Renaming the AR15 and other "Assault Rifles"

ID-shooting said:

All sorts of manufacturers call them everything but AR-15's. I guess AR-15 is less of a brand but more a term for any semi-auto rifle based on the M-16 platform.

Click to expand...

Actually AR-15 is Armalite, others call them everything but Ar-15 because they don't want to infringe of Armalites copyright.

As you stated, "Ar-15" refers to any rifle based on Stoners Ar design, in the same way Kleenex refers to any bugger rag, and not the Brand name Kleenex.

Good point. It has become the generic term in the vernacular for the platform type.

giggitygiggity said:

Unfortunately, so many people in the U.S. are dumb and can easily be swayed to one side or another by nothing more than advertisements and marketing ploys. The media tells people something is bad, they believe it. If we rename the AR something else that invokes pride or freedom or some other commonly thought of good concept, I guarantee you that people would gravitate towards our side. The cause of the problems is definitely the liberal politicians and the liberal media.

Click to expand...

True but you still have to come up with a good name to replace the old one. "Freedom Rifle" ain't it. I love my freedoms as much as anyone. But simply slapping the word into the name of something makes it really obvious what it is; a cheap, half-assed attempt to make something sound good. How did "Freedom Fries" work out for us? Remember those?

It's a semi-automatic rifle. More specifically an AR-15 or an AK. That's what they are so leave it at that. Giving them some cheesy name change just plays into the anti's hands. It's admitting that there's something wrong with what they are and we have to try to hide it.

Yes my semi-auto AK is derived from an assault rifle, and YES, IT WAS DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE, and it's very good at that. AND THAT IS WHY I HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN IT. Not because it's a great target gun, not because it's a "Modern Sporting Rifle" that's just perfect for my modern sporting purposes. But because it's an efficient and effective battle rifle that allows me to exercise my 2A rights as intended.

Let's not fall into the same trap the British did. When the call came to ban their guns they cried "But you can't ban our rifles, they're perfectly legitimate sporting tools. How are we gonna target shoot without them?"
When the antis are standing ona pedestal of dead kids spewing their BS, you better respond with something more serious than "But our sports "

My guns only assault paper, plastic, and glass...

I still call a snub nosed .38 a "Saturday night special" and any .44 with a long barrel a "Dirty Harry" Heck, I even have a totally decked out "Mall Ninja Zombie Killer" with all the bells and whistles... and lasers... If I had a belt-fed weapon, then, at least once, I'd have to fire it from the hip like Johnny Rambo while yelling like a Banshee! I don't care what they're called, SIMPLY ENJOY THEM!!! There seems to be a day coming real quick when we won't be able to shoot our guns for fun. Old Benny Franklin said it best when he said: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Call it what it is...an AR 15...when someboy uses the term 'assault rifle' or 'assault weapon,' challenge them and ask if they can define those. Assuming they cant, you already have the upper hand. Assuming theu can, you can ask how features that make a gun an 'assault weapon' or an 'assault rifle' affect tje lethality of the gun.

How about we put wood on an AR-15? Then we can call it a natural firearm.

giggitygiggity said:

Since the sheepish people are easily swayed by what appears to be good at face value, I propose that instead of using the term "assault rifle" when referring to AR's, AK's, etc. that we call them "freedom rifles" as how can a freedom rifle be bad and why would anyone want to oppose something relating to freedom?

Click to expand...

This topic comes up with regularity.

The most common answer is Modern Sporting Rifle.

Why? Because of how it sounds and because retailers, including Walmart, use this term.

There is a catch here, though. We do not need nor want to imply that they are only "good" because they have a "sporting" purpose.

There need be no "sporting" purpose to a firearm for any free American to go out and buy it, and take it home, or wherever else they want, that day, for no other reason than "because they want to".

The intent and purpose of the Second Amendment is, actually, more inclined towards covering "assault rifles" or "military style rifles" than sporting arms.

4v50 Gary said:

I've seen a wood stocked AR.

While it not color case hardened like Turnbull's (aluminium receiver anyway), it had California claro walnut stock, pistol grip and forearm. The checkered forearm was mounted via a Noveske barrel nut that had an aluminium free float tube on it. The wood was bored out to slip over the float tube. The bottom was milled out for a modified anschutz palm rest.

Click to expand...

avs11054 said:

Call it what it is...an AR 15...when someboy uses the term 'assault rifle' or 'assault weapon,' challenge them and ask if they can define those. Assuming they cant, you already have the upper hand. Assuming theu can, you can ask how features that make a gun an 'assault weapon' or an 'assault rifle' affect tje lethality of the gun.

Click to expand...

99% of the time (if not more) they refuse to even attempt a definition.

