assault rifles

[Nebe]

What exactly is the definition of "assault rifle"??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Nebe

What exactly is the definition of "assault rifle"??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Depends on who is defining.
In WW1 it was a Springfield
In WW2 it was a M16
Since Vietnam it is an AR15 style, AR stands for assault rifle.
Many servicemen used similar types to their service rifles for hunting after they spent years carrying them.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Depends on who is defining.
In WW1 it was a Springfield
In WW2 it was a M16
Since Vietnam it is an AR15 style, AR stands for assault rifle.
Many servicemen used similar types to their service rifles for hunting after they spent years carrying them.

Above are a few more media-driven misconceptions that need to be killed.

First, the "AR" in AR-15 does not stand for 'assault rifle'. The "AR" comes from the name of the original manufacture of the AR-15, ArmaLite. Unfortunately, ArmaLite's naming convention made it easy for the ignorant media to redefine the "AR" in AR-15 to 'assault rifle' decades after the gun was designed which (I'm assuming) contributes to the average person thinking every weapon with a black synthetic stock is an assault weapon.

Second, the M16 is a fully automatic/burst fire assault rifle based off the AR-15 platform. The M16 did not see action until Vietnam.

Third, there is no "Depends on who is defining it" when it comes down to what an assault rifle is. 'Assault rifle' is quite clearly defined. However, 'assault weapon' is a politically-created term with an arbitrary definition that depends on how gun control politicians (and the media) want it to fit within their agenda (see link: Common Misconceptions: Assault Rife, Assault Weapon). Keep in mind that the politician's definition of 'assault weapon' only includes semi-automatic rifles/pistols/shotguns and has never included any type of automatic weapons.

Pete F bases his reply on Common Knowledge, but the problem is that common knowledge is horribly inaccurate. The term 'assault weapon' and the Assault Weapon Ban are nothing more than a giant political red herring that placates the gun control crowd while having no measurable effect on crime or loss of life.

It is impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion about these topics when politicians and the media have muddied the waters so much that few people even understand the definition of the terms being used. For the average person, it's like trying to do math without knowing how addition and subtraction work. John Q Public hears the term 'assault weapon ban' and is led to believe that it includes every scary weapon that exists (automatic weapons, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, 60 round magazines, etc), when in reality, the term includes none of them.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

It is impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion about these topics when politicians and the media have muddied the waters so much that few people even understand the definition of the terms being used. For the average person, it's like trying to do math without knowing how addition and subtraction work.

Spot on.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Nebe

What exactly is the definition of "assault rifle"??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here you go. It's not perfect but pretty damn close...
It's an image but I'm going to post just the link to avoid having the huge image screw up the forum.

Common Misconceptions: Assault Rife, Assault Weapon

[Nebe]

IMO, the ban should be on full automatic rifles. That makes sense. It should end there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Nebe

IMO, the ban should be on full automatic rifles. That makes sense. It should end there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are pretty much banned or at least tightly controlled.
In order to get a permit for a fully automatic firearm, you pay $250 there is an extensive background check by the FBI and a few other hoops and then you can buy one, Want two, do it all over again. And you get to pay yearly.
Now I would guess that a good gunsmith can make an auto out of a semi fairly easily, but the BATF don't fool around with people who don't play by the rules.
And probably on the worldwide illegal arms market you can buy a truckload of automatics if you know who to talk to.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They are pretty much banned or at least tightly controlled.
In order to get a permit for a fully automatic firearm, you pay $250 there is an extensive background check by the FBI and a few other hoops and then you can buy one, Want two, do it all over again. And you get to pay yearly.
Now I would guess that a good gunsmith can make an auto out of a semi fairly easily, but the BATF don't fool around with people who don't play by the rules.
And probably on the worldwide illegal arms market you can buy a truckload of automatics if you know who to talk to.

I believe it's $200 for the National Firearms Act tax stamp, and you can only but pre-ban (I think it's 1986) automatic weapons. This tax is only paid *once* per transfer. Also, they can only be purchased through a licensed SOT vendor and have to be sold back to a licensed vendor. There is no ability for the legal private sale of any automatic weapons.
National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Piscator]

If guns were outlawed like drugs are today, nobody would use them and everything would be solved.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

I'll note once again that this entire thread was started by a conservative with significant firearms experience who from the get go demonstrated the same ignorance you say invalidates most from a discussion on the topic.

The modifications listed in the AWB were primarily targeting concealment and ability to increase rate of fire. I don't know how anyone could argue this doesn't increase the potential lethality of the weapon in the right hands.

I believe the intent of the law was to recognize there are valid sporting uses, but the semi-auto is in a grey area between sport and military/police. The law you assert as arbitrary was in fact trying to draw a line with some very basic parameters.

Hey Jim, in combat how often did you have your rifle on auto vs semi?

