. Where in the heck are you guys finding this crap in my posts?!

I hate "name police". Next you'll have us all chanting, "This is my rifle, this is my gun...", and grabbing our anatomy.

So sensitive to being corrected, yet so forgiving of allowing anti-gun people to demonize guns in an attempt to further their cause. I really feel badly for people like you. I really do.

 

[rem870hunter]

i think the word assault is what the firearm is meant to repel.

if you have 100 men charging at 25 men and each of those 25 men have a semi,full or selectable auto rifle. with a mags of 20 or 30 rounds. the 25 would have a better chance of stopping the 100 charging men. and an even better chance should 1 or 2 of the 25 men have an auto rifle preferably belt fed in .30 cal.

am i crying invasion. nope, i'm thinking ahead.

as far as that bolt action rifle with a high powered scope on it that can hit a watermelon or orange size target out to 500+ yards in the right hands. thats not a piece of EVIL. its a game/food harvesting firearm. even if its a military rifle in the hands of a soldier. then its simply a military tool. and theres nothing EVIL about them either. the public should be allowed access to those tools too.

 

[armsmaster270]

If it's scarey looking, has a long magazine, semi auto, maybe a bayonet the liberals call it an assault rifle. However think back a bit and the 30-40 Krag was the assault rifle of the day. Times change but unfortunatly idiots don't . Our Ms Fienstien is rabidly anti gun but she has a CCW.

 

[NormOps]

So I think most of us agree...
Sure, it's an assault rifle.
Big deal.

Now, what ya all gotta watch out for is my assault knife.
I've got a pretty gnarly assault baseball bat, too. Good thing its not black, though. It might scare the livin' morning glorys out of some hoplophobe...

 

[Yellowfin]

I watch what I say to non-firearms owning people. Using terms that have embedded meaning reinforces the negative programming behind them. It's giving the other side free advertising in essence. Feinslime and her kind need to be removed and playing into their games doesn't help do that.

 

[NormOps]

Well, okay. I went on the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and looked up assault rifle. This is what comes up:

Main Entry: assault rifle
Function: noun
Date: 1972
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Does that not describe an AR or AK?
Granted, "high capacity" is very subjective, but across the board thirty rounds can be considered high cap.

I guess the point is, no matter what you call a gun, the anti's won't like it.
The error is not in the name, but what they have twisted the name around to mean.
If you called it a battle rifle, which would probably be more accurate, then "battle rifle" would suddenly be a dark utterance.
If you called it a pea-shooter, anti's would swear off small round green vegatables because of their connection to death and destruction wrought upon the earth by the evil pea shooter.

We can't get into a apologetic sort of mode about our firearms. as soon as you make one concession, they'll be at your throat for another.

Okay, I'm done...

 

[maestro pistolero]

Tuttle8
Hold on there, friend. Please assume you and I are in agreement here and go back and re-read my post. You and I agree. I know you didn't say AR15's are nothing like M16s.

From what I understand, most normally accessible rifles such as the AK-47 and AR-15 are technically NOT an assault rifle.

That is correct and neither was anything else ever commonly referred to as an assault rifle before anti-gunners, with the cooperation of the media, brought the term into common use to define guns they didn't like.

How do you think we got to this point in the first place? If we stood up and corrected the definition of which gun is an isn't an assault weapon, maybe we wouldn't be knee deep in defending the AR15 and AKs now.

Right again. Furthermore, there are no weapons defined or referred to by the military, or the gun industry as assault weapons. I'm suggesting dispense with the term completely, except to point out the ignorance of an anti gunner.

It isn't a RE-definition game. It's correction to the original proper term for a gun. I'm not talking about a measly "magazine vs. clip" here.

Right. Not for us it isn't. But some of us (not you) are tempted to play by coming up with new, less threatening names. Again you and I agree. And I'm suggesting the proper term is "Small Arms" at top of the tree, and some of the branches are "semi-auto pistols, rifles and shotguns."

I don't want them to have to say "sport utility rifles" or other "nonsense". I want them to be called for what they are.

Exactly.

Meastro, with all due respect, I think you're missing the entire point of my thread.

Nope, I think I get it completely, and you and I are on the same page. Sorry if my post led you to think otherwise.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Nope, I think I get it completely, and you and I are on the same page. Sorry if my post led you to think otherwise.

Apology readily accepted. Hope you accept mine for reading too much into your posts.

I'm just sick and tired of the loosely used term for a broad spectrum of firearms that aren't as such.

I swear some people really are like frogs in a pot of water. The antis slowly turn up the heat and they don't notice it. They just go along for the ride. Then, I come along pulling them out of the pot. I'm viewed as the village idiot for exposing them the correct tempurature even though it's an abrupt change to the original.

I truly feel sorry for people, especially gunowners, that see nothing wrong with this. Worse yet, ones that do but wants to dance along with the pied piper.

 

[El Paso Joe]

To put another spin on it...

The RKBA has its roots in English Common Law. It was first (to my knowledge) put into law by Henry II in the twelfth century as the Assize of Arms. It required all able bodied men to have the arms required if the king needed to build an army. The principle was assented to by the Magna Carta and most law until the 20th century in England (did you know that they have a NRA that is a dozen or so years older than ours? And lost their RKBA in spite of it?). If we assume that the framers of the Constitution knew English Common Law and used that as a basis for 2A then it follows that an "assault rifle" is EXACTLY what they had in mind.

In my (not so) humble opinion...

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Language definitions are a social construct and not a physical law of the universe or mathematical principle.

The great hangup on internet discussions of 'assault' this or that is the difference between semi and fully auto.

IMHO - the horse has left the barn for the general public. Nothing one can say about the name will change the debate. There is fair evidence that for the general public that military derivative semiauto guns prime negative feelings. Saying that they are not fully auto isn't going to change that.

The general person will say but isn't this a version of a military gun? Can't you fire it very quickly and doesn't it carry lots of bullets?

That's all they need. They see gun in a policeman's arms, you have something that looks the same.

Trying to make a military derivative gun seem less dangerous (from being really, really dangerous to really dangerous) isn't going to make a bit of difference.

The real battle is to convince folks that having a really dangerous military derivative gun is legit - based on the Constitution, self-defense utility, sporting use or the like. Trying to make the gun nice by arguing about the word assault - just leads to a discussion of its lethality.

With no offense to the original OP - holding up a semi AR or M4 cloneand arguing it is different from a military gun is just going to convince folks that it is bad also.

Different strategies are needed.

To continue, the UK and Australian gun owners went down the path of arguing that guns were only for sport and good. They argued against humanoid targets in IPSC or IDPA as only the blood thirsty Americans used them. We are different, we want guns for 'sport'. Didn't work.

The RKBA is based on the lethal nature of the gun, not it being nice.

If you write the newspaper on such a technicality or call the TV station, they will just ignore you.

Even gun writers refer to the semi versions as assault weapons.

Wave goodbye to the horse but I applaud your good intentions on education.

BTW - I love my EBR with its EOTECH which looks just like one I saw on the tube in Iraq. My wife sees it and says : Don't you have one of those? No, mine isn't fully auto. Wife - boring - mow the lawn!