assault weapon

It seems to me that any weapon that's light and easy to carry and handle, that can be firmly held and fired with one hand if necessary, that has enough ammunition on board to be shot many times before needing reload, and is of a lethal but low recoil caliber, qualifies as an "assault" weapon because such a weapon would be the most efficient and effective for such a combat operation. In fact, a weapon with those attributes was designed with exactly that mission as its purpose. We all know what such a weapon will look like, with little variation. Seen one M-16 and you've seen what virtually all other such rifles seek to look like.

Any weapon that is designed to be efficient and effective in a mobile firefight on foot, and meets those design goals - effective and efficient in an assault - qualifies as an "assault" weapon. It's not the name, it's the capabilities that are the issue; calling such a weapon an "assault weapon" only states its intended use.

It's meant to kill quickly, efficiently and accurately for as long as the ammo holds out without pause. It's that easily accessible wholesale lethality that makes it effective in combat, and a horror when turned loose in a theater or a school.
 
This reminds me of the old rule of debating

"If you're explaining, you're losing"

Right now, we're explaining. The anti's are doing a good job of portraying us as Rambo-wannabe's right now, and a lot of what we've come up with to retort is splitting hairs on definitions and various bumper sticker slogans.

For years they've wanted a conversation on gun control, and if we don't give them one we will cement our reputation as gun nuts. No one takes "gun nuts" seriously except other gun nuts. The Ted Nugent mentality will be our undoing.
 
I only use the term Assault Rifle when talking about real military weapons and not civilian, an AR, AK or whatever is a semi-automatic rifle and nothing more. I can paint up the old family Buick or Chevy to look like a NASCAR racer...but it's still a Buick or Chevy. The term as used in media applies to appearance only and it's still incorrect, but understood by the public so it sticks.
In as much as D-Day isn't really the name of Operation Overlord, D-Day is a military term for the start of an operation...but it's come to mean something specific for the public at large. Every tissue is a Kleenex, every adhesive bandage a Band-Aid...and every semi-auto with black furniture is an assault rifle and high-powered to boot regardless of if it's really a high-powered round, and intermediate round or a rimfire 22 and 1K rounds is a cache of ammo. It's a term that ain't going away, as incorrect as it's use may be.

"If you're explaining, you're losing"

Right now, we're explaining. The anti's are doing a good job of portraying us as Rambo-wannabe's right now, and a lot of what we've come up with to retort is splitting hairs on definitions and various bumper sticker slogans.

For years they've wanted a conversation on gun control, and if we don't give them one we will cement our reputation as gun nuts. No one takes "gun nuts" seriously except other gun nuts. The Ted Nugent mentality will be our undoing.
Click to expand...

Hardworker, I really like the way you put that. I've felt the same thing for awhile. We're not either letting or getting the true face of hobby/sport across to the general public. The loudest or most outrageous or controversial voices in our community have gotten too much attention for too long, and it's going to be a liability now. But sadly the average guy at the range who doesn't shoot things that blowup or talk to anti-gunners like a petulant child is boring and not likely to make it in the media because no one will pay attention to them. In the battle of hearts and minds we're at a huge disadvantage now and debating terms isn't in our best interest at this moment.
 
Last edited:
My idea of an "assault weapon" is my M1888 Springfield-it's what I carried up San Juan Hill in 1898. In 1775 it was a Brown Bess-the British at Bunker Hill.
The "official" definition is that it is a selective fire long arm firing a round of intermdiate power between a pistol round in a submachine gun and a full size rifle round. The German Stg 43 and 44 are usually cited as the first examples, I like to cite our trusty old M-1 Carbine which predated the German guns by several years. Of course our M-16/AR-15 fires a "full size" rifle round. In practice it's a grab bag term the enemies of the 2nd Amendment can use to slice away at the RKBA.
 
Its all perspective. We should wrap the evil black rifes in cuddly animal suits. Kind of like the flu shot puppets schools used to traumatized kids with back in the early 90s
 
You don't want to hear this but quibbling that a semi AR-15 is not an assault weapon will do nothing to protect our rights.

Language matters and it is based on common usage. The appearance of the guns as identical to the military guns is what will drive the usage. The usage is now such that the semis are being called that by most. Deal with it.

If you don't like it - I can understand but it will do nothing in the debate. You will not make the guns look nice and less dangerous.

If it makes you feel good to think that you will convince folks that they are not assault rifles and magazines are not clips and HUZZAH - Joe Biden, Schumer, Feinstein, Bloomberg, etc. will show up at the three gun match - change your meds or switch to an alternative universe.
 
