Semantics: "Tactial Rifle" vs "Assault Rifle" --a New Demonization?


PDA






230RN
September 30, 2007, 12:18 PM
I just heard this on Channel 7 News this morning. (Sunday, 30 Sep 07, 9:10 AM).

Did not catch the whole thing since I was doing something else:

Relating to some incident or another, the newscast showed an EBR while the announcer referred to it as a "Tactical Rifle" instead of an "Assault Rifle."

Is there a warning there for us?

Is this a new phenomenon?

Do we have a counter strategy/tactic?

Frankly, I'm tired of being merely reactive to this kind of stuff.

If you enjoyed reading about "Semantics: "Tactial Rifle" vs "Assault Rifle" --a New Demonization?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CypherNinja
September 30, 2007, 12:19 PM
Maybe they were referring to a gun an officer was carrying?:confused:

230RN
September 30, 2007, 12:29 PM
^^^

Possible, but my peripheral perception was that it was in reference to a negative use.

Anyone else pick up on this?

GunTech
September 30, 2007, 12:48 PM
I'm more worried about the press talking about 'sniper rifles', powerful rifles with telescopic sights. Sounds a lot like most people's deer rifle.

hopkin
September 30, 2007, 01:08 PM
I only buy tactical socks as it makes them easier to match.

Calling an item 'tactical' is already a mild slur among my friends. Usually it means something that has been produced in black to appeal to the pseaudo-military & survivalist crowd. We never confuse it with genuine tactical gear as the term as there's usually a better way of describing the item.

I can easily see 'tactical' becoming an awkward term as it hints at specialist military and paramilitary (eg SWAT) intention. A lot of people will be wary of civilians wanting tactical gear assuming it's for some paranoid and nefarious purpose. I'm thinking of the kind of people who think the second amendment means government militias and that civilians have no need of anything other than hunting rifles, if that.

I've not explained that very well but I can't think how to express it better.

Crunker1337
September 30, 2007, 01:10 PM
I prefer to call such firearms sports-utility rifle/shotgun/pistol.

alucard0822
September 30, 2007, 01:18 PM
Well I guess by definition that a "tactical" rifle most likely is not an assault rifle, however an assult (being a tactic) rifle is always tactical. I think I prefer "sport utility rifle" to either, as it better describes more common uses for the EBRs, target shooting, home protection, self defense, even hunting, a modern rifle that can perform the functions of several category of weapons. And sport utility screams too cool for a minivan.:neener:

revjen45
September 30, 2007, 01:55 PM
The only difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle is the target and the intent of the user. A scoped Center fire is made to place a single accurate shot from the muzzle to extended range, actual distance depending on the skill of the shooter. (Actually, most LE precision shots are at about 75 yds.) In Viet Nam when the command structure suddenly realized that precision shooting to long range was a necessity they picked up scoped Remington 700s from the PX- not specialized "Tactical" pieces, but deer rifles. I haven't been deer hunting since 1981. Does that mean I don't "need" my .30-06 for "sporting purposes" and therefore possess it only for nefarious use? (It doesn't have a bayonet mount, but I'm sure I could duct tape a chef's knife to the barrel.)* The Lamestream Media is well aware of what they're doing and we can expect more of the same. BTW, my favored term for scary looking semi-autos is "homeland defense rifle." I'm sure you won't be seeing that in your local paper.
*This is in jest- I am not suggesting that anyone illegally attach a bayonet to any firearm or advocating the violation of any law.

MudPuppy
September 30, 2007, 02:08 PM
I saw this a few weeks or a couple months back, I think it's becoming common among the manufacturers to keep the terms more accurate and more PC as well.

I think I saw the AR mfg (stag maybe?) on a mainstream media segment--they were calling it a tactical rifle as well.

Novus Collectus
September 30, 2007, 02:43 PM
I call them all hunting rifles which they really are because all can be used to hunt some kind of game.
I play their word game and by calling all semi auto and bolt action rilfes hunting rifles (which the majority of the ones they want to ban are anyway), I get to call the Fienstein proposed bill the hunting rifle ban bill.
When said that way it makes the ears perk up of people who are not gun savvy and were fooled by the "assault weapon" misnomer, and it makes the true Fudds pay attention (because they only care about protecting "hunting rifles").

At the very least making them pay attention to the wording, they will investigate the bill and discover the hunting rifles banned and then that leads them to question the whole intent and thought process of the AW ban in the first place......it makes them question themselves and their position.