-spence

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe the intent of the law was to recognize there are valid sporting uses, but the semi-auto is in a grey area between sport and military/police. -spence

Is the right to bear arms now for "sporting purposes only"?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Is the right to bear arms now for "sporting purposes only"?

No, I just picked one example in haste. You could insert self defense etc...

The point is that there is a line and has been for quite some time. It's just shifted a bit back and forth.

-spence

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

You could insert self defense etc...
-spence

Or you could insert the Hillstrand Brothers........wouldn't want to be a Pirate trying to board that vessel! They pack some serious heat.

[piemma]

"Hey Jim, in combat how often did you have your rifle on auto vs semi?"


Full time rock and roll, all the time!!!

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

I'll note once again that this entire thread was started by a conservative with significant firearms experience who from the get go demonstrated the same ignorance you say invalidates most from a discussion on the topic.

That's great, but political affiliation is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I know liberals that are firm 2A defenders and carry a pistol on their hip every day. Regarding Jim's experience with firearms, the Marines train every one of their soldiers to be damn good with their rifles. The Marines don't train their soldiers on arbitrary political definitions of civilian firearms.

The modifications listed in the AWB were primarily targeting concealment and ability to increase rate of fire. I don't know how anyone could argue this doesn't increase the potential lethality of the weapon in the right hands.

I'll agree that there was a pathetic attempt to target concealment (which is amusing when you consider a person trying to conceal a 26" rifle with the stock folded) but you're absolutely incorrect that the AWB had a focus to "primarily target an ability to increase rate of fire" and even if it did, the AWB did nothing to address rate of fire. How do any of the features increase the rate of fire? This argument would hold a small amount of water if high-capacity magazines were on the list, but they weren't. Folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet lug, grenade launcher - how do any of those things "increase rate of fire"?

There's that whole "Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?" again - remember, your words not mine.

I believe the intent of the law was to recognize there are valid sporting uses, but the semi-auto is in a grey area between sport and military/police. The law you assert as arbitrary was in fact trying to draw a line with some very basic parameters.

I believe the intent of the law was to get rid of those "scary black guns", even though their use in committing a crime is 18 times fewer than handguns (as of 2009). How exactly is semi-auto a "grey area" between sport and military/police? The military utilize weapons with burst/full-auto capability and the police have access to the same weapons systems if they choose. Is my semi-auto shotgun that I use skeet shooting within one of your inconsistent and undefined "grey areas"? For hunting, the ability to quickly get a second round off could mean the difference between being trampled/maimed by a pissed off boar or putting the animal down. For home-defense, how much good would the slow action on a bolt-action weapon do? Keep in mind that home-defense is more than home invasions. It's also a bear going after your horses or some negligent neighbor's pitbull chasing after your kid in the backyard.

Hey Jim, in combat how often did you have your rifle on auto vs semi?

-spence

You forgot to ask about burst. Either way, the question is completely irrelevant because we aren't talking about combat situations. Just as you previously mentioned that there are many legally available items that become illegal when combined, there are many effective tools and products that civilians utilize that the military has also found to be effective. We are not talking about an exclusive situation here, where if the military can use it, then it must made completely unavailable to civilians.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

This argument would hold a small amount of water if high-capacity magazines were on the list, but they weren't. Folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet lug, grenade launcher - how do any of those things "increase rate of fire"?

There's that whole "Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?" again - remember, your words not mine.

No, I copped those words from Reel I think. It's been a long thread.

While high capacity magazines were not on the Chinese menu, I do believe the AWB banned them in general. Doesn't a pistol grip usually give easier access to the mag release making it faster to reload?

Is my semi-auto shotgun that I use skeet shooting within one of your inconsistent and undefined "grey areas"? For hunting, the ability to quickly get a second round off could mean the difference between being trampled/maimed by a pissed off boar or putting the animal down. For home-defense, how much good would the slow action on a bolt-action weapon do? Keep in mind that home-defense is more than home invasions. It's also a bear going after your horses or some negligent neighbor's pitbull chasing after your kid in the backyard.

Your semi-auto shotgun has limited capacity, is probably difficult to conceal and has a clearly defined and legitimate purpose. As for bolt action, you're just being silly.

You forgot to ask about burst.

Not sure what model he was issued.

Either way, the question is completely irrelevant because we aren't talking about combat situations. Just as you previously mentioned that there are many legally available items that become illegal when combined, there are many effective tools and products that civilians utilize that the military has also found to be effective. We are not talking about an exclusive situation here, where if the military can use it, then it must made completely unavailable to civilians.

It's a comparison that illustrates how the legal weapon is really quite close to the restricted weapon in use.

-spence

[Pete F.]

You mean God, Guns and Gays?
Jim already said he's not totally against gays, not sure about guns and I think he might be a Unitarian.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You mean God, Guns and Gays?
Jim already said he's not totally against gays, not sure about guns and I think he might be a Unitarian.

-spence