A Motion - re: The Term "Assault Rifle"

[sig228]

HSO, thank you for pointing that out.

I'm simply saying that AR's and AK's and variant rifles should be universally referred to as Assault Rifles.

What would call an AR or AK pistol?? (I don't know, but that's not the point of my post)

 

[Sam1911]

I'm simply saying that AR's and AK's and variant rifles should be universally referred to as Assault Rifles.

But they AREN'T because that's incorrect.

Personally I think a Toyota Camry should be referred to as a "Dump Truck." What do you think?

What would call an AR or AK pistol??

An AR- or AK-based pistol.

 

[sig228]

We don't have to be ashamed of anything. But we also don't have to dumb ourselves down to using the terms of the ignorant or the enemy just to prove we're not cowed.

I will proudly own an AKM, AR-15, or any number of other semi-auto rifles. I'll very proudly own as many Assault Rifles as I can ever afford.

But I'm not going to call my guns "assault wepons" because I'd feel like an uneducated, mouth-breathing idiot doing so. (I'll also not go around calling my pistol's "Fo-tays" or "Gats" either.)

Sam, I would imagine that there are a lot of people (myself included) who are not ignorant and not uneducated, that would prefer to call these guns Assault Rifles.

I think we are just kidding ourselves otherwise.

 

[Sam1911]

Sam, I would imagine that there are a lot of people (myself included) who are not ignorant and not uneducated, that would prefer to call these guns Assault Rifles.

Meaning no disrepect, but using the wrong term for something is a principle indicator of a lack of understanding and education.

So, you're saying you're NOT uneducated but you'll use a term you know to be wrong anyway. You may not be uneducated or ignorant, but you'll be viewed as you present yourself. "If it walks like a duck...!"

Once more, the definition of an assault rifle is a rifled arm designed to fire an intermediate power cartridge in at least two modes ("select-fire"). The ability to fire in the automatic mode is part of the most basic definition of the style.

If we consider Wikipedia to be the lowest common denominator of knowledge, the entry begins:

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine....

Now, if even Wiki can get this right, why on earth can't we?

I think we are just kidding ourselves otherwise.

We're kidding ourselves by using the right words? This makes my brain hurt.

 

[sig228]

But Sam, who is the "authority" here that defines this term? Wiki is not a good source because they allow public input and is shaped by people who have an agenda not to use the word "assault".

 

[Skribs]

"Assault Rifle" is a technical definition, not open to interpretation.

 

[sig228]

"Assault Rifle" is a technical definition, not open to interpretation.

LOL...seriously comrade?

 

[Sam1911]

... while Assault Weapons are simply semiauto versions of the selective fire assault rifle.

Or any number of other things.

Read the text of the FEDERAL law here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf

Note that it included various semi-auto rifles (some which were semi-auto versions of Assault Rifles, and many which were not), as well as many HANDGUNS and even SHOTGUNS.

Under the Federal AWB, a Reminton 1100 with a pistol grip and more than 5-round mag tube was an "assault weapon."

And it was EVERY BIT as much an assault weapon as your AR-15 was. So, by your logic, we should still make sure we call it one. Right?

And, to take the point further, note that the few various states which still have assault weapons laws on their books have even more or different definitions.

So, what? You're going to call your gun something based on a law that is no longer in force? Or based on whatever definitions the laws of some other state or states may call it?

Really not seeing the point of this.

 

[Sam1911]

But Sam, who is the "authority" here that defines this term? Wiki is not a good source because they allow public input and is shaped by people who have an agenda not to use the word "assault".

Are you unfamiliar with the term? This is a construct that has been in common use by arms cognicenti for about seven decades now. Ever since the Germans invented the term ("Sturmgewehr").

It really ISN'T open to interpretation. (Though you seem to have a lot of difficulty keeping it and "Assault Weapon" clear in your mind.)

Again, my 2-year old might call a Camry a "truck" but that doesn't make it one. You may make the case that common useage may change the definition of words over time (like "nice" changed after Shakespeare's day or "cool," "bad," and "radical" have changed in our lifetimes ... or for that matter, how "radical" changed in the 1700s) but that's a poor excuse for such sloppiness in our own useage.

 

[sig228]

Sam, I'm just giving my opinion as to what they should be called. What started me on this was the reading of the DNC platform regarding firearms. Total garbage in many respects:

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

 

[Skribs]

LOL...seriously comrade?

Yes, I am serious. Ignoring the technical definition for what you want to call something doesn't show much willingness to actually learn about the subject. If we don't use the established terminology correctly, it becomes much more difficult to determine what people are talking about. That is why we have standard terms in any industry.

ETA: The article you mentioned and highlighted in red talks about assault weapons, not assault rifles.