Unfortunately, some people are not stupid.

The guns are now being called semi-automatic assault weapons. That is stifle gun folks trying to say - see you don't know anything - assault weapons are full auto and thus our guns are nice.

Same with clips = mags.

We need better arguments than this.
 
Glenn E. Meyer:
Unfortunately, some people are not stupid.

The guns are now being called semi-automatic assault weapons. That is stifle gun folks trying to say - see you don't know anything - assault weapons are full auto and thus our guns are nice.

Same with clips = mags.

We need better arguments than this.
Click to expand...

I do agree, but we must also not tolerate blatant misuse and misrepresentation. Already we've seen AR's called WMDs. A local news station posed the poll question - Should there be a ban on ... "cartridges that can fire more than one bullet?" :rolleyes:

We must raise the level of the debate, but must also educate.
 
Unfortunately you will find it very hard to educate those that dont wan't to learn. I've been having a discussion elswhere for several days where I've been trying this, unsucessfully. I've now gotten to the point where when my oppponent tells me I'm a "child killing machine because I have a SWAT-level assult (sic.) weapon that fires hundreds of rounds a second from a high capacity assult (sic) clip holding hundreds of high caleber(sic) bullets"
Now I simply say:
"I dont have anything with the ability to fire that fast, hold that many or handle high calibers. I guess that means I don't have an assult (sic) weapon as you chose to define it?
 
Seems to me an "assault" weapon is one that is adapted to the type of combat wherein an individual or group make an armed assault on a position or positions held by an enemy who are equipped to defend themselves and their position by force of arms. The assaulting individual or team needs weapons that are light, easy to handle and are built to allow a firm one-handed grip (if necessary) while running, jumping and whatever other quick, athletic maneuvers the soldier needs to make in the action; of a caliber that's lethal without having heavy recoil so as to maintain aim or point; is a semi- or full automatic allowing rapid discharges; and with a magazine capacity that is large enough to allow sustained firing before reloading.
Click to expand...

To the extent the term has any real meaning in this increasingly politicized debate, that definition strikes me as pretty darn good. At the same time, I also agree with Glenn - we're never going to win the "assault weapon" definition battle (or the clip/magazine battle, or the bullet/cartridge battle) and it's time to move on to more important issues.
 
I personally do not care for the term "assault weapon" and I will tell you why. It is a negative term specifying the weapons use for assaults. This to me is incorrect and there are many people whom are swing voters that are naive about firearms. They hear “assault weapon” and without knowing anything about them they believe they are evil. As a former infantry Marine I never heard the term "assault weapon" while in the Marines. The M16 was always referred to as a "rifle" or a "weapon". Why is it that Marines who are trained in conducting an assault do not use that term? Because, they are also trained in defense. And yes, the M16, AR-15, AK47 and their variants, and of course many others are all excellent defensive weapons. If the general public referred to them as “defensive weapons” they would not sound so evil, like they have their own intensions or something. So therefore I will refer to mine as “defensive weapons”. I wish other owners of these fine firearms would do the same.
 
A political term used to generate fear into the hearts of the clueless. They are now using the term "Military Style Weapons of War on our streets". What a joke. Effective, but sad. I did read somewhere that the AR came from the military meaning assault rifle. Seems like I read that a history of the M-16 page.
 
Everyone knows what those rifles are built for. Same with the mags. I am all for the argument that one man's actions shouldn't ruin everyone's rights, but I can't in good faith pretend an AR is anything other than what it is. A semi-automatic rifle that hold that much ammo is made for fighting. It passes as a target rifle, and does a decent job of killing varmints, but that doesn't change what the gun is designed for. Everyone denying this is just sticking their heads in the sand.
 
It used to mean a specific class of military weapons firing intermediate power rounds capable of laying down a large volume of firepower. Now it means anything semi-automatic. Even m1A's, FAL's, G3's, M-1s, etc. are classified as "assault rifles", even though they are truly classified as battle rifles, because they fire a full power round. Hardworker, you are correct. All weapons, from slings to bows and arrows were created to kill. But, never in the course of history has any weapon ever killed without assistance from a human being. Our weapons are no different.
 
The problem is English, and how it used, and misused

And also the belief that dictionaries give correct and proper definitions of technical terms. They don't. And they say so, they give definitions of words as found in "popular usage". Whether that is correct in technical terms is apparently of no concern.

Having lived through most of the evolution of the term, here is a brief history of the terms "assault rifle", and "assault weapon". We went through this in 94, and for those who weren't around then, here is is, again...

