Here's a gun question:

[Exilednight]

Who, and when was it, decided that semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are not assault rifles?

[Logical]

1. First "define assault rifle"

[Exilednight]

2. I put an example in my question.

[cleanhippie]

43. No you didn't, you made an inaccurate assumption.

Kindly define exactly what qualities make an "assault rifle."

Or is that something you cannot do?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

112. Here is a better "REAL GOOD" gun answer, w/ images and a short movie

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3180201/Trump-defends-big-game-hunting-sons-shamed-Twitter-posing-trophy-kills-including-leopard-elephant-death-Cecil-lion.html

Donald Trump defending sons' sport killing of exotic African animals may finally doom billionaire blowhard's campaign
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/stasi-hed-article-1.2311902
"HUNTER KILLS LARGEST AFRICAN ELEPHANT AND POISONS DOZENS MORE"
IT'S A GOOD LIFE "You be dead!" said this kid

[B Calm]

71. Wikipedia definition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

[Logical]

3. What does "assault rifle" Even mean?

[Exilednight]

4. To many who defend the 2nd to the bitter end it supposedly

Only means a rifle that has full-auto.

[hack89]

72. When has it meant anything differently?

any history you care to share with us?

[Exilednight]

75. That's my question. When did it to come to strictly mean

Only rifles with full-auto? Who gave it that definition and when?

[hack89]

76. I simply think it is the only definition that has ever been used

Assault rifle is a military term - it was away used in a military context to describe full-auto or burst capable rifles firing a reduced powered cartridge. Semi-automatic rifles like the M1 Garand were simply called "rifles".

[Exilednight]

79. So you are basing that definition on what you believe?

[hack89]

83. I can't find any examples of semi-auto rifles commonly being called assault rifles.

Last edited Wed Jul 20, 2016, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)

so it would appear my belief is accurate. Now you are certainly welcome to provide some links demonstrating the historic use of the term - can you?

[madinmaryland]

69. Anything that can fire off more than two bullets without reloading. nt

[Travis_0004]

81. So a cap and ball revolver is an assault rifle?

[madinmaryland]

82. Yes. nt

[Straw Man]

100. So "assault rifles" were used in the Civil War?

Who knew?

[anoNY42]

5. Isn't it a good idea

to have a word that differentiates between automatic/selective fire rifles like the M-16 and semi-auto rifles like the AR-15?

[Exilednight]

6. there is. one is called full-auto, the other is called semi-auto.

[anoNY42]

18. Are you objecting to the term "assault rifle" as it is commonly defined?

You don't make that clear in your OP, but you sure seem to hint at it.

[Exilednight]

37. I'm asking a question. everyone is trying to argue about

What assault rifle means, and I'm just asking where the term came from, and who decided.

[jonno99]

7. It is generally understood that "assault" rifles (can) opperate in "fully automatic" mode.

IOW, full-auto means that as long as you hold down the trigger, the gun will fire bullets until it is empty.

The AR-15 is semi-auto, which means one bullet per trigger pull (the same as most pistols and non-bolt-action hunting rifles).

[Exilednight]

10. I know the difference, but that doesn't answer the question.

[jonno99]

12. See #8 for a better answer than mine...

[drray23]

133. except that with mods like bump fire kits

you can make your semi auto do exactly that. i.e fire continuously as long as you squeeze the trigger. Somehow it was ruled legal..

[beevul]

143. No.

except that with mods like bump fire kitsyou can make your semi auto do exactly that. i.e fire continuously as long as you squeeze the trigger.

No.

They enable you to pull the trigger faster, but there is still a single round fired for each pull of the trigger.

Somehow it was ruled legal.

That's because of where the line is drawn at legally. If it fires a single round per pull of the trigger and is not 'easily converted to automatic fire' by ATF standards, it is not an automatic weapon regardless of how fast one can pull the trigger, because actual rate of fire is not the metric used legally - the nature of the design is.

[Statistical]

8. It never was. Your question is actually reversed

Assault rifles is a military term which refers to select fire (automatic or burst fire) rifles. The term came about to distinguish it from earlier battle rifles because assault rifles were designed to fire a less powerful cartridge (and thus carry more ammo) as well as being capable of engaging targets at longer range.

The first assault rifle was a nazi weapon. It was the Sturmgewehr 44 which literally translates to "Assault Rifle 44". No the Nazi engineers weren't particularly creative in their naming of weapons.

The Sturmgewehr 44 was so radical as a concept other countries began to copy it and make similar weapons aka their own assault rifles. They called those weapons assault rifles meaning weapons which were similar to the Sturmgewehr 44. Eventually the term came to be used generically as an entire class of infantry rifles.

The AR-15 never was an assault rifle. Also "assault rifle" isn't used as a legal definition in the US. Even the NFA which regulates actual military hardware (automatic weapons, explosives, missiles, etc) doesn't use the term assault rifle. Under the NFA any weapon capable of automatic fire is a machine gun so a M-16 would be a "machine gun" although the military would never use such terminology our legal code does. There is no distinction between a M-16 (soldier rifle) and a M-2 (heavy crew served machinegun) under the NFA anything which is 1 trigger pull = more than 1 bullet is a machinegun.

Then along came the AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) which defined for the first time the word "assault weapon". Some semi-automatic rifles including the AR-15 were classified as "assault weapons". If the terminology between assault weapon and assault rifle seems similar it was intentional. Even under the AWB the AR-15 isn't legally an assault rifle it is an assault weapon.