Trying to call an AR-15 an "assault rifle" does remind me of a LAO:SVU episode where someone has a Desert Eagle and claims a 14-round magazine (obviously false, it was the factory mag) and the cop says "14 rounds of .50 caliber? That's practically an assault rifle!"

 

[Sam1911]

Sam, I'm just giving my opinion as to what they should be called.

REALLY? Because, AGAIN, you've got two different terms muddled together. One of them means something (but not what you're suggesting) and the other means some thingS, but is hard to tie down because the definition is unclear and contradictory depending on which inept law-making body scraped it together.

Again, you're asking us to either use a term that is UNQUESTIONABLY wrong, or one that is so broad and amorphous as to be pointless.

 

[sig228]

OK, ok...I know, I interchanged the use of assault rifle and assault weapon.

For the record, I'm talking about "Assault Rifles"

 

[Sam1911]

For the record, I'm talking about "Assault Rifles"

Ok. So that's good. In that case, you're using the term incorrectly, period, and no, we are not going to go along with you on it.

 

[sig228]

Ok. So that's good. In that case, you're using the term incorrectly, period, and no, we are not going to go along with you on it.

Who are "we"?

Do you speak for THR as a whole?

 

[Skribs]

I think he's speaking for the gun community as a whole, let alone THR. Individuals are free to go along with you if they wish, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a technical term with a very literal definition.

 

[sig228]

I think he's speaking for the gun community as a whole, let alone THR. Individuals are free to go along with you if they wish, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a technical term with a very literal definition.

Thank you. I understand but still have not been shown an authoritative example of this literal definition.

 

[JFtheGR8]

Call them whatever you want but it's still my 2A right to own one... or two... or three... for self defense and homeland security not just for hunting. That's where the anti's want to divide us and eventually defeat us. I'll give them no concessions.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[sig228]

I own several myself. But I'm not hiding behind some made up terminology calling it by different names.

 

[Sam1911]

Do you speak for THR as a whole?

I speak for me. And I'm telling you the accepted definition, as used by those who are knowledgable and educated about small arms. You can use the terms of the educated or you can misuse terms or use the terms invented by the ingornat and the opposition. How you speak is how you'll be perceived.

I really don't care what YOU choose to use. You can call them all Sally if you like.

But I'm not hiding behind some made up terminology calling it by different names.

But...you ARE. You just don't seem to be grasping that fact.

The term has been in existance, meaning something very specific, since about 1943. Using "Assault Weapon" or MIS-using "Assault Rifle" is "hiding behind a made up terminology."

 

[armoredman]

Removed

 

[Skribs]

I own several myself. But I'm not hiding behind some made up terminology calling it by different names.

"Assault rifle" uh...it's not made-up terminology. It is a specific term used to describe select-fire rifles using an intermediate cartridge. I'm not hiding behind anything by saying an AR-15 is not an assault rifle, I'm applying the technical definition correctly. If I did own an assault rifle, I would call it as such, because the definition would apply.

I don't call my pocket knife a switchblade, either.

 

[Iramo94]

Sig228:

I'm sorry no one has shown you what all the mods are pointing at here.

You used the term "assault rifle." This describes a rifle in an intermediate cartridge, like .223 or 7.62x39, and has a fun switch. No full auto, no assault rifle. I understand your confusion about this because you probably haven't read much about it, but we are not talking about what some random person says on the matter. We are talking about the military definition as described here.

You also used the words "assault weapon," which are no longer a real term, no matter what anyone says. Assault weapon only referred to those firearms that had some outward appearance (like "that thing that goes up") as defined by the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994. Now that said law is not in effect, the words no longer have any legal or technical definition.

 

[hso]

LOL...seriously comrade?

Yes, seriously.

The point of this entire thread is that there is a technically defined term that is being misused based on a desire to sway public opinion and some people find it tiresome to explain the difference between the technical term and the term that was defined by regulation (which is defined within the definitions section of the regulation and doesn't have to bear any recognizable relationship to even physical state of a material, solid waste can be a liquid under regulation) by antis. Being dismissive of those who disagree that a term should be redefined based on an opinion doesn't bolster the argument for redefining that term.

I deal with government regulations all the time in my job. I have to keep in mind that the Definitions section of those regs may say things that make no physical sense or that are recognizable in common usage and they have to be studied and understood and their use limited to within the context of the specific regulation or you can be using a term that no one else in the room would agree to the meaning. This is the case with taking a term created by antis, put into a regulation and then constantly used to cause the American public to think that your semi auto rifle is a machine gun.

Part of our struggle isn't just in the legislative arena. The culture struggle, one of which are whether these terms redefine what the public thinks, helps drive the success or failure of the Antis in establishing laws to restrict your rights.

 

[lloveless]

I make a motion to lock this thread. It is meaningless bovine flatus. Much ado about nothing. We can call our weapons/guns/rifles whatever we please. Thank you. I am not about being PC.
ll