FYI: About AR-15s, from the NSSF

Status
Not open for further replies.

jfh

Member.
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
4,898
Location
Maiden Rock, WI
I received an e-mail from GunBroker a few minutes ago, highlighting the sales / importer refund deals on the FS2000, PS90, and the FNAR. In the sidebar was this little essay.

Updating AR-15's Image

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is trying to rebuild the image of the AR-15 rifle and you can help. The NSSF has coined the term Modern Sporting Rifle to more accurately describe the AR-15 platform and is asking that shooters do the same.

The NSSF asks you to be an informed gun owner and to use the following facts to correct misconceptions about these rifles.
If AR-15-style modern sporting rifles are banned, your favorite traditional-looking hunting or target shooting semi-automatic firearm could be banned, too.

´ AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.

´ The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for Armalite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."

´ AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

´ AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.

´ Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.

´ Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.

´ AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.

´ And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!


(Emphasis added by poster.)

How much discussion these points need is moot for this group of readers, I think. I put it up because I routinely see the misuse of the term "assault weapon", not to mention the term assault rifle. As gunnies, we should not lose sight of the fact that the term "assault weapon" is nothing more than a political term. It was coined by the antigun forces--specifically, Josh Sugarman of the VPC, about 1988--and used by the various antigun advocacy groups to confuse the public about the nature of firearms they wanted to ban--and, in some sense, did so in the 1994 AWB.

As some of you know, the current use of 'assault weapon' by gunnies is fairly common--I see it here in discussions all the time. And, I also see many semiauto EBR-type rifles called "assault rifles"--and that is incorrect; see any version of the firearms lexicon. Personally, I suspect that is because, for many of you now, the AW / AR term has legitimacy for your EBR simply because it's been there for you all of your (gun-)conscious life or before, in political discussions. These terms weren't--Assault Rifles were defined in history by the Germans in the '40, and AFAIK, the first use of Assault Weapons by the MSM was in the reporting of the Luby Cafeteria massacre, in 1991. Some of us remember it well, for it really set off the 'modern' run at Political Gun Control.

Whether or not you want to refer to AR-15-type firearms as MSRs--Modern Sporting Rifles--is up to the you. Personally, I like using the term EBR, or simply the correct name--AR-15 or AK-74, for example. Call it what you will--but the NSSF screed here should serve as a reminder to be knowledgeable and vigilant about our culture and our history.

Jim H.
 
Last edited:
I always thought the term "assault rifle" was termed in late WWII.

as an english translation of the german term "Storm Rifle".

I see it as a little late to try to coin a completly new term. Also it kinda feels like, just because they took over the term, and we stopped using it that we are caving into them.

I would rather just resist them, and hold my 'assault rifle" high.
 
I believe "assault rifle", as in "sturmgewehr" is a real term and dates from the 1940s.

However, that's not what the OP is saying. The term, invented from whole cloth, is "assault weapon" which, SFAIK, came from Sugarman as described.

"Assault Rifle" occurs in the NSSF piece but the poster's reference is to "Assault weapon". And - AR-15s are not assault rifles - they're missing an important element of the sturmgewehr. They're "assault weapons" because the term was codified into law by the usual suspects.

If I might be permitted some conjecture - I believe "pistols" were defined as having a single chamber and separated from revolvers around 1968 with part of the motivation being making it easier to ban one type at a time. Nevertheless, it's been accepted as part of the jargon to such an extent that one can count on being "corrected" if one calls a "revolver" a "pistol" on an internet forum. The authors of GCA '68 must surely be proud.
 
I always thought the term "assault rifle" was termed in late WWII.

as an english translation of the german term "Storm Rifle".

I see it as a little late to try to coin a completly new term. Also it kinda feels like, just because they took over the term, and we stopped using it that we are caving into them.

I would rather just resist them, and hold my 'assault rifle" high.
An assault rifle is by definition selective-fire, as was the original MP43/Sturmgewehr 44. An AR-15 most assuredly is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

The gun-ban lobby has tried very hard to get the public to believe that civilian AR-15's and AK's are military assault rifles, in order to try to get them treated as such legislatively. They are not.

The term "assault weapon" is a political buzzword used to refer to whatever modern-looking civilian rifles, shotguns, and pistols the prohibitionists wish to ban, but it has no relation to actual assault rifles.
 
hawk's response to your observations, dom1104, is the point I am making. If you have a class III / Title 2 license and own an assault rifle, by all means hold it high. If it's a semiautomatic, it is not an assault rifle--at least according to the standard firearms lexicon.

