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!

Wow , so I guess that’s a “yes.”

Say it with me everyone:

Sturmgewehr

It is German, and it means "storm gun" or "assault rifle."

It is the first of a type of rifle with specific features, that goes all the way from 1944 to our M4 Carbine today.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Some of ya'll are ignoring the military origins of the term, or are ignorant of the military history of the term.

I'm not ignorant of any of the history of the AR rifle and its derivatives. I'm stating that we've been in a perpetual state of mental masterbation from the very beginning trying to equate some additional lethality or significance to this rifle.

quote:

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

There are but two definitions of the term "assault" in the dictionary. One is a verb, the other, a noun. There is no definition for use of the term "assault" as an adjective. I believe we've been treated to a continual misuse of that term from the very beginning.

quote:

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".

If all of that is true, and I'll even agree with you on most of it, then why is there no "assault pistol"? It's quite obvious the military has laid out specific requirements for the pistols soldiers use in battle. And soldiers for decades have used pistols and other arms to 'assault' enemy positions, yet no other weapons seem to be blessed with the special assault designation.

quote:

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

By that definition my Marlin 795 is an assault rifle, which is absurd.

Look, I'm not conflicted, confused, or ignorant of where all this came from. My only point is that language is being bastardized today to a point where it hardly makes sense any more. Specifically, the AR platform is a semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle. No more, no less.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

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

By that definition my Marlin 795 is an assault rifle, which is absurd.

No. Your Marlin 795 is not an assault rifle, for several reasons. First, it is not select-fire. Select-fire means capable of firing in both semi- and full-auto. It is also in .22LR, so it not chambered in an intermediate cartridge. Intermediate cartridges are centerfire rifle cartridges more powerful than pistol calibers or short-range PDW calibers, but less powerful than full-power battle rifle cartridges.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:


No. Your Marlin 795 is not select-fire. Select-fire means capable of firing in both semi- and full-auto. It is also in .22LR, so it not chambered in an intermediate cartridge.

None of my AR's are select fire, so I guess they're not assault rifles either. Right? So now we're debating cartridge size. See how fast this get's muddy.

Forget about the technicalities of the weapons which the gun grabbers are attempting to take from you right now. "Assault Rifle" is a term used like a bludgeon by the enemies of the Second Amendment.

We should not use the term. The AR15s and the other self-loading rifles you possess- are they select fire? Are they straight-up full auto machine guns? Well, that is what the term "assault rifle" suggests, and it is used by those who seek to take away your firearms (all of them), to convince the ignorant voters (and they are legion) that "no one needs an assault rifle."

If you support the use of this term, whether tacitly, by letting the gun-grabbers use it in your presence without a response from you, or if you yourself use it, or if you tell others that there is no harm in using it, you are paving the way for the gun grabbers.

Those of you who are striving to be technically correct about the firearms in question and the way the term "assault rifle" is applied to them, and those of you who are striving to be historically correct about the use of the term, are missing the point by a country mile.

Do not use the term. Discourage others from using it. The term "assault rifle" is being (intentionally) incorrectly applied and we should in no way support this propaganda ploy.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:


No. Your Marlin 795 is not select-fire. Select-fire means capable of firing in both semi- and full-auto. It is also in .22LR, so it not chambered in an intermediate cartridge.

None of my AR's are select fire, so I guess their not assault rifles either. Right? See how fast this get's muddy.

Correct. They are not assault rifles. As I already pointed out in my first post:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
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.

So, to reiterate... M16 = assault rifle, since it meets all the criteria in the definition.

AR15 = not select fire, so not an assault rifle.

Marlin 795 = not select fire, and not an intermediate cartridge, so not an assault rifle.

Nothing muddy here.

“Weapon” is a purpose; “firearm,” “gun,” “rifle” are all objects.

If the object is designed or employed for only one purpose either in general, such as a military firearm, or in a specific situation, such as, “He killed his mother-in-law with the rolling pin he found on the counter,” then I am willing to call it a weapon, but otherwise I avoid that term, and especially as regards to firearms.

Some of the most heated debates I've witnessed have been over semantics. I agree with those who choose not to use the word 'assault' when describing my defensive weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
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.

You keep going back to a definition I vehemently disagree with based on simple language. Case in point. Did Omar Mateen "assault" the Pulse nightclub with an AR? Certainly he did. His behavior was no different than Marines assaulting a beach with M4's. Instead of splitting hairs over what is or isn't an "assault rifle" we should only allow dialogue that accurately defines these rifles as what they are - automatic (not available to the public) or semi-automatic (available to the public) firearms. When we allow the conversation to include the term assault rifle or weapon, which ultimately means many things to many people, we lose.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
You keep going back to a definition I vehemently disagree with based on simple language. Case in point. Did Omar Mateen "assault" the Pulse nightclub with an AR? Certainly he did.