So the real question is when did people decide an AR-15 WAS an assault rifle.

Over time the media began to just use assault rifle interchangeably with the word assault weapon. So when people use the word assault rifle today it could mean essentially anything from military hardware down to scary looking black rifle or even any semi-automatic weapon (which is most firearms in the world).

[Exilednight]

11. Legally it was defines to include the AR-15.

[anoNY42]

20. What is the "it" in your response?

[Statistical]

21. No it wasn't.

Neither the NFA nor the AWB used the term assault rifle.

Under the NFA an AR-15 (semi-auto) is simply an unrestricted weapon. A rifle.

Under the Federal AWB an AR-15 (semi-auto) is an assault weapon.

Neither classify it as an assault rifle because neither even have the word assault rifle in them.

Today CA has an Assault Weapon ban and the AR-15 would once again be legally classified as an assault weapon.

[aikoaiko]

56. No, you're confusing the term "assault rifle" with "assault weapon"

Assault weapons were legally defined in the 1994-2004 Federal AWB and currently defined legally in some states. AR-15s in their standard configurations met this definition, but once you removed the bayonet lug, swapped out the flash hider for a muzzle break, and kept the fixed stock, you could own a fully functional AR-15 rifle with some cosmetic differences from the standard.

Assault Rifle was coined by Hitler when he created the Sturmgewehr 44 Storm (as in storm/assault a position) Rifle

Wiki cites three authorative sources:
In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
* It must be an individual weapon
* It must be capable of selective fire
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine[5]
* And it should have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)

C. Taylor The Fighting Rifle: A Complete Study of the Rifle in Combat, ISBN 0-87947-308-8
F.A. Moyer Special Forces Foreign Weapons Handbook, ISBN 0-87364-009-8
R.J. Scroggie, F.A. Moyer Special Forces Combat Firing Techniques, ISBN 0-87364-010-1

So the answer to your question is that from the Federal perspective, AR-15s were never considered assault rifles, but they were (in certain configurations) considered assault weapons from 1994-2004.

Now they are just popular rifles.

[Exilednight]

59. No. you're confusing legally defined with legislatively defined.

If a judge renders a ruling that a chicken is an eagle, then a chicken is legally defined as an eagle.

[beevul]

61. Both were defined legislatively.

Neither were defined by a judge.

[aikoaiko]

64. That's an interesting distinction. I'm fairly certain that legislative definitions supercede judges'

Are you a lawyer?

[Exilednight]

66. My father was. He was first a corporate lawyer, made a ton of

Cash and then moved on to civil rights law.

There is a distinction. Once something is written as a legally binding ruling, then that definition MAY be used as a legal definition.

[aikoaiko]

67. Even if the judge's definition differs from a legislative definition?

That's interesting.

[Exilednight]

73. Yes. But it can change again if it's overturned by a higher court

Nor will it always apply to every case. It depends on context.

[aikoaiko]

96. Do we know of a judge determining that an AR15 is an 'assault rifle'?

[hardluck]

124. Used as a legal definition by whom?

[Exilednight]

129. By anyone attempting to use legal language as part of their argument.

[hardluck]

145. Been struggling with a response

Not sure I understand your distinction between legislative and legal definition. A legislative definition, as contained in a statute, is a legal definition. It is controlling in the jurisdiction at issue. To the extent the definition is vague or ambiguous, the trial court, using the rules of statutory interpretation, can interpret the statute based on extrinsic evidence, for example, the legislative history. That trial courts interpretation is binding on the parties to the litigation but has no other effect. It is not precedent and is not binding on any other court. To the extent an appellate court interprets a definition in a statute, it may be binding, if not dicta, on lower courts, but only persuasive authority in other courts.

If there is no legislative definition, and a definition is relevant to the action, eg in a contact dispute where a definition is relevant to whether there was a breach, and where the term is ambiguious, then the parties can submit evidence as to the term and the court can make a ruling. But that is only binding on the parties to the case and has no other effect.

Not sure where a court would be ruling on the term "assault rifle" as it is not a defined term by statute. I guess in a breach of contract/fraud case, but that definition is only binding on the parties.

[Exilednight]

146. There are many possible ways.

This varies depending on context. Legislative definitions can be legal, but they may not be the only legal definition of a word.

If a criminal charges are brought against someone who used an AR-15 in a mass shooting, and in evidence listing it has said weapon listed as an assault rifle, then legally it is defined as an assault rifle.

Legally it would be hard to dispute since assault rifle is not legislatively defined.

[jonno99]

17. "when did people decide an AR-15 WAS an assault rifle." - the REAL answer? When they saw

how "scary" they looked - not like those cute, innocuous, semi-auto "hunting" rifles...

[Exilednight]

38. That's not what I asked, but thanks for playing.

[cleanhippie]

45. You've been given lots of answers, yet dismiss them all because it's not what you want to hear.

How about you define just what an assault rifle is, then ask where that definition came from.

I don't expect you to do that at all, as your agenda is plainly obvious to anyone with two brain-cells to rub together.

[Exilednight]

52. I'm not looking for a definition, I am looking for the historical

Context of the word.

There have been some reasonable answers, but I want setting more definitive than wikipedia. Preferably a historian with credentials and no bias either way.

