Tired of "Assault Weapons"

[henschman]

I don't like to take the tack of defending my right to own my rifles by saying that they are just semi-automatic and therefore harmless. It is disingenuous for a couple reasons.

First, there really isn't much difference in fighting effectiveness between full auto and semi auto. In fact, for a rifle or carbine, fully automatic fire is generally less effective at getting hits and really upps the misses-per-hits ratio. Hence the reason that the military doesn't even teach troops to use full auto fire on such weapons (machine guns are a different story though). Hence the reason most of the military's M-14s had the selector switch blocked in the 60s, and hence the reason the military took away the F/A trigger groups on the M-16s in favor of 3 round burst after Vietnam, and train troops to exclusively use semi auto.

It is also disingenuous because I don't believe my right to own something is dependent on it's "dangerousness" or effectiveness as a weapon. Arguing on your opponent's terms is not a winning strategy for you or your rights. Hence the reason I will never use the term "modern sporting rifle." I do not own such weapons for sporting purposes. I own them for the purposes the founders had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. If you're going to make up some alternate terminology for them, you should call them "2A purpose rifles."

 

[hq]

A acquaintance commented that he couldn't understand why I owned an AR because their only use was to kill people :banghead:

That kind of people don't want to hear the question whether the real problem is the private ownership of certain firearms for hunting, target shooting and self defense, or some ignorant and obviously disturbed individuals who only think about killing people when seeing an inanimate object.

Or, plainly, if you want to skip all eloquence: "Kill people? I can't believe you said that! You have a sick, homicidal imagination! Have you been watching too many movies or something?"

 

[mljdeckard]

It's a rifle.

Imagine the uproar, when rifles like the 1917 Enfield were unleashed on the public. Six round capacity, 1700 yard ladder sights, the new, devastating, cover-shattering cartridge known as a 30 'ought' six, and you can even put a bayonet on it. Now criminals will be able to randomly kill people from hundreds of yards away. This kind of technology has no purpose in the hands of civilians.

Or the saddle guns, some of which, if I'm not mistaken, had a logic-defying capacity of eighteen rounds. If you can fire that rifle eighteen times without reloading, how can an unarmed bystander get a chance to jump on you while you are on a killing rampage?

It just a rifle. A utility rifle if you wish.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Did or did not Centers for Disease Control and National Academy of Sciences fail to find proof that the original 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban did any good? Rifles are least likely of all firearms to be used in crime, military rifles or military style replicas are fraction of all rifles, so what is the point?

Weapons and vehicles described as "assault" or "storm" basically are just compact and/or quick, and that description is more of an opposite to cumbersome or slow than an indication of use in assault.

Yes, vehicles can be counted as "assault arms". The Amnesty International website on the UN Arms Trade Treaty not only points out that modern sporting rifles are often equivalent to military assualt rifles or sniper rifles, but also points out that "police" vehicles are often identical to military vehicles, just with different paint jobs. Possible Hummer bummer: "end user certficate" producible on demand to international arms inspectors.

My proposal is to ban use of the word "assault" as an adjective, and restrict it to use only as a verb with a subject and object.

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.

I get tired of hearing that too. The worst murderer in my hometown killed three people in two seperate attacks using a knife in one and a baseball bat in a double homicide. Were the knife and baseball bat he used as weapons to actually assault (and kill) of military design origin, with features like folding stock, pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet lug, detachable magazine or have a shoulder thing that goes up? Would banning folding stocks, pistol grips, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, detachable magazines or upgoing shoulder things have saved any lives?

I own an M70AB2 myself, plus a M1 carbine and a semiauto Thimpson, as military history curios, and for use in military matches at the club. My home defense weapons are a .38 revolver and a 12ga shotgun.

kactikel[/i]: he couldn't understand why I owned an AR because their only use was to kill people

They used to say that about military surplus Lee Enfields, Springfields, Mausers back in the 1950s and 1960s, even though most people who own military origin guns use them for hunting, military target shooting (including government-sponsored Civilian Marksmanship programs), collection as historical curios, and all manner of legitimate uses. I wonder if the guy who declared that owned a knife or baseball bat or both?

