[David S]

Way back in the stupid Pre-Brady days, when the "assualt weapon" thing got started..... i heard of a man, prehaps he was a senator , i forgot.... that went before congress.... bringing a mini 14 with a wooden stock... he asked them to identify it.... they said its a sporting riffle..... then in front of their eyes, he took it apart, put on a pistol grip/folding stock, all that...... then they said its an assault riffle....... still the same gun....... nothing done to it internally..... nothing on function......

It was brought up recently with the Miami ""assualt weapon" thing......... they gave the statistic that 7 out of 10 people are killed with assault weapons........

so what IS an assault weapon?........... isnt ANY weapon used to assault someone, an assault weapon?
If i bludgeon someone to death with a potato..... isnt that potato an assault weapon?........ lol

Its one of those tag lines the media loves to use, but means NOTHING.... like "Home Made.."

[ClickClickD'oh]

There's a video of that on YouTube somewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

Great video

As for what is an "assault weapon"? It's a term someone invented to scare people.

[Correia]

It is a term, where the definition varies depending on who uses it. Kind of like NeoCon. Based on the context used you learn more about the person using the term, than the information the term conveys.

[benEzra]

Here's a series of photos I took sort of showing the same thing:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1120356158/gallery_260_23_2123.jpg

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1120356158/gallery_260_23_4275.jpg

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1120356158/gallery_260_23_11270.jpg

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1120356158/gallery_260_23_33326.jpg

[MD_Willington]

here's a couple:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/MDWillington1976/misc/store-clerk-machete.jpg

[arthurcw]

It is a term, where the definition varies depending on who uses it. Kind of like NeoCon. Based on the context used you learn more about the person using the term, than the information the term conveys.

+ 1

Correia wins the cookie

[Jorg]

so what IS an assault weapon?...........

Assault weapon is merely to term used to inspire FUD in the unwashed masses. It is the boogieman of weapons. It is used to conjure up visions of an evil weapon that is so powerful, so easy to use, and so pervasive in the US that at any moment anyone person could use one to mow schools full of innocent children within seconds. It is purposely vague so that it can morph to fit a variety of firearms as needed.

[Nolo]

so what IS an assault weapon?...........
A really cool thing that the gun-grabbers want to prevent you from having. It's a lot like a rifle only so cool that it makes Dianne Feinstein pee her pants. :evil::evil:
Not to be confused with and assault rifle, which is a weapon that we can't get without a lot of paperwork, and is so unbelievably awesome that the mere mention of one in civilian hands causes all the authoritarian socio-liberals' heads to explode.

[DoubleTapDrew]

An assault weapon is The Next Step in the anti's creeping incrementalism towards a complete gun ban. Once people get brainwashed into thinking they are inherently Evil and nobody really needs them, they'll move onto The Next Step. After assault weapons they'll probably go for either pistols or sniper-rifles (hunting long guns with synthetic stocks, heavy barrels, optics, etc).
They know a total ban won't work but if they demonize categories of weapons eventually they can all be eliminated, like the old poem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...) of "there was nobody left to speak up for me"

they gave the statistic that 7 out of 10 people are killed with assault weapons........
If you define an assault weapon as anything you use to assault another person then they are probably right. Personally I'm sick of the Bradys Assault Lobbying to take away my rights.

[Samuraigg]

Maybe they consider that to mean anyone killed with a weapon that uses a high capacity magazine.

Its the same weasel logic that antis use to say the Virginia Tech killer used assault weapons as well. They aren't just bending the truth anymore, these are outright lies.