What is or is not an assault rifle does not currently interest me.

[jmg257]

55. Neutral historical perspective.

"Highly impressed, he dubbed it the "Sturmgewehr," meaning "storm rifle".
Seeking to enhance the propaganda value of the new weapon, Hitler ordered it re-designated StG44 (Assault Rifle, Model 1944), giving the rifle its own class."

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/smallarms/p/stg44.htm

[Straw Man]

105. Clarification.

The AR-15 never was an assault rifle.

The prototypes designed by Eugene Stoner and produced by Armalite for military trials were full-auto and were called "AR15." However, once the Army adopted them, the designation was changed to "M16." Subsequently, Colt acquired the patent from Armalite, and used the trademarked "AR15" designation for their civilian semi-auto version of the design.

[SheriffBob]

9. Oh boy!

Another gun thread. Gun bunnies, ten-hut, and lock and load.

[Eleanors38]

36. Well, it is Guns Discussion -- the preferred site among three (3) for controller/banners.

Just saying.

[spin]

13. Perhaps this might help. ...

Assault rifles vs. assault weapons

The term assault rifle, when used in its proper context, militarily or by its specific functionality, has a generally accepted definition with the firearm manufacturing community.[1] In more casual usage, the term assault weapon is sometimes conflated or confused with the term assault rifle.[106]

In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified a definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
a grenade launcher

***snip***

Assault weapons legislation does not further restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

[Glassunion]

14. "Assault Rifle" is a military term referring to specific characteristics of a firearm.

The AR-15 does not fit the definition.

[Exilednight]

39. Who and when, that is all I am asking.

[Glassunion]

41. Who: U.S. Army When: November 1970

[Exilednight]

42. Link?

I'm looking for this in historical context, so I want to make sure it's the earliest reference.

[Glassunion]

47. Not sure if it's the earliest, but it's the earliest in print I could find.

*Disclaimer: This is a page from the Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide. It references that it replaces another document which I am having difficulty locating a free pdf or picture of.

[jmg257]

110. Good stuff - thanks! nt

[Paladin]

15. It was a desperate PR move by the gun industry and gun rights people.

Military-styled semi-auto rifles like the AR-15 were openly marketed as "assault rifles" in the beginning. Once such firearms because the weapons of choice for assorted mass murderers, the pro-gun types sought to control the debate by controlling the vocabulary; hence the movement to re-label assault rifles with a douchebaggy moniker like "modern sporting rifles." Don't fall for the terminology intimidation: military-styled semi-auto rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 may properly be referred to as assault rifles. If that irritates the Gun Enthusiasts, so much the better.

[Ikonoklast]

107. Really? First ad for the Colt AR-15.

They were never marketed as an "assault rifle". Ever.

[Paladin]

119. See my reference to the MediaMatters article, down-thread. (nt)

[jmg257]

16. Hitler, when he coined the term "storm (assault) rifle" in 1944.

"... once Hitler saw the MP 44 being demonstrated, he was impressed and gave it the title Sturmgewehr. Seeing the possibility of a propaganda gain, the rifle was again renamed as the Sturmgewehr 44 (StG 44), to highlight the new class of weapon it represented. The designation translates to "Storm (Assault) rifle, model 1944", thereby introducing the term "assault rifle"

"The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44&quot is a German selective-fire rifle developed during World War II. It is also known under the designations MP 43 and MP 44 (Maschinenpistole 43, Maschinenpistole 44 respectively)."

"After the adoption of the StG 44, the English translation "assault rifle" became the accepted designation for this type of infantry small arm."

ETA Link wiki of course
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

[Darb]

19. Ruh roh, the gun nomenclature circle jerk begins.

Sorry exilednight, you are asking for the run around. Or is it the reach around?

[sarisataka]

22. Ah homophobic terms

If one standard is good to must be better, yes?

[Darb]

24. So.............

circle-jerk is homophobic? I though jerking off was pretty much across the board self abuse, no? Doing it in unison in a circle? Well, I don't get that connection either.

Nice try.

[sarisataka]

28. Don't worry

It's about gunz so it's accepted.

circle jerk
1.) When a group of males sit in a circle, jerking each other off.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circle%20jerk

[anoNY42]

29. I think he was talking about "reach around"...

since that is something two men might do?

[Darb]

30. Strictly men?

Jussayin. I don't really know if that act is a strictly man on man thing. If it is homophobic I'd take it back, but it was meant to ridicule the gunners habit of muddying the waters with a barrage of questions about gun vernacular. That is a circle jerk. (not meant literally, used to show a ridiculous and frustrating waste of time).

[anoNY42]

31. Well, if you want to get technical...

I guess a woman might be back there with a strap-on.

Anyway, since the OP was specifically about the definition of a word, it seems that "gunners" would be well within their rights to get technical about the semantics. If the OP was not about language, then one might consider vocab lessons to be "circle jerks", though.

[Darb]

33. Well, there ya go.

I didn't really think about the consequences I suppose. Maybe I should delete the whole shooting match.

Hey, what is the difference between a magazine and a clip?

[anoNY42]

34. Was it Potter Stewart who said

"I know it when I see it"? That is how I feel about the whole "magazine" vs. "clip" debate. Only weapon I ever used with a magazine was the M-16, everything else was a belt-fed machine gun.

