Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by RicInOR, Jan 3, 2019.
The Ever-Shifting Definition of "Assault Weapons"
Or "Semi-Auto" for that matter.
All guns are assault rifles.
Wait. No guns are assault rifles?
Funny we cant use a term that almost perfectly describes what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second.
The term is a direct translation from the invented German term for a compact intermediate-calibre self-loading firearm that was capable of single-shot [repetition] or fully-automatic [fully-automatic] fire at a single press of the trigger. The German word Sturmgewehr comes from the same root as the word 'storm' in the context of 'storming the objective', or in English, like 'storming the heights of San Juan Hill....' In similar fashion, the French word 'assaut' is used by French-speaking users of the FAMAS service arm - the word FAMAS is an acronym of Fusil d'Assaut de la Manufacture d'Armes de Saint-Étienne - Assault rifle made by Ste Étienne Arsenal.
So unless the arm in question fulfils the aforementioned description in TOTAL, then it is not an 'assault weapon', Jim.
In general, the English-speaking Western world does NOT use the term 'assault gun/rifle/carbine' anywhere, except in the press. Our collective combat methodology and tactical training does not use the term, except when describing the Soviet Army's AK47/74 and copies. Not even the designer himself called it anything except Avtomat Kalashnikova - the Kalashnikov Self-loader.
Having been closely involved with the Armies of Canada, the USA and the yUK since 1967, I cannot ever recall a time when I've read that ANY of our infantry long arms has ever been referred to as an 'assault rifle'. Not even the unloved British L85A1/2/3 - a short weapon if ever there was one, has been so designated.
“Assault Weapon” is a demoncrat coined term that the press seems to be infatuated by...
I have a baseball bat that’s an assault weapon and it’s not even black, go figure...
I think it was the new California gubnor that signed a bill banning something or other that made rifles more accurate. Scaring people into believing an inaccurate rifle would somehow be safer.
I can't believe when I left California it caused a massive brain drain. Either my timing was impeccable or I am a flipping genius.
You escaped! Or is that es car pe...
Its the action, not the tool. Similar to the MSM being weaponized against us, to assault our rights, making them assault journalists.
Pretty much sums it up... (an oldie but a goody)
When the man is right, he’s RIGHT!!
One must differentiate the term "assault rifle" - which is a firearms technology term - from "assault weapon" - which is a legislative, political, and mass media term. Even in this thread the terms are being conflated and confused.
First, an "assault rifle", being a rifle, is designed to fired from the shoulder and shoots a single projectile down a rifled bore. That would exclude shotguns and handguns. In addition, an "assault rifle" fires an intermediate power cartridge and has selective fire capability. That's the strict definition, but it has been transformed in common usage to mean semiautomatic versions of true "assault rifles", and we can't blame it all on the gun controllers. The firearms industry and firearms media share some of the blame for muddying the waters.
After they realized the term "assault rifle" had acquired a negative image with politicians and the general public, the firearms industry and media tried to rebrand black rifles as "modern sporting rifles",
but it was too late. The damage was done.
"Assault weapon" is a broader term that includes not only "assault rifles" (as the term is commonly used today) but also certain handguns and shotguns. "Assault weapon" is a legislative and political term that is also used by the mass media and gun control advocates. They use it to describe firearms that based on their appearance and features are intended primarily "to kill and injure human beings."
From the 1989 Roberti-Roos California "assault weapon" law:
Gun controllers are exploiting the confusion and misinformation surrounding these firearms to push their agenda:
The term ''Assault rifle'' as used today. Is an attempt to assign some sinister description to a type of gun.
When history has shown all types of guns to be down right lethal!
Think of all the bolt action rifles used in World War I and II.
They did a fine job of killing.
So did the Muskets before them.
What we like to do is play games with the guns described in the 2nd Amendment.
We argue about things like ''features'' and ''action''.
As in Washington's new pending law1639
Here is there definition.
"Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.''
Truth is. The guns talked about in the second amendment are for killing people. There you have it.
That's the bottom line.
We may be uncomfortable saying that.
But our Founding Fathers wanted us to keep guns in case we needed to kill people with them.
And of coerce the situation must be pretty dire before we implement there use.
But keeping them around and handy? That's just patriotic. And necessary if needed.
Our founding fathers wanted us to have ''Assault rifles''.
Musket, 1903, M1 rifle, AR-15 and all others.
Just one of my Washington ''Assault rifle's''.
When the opposition is allowed to define the meaning of terms, the other side has already lost.