Tired of "Assault Weapons"

[TrickyDick]

I own a M70AB2 (Yugo AK folding stock) and an AR-15, when i hear people refer to them as "Assault weapons", it makes me cringe. Is there any hope in educating these people? i mean, i asked someone to define "Assault Weapon", and they simply said "AK-47", and I asked "why?" and got nothing. Even in the gun community, i talk to people who seem to be on board with gun rights and what not, refer to these rifles as "Assault Weapons". Will this ever end? Has anyone ever got into an argument with someone who claimed to know what "Assault Weapons" are, and why they should be banned? It's driving me insane!!!

 

[armoredman]

Much rehashed subject, but I will state that "assault weapons" are what ever is used to assault someone, be it a bat, knife, gun or Cadillac. An "assault rifle" is generally defined as a select fire magazine fed rifle of intermediate caliber. Many point to the definition from the 1994 AWB, but that law no longer exists nationally and that definition went with it. None of my rifles are "assault rifles" as neither are capable of fully automatic fire. Being semi-auto, they aren't military rifles, either, despite the fact that they greatly resemble the longest currently serving "assault rifle" in history to date. They are simply magazine fed semi auto rifles that have features that make them more comfortable for me to use and enjoy legally, wther that be for defense, target shooting, or now hunting.

 

[Snowdog]

There will be no end to ignorance. Educate those you can and suffer the rest. There's no use pulling hour hair out over it.

 

[ricebasher302]

I hear you. I get very aggravated by the ignorant usage of the term. It is perhaps applicable when educated people are referencing the design and/or implementation of arms in war (i.e. "battle rifle", "sniper rifle", "assault rifle"). Beyond that, anything that can be used to stab, beat, bludgeon, dismember, decapitate, lacerate, puncture or otherwise maliciously wound or kill a human is an assault weapon. A gun fires a projectile that is capable of killing. A Cricket .22 and an FN P90 would both fit the role in the wrong hands.

 

[browningguy]

Good luck changing the rest of the world.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I live in New Jersey but I am not bothered by salt weapons:



But I am a strong supporter of very strict gun control.
Especially with handguns.
Focus should be kept on the front sight,
and follow-up shots should be quick but not rushed.

 

[r1derbike]

Lost a little spittle there, bushmaster!

In another thread the term MSR was mentioned (Modern Sports Rifle).

Sounds plenty benign, to keep antis' bowels from getting in an uproar.

 

[henschman]

There is nothing wrong with a little assaulting from time to time, as long as the right people get assaulted. That is a power I would very much like to remain with every individual. Rifles of the sort mentioned are very much geared toward an offensive role... and there is not a thing wrong with that. The maintenance of an armed citizenry capable of defending its liberty against centralized authority is in fact the main political function of the right to bear arms. That is more the type of thinking I would like to see more people come around to, beyond any quibbling over terminology.

 

[Andrew Leigh]

I own a M70AB2 (Yugo AK folding stock) and an AR-15, when i hear people refer to them as "Assault weapons", it makes me cringe. Is there any hope in educating these people? i mean, i asked someone to define "Assault Weapon", and they simply said "AK-47", and I asked "why?" and got nothing. Even in the gun community, i talk to people who seem to be on board with gun rights and what not, refer to these rifles as "Assault Weapons". Will this ever end? Has anyone ever got into an argument with someone who claimed to know what "Assault Weapons" are, and why they should be banned? It's driving me insane!!!

If they are not assault weapons then what are they?

Correct me if my understanding is incorrect. They were designed for military use, used by armies all over the world. Almost every clip you see of conflict around the world will have AK's featuring prominently. It is only in more recent times that these weapons (an alternate variants) have become popular with civilian populations, why I have no idea, I had my fill of assault weapons whilst in active duty.

The term "Assault" has been in use since the 15th centuary and refers to a;

- military attack
- physical attack on others
- verbal attack

An AK47 is widely know as an "assault rifle" and the rifle was primarily designed for the war arena. A baseball bat can be used to kill but was never designed for that.

MSR? My mate has an AR15, every Saturday he dresses up in para military gear and trots off to the range and practices what ......assault, with dozens of like mined friends. They simulate comabatitive conditions and "take out" imaginary people in both urban and bush environments.

Although I have had my fill of assault weapons I have no problem with those wishing to own and enjoy them. My comments are not against "assault weapon" owners but simply that in my opinion things must be called what they are rather than inventing and using politically correct terms.

