BAN the term "Assault" weapon.

[MAC702]

...The NRA understands this. In our Instructors' manuals and classes we are admonished to never refer to a firearm as a "weapon." It is a gun, a handgun, a rifle, a shotgun, etc., but the word weapon has negative connotations...

The NRA only has this custom in basic handling and safety classes.

They do use the term "weapon" in the personal protection classes.

 

[MAC702]

Hunting rifles after WW1 were often Springfield M1903's. Hunting rifles now are often AR-15's. Big deal. Indeed, a Springfield M1903 at that time could be modified into a semi-automatic (Pederson Device) more easily than a modern AR-15 can be modified into a fully-automatic. Someone with the skills to do the latter could actually more easily make a stand-alone submachine gun anyway.

Nether are "assault weapons," a term INVENTED by the media, and adopted by anti-gun politicians. Primus, we should not be using the term, EVEN IF we need to assault someone with it. I will defend myself with ANYTHING. That does not make everything an "assault weapon."

 

[Primus]

The NRA only has this custom in basic handling and safety classes.

They do use the term "weapon" in the personal protection classes.

Agreed I got hemmed up in my instructor classes for BP and HFS but they lightened up a little in the courses for PPIH and PPOH.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

Hunting rifles after WW1 were often Springfield M1903's. Hunting rifles now are often AR-15's. Big deal. Indeed, a Springfield M1903 at that time could be modified into a semi-automatic (Pederson Device) more easily than a modern AR-15 can be modified into a fully-automatic. Someone with the skills to do the latter could actually more easily make a stand-alone submachine gun anyway.

Nether are "assault weapons," a term INVENTED by the media, and adopted by anti-gun politicians. Primus, we should not be using the term, EVEN IF we need to assault someone with it. I will defend myself with ANYTHING. That does not make everything an "assault weapon."

Mac that doesn't address the intent and design of the weapon. I addresses that earlier. Everything from the caliber of round to feeding method to operation type is grades to be effective in hurting other people.

The army didn't have the M4 made with the idea of hunting deer in mind. They said to Colt "hey build me a gun that soldiers can assault objectives with".

And I submit assault isn't meant in the assault/batter usage but as in "assault the objective" sense.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

Mac that doesn't address the intent and design of the weapon. I addresses that earlier. Everything from the caliber of round to feeding method to operation type is grades to be effective in hurting other people.

The army didn't have the M4 made with the idea of hunting deer in mind. They said to Colt "hey build me a gun that soldiers can assault objectives with".

And I submit assault isn't meant in the assault/batter usage but as in "assault the objective" sense.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Soooo, you are claiming that the Colt Walker is a assault weapon?

 

[Primus]

Soooo, you are claiming that the Colt Walker is a assault weapon?

Was a colt Walker designed to be carried by soldiers as a standard issue weapon while deploying?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[MAC702]

Mac that doesn't address the intent and design of the weapon. I addresses that earlier. Everything from the caliber of round to feeding method to operation type is grades to be effective in hurting other people.

The army didn't have the M4 made with the idea of hunting deer in mind. They said to Colt "hey build me a gun that soldiers can assault objectives with".

And I submit assault isn't meant in the assault/batter usage but as in "assault the objective" sense.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The bolt-action rifle wasn't designed for deer-hunting, either.

And the AR-15 was designed from inception for selective-fully-automatic fire. It was only later specifically modified for semi-automatic-only fire for the civilian market. In other words, it was neutered to be no more capable than any other deer rifle.

Please tell me you are not someone who thinks a rifle's LOOKS determines its suitable purposes.

Side point: it was not designed by Colt, unless you are just counting the modifications to make an M4 out of an AR-15.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Was a colt Walker designed to be carried by soldiers as a standard issue weapon while deploying?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Are you that ignorant of history? The Colt Walker was designed for the Texas Rangers by Colt. Back then most handguns were not issued. Up until post WW2 most soldiers bought their own sidearms. It was designed to be used to shoot people, so according to your posting a black powder, six shot percussion handgun is a assault weapon. Now as foolish as that sounds, it is how foolish your description of a assault weapon is. The term did not come up until Adolf Hitler coined it, and it was to describe a selective fire intermediate round compact weapon.

Only antis decided to use it for guns that do not fit the bill. But ignorance by the antis is not surprising.

