Assault Weapons

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hitler is the one who coined the phrase, he never defined it so we have to guess.

But it was in reference to the STG44, so weapons that based of the STG44's design philosophy.
Click to expand...

He didn't coin "assault weapon".
"Storm Rifle" or "assault rifle" may stem from Germany at the time, but it has nothing to do with "assault weapon" a totally different term.

Many of what are today "assault weapons" by virtually all definition variations existed long before world war 2.
They had semi-auto rifles with pistol grips and detachable magazines in typical battle rifle calibers dating back to around world war 1.

"Assault weapons" include handguns and all manner of firearms. "Assault Rifle" does not.
"Assault rifle" is also not a rifle subset of "assault weapon".
They are totally different items with completely different definitions.
Many military assault rifles don't even have the dreaded pistol grip that came to be associated with "assault weapons" of the rifle type in the prior federal ban.

The only thing that is the same with "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" is they have "assault" in the name.
 
Maybe folks should start calling them Peace Plinkers or something. I like Para's idea for PDA, Personal Defense Assistant.
Outside the military or LE you won't find people assaulting anything with a rifle.
 
Assault Rifle: main two features (a) select fire (semi-auto and full-auto or burst fire) plus (b) cartridge intermediate between pistol and full size rifle (7.92 Kurtz, 7.62x39mm, .223 Rem).

Assault Weapon: political buzz-word mostly covering a semi-automatic only replica of assault rifle (if it looks like a machinegun (AR15) the public can be fooled into thinking its a machinegun (M16)). Then the buzz word "assault weapon" gets stretched to cover guns like the Marlin Model 60 18 shot tube magazine .22 rimfire rifle and a host of guns that are not weapons used in assault or even guns that look like "assault rifles".

The implication of the political buzzword "assault weapon" is that these are weapons used in assaults. Most guns actually used in assaults are not those defined as AWs. Semi-auto replicas of full-auto or select fire military guns are more likely to be found in the safe or cabinet of a collector, or on the firing line of a range in military competition day, than to be found "on the streets".
 
What the heck else are you supposed to do with a battle rifle other than assaulting some one!
 
Oh lord, don't even get started on the definition of battle rifle.

As far as the political "assault weapons" term goes though, didn't Josh Sugermann coin that one? I believe he's also credited with "Saturday Night Specials" as well as a couple that failed to take off in the media and Hollywood such as "pocket rockets" (large caliber pistols).
 
Last edited:
I imagine they were called "Old Betty" or "Thelma Lou" or "Lady BoomStick" by those riflemen, much as ours are nicknamed today. Didn't Daniel Boone or somebody have one named "Tick Licker?"
 
Assault Weapon: political buzz-word mostly covering a semi-automatic only replica of assault rifle (if it looks like a machinegun (AR15) the public can be fooled into thinking its a machinegun (M16)). Then the buzz word "assault weapon" gets stretched to cover guns like the Marlin Model 60 18 shot tube magazine .22 rimfire rifle and a host of guns that are not weapons used in assault or even guns that look like "assault rifles".
Click to expand...

A tube fed gun with a fixed magazine that holds over 10 rounds of ammunition is an "assault weapon" in California. A felony to possess unless registered during the brief window of opportunity, and illegal to pass on to any children or heirs in the state if it was registered.
Even such registered firearms are subject to extra restrictions, like transportation requirements above and beyond other rifles, including having to be in a locked case at all times.




"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
Click to expand...

From the Anti-gun Josh Sugarman himself in 1988. Understanding public confusion and menacing looks can help in creating a ban based on misunderstanding alone.

From around that point onwards the media would show clips of fully automatic firearms being fired, and then talk about "assault weapons" which had a similar appearance. Never mentioning there was any difference, and causing most of the public to conclude they were the same thing.
Much of the public believed "assault weapon" referred to fully automatic firearms, and that "assault weapon" legislation dealt with fully automatic firearms.

If they discussed a intratec-9 they would show a full auto version. Uzis would be show in full auto.
If they discussed an AK clone they would show a full auto demonstration.
If they discussed an AR rifle they would show the military training with m-16s.
Encouraging the perception that "assault weapon" referred to full auto firearms.
The media loved to show the most menacing looking firearms possible, passing up on any that had a more traditional appearance.
When restrictions were finally passed they extended well beyond just the type of firearms originally associated with the media and "assault weapons".
The legal category has also continued to grow in places that still use the term.
Including designs and features at the whim of legislators, to increase the banned or restricted category.
 