[ROMAK IV]

The term: "assault Weapon", means whatever they, the antign media, want it to mean. Currently it has no meaning because it will be applied to any firearm. Go to the VPC website and look at their "Report" on police killings. Most of the firearms that were listed as assault weapons, either aren't assault weapons, under the now definct legal definition, or can't be determined to be assault weapons. You will find M1 carbines, ruger mini-14's, SKS's, or unknown AK's. Very few SKS's are legally defined as AW's. MAK-90's aren't AW's and were legal. Look at new proposed legislation and certain firearms are listed by brand, since there is no other way to legally define them as "assault weapons". Each organization that promotes gun control has its own definition of assault weapon that is intended to ban as many firearms as possible. There are also some quite serious goals in these laws. Back in 1994, after the Brady Bill was rammed through Congress by Slick Willie, there was Brady II proposed. If it had passed, it would have banned nearly every semiautomatic pistol and most semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. To possess more than 50 rounds of ammunition or five firearms, you would have been required to have a federal "arsenal license" and would have to allow the feds to inspect your house twice a year to obtain that license. In more recent legislation, concerning AW's, the constitutional prohibition on Ex Post Facto laws is ignored and all possession of assault weapons, as defined by possessing one assault weapon feature, or by the model being defined as an assault weapon, would require turn in, confiscation, or not being allowed to sell or pass down to heirs and would require turn in at the death of the owner. For example: Mini-14's would be Assault weapons. Any semiauto with a "barrel shroud", would be an AW.

[CNYCacher]

It's the "pit bull" of the gun world.

[the iron horse]

Sorry, I could not post a pic of a stick or rock.

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

Raise your right hand. Repeat after me (three times). "It is NOT an 'Assault Weapon'. It's a Sport Utility Rifle."

[cpttango30]

I prefer to call all semi-auto rifles that have a black stock HDR or Homeland Defence Rifles. That way they do not have a threating name and from the name you can see that we must have them to protect ourselves from the hords of Terroriest trying to kill every man women and child that calls the USA home.

It is a kinder gentler world so we need kinder gentler gun. The Homeland Defence Rifle is just what we need.

[Jorg]

I prefer to call all semi-auto rifles that have a black stock HDR or Homeland Defence Rifles.

Why would the black stock make a difference? A rifle is a rifle is a rifle. They don't need fancy names.

[Officers'Wife]

Hi David,

If i bludgeon someone to death with a potato..... isnt that potato an assault weapon?........ lol

If you say so... but there is this Apache helicopter that flies over my house every so often. THAT thing scares the heck out of me and I KNOW it's on our side! That my friend is an assault weapon!

Selena

[Agouti]

An assault weapon is any weapon, be it gun/knife whatever, that has features, not merely aesthetic, that make it primarily used for the taking of human life, especially in a combat scenario.

Today, that means a mid-powered rifle with a hi-capacity magazine, a high powered rifle with a high capacity magazine, a highly accurate high-powered rifle, a shotgun with a high capacity magazine, a handgun firing a pistol cartridge with a high capacity magazine, or a rifle that uses pistol catridges with a high capacity magazine.

Full auto for the mid-powered rifles, sometimes high powered high capacity rifles, sometimes for high capacity handgun, absolutely for a pistol catridge using longarm, and sometimes for a high capacity shotgun is a major plus.

A goof knife, blackened.

Also, grenade launching or HE/AP projectile launchers via an internal propulsion system, as well as handgrenades, both flash and fragmentation, plus AT and thermite.

Pretty much anything that is or could be regulated (because of its military applications), but should NEVER be.

[Prince Yamato]

It's a misnomer, but since we all pretty much know what is meant by it, I say we should keep it.

If I say, "I'm looking to get an AW" you all know what I mean: a semi-automatic only version of a military rifle.

I'm sick of playing word games though. "Let's call it something friendlier". Let's not. I'm personally sick of political correctness. I don't care if the rifle offends you on some personal level by appearance or name. WHO CARES?!?!

[Stretchman]

Assault weapon is merely to term used to inspire FUD in the unwashed masses. It is the boogieman of weapons. It is used to conjure up visions of an evil weapon that is so powerful, so easy to use, and so pervasive in the US that at any moment anyone person could use one to mow schools full of innocent children within seconds.

My kind of gun.

[JKimball]

I may take some flak for this, and Correia will learn something about me by the way I use the term, :) but I wonder sometimes if we're taking the best course when we discourage using the term "assault weapon." I think that term implies that this weapon was specifically designed to effeciently kill/attack people. In my mind that is the kind of weapon that the second amendment specifically refers to. We need to educate the public that the second amendment is all about assault weapons. We don't need to try and convince everybody that our mini-14's and high capacity pistols aren't really that scary. Let's be honest, it is scary to think what someone who knows how to use one could do if he decided to go off the deep end. But that doesn't change the fact that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect our right to keep and bear them.

