Assault Weapons.....lets talk about um!

[ctdonath]

"Assault weapon" is a term which people uninterested in debate tie others in knots debating.

If the energy wasted on our side bickering over the definition of "assault weapon" was properly utilized, 922(o) would be overturned already and we'd be fiddling with our nifty new sub-$1000 select-fire guns.

 

[gaudio5]

anything is an assault weapon......so long as i assault you with it

 

[woof]

Confusion over what is an assault rifle will probably lead eventually to anything semi-automatic being banned.

 

[Guntalk]

Speaking of terms which are used against us . . . .

Some posters seem to think that the term "gun porn" is cute.

Wait until it is turned back on us with a national effort to get all firearms-related publications removed from public display as pornography.

Write it down. That effort is coming, and "we" created the term.

Real cute.

 

[SuperNaut]

As someone who hangs out with a lot of lefties I can assure you that "Homeland Defense Rifle" is a far worse term than assault rifle. It adds a whole new unnecessarily paranoid political dimension to a firearm.

Kinder and gentler it is not.

We also have to remember that we are fighting against years of propaganda, movies, media, and expectations. There is also a component of fetishization that I'm not sure how to combat. I've met some anti's who absolutely adore being afraid. I don't know how a psychologist would define such behavior, but I do know it is freakin' weird.

 

[Guntalk]

http://guntalk.com/site46.php

The votes are favoring "utility rifle," but I did not list all the possibilities.

 

[AirForceShooter]

You're confusing the issue with facts.
Please don't do that. The gun grabbers don't like it. :banghead:

AFS

 

[Eyesac]

Bastards all of them.

Anything with a stock I call a Rifle. That's if folks.

 

[Nolo]

Speaking of terms which are used against us . . . .

Some posters seem to think that the term "gun porn" is cute.

Wait until it is turned back on us with a national effort to get all firearms-related publications removed from public display as pornography.

Write it down. That effort is coming, and "we" created the term.

Real cute.

This is gonna sound weird... but if they're going to be that ridiculous, let them. Guess what? I've got the rifles. Wanna take my gun magazines as "restricted literature?" Well then you can have my 180-grain .30-caliber FMJs while you're at it. If they would take it to that level... well, then I'll take it to the next.
You mess with my 2nd Amendment rights, I'll fight you with words.
You mess with my 1st Amendment rights, I'll fight you with bullets.

 

[slow944]

I prefer to call my Mini14 with the 30rd. mag. a "Home Defence Weapon". It is not an Assault Weapon as I don't intend to Assault anyone ever, only defend myself and family and property from people intent on doing harm.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Wait until it is turned back on us with a national effort to get all firearms-related publications removed from public display as pornography.

Tom, I'm with you on many issues, but this one sounds pretty far-fetched to me. While I wouldn't put it past someone for trying, I can't imagine it going anywhere. Then again, I live in a place where they have plastic covers over all the women's magazines, "for the children."

As the term "pornography" has no real legal standing as far as the federal government is concerned, they would have to be deemed obscene. Since the 3 part test for obscenity established by Miller v. California of (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

It would be pretty hard to qualify any gun magazines under those the current standards for obscenity.

Also, those who tend to believe in gun control are usually of the same political ilk as outspoken supporters of freedom of expression or speech. Likewise, those who want to ban obscene words, pictures, and thoughts for the children tend to be the same conservatives don't have a problem guns.

I think a Venn diagram of those who believe in gun control and restricting freedom of the press/speech/expression/etc would only have a very small sliver overlapping.

If they would take it to that level... well, then I'll take it to the next.
You mess with my 2nd Amendment rights, I'll fight you with words.
You mess with my 1st Amendment rights, I'll fight you with bullets.

Ah, the brave words of a 16 year old freedom fighter. Unfortunately they are silly, make us look bad, and they violate the rules of the forum: With that in mind, make sure that remedy of shooting anyone is only considered if all other legal options are exhausted.

You're not shooting anyone. Get over it.

 

[Justin]

Nolo, initially I was going to throw your post down the memory hole for being in violation of THR's policies, but on second thought I resurrected it as an example to everyone of what NOT to post on a public internet forum.

I mean, if you're so concerned that the anti's will stop the publication of Guns & Ammo because of what pro-gun people say, then perhaps you oughtn't be thumping your chest while spouting off about shooting them.

Y'know? Just a little FYI.

 

[Big Calhoun]

Actually, a few people have hit upon what the unifying political definition of an assault weapon is: A weapon that is seemingly designed, originally or via after-market upgrades, to make the killing of a human more efficient and seemingly not productive to "sporting purposes". I've noticed that language in a lot of different AW ban bills.

 

[Sharps-shooter]

Bastards all of them.

Anything with a stock I call a Rifle. That's it folks.