Clipper
September 30, 2007, 03:13 PM
I can't stand the term...I feel it's the ultimate Mall Ninja buzzword.

RockyMtnTactical
September 30, 2007, 03:19 PM
Who cares?

Novus Collectus
September 30, 2007, 03:27 PM
Who cares?....all the people that wanted to buy a new manufacture AR15 or AK variant with a pistol grip but couldn't for ten years because aomeone called it an "assault weapon" and got it banned maybe?

Words mean a whole lot when they are bantied around in political rhetoric to the masses. Today it is a tactical rifle, tomorrow it is the "tactical rifles which the terrorists and gang members use". They first get the word in the lexicon with an implied meaning, then they run with it justy like they did with the words "assault weapons".

Prince Yamato
September 30, 2007, 03:40 PM
They could call it a "thingamajig" and it wouldn't matter. Every time we change the word, they catch up. The problem is not the word, but the idea. They want to ban the gun, the "assault weapon", "tactical rifle", or "thingamajig". Personally, I like the term "Assault Weapon" and think that we should keep it.

MachIVshooter
September 30, 2007, 03:49 PM
I'd rather hear them call it tactical. Has a less ominous connontation than assault rifle. No matter what, they're gonna stick an adverb in front of the word "rifle", so it might as well be a more mild one.

ROMAK IV
September 30, 2007, 04:37 PM
Whatever a particular rifle is called, that will be the next term used by the gun banners, to be turned into an "evil" connotation. "Tactical" is ripe to be misused to ban guns, because the true meaning isn't clear, and thus can be implied to about anything they want to ban. Tactical shotguns are often pump shotguns, they would love to have a reason to ban all pump shotguns. Before you know it, any gun that is black, has a flashlight, has a picitanney rail or four, or is used by the police, ever, will be part of the Tactical Weapons Ban, TWB. You probably think I'm joking, don't you? I am not! They have already tried "military style weapons", and fortunately, that one didn't stick.

RockyMtnTactical
September 30, 2007, 04:38 PM
....all the people that wanted to buy a new manufacture AR15 or AK variant with a pistol grip but couldn't for ten years because aomeone called it an "assault weapon" and got it banned maybe?

Words mean a whole lot when they are bantied around in political rhetoric to the masses. Today it is a tactical rifle, tomorrow it is the "tactical rifles which the terrorists and gang members use". They first get the word in the lexicon with an implied meaning, then they run with it justy like they did with the words "assault weapons".

I guess we disagree on that. I don't see it that way.

Look, the liberals and the media will do what they do... we cannot change that.

The most important thing we can do is educate everyone we know. I couldn't care less about what the media says. We all realize that they are heavily biased towards the left. Right?

MinnMooney
September 30, 2007, 04:59 PM
Maybe you couldn't care less but most people pick up their "facts" and "opinions" by reading and listening to the media. We need to pay attention to what the media is saying because that's where our next battle front is at.

We have to be louder than the media which is extremely difficult since they have the public's ear.

elrod
September 30, 2007, 05:11 PM
It's all semantics, and you might as well not worry about it. It is the difference between a liberal and a "compassonate conservative"(heard GWB use that one). Whatever particular PC term is currently in vogue, especially among the leftists, is going to be the one used to degrade us gun lovers. This battle is almost impossible to win because the pros are continually on the defensive against the antis and their catch phrases. As soon as one is debunked, they have a fresh batch. Why worry?:banghead:

230RN
September 30, 2007, 05:59 PM
The problem I hope I'm not foreseeing is that the next time some bonehead shoots up a victim-disarmed place like a school or church or something, they'll link that term, "tactical rifle" to the event.

Enough of those and we won't be able to use the term "tactical" in any sense without evoking negatively-loaded terms to anything firearms-related.

Okay, so ARs and SKs and AKs and 500s and 870s are used for hunting. What would happen if every time a shooting occured, they used the term "hunting rifle" or, for that matter, "fowling piece" in the news reports?

Semantics counts.

Novus Collectus
September 30, 2007, 06:05 PM
Ok, I am a liberal and a leftist, but I am progunrights because I am a civil libertarian and the RKBA is a civil right.
But that has little to do with my proposal.

I suggest that if they will use whatever catch phrase or twist of ours to promote their next "evil this; evil that" rifle ban, then we change what we call it. If we make them keep trying to catch up, then all they will end up doing is to confuse the public instead of uniting the public.
It is much easier for them to get the public to focus over a long period of time on a particular phrase that they turn into something sounding malevolent, but keep changing the name and the public will think "wow, they want to ban another type of rifle!?!?! ***?" and then start to ask questions as a result.