Having said that, I must admit I really like tango's "Homeland Defense Rifle."

[Tharg]

Ya, read the Miami thing. Friend of mine just bought a new "toy" (er - AW) Glock... w/ a 32 rnd mag... my guess is that VT guy would have creamed his pants if he knew he could have gotten mags like THAT... (bleh) In the end its the people who make the gun an assault weapon, my collection has never even been pointed at a person, let alone assaulted any one in or OUT of my hands.

So in the end ya, a nice term to make the people on the fence feel better about saying "why would anyone need one of them" (next year wally world is coming out w/ a series of assault fire extinguishers... i mean seriously who needs to assault a fire that way...) (this was sarcasm btw... for the few who don't recognize it)

bleh

People killing, people raping, people driving like no one else is on the road, people beating other kids up on the field because their kid go a late hit... i ever mention i don't much care for people....

J/Tharg!

[Prince Yamato]

I think that term implies that this weapon was specifically designed to efficiently kill/attack people. In my mind that is the kind of weapon that the second amendment specifically refers to.

I concur. A gun's purpose is to defensively kill (or more specifically, to "stop" a threat). AWs are ideal. You can defend home or homeland with them AND you can even hunt with them (if that's your "thing").

[.cheese.]

with the Miami incident "High power rifle" has been popping up a lot too.

Which is always interesting. Where do you draw the line for that?

Is .223 "high power"? Well... yes compared to .22lr.... but no compared to say .50BMG or .338 Lap.

I thought it was technically a moderate loading along with 7.62x39 and a bunch of others.

And of course even if it's not "high power" anything with hollow points has "cop killer bullets"..... the best part of this description is to visualize the insanity of it. I'm really sure :rolleyes: that the executive folks at Federal sat down one day and said, "OK guys. Winchester has us beat right now on this. Their cop killer ammo kills on average 3 cops per box. Ours is only killing 2. What can we do to increase the ration of dead cops to our bullets?".... and some guy stands up and says, "How about we try making them hollow? That should do the trick."

I mean... COME ON!?! How can a reporter call ammo "cop killer bullets" while maintaining any credibility.

As for assault weapons - it's a hogwash term invented to make something benign take on a life of its own. All of these evil black assault weapons supposedly sprout legs in the middle of the night and beat the crap out of your grandma... then rob two liquor stores and rape the cashier.

I'm tired of it.

[Zen21Tao]

I was at my favorite local gun store a couple days ago when two men entered. One walked over to a counter to buy some hunting ammo for a rifle while the other guy walked over next to me. He looked at the AR15s on the wall and then said to me "I don't know how those things are legal?" I asked if he was referring to the AR15s and he said "yes, those things are urban killing machines." I asked him if he was serious and he said "yes, those things are way too powerful for civilians to own." I pointed to a 1903 Springfield and an M1 Garand on the wall, then I showed him a .223 round next to a .30-06 round and began to give him a lesson in ballistics. However, he just said (in reference to the size difference) "yes but that one (pointing to the .223) is packed with more powder" and he walked away before I could say otherwise. Before I could say anything else to him, he left the store with his buddy. :banghead: :banghead:

It is one thing for an extreme anti-gun supporter to say something like that, but it really upsets me when it is a fellow gun-owner (or in this case friend of a gun-owner). He wants the right for him (or his buddy) to have his gun but NOT our right to have the guns we want to own. This is hypocrisy at its best.

[ctdonath]

"Assault weapon" is a term which people uninterested in debate tie others in knots debating.

If the energy wasted on our side bickering over the definition of "assault weapon" was properly utilized, 922(o) would be overturned already and we'd be fiddling with our nifty new sub-$1000 select-fire guns.

[gaudio5]

anything is an assault weapon......so long as i assault you with it :P

[woof]

Confusion over what is an assault rifle will probably lead eventually to anything semi-automatic being banned.

