TrickyDick
Member
Why not just call it a rifle? Because it's JUST a rifle. Nothing more, nothing less.
A term to replace "Assault Weapon" : "Modern Rifle"
- Thread starter Golden Hound
- Start date
- Status
45_auto
Member
happygeek said:
Maybe to you. Only reference to function I see is in the definition of an "assault rifle" vs an "assault weapon". The vast majority of people aren't aware of the difference.
Show the pictures you posted above to ANYONE and have them tell you which ones are capable of full-auto fire and which ones aren't. Oops, they can't!
Externally, there is no way to tell. Although none of them have full-auto sear pins visible, there's no way to tell which ones contain a drop in auto sear or a lightning link. So which ones are full-auto capable assault weapons and which ones are the "fluffy nice cuddly" guns or whatever you want to call them?
Drop in auto-sear installed:
Lightening link installed:
Last edited:
Carl N. Brown
Member
During the Civil War, leveraction repeaters were the assault rifles of their day.
After the Civil War, leveraction repeaters became the modern hunting and self-defense weapon of their day.
During the Spanish-American War and WWI, bolt-action repeaters were the main battle rifles of their day.
After the Spanish-American War and WWI, bolt-action repeaters became the modern hunting weapon of their day.
As millions of military vets return to civilian life, they want guns they are familiar with handling and don't see the need to learn a new manual of arms or safe handling protocols. Regardless of what politicians or Fuddites think.
And this "a true sportsman doesn't need 30 rounds to kill a deer" crap: I helped butcher two deer killed by hunter using ARs: one shot each, through the spine at the shoulder. (I forgot to ask if it was 6.8mm Rem or .223 72gr; I knew one of them had both.)
After the Civil War, leveraction repeaters became the modern hunting and self-defense weapon of their day.
During the Spanish-American War and WWI, bolt-action repeaters were the main battle rifles of their day.
After the Spanish-American War and WWI, bolt-action repeaters became the modern hunting weapon of their day.
As millions of military vets return to civilian life, they want guns they are familiar with handling and don't see the need to learn a new manual of arms or safe handling protocols. Regardless of what politicians or Fuddites think.
And this "a true sportsman doesn't need 30 rounds to kill a deer" crap: I helped butcher two deer killed by hunter using ARs: one shot each, through the spine at the shoulder. (I forgot to ask if it was 6.8mm Rem or .223 72gr; I knew one of them had both.)
pockets
Member
Oooohhhh...I DO like!
"No sir officer, I do not have an arsenal in my basement, I have a 'puppy shelter'."
Now I have a vision of the Wicked Witch of the West in my head, "Puppies, puppies.......puppies will put them to sleep..."
I find 'modern (anything)' to be an odd term for rifle designs from the 1940s and 1950s.
But no one attempting to ban 'assault rifles' cares what we call them or what the manufacturers call them.
Pro-ban folks will continue to create their own terms..the more scary it sounds the better.
.
So you're not talking about the CA/CT/NY/etc legal definition, you're talking about looks?
I certainly agree that the average anti-gunner is going off of how a given rifle looks when they call something an "assault rifle". That's why they've called the Savage 110 BA one (http://www.vpc.org/studies/militarization.pdf, page 18).
luisespinal
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 16
I like this
I like this description, which if we think about it, it conveys the truth.
OilyPablo said:
I like this description, which if we think about it, it conveys the truth.
luisespinal
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 16
Shafter said:
To educate people, at least those who are honestly missinformed and don't use the term "assault rifle" with a hidden agenta.
Shafter said:
But that is the thing, a significant number of people are just honestly missinformed. And what options do they have to formulate their opinions.
On the one hand, quite sadly, the loudest 2nd ammendment advocates paint all of us gun owners like a bunch of bat**** crazy radicals in cammo 24/7, the last bastion of liberty against the Klingon-Borg tyrants, with signs saying "come take them.
And then, on the other hand, you have politicians that masterfully paint our real problem of gun violence in a very effective ZOMG-save-the-children kind of way.