Well, your AR15s and Glocks are machines, and they're guns, so they must be machine guns, right? I mean, it's right there in the name in simple language...

Specific definitions for terms exist for a reason. A "machine gun" is a very specific type of firearm, not just any gun that is also a machine. And a firearm has to meet certain specific, fixed criteria before it can be correctly classified as a "machine gun".

Likewise, an "assault rifle" is also a very specific type of firearm, not just any rifle that can be used to assault an objective or used to assault a victim, and there are fixed criteria that must be met.

I learned to shoot trap in the early 60's from a WWI veteran who commanded a sniper unit. He had many great stories of the great war. Opposing forces were in stalemate for months at a time in trench warfare. His mission was to pick off German troops in fixed positions from long range with precision rifle fire. They used 1903 rifles with optics. He referred to automatic weapons that could be carried and fired by attacking troops as assault guns. There were a number of such full auto capable weapons available in WWI. So I guess the term assault gun or assault rifle in some variation has been around at least since WWI but every time I have heard it, it was in reference to full auto capable, man carried weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Specifically, the AR platform is a semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle. No more, no less.

As anyone said anything else to the contrary?

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Well, your AR15s and Glocks are machines, and they're guns, so they must be machine guns, right? I mean, it's right there in the name, right?

Now stop that. That's humorous but a bit silly. Though i could imagine a leftist making a similar argument.

quote:

An "assault rifle" is also a very specific type of firearm, not just any rifle that can be used to assault an objective, or used to assault a victim.

On that I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. 'Any' rifle can be used to assault someone as we saw in Columbine. Again, if you allow for the use of the term "Assault Rifle" on any level in any of this dialogue, we lose.

The AR-15 and its derivatives, are not Assault Rifles. Assault Rifles are not for sale commercially, except for NFA registered rifles that fit the historic properties of the type.

There are no "assault weapons." They don't exist.

quote:

You keep going back to a definition I vehemently disagree with based on simple language.

Capt Grammer, take it up with the Germans from 75 years ago.

The germans coined the name "Assault Rifle."

In this country, "assault rifle" was promoted by firearm manufacturers as a means of selling rifles.

Assault rifle has a military definition, but central to that definition is that the rifle must be select fire. That eliminates all semi-automatic weapons.

The term, whether we like it or not, is mainstream and common today. It's misused nearly all the time, but definitions do matter. At the core of the "assault weapons ban" was the definition, at the time, of what constituted an "assault rifle," or assault weapon.

I do not like the term; it's used to evoke an emotional reaction. It was promoted in this country by firearm manufacturers trying to evoke an emotional appeal to buyers and it's used today to incite fear and muddy the waters in gun control debates.

I own a number of AR's. I've built them. I've given them as gifts. I took two of the boys shooting a week ago when in town; both brought their AR's. None of my AR's are assault rifles. I own AK47's and variants, various military rifles, and firearms that look like various military rifles and carbines including commercial M1's, Steyr AUG, etc. None of them are assault rifles. Just rifles and carbines.

Most of us know the score. Fear mongering and misrepresentations. I listened to a number of half-truths and lies come out of Sanders mouth yesterday, along with a number of other democrats at the symposium in Ohio. Not unexpected, nothing new, but clearly inaccurate and wrong.

A news host asked why rifles are needed when we have handguns for protection. And police for protection...the ones who are minutes away when seconds count, the ones who miss 80% of the shots they fire. Nobody mentioned the North Hollywood shoot, in which the police borrowed an AR from a civilian store to end the fight. Bottom line isn't who can do what most effectively, but the simple fact that the single most critical core freedom we have is the ability to not only defend ourselves, but to change our own government if needed, ensured by the right to bear arms. Governments which deny freedoms disarm their people.

I do not need to justify my firearms, or show a "need." I have a right, guaranteed by the second amendment to the Constitution. I would rather refer to my rifles and rifles, which is what they are. I don't use them to assault. They are not assault rifles. Just rifles. Whether I choose to hunt, own them defensively, compete, or simply enjoy them as a collector or enthusiast or owner, it's a right, not a privilege, as as far as I am concerned, the single most important right that I'm guaranteed under the Constitution.

It's a term being used by the grabbers to divide us and entrap us in endless pointless debate sapping us of time and energy.

They want them all.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
It's a term being used by the grabbers to divide us and entrap us in endless pointless debate sapping us of time and energy.

They want them all.

Which term exactly?

"Assault rifle", arc