And simple "rifle" is not enough because "assault rifle" already exists. You can't fight a two-word catchphrase with a single-word generic term.
I wholeheartedly disagree. The above statement is where we continue to lose the battle.
"Assault Weapons and Assault Rifles":
The adjective "assault" only applies to the noun "rifle" or the noun "weapon" in terms of intent. Applying 'intent' to an inanimate object is just plain old B.S. There is some other motive in the minds of people using these terms than simple semantics.
We have let people who do not accept the people's basic right to own "rifles" or "weapons" define our terms.
What is more "deadly"? A 30-06 single-shot, forged, bull-barrel, break-action rifle (which I can personally reload in about a micro-second) or stamped, short-barreled 7.62x39 "AK-47" rifle?
Fundamentally, anyone wishing to outlaw the latter MUST outlaw the former.
How 'bout we all start calling it an "AK-47 Rifle"...an "AR15 Rifle"... a "Remington Rifle"... a "Winchester Rifle". They are all basically the same. WE need to start treating them as such. We cannot blame it on peple who never shoot.
"Homeland Defense Rifle", "Hunting Rifle":
Putting some new name on the rifle variants 'we' supposedly support only helps the enemy. They have WON when we talk that language.
Do you suggest we form a list of accepted "Homeland Defense Rifles" and "Non-Accepted Rifles"? Because that is what will happen.
Any rifle is a rifle - an extremely deadly weapon.
A weapon is a weapon - anything someone chooses to harm another - it can be a knife, a baseball bat, a rock or a rolling pin.
The USA must either accept deadly weapons in the hands of its citizens...and thrive, or outlaw deadly weapons in the hands of its citizens...and fail.
Anything in between is just political posturing.
