I’ve been involved in an internet debate the last couple days revolving around an article posted in Outdoor Life Magazine. The article title is “Gun News of the Week; ATF says ‘Assault Rifle’ is a Bogus Term.” Outdoor Life Article

The first sentence of the article says:

quote:

A Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “white paper” correctly identifies “assault weapons” as a politically contrived term with no real meaning and recommends dramatic federal law revisions in how they are regulated.

Bingo! “Assault weapon is the bogus term, made up by the Dems as a preliminary to their 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. I said in response, “the headline’s wrong.” Explaining that the headline said “assault rifle” while the article (and ATF) correctly states that “assault weapon” is the bogus term. I received responses carefully explaining that I’m wrong because AR-15 is for Armalite (15th iteration). Going on to say the term was made up by an East Coast reporter—referring to assault rifle, I guess.

I just responded, “I have no idea what you’re talking about, neither myself or the article specifically mentioned AR-15s.”

Another guy chimes in, “Mike *, absolutely correct. The Term AR is short for Armalite Rifle. The term "assault rifle" was made up by the anti-gun/Left crowd and promoted by MSM...

By now I’m getting a bit frustrated. I respond:
The term made up by the “anti-gun/Left crowd” is assault “WEAPON.” ATF is saying they will not use that term, but use the term those of us who support the 2A use, “modern sporting rifle.” When I said the “headline was wrong,” they used the term “assault rifle” in the headline, but correctly referred to the made-up term “assault weapon” in the article. Repeating (I go on to say) “Assault Rifle” does not refer to AR or Armalite. It is the correct term for select fire weapons that goes clear back to the StG-44 of the German Army in late WWII.

That didn’t end it though. Another voice chimes in.

quote:

I literally teach this weapon system for a living. I'm sorry man you're wrong.
And I'm just going off the comments on here, your saying there are assault rifles when in reality there is no such thing.

All this time I thought “Assault Rifle” was an accepted term for a select-fire long arm issued to various militaries of the world, and that “Assault Weapon” is the bogus term made up by anti-2A types to lump modern sporting rifles in with military arms.

Question: Is “assault rifle” just as bogus a term as “assault weapon?”

Might want to post in the gun control forum. Most of the loungers are more adept at answering questions about disposals, vacuums, washing machines, and blenders.

I'm on your side, TMats. That's how I always perceived things to be, that Assault Rifle accurately referred to a select fire, battle rifle. "Assault weapon" is the made up term.

"Assault Rifle" is a valid term, meant to differentiate from a "main battle rifle." The Garand or M14 are main battle rifles, battle rifles for short.

An assault rifle has a variety of characteristics, such as an "intermediate cartridge," but the primary thing that separates an AR-15 from an assault rifle, is that an assault rifle is select fire.

"Assault Weapon" is fiction.

Yes, Assault Rifle is the correct term for rifles like an AK-47 and M4.

This is a salt rifle




Well, technically it is a salt shotgun. Got one for Mrs DF a while back. She's a bug killin' machine now! Wasps take two blasts though. lol

None of my firearms have ever assaulted anyone. Should I return them to the factories to repair the defects?

"Assault weapon" has tainted the word "assault" when referring to any small arms system. I think it's best to avoid it all together.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
This is a salt rifle

Lol, the bossman at work bought them for everyone in the company last year - I had already bought one, so now we have two!

They are GREAT a salt rifles. The bugs hate em!

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
Question: Is “assault rifle” just as bogus a term as “assault weapon?”

You as well as all the others to your conversation are on the wrong path. Apparently grammar is simply too difficult in today's Idiocracy based world.

"Rifle" or "weapon" are simple nouns that accurately describe a physical item. "Assault" on the other hand is a verb which describes an action. I can assault you with virtually anything. "Assault" can also be used as a noun in the context of describing a physical attack. No where in the dictionary do you find the term "assault" used as an adjective.

This entire debate is moronic on its face. There is no such thing as an assault weapon or rifle. You obviously can assault someone 'with' a rifle or weapon, but that would also be true if you were using a rock. Hell, I can assault you with a slap upside the head, so does that make my hand an assault hand.

This was stupid on steroids in 1994, and it's stupid on steroids in today's world.

I've recently seen the term "Assault Firearm" in the media, apparently to answer the criticism of the term "Assault Weapons." Of course, it has no more meaning than the formerly-used intentionally-vague term.

I always stress that the term "weapon" speaks to the intent of the user, not the item itself. A knife can be used as a weapon, as can hands and feet, or a rake or hoe, it isn't applicable to firearms in any intrinsic way except when speaking to how they will be used. "Assault," similarly, is what a person might do, not an inherent property of otherwise inanimate objects. Got a laugh out of an anti I work with the other day when I called a stale loaf of French bread an "assault baguette."

Not to mention that we need to adopt another name for haters of liberty other than "antis," a term that means much to 2A supporters, but less than nothing to opponents. I'm not advocating anything specific here (e.g. "simpletons"), but they are the ones who opened the door for the use of inaccurate, confusing language.

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
Not to mention that we need to adopt another name for haters of liberty other than "antis," a term that means much to 2A supporters, but less than nothing to opponents. I'm not advocating anything specific here (e.g. "simpletons"), but they are the ones who opened the door for the use of inaccurate, confusing language.

How about...enemies?

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
Question: Is “assault rifle” just as bogus a term as “assault weapon?”

You as well as all the others to your conversation are on the wrong path. Apparently grammar is simply too difficult in today's Idiocracy based world.

"Rifle" or "weapon" are simple nouns that accurately describe a physical item. "Assault" on the other hand is a verb which describes an action. I can assault you with virtually anything. "Assault" can also be used as a noun in the context of describing a physical attack. No where in the dictionary do you find the term "assault" used as an adjective.

