A Modern Sporting Rifle Thought question and Boston

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
In the debate over an AWB, folks have stewed over the term assault rifle and argued for making the AR platforms seem nice by calling them modern sporting rifles. They are for sport and hunting - they aren't full auto and thus somehow not so dangerous. Please let me keep mine. :o

I always thought that was not effective as the sheer appearance will prime negative thoughts in the anti and perhaps in the middle of the roader. I argue we have the right to own them exactly because of their efficacious use outside of the realm of sport and hunting.

So, we watched police, SWAT, military tramp all over Boston with such guns (yes, they are full and yours aren't). But mine looks amazing like those the law had - down to the Eotech. I would argue that I could have such as they do - not that it is for Wily Coyote or Bambi.

Does that massive appearance of such, squad of them - really wash away the utility of the modern sporting rifle mantra. You can clarify the full vs semi issue but that's about it.

I saw Diane F. arguing, when asked if you might have needed a gun in Boston, to go with the old double Barrel 12 gauge Biden special.

Thoughts?
 
If a shotgun had been as fully effective as a shotgun in Boston, the police would have used them. After all, they're much cheaper.

I don't care if you call it a Modern Sporting Rifle. Some are optimized for sporting. Some for hunting. Some for tactical warfare. I have no compunctions calling it an assault rifle (after all, I wasn't the one who decided that's what it was) or simply a semi automatic rifle.

I think pandering and calling them Modern Sporting Rifles, while well intentioned and maybe effective in some ways, can backfire.

What happens when the media defines the new XRM-999 rifle an assault rife and wants to ban it and then cries "You said you only need sporting rifles, who needs one of these?" Or better yet, they create "sporting" and "hunting" ammunition loads and call hollow points and anything over a certain grain "assault ammunition".

"Investigators are now releasing statements saying the killers used heavy weight hollow point bullets, designed to cause maximum damage to a human target. These bullets were designed for no purpose other than to kill."

That or I just feel like we have the constitutional right to assault weapons. It's really a silly category. Do we have defense weapons? Reconnaissance weapons? Rest and Recuperation weapons?
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I sit squarely on the fence on this one.

I tend to preach that when we allow the anti-gun forces to control the language (the terminology), we allow them to control the debate. We want to retake control of the debate, thus we want (need) to retake control of the terminology. However, I have never been convinced that calling AR-15 pattern rifles "modern sporting rifles" is the right way to do it. First, "modern sporting rifle" is too long. It doesn't resonate with the current sound bite mentality. Second, it doesn't really mean anything. (Of course, "assault weapon" didn't mean anything, either, until the anti-gun forces came up with it as a general-purpose name for anything they don't like.)

What we really need to do is not engage in a contest of what to call scary-looking black rifles, but focus our energies on pointing out -- everywhere and all the time -- that the anti-gun forces are simply lying when they call our semi-automatic AR-15s "assault weapons" and "military style" weapons. Yes, they are "military style" ... cosmetically. So are my Ka-Bar knife, my camouflage BDU outfit, my field jacket, and my desert boots. So what? NONE of these things is an actual, military item, and neither is my AR-15.

I just don't think trying to get the public to latch onto a new name is effective. I think it's clearly seen as the ploy it is, and I would prefer to put the lie to the name "assault weapon."

For example, Sandy Hook. Every time someone mentions that the shooter used an "assault weapon," we should point out that Connecticut had IN FORCE an "assault weapon" ban equal to the expired Federal ban, and under Connecticut law (and therefore by legal definition) the rifle used was NOT an "assault weapon." It was simply a semi-automatic rifle that has a superficial, external resemblance to a military assault rifle.
 
I take the exact opposite approach of Glenn.

I think that seeing the plethora of AR-15s, and even H&K 416s on some of the FBI guys, tends to lend credence to the anti- cry of "only the police and military should have them."

To me, it just reinforces the belief that the military and police will all protect the populace, and need scary black rifles to do it.
 
When anti-gunners argue that civilians don't need military weapons I don't get too upset. As long as everyone understands the difference between military and LE weapons. I'd bet money the vast majortiy of the rifles seen on TV were semi auto. Even the miltary has seen that full auto rifles are not used very often and the average soldier will use them on semi most of the time. All police agencies that I'm aware of that issue AR rifles issue semi auto versions. Some of the federal agents may well have had full auto versions.

Military rifles are full auto. Miliary weapons include artillery, rockets, etc. I know some will disagree with me, some strongly. But here is where I draw the line in the sand. No LE officer should have the right to own any weapon, or magazine that any other person who is otherwise legal to own a gun should not have the right to own.

I don't really think Glenn is wrong. In the real world we are as likely to need to use a gun as any LE officer, maybe moreso. And we are just as likely to find ourselves in a situation needng more than 7, 10 or 15 shots as any LE officer. Not knocking anyone in LE. I have MANY close friends and I am a volunteer with our local Sherriff's department doing SAR work. I work closely with LE, but none of those guys should have the right to own or use something I cannot. And every single LE officer I know agrees with me on that. True military weapons should be more difficult if not impossible to own.

On the other hand there is no doubt that the AR platform can, and has crossed over into the hunting and target shooting arena. There is no doubt this has greatly increased the numbers sold and is a major reason there was no serious talk of another AWB this time. I use mine in dual roles, and welcome those who only plan to use them as hunting rifles. The more we pull together the better off we all will be.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
In the debate over an AWB, folks have stewed over the term assault rifle and argued for making the AR platforms seem nice by calling them modern sporting rifles.
Click to expand...
Smith & Wesson is already doing that. Their AR-10 clone is labelled "modern sporting rifle" on the box. I sometimes call them "military style rifles."

I don't know that we're going to be able to win on the terminology, and I'm not too concerned. The lines are drawn for the most part. I'm not going to convince the local gun-control crowd that they should change their semantics.

On the other hand, many folks in the middle know what "assault weapons" are. They're code-speak for things politicians they don't trust want banned. I know quite a few folks who aren't gun people, but who furrow their brow with great suspicion when they hear that term.

The important thing is to win on principles.
 
Not sure about the naming, but the best thing we can do in that case is protect our home's inside and yard with an AR15.

I'm betting 90+% were protecting their home by laying in the fetal postion, disarmed by local laws, kissing their butt goodbye. Is that what we should be doing as Americans??

Really, that guy went outside to see if there was blood on his boat. He's lucky he's not dead. He could have ended the whole thing by poking an AR in the guys face.
 
I would really like to get a straight answer from the antis as to what makes the EBR so evil.

Is it the semiautomatic feature? Most modern handguns have this.

Is it because most are black? Most modern handguns, shotguns, rifles are black. It's a cheap way of coating a weapon.

Is it the optics, lasers, lights and other stuff you can put on them? You can put optics, lasers, and all sorts of crapola on a handgun, shotgun, etc. It doesn't make it any more functional in the hands of a novice.

Is it that they resemble military rifles (except that they CANNOT shoot burst or full auto)? So a rifle that looks like an automatic weapon but can't shoot like an automatic weapon is "close enough"? What is so evil about an adjustable stock?

Is it the large "clips"? What is the difference between 10, 15, 30? Most people barely proficient in firearms can reload very quickly.

Is it the muzzle brake? This is a long and drawn out discussion. Do they really increase accuracy and decrease recoil that much on a 223 platform using standard loads?

Also what is their endless harping over the term "just like the soldiers have?" Soldiers use semiautomatic rifles, pump shotguns, auto shotguns, all manner of semiautomatics (including the over 100 year old 1911). Guns are guns. Soldiers like the kinds that are accurate and reliable.
 
What ever happen to the term "Service Rifle"? My 03, Garand and AR are Service Rifles or Service Rifle styled weapons. They have served in the past, they serve the military and law enforcement today and they serve me as recreational rifles and defensive weapons.
 
When you try too hard to change the label on something it tends to backfire, like the crew at work who tried to report a fire as a "thermal event". My modern sporting rifles are the ones that load from the breech and don't use a rock to light the powder. Just refuse to use the invented term "assault rifle". "Civilian versions of military rifles" is accurate. Or just "semiautomatic". It is surprising how many folks think these are machine guns - just had to explain that to my wife. Of course, that is the image the anti's want. We have a big education challenge ahead of us, and we will do better if our side is the one that tells it like it is.
 
I don't get the terminology. Cars that are around 50 years old or more are called antiques. The AR is what, 55 or so years old now. That doesn't seem very "modern" to me. Why don't we just call them semi-automatic target rifles or small game hunting rifles? We have bolt action target rifles, and bolt action hunting rifles; not " long range sniper rifles".
 
Dr Big Bird PhD said:
I just say I have a rifle.
Click to expand...

This is where I land on the issue as well. It is never hyperbolic or the result of an attempted spin.

I have a few rifles. Some may look like what was seen in Boston this weekend. Most are bolt action .22s.

Providing a descriptive adjective with the term "rifle" does not add to the description of the item, but what I do with it. I do not believe that is especially useful when discussing the item in itself.

"Short", "long", "light", "heavy" all actually describe the item. "Assault", "sport" and "service" do not.
 
Last edited:
I think the battle over a defining term is almost lost for the practicle sense.
As to the Boston event, I saw various types of firearms...Handguns (pistol and revolver), shotguns, and rifles (a couple of bolt actions, and various gas operated rifles, unsure if they were semi, or select fire).

GEM said:
Does that massive appearance of such, squad of them - really wash away the utility of the modern sporting rifle mantra.
Click to expand...

I guess it would depend on which sides your on. We have had for years certain groups and politicians against ownership of say, an AR-15, with many firearm owners being pro-ownership of the same type rifles. I heard a slight rumble before the Boston event about how some firearm owners, thought that LE shouldnt have carbines/rifles. With the pictures of Boston coming out, that slight rumble got pretty loud about how LE shouldnt have rifles/carbines, plus the various other equipment used there. I never understood how someone can be pro-gun, but wants to restrict certain peoples rights to own/possess/use certain firearms because of their job. Its amazing to hear some folks I know talk about how they should be trusted with this or that, but LE? Naa, just give them a 38, with 12 rounds of ammo, thats all they need no matter what. Im in LE and progun. Yes, I even want to, and bring up to my elected officials how I want to remove restrictions on such things as NFA, import restrictions, etc.
 
What ever happen to the term "Service Rifle"? My 03, Garand and AR are Service Rifles or Service Rifle styled weapons. They have served in the past, they serve the military and law enforcement today and they serve me as recreational rifles and defensive weapons.
Click to expand...

You bet. Nobody seems to be frightened by the Garands and 1903 Springfields out there. It would be a good idea for all of us to remind those people who demonize the AR that it isn't the first assault rifle, it's just the current service rifle.
 
My favorite name for the AR-15 is "Modern Musket".

There a lot of them out there and lots of people can shoot them after a reasonable amount of training.
 
I'm with Dr Big Bird PhD

I just say I have a rifle.
Click to expand...

When it comes to guns the less other people know about your gun inventory the better off you're going to be.

Don't forget that other than cash and jewelry they are the most sought after item by thieves.

If the subject comes up and somebody asks how come I know so much about guns I tell them that I was in the Army and I have had experience with them and that everyone should have at least a shotgun to protect their family in an emergency.

On a side note, my sister who lives out on Long Island, as long opposed firearms. After the storm Sandy blew through there we were talking and she said that she wished that she would have had a shotgun. I was stunned and asked her why? She said that in her area there were guys going right up to people's porches and taking generators and homeowners had no way to protect their property.

That's why all those people in Boston were in fear. If they would have had the means of defending themselves it wouldn't have been so stressful for them.
 
What makes them EBRs - the research suggests that they are seen as instruments of extreme violence. Probably from exposure to military and police usage in news and media. Remember the hunting community debate from some supposed gun folks who saw them exactly in that fashion.

I don't think anyone actually cares about the full auto vs. semi as compared to the power of appearance. However, I haven't empirically tested that. I don't know if you explain the difference folks would care.

I went to dinner with some folks last night who aren't gun folk but know I am and are not antagonist. Their view is generally you can have a gun for SD but don't need a military gun (see semi vs full debate). I explained the concept of modern sporting rifle. They thought that was silly and in fact using the euphemism made them suspicious that the users of such has something to hide. I hadn't thought of a negative effect of such usage.

Interesting debate as I've studied such. Thanks for insights. I've argued that we need them as defense against tyranny - that takes a bit. Katrina and apocalypse (not zombies, but natural disasters) has some power as an argument.
 
Punisher_1 said:
What ever happen to the term "Service Rifle"? My 03, Garand and AR are Service Rifles or Service Rifle styled weapons. They have served in the past, they serve the military and law enforcement today and they serve me as recreational rifles and defensive weapons.
Click to expand...
Correction -- your '03 and your M1 Garand are (were) service rifles, issued and used by the United States military. Your semi-automatic AR-15 looks similar to an M16, but the M16 is the "service rifle" and your AR-15 is not (and never was).
 
That's why I used the word "styled" since you're right my AR version is not a service rifle. Here's one other question about when people talk about firearms. Why is it when they want to demonize the ownership of numerous firearms the world uses the term "weapons cache" but if they are not attacking someone its a "firearms collection"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top