Been there, done that...many MANY times.

You would have better luck getting folks to call French Fries "Freedom Fries".

When the panic hits everyone wants an "assault rifle". During the last buying fiasco/scare I happened to spend about 45 minutes browsing handguns in a particular shop. In that time frame I saw no less than 15 individuals come into the shop asking if they had any "assault rifles" for sale.

We can call then Gum Ball Machines if we want too.

But the Liberal TV News Media & Press, and our Liberal Anti-Gun elected leaders are still going to call them assault rifles, or high-power weapons of war, or whatever.

There is nothing we can do to change that, except vote and hope for the best.

rc

rcmodel said:

We can call then Gum Ball Machines if we want too.

But the Liberal TV News Media & Press, and our Liberal Anti-Gun elected leaders are still going to call them assault rifles, or high-power weapons of war, or whatever.

There is nothing we can do to change that, except vote and hope for the best.

rc

Click to expand...

Sure, you can do something.

Don't use incorrect (or in some cases made up) terms just because they do.

You'll never hear me use it, unless it is with sarcasm or with those old 'air quotes', or perhaps after the phrase so-called.

And when I am at the gun store, or a range, or talking to people about firearms, or at an Appleseed, or you-name-it...won't use it. It's simply not accurate, and I hate the way it sounds. Like "clip". I just can't even say it. I own a Garand, and I have to say en block before the word clip or I can't even do it without hating myself because it's just so WRONG

Now if they'd get rid of that 1986 bologna (and the 68 and probably 34 while we're at it) so I could get one in select fire just as easily and for the same basic price, sure, I'd be happy to accurately refer to it as an 'assault rifle'

When was the last time you asked someone if you could borrow their adjustable open end wrench?

Assault rifle may be the wrong term to use - but the label isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Bill50 said:

How about we put wood on an AR-15? Then we can call it a natural firearm.

Click to expand...

Here ya go. Get crackin'! http://www.brownells.com/rifle-part...sets/ar-15-m16-wood-stock-sets-prod38906.aspx

The Second Amendment is not about modern sports.

Stop making excuses and avoiding the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Won't work.

In fact, it is a surrender of the Second Amendment to try to make nice by the usage of modern sporting rifle.

In fact, it is a surrender of the Second Amendment to try to make nice by the usage of modern sporting rifle.

Click to expand...

I agree completely, and that's one of my favorite points to express.

However, "MSR" is how many retailers and makers are labeling them these days, and if any term seems poised to become even slightly mainstream, that's the one.

Fella's;

So how about if we rename 'em Fred? Perfectly good name that's kind of fallen out of use these days, maybe time to bring it back.

900F

I just call mine EBRs as an ironic term. If they ever come up in the course of conversation as made just to kill people, I point out that mine must be pacifist EBRs because they only kill paper.

I know that the MSR is the popular term but it is a false hope for a 2nd Amend. defense. It is easily dismissed by any clever antigun proponent.

I think I will pass on showing my powers of persuasion in a Red Team exercise that could be used to demonize the guns.

When I carried a U.S. Government weapons card it said that I was allow to remove a specific "M-16A2 SERVICE RIFLE" from the 8th Communications Battalion armory. That is also what we were taught to call it in boot camp.

I think it's a perfectly good term for it because it sums up exactly what it is: a rifle fit for service. It has a connotation of not only a rifle that is adequate, but one that is of adequate quality and durability. Because of that, this is the term I use in both writing and conversation.

Besides, who the hell am I to argue weapons termanology with the United States Marine Corps?!

All of mine are rifles or carbines. Some are battle rifles and others are sport rifles.

None of them have ever assaulted, but I'm sure they will if required.

You aren't going to change with the news media. They are about selling sensationalism, not facts so why beat your head against the wall? It's just like the "chupacabra" that keeps showing up in the news when it's just a mange ridden coyote. People will tune in or read about the "chupy" and won't even blink if it were called a coyote.

I refer to my AR as an AR. That's it. Everyone that I discuss guns with knows what it is. I don't own an AK but if I did, same thing.

Another thing that get me is referring to civilian firearms as "weapons"in everyday usage. Any instrument used for fighting or any means of attack is the definition of a weapon according to Webster. None of my firearms are used in this context and it sends the wrong meaning to the non firearm owning public.

doubleh, I think the weapon term is another one that was carried over from the military vernacular. With all the different kinds of deadly devices in use, and with "guns" technically being a type of artillery, the generic word used was weapon.

While I can see where you're coming from, I really don't have a problem with that usage. I think it reserves a certain amount of respect for the power of said object, even if it is "just a .22."

Oh, and yeah, you're never going to get the news media to not sensationalize stuff. That's how they stay in business, sadly.