[Separation]

147. A magazine is something that holds ammunition and is then inserted into a weapon

A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine or cylinder of a firearm. This speeds up the process of loading and reloading the firearm as several rounds can be loaded at once, rather than one round being loaded at a time.
CLIP


VS

MAGAZINE

[Darb]

149. Merci beaucoup.

Thanks for the information.

"If you can't hit it in 6, reload."

Six should be the legal max allowed outside of licensed gun ranges.

[Separation]

151. For hunting, in most states its 5.

With the exception of shotguns for bird hunting.

[Darb]

152. When I was a kid, we had to plug down to 3.

And we did. We made em count.

[Separation]

153. You are correct! I misspoke.

Im not much of a bird hunter (I have chickens in the back yard for that

[Paladin]

154. Important fact to keep in mind:

The terms "magazine" and "clip" are used interchangeably in the gun-handling community, to this very day. The only time the difference between the two devices becomes an issue is when pro-gun militants resort to their standard practice of using terminology in an intimidation effort against control advocates, to stymie meaningful discussions on gun policy. Happens all too often here at DU.

[Eleanors38]

44. Darb, if you are looking for a non-homophobic metaphor of this nature (caution)...

May I suggest a "daisy chain," though even this may be seen by some as a female activity. The usual take is a circle of sorts whose participants are (in alternating arrangement) both men and women; one performs fellatio, the other cunnilingus, and so on.

I post this because sexual aspersions are (ahem) de rigueur for some when discussing gun policy. I believe that at a minimum one's sexuality status should not be involved in the more common aspersions evidently acceptable in DU.

Thank you for your attention.

[Darb]

46. I best cut my losses.

Thanks for the info though. Daisy chain huh? Nice.

[Adrahil]

127. He's asking a question about nomenclature.

If he wants an actual answer, then precise meanings matter.

[jmg257]

23. The Department of the Treasury, BATF workgroup in 1989, concurred...

"The working group determined that the semiautomatic rifles in question are generally
semiautomatic versions of true selective fire military assault rifles. As a class or type of firearm
they are often referred to as “assault rifles,” “assault-type rifles,” “military style rifles,” or
“paramilitary rifles.” Since we are only concerned with semiautomatic rifles, it is somewhat of a
misnomer to refer to these weapons as “assault rifles.”

True assault rifles are selective fire weapons that will fire in a fully automatic mode.

For the purposes of this paper, it was necessary to settle on one term that best describes the weapons under consideration, and we will refer to these weapons as “semiautomatic assault rifles.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61761/download



The Assault Weapons bans in CA ('89) and federal law ('94) codified the definition of ARs and similar rifles as Assault Weapons, a term used earlier in California and by The Gun Digest ('86) to refer to "semi-automatic assault rifles". That definition changes pretty much every time a new ban is written.

[aikoaiko]

57. That is a useful reference. Thank you.

[Hoyt]

25. Because the gunners define "assault rifle" as fully automatic, even though common use includes

"semi-auto" too. Gunners apparently do not think semi-auto kill fast enough to be called an assault rifle.


Here's an ad where they call their rifle -- Adaptive Combat Rifle:




Truth of the matter, we have allowed the NRA and gun fanciers to define these terms to obfuscate the fact that these gunz kill plenty fast and are made to look like fully-automatic combat rifles to attract gun nuts who think we live in a combat zone. It's becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy

[beevul]

63. So does ATF.

Are they "gunners" too?

Paid off by the nra and the gun lobby?

Having lunch with ted nugent?

[Hoyt]

65. It just proves you are WRONG and your attempts to promote more gunz are based on deceit.

[Matrosov]

26. The Germans during WWII

The concept of the assault rifle was developed by the Germans during WWII. The term 'assault rifle' comes from them calling it a Sturmgewehr. Based on their definition of an assault rifle, semi-auto rifles like the AR15 are not assault rifles, because assault rifles need to offer multiple firing modes.

I know people like to ask why the semantics should matter, but it's like calling a diesel pickup truck a hybrid car.

[Paladin]

131. Always nice to see pro-gun militants showing such regard for Nazi Germany after all these years.(nt)

[Straw Man]

136. Is that what this is all about?

Shall we get into the "Nazi origins" of NASA and the US space program next?

[Paladin]

138. Some times you people just ask for it.

And feel free to compare Werner Von Braun with Ted Nugent all you want, if that's what makes you happy.

[Straw Man]

140. Ask for what?

Some times you people just ask for it.

And feel free to compare Werner Von Braun with Ted Nugent all you want, if that's what makes you happy.

Ludicrous comparisons and specious guilt-by-association attacks? Is every VW owner a Nazi sympathizer?

Weak. Very weak.

[friendly_iconoclast]

142. How many people has Ted Nugent had killed while making records?

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,220201,00.html

That's the gist of the official von Braun biography posted on the web site of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, where under the directorship of von Braun, the mighty Saturn 5 rocket was developed. And it's this sanitized biography that has roused the indignation of Tom Gehrels, a noted University of Arizona astronomer and pioneer in the program to discover and track Earth-threatening asteroids. A member of the Dutch resistance during World War II, Gehrels readily acknowledges von Braun's contributions to the world of science, but is all too aware of the little-known dark side of both him and his brother Magnus. "They were Jekyll and Hyde characters," Gehrels insists, "and the full truth ought to be known."