ETA the first assault weapons had WOOD furniture....LOL

BTW the AR 15 is not designed for troop deployment. Duhhhhhhhhh!

 

[Primus]

The bolt-action rifle wasn't designed for deer-hunting, either.

And the AR-15 was designed from inception for selective-fully-automatic fire. It was only later specifically modified for semi-automatic-only fire for the civilian market. In other words, it was neutered to be no more capable than any other deer rifle.

Please tell me you are not someone who thinks a rifle's LOOKS determines its suitable purposes.

Side point: it was not designed by Colt, unless you are just counting the modifications to make an M4 out of an AR-15.

Mac that's my point... Ar its inception it was designed to be full auto (then burst) because it was designed for the military. THEN they "nuetered" it by changing to semi auto only.

That's my point... I do t think that ONE characteristic is enough to go from aw to "neutered hunting rifle". Still same caliber, same Harrell lengths(close) same operating system same buffer tubes buffers buffer springs triggers trigger guards..... upper AND lower receiver all the SAME.

I really don't think if you have the same EXACT rifle but one only fires semi auto its now a "hunting " rifle. Hell i can bump fire my rifle with its 4.5 lb trigger and get a good rate of fire.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[MAC702]

Mac that's my point... Ar its inception it was designed to be full auto (then burst) because it was designed for the military. THEN they "nuetered" it by changing to semi auto only.

That's my point... I do t think that ONE characteristic is enough to go from aw to "neutered hunting rifle". Still same caliber, same Harrell lengths(close) same operating system same buffer tubes buffers buffer springs triggers trigger guards..... upper AND lower receiver all the SAME.

I really don't think if you have the same EXACT rifle but one only fires semi auto its now a "hunting " rifle. Hell i can bump fire my rifle with its 4.5 lb trigger and get a good rate of fire.

Even if you don't want to call it a "hunting rifle," it is not as "assault weapon," either, right? FWIW, I took two deer in Texas this year. The first was with an AR-15 in .300 Blackout and the other was with a M14-style rifle in .308. Neither rifle was designed for "hunting." My partner uses an AR-15 in .223 and another in .300 Blackout for his deer.

Remember that shooting sports include a more speed and accuracy competitions that ever before. It truly is the choice of most sportsmen.

Indeed, an assault rifle is a poor weapon for assaults, anyway.

Ask the media, and there are only three kinds of guns:
Assault weapons (semi-auto or faster)
Sniper rifles (all other rifles)
Handguns

The media almost never mentions shotguns for some reason. Probably because every President has had their picture taken with one.

 

[Citizen]

Honestly to not call an ar15 an assault rifle is like not calling a Lamborghini an exotic car... as long as the Lamborghini has less the 500 horse....NASCAR cars are still race cars even after they put restrictor plates on them....

That definition says "has capacity to switch". I'd say the rifles do have the capacity. With modification you can make it work. It doesn't say "capacity in its PRESENT form". For example.... Remington 700 will NEVER have capacity to become full auto or even burst fire. So its not remotely an assault rifle.

99.9% of my Ar is the same as my issued rifle in the military rifle (i would say due to my 400 geissele trigger my personal rifle is much better). So of my rifle is designed to be deployed by soldiers then its an assault rifle.

The debate shouldn't be what to call it... debate should be that we can KEEP it. IMHO to try and fight the name it almost seems dishonest.

Let the screaming begin....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

This poster's ideas are logically fallacious. He is making an identity (same thing) out of a similarity (similar thing).

He is saying that because it can be changed (switched out), it is changed and is thus the same thing.

___________________________


It helps to know the history of military rifles. And, a little about military operations.

Think back to 1903. Rifles were made for battlefield distances out to 1000-1200 yards. Think, battlefield distances of WWI. Think, the Springfield 1903, shortly after chambered in 30-.06, and the German K98 Mauser (7mm?). These were called battle rifles. They were bolt-action, and fired a cartridge effective out to 1000-1200 yards, meaning they could put a man out of the fight at that distance.

Then came the Sturmgewher in 1944, the first assault rifle. German engineers realized it would be very handy to have a weapon that bridged the gap between a battle rifle and a sub-machine gun (pistol ammo). It could fire full-auto, but it also fired a bullet at higher pressures than a pistol, thus it was effective at distances a sub-machine gun (pistol ammo) could only dream of.