So with those being the two most visible options, where do we thing the average and honest and daily-life busy person who knows nothing is going to lean to in this debate?
Language is everything. Language is powerful. Ergo, language should be used appropriately to convey information that is meaningful, hopefully objective, and certainly informative, so that honest yet missinformed people can learn the appropriate vocabulary (and separate fact from horsecrap.)
Therefore, that is the point. Insist on a proper vocabulary, and insist on explaining it in a manner that is rational, objective and respectful.
People who are bent over the destruction of firearms property rights won't give a crap about that. That much we know.
Honest people, OTH, those can still be reached with the appropriate vocabulary, rethoric, and dialogue.
Anything more would give the antis a means by which to single them out and try to ban them, and besides that it's the truth anyway--they're just rifles. :banghead:
You are NOT going to educate people that the semi AR or AK guns are nice and are not very lethal weapons.
That's a continuing fantasy of the choir that the sporting argument will have traction. See, I'm not a bad person - it's a sporting toy!!
Education has to be done on the basis of the RKBA supporting the ownership of these weapons for the lethal purpose related to self-defense and defense against tyranny.
You are making excuses and asking for forgiveness for owning a bad thing. Won't work.
That's a continuing fantasy of the choir that the sporting argument will have traction. See, I'm not a bad person - it's a sporting toy!!
Education has to be done on the basis of the RKBA supporting the ownership of these weapons for the lethal purpose related to self-defense and defense against tyranny.
You are making excuses and asking for forgiveness for owning a bad thing. Won't work.
ApacheCoTodd
member
Yeah, I got one.
Rifle
I can just imagine using "modern rifle" and gettin' a bunch of this in return:
"The framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights never intended to address the so-called "modern rifle".
Rifle
I can just imagine using "modern rifle" and gettin' a bunch of this in return:
"The framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights never intended to address the so-called "modern rifle".
OilyPablo
Member
Thanks! It's odd, it seems like you are the only one to comment on "SPORT UTILITY RIFLE". Nothing nasty, nothing twisted, but with a description.
Of course when DHS buys them, they are no longer A.W.'s = they suddenly morf into "Self-Defense" rifles.
http://hammeroftruth.com/2013/dhs-ordering-7000-rifles-for-personal-defense-use/
http://hammeroftruth.com/2013/dhs-ordering-7000-rifles-for-personal-defense-use/
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Simple, because the AR isn't the only one. You would not want to call an AK47 an Armalite Rifle, or the Stg 44, etc., at least not until Armlalite actually makes those rifles, right?
sonier
Member
"Home Defense Rifle"
45_auto
Member
Why would you want to get any more specific than "rifle"?
Home Defense Rifle
Deer Rifle (in some states)
Sport Utility Rifle
Target Rifle
Plinking Rifle
Assault Weapon (by definition in some states)
Modern Sporting Rifle
Hunting Rifle
etc
etc
They're all the exact same gun.
Call it a rifle. If someone around you calls it an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" then have them tell you exactly what makes it that compared to any other magazine-fed semi-auto rifle.
Once you can get them past the bayonet lug, pistol grip, "folding thingie (stock)", flash hider, etc, cosmetic stuff that can easily be a part of ANY rifle then the bottom line will be that the magazine-fed semi-auto is evil to them.
Home Defense Rifle
Deer Rifle (in some states)
Sport Utility Rifle
Target Rifle
Plinking Rifle
Assault Weapon (by definition in some states)
Modern Sporting Rifle
Hunting Rifle
etc
etc
They're all the exact same gun.
Call it a rifle. If someone around you calls it an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" then have them tell you exactly what makes it that compared to any other magazine-fed semi-auto rifle.
Once you can get them past the bayonet lug, pistol grip, "folding thingie (stock)", flash hider, etc, cosmetic stuff that can easily be a part of ANY rifle then the bottom line will be that the magazine-fed semi-auto is evil to them.
