• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What exactly makes an Assault Weapon an Assault Weapon in the first place?

UnrepentantSinner said:
Well, I don't. I use the accurte nomencalture "semi-automatic assault rifle" or the less accurate because I don't get a bug up my ass about semantics, "assault rifle" like I did when I owned my Norinco AK c.1990 and my post-ban MAK-90 c.1996.

This stupid semantic argument offered by far to many RTKBA folks is little more than a distraction and red herring. By the logic of what you aver above, we should refer to a semi-auto Uzi or MP5 as a semi-auto sub-gun or semi-auto gun.

More time needs to be spent on the cosmetic argument and the actual numbers (crimes committed now viz. those during and before the 1994 AWB), etc. and less on a BS semantic argument.
Click to expand...
Pretending this isn't about semantics does not change the fact that this is largely a semantic battle. And it always has been in the anti-gun propaganda efforts, that's why the term "Saturday Night Special" was coined long ago.

Poll 100 people and ask "should guns be banned" and you'll get different results than if you ask those same 100 people "should assault weapons be banned". Never mind that there's as many definitions of "assault weapon" as there are people you ask. Like it or not, this is a semantics battle with the ultimate goal of many on the anti-gun side being an outright ban. Many will even admit it when asked, hell a poster here wants everything banned except single shot pistols and rifles, and thinks those should be required to be kept locked up at a gun club.

Pretending that semantics aren't a huge part of the propaganda effort to ban guns doesn't make it not so.
 
Assault weapons are semi automatic variants of select fire military weapons marketed to guys who want to play Rambo with real guns.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Well, I don't. I use the accurte nomencalture "semi-automatic assault rifle" or the less accurate because I don't get a bug up my ass about semantics, "assault rifle" like I did when I owned my Norinco AK c.1990 and my post-ban MAK-90 c.1996.

This stupid semantic argument offered by far to many RTKBA folks is little more than a distraction and red herring. By the logic of what you aver above, we should refer to a semi-auto Uzi or MP5 as a semi-auto sub-gun or semi-auto gun.

More time needs to be spent on the cosmetic argument and the actual numbers (crimes committed now viz. those during and before the 1994 AWB), etc. and less on a BS semantic argument.
Click to expand...

If you want accuracy, an AK platform rifle is a semi auto carbine, no more, no less.

Semantics are where this started, for the anti's:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9076388&postcount=33

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988[9][10]
 
theprestige said:
"Assault weapon" is basically a political term, used to indicate "scary guns that we should ban", in order to make firearms-ignorant citizens feel like the government is doing something to make them safer.
Click to expand...
While I don't support the so called "assault weapons" ban and while I'm happy to use terms like "so called", I think the military actually had some specs in mind when they chose the Armalite. I think those specs distinguish what we have come to think of as an "assault weapon".

It seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous to act as if there is no tactical difference between a bolt action hunting riffle and an M-16 that might serve to justify the label.
 
Kestrel said:
Assault weapons are semi automatic variants of select fire military weapons marketed to guys who want to play Rambo with real guns.
Click to expand...

According to California, where the Feinstein Bill under discussion originated, a number of firearms which are not semi-automatic variants of select fire military weapons are.

For example; semi-automatic shotguns (of which there is no select fire version), likewise, pistols with fore-grips and even my 1907 Winchester.
 
GeeMack said:
On the left? Most people would probably see those as hunting/target rifles, much like the ones many of our grandfathers taught us how to shoot when we were young.


[qimg]http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-pukQfKmp9S4/UUN0Z-m3HWI/AAAAAAAACYY/-OwLQgJL_gQ/s640/huntassault.jpg[/qimg]​


And on the right? Many would say those are assault weapons. Isn't the difference obvious?
Click to expand...

Nope. Looks like the same gun to me. All the guns in your picture should be banned.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Nope. Looks like the same gun to me. All the guns in your picture should be banned.
Click to expand...

One what criteria do you make this bold statement? Caliber? Muzzle energy? The fact they are semiautomatic? Or mindless knee-jerk reactionary emotionalism?
 
ApolloGnomon said:
One what criteria do you make this bold statement? Caliber? Muzzle energy? The fact they are semiautomatic? Or mindless knee-jerk reactionary emotionalism?
Click to expand...
Well it's certainly not based on how often such guns are used in crimes.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Well, I don't. I use the accurte nomencalture "semi-automatic assault rifle" or the less accurate because I don't get a bug up my ass about semantics, "assault rifle" like I did when I owned my Norinco AK c.1990 and my post-ban MAK-90 c.1996.

