A term to replace "Assault Weapon" : "Modern Rifle"

[Dlowe167]

We use these terms for what,senators that try to ban stuff use the catagory name. Make them type the full names.Semi-auto 5.56 rifle,etc. Make them work for it,they dont even know a mag is a mag not a clip!!!

 

[r1derbike]

It's America's Rifle! Let's call it "America's Rifle".

 

[labhound]

S&W's web site refers to them as "Modern Sporting Rifles".

 

[helitack32f1]

I have often seen them referred to as "modern Sporting Rifles". It always seemed to me the industry was already using that name to try and eliminate the use of "assault Rifle" which seems like a good idea to me.

 

[itsa pain]

an AK 47 or an AR15 are not "modern" rifles. the AK is over 60 years old the AR is over 45 years old. they are just self loading rifles

 

[Manco]

How about just using the term "rifle?" Keep it simple.

This. There is nothing so special about it that it needs to be singled out for special consideration with respect to image or legality. It's just a rifle. If we need to be more descriptive, then it's a semiautomatic rifle.

Among gun enthusiasts, it's an AR (ArmaLite Rifle). If that too obviously, though incorrectly, looks like an acronym for "Assault Rifle" then just call it an ArmaLite. Or maybe we should start calling it an "AL" instead of an "AR."

 

[GEM]

How many times has this been discussed?

Please don't take my constitutionally protected weapon used to protect self and prevent tyranny away. It is really nice and not that lethal. Why you can use it for sport and shooting cute animals! It's nice.

Euphenisms will not protect the RKBA. No one buys it. It is a fantasy of the choir that thinks they can appease anti gun folks.

I asked nongun people laying out this argument. They think it is stupid. Not a big sample. Hold up an AR or AK with a video of someone firing it at speed in semi mode. OH, now - I get it - it's not so dangerous. It's nice and for sports.

So - - on this attempt to appease.

 

[Golden Hound]

Control of the language matters. Too many of you dismiss these discussions out-of-hand.

"Modern Rifle" is pitch-perfect, and is exactly the sort of phrase we ought to be using.

Thanks. It's good to see that at least somebody understands how important control of the language is. Language is what our whole culture is based on. The people who manipulate it effectively are the ones who get what they want in life, and the ones who don't know how to use it effectively are the ones who fail. That applies to movements like ours, too.

Saying "it doesn't matter, it won't make any difference" is a defeatist attitude. Don't be like that. Stand up for what's right. I'm not suggesting that everyone need to actively embark on a campaign to change the terminology - although I think some people should do this - only that, if you hear someone using the improper, loaded, dishonest, fabricated anti term, like "assault weapon", you try to correct them and tell them that what they're referring to is really a "MODERN RIFLE".

 

[kwguy]

Control of language is indeed important, because it's what the anti's use to frame their arguments, but MAN it drives me crazy. Because it's smoke and mirrors, and reeks of disingenuousness (sp?).

It cracks me up when they talk about the 'lethality' of certain weapons. Really? Really? Wow. So what then, a gun that shoots nerf bullets? One rifle being more lethal than another is just plain dumb. Anyone can see through that nonsense. Oops, no, they can't, because that's why so many of these threads exist, huh?

Nutty stuff.

 

[justice06rr]

First lets correct the term "clip" to "magazine"...

 

[helitack32f1]

First lets correct the term "clip" to "magazine"...

I know! I was thinking about how much that irritates me today when I was loading the magazine for my M1 Garand!

 

[4tsmith]

Thanks. It's good to see that at least somebody understands how important control of the language is. Language is what our whole culture is based on. The people who manipulate it effectively are the ones who get what they want in life, and the ones who don't know how to use it effectively are the ones who fail. That applies to movements like ours, too.

Saying "it doesn't matter, it won't make any difference" is a defeatist attitude. Don't be like that. Stand up for what's right. I'm not suggesting that everyone need to actively embark on a campaign to change the terminology - although I think some people should do this - only that, if you hear someone using the improper, loaded, dishonest, fabricated anti term, like "assault weapon", you try to correct them and tell them that what they're referring to is really a "MODERN RIFLE".

In the last legislative run up my rep. e-mailed back and made reference to assault weapons under consideration.