Autolycus
September 30, 2007, 06:31 PM
Well instead of trying to ban another type of rifle they could just decide to ban rifles...

jefnvk
September 30, 2007, 06:32 PM
Is it possible that the information they were given, by the police department or whomever, just used the term tactical instead of assualt?

SVT93
September 30, 2007, 07:56 PM
Why can't we just call them rifles?

RockyMtnTactical
September 30, 2007, 08:31 PM
Maybe you couldn't care less but most people pick up their "facts" and "opinions" by reading and listening to the media. We need to pay attention to what the media is saying because that's where our next battle front is at.

We have to be louder than the media which is extremely difficult since they have the public's ear.

Well, I agree that some sheep trust the media without question. But that has been the case. This is nothing new.

I guess my point is, the media has been doing this same stuff for a while now. It is what we have to deal with, BUT all I am saying is that it doesn't matter what they say because it won't change anything... that is, if we as gun owners do our job and take the time to educate people and fight the fight.

That is all I am saying. They cannot win unless we let them.

jlbraun
September 30, 2007, 08:32 PM
I prefer "civilian defense rifle" or CDR.

Prince Yamato
September 30, 2007, 10:00 PM
Anti-jargon goes all the way back to "machine gun". You know what, sometimes the word just sticks. Whatever the word, they want it banned.

mmike87
September 30, 2007, 11:21 PM
Usually it means something that has been produced in black to appeal to the pseaudo-military & survivalist crowd.

LOL - I usually assign the word "tactical" to anything that has lots and lots of pockets. Being black is good too, digital Vietnam Tiger Stripe Urban Tactiflage Camo is even better.

Stevie-Ray
September 30, 2007, 11:31 PM
I'm more worried about the press talking about 'sniper rifles', powerful rifles with telescopic sights. Sounds a lot like most people's deer rifle.Excellent. Maybe then some of the people that I know, that think I'm crazy, will get off their duffs for a change and be the "activist" I am.

I don't care as long as they leave my hunting rifles alone!

Oh really!?:neener:

romma
October 1, 2007, 12:12 PM
How about the "Overthrow A Corrupt Government Filled With Rotten Politicians Rifle"??

strat81
October 1, 2007, 02:05 PM
http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/90/909/90977/items/261686/SWHC_0907_IRPres.pdf
Smith & Wesson calls them tactical rifles.

I prefer the term "Homeland defense rifle."

Being black is good too, digital Vietnam Tiger Stripe Urban Tactiflage Camo is even better.
ROFL. Stay outta my closet!

Leif Runenritzer
October 1, 2007, 02:27 PM
An Ergonomic, Self-Loading Rifles and Sundries ban doesn't sound as exciting, does it.

benEzra
October 1, 2007, 02:40 PM
Why can't we just call them rifles?
That's what the anti's don't want you to do. Because then people might realize they're just rifles, and it would be harder to make them sound Especially Scary.

FWIW, "tactical rifle" is a broader buzzword than "assault weapon," because it also includes black bolt-actions, pump-actions, and whatever else you want to throw in there.

From the Violence Policy Center, the group that popularized the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch:

One Shot, One Kill: Civilian Sales of Military Sniper Rifles (May 1999)

http://www.vpc.org/graphics/snipcov2.pdf

...(the gun industry) therefore has invented euphemistic labels, such as “tactical rifle,” which are well understood within the gun culture as “wink and nod” terms for true sniper rifles.

...

The equivalence of the terms “tactical” and “sniper” was also underscored in a blurb in Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement touting as “a new sniper manual” a handbook titled The Tactical Marksman. In short, a sniper rifle by any other name is still as deadly. A sniper rifle is best recognized by how it is made and what it is capable of doing—whether it is “purposedesigned”
and “purpose-built” for sniping. This firearm is set apart from others not
principally by language, but by its exceptional accuracy, range, and power.

...

Articles about sniping and sniper rifles are becoming increasingly common in
the fan magazines of the popular gun press. These include features about military and police sniper teams or shooting competitions with sniper rifles,58 and reviews of specific sniper rifles available on the civilian market.59 Tactical Shooter, which began publication in January 1998 and is devoted entirely to the subject of “tactical shooting,” or sniping, opined in its maiden issue that the “real future of tactical shooting...like it or not...is at the civilian level.”