[Guntalk]

Speaking of terms which are used against us . . . .

Some posters seem to think that the term "gun porn" is cute.

Wait until it is turned back on us with a national effort to get all firearms-related publications removed from public display as pornography.

Write it down. That effort is coming, and "we" created the term.

Real cute.

[SuperNaut]

As someone who hangs out with a lot of lefties I can assure you that "Homeland Defense Rifle" is a far worse term than assault rifle. It adds a whole new unnecessarily paranoid political dimension to a firearm.

Kinder and gentler it is not.

We also have to remember that we are fighting against years of propaganda, movies, media, and expectations. There is also a component of fetishization that I'm not sure how to combat. I've met some anti's who absolutely adore being afraid. I don't know how a psychologist would define such behavior, but I do know it is freakin' weird.

[Guntalk]

http://guntalk.com/site46.php

The votes are favoring "utility rifle," but I did not list all the possibilities.

[AirForceShooter]

You're confusing the issue with facts.
Please don't do that. The gun grabbers don't like it. :banghead:

AFS

[Eyesac]

Bastards all of them.

Anything with a stock I call a Rifle. That's if folks.

[Nolo]

Speaking of terms which are used against us . . . .

Some posters seem to think that the term "gun porn" is cute.

Wait until it is turned back on us with a national effort to get all firearms-related publications removed from public display as pornography.

Write it down. That effort is coming, and "we" created the term.

Real cute.
This is gonna sound weird... but if they're going to be that ridiculous, let them. Guess what? I've got the rifles. Wanna take my gun magazines as "restricted literature?" Well then you can have my 180-grain .30-caliber FMJs while you're at it. If they would take it to that level... well, then I'll take it to the next.
You mess with my 2nd Amendment rights, I'll fight you with words.
You mess with my 1st Amendment rights, I'll fight you with bullets.

[slow944]

I prefer to call my Mini14 with the 30rd. mag. a "Home Defence Weapon". It is not an Assault Weapon as I don't intend to Assault anyone ever, only defend myself and family and property from people intent on doing harm.

[Jorg]

Wait until it is turned back on us with a national effort to get all firearms-related publications removed from public display as pornography.

Tom, I'm with you on many issues, but this one sounds pretty far-fetched to me. While I wouldn't put it past someone for trying, I can't imagine it going anywhere. Then again, I live in a place where they have plastic covers over all the women's magazines, "for the children."

As the term "pornography" has no real legal standing as far as the federal government is concerned, they would have to be deemed obscene. Since the 3 part test for obscenity established by Miller v. California of (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

It would be pretty hard to qualify any gun magazines under those the current standards for obscenity.

Also, those who tend to believe in gun control are usually of the same political ilk as outspoken supporters of freedom of expression or speech. Likewise, those who want to ban obscene words, pictures, and thoughts for the children tend to be the same conservatives don't have a problem guns.

I think a Venn diagram of those who believe in gun control and restricting freedom of the press/speech/expression/etc would only have a very small sliver overlapping.


If they would take it to that level... well, then I'll take it to the next.
You mess with my 2nd Amendment rights, I'll fight you with words.
You mess with my 1st Amendment rights, I'll fight you with bullets.

Ah, the brave words of a 16 year old freedom fighter. :rolleyes: Unfortunately they are silly, make us look bad, and they violate the rules of the forum (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=297146): With that in mind, make sure that remedy of shooting anyone is only considered if all other legal options are exhausted.

You're not shooting anyone. Get over it.

[Justin]

Nolo, initially I was going to throw your post down the memory hole for being in violation of THR's policies, but on second thought I resurrected it as an example to everyone of what NOT to post on a public internet forum.

I mean, if you're so concerned that the anti's will stop the publication of Guns & Ammo because of what pro-gun people say, then perhaps you oughtn't be thumping your chest while spouting off about shooting them.

Y'know? Just a little FYI.

[Big Calhoun]

Actually, a few people have hit upon what the unifying political definition of an assault weapon is: A weapon that is seemingly designed, originally or via after-market upgrades, to make the killing of a human more efficient and seemingly not productive to "sporting purposes". I've noticed that language in a lot of different AW ban bills.