If the government wants to ban what they see as assault weapons they will ban them even if you call them MSR's.

 

[TrickyDick]

The thing that irritates me the most is "why do you need an 'assault weapon'?" my answer usually goes "To defend liberty till my last breath against enemies, foreign and domestic." -"Only police and the military should have 'assault weapons'."- *FACEPALM*

 

[TrickyDick]

They were designed for military use, used by armies all over the world.

Assault is a verb, not an adjective. so basically my Mosin Nagant is an assault rifle right?
or how about a Kentucky Flintlock rifle? i could assault you with my shoe, does it make it an assault shoe? discriminating a rifle because of cosmetic features is ignorant and childish. An AR-15 is no more deadly than my Mini-14.

 

[Onmilo]

"Assault Rifle" is any rifled long gun one grabs to join in the fray.
"Assault Weapon" is any weapon one latches onto to join in the fray.
Both have far deeper meaning than what is implied when Anti's begin spewing their rhetoric,,,,

 

[David E]

If they are not assault weapons then what are they?

Correct me if my understanding is incorrect. They were designed for military use.....

I'd be happy to correct you: the military guns to which you refer are capable of full auto or burst fire.

The civilian AR-15 is not.

The MSR label isn't to convince the anti-gun legislators of anything, but to maybe garner a bit of support or understanding from the folks that never really thought about it.

Many gun makers are bringing out AR's in camo, etc, intended for hunting afield.

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle for a reason, and it has little to do with assaulting people.

 

[RhinoDefense]

If they are not assault weapons then what are they?

Semi automatic rifles. Simple.

An AK47 is widely know as an "assault rifle" and the rifle was primarily designed for the war arena.

A true AK47 is fully automatic which fires an intermediate cartridge, thus meets the definition of an assault rifle.

MSR? My mate has an AR15, every Saturday he dresses up in para military gear and trots off to the range and practices what ......assault, with dozens of like mined friends. They simulate comabatitive conditions and "take out" imaginary people in both urban and bush environments.

If your mate plays commando, fine. The term MSR or Modern Sporting Rifle was coined by the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation), a gun rights organization, to take the heat off the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" incorrectly used to describe semi automatic versions of fully automatic rifles. The ATF has long held some false fascination with firearms needing a "sporting" purpose because they wrongfully opined the 2nd Amendment has to do with sporting purposes. The MSR term is being used as marketing for the same reason lever action and bolt action repeating rifles got blasted by the traditional shooters using single shot rifles. The MSR term is trying to change the image of a camo dressed guy hip firing into a crowd of woman and children to the image of a hunter using an AR15 to hunt and provide food for his family, to target shoot for recreation, or to shoot competitively for a profession.

If the government wants to ban what they see as assault weapons they will ban them even if you call them MSR's.

Problem for the anti gun crowd is we have more laws on our side than they do. The government machine itself doesn't care what we have as long as we have the paperwork and follow the law.

 

[Andrew Leigh]

I'd be happy to correct you: the military guns to which you refer are capable of full auto or burst fire.

The civilian AR-15 is not.

The MSR label isn't to convince the anti-gun legislators of anything, but to maybe garner a bit of support or understanding from the folks that never really thought about it.

Many gun makers are bringing out AR's is camo, etc, intended for hunting afield.

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle for a reason, and it has little to do with assaulting people.

Thanks David E,

Are the AR's limited to single shot in the US? Is it possible to to modify them back to fully automatic?

Are AK's also modified for single shot use?

 

[TrickyDick]

AR's and AK's are semi-automatic.

 

[Davek1977]

They aren't modified for "single-shot use" nor can they legally, in most cases, be converted back to full auto. They are, for the very most part, semi-automatic firearms that fire one projectile with each trigger pull.

 

[Andrew Leigh]

Assault is a verb, not an adjective. so basically my Mosin Nagant is an assault rifle right?
or how about a Kentucky Flintlock rifle? i could assault you with my shoe, does it make it an assault shoe? discriminating a rifle because of cosmetic features is ignorant and childish. An AR-15 is no more deadly than my Mini-14.

I was not personally attacking you so your comments are a little out of place in a constuctive debate where I am trying to understand you viewpoint.

I think that if the original design intent of a weapon was that of "assault" then the tag should stay. So a baseball bat will stay as such and not be called a assault weapon though is would be most successful at the job. A shoe was not designed for assault so that is not a fair comparison.

I was also trying to make the point that "assault" in terms of military weapons is more often than not referred to their use in the theatre of war.