Now, pay close attention. There are different phases of military operations. One is referred to as attack. Attack in military parlance means something different from what everyday useage might imply. It does not mean the indian attack on the blue-coat fort. In military parlance, attack means the movement towards the enemy. For example, the general discovers the enemy divisions are forty mile away. And, he immediately starts moving his troops by truck and foot towards the enemy for an engagement. That movement towards the enemy--that phase of military operations--is called the attack. Doesn't matter whether its US armor moving sixty miles across Iraqi desert in order to engage Iraqi units, or one mile. The troops moving toward the enemy in order to engage them is attack.

Assault is the final phase. The attack brought everybody within, say, the last 100 yards of the enemy. Everybody is in position. Everybody stands up as one, and makes the final aggressive movement towards and through the objective. This is the assault phase.

Now, remember when I mentioned sub-machine guns (pistol ammo)? This where the distinction starts to come into play. Imagine a guy with a bolt-action battle rifle assaulting an enemy line or room-to-room inside a farm house. The time is compressed. He may dispatch one enemy, and another pop up before he has time to work the bolt, thus the bayonet. A sub-machine gun is very handy in this phase. Spray the trench. Spray the room. Hit that guy with a quick burst; and, when the next one comes around the corner in less time than you could have worked the bolt on a battle rifle, give him a quick burst, too. So, you see how the sub-machine gun (full-auto, but pistol ammo) is a benefit over a battle rifle during the assault phase?

But, what about when you're trying to assault a farmhouse with fifty or a hundred yards between you and them? You're at the outer limit of sub-machine gun (pistol ammo) effectiveness. And, sub-machine guns aren't exactly shoulder weapons you can sight with fine precision. "Oh, lemme get my battle rifle for this distance; then, when I get inside the farmhouse, I'll pull out my sub-machine gun." Suuuuuuuure.

Thus, the assault rifle was invented. It is effective as a single-shot at longer possible assault distances and can switch to full-auto at the up-close-and-personal assault distances.

Thus, the term assault rifle. It is most definitely a military weapon. And, it most definitely is capable of full-auto. If a rifle only fires semi-auto, it is no different from an M1 Garand (battle rifle), during the assault phase.

 

[conandan]

The use of the term assault rifle is used for no other reason to instill fear in those who don't know any better. They use terms that will get an emotional response. Look at the great state of California. They now use the term assault bullets. What is an assault bullet?

Banning the word is not the answer. Educating people is how to fix things.

 

[Primus]

This poster's ideas are logically fallacious. He is making an identity (same thing) out of a similarity (similar thing).

He is saying that because it can be changed (switched out), it is changed and is thus the same thing.

___________________________


It helps to know the history of military rifles. And, a little about military operations.

Think back to 1903. Rifles were made for battlefield distances out to 1000-1200 yards. Think, battlefield distances of WWI. Think, the Springfield 1903, shortly after chambered in 30-.06, and the German K98 Mauser (7mm?). These were called battle rifles. They were bolt-action, and fired a cartridge effective out to 1000-1200 yards, meaning they could put a man out of the fight at that distance.

Then came the Sturmgewher in 1944, the first assault rifle. German engineers realized it would be very handy to have a weapon that bridged the gap between a battle rifle and a sub-machine gun (pistol ammo). It could fire full-auto, but it also fired a bullet at higher pressures than a pistol, thus it was effective at distances a sub-machine gun (pistol ammo) could only dream of.

Now, pay close attention. There are different phases of military operations. One is referred to as attack. Attack in military parlance means something different from what everyday useage might imply. It does not mean the indian attack on the blue-coat fort. In military parlance, attack means the movement towards the enemy. For example, the general discovers the enemy divisions are forty mile away. And, he immediately starts moving his troops by truck and foot towards the enemy for an engagement. That movement towards the enemy--that phase of military operations--is called the attack. Doesn't matter whether its US armor moving sixty miles across Iraqi desert in order to engage Iraqi units, or one mile. The troops moving toward the enemy in order to engage them is attack.

Assault is the final phase. The attack brought everybody within, say, the last 100 yards of the enemy. Everybody is in position. Everybody stands up as one, and makes the final aggressive movement towards and through the objective. This is the assault phase.