Maybe if they were painted light blue or pink or other pastel color instead of nasty black our wonderful semi autos would be looked at safe and sane by the gun haters. It's all appearance. A PO8 Luger has that killer look but it's simply a semi auto 9mm handgun, no different than any other. It just looks badder.
 
The Russkis helped the evolution of the concept with their PPSH series.

71 round drum mags with high rate of fire.

Uncle Joe deployed his boys in waves, the first few being folks he particularly wanted thinned out.

They would assault the German positions with the idea of slinging more bullets than the krauts could duck.

The rearmost waves often were unarmed except for ammo and were expected to retrieve weapons from former comrades.

The original German concept of "Storm Weapon" was similar-lighter ammo and large capacity mags.

They just did not have the human wave capability that Ivan had.
 
The Russkis helped the evolution of the concept with their PPSH series.

71 round drum mags with high rate of fire.

Uncle Joe deployed his boys in waves, the first few being folks he particularly wanted thinned out.
Click to expand...

Once again "assault weapon" a legal and political term has nothing to do with "assault rifle".

"assault weapon" has often applied to semi auto firearms, with 10, 20 etc standard capacity magazines.
"Assault Weapon" as a legal term in fact specifically did not apply to full auto firearms, which are immune to the federal AWB feature restrictions.
Yet the whole concept of "assault rifle" required select fire.
"Assault Weapon" is not assault rifle.



However if you want to explore historical origins of the unrelated and separate "assault rifle" (Not the political and legal "assault weapon" with many separate definitions), the Fedorov Avtomat produced in 1915 and used in WW1 in 1916 was a much earlier example of an assault rifle.
(The PPSH was in fact a submachinegun, using pistol rounds. Not an assault rifle.)
The Federove was full auto, firing an intermediate cartridge to be more controllable than similar full auto rifles already in use that fired full power cartridges.

fedorov1.jpg



I had a picture of a pistol grip rifle that looked like an AK from the early 1900s chambered in a full powered rifle caliber, but I don't know where it went.
 
Assault weapons supposedly go out on the streets and commit crimes (all by themselves) prompting gun control advocates to proclaim that these weapons of war don't belong on our streets.

Which is why I gave a nice home to a Yugo Kalashnikov, M1 carbine with M1A1 paratrooper stock, and Auto Ordnance TM1 Thompson semiauto carbine, take them on supervised recreational outings at the range, but otherwise keep them off the streets under lock and key. We should all do our part and get those assault weapons off the streets and give them a secure home and supervised recreation.
 
Wow, not again, listen their is no legal definition, and what there is, is a list of external characteristic that make a rifle similar in appearence to a military arm.

I think framing this debate as one of RACIAL profiling, you know baning someone because they are black, white, green yellow or brown or purple is just as effective

point out that it's cosmetic,
ask what is important

how the gun functions
or
how the gun looks?
 
Living in one of the most firearm ignorant communities (NYC) it's my ever present responsibility to help educate people I enter discussions with if the topic ever involves firearms. Just as I would have difficulty defining a quasar, from a red giant, from a white dwarf when looking through a telescope out of my own ignorance most I come in contact with are only similarly ignorant and/or misinformed about guns. I try to bring them up to speed without making them feel dumb or inferior just because of technically incorrect terminology. I've done the "it's a magazine not a clip", "there's no such thing as an assault weapon" type angle of correcting people and all it does is prove that I know more than them but does nothing to address the fundamentals of the issue. Framing the conversation in a way where we can be on even footing to debate then presenting logic or real common sense rather than "common sense" as antis seem to think they own the trademark usually wins an argument by bringing them over to our understanding or at least leaving them thinking rather than soapboxing.

