Good to see someone has a brain at Forbes

Love the comments as well. Thanks for posting that!

While 95% of this is caused by the media the other 5% is caused by gun owners. When we use terms like assault rifle, semi-auto, tactical, and others it helps the media. they are not assault rifles they are not full auto, you are not buying it with the intention of assaulting people. Why not call it a sporting rifle since you own it for sport even Colt even changed from leo/govn. use only over to sporter model. Instead of semi-auto we could use self loading. Then it would make it harder for the media to make it sound like it is something the military is using. Technically even a revolver is self loading. Instead of tactical we could say performance enhanced. Most non gunowners don't have a clue what different terminology means except for the way it sounds.

G.barnes - "Most non gunowners don't have a clue what different terminology means except for the way it sounds."

Click to expand...

Exactly. I stopped saying "weapon" when I mustered out of the Corps in 1971 and started using the word "firearm" instead.

Even hunters are better served by saying they "harvested a deer" rather than "killing a deer" which evokes the thought of violent men killing Bambi or his parents as the movie presented.

I personally don't like to tiptoe around reality, but why give a liberal media the fodder to incite the public?

I don't tiptoe around it. If I went hunting I'd say I killed a deer (or maybe "bagged"). But I don't hunt, because I'm lazy.

You are right that we shouldn't call something an assault rifle unless it meets the technical description, but I see no problem with calling something a "semi-auto". That is the function of the gun. Remember, the media doesn't need us to come up with a buzz word. It wasn't a gun owner who started talking about assault weapons. The media turned "barrel shroud" into a buzz word without even knowing what it is. I'm sure if you said "self-loading" reporters would take "self" to mean it has a personality, and if you say "autoloading" they'll say "SEE! AUTO!!!!!"

I'm not saying ignore what terminology you use, but using the correct terminology isn't hurting us.

ChooChoo said:

Exactly. I stopped saying "weapon" when I mustered out of the Corps in 1971 and started using the word "firearm" instead.

Even hunters are better served by saying they "harvested a deer" rather than "killing a deer" which evokes the thought of violent men killing Bambi or his parents as the movie presented.

I personally don't like to tiptoe around reality, but why give a liberal media the fodder to incite the public?

Click to expand...

After serving 13 years in the US Army they will always be a weapon to me. Also when I hear the term "gun" I think of the "Guns" found on such ships as the USS Iowa.

GBarnes, Playing with terminology as you suggest is just a smoke and mirrors tactic to hide the true nature of things. The AR-15 was designed with the intention of being a military weapon. It wasn't designed to be a sporting rifle or a hunting rifle it was designed to be used in combat against human beings. Now you can scold people when they call a semi auto AR-15 an assault rifle instead of a modern sporting rifle but you shouldn't be surprised when they accuse you of just playing with words. To them it looks exactly like a military assault rifle and for all intensive purposes appears to be just as lethal. I am not in favor of calling these weapons modern sporting rifles and trying to justify keeping it because it is for sporting purposes. In my opinion the second ammendment allows me to maintain arms such as these even if there only purpose is for combat. I would rather just call it what it is and defend my right to own one. I do agree though that assault rifle is probably not the best term to define the weapon because it makes it sound purely offensive when it can be used for defensive purposes as well. My recommendation is that AR-15's both select fire and semi auto be referred to as service rifles. The select fire military versions can be referred to as a military service rifle and the semi auto version can be referrred to as a civilain service rifle. I feel the term service rifle accurately represents the purpose of the rifle without giving it the negative connotations associated with the word assault. I also believe that civilian ownership of service rifles is within the context of the second ammendment.

SidRon, while I agree with the general point of your post, saying that an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle IS an accurate point, because without select-fire it cannot technically be an assault rifle. The flip-side of the coin is when anti's come up with their own terms that aren't universally agreed-upon, and pretty much have to be individually defined in the law.