Last edited:
In situations where we can explain ourselves (which would include most situations for many of us), I think "assault rifle" is a perfectly legitimate phrase and we can't be skirting around the fact that, yes, EBRs were designed to kill people. There are better ways to present it, but if we try to back away from that fact, we've lost the debate from the start.
However, the AR-15, SKS, and semi-auto copies of the AK are NOT assault rifles, and I think we should explain that. Words matter, and we need to be precise in our language.
Assault WEAPONS, on the other hand, have a very different definition that runs something like this: "Any gun, or group of guns, that the liberal's want to ban." So we, of course, should NOT be referring to an AR-15, or any specific gun for that matter, as an "assault weapon."
At the same time, though, there will be situations (news interviews, for instance) where the term "assault rifle" unexplained could give the wrong impression to those listening. Therefore, it would be a good idea to have a few secondary terms, "modern rifle," "sport utility rifle," "personal defense firearm," etc, to use - terms that will instantly convey, without further definition, our notion of the broad applications of these rifles.
~D
However, the AR-15, SKS, and semi-auto copies of the AK are NOT assault rifles, and I think we should explain that. Words matter, and we need to be precise in our language.
Assault WEAPONS, on the other hand, have a very different definition that runs something like this: "Any gun, or group of guns, that the liberal's want to ban." So we, of course, should NOT be referring to an AR-15, or any specific gun for that matter, as an "assault weapon."
At the same time, though, there will be situations (news interviews, for instance) where the term "assault rifle" unexplained could give the wrong impression to those listening. Therefore, it would be a good idea to have a few secondary terms, "modern rifle," "sport utility rifle," "personal defense firearm," etc, to use - terms that will instantly convey, without further definition, our notion of the broad applications of these rifles.
~D
+1, although you left out the super evil "sniper rifle".
http://www.vpc.org/graphics/snipcov2.pdf, page 6
Although the Savage 110 is both a "sniper rifle" (http://www.vpc.org/graphics/snipcov2.pdf, page 42) and an "assault rifle" (http://www.vpc.org/studies/militarization.pdf, page 18)
JustinJ
Member
Those who complain about the term "assault rifle", what would you be saying if there were no Hughes amendment but people calling to ban select fire "Assault Rifles"? When one complains about the term assault rifle it implies that the law against select fire weaopns is justified.
It is a modern full automatic sporting rifle. Very simple. Just for competition and deer.
That's a good point, JustinJ. If you claim the full auto guns are nastier than the semi-versions, you just made the 'reasonable restriction' case of Scalia. Forget trying to get them 'legalized' (new ones, etc.).
The modern sporting rifle crowd needs to talk to folks who aren't gun people. I do and explain the issue - they think the euphenism is ridiculous.
That's a good point, JustinJ. If you claim the full auto guns are nastier than the semi-versions, you just made the 'reasonable restriction' case of Scalia. Forget trying to get them 'legalized' (new ones, etc.).
The modern sporting rifle crowd needs to talk to folks who aren't gun people. I do and explain the issue - they think the euphenism is ridiculous.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
The best approach is to adopt the language of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which has been using the term Modern Sporting Rifle.
They've even produced videos covering the topic which are available on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbDQUADaIkE
Following the NSSF's cues, a lot of industry leaders have also adopted the term Modern Sporting Rifle.
Will use of this term sway the people at The Brady Campaign, MAIG, or CSGV?
No, of course not.
But what it does allow us to do is to load our language in such a way that it presents these guns in the context in which they are used by their owners, in a non-threatening sporting context.
If you use the term "assault rifle" when discussing guns with a fence sitter or low-information gun owner, you're using a loaded term that connotes a purpose with ill or violent intent.
If you use the term Modern Sporting Rifle, it pre-loads your language with concepts that most people will view as being positive or neutral, and one that is certainly more true-to-life with respect to how these rifles are actually used.
It's all about planting an idea.
They've even produced videos covering the topic which are available on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbDQUADaIkE
Following the NSSF's cues, a lot of industry leaders have also adopted the term Modern Sporting Rifle.
Will use of this term sway the people at The Brady Campaign, MAIG, or CSGV?