I like hq[/i]'s response: ""Kill people? I can't believe you said that! You have a sick, homicidal imagination! Have you been watching too many movies or something?"" Imagine telling Jay Leno: "I can't understand why you own a V8 Ford because their only use is to outrun the law after robbing a bank."

Illegitimi non carborundum

That has always puzzled me. Does that translate as "b******d files are not whetstones"?

 

[k_dawg]

"Assault Weapon" is a term created to confuse the ignorant masses. Those masses believe the AWB was about machine guns, Uzi's etc.

They have no clue it was about outlawing things like a bayonet mount.
Not the bayonet mind you, but the mount.

 

[JustinJ]

I find it funny how many people who complain about the improper use of the term "assault rifle" refer to non-Colt AR clones as AR-15's.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I could not care less about other folk's terminologies for the most part - incorrect/misleading or not.
I also don't care about the following as have been applied to choices of mine:

Rice Rocket
Crotch Rocket
Assault Dog
Saturday Night Special
Gas Hog
Snake Eater
Baby Killer

I'd just as soon have most chuckle heads talk straight outa their rears up front and that way get an early heads-up as to where they're comin' from.

Ignorance is a point of view also.

 

[Onmilo]

ApacheCoTodd LOL don't forget "Tactical Parrot"

 

[beatledog7]

I would never suggest that we should call AK or AR type platform a "modern sporting rifle" or by any moniker that in any way suggests it is not ultimately designed for defense against tyranny. I do suggest, however, that we make a habit of avoiding use of overly generalized and thus not entirely accurate terms the antis want to apply broadly.

Whatever one selects for the ultimate purpose of causing harm to another person--and only during the time he or she is using it or is prepared to quickly use it for that purpose--is a weapon. Nothing else is. A baseball bat in the hands of a little leaguer on deck is a sporting implement. The same bat later picked up by a parent to fend off a parking lot mugger is a weapon. A loaded Glock 17 and AR-15 pointed downrange are simply a pistol and a rifle. In your nightstand or leaning against the back door, they're weapons.

Intent, not potential, is the determining factor.

Sometimes a weapon is selected for defense; the law-abiding person choosing to carry a .380 in his pocket has no intent to initiate a situation which would dictate its use; he hopes that it will remain untouched all day, and it almost always does. Sometimes, such as when terrorists use box cutters to threaten injury and then a jet airliner to kill thousands, the selection is made for the purpose of initiating a situation intended to result in harm to another person: to commit assault. That makes both the box cutter and the aircraft assault weapons, even though that is not what their makers had in mind.

Again, intent is the determiner. Harm-causing potential should have no bearing. If we allow it to, darn near everything could be banned.

 

[henschman]

A acquaintance commented that he couldn't understand why I owned an AR because their only use was to kill people

Rather than trying to defend our ownership of such things by pointing out their non-killing uses, I prefer to simply ask, "do you believe that there is no one out there who needs to be killed?"

 

[bassdogs]

After reading thru all these posts, the thought that comes to my mind is not about the "assault rifle" but rather the "assault shooter" if you can follow me. The concept of needing to own an AR or AK has born a whole breed of what I call Zombie shooters. OK there I go with another moniker, but IMHO there are those among us who like to shoot and shoot a lot, who like to send a lot of lead down range and those who get particular pleasure out of combat type shooting ranges over the old style bulls eye shooting. I get it and enjoy it too. Nothing wrong here. I don't have any issues with the enactors either. Assault shooters that I have issues with are those who have lost sight of real shooting and how to make a weapon effective and have gone bonkers about dressing up their "zombie" gun with everything but the kitchen sink. Anybody remember the swiss army knives that started as basic camping or all purpose pocket knives? In there hay day, models came out with so many appliances that they were as wide as they were long. They were effectively useless for the original purpose intended.