It is Gehrels who has pieced together that truth, largely from interviews with surviving political prisoners who had been forced to build V-1s and V-2s under the supervision of the von Brauns in an underground complex near Nordhausen, Germany. These prisoners were housed in an adjacent concentration camp called Dora, and new arrivals were given the standard welcoming speech: "You came in through that gate, and you'll leave through that chimney [of the crematorium]." ...

... For reasons best known to von Braun, who held the rank of colonel in the dreaded Nazi SS, the prisoners were ordered to turn their backs whenever he came into view. Those caught stealing glances at him were hung. One survivor recalled that von Braun, after inspecting a rocket component, charged, "That is clear sabotage." His unquestioned judgment resulted in eleven men being hanged on the spot. Says Gehrels, "von Braun was directly involved in hangings."

Hangings were commonplace, and Dora inmates remember von Braun arriving in the morning with an unidentified woman, having to step between bodies of dead prisoners and under others still hanging from a crane. These were not ordinary hangings, Gehrels says, "not hanging that breaks the neck of the prisoner, but they were slowly choked to death with a kind of baling wire around their neck."

[beevul]

144. Misfire!

matrosov is fairly anti-gun.

[GOLGO 13]

27. The AR-15 does not fit the definition.

Thanks for playing though.

[Exilednight]

40. sure that's an answer to some question, bit not what I asked.

[doc03]

32. You just opened yourself up for endless bullshit

with pictures of dozens of guns and the virtues of the AR-15 as home defense weapon. Keep your head down.

[Separation]

148. AR-15 is a shitty home defense weapon. Anyone who says otherwise

Doesnt know shit from shinola.

The common pump action shotgun is going to be the best home defense weapon. Not only for its distinct sound when a round is chambered enough for any criminal to shart his/her pants. It wont go through 4 different walls and hit your neighbors house like the AR-15 will.

Although I personally have never seen anyone tout the AR-15 as a home defense weapon.

[friendly_iconoclast]

155. A round from an AR-15 will only go through 4 walls if you live in a grass shack...

...and there are plenty of non-FMJ cartridges available for it.

[ileus]

35. The ATF?

[Orrex]

48. The most important thing is that we not offend gun advocates

That means no guns-as-dicks jokes, and we absolutely must describe firearms or ammunition in terminology not explicitly approved by the NRA.

[Eleanors38]

50. Actually, the most important "thing" is truth, not sloppy-handed deception.

[anoNY42]

51. It's just common courtesy on a website where everyone is working towards the same goal...

childish dick jokes only make the joker look like the dick.

[Orrex]

60. Yeah, gun advocates always say that.

It's not true, of course, but they always say it.

Also, gun advocates are more than happy to derail a conversation about gun-inflicted massacres simply because someone misstates some irrelevant minutiae about some obscure firearm or another, so I'm not impressed when they complain about the choice of rhetoric.

[anoNY42]

113. The AR-15 is hardly obscure

and discussions on this site always seem to lead to calls for legislation concerning guns like the AR-15. Legislation needs to be written with precision, which is sometimes lacking in our discussions.

Anyway, dick jokes also derail conversations about the serious topic of gun control.

[Orrex]

114. Nonsense. All of it.

The AR-15 is hardly obscure

Right, and if that were gun advocates' only objection, there'd be no problem. But they famously dismiss any argument by people who fail to distinguish "clip" from "magazine," for instance. Also, during the recent Pulse massacre, gun advocates even here on DU made a point of focusing on firearm minutiae before the victims had even been cleared from the scene.

Legislation needs to be written with precision, which is sometimes lacking in our discussions.

Really? Tell me how precise the beloved 2nd Amendment is. It's so vague that gun advocates can pretend that they're part of a well-regulated militia, and those advocates insist that it's fine the way that it is. At the federal level, it is much more practical to craft gun legislation in broad terms, such as "firearms and related ammunition-feed mechanisms capable of holding more than 10 rounds are forbidden."

The only reason to insist that gun legislation "needs to be written with precision," in fact, is so that manufacturers, sellers and owners can easily circumvent that precise legislation with trivial or cosmetic change to the firearm: "It's not a banned AR-15; it's obviously a non-banned AR-15.1."

Anyway, dick jokes also derail conversations about the serious topic of gun control.

By and large I do not find DU's gun advocates to be interested in serious discussions of gun control.

[hack89]

116. Nobody here is really interested in serious discussions of gun control

both sides just talk past each other. Entertaining sometimes but not very effective. But then DU is not really the place to actually try to change the real world so I can understand why things are the way they are.

[anoNY42]

117. A serious discussion of your comments

"By and large I do not find DU's gun advocates to be interested in serious discussions of gun control."

But you think that dick-joke enthusiasts are interest in said serious discussions?

"Tell me how precise the beloved 2nd Amendment is."

Tell me how precise the rest of the Constitution is. Moving from the general principles of the Constitution to specifics codified into laws has led to thousands upon thousand of pages of legislation and regulations. This is the way our government was set up. Of course you agree with me that laws should not be vague!

I can understand frustration at people who quibble over "clips" vs "magazines", I do not do this. However, if one is proposing to ban certain firearms, one should be specific.

[Orrex]

118. Well...

"By and large I do not find DU's gun advocates to be interested in serious discussions of gun control."

But you think that dick-joke enthusiasts are interest in said serious discussions?