[Sharps-shooter]

Bastards all of them.

Anything with a stock I call a Rifle. That's it folks.

What about shotguns? Do you call shotguns rifles?

I usually just call ar-15's and ak's and the like "rifles", because I can't figure out which ones are supposed to be asault rifles and which ones are not. Seriously. At first, I thought they were "assault" rifles because the stocks weren't wood, but then, Ak's are supposed to be assalt, even with wooden stocks. And the Garand and ruger 10/22 are not assault weapons, usually, even though the garand is "military style". And the ruger 10/22 can be dressed up like a military-style weapon, but even then people think of it as a kid's gun.

Meanwhile, the fbi statistics I've seen seem to say that large-caliber handguns are used in assault and murder more than any types of long guns.

So, I don't really use the term "assault wepon" much, because I CAN"T FIGURE OUT WHAT IT MEANS.

[SuperNaut]

Can anyone think of a select-fire rifle that looks like a benign hunting rifle? That'd be good for undermining/underlining the cosmetic aspects of assault rifle "classification."

[benEzra]

I think that term implies that this weapon was specifically designed to efficiently kill/attack people. In my mind that is the kind of weapon that the second amendment specifically refers to.
The problem is, the prohibitionists WANT us to use that term, because it very effectively gets people to turn their brains off and react on an emotional level (just like "Saturday Night Special", "cop killer bullets", ad nauseaum. An "assault" is a crime, not an act of defense.

I have seen middle-of-the-roaders and even some anti's on DU change their minds about so-called "assault weapons" if you can get them past that loaded term and get them to actually turn their brains on. To my mind, calling an AR-15 what it is--a small-caliber, non-automatic rifle--is a lot more helpful and effective than calling it by the anti's latest PR buzzword.

[Nil]

I have a confession to make: I'm a recent pro-gun convert. In fact, I purchased my first firearm only last fall, though I have since acquired six more since that time. I remember thinking in the not-so distant past something like, "I'm a pro-gun person, but there's no reason for a civilian to own one of those (i.e. AKs, AR-15s, etc.)." My views on this were fueled largely by ignorance of the actual differences, or lack there of, between such firearms and others that are more acceptable to the mainstream. It's hard for non-gun owner, educated mostly by the mass media about such matters, to fully understand what these guns are.

Once I began to seriously consider buying a gun, through research my thinking on what so-called assault weapons actually were has changed. Now I'm the proud owner of an AR-15 and many high capacity, though I prefer the term normal capacity, magazines.

[broadsideofabarn]

If you assault someone with a pointy stick, is it not an "assault weapon"? It's just one of the ridiculous scare words the media and antis love.

FYI, as a member of the "damn liberal" media, I can safely say that the antis aren't the worst offenders; it's the ignorants who take what the antis tell that at face value who do the most damage. Widespread lies like "cop killer bullets" and "full-auto Glocks" inflict far more long-term damage to our rights than the ceaseless efforts of a few zealots. :cuss:

Reasonable, informed people can argue about the usefulness of an AR-15 or AK for hunting, but calling a rifle with a pistol grip, swappable mag, or a bayonet lug an "assault weapon" and banning it makes about as much sense as calling a 900cc sportbike a "traffic violation machine", and mandating that only Harleys and scooters are allowed. The design of a machine does not dictate its use. The irresponsible uses technology can be put to are amongst the reasons why we have a legal system. Not to restrict the freedoms of responsible citizens because of what they COULD do. A Buick is a weapon of mass destruction in the wrong hands.

Ditto to Nil on being a recent convert from the "anti" crowd. Somehow, I was able to start appreciating firearms as interesting examples of design and engineering, and as an unfortunate but essential last resort for defense of life and liberty... and yet I didn't start burning crosses on anyone's lawn, didn't start fantasizing about Ann Coulter, and didn't start torturing small animals! :p

Still haven't quite made the first purchase, though... Will see if I grow horns and begin hating homosexuals after that. :evil:

[DoubleTapDrew]

Can anyone think of a select-fire rifle that looks like a benign hunting rifle? That'd be good for undermining/underlining the cosmetic aspects of assault rifle "classification."