This entire debate is moronic on its face. There is no such thing as an assault weapon or rifle. You obviously can assault someone 'with' a rifle or weapon, but that would also be true if you were using a rock. Hell, I can assault you with a slap upside the head, so does that make my hand an assault hand.

This was stupid on steroids in 1994, and it's stupid on steroids in today's world.

Assault Rifle is a valid term that refers to a specific type of weapon. You're not helping by ignoring this.

"Assault Weapon" is a bunch of nonsense made by politicians, these two things are not the same.

Well since the german Sturmgewehr 44 translates to "assault rifle 44", the internet know it all that said assault RIFLE, is a made up term is patently wrong.
You are correct. Assault rifle has a fixed definition. Assault WEAPON means something(?). An assault weapon in NJ is different than an assault weapon in CA and different from CT.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Assault Rifle is a valid term that refers to a specific type of weapon.

No it doesn't. It's just an absurd term coined in pursuit of an agenda. As I noted, any rifle can be used to assault someone, which ultimately I believe to be the real endgame for liberals. Hell, I guess I own an Assault Cricket Rifle, given its use and function is the same as any other firearm, including an AR.

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:
Assault rifle has a fixed definition.

What is that "fixed" definition? Everytime the left produces a bill to ban "assault rifles", the list of firearms on it grows and varies so much that there's no consistency whatsoever in the weapons themselves other than that they fire rounds.

An interesting article from 2017. Note, 2017.

Call them what you want but silencers are still regulated.

Where’s concealed carry reciprocity?

“Assault rifle” may be politically contrived, but politicians enact or don’t enact laws. Reason and facts rarely matter.

I think labelling an AR an MSR may have some downsides as well. Like who cares if they regulate silencers for hunting purposes. What about protecting the hearing of your loved ones when gang bangers or whomever invades your home in the middle of the night- even as low a probability as that is. Shouldn’t I be able to protect my hearing as much as my life?

An AR is a semi-automatic rifle. The 2nd Amendment gives me the right to have it, regardless of what label some group attaches to it. Period. I don’t have to need to need one.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
What is that "fixed" definition? Everytime the left produces a bill to ban "assault rifles", the list of firearms on it grows and varies so much that there's no consistency whatsoever in the weapons themselves other than that they fire rounds.

This is exactly the discussion I have been embroiled in. The Left doesn’t introduce legislation to ban “assault rifles,” their bills are to ban “assault weapons,” which are characterized as “military-style” firearms and includes (depending on the proposal) all semi-auto only versions of select-fire rifles, often other semi-autos as well.

"Assault rifle" is just as stupid a term as a "storm rifle", none of my guns have ever shot lightning, or made it rain!

Guys.

The left uses the term "assault weapon."

The actual term from the development of these arms is Assault Rifle.

Crack open a book about the history and development of these rifles, and you will see the STG44. The first Assault Rifle.

Calm down, stop for a moment, and realize that there is actually a proper term, Assault Rifle.

Assault Rifles have very specific properties. This is why someone came up with "assault weapon."

Again, the primary difference between an AR-15, and an Assault Rifle, is select fire.

If you don't understand the terms, and I'm blown away that this is confusing or controversial, you're going to have a hard time arguing with a gun-banner if you don't understand the facts.

Assault Rifle is a term for a specific type of rifle.

"Assault weapon" is political trash, ambiguous and changeable.

Exactly right, Arc. Some of ya'll are ignoring the military origins of the term, or are ignorant of the military history of the term.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Assault Rifle is a valid term that refers to a specific type of weapon.

No it doesn't. It's just an absurd term coined in pursuit of an agenda. As I noted, any rifle can be used to assault someone, which ultimately I believe to be the real endgame for liberals. Hell, I guess I own an Assault Cricket Rifle, given its use and function is the same as any other firearm, including an AR.

You're trying to apply a different definition of "assault" to the term "assault rifle".

The use of the word Assault in the military term "assault rifle" was intended to mean a military offensive with men moving towards an enemy-held objective while firing on the enemy, and eventually closing with the enemy and clearing them out at close range. Like "assaulting the enemy trench", or "assaulting the compound".

To do this requires a rifle capable of both medium and close range efficiency, along with both semi and full auto capability, the ability for a solider to to carry a decent amount of ammo on the go and rapidly reload, and preferably a light weight. Hence the creation of lightweight select fire rifles using intermediate cartridges and detachable magazines, which are "assault rifles", something in-between a light machine gun, a long-range battle rifle, and a short range submachine gun.

The term "assault" was not being used with its alternate civilian definition of a criminal physical attack, as in "Aggravated Assault" or "Assault and Battery". That's the twist that media and politicians (as well as you currently) have tried to apply to the term "assault weapon", as in "a weapon used to assault a victim".

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:
Assault rifle has a fixed definition.

What is that "fixed" definition? Everytime the left produces a bill to ban "assault rifles", the list of firearms on it grows and varies so much that there's no consistency whatsoever in the weapons themselves other than that they fire rounds.

See above. The definition of "assault rifle" is a select-fire, magazine-fed rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge.

That's it.

The "assault rifle" definition doesn't change. M-16s are assault rifles. AR-15s are not assault rifles, because they lack the select fire capability.

But AR-15s can be "assault weapons" according to the media/politicians, because nobody really knows what the definition of that is, since it's ever-changing to fit the current agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
"Assault rifle" is just as stupid a term as a "storm rifle", none of my guns have ever shot lightning, or made it rain!

Sturm is German for Storm, but also the German military term for Assault. As in to "storm the enemy position"/"assault the enemy position". Not to make it rain.

What Arc said.

I'm a little befuddled myself that people here seem so conflicted on this subject.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

“Assault rifle” may be politically contrived...

It's not politically contrived.