Yes I do, but the dick jokes are a response to gun advocates' long history of derailing serious discussion for the sake of focusing on irrelevant minutiae. Further, gun advocates dismiss calls for sensible restrictions unless those restrictions are put forth by gun advocates. Therefore, when it becomes clear that gun advocates are not interested in discussion but are concerned only (or primarily) with protecting their precious guns, then a dick joke is not an unreasonable response to that unreasonable stubbornness.

I accept that you yourself do not do this, but you're not the only participant in the discussion.

Tell me how precise the rest of the Constitution is. Moving from the general principles of the Constitution to specifics codified into laws has led to thousands upon thousand of pages of legislation and regulations. This is the way our government was set up. Of course you agree with me that laws should not be vague!

Well, that's kind of the point. At the top end, the law can be and should be vague, to be defined by subordinate laws. Let's draft a Constitutional amendment defining "arms" as single-action firearms with a maximum capacity of 10 rounds. Nice and general, and subsequent laws can work to specify the particulars.

My point is that great precision is not needed to get the process started.

However, if one is proposing to ban certain firearms, one should be specific.

That's exactly why I think that firearm-specific bans are futile.

[anoNY42]

120. Well

"Further, gun advocates dismiss calls for sensible restrictions unless those restrictions are put forth by gun advocates."

This is bs. There are many gun owners on this forum who call for more restrictions, they are just generally against blanket bans. Now, if you are talking about non-DU gun owners in general, you are more correct. However, I am limiting my responses to DU members since they are the ones who have to read the dick-jokes.

"Nice and general, and subsequent laws can work to specify the particulars. "

Well duh, but you admit those laws must not be vague. I agree. This is what I am arguing about; this is the precision I am talking about. When people argue over whether an AR-15 is technically an "assault rifle", they do so because there are laws that make the distinction.

"That's exactly why I think that firearm-specific bans are futile."

I agree; that is not what I am arguing for. For instance, the NFA does very well in curbing automatic weapons ownership. It does so not by naming specific guns (like the M-16), but by naming specific features (e.g., automatic mode).

[Orrex]

122. For the most part, it appears that we agree.

This is bs. There are many gun owners on this forum who call for more restrictions, they are just generally against blanket bans.

Calls for across-the-board bans are rare and are seldom put forth here except by extreme outlying gun control advocates.

I admit that I would not object to the general elimination of all firearms, but I don't see that as necessary or feasible in reality.

However, I've had enough discussions here about gun regulation to be able to state with confidence that, in the main, gun advocates dismiss outright most calls for sensible legislation that they themselves do not propose. I accept that you have a different view, but I've had this discussion many times, and with very few exceptions it always turns out the same.

At best, gun advocates here tend to support vague and inherently ineffective measures, such as universal background checks (with no permanent, accessible record of those checks, of course) or improved mental healthcare, thereby scapegoating the mentally ill while not actually committing to any sensible gun regulation.

On the larger issues you and I appear generally to agree, but I'm not confident that we'll see eye to eye on some of the particulars.

[Straw Man]

139. Precision.

At the federal level, it is much more practical to craft gun legislation in broad terms, such as "firearms and related ammunition-feed mechanisms capable of holding more than 10 rounds are forbidden."

That is not a "broad" definition. It is a technically precise one.

The only reason to insist that gun legislation "needs to be written with precision," in fact, is so that manufacturers, sellers and owners can easily circumvent that precise legislation with trivial or cosmetic change to the firearm: "It's not a banned AR-15; it's obviously a non-banned AR-15.1."

Banning the AR-15 by name is not technical precision. In legal terms, it would mean that only the Colt version would be banned, since they have the copyright on the name. That is not what people mean when they ask for technical precision.

The idea that legislation can be sloppily worded and technically vague in order to allow for later interpretation is absurd. It practically sits up and begs for the legislation to be overturned in court. We are near that situation in New York now with the SAFE Act. There is a State Police hotline set up for questions regarding compliance. Not only is contradictory information commonly given -- i.e. two separate phone calls yield two conflicting answers -- but callers are often simply told "I don't know" by the call center personnel.

[Marengo]

53. Or at least make an attempt to be accurate and educated on the subject. You know, as would be...

The expectation in a debate about anything else. If credibility is valued, that is.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

121. Why do you feel the need to be offensive?

[Eleanors38]

49. You don't seem to understand, so here is the most salient quote on his matter...

"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." (Emphasis mine.)
-- Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Institute.

I believe this raw form of Machiavellian and dishonest outlook is still posted at the VPC site. Check it out.

[Paladin]

58. Exilednight, here's some further information on the subject:

Google "What Right-Wing Media Won't Tell You About Assault Weapons," an excellent 2013 MediaMatters article that gives a detailed historical account regarding the evolution of assault rifle marketing and terminology. Hope this helps.

[TeddyR]

62. I'm curious to know why this matters?

Automatic weapons are almost never used in crimes in the US. Semi-auto pistols are used in the vast majority of crimes, semi-auto rifles in a relatively small percentage. If someone wants to ban semi-auto rifles why quibble over whether they are "assault weapons" or "assault rifles" and just say you want to ban semi-auto rifles? Or define the weapon you want to ban by some other functional criteria instead of vague names.