Now, remember when I mentioned sub-machine guns (pistol ammo)? This where the distinction starts to come into play. Imagine a guy with a bolt-action battle rifle assaulting an enemy line or room-to-room inside a farm house. The time is compressed. He may dispatch one enemy, and another pop up before he has time to work the bolt, thus the bayonet. A sub-machine gun is very handy in this phase. Spray the trench. Spray the room. Hit that guy with a quick burst; and, when the next one comes around the corner in less time than you could have worked the bolt on a battle rifle, give him a quick burst, too. So, you see how the sub-machine gun (full-auto, but pistol ammo) is a benefit over a battle rifle during the assault phase?

But, what about when you're trying to assault a farmhouse with fifty or a hundred yards between you and them? You're at the outer limit of sub-machine gun (pistol ammo) effectiveness. And, sub-machine guns aren't exactly shoulder weapons you can sight with fine precision. "Oh, lemme get my battle rifle for this distance; then, when I get inside the farmhouse, I'll pull out my sub-machine gun." Suuuuuuuure.

Thus, the assault rifle was invented. It is effective as a single-shot at longer possible assault distances and can switch to full-auto at the up-close-and-personal assault distances.

Thus, the term assault rifle. It is most definitely a military weapon. And, it most definitely is capable of full-auto. If a rifle only fires semi-auto, it is no different from an M1 Garand (battle rifle), during the assault phase.

So an M4 issued to me overseas isn't an assault rifle?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Our liberties are under constant assault and attack it's a battle.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

So an M4 issued to me overseas isn't an assault rifle?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

"As sworn officers in MA we should be outraged that we a subject to the same overbearing restrictions civilians are. Especially when we use and operate the same “banned” equipment on a daily basis. We can have a 15 round capacity Glock at home because its department issued but cannot have a similar handgun in our homes if it is personally owned. Where is the logic in that?

I feel that any attempt to add a broader LEO exemption to the MGL’s will only fall on deaf ears, so I guess we have to deal with this for the time being."

HYPOCRICY

Cop with AR15 = "patrol rifle"

Scrote citizen with AR15 = "assault rifle"



"Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organization of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples." ~ Squealer the Pig, Animal Farm
by George Orwell

ETA: Maybe this one fits better:

"All animals are created equal. Some animals are more equal than others".

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

So an M4 issued to me overseas isn't an assault rifle?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle - it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” - it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians.

Please note, there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. However, that is not the issue here in this thread. The villainization of a class of commonly possessed firearm by the citizens by labeling it something that implies it has no other purpose than to inflict harm on innocent, helpless, pathetic, passive and submissive civilians IS the issue.

The methods of the anti-liberty, anti-freedom and anti-self defense propagandists are predictable:

It begins with tricking the subjects into adopting the lexicon of the the propagandists. Once "we" surrender to their attempts to label our means of self defense as "too dangerous", "unusual", the next logical step is to control them.

 

[Primus]

Dear Readers:

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle - it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” - it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians.

Please note, there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. However, that is not the issue here in this thread. The villainization of a class of commonly possessed firearm by the citizens by labeling it something that implies it has no other purpose than to inflict harm on innocent, helpless, pathetic, passive and submissive civilians IS the issue.

The methods of the anti-liberty, anti-freedom and anti-self defense propagandists are predictable:

It begins with tricking the subjects into adopting the lexicon of the the propagandists. Once "we" surrender to their attempts to label our means of self defense as "too dangerous", "unusual", the next logical step is to control them.

Ummm.... you left out the M4 ISNT FULL AUTOMATIC.....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Ummm.... you left

out the M4 ISNT FULL AUTOMATIC.....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The M4's 3-round burst feature is considered a "machine gun" feature.

BATFE:

Machine gun. Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

You FAILED to mention that........


Just think where you'd be on "Call of Duty" by now if you'd of only known that....:lol:

 

[Primus]

The M4's 3-round burst feature is considered a "machine gun" feature.

BATFE:

Machine gun. Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

You FAILED to mention that........

Oh I see.. so the M4 is a machine gun?

Lol take the BATFE definition to meet someone else's definition of full auto to meet the definition of assault weapon.

Keep stretching.....


Many on here have said it CLEAR auto equals assault rifle.... well I guess an M4 isn't an assault rifle.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Oh I see.. so the M4 is a machine gun?

snipped
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Is the M4 you looked at select fire?