I am a "kiss" believer. Keep it simple. Just like my HD shotgun is a short barreled 870. No rails, no pistol grip, no light, no lazer, no folding stock, no red dot scope, no semi auto drum mag etc etc etc. The HD carbine doesn't need all the jewelry either to be effective. In closing, its not the assault rifle, but the assault Zombie that I think is the real issue. Like they say, guns don't kill but shooters do.

 

[hq]

After reading thru all these posts, the thought that comes to my mind is not about the "assault rifle" but rather the "assault shooter" if you can follow me. The concept of needing to own an AR or AK has born a whole breed of what I call Zombie shooters.

I really don't think so. They've been around much longer than the fad of installing even one auxiliary aftermarket rail to a gun. Back when I bought my first AR/AK, the hottest novelty was a plastic clip to attach a MiniMaglite to the barrel. By the way, who these "assault shooters" are assaulting, to earn a moniker like that?

 

[mike.h]

MSR, I like it.

 

[Ro1911]

Personally all of my weapons are for "assault" and to label them as semi automatic sporting arms is offensive, the issue isn't what they are called but it is whether or not the 2nd amendment protects weapons or just hunting rifles. Clearly by using the word arms all weapons are protected so it doesn't matter if their called infant death rifles or target rifles they are all protected. Just my 2 cents but I don't give a **** what they are called as long as we're talking about the same thing.

 

[k_dawg]

I peronsally do not like the logic behind the idea to differentiate AR's from M-16s. The tactic of "We agree, real assault rifles in civilian hands is wrong; but look! This AR-15 is not a real assault rifle. It is a semi auto. So it's fine to own. Especially without a bayonet mount!"

Well bunkus!

The purpose of the second amendment is not about hunting. It is not about sport shooting. It isn't even about punching paper.

It is about defending one's liberty. And using the test of Miller vs US, 1939, the current firearm protected by the 2nd amendment is not a hunting rifle. It is not a clay side by side shotgun. It isn't a semi-auto AK-47 knockoff. It isn't an AR-15.

It is an M-4 select fire carbine. It is a select fire G36, or MP5, or FN-SCAR. It is a 'normal' 15 round capacity M9.

A civilian living in a free society has more _right_ to a real M-16, than a Ruger 10/22.
One is for fighting, the other is for fun.

 

[Trent]

Yup. Second amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to hunt or target shoot.

It guarantees you the right (I would argue a responsibility, if it is within your means) to maintain a deterrent to tyranny and oppression.

With as many guns as people in this country, I think we've done a damn fine job.

But that slope constantly erodes as people have shown they will continually, and reliably, trade security for freedom.

 

[k_dawg]

I would like to point out 'Assault' is the threat of force. At least in the US.

Brandishing, threatening or attempting to use any firearm can be considered "Assault with a deadly weapon" or "Aggrevated Assault".

It is seperate from actual use (contact) of force. That would be Battery up to Murder.

So, it could be argued that an 'assault rifle' is one which you miss your target.

 

[stsimons]

On a different note...

I have seen a nice saltwater fishing boat named A Salt Weapon...

 

[Trent]

I would like to point out 'Assault' is the threat of force. At least in the US.

Brandishing, threatening or attempting to use any firearm can be considered "Assault with a deadly weapon" or "Aggrevated Assault".

It is seperate from actual use (contact) of force. That would be Battery up to Murder.

So, it could be argued that an 'assault rifle' is one which you miss your target.

I was all "where the hell is he going with this" until the last line.

Very nice.

 

[stsimons]

I was assaulted by an operator using their platform but I told them they had the wrong number... so they apologized and hung up.

Sorry... could not resist.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Yup. Second amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to hunt or target shoot.

It guarantees you the right (I would argue a responsibility, if it is within your means) to maintain a deterrent to tyranny and oppression.

With as many guns as people in this country, I think we've done a damn fine job.

But that slope constantly erodes as people have shown they will continually, and reliably, trade security for freedom.

Sad thing is, security isn't even a sure thing. Statistically, countries with a higher gun/civilian ratio per capita has a substantially lower crime rate than our own as a whole.

Food for thought.