The issue isn't really the terminology in this instance, it is the mistaken belief that firearms used in mass shootings are automatic weapons when they aren't. And this happens fairly regularly, both in news reporting and on this website.

[Exilednight]

68. To some it does matter. What I really want to know is who actually

Decided what is and is not an assault rifle.

If people are so insistent that we are getting wrong, what makes them right? Who's definition are they using and where did they get it from?

Amazingly, no one can answer a simple question, which makes me wonder if it's all just semantics.

[TeddyR]

77. Fair enough

But aren't there several posts in this thread that answered your question?

I'm not real concerned when someone refers to a semi-auto rifle as an "assault weapon" or an "assault rifle" because those terms seem to be used interchangeably, even if that usage isn't correct. When people start equating semi-auto rifles with machine guns then they lose me, or when they refer to semi-auto rifles as "weapons of war," which they certainly are not. Here's an article from Slate that might interest you:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/the_media_keeps_misfiring_when_it_writes_about_guns.html

Considering that a quick online search should provide all the information journalists need to get this right, it’s amazing that journalists don’t know the difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon. An assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon that can fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger, up to 950 rounds per minute. An assault weapon is a semi-automatic gun that can accept detachable magazines and has a pistol grip and an adjustable stock (to increase the gun’s length).* The term assault weapon itself, of disputed origin, is a thorn in the side of gun enthusiasts, who point out that the differences between “assault weapons” and other semi-automatics are largely cosmetic and don’t increase the gun’s lethality.

[hack89]

78. Lots of people have answered - you simply refuse to listen.

please stop your silly game.

[Exilednight]

80. No one has answered it. on what authority are we accepting this definition?

Who and when? The only answer I get is some off-hand thing about Hitler. Did Hitler invent the word, and if he did in what context did he develop it.

Definitions do not appear from nowhere, someone at sometime has to create them.

[hack89]

84. You were shown the legal definitions that the US government uses to classify rifles.

please stop.

[Exilednight]

88. Legal definitions aren't the cornerstone of English. There are reasons

That law dictionaries exist and Webster isn't use
d in a court room.

[hack89]

85. You were shown the ATF definition

please stop.

[Exilednight]

89. The ATF decided? They were the first to use the assault rifle?

[hack89]

90. No - they ruled what was NOT an assault rifle

please stop.

[Exilednight]

93. Then that doesn't answer the question.

[hack89]

97. Why is this so important?

Seems like a petty, insignificant semantic game to me. What's the point you are trying to make?

[hack89]

86. It is the English translation of Sturmgewehr

which literally means "storm rifle" as in "to storm (i.e., "assault&quot an enemy position".

[Exilednight]

91. So Hitler invented it as a propaganda term.

I can accept that definition if it's the first use

[hack89]

92. You were told that several times. nt

[Straw Man]

70. "Assault rifle" was originally a military term.

It denotes a new type of weapon, which is a full-auto weapon firing an intermediate rifle cartridge, as opposed a submachine gun, which fires a pistol-caliber cartridge.

[Exilednight]

94. But who gave us the definition, and when?

[Straw Man]

99. Nobody "gave" the "definition."

Somebody came up with a term to refer to an item that already existed. Hitler supposedly coined the term sturmgewehr, but this is anecdotal and based only on the fact that he signed the order creating the official military terminology.

For historical context, the term "assault rifle" has never been applied to the M1 Carbine, which is simply a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine, like the AR-15.

[Matrosov]

103. The Germans, as has been pointed out

Their definition of an assault rifle has been widely accepted since the 1940s.

Nobody called an AR15 an assault rifle in, say, the 1970s.

The term started being used for *some* semi-automatic rifles in the 1990s, when people began using 'assault rifle' and 'assault weapon' interchangeably. 'Assault weapon' was a newly-invented political term based on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

In my opinion, the 1994 AWB was hugely counterproductive, because it's definition of an assault weapon was based on cosmetic features that could be changed easily, it downplayed the danger of other semi-automatic rifles that are just as effective as AR15s but don't look as 'scary,' and it has given people the false belief that reinstating the AWB would make assault rifles/assault weapons/AR15s disappear.

The only way to get rid of AR15s is to ban *all* semi-automatic rifles and to not grandfather in rifles that are already in civilian hands.

[deathrind]

74. There used to be a real...

Difference between "full auto" and "semi auto". Technological advancements in firing mechanisms has bridged that gap. A properly functioning AR15 can expend a 100+ round drum in less than a minute. A quick search in Google will produce many videos showing this. Trigger movement should no longer be used as a metric for firearm classification, it should be updated to fire rate to reflect the reality of the current state of firearms.

[ileus]

87. My AR15 is a counter-assault rifle.

[Glassunion]

95. My Kitchen Aid is a Counter-Top mixer

[MyNameGoesHere]

98. Dealing with them

I found a nice guide to dealing with them. I will change my tactics as it seems pity would be more appropriate response.


DON’T bother with the “phallic symbol” thing. They don’t understand what it means, and the “inadequacy” they feel is a bit more layered than that. They might feel inadequate physically, but it may just as easily be mental or emotional. Often, they feel unprepared to compete in the modern world… because they are.

[TeddyR]

101. Who are you referring to?

Are you stating that the 25% of Dems who own guns are "inadequate"? If so, is that just the male gun owners who are Dem or the females also?