I fired right back and politely informed him that the assault weapons he was referring to were unlike the AR15 not exclusively semi automatic.That by definition an assault weapon was capable of selective or some form of FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE and as such was already covered by heavy federal regulation requiring full registration,an extensive FBI background check and a $200 tax stamp from the treasury dept.

I then informed him that the much discredited AR15 semi auto was in fact probably the most prolific and popular SPORT UTILITY RIFLE in the history of AMERICA.
That it had become so because by the simple removal of two retaining pins the upper receiver could be changed to accommodate 78 different calibers(and counting),all useful for some kind of hunting or target shooting and that a multitude of accessories made it adaptable to fit virtually any human being on earth.
I also took the opportunity to point out that the much maligned pistol grip,collapsible stock and other so called military features used on long rifles and shotguns only served to make them safer,more stable and adaptable to a broader range of users.

change the language...indeed!

 

[beatledog7]

Many government and press entities that would like to call every firearm we own an "assault weapon." The same would like to ban and confiscate them.

I teach categorization as a methodology for writing that is useful when a student wishes to discuss an array of things and needs to group them in some manner in order to make a point. Such a strategy can work as long as the student is careful to categorize in a way that stands up to general reader scrutiny or specifically defines the categories as they are being used in the paper. Unless one of those criteria is met, the argument made through categorization cannot stand up to the scrutiny of a reader whose understanding of the categories used is different.

As long as we run the risk of conflicting definitions of our categories, we'd best we refrain from categorizing firearms in any way. Doing so makes it easier for the antis to ban them by category. Make the antis legislate by specifics. Insist that if they want to ban a firearm, then they must do so by model number and chambering, and they must describe the characteristics of that exact firearm that make it unviable for civilian ownership. They'll never be able to do it.

 

[45_auto]

I fired right back and politely informed him that the assault weapons he was referring to were unlike the AR15 not exclusively semi automatic.That by definition an assault weapon was capable of selective or some form of FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE and as such was already covered by heavy federal regulation requiring full registration,an extensive FBI background check and a $200 tax stamp from the treasury dept.

Unfortunately you were wrong. It's bad when even a gun-owner doesn't know the difference between a legally-defined "Assault Weapon" and an "Assault Rifle".

ASSAULT WEAPON:

A semi-automatic firearm possessing certain cosmetic, ergonomic, or construction features similar to those of military firearms.

ASSAULT RIFLE:

An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine

The original definition of an "Assault Weapon" from the 1994 ban was:

A Semi-automatic rifle able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel

In the states that still ban "assault weapons" like California and Maryland, their definitions are similar to the 1994 Federal definition. "Semi-automatic" is usually very prominent in assault weapon definitions.

Good luck trying to change the language, you can call them "pretty fluffy puppies" if you like, but all it's going to do is further confuse the issues.

 

[hang fire]

What's the point? The people who understand the definition know its meaningless. The people who use it out of turn us it deliberately and aren't about to change to "modern rifle."

Double dittos on that.

The antis and LSM set the parameters of the debate, and the LSM buy their ink by the tanker truck.

 

[GEM]

If you think that you will preserve gun rights by arguing that an assault rifle vs. an assault weapons vs. an assault bang stick make a difference to antigun folks or people in the middle - you are mistaken.

My read of the psychological impact of the terms is that this is a fantasy of the choir that it will change the mind of the those opposed to gun rights.

Nor will it convince them that a semi AR is a nice gun and not a military guns, weapon of war or truly dangerous gun.

 

[breakingcontact]

Two schools of thought...
1 call it what it is (or close to what it is or was in non-neutered form)

2 call it something less threatening

The left does this. Consider gun control.

1 call it what it is: incremental step towards total registration, confiscation and eventual total control of the populace

Or

2 call it something less threatening: common sense gun control (repeat 100000x in popular media)

The left isn't above lying to get what they want in the end. I don't know how to confront that. I agree we don't want to play the language game with them but words and images do indeed have power and if we let them determine the language and its meaning, we will lose.

If they win incrementally, they will be in the media, asking why anyone needs an overly powerful sniper rifle (30 06 deer gun), a shotgun only meant to kill people (anything more than a double barrel shotgun) and why any honest person would want the gun of a criminal, if you're not a criminal you don't need to conceal your gun (all handguns).