...

If the firearms industry calls a weapon by a euphemism such as “tactical rifle,” but the rifle has essentially the same design features and accessories as, or is simply a production derivative of, a recognized sniper rifle, we consider it to be a sniper rifle. This criterion is necessary because of the semantic evasion employed by the firearms industry to sell sniper rifles without calling them such.

...

ArfinGreebly
October 1, 2007, 03:02 PM
Tom, over at GunTalk (http://www.guntalk.com/site.php), ran a survey for "what to call a rifle" a few weeks back.

I offered up "General Purpose Rifle" (GPR), and someone else offered up "Utility Rifle."

As I recall, Utility Rifle came in first, and General Purpose Rifle came in second, with all other suggested names a distant third.

My rationale for General Purpose Rifle was along the lines of where the word "Jeep" came from. It was originally specified by the Army as a "General Purpose Vehicle" which was shortened to GPV, and it's a short hop from there to "jeep." The Jeep and its derivatives are very much General Purpose Vehicles.

More recently, though, with the advent of a plethora of brands in that category, a "generic" name was needed (you can't say "Chevy Jeep" cuz of trademark), so someone came up with Sport Utility Vehicle.

Now SUV is the generic term for every flavor of Jeep-alike.

It's hardly surprising that "Utility Rifle" is seen as a natural fit.

Only one company that I know of actually calls their rifle a Sport Utility rifle, and that's Kel-tec (their SU-16 series).

I'm comfortable with Utility Rifle.

It's easy, it's natural, it's honest.

And it isn't scary.

Novus Collectus
October 1, 2007, 04:00 PM
"Utility rifle", sounds perfect!

Nolo
October 1, 2007, 05:58 PM
I prefer to call it by it's name. If it's an AK-47 (only full-auto, as the ones you and I are allowed to buy are not true AKs), call it an AK-47. If it's a Glock, call it a Glock (extra points for citing the model number), etc. I don't remember what shooting it was, but there was one where the guy used a Beretta CX4 Storm and they called it a "machine gun" (or "assault rifle", they referred to both names in the article). Not calling things by their proper name is just bad reporting.

JKimball
October 1, 2007, 07:02 PM
The most important thing we can do is educate everyone we know.

We shouldn't worry about trying to convince people that the rifles politicians are trying to ban aren't really that scary. We should be trying to educate people that the whole intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent congress from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms that are militarily effective. The second ammendment is specifically about guns that are good for killing people in battle. How can we expect the general public to understand that, if we gun owners are always trying to hide that?

KC&97TA
October 1, 2007, 07:45 PM
"Sport Utility Rifle"... I like that, heck I'm going to start useing it!

I like to Email the news channel when they make "stupid comments" and educate them, so they can correctly recognize the weapon and describe it to the american public more accurately.

Elm Creek Smith
October 1, 2007, 09:42 PM
I like "Scout Rifle." Now all I have to do is buy one.

ECS

RockyMtnTactical
October 1, 2007, 11:19 PM
We shouldn't worry about trying to convince people that the rifles politicians are trying to ban aren't really that scary. We should be trying to educate people that the whole intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent congress from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms that are militarily effective. The second ammendment is specifically about guns that are good for killing people in battle. How can we expect the general public to understand that, if we gun owners are always trying to hide that?

I don't know any gun owners who are hiding that. :confused:

That is the number one reason I own weapons, and I don't make it a secret.

JKimball
October 2, 2007, 04:08 AM
I don't know any gun owners who are hiding that.

That is the number one reason I own weapons, and I don't make it a secret.

RockyMtnTactical,

I am glad to hear that. In my earlier post I quoted from your post #17 because I really agreed with what you said. I hope it didn't come across as trying to make an argument against what you had said.

Now I'll admit that I don't really believe that gun owners always try to hide the fact that the guns we own and want to own really are deadly, efficient, people killing instruments. That was a poor choice of words on my part. Especially considering the gun owners on this forum. But I'm surprised you don't know any that do try to hide that.

I believe there are a lot of gun owners that do not understand the true purpose of the second amendment to protect our right to own militarily effective weapons. I used to be one of them. Many are content with their shotgun, deer rifle, and .22 and are thrilled that the constitution protects them. But they wouldn't mind one bit if "assault weapons" were banned. Look at Jim Zumbo. They are out there, even in the NRA, and they just need to be educated.