[Agnosticsherbet]

102. U.S. Military handbook for the M16 Assault rifle.

Last edited Wed Jul 20, 2016, 01:25 AM - Edit history (1)

M16/M4 HANDBOOK: AN OPERATIONAL GUIDE TO THE STANDARD U.S. MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLE
?1449477918

Assault Rifles exist. They are well defined by the Military.

[Straw Man]

104. That is not a US military manual.

This is:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B20VYXOOQPQ0MDhjZTNlZjEtYmNhNS00MjlmLThjOTMtOWM4MjA4MGRhMjli/edit

[Statistical]

106. Yeah I was going to say same thing. The Army is kinda boring and just calls it the "M-16 Rifle".

[Exilednight]

115. The Army should be the last ones to define anything. How many trucks

Are on an Army post?

[Agnosticsherbet]

123. The Fedorov Avtomat would have been the first, though the Sturmgewehr 44 or StG 44 gave them

the name.

They are a class of weapons used by everyone.

[beevul]

125. "Used by everyone"? N/T

[jmg257]

109. More on Hitler, and the US Military Intelligence Service use of "assault rifle" in 1945

The following U.S. military report describing the German MP 44 assault rifle is taken from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945.

Machine Carbine Promoted

M.P. 43 Is Now "Assault Rifle 44"

To bolster troop and civilian morale, the German High Command is now widely advertising the general issue of an automatic small arm which Adolph Hitler has personally designated the "Assault Rifle 44" (Sturmgewehr 44). The much-touted "new" weapon is actually the familiar German machine carbine with a more chest-thumping title.

As reported in the February 1945 TACTICAL AND TECHNICAL TRENDS, recently manufactured M. P. 43's previously had been re-designated M. P. 44, although only slight changes had been made in order to accommodate the standard rifle grenade launcher. M. P. 43's of earlier manufacture incorporating the same changes were merely designated M. P. 43/1. The completely new name of Sturmgewehr (assault rifle) may be intended to erase any recollection of the mediocre quality of the earlier M. P. 43's, at least so far as new troops and the public are concerned. In any event, the introduction of the title Sturmgewehr, together with the accompanying blast of propaganda concerning the weapon, is but another example of German efforts to exploit the propaganda value inherent in weapons with impressive-sounding titles, such as Panzer, Tiger, Panther, and Flak 88. Since the Sturmgewehr is more easily mass-produced than a rifle or machine gun because of its many stampings and low-power ammunition, and because a machine carbine is needed by desperately fighting German infantry in their efforts to stem the assault of American troops, it is natural that the Germans should make every effort to capitalize on its propaganda potentialities. By dubbing the M. P. 43 the Sturmgewehr, Hitler may also succeed in deceiving many Germans into thinking that this weapon is one of the many decisive "secret weapons" which they have been promised, and which they are told will bring final German victory.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html


In 1956 the US Military also referred to the Soviet AK-47 as an Assault Rifle... 7 May 1956 OIN 13042 "Firing Test: Soviet 7.62mm Assault Rifle"

[Adrahil]

126. It's interesting to see this downplaying the rifle.

There was a faction in U.S. Army that was a dead set against the idea of using a medium power cartridge in a "carbine," considering it inadequate for military use. Some of that tension remains today.

But troops in the field respected it, and many used the captured weapons until they ran out of ammo.

[DonP]

128. If you're ever interested in the internecine squabbling on the issue

There's a great book "American Rifle" by Alexander Rose that documents the internal squabbles on rifles from the War of 1812 right up to the adoption of the M4 and what's next.

32 pages of footnotes, it covers things like the ongoing reluctance to adopt any "newfangled" technology like breech loading or repeaters. Also gets into the practical impact of rifles, like Buford's Cavalry at Gettysburg using repeaters made the Confederates think they were a much larger force and that tipped Lee into stopping to fight, instead of going on to the Harrisburg Armory and Washington DC. Also the huge advantage of the M1 Garand in WWII against all bolt action rifles.

Interesting story about Lincoln test firing the new Spencer and Henry repeaters on the Capitol Mall and how he had to fire the head of Army ordnance for refusing to follow his orders to get the repeaters into the field

It's a history book that's actually interesting reading.

[Adrahil]

132. I actually own a Spencer.

Fascinating. And I shoot it (using a modern breech block to shoot center-fire ammo). It's a lot cheaper than a an actual period Henry, and actually more interesting to me.

[DonP]

134. I'm looking into a decent Sharps now

But the good ones, even in 45-70 aren't cheap. Preferably I can find one in 45-90 that doesn't cost what a restored Jaguar XKE would.

My sister recently uncovered a relative that fought with Grant in the Western Campaign, then Sherman on the drive to Atlanta and found a picture of his unit equipped with mostly Sharps and Henry Rifles.

Apparently they used the Sharps from a distance and the Henry's when things got up close.

[Adrahil]

135. Yeah, a decent Sharps = $$$$$

I just bought a repop. Not 100% accurate, but still fun to shoot.

[DonP]

137. Yeah, it's definitely a "saving up for" project

Not like a lot of them ever find their way to the used rifle rack.

[Straw Man]

111. I have another question ...

Who, and when was it, decided that revolvers like the Colt Police Positive are not semi-automatic pistols?

[Exilednight]

130. Feel free to start your own thread.

[Separation]

150. One thing for sure though

None of my rifles or pistols have assaulted anyone.