Hawk's observations about the disjunction of "pistols" and "revolvers" about 1968 fits with my recollections, but I really wasn't following politics at the time. I do know that, as a Minnesotan coming out of a hunting and marksmanship family, pistols certainly referred to all handguns in my childhood. That fits, of course, with what Hawk says.

Jim H.
 
Last edited:
I would rather just resist them, and hold my 'assault rifle" high

Unless you are one of the lucky few who owns a Title 2 NFA-registered full auto military rifle capable of burst or automatic fire, you do not own an assault rifle.

You're certainly free to refer to your semi-auto rifle as an "assault rifle", but in doing so, you are wrong.
 
huh, I guess you are all 100% right.

I dont see myself calling it a "MSM" but I guess assault rifle is incorrect as well.

I guess I will just call it a AR.
 
"Assault Rifle" is intended as political propoganda and fear language, just like the terms "street sweeper" etc... The modern intention is to stigmatize the users and scare the mothers of America.

Likewise "Sturmgewehr" was also political propoganda and fear language, coined by one of the most effective exploiters of propaganda in the 20th century. The intention was most likely to motivate and embolden the users and scare the enemy.

If someone labels something, and the media repeats it over and over, they empower the originator to define that something for the world, regardless of whether or not their definition is at all accurate.
 
Just do your part and be seen hunting with one.

However I do ask that in my opinion much greater effect is achieved if you dress more like Marty Stouffer than you do Richard "Mack" Machowicz

see the sig line for more or better yet start your own!
 
"Rifle" is a very vague term, certainly valid but not very descriptive.

That's sort of the point I guess. Having specific descriptors is what gets us in trouble with the politically correct.

They are rifles, same as any other rifle. They shouldn't have different laws on their use or ownership. Rifles are rifles, and rifles are legal and protected (or should be).
 
I like the new terminology proposed. I have been using the phrase "cosmetically challenged semi-automatic long gun" for such things as AR15-pattern rifles and their ilk.

Avoid using the terminology coined by your opponents, it allows them to set the agenda.
 
SUR vs GPR

I own a couple of (black) Sport Utility rifles, so named by their manufacturer (Kel-Tec).

I was at one time inclined to use the term "Sport Utility Rifle" in place of the earlier term I coined, "General Purpose Rifle," but a couple of things have persuaded me away from the SUR term: 1) it's now arguably a trade name, and 2) the enunciation of "S.U.R." is just awkward.

I'm going back to "GPR." It's easier to say, and the name's derivation is of respectable origin, borrowing from the one-time military moniker "General Purpose Vehicle" (or GP vehicle, or Jeep).

"Sporter" is more of an insider's term, making a distinction that most outside observers won't appreciate. Not that I have anything against Sporters myself. :D

attachment.jpg
 
...It was rc's HDR acronym I was trying to dredge up to consider v-a-v EBR.

added on edit: And, I think I will try out GPR in my posting adventures in the internet 'discussions world.'

Jim H.
 
Last edited:
I just use the term Evil Black Rifle, or I just call my rifles what they are (i.e. Sig 556 or Springfield M1A). But most anti-gunners couldn't tell you what an "assault weapon" is, let alone what an assault rifle is. I've had the pleasure to shoot sub-machine guns, assault rifles, light, medium, and heavy machine guns, and own and shoot battle rifles. Personally, I appreciate the difference between those classes.
 
Calling an AR (or other ebr) an "evil black rifle" is a good way to:

A. go on offense against the ignorant/emotional crowd (which they are NEVER expecting because they're used to us essentially begging for our rights). Anti gunners are cowards who hide behind government to limit our rights. Instead of trying to find a "soft" name for your AR, and calling it an "evil black rifle" is a show of defiance to the anti's crap and forces them to come up with a semi intelligent argument, which they cannot do.

B. flat out take away their shallow emotional methods that usually put us on the defensive. The antis are used to winning arguments with emotional and shallow one liners while we try to be nice and logical. Calling it an EBR essentially says "we're through playing nice and being pushovers."

NSSF's intentions are good, but really lame and desperate sounding. The absolute last thing we need to be doing is uttering that stupid word "sporting." It just gives the antis a victory by ADMITTING that there are "sporting" guns and "non sporting" guns. In reality, there are just firearms. A gun is a gun.

I predict that NSSF's horrible attempt here will be forgotten within hours after people read it.
 
Last edited:
I suspect gunnies can live with just about any name; for the uninformed, any name may be threatening. The only PC point I make is, "just don't go with 'assault weapons'; it's a political definition."

Jim H.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top