What about shotguns? Do you call shotguns rifles?

I usually just call ar-15's and ak's and the like "rifles", because I can't figure out which ones are supposed to be asault rifles and which ones are not. Seriously. At first, I thought they were "assault" rifles because the stocks weren't wood, but then, Ak's are supposed to be assalt, even with wooden stocks. And the Garand and ruger 10/22 are not assault weapons, usually, even though the garand is "military style". And the ruger 10/22 can be dressed up like a military-style weapon, but even then people think of it as a kid's gun.

Meanwhile, the fbi statistics I've seen seem to say that large-caliber handguns are used in assault and murder more than any types of long guns.

So, I don't really use the term "assault wepon" much, because I CAN"T FIGURE OUT WHAT IT MEANS.

 

[SuperNaut]

Can anyone think of a select-fire rifle that looks like a benign hunting rifle? That'd be good for undermining/underlining the cosmetic aspects of assault rifle "classification."

 

[benEzra]

I think that term implies that this weapon was specifically designed to efficiently kill/attack people. In my mind that is the kind of weapon that the second amendment specifically refers to.

The problem is, the prohibitionists WANT us to use that term, because it very effectively gets people to turn their brains off and react on an emotional level (just like "Saturday Night Special", "cop killer bullets", ad nauseaum. An "assault" is a crime, not an act of defense.

I have seen middle-of-the-roaders and even some anti's on DU change their minds about so-called "assault weapons" if you can get them past that loaded term and get them to actually turn their brains on. To my mind, calling an AR-15 what it is--a small-caliber, non-automatic rifle--is a lot more helpful and effective than calling it by the anti's latest PR buzzword.

 

[Nil]

I have a confession to make: I'm a recent pro-gun convert. In fact, I purchased my first firearm only last fall, though I have since acquired six more since that time. I remember thinking in the not-so distant past something like, "I'm a pro-gun person, but there's no reason for a civilian to own one of those (i.e. AKs, AR-15s, etc.)." My views on this were fueled largely by ignorance of the actual differences, or lack there of, between such firearms and others that are more acceptable to the mainstream. It's hard for non-gun owner, educated mostly by the mass media about such matters, to fully understand what these guns are.

Once I began to seriously consider buying a gun, through research my thinking on what so-called assault weapons actually were has changed. Now I'm the proud owner of an AR-15 and many high capacity, though I prefer the term normal capacity, magazines.

 

[broadsideofabarn]

If you assault someone with a pointy stick, is it not an "assault weapon"? It's just one of the ridiculous scare words the media and antis love.

FYI, as a member of the "damn liberal" media, I can safely say that the antis aren't the worst offenders; it's the ignorants who take what the antis tell that at face value who do the most damage. Widespread lies like "cop killer bullets" and "full-auto Glocks" inflict far more long-term damage to our rights than the ceaseless efforts of a few zealots.

Reasonable, informed people can argue about the usefulness of an AR-15 or AK for hunting, but calling a rifle with a pistol grip, swappable mag, or a bayonet lug an "assault weapon" and banning it makes about as much sense as calling a 900cc sportbike a "traffic violation machine", and mandating that only Harleys and scooters are allowed. The design of a machine does not dictate its use. The irresponsible uses technology can be put to are amongst the reasons why we have a legal system. Not to restrict the freedoms of responsible citizens because of what they COULD do. A Buick is a weapon of mass destruction in the wrong hands.

Ditto to Nil on being a recent convert from the "anti" crowd. Somehow, I was able to start appreciating firearms as interesting examples of design and engineering, and as an unfortunate but essential last resort for defense of life and liberty... and yet I didn't start burning crosses on anyone's lawn, didn't start fantasizing about Ann Coulter, and didn't start torturing small animals!

Still haven't quite made the first purchase, though... Will see if I grow horns and begin hating homosexuals after that.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Can anyone think of a select-fire rifle that looks like a benign hunting rifle? That'd be good for undermining/underlining the cosmetic aspects of assault rifle "classification."

Hmm. BAR, M-14, AC556, M2 Carbine, American 180? With the magazine inserted they look more evil, but that's because 5 rounds go by in a heartbeat in full auto (and I'd be a heck of a lot more concerned about a bad guy using aimed fire than spraying with a full auto).

 

[JKimball]

Can anyone think of a select-fire rifle that looks like a benign hunting rifle? That'd be good for undermining/underlining the cosmetic aspects of assault rifle "classification."

Once we win this argument, the next goal for the antis becomes, "Well shoot, I guess we ought to ban these hunting rifles too."

We all know that even bolt action deer/elk rifles can be much more deadly than an AR-15 in certain circumstances, but do we really gain any ground by convincing antis of that fact?

We shouldn't even pretend that we are just interested in guns because of their hunting and recreational uses. "Lah dee dah, don't worry, guns aren't really that scary, they are great for hunting and target shooting, so you don't need to ban them."