Hmm. BAR, M-14, AC556, M2 Carbine, American 180? With the magazine inserted they look more evil, but that's because 5 rounds go by in a heartbeat in full auto (and I'd be a heck of a lot more concerned about a bad guy using aimed fire than spraying with a full auto).

[JKimball]

Can anyone think of a select-fire rifle that looks like a benign hunting rifle? That'd be good for undermining/underlining the cosmetic aspects of assault rifle "classification."

Once we win this argument, the next goal for the antis becomes, "Well shoot, I guess we ought to ban these hunting rifles too."

We all know that even bolt action deer/elk rifles can be much more deadly than an AR-15 in certain circumstances, but do we really gain any ground by convincing antis of that fact?

We shouldn't even pretend that we are just interested in guns because of their hunting and recreational uses. "Lah dee dah, don't worry, guns aren't really that scary, they are great for hunting and target shooting, so you don't need to ban them." :rolleyes:

We want the best guns we can get for taking into battle against people that are shooting back at us. Trying to play that down is ignoring the second amendment and I don't think it will allow us to gain ground against gun control laws. Let's be open and honest with the people on the other side of the fence so we can get past the emotion and down to the heart of the issue. Antis that ask, "How can you possibly justify the need for owning an AK-47 with 30 round magazines?" just don't get the picture. And gunowners are partially to blame for not being upfront about educating them.

To my mind, calling an AR-15 what it is--a small-caliber, non-automatic rifle--is a lot more helpful and effective than calling it by the anti's latest PR buzzword.

I disagree that it is more helpful, but I'll admit it sounds like you've got some good experience with it. My problem with that statement though, is that it implies that if a rifle is either a larger caliber, or automatic, (or both) that you agree it is too dangerous to be in the hands of civilians. And if you believe that, then you don't truly appreciate the intent of the 2nd amendment. If you don't believe that, then you come across as trying to pull one over on them, and they will be less likely to trust you.

[SaMx]

I usually just call ar-15's and ak's and the like "rifles", because I can't figure out which ones are supposed to be asault rifles and which ones are not. Seriously. At first, I thought they were "assault" rifles because the stocks weren't wood, but then, Ak's are supposed to be assalt, even with wooden stocks. And the Garand and ruger 10/22 are not assault weapons, usually, even though the garand is "military style". And the ruger 10/22 can be dressed up like a military-style weapon, but even then people think of it as a kid's gun.

Yup, and AR-15 is just a rifle. So is an AK clone. So is an SKS, or an M1 Carbine. They're autoloading rifles, and you don't really need to make a special category for them.

if you try to categorize them in a separate category, you're just making a special category of rifles for the antis to ban. It doesn't matter what you call it, they'll just spin it. If you say it's just a rifle, it's just a rifle.

[TexasRifleman]

I've pretty much decided there are 3 types of firearms; rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Have yet to see any others.....

[Soybomb]

It was brought up recently with the Miami ""assualt weapon" thing......... they gave the statistic that 7 out of 10 people are killed with assault weapons........
As you'll see at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html of the 14,860 murder victims in 2005, 442 were killed with rifles with an unknown breakdown on scary looking rifles. Since only 68% of murder victims were killed by firearms its impossible to say that 7 out of 10 were killed with assault weapons even if you said all the handguns had regular capacity magazines and therefor also called them assault weapons. The statistics is an out right lie.

Speaking of terms which are used against us . . . .

Some posters seem to think that the term "gun porn" is cute.

Wait until it is turned back on us with a national effort to get all firearms-related publications removed from public display as pornography.

Write it down. That effort is coming, and "we" created the term.

Real cute.
Seems quite unlikely but if that happens then I'll gladly deal with it. I think the opponent trying to crush both the 1st and 2nd amendment would be even easier to defeat.

[Nolo]

Nolo, initially I was going to throw your post down the memory hole for being in violation of THR's policies, but on second thought I resurrected it as an example to everyone of what NOT to post on a public internet forum.