This stupid semantic argument offered by far to many RTKBA folks is little more than a distraction and red herring. By the logic of what you aver above, we should refer to a semi-auto Uzi or MP5 as a semi-auto sub-gun or semi-auto gun.
More time needs to be spent on the cosmetic argument and the actual numbers (crimes committed now viz. those during and before the 1994 AWB), etc. and less on a BS semantic argument.
Click to expand...

They would be semi-automatic pistols, or the MP5 might qualify as a semi-automatic carbine.

Did you think that supported your point?
 
Pope130 said:
According to California, where the Feinstein Bill under discussion originated, a number of firearms which are not semi-automatic variants of select fire military weapons are.

For example; semi-automatic shotguns (of which there is no select fire version), likewise, pistols with fore-grips and even my 1907 Winchester.
Click to expand...

The legal definition I would recommend is simply a limit on magazine capacity for semi-automatic firearms. If the limit was set at 10 rounds for rifles, the box magazines that came with your Winchester 1907 would still be legal.
 
Kestrel said:
No, just a realization that the drooling goobers who spend their day fondling an AR-15 and fantasizing about joining in the Wolverines in Red Dawn are not appropriate role models.
Click to expand...

And the Negro is lazy and every homosexual a serial killer. Or were you specifying a certain type of AR owner and not making a sweeping generalization of all modern sporting rifle owners?
 
Kestrel said:
The legal definition I would recommend is simply a limit on magazine capacity for semi-automatic firearms. If the limit was set at 10 rounds for rifles, the box magazines that came with your Winchester 1907 would still be legal.
Click to expand...
What do you think that would accomplish? Is there a problem with people being killed with rounds 11 and up during shootings? I doubt that many shots are fired from any one gun during homicides. And it certaily will have no effect whatsoever on suicides, though the anti-gun nuts will continue to roll suicides into gun death numbers to pump them up.
 
Kestrel said:
The legal definition I would recommend is simply a limit on magazine capacity for semi-automatic firearms. If the limit was set at 10 rounds for rifles, the box magazines that came with your Winchester 1907 would still be legal.
Click to expand...


And if the limit was set at 30 rounds, all the 30 round magazines would be legal. And if the limit was set at 200 rounds, there would hardly be any illegal magazines at all. Hey, this tautology stuff is easy!
 
Kestrel said:
No, just a realization that the drooling goobers who spend their day fondling an AR-15 and fantasizing about joining in the Wolverines in Red Dawn are not appropriate role models.
Click to expand...

A popular sentiment on the 'net, no knowledge of the subject matter required, check this out, in the comments:

http://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?fa=Main.Item&itemid=945&acctid=448

Q: if this is a drug seized weapon wouldnt it make more sense to just destroy it instead of selling it to who knows who to use it for who knows what....i mean come on lets get real and get these type of guns off the streets....OR you could just give it to the Military or Law Enforcement they should be the only ones with this type of weapons.... (3/9/13 5:45 PM)

A: You can contact the Maury County Sheriff's dept with your concerns. Not my call... (3/11/13 8:14 AM)

Or this genius:

Q: this was not bought openly on the legal market , I would have your local National Guard Armory Sgt. to come and view this pieace of weapon . As a retired Inf soldier 11 Aug 2011 it looks like looks a upper part of what we in the military call a saw weapon. the M249 please before bubba toothless redneck buys this and maybe kills humans because they think it is cool . please please this do not belong in private hands. there was a reason this drug dealer had it ... TO KILL KILL his competition (3/12/13 8:58 AM)

A: This was awarded to Maury County through the Court System and has been cleared through the ATF by our local Sheriff's Department. (3/12/13 1:48 PM)
 
RandFan said:
In at least two instances spree killers were stopped by others while they were reloading. Colin Ferguson and Kipland Kinkel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Kinkel
Click to expand...

Very good reasons to limit magazine sizes. If the pro gun side can dispute this with reasonable arguments then maybe they might have something, but this is beyond the scope of this thread so that's neither nor there.

Based upon the information provided by the more gun literate posters here I've come to the conclusion that Assault Weapons do have a proper category beyond 'big, scary looking guns', and those particular weapons are not easy or cheap to get.

Is this an accurate conclusion?
 
GeeMack said:
And in at least one instance, 96 shots were fired while using 10 round magazines. So the suggestion to limit magazine capacity to X is arbitrary.
Click to expand...

From what I understand there are practical reasons to limit magazines to [insert amount here] beyond "It gives you a chance to disarm a rampaging killer."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom