Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So tired of people saying assault rifle's are not a thing. (Original Post) Eko Jul 2023 OP
That pedantry reminds me of this guy: ret5hd Jul 2023 #1
An assault "rifle" is most definitely a thing. rsdsharp Jul 2023 #2
Is a rifle not a type of weapon? Eko Jul 2023 #3
Speaking as a Marine veteran, MarineCombatEngineer Jul 2023 #4
So a rifle is not a weapon. Eko Jul 2023 #5
Where does it say that? AZSkiffyGeek Jul 2023 #9
See post 3 and 4 Eko Jul 2023 #10
You definitely need better reading comprehension, MarineCombatEngineer Jul 2023 #22
Wow!!!! MarineCombatEngineer Jul 2023 #19
I read his post , like, 6 times, yagotme Jul 2023 #37
Armalite even advertised the civilian AR15 as a assualt rifle. Eko Jul 2023 #6
Do you believe gun manufacturers to be accurate and honest? Kaleva Jul 2023 #17
I mean they made the gun, if anyone can classify what it's for wouldnt it be them? Eko Jul 2023 #18
I'd do further research and not depend on what a company itself says Kaleva Jul 2023 #21
Aanndd............? MarineCombatEngineer Jul 2023 #20
That seems like a very narrow definition of assault weapon to me... TheRealNorth Jul 2023 #25
It can be converted, but there are consequences for that if one is caught with MarineCombatEngineer Jul 2023 #26
Well, let's define "convert it back". yagotme Jul 2023 #31
So is a halberd. rsdsharp Jul 2023 #7
I agree. Eko Jul 2023 #12
In absence of honest debate, semantics, moving the goalposts, strawmen, & everchanging nomenclature hlthe2b Jul 2023 #8
Say what? Eko Jul 2023 #11
Umm. I am totally agreeing with you and supporting your argument.. ???? hlthe2b Jul 2023 #13
My bad, Eko Jul 2023 #14
ahh, okay hlthe2b Jul 2023 #15
Armies around the world are armed with assault rifles Kaleva Jul 2023 #16
If you're looking for a REAL made up name AndyS Jul 2023 #23
I think the term came out of legislation or regulation that allowed sporting rifles to be imported. SYFROYH Jul 2023 #27
According to the NSSF: AndyS Jul 2023 #28
Maybe marketing, but also trying to meet legislative standards SYFROYH Jul 2023 #29
According to your link the AR and it's dirivatives are not MSRs but AndyS Jul 2023 #30
An "assault rifle" is capable of full auto fire. yagotme Jul 2023 #32
I just read the link. Go argue over the nits you choose to pick with them. nt AndyS Jul 2023 #33
Just letting you know that the document, like a lot of federal documents, yagotme Jul 2023 #34
Which is why I have begged the gunners who supposedly know so much AndyS Jul 2023 #35
Post #39 yagotme Jul 2023 #36
Leading is NOT AndyS Jul 2023 #38
Remember, Minority Report is just a movie. yagotme Jul 2023 #39
No one has proposed that. AndyS Jul 2023 #40
You have suggested removing semi-auto's from law abiding citizens... yagotme Jul 2023 #41
No. Can you cite something? I may have mispoke AndyS Jul 2023 #42
Post 22. yagotme Jul 2023 #44
This is like Scalia finding "self defense" in the 2nd. AndyS Jul 2023 #45
"(P)roblem here that involves guns and the easy access to them" yagotme Jul 2023 #46
I'm sorry but you're just making shit up now. AndyS Jul 2023 #48
Here's another. OP yagotme Jul 2023 #47
Still nothing about TAKING guns of any kind FROM law abiding AndyS Jul 2023 #49
"Get rid of...all kinds..." yagotme Jul 2023 #50
Okay, taken literally word for word you COULD interpret these word as you have, AndyS Jul 2023 #51
Well, when all I have before me is what you typed, yagotme Jul 2023 #52
Well, as long as we are playing high school debate team and simply trying to score AndyS Jul 2023 #53
Sorry, but I can't see a distinction between "restrict them all", yagotme Jul 2023 #54
Out of courtesy I'm letting you know I have put you on ignore. AndyS Jul 2023 #55
K. yagotme Jul 2023 #56
I respect your POV, but putting people on ignore is not a winning strategy. MarineCombatEngineer Jul 2023 #57
Spending my time responding to someone who refuses to actually understand my AndyS Jul 2023 #58
Ok, fair enough, MarineCombatEngineer Jul 2023 #59
I understand the terminology frustrations. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2023 #24
So many people not knowing the difference ManiacJoe Jul 2023 #43
I own ARs Squatchman Nov 2023 #60

MarineCombatEngineer

(14,313 posts)
4. Speaking as a Marine veteran,
Thu Jul 6, 2023, 08:03 PM
Jul 2023

there is a difference, an assault rifle is a select fire weapon, whereas, an assault weapon is whatever Congress deems it is.
Personally, I would like to see the NFA opened up to include certain types of semi auto rifles.

MarineCombatEngineer

(14,313 posts)
19. Wow!!!!
Thu Jul 6, 2023, 10:45 PM
Jul 2023

That's what you got out of my post?
Apparently, you didn't bother to read the rest of my post.
Sad, sad, sad.

yagotme

(3,816 posts)
37. I read his post , like, 6 times,
Wed Jul 12, 2023, 10:12 AM
Jul 2023

and didn't see where he said that. A rifle is a weapon. A weapon is not necessarily a rifle.

Eko

(8,457 posts)
18. I mean they made the gun, if anyone can classify what it's for wouldnt it be them?
Thu Jul 6, 2023, 10:40 PM
Jul 2023

Who would you use to decide what it is?

Kaleva

(38,062 posts)
21. I'd do further research and not depend on what a company itself says
Fri Jul 7, 2023, 04:54 AM
Jul 2023

As most everyone knows, ads aren't always accurate or even truthful

TheRealNorth

(9,629 posts)
25. That seems like a very narrow definition of assault weapon to me...
Fri Jul 7, 2023, 10:05 AM
Jul 2023

That because an AR-15 lacks the mechanism to make the rifle fire automatically or in short bursts, it's not an "assault rifle". It's not like the AR-15 can't be modified to convert it back to automatic fire.

MarineCombatEngineer

(14,313 posts)
26. It can be converted, but there are consequences for that if one is caught with
Fri Jul 7, 2023, 10:13 AM
Jul 2023

an illegally converted semi auto.

I would support opening the NFA for certain semi autos, I know with some, this isn't very popular, but I really don't give 2 cents worth what they have to say.

yagotme

(3,816 posts)
31. Well, let's define "convert it back".
Mon Jul 10, 2023, 09:38 PM
Jul 2023

All AR-15's made today are semi-auto only. M-16's are full auto/burst. VERY early AR-15's were issued in full auto to the military, but these are few and far between. A current AR-15, converted to full auto, is illegal without filing the proper paperwork.

After all, a 9-iron or a baseball bat could be considered an assault weapon...

hlthe2b

(106,204 posts)
8. In absence of honest debate, semantics, moving the goalposts, strawmen, & everchanging nomenclature
Thu Jul 6, 2023, 08:19 PM
Jul 2023

are all you have...

hlthe2b

(106,204 posts)
13. Umm. I am totally agreeing with you and supporting your argument.. ????
Thu Jul 6, 2023, 08:39 PM
Jul 2023

It really should have been clear that I was talking about the NRA crowd. Bizarre... Why would you think otherwise?

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
23. If you're looking for a REAL made up name
Fri Jul 7, 2023, 09:06 AM
Jul 2023

try "Modern Sporting Rifle". Assault Weapon has been around at least since WWII. "Modern Sporting Rifle" was made up by the NSSF sometime in '80s or '90s.

What 'sport' is it designed for? Competitive Mass Murder?

SYFROYH

(34,201 posts)
27. I think the term came out of legislation or regulation that allowed sporting rifles to be imported.
Sat Jul 8, 2023, 07:13 PM
Jul 2023


AndyS

(14,559 posts)
28. According to the NSSF:
Sat Jul 8, 2023, 07:25 PM
Jul 2023
The term “modern sporting rifle,” aka MSR, was coined to describe today’s very popular semi-automatic rifle designs, including the AR-15 and similar variants.


The NSSF came up with the term in an attempt to blunt the more accurate Assault Rifle and market it more successfully.

It's all about marketing. Ya' know, selling more guns.

SYFROYH

(34,201 posts)
29. Maybe marketing, but also trying to meet legislative standards
Sat Jul 8, 2023, 07:57 PM
Jul 2023

Rifles for sporting purposes were considered good, but large capacity military magazine rifles were bad. Hence, the term modern sporting rifle.

Semiautomatic rifles that were considered not for sporting purposes were made legal to import as sporting rifles when certain features were removed, like pistol grips.