Assault weapons: old aurguement I used to use; There is no such thing as an assault weapon in the inventories of our military and police forces. There are assault rifles which are a specific functional description of a firearm which are not readily available to civilians. An assault weapon is chiefly a political turned legal term vaguely and broadly defined with little understanding of it's provisions even by those who advocate and legislate for the concept. I ditched that line after many times seeing eyes glaze over and ears tune out. A post here in this thread might even correct me in that there may indeed be a functional term and classification of assault weapon in practical military use for such mentioned non firearm weapons.

The two arguments that seem to work pretty well these days for me are:

1)The term assault weapon is a catch all that only legislates against features considered "modern". These modern features while conspicuously shared with military firearms are primarily safety and ergonomic developments. The defining assault weapon feature of a pistol grip is actually an ergonomic evolution for every manner of tool and appliance employed by human hands with opposable thumbs. Everything from hair dryers, kitchen hand blenders, camera lighting attachments, aircraft and race car steering grips, etc. It's simply a better, more positive, and safer way for a human hand to interface with an object. Another provision of the assault weapon definition is a "barrel shroud". A barrel shroud is simply a safety guard. It prevents contact burns or scorching of objects that come in contact with the firearm. Almost all tools and appliances are mandated to have such devices attached or part of their design to prevent user harm and legal liability from injury. Assault weapon legislation does nothing but render all available firearms to essentially revert back to 19th century design. By that same reasoning it would amount to legislating modern automobile design to conform to Model T standards because even the most conservative subcompact can easily exceed 55mph and seatbelts and airbags only encourage reckless driving because they minimize the consequences of collisions.

2.) The more contentious but still sensible argument. Would it also be reasonable and "common sense" to ban categories of people based on their demographic or cosmetic features that resemble a perceived threat to society? That is an abhorrent proposition but If the question of gun crime is taken with any seriousness would it not be irresponsible to avoid looking at who is shooting whom and what are the common features of the perpetrators of gun crime? Wouldn't that get us closer to real data that determines the likelihood of an assault than the features of the weapon involved? And if we were to collect and examine such data what would it say? What if it said that being economically disadvantaged, a racial minority, living in an high density urban environment, growing up in a single parent household, and having low academic achievement were significant common factors in gun crime? Should we legislate that if a person meets say, three of those five characteristics that they would be defined as an assault perpetrator and be banned from owning a firearm, knife, tire iron, or baseball bat? Maybe people of this description should be highly regulated and there should be no more importation or new manufacture of such individuals as they pose a significant threat to society? I figure unless a person is a card carrying klansman or eugenics proponent they would be rightfully offended by such an idea. The common response to that is "well you're talking about making laws against people not objects". We make all sorts of regulations against and limitations of people based on various factors but they usually involve their behavior and not their inherent features as should be. As objects firearms in and of themselves are not inherently more or less suitable towards crime. The focus of our legislation and concern should be towards ensuring that firearms are in the hands of competent, responsible owners and away from who by behavior are known or likely to make any firearm an "assault weapon"
 
Last edited:
I found the following at About.com:
At the same time, new assault weapons have come onto the marketplace, such as the Hi-Point Carbine used in the 1999 Columbine massacre.
Click to expand...

You see the problem. Although Hi-Points have been used by Police Depts, they would never be used by a military force. At least, none that had an option. It would be a flat lie to call a Hi-Point an assault rifle except that usage of the term has been so muddied by the AWBs that you can just get away with it.
 
"Assault Weapon" is such a term. It's intended to confuse those ignorant of the differences between military firearms and the civilian self loading rifles and carbines to frighten the public into banning normal firearms under the guise of removing machine guns from the hands of criminals.
Click to expand...

Egg-zachary. What happened in the creation and promulgation of the term "assault weapon" is that the anti-rights crowd was permitted to control the terms of the debate by assigning a scary name to guns that are functionally indistinguishable from their non-prohibited brethren. There is no logical basis for this distinction, and the term is calculated to incite an emotional reaction.

The pro-rights crowd (that's us) should make a more concerted effort to properly cast these guns as what they are: "defensive rifles" or "hunting arms."

Got that? DEFENSIVE RIFLES . . . HUNTING ARMS. We're not assaulting anyone; we're just defending our families and hunting wild boar.
 