Then there is the gun owner that tries to downplay the lethality of a gun in order to make it seem less worthwhile to ban it. Calling an AK or AR a "sport utility rifle" or "hunting rifle" may be accurate and less scary sounding, but that approach abandons the just claim to the protection of the 2nd Amendment and appeals to emotion for protection. It can also come across as though we are trying to pull one over on the antis (which, in my opinion is exactly what it is.) And the more they feel like we are trying to trick them, the more difficult it will be to educate them.

When an anti asks how can you possibly justify owning an AK-47 with a 30 round magazine? Are the deer really that dangerous? Some gun owners will attempt to explain that the AK-47 round is actually comparable to the popular 30-30, and it makes a great deer rifle. Other gun owners will say I can justify owning that rifle because by law I am a member of my state militia and if I ever need to go into battle I want to have as much firepower as possible. That is why the second amendment prevents you from infringing my right to own it. I think the first answer is hiding the true purpose of owning that rifle, and will only result in antis rolling their eyes in disbelief. The second answer is open and honest and may actually make sense to them.

woodybrighton
October 2, 2007, 04:50 AM
its journo speak they have found a new word sounds cool and evil :uhoh:
lets face it most journos couldn't tell the difference between a revolver, and a pistol let anything complicated
in the army once convinced a BBC journalist that my sniper rifle could fire nuclear bullets:D
que major talking to from chain of command :evil:
not actually sure what a nuclear bullet is but sounded cool :D

alucard0822
October 2, 2007, 09:58 AM
"not actually sure what a nuclear bullet is but sounded cool"
Depleted Uranium, would not be the first time Iv'e heard that. I am sure they would love to come up with this one "automatic assault pistol with nuclear targeting system, able to spray over a dozen of the same bullet favored by WWII Nazis"
(sig 226 with night sites)

benEzra
October 2, 2007, 10:13 AM
When an anti asks how can you possibly justify owning an AK-47 with a 30 round magazine? Are the deer really that dangerous? Some gun owners will attempt to explain that the AK-47 round is actually comparable to the popular 30-30, and it makes a great deer rifle. Other gun owners will say I can justify owning that rifle because by law I am a member of my state militia and if I ever need to go into battle I want to have as much firepower as possible. That is why the second amendment prevents you from infringing my right to own it. I think the first answer is hiding the true purpose of owning that rifle, and will only result in antis rolling their eyes in disbelief. The second answer is open and honest and may actually make sense to them.
The thing is, pointing out that

(1) a civilian AK is identical in every way to a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle, and
(2) the 2ndA isn't about hunting, and the vast majority of gun owners are nonhunters,

are not mutually exclusive. Point out both.

But making a little non-automatic 7.62x39mm carbine out to sound like some uber-powerful death weapon (as the anti's do) only plays into the anti's hands, IMO. THEY want to create the perception that non-automatic civilian rifles are just one step down from the Hiroshima bomb, and are fringe rather than mainstream, because in so doing, they can get people to react out of raw fear and prejudice.

Get someone past their irrational fears, and they may sit down and discuss the Second Amendment with you. But focusing *solely* on 2ndA arguments, and letting the lies of the anti's re: "assault weapons" go unchallenged, is less effective than it otherwise might be, IMHO.

Also, the lies the anti's have told on the "assault weapon" issue, .50 caliber hysteria, etc. make them IMHO the most vulnerable of anything they've done, because it is child's play to point out those lies.

JKimball
October 2, 2007, 04:30 PM
The thing is, pointing out that

(1) a civilian AK is identical in every way to a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle, and
(2) the 2ndA isn't about hunting, and the vast majority of gun owners are nonhunters,

are not mutually exclusive. Point out both.

benEzra,

That's true.

But your example brings up an interesting point. The strategy that has been used in the past of comparing an AK to the venerable American classic (read completely un-ban-able) Ruger Mini-30 deer rifle, has only been successful in landing the Ruger Mini Thirty on the list of "assault weapons" that should be banned. Check out H.R. 1022. It is right there, along with the Mini-14.

benEzra
October 2, 2007, 11:35 PM
But your example brings up an interesting point. The strategy that has been used in the past of comparing an AK to the venerable American classic (read completely un-ban-able) Ruger Mini-30 deer rifle, has only been successful in landing the Ruger Mini Thirty on the list of "assault weapons" that should be banned. Check out H.R. 1022. It is right there, along with the Mini-14.
And that is a positive development.