We can't lose this thing. But we aren't going to win it by feeding ammo flippers and stocking our basements full of copper and lead. We need to vote and get others our to cast informed votes.

 

[Drail]

I simply refer to it as a "rifle" or a "shotgun" or a "handgun" with no modifying term. Keep it simple.

 

[happygeek]

The original definition of an "Assault Weapon" from the 1994 ban was:

A Semi-automatic rifle able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel

That's a definition, but a legal definition not a dictionary/practical definition and doesn't exist anymore for those outside of CA, NY, and a few other places. A Ruger 10/22 can be an "assault weapon" simply by replacing the nice looking conventional wood stock with a scary black synthetic stock with a pistol grip. Does that mean all Ruger 10/22s are "assault weapons"? They all function the same.

 

[Golden Hound]

The left isn't above lying to get what they want in the end. I don't know how to confront that. I agree we don't want to play the language game with them but words and images do indeed have power and if we let them determine the language and its meaning, we will lose.

Correct. That's the core of my whole argument - we can't let THEM make up the words. WE need to step up and take control of the language. Saying "it doesn't matter, it won't make any difference" is defeatist. Look at what various identity-politics-playing groups have been able to accomplish by manipulating the language of gender and race. (I won't elaborate any more than that because it's not relevant to this forum - but you know what I'm talking about.) We can do the same thing to tilt the playing field in our favor.

The AR-15 is the iPhone of guns. It's the most current design for a modular rifle that exists. It's a modern rifle. Yes, we CAN push back against the anti-gun spin to demonize this device as something sinister and evil. I say fight the antis on ALL fronts, including the front of language.

 

[Quick Draw McGraw]

I don't even really like the term Modern Rifle or Modern Sporting Rifle all that much. As some have alluded to, they really aren't all that modern. Plus I feel like it plays into the "new advances in weaponry that have made it too dangerous for people to be trusted with such weapons" type argument a little bit.

I think we should switch to Modular Sporting Rifle, it's a better description in my opinion and we can even keep the "MSR" acronym.

 

[Golden Hound]

I would agree except that too few people know what "modular" means, so it's less likely to be adopted to common usage. As to the idea that it's not really that modern - the basic design may indeed be older than many would imagine, yet it's still modern compared to the bolt-action rifles that preceded it, and the modular varieties in common use today are certainly the most modern rifle that exists as of yet.

 

[NHCraigT]

"Tactical Rifle" ..... is what a local firearms, SD school owner, police/SF military instructor and certified armorer - calls them.

 

[45_auto]

That's a definition, but a legal definition not a dictionary/practical definition and doesn't exist anymore for those outside of CA, NY, and a few other places. A Ruger 10/22 can be an "assault weapon" simply by replacing the nice looking conventional wood stock with a scary black synthetic stock with a pistol grip. Does that mean all Ruger 10/22s are "assault weapons"? They all function the same.

You seem a little confused. You ask

Does that mean all Ruger 10/22s are "assault weapons"? They all function the same.

Read your previous sentence:

A Ruger 10/22 can be an "assault weapon" simply by replacing the nice looking conventional wood stock with a scary black synthetic stock with a pistol grip.

Seems like you understand that it's not an assault weapon until you replace the stock. Why would you think function had anything to do with it?

 

[happygeek]

Because normally function has quite a bit to do with what a firearm is. Until you get into politician speak and then all bets are off, buzzphrases that sound nice in soundbites are made up, and definitions become meaningless.

I'm aware of what the CA legal term is. Down there an AR can be made into a cute cuddly legal firearm simply by using the Hammerhead



Or by not using a detachable magazine:



Of course show those pictures to the average anti-gunner and they'll still think it's an "assault rifle".

Move over to Connecticut and these:

aren't "assault weapons" in the legal definition.

Of course show that picture to the average anti-gunner and they'll still think they're "assault rifles".

Here in the great state of Washington this:



isn't an "assault weapon" in the legal definition.

If you're saying that "assault weapon" is a legally defined term in certain places that's certainly true, the confusion comes in because it's a legal definition not a practical/dictionary definition and it changes depending on what state you're in, and they all function the same.