Hi-Point handguns are assaulting to the eyes. The carbine looks ok after you put an ATI stock on it to make a faux-Beretta Storm.
I doubt the media will quit using the term since their goal is sensationalism and assault is a nice buzz word. Maybe if the shooting oriented shows go more mainstream people will learn the truth and be able to filter out the propaganda.
 
The best defense against the intentional misrepresentation of "assault weapons" is to explain to people what the laws really mean.

Grahluk did a nice job of explaining that principle.

You can actually get anti's, or semi-anti's laughing along with you when you explain the Assault Weapons Ban to them. Tell them it did nothing about full auto machine guns (it didn't). Tell them it banned purely cosmetic features that politicians deemed "dangerous". Tell them the current California laws ban magazine capacities over 10 rounds (because 11 is for gangstas!).

Some people still have common sense, and will appreciate being informed about what their pols and media are pushing.
 
Last edited:
Later versions of bans have taken that lesson to heart. They are now attempts to ban all semis.

I heard a DOJ sponsored presentation on why the AWB was a waste - the conclusion, you guess?

1. The gun guys are correct. Laws are stupid. Shouldn't have them.
2. Have stricter laws, no grandfather clauses, mandatory turn ins and confiscations.

What do you think?

It's spitting into the wind here but unless you come up with a reason for having the guns that is convincing, complaining about definitions isn't going to help the RKBA argument. You can say that these guns aren't fully auto but arguing about definitions isn't going to convince someone that that they are not dangerous.
 
It's spitting into the wind here but unless you come up with a reason for having the guns that is convincing, complaining about definitions isn't going to help the RKBA argument. You can say that these guns aren't fully auto but arguing about definitions isn't going to convince someone that that they are not dangerous.
Click to expand...

People are dangerous. Thats why most people own guns. Anything can become a dangerous weapon in the hands of a dangerous person, and there are many objects that can do a LOT more damage than a gun.
 
It's spitting into the wind here but unless you come up with a reason for having the guns that is convincing, complaining about definitions isn't going to help the RKBA argument. You can say that these guns aren't fully auto but arguing about definitions isn't going to convince someone that that they are not dangerous.
Click to expand...

Small arms, by & large, are exceedingly safe. It is an irresponsible or malicious user who is dangerous.
 
One thing I rarely miss a chance to bring up on the Puffington Host is the FBI murder stats by weapon. The funny thing is the VPC also recommends reading the FBI's crime stats.

More people were murdered by being beaten to death using no weapon at all than were murdered with a rifle of any type. More people were murdered with a blunt object than with a rifle of any type. Just over 5 times as many people were murdered with a knife/machete/other stabbing instrument than were murdered with a rifle of any type.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_11.html

Why do I keep saying "a rifle of any type"? Because the FBI doesn't break rifles down by type in their stats. That's all types of rifles: bolt action, pump action, lever action, semi-auto, evil black, etc.

The point is, they are a non-issue. The only reason you even hear about them is that the media hyperventilates over each and every one of those murders that were committed with a evil black rifle, much the way shark attacks are blown way out of proportion. The media needs something to fill the time on 24 hours news networks and making a huge problem out of nothing and then spending hours on end talking about it is one way to fill the airwaves.
 
The other point is that if you're going to trample on Constitutional rights in the name of pre-empting crime, the 2nd Amendment is not the place to start, not even close. The 4th Amendment is. If the cops could come through and randomly search people's homes while they're gone at work or the store then they could have stopped McVeigh while he was still making his bomb. They could have busted the Columbine murderers for illegal possession of NFA items and illegal explosives possession and locked them up, thereby preventing that murderous spree.

Are your 4th Amendment rights really worth all the lives that could be saved? Well, are they?

(That's a rhetorical question. The sad thing is, there are some people in this country who would say no, my rights aren't worth as much as "the greater good".)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mljdeckard
  • Locked
It wasn't an 'assault weapon'.
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
CZguy
C
A
  • Locked
Assault Weapon....Really?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Archangel14
A
Tony50ae
  • Locked
"Assault weapons"
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Tony50ae
Tony50ae
H
  • Locked
"Assault weapon" numbers questions?
Replies
2
Views
489
Sam Adams
S
HoosierQ
  • Locked
A Motion - re: The Term "Assault Rifle"
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Replies
232
Views
8K
Fred Fuller
F
Back
Top