The whole point of the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, the .50 ban, "Saturday Night Special" bans, etc. is generally to try to carve out a small enough set of guns to (hopefully) keep most gun owners apathetic.

The anti's dramatically overreached with the AWB, and have continued to add to it until it now encompasses perhaps two or three times as many gun owners as there are hunters in America. That makes an AWB less likely, not more.

skeeter1
October 3, 2007, 12:05 AM
My rifles happen to be leverguns, only because those are the ones I like best. I will, however, defend anyone who wants a "tactical" or "assault" rifle. They may not appeal to me to own, but the second ammendment doesn't say you can't have one.

Nolo
October 3, 2007, 12:49 AM
How about this:
The criminals have been getting greater firepower in recent years, no? That's why cops have to have AR-15s in their patrol cars, right? Well, if cops, who work in groups, wear body armor and are tactically trained have to use an AR-15 to stop a criminal, why do I (who work alone, am not tactically trained, and don't have body armor) have to be stuck with a bolt-action rifle? If it's barely adequate protection for police officers, how is it "too powerful" for us normal citizens?

JKimball
October 3, 2007, 03:18 AM
And that is a positive development.


Hmm... that's an interesting point of view. I guess I had never really thought about it that way.

It's kind of like going all in. It could work out really well for you, but you might get surprised and be put out of the game entirely.

230RN
October 3, 2007, 09:14 AM
I'm with jlbraun: Civilian Defense Rifle. As far as I can see, it would take a lot of creativity on the part of the antis to make that connote anything negative.

Wouldn't have to "justify" it, and covers the .50,

kludge
October 3, 2007, 10:26 AM
Maybe they invented the term "tactical rifle" becuase it goes along with the agenda that only police need tactical weapons.

"Oh, that AR-15... yeah, that's a "tactical" rifle, only police need those."

FourTeeFive
October 3, 2007, 10:29 AM
A Ruger 10/22 being used by a sniper is a sniper rifle. A friend of mine has an Accuracy International .338 Lapua that he uses only for hunting. Therefore it is a hunting rifle. Seems simple enough.

230RN
October 5, 2007, 03:47 AM
JKimball:

When an anti asks how can you possibly justify owning an AK-47 with a 30 round magazine? Are the deer really that dangerous? Some gun owners will attempt to explain that the AK-47 round is actually comparable to the popular 30-30, and it makes a great deer rifle.

Other gun owners will say I can justify owning that rifle because by law I am a member of my state militia and if I ever need to go into battle I want to have as much firepower as possible. That is why the second amendment prevents you from infringing my right to own it. I think the first answer is hiding the true purpose of owning that rifle, and will only result in antis rolling their eyes in disbelief. The second answer is open and honest and may actually make sense to them.

I missed that on my first go-round. Excellent point! But I shall use it judiciously.

alucard0822 japed:

I am sure they would love to come up with this one: "automatic assault pistol with nuclear targeting system, able to spray over a dozen of the same bullet favored by WWII Nazis." (sig 226 with night sights)

LMFAO! Tritium sights = "nuclear targeting system!"

Ben Ezra: Do you see the joy potential of "setting up" an anti with a gasp concept like that and then pointing out that it's all quite innocuous and simply semantically loaded? (But no, I would not actually do this. Just a thought that brings joy to my heart.)

In regards to "add-ons" to HR 1022, I don't think the anti faction in Congress is so dumb as to just stick stuff in there that would be self-defeating. I guarantee that if they are putting ridiculous stuff in, there's a reason for it --and it's not just a "wish list."

Most probable reason: Bargaining Chips.

You know, ban mags over three round capacity. Bargain it up to seven rounds. Guess who won? (Just part of the dynamics of negotiation and "compromise.")

kludge:

Maybe they invented the term "tactical rifle" because it goes along with the agenda that only police need tactical weapons.

"Oh, that AR-15... yeah, that's a "tactical" rifle, only police need those."

Exactly. And that was what brought up my original question.

FourTeeFive:

How it's used is technically the correct terminology

You are 100% correct. But how it's used semantically is more important. That's why I'm starting to favor jlbraun's "Civilian Defense Rifle" (CDR), even over "Homeland Defense Rifle."

"Homeland Defense Rifle" connotes, to me, that its only proper use is in defending the homeland.

"Civilian Defense Rifle" connotes that its proper use is in defending little old me, as well.

And little old you, too.

If you enjoyed reading about "Semantics: "Tactial Rifle" vs "Assault Rifle" --a New Demonization?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!