Done a little reading, I must concede that the later AR type weapons were probably designed as a defensive weapons and so the "assault" tag for these would be a little unfair. It is complicated however as every army arms themselves with assault weapons to defend their countries rights?

 

[David E]

Thanks David E,

Are the AR's limited to single shot in the US?

Not in most states.

Is it possible to to modify them back to fully automatic?

"Back to fully automatic?" Damn few outside of the military and law enforcement were EVER configured as full auto, so it would be impossible to "modify them back to full auto.

If you're asking if it's possible to convert them ILLEGALLY to full auto, that's outside the purview of this thread, since 99.9% of gunowners are law abiding.

I think that if the original design intent of a weapon was that of "assault" then the tag should stay.

You do realize it was the anti gunners that perverted the term to include mean looking semi-autos, right?

I was also trying to make the point that "assault" in terms of military weapons is more often than not referred to their use in the theatre of war.

Nope. In 1994, more than one "News" source showed video of a fully automatic AK-47 blazing away saying, "this 'Assault Wepons bill would ban guns like this AK-47..."

army arms themselves with assault weapons to defend their countries rights?

Please cite how many only issue semi-autos.

 

[Andrew Leigh]

Fair enough, it is obviously an emotive topic and not being US based it is difficult to understand the history.

We have out fair share of anti gun people here.

So essentiall the argument is that semi-automatic rifles are not to be lumped in with their fully automatic brothers and that semi-auto's are for protection and not for attack and should be seen as such. Would that be about it?

I must be honest I thought you boys were allowed to make them fully auto hence my misunderstanding.

 

[Hacker15E]

I must be honest I thought you boys were allowed to make them fully auto hence my misunderstanding.

That's okay, there are legions of Americans who don't understand that not-so-subtle difference, either.

The difference is, they're happy in their ignorance and have no desire to understand.

 

[Ash]

The issue is that "Assault Weapon" is a catch-phrase used by the enemies of gun ownership in the US against gun ownership. The real problem with the term is that it is vague, ill-defined, and amorphous by design, so that anything might be so labeled. A Browning A5 could be an assault weapon based on some versions of the definition.

Other phrases used by the foes of firearms liberty are "high powered" which refers to all arms except 22lr and employed only to generate emotional response to a firearm's use, "sniper rifle" which includes all hunting rifles with a scope plus all semi-auto's with a scope, and "high capacity" which infers that any magazine above ten rounds is somehow more than normal.

Yet the previous three terms at least have uses by the shooting community. Assault Weapon is not a term generally used by the shooting community because it is frankly a useless term. It does very little to identify an arm. Worse, as used by the left, it serves only as a tool against us.

They will continue to use the term. Trying to get the general public to use different terms for semi-automatic firearms is the goal in order to sway public opinion and prevent legislation to once more ban them (perhaps in more severe ways). So it is a case of semantics. Control of the term. Frankly, the good news is the fact that Wal Mart sells AR's. While I have grown tired of every thread on THR being hijacked by AR guys - why bother even discussing semi-auto rifles as the AR guys will jump in and point out why your choice is pathetic and theirs is best - seeing AR-type rifles sold at Wal Mart, as well as Academy, Gander Mountain, and Dicks is far more valuable than any use of a term. People see the rifles, see normal people looking at them, and any mystique associated with "Assault Weapons" goes away.

 

[Walkalong]

That's okay, there are legions of Americans who don't understand that not-so-subtle difference, either.

Thanks to a media that bombards viewers with the term "assault rifle" while either showing or talking about full auto when really talking about a semi auto firearm. It is a carefully orchestrated campaign to scare voters who are not knowledgeable about guns, and AR's and AK's in particular.

I cannot count how many non gun owners think you can walk into a gun store and walk out five minutes later with a full auto firearm. The media blitz spreading this misinformation works, and gets support for more gun laws, which are usually cleverly crafted to include more kinds of weapons than they report to be after.

 

[Hokkmike]

TrickyDick, truth is - the people you are talking about DON'T want to know the difference. Their deliberate ignorance bolsters their bias and justifies their fear and anti reasoning.

To some other responders of the OP:

And no, these semi auto copies of the real thing ARE NOT "assault weapons". No soldier or marine would conceive of going into combat with any of the civilian versions.

They are semi autos dressed up to look mean. Kind of like this year how the Eagles look like a football team. (yes, I am a fan however frustrated - you get the analogy)

 

[rodinal220]

Modern
Sporting
Rifle