We want the best guns we can get for taking into battle against people that are shooting back at us. Trying to play that down is ignoring the second amendment and I don't think it will allow us to gain ground against gun control laws. Let's be open and honest with the people on the other side of the fence so we can get past the emotion and down to the heart of the issue. Antis that ask, "How can you possibly justify the need for owning an AK-47 with 30 round magazines?" just don't get the picture. And gunowners are partially to blame for not being upfront about educating them.

To my mind, calling an AR-15 what it is--a small-caliber, non-automatic rifle--is a lot more helpful and effective than calling it by the anti's latest PR buzzword.

I disagree that it is more helpful, but I'll admit it sounds like you've got some good experience with it. My problem with that statement though, is that it implies that if a rifle is either a larger caliber, or automatic, (or both) that you agree it is too dangerous to be in the hands of civilians. And if you believe that, then you don't truly appreciate the intent of the 2nd amendment. If you don't believe that, then you come across as trying to pull one over on them, and they will be less likely to trust you.

 

[SaMx]

I usually just call ar-15's and ak's and the like "rifles", because I can't figure out which ones are supposed to be asault rifles and which ones are not. Seriously. At first, I thought they were "assault" rifles because the stocks weren't wood, but then, Ak's are supposed to be assalt, even with wooden stocks. And the Garand and ruger 10/22 are not assault weapons, usually, even though the garand is "military style". And the ruger 10/22 can be dressed up like a military-style weapon, but even then people think of it as a kid's gun.

Yup, and AR-15 is just a rifle. So is an AK clone. So is an SKS, or an M1 Carbine. They're autoloading rifles, and you don't really need to make a special category for them.

if you try to categorize them in a separate category, you're just making a special category of rifles for the antis to ban. It doesn't matter what you call it, they'll just spin it. If you say it's just a rifle, it's just a rifle.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I've pretty much decided there are 3 types of firearms; rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Have yet to see any others.....

 

[Soybomb]

It was brought up recently with the Miami ""assualt weapon" thing......... they gave the statistic that 7 out of 10 people are killed with assault weapons........

As you'll see at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html of the 14,860 murder victims in 2005, 442 were killed with rifles with an unknown breakdown on scary looking rifles. Since only 68% of murder victims were killed by firearms its impossible to say that 7 out of 10 were killed with assault weapons even if you said all the handguns had regular capacity magazines and therefor also called them assault weapons. The statistics is an out right lie.

Speaking of terms which are used against us . . . .

Some posters seem to think that the term "gun porn" is cute.

Wait until it is turned back on us with a national effort to get all firearms-related publications removed from public display as pornography.

Write it down. That effort is coming, and "we" created the term.

Real cute.

Seems quite unlikely but if that happens then I'll gladly deal with it. I think the opponent trying to crush both the 1st and 2nd amendment would be even easier to defeat.

 

[Nolo]

Nolo, initially I was going to throw your post down the memory hole for being in violation of THR's policies, but on second thought I resurrected it as an example to everyone of what NOT to post on a public internet forum.

I mean, if you're so concerned that the anti's will stop the publication of Guns & Ammo because of what pro-gun people say, then perhaps you oughtn't be thumping your chest while spouting off about shooting them.

Y'know? Just a little FYI.

Ah, the brave words of a 16 year old freedom fighter. Unfortunately they are silly, make us look bad, and they violate the rules of the forum: With that in mind, make sure that remedy of shooting anyone is only considered if all other legal options are exhausted.

You're not shooting anyone. Get over it.

I apologize. My mind was on a rather different track however. I wouldn't shoot anyone for restricting my right to free speech in such minuscule ways. What I really meant by that was that the two Amendments seem to protect each other. If you live in a world where you are harassed by "thought police", then you protect your mental liberty with the power of a rifle (I'd hope you'd have that option, anyway!). If you live in a society such as ours where people may try to restrict your right to have a weapon, you fight it with to power of the press and the power of overwhelming logic and pathos. The image of what books I'm reading being scrutinized by the government immediately brought to mind a 1984-like scenario, hence the very black and white statement. Sometimes I wish it was that easy to win this fight, with just bullets. The road we will have to take is far more difficult. The road we have to take is the High Road.
Looks like it's time for another sig change...

 

[Regolith]

Y'know, making up our own term to replace the loaded term "Assault Weapon" isn't going to help. You don't fight loaded terms with loaded terms, you fight them with facts.

There is no such thing as an assault weapon. A firearm such as an AR15 is a rifle. More specifically, its a gas operated semi-automatic rifle. An M16 is a gas operated selective fire rifle. Any terms other than these factual ones are of no help. They do not define the essence of the rifle. They are merely political terms used to mislead the general public.