No, of course not.
But what it does allow us to do is to load our language in such a way that it presents these guns in the context in which they are used by their owners, in a non-threatening sporting context.
If you use the term "assault rifle" when discussing guns with a fence sitter or low-information gun owner, you're using a loaded term that connotes a purpose with ill or violent intent.
If you use the term Modern Sporting Rifle, it pre-loads your language with concepts that most people will view as being positive or neutral, and one that is certainly more true-to-life with respect to how these rifles are actually used.
It's all about planting an idea.
The semi auto AR or AK type rifles are very lethal. Yes, bolt action and lever action guns are very lethal too. However, their descent from military weapons is more obscure in today's world to those outside the choir.
If you make the sporting argument, you fall directly into a trap that happened in the UK and Australia. In those countries, gun owners made the case that their weapons were for sport. It didn't work.
You have no right protected by the Constitution for sporting goods. Bowling balls are not as intrinsically lethal as firearms.
Thus, it is quite reasonable to ban something that can be taken into a school and kill 20 to 30. Tough luck about your SPORT.
Look at a three gun match or carbine match with AR's - they shoot at humanoid targets. I recall and still have UK gun publications that mocked our humanoid targets as showing that we are crazy killer focused shooters.
The sport argument is a surrender. You can hunt well with a single shot Ruger rifle.
Again - and if you don't buy it - that is your right to your opinion - the euphemism, sport approach is an abject surrender of the 2nd Amend.
You can point out details - but it isn't going to win an argument with those opposed to gun rights or many in the middle.
Unless you make a specific argument that you need a so-called weapon of war - they can be justified for a ban.
The vast majority of home incidents could be handled with a SW Model 10 or a shotgun (thanks Joe Biden!). Thus, why have such a dangerous gun for sport?
A Ruger Model One is not a gun for the defense against tyranny. It is for sport, though. Is that all you should have? Shooting up a lecture hall would be a hard thing to do with a Model One. In that case, you probably do have a good chance to get to the guy at the reload - as compared to an AR.
You have to have more that a sporting reason to own an AR.
Go bowling.
If you make the sporting argument, you fall directly into a trap that happened in the UK and Australia. In those countries, gun owners made the case that their weapons were for sport. It didn't work.
You have no right protected by the Constitution for sporting goods. Bowling balls are not as intrinsically lethal as firearms.
Thus, it is quite reasonable to ban something that can be taken into a school and kill 20 to 30. Tough luck about your SPORT.
Look at a three gun match or carbine match with AR's - they shoot at humanoid targets. I recall and still have UK gun publications that mocked our humanoid targets as showing that we are crazy killer focused shooters.
The sport argument is a surrender. You can hunt well with a single shot Ruger rifle.
Again - and if you don't buy it - that is your right to your opinion - the euphemism, sport approach is an abject surrender of the 2nd Amend.
You can point out details - but it isn't going to win an argument with those opposed to gun rights or many in the middle.
Unless you make a specific argument that you need a so-called weapon of war - they can be justified for a ban.
The vast majority of home incidents could be handled with a SW Model 10 or a shotgun (thanks Joe Biden!). Thus, why have such a dangerous gun for sport?
A Ruger Model One is not a gun for the defense against tyranny. It is for sport, though. Is that all you should have? Shooting up a lecture hall would be a hard thing to do with a Model One. In that case, you probably do have a good chance to get to the guy at the reload - as compared to an AR.
You have to have more that a sporting reason to own an AR.
Go bowling.
Not just their descent, the military is still using the Remington 700. Anti-gunners call it a "sniper rifle" and want to ban it, turn it into a NFA weapon, or otherwise restrict it (http://www.vpc.org/graphics/snipcov2.pdf).
Honestly, I don't get this whole "you don't need" line from antis. Nobody "needs" alcohol, I'm not aware of any self defense alcohol uses, it kills 10,200 on the roadways alone (211 of those were children, http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html), heck I'm not aware of any benefit to society as a whole from alcohol. We should ban it right?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