I mean, if you're so concerned that the anti's will stop the publication of Guns & Ammo because of what pro-gun people say, then perhaps you oughtn't be thumping your chest while spouting off about shooting them.

Y'know? Just a little FYI.
Ah, the brave words of a 16 year old freedom fighter. Unfortunately they are silly, make us look bad, and they violate the rules of the forum: With that in mind, make sure that remedy of shooting anyone is only considered if all other legal options are exhausted.

You're not shooting anyone. Get over it.

I apologize. My mind was on a rather different track however. I wouldn't shoot anyone for restricting my right to free speech in such minuscule ways. What I really meant by that was that the two Amendments seem to protect each other. If you live in a world where you are harassed by "thought police", then you protect your mental liberty with the power of a rifle (I'd hope you'd have that option, anyway!). If you live in a society such as ours where people may try to restrict your right to have a weapon, you fight it with to power of the press and the power of overwhelming logic and pathos. The image of what books I'm reading being scrutinized by the government immediately brought to mind a 1984-like scenario, hence the very black and white statement. Sometimes I wish it was that easy to win this fight, with just bullets. The road we will have to take is far more difficult. The road we have to take is the High Road.
Looks like it's time for another sig change... :rolleyes:

[Regolith]

Y'know, making up our own term to replace the loaded term "Assault Weapon" isn't going to help. You don't fight loaded terms with loaded terms, you fight them with facts.

There is no such thing as an assault weapon. A firearm such as an AR15 is a rifle. More specifically, its a gas operated semi-automatic rifle. An M16 is a gas operated selective fire rifle. Any terms other than these factual ones are of no help. They do not define the essence of the rifle. They are merely political terms used to mislead the general public.

[2RCO]

I think Utility Rifle has the best ring to it as far as things go Homeland Defense rifle sounds like we are all trying to be a bunch of vigilantes.

About to insert foot here:

Early on in my gun acquiring days I followed the rules of the elder sportsmen in my family and saw no needs for those darn evil assault rifles. I had my Winchester for Bambi, Brownings for the Tweety Birds, and .22 Remington for the Fuzzy Bunnies. As I got more interested in the history and mechanics of firearms I moved on to some of John Brownings creations with 1903s, 1908s, 1911s, etc. Still didn't see a need for those EBR's as I started to get interested in Milsurp stuff I stuck with Bolts. I got more and more interested in AR's etc. but one thing always got me at gunshows the guys that I saw buying/ drooling over them were often times what are referred to so lovingly on these Boards as Mall Ninjas. I really din't want to associate myself with these Cats and felt buying an EBR would give me De Facto membership in the club. I have since found others who aren't nutcases that shoot and own these weapons so my opinion has changed a bit.

For what it's woth,

Raleigh

[ROMAK IV]

Hey just use "carbine" instead of "weapon" or "rifle". On the other hand, it's useless to argue on antigun terms. It is far more useful for those who will have an open mind, to take them to a range and let them fire an "Assault Weapon", by anyone's definition of the term. When they experience it. they will see the "silliness" of the antigun rhetoric. Most gun shy people would much rather shoot an AK or an AR, than more powerful Garand or M-1A. It is also a "bad idea", IMHO, to downplay a particular deadliness of a firearm. Who would want a firearm that couldn't kill anything? So when you hear the "target practice is the same thing as killing practice" , it's an opportunity to educate others in on the conversation, just how stupid that is. Use examples like homeowners going up against armed professional criminals with stun guns because the local law won;t allow them to defend themselves using a gun. Or suggest, that if you had a non-lethal gun, how you would be able to stop a drug crazed killer with it? I had the unfortunate experience of using mace on a robber. Didn't stop him at all, just enraged him.

[Blackbeard]

So when you hear the "target practice is the same thing as killing practice" , it's an opportunity to educate others in on the conversation, just how stupid that is.

And going running is "fleeing from police practice"

[Blackbeard]

I've pretty much decided there are 3 types of firearms; rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Have yet to see any others.....

Cannon :)