You like to read. Have at it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080920043945/http://atf.treas.gov/pub/treas_pub/assault_rifles/typscope.pdf

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
30. According to your link the AR and it's dirivatives are not MSRs but
Sat Jul 8, 2023, 08:26 PM
Jul 2023

large capacity military magazine rifles.

All that aside, when the NSSF tells me that they coined the term I tend to believe them. They made up a new name for a semiautomatic assault rifle.

yagotme

(3,816 posts)
32. An "assault rifle" is capable of full auto fire.
Mon Jul 10, 2023, 09:41 PM
Jul 2023

A semiautomatic rifle (only) is not. Thus, the separate name/definition.

yagotme

(3,816 posts)
34. Just letting you know that the document, like a lot of federal documents,
Mon Jul 10, 2023, 09:58 PM
Jul 2023

is not entirely correct. 1st page, it talks about the Vepr rifle not being included, as "it does not fall within this type
because it does not have the ability to accept a large capacity military magazine." It has a detachable magazine. All one has to do is make a 20 round mag for it, and you have a listed arm. This is why details are important, and to have someone that knows what they are talking about when discussing a particular topic. When you have a diesel mechanic dicussing ways to regulate appendix removal, you're gonna get some crazy regulations.

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
35. Which is why I have begged the gunners who supposedly know so much
Mon Jul 10, 2023, 10:06 PM
Jul 2023

to propose and support laws that will save lives in this crazy ass world. For 40 years I've asked for input from those 'law abiding responsible gun owners' and got nothing. All I've got is more of this nit picking bull shit about what a gun is.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
38. Leading is NOT
Wed Jul 12, 2023, 02:11 PM
Jul 2023

waiting for someone to be wounded or killed which is what you continue to propose.

So follow or get out of the way.

yagotme

(3,816 posts)
39. Remember, Minority Report is just a movie.
Wed Jul 12, 2023, 02:29 PM
Jul 2023

Deciding guilt on a crime not yet committed is not currently allowed.

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
40. No one has proposed that.
Wed Jul 12, 2023, 03:12 PM
Jul 2023

If you can't respond to thingsthat have been suggested this exchange is a waste of my time.

Good day.

yagotme

(3,816 posts)
41. You have suggested removing semi-auto's from law abiding citizens...
Sat Jul 15, 2023, 10:24 AM
Jul 2023

before they commit a crime, have you not?

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
42. No. Can you cite something? I may have mispoke
Sat Jul 15, 2023, 12:30 PM
Jul 2023

but at one time I suggested banning all semi autos but then modifed my view to add them to the NFA. Not confiscating existing firearms unless paid for.

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
45. This is like Scalia finding "self defense" in the 2nd.
Mon Jul 17, 2023, 12:20 PM
Jul 2023

From the post you cite.

January 22 and there are 44 mass shootings. But hey, the night's young!
Still gonna' tell me there's not a problem here that involves guns and the easy access to them?
Asking for a friend . . .


Where do you see that, " (I) have suggested removing semi-auto's from law abiding citizens before they commit a crime?"

yagotme

(3,816 posts)
46. "(P)roblem here that involves guns and the easy access to them"
Fri Jul 21, 2023, 03:00 PM
Jul 2023

If you believe the access is too easy, therefore, logically, you would wish to reduce said access. To reduce said easy access, before a crime is committed, you would have to reduce/remove the availability of said guns to fewer people. To do that, some lawful citizens would end up being denied the right to purchase a lawful arm, unless you made such arms totally illegal. Criminals will still get access to guns (they are, after all, criminals), and when the "new" laws don't work, well, we'll have to reduce availability some more. If you don't agree with my assessment of "reducing availability" not working, see: NFA 1934, GCA 1968, failed AWB 1994, etc. These laws were passed to "reduce availability" of certain arms, registration, background checks, etc, and we still have a gun crime problem. They didn't stop the "44 mass shootings since Jan 22".

yagotme

(3,816 posts)
50. "Get rid of...all kinds..."
Fri Jul 21, 2023, 03:58 PM
Jul 2023

"We must stop fucking around trying to pacify the gunners and just get rid of semi automatic weapons of all kinds that accept removeable magazines. Long guns, short guns restrict them ALL"

To get rid of ALL kinds of semi auto's, you're going to have to "take" them from law abiding citizens. Did you even read your post before responding? If you can't see what you wrote yourself, I guess I will have to give it up.

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
51. Okay, taken literally word for word you COULD interpret these word as you have,
Fri Jul 21, 2023, 04:10 PM
Jul 2023

however taken with the entirety of years of posts you SHOULD know that I've posted that any "taking" must be compensated. I've said that government does this all the time; it's called eminent domain. It CAN be done, it IS constitutional and it requires compensation. I once proposed a mandatory gun buy program with a grace period. After the grace period you're no longer 'law abiding'.

If that's what you're talking about then I'm guilty. I've since modified my position to moving all semis to the NFA. You see, I'm not in need of a plexiostomy because I don't suffer from cranial rectal inversion. I can change my views. Can you?

yagotme

(3,816 posts)
52. Well, when all I have before me is what you typed,
Fri Jul 21, 2023, 04:16 PM
Jul 2023

I kind of do have to take it literally, as inflection shows poorly through a computer screen.

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
53. Well, as long as we are playing high school debate team and simply trying to score
Fri Jul 21, 2023, 05:06 PM
Jul 2023

points instead of having a meaningful discussion of 150,000 people killed and wounded by fire arms, about half of which were done by "law abiding gun owners", what I said in your cited quote was "restrict them ALL" and not take anything away.

I'd rather have a discussion about reducing the carnage that the gun culture has willingly and knowingly brought upon us. I've asked the supposed experts on guns to help. So far they all seem to resist that hopeful request.

I once had an ignore list of ~15 people. After a couple of years I went back and took them all off ignore. All but two had posting privileges revoked or were under permanent review. Who'da thought there'd be that many gun trolls?

I'd rather not start another list and I'm still looking for meaningful suggestions from those who hold themselves out to be gun experts. On the other hand there's only so much time in my day for dealing with minutia of wording and flawed application of logic.

yagotme

(3,816 posts)
54. Sorry, but I can't see a distinction between "restrict them all",
Fri Jul 21, 2023, 05:17 PM
Jul 2023

without taking them away. (BTW, you did say "get rid of" a few words earlier). If you "restrict them all", then no one has one. Which means, those already in circulation are going to have to be "removed". Buybacks? What's fair market value for all the semi-auto's you want restricted? Bet that amount will sink the budget for years. And those that don't want to sell? You'll have to "take" them, then. Can't wave a wand and make things disappear.

And, we've gone round and round about ideas to reduce carnage. Some of ours are similar, some not. That's the idea behind a discussion board, to hash out differences.

ETA: Clarified quote.

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
55. Out of courtesy I'm letting you know I have put you on ignore.
Fri Jul 21, 2023, 05:23 PM
Jul 2023

Play all the silly word games you wish. Post all you want. Say all the dumbass shit you want.

I won't see it and won't react.

AndyS

(14,559 posts)
58. Spending my time responding to someone who refuses to actually understand my
Sat Jul 22, 2023, 04:24 PM
Jul 2023

point of view and manufactures things I have said out of whole cloth is a waste of my time. Only so many hours in the day and I don't need to spend them on dipshits who have no interest an honest exchange, only scoring high school level debate points and poorly applied "logic".

Some hills are worth dying on, some not.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,567 posts)
24. I understand the terminology frustrations.
Fri Jul 7, 2023, 09:47 AM
Jul 2023

You have also identified a major impediment to progress on lowering crime and improving regulation.

For clarity, "assault weapon" is term used mostly in the media and advertising. "Assault rifle" denotes a very specific set of functional characteristics to anyone with military knowledge or experience. I remember reading that "assault weapon" was initially used in an advertising campaign by a manufacturer. Various state governments and feds have defined "assault weapon" differently. To add to the confusion the media has used these 2 terms interchangeably.

I would really like to see Congress do some work to resolve the confusion.

Here are some links to the Code of Federal Regulations:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-I/part-73/subpart-A/section-73.2
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-2641/subpart-C/section-2641.301

The CFR often has sections defining terms used which is a big help to understanding the scope, spirit, intent and effect of the regulations therein.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
43. So many people not knowing the difference
Sat Jul 15, 2023, 05:55 PM
Jul 2023

between the real world definition of "assault rifle" and the made up silliness of "assault weapon".

The only reason the term "assault weapon" exists is to purposely confuse the masses into thinking of assault rifles. Regardless of what silly definition you use for "assault weapon", none of the common definitions ever include actual assault rifles.

 

Squatchman

(18 posts)
60. I own ARs
Sat Nov 18, 2023, 08:06 AM
Nov 2023

And I call them assault rifles.
Because they are.
Actually I call my first one the War Machine.
The difference I see between military ARs and mine are the military ones have selective fire.
And the kicker is that gun manufacturers actually called them assault rifles first. Had it right in the advertisements.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»So tired of people saying...