In 1943 German designers created and fielded small numbers of a new kind of firearm. It was selective fire (meaning it would fire semi auto or full auto with the flip of a switch or the push of a button), and it fired a round that was more powerful than the regular pistol round, but not as powerful as the standard infantry rifle round.

There was a standing order from Hitler that no resources be wasted on the developement of a new rifle, but developement of new submachine guns was allowed. SO, the new gun was called a submachinegun (Maschinen Pistole or MP in German) The MP43 was field tested in small numbers, and was very well recieved by the troops. So was its follow on model, the MP44. Hitler was not aware of the new rifle for some time, and when he found out his orders had been flouted, he was furious.

After a demonstration, he changed his mind, and supported it, giving the gun the name Sturmgewehr ("Assault rifle" in German). The German word Sturm is translated into English as either "assault" (in the military sense, assaulting or storming an objective) OR as "storm" (in the weather sense). Which translation is correct depends on the context.

For several decades after WWII, the shooting community, both in and out of the military used the term "assault rifle" for arms that had the same functionality as the original German Sturmgewehr. The key features necessary to meet the definition were selective fire and an "intermediate power" cartridge. Many other features were common to most of the assault rifle designs (such as pistol grips, detacable magazines, straight line stocks, etc...) but if it wasn't select fire and intermediate power cartridge, it wasn't considered a true assault rifle. Now, this term was never an officially adopted term by our military or govt, but in was in general use in the shooting community.

Fast forward to the 1980s, and there begin some highly publicised mass shootings (where the shooter was killed, or killed themself, leaving nothing but the gun used to focus on). The guns used were civilan legal semi automatic only versions of submachine gun (San Ysidro Mac Donalds shooting), and an AK47 (Stockton school shooting).

These masacres (and in particularly the Stockton school shooting) ignighted a storm of emotions. The anti gun faction began calling the guns "assault rifles", and the medi picked right up on it.

We cried, "NO, they are not assault rifles! They are not assault rifles because they do not shoot full automatic! They only look like assault rifles on the outside!" As usual, the truth did little good.

Since they had been caught not using the right teminology, the media did the right thing (sort of) and began calling them "semi-automatic assault rifles".

This very quickly proved to be a very cumbersome sound bite, and so they coined the term "assault weapon" to refer to any and all the guns with "military" style features. The politicians codified a defintion in law in the 1994 AWB, and several states virtually copied it.

It defined "assault weapon" as semi automatic firearms (rifle, pistol or shotgun) with a certain number of specific features. Pistol grip, detatchable magazine, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, etc,...

Under US law, real "assault rifles", being select fire, are legally machine guns, and regulated as such under the NFA 1934.

Assault Weapons in legal defintion are semi autos with certain cosmetic features.

Sadly, arguing the differences, even the fact that the press isn't even accurately using their own made up terms, doesn't get us far with the bulk of the un or under informed public.

Those people who argue that an "assault weapon" is any weapon used to assault someone are using the term in the wrong context.
 
I received the following from Shults Media, one of the advertising companies handling firearms-related clients. It covers the ground pretty well, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind seeing it more widely disseminated:

Shults Media said:
As a media or firearm/outdoor industry professionals at times we can be our own worst enemies when it comes to the firearm debate. The words we use can be powerful and even counter- productive to our firearm freedoms and our side of the story.



The term Assault Weapon is a pure anti-gun propaganda term. It was advanced by and for the anti-gun movement in the late 1970s and popularized in the early 1980s. There is NO SUCH THING! It just does not exist. Yet we even see our own industry and media using it in magazines, on television and radio outdoor and shooting shows, in firearm catalogs, at gun shows and in gun and sporting goods stores across the nation.

If you must use the word "assault" then apply it to the correct type of firearm: An assault rifle (not weapon-ever) is a military carbine that is BOTH full-automatic and semi-automatic and fires a mid-power cartridge (something between a sub-machine and high-power rifle round such as the 7.62x39mm or 5.56 NATO round). For example a Springfield Armory M1-A (.308 caliber) is not an assault rifle; it is "just" a semi-automatic (not automatic) rifle!

Every time the word ASSAULT WEAPON(S) is used by those of us in the industry we use the anti-gun and anti-Bill of Rights rhetoric and propaganda term; we give them more ammunition to use against gun owners and our Bill of Rights. The NSSF (SHOT Show Folks) realized this and for military look alike carbines they suggest the term modern sporting rifle, and that works! REGARDLESS, let's all of us at least NOT use the anti-gun propaganda term "assault weapon."

The inflammatory term WEAPON is used by far too many of us in and out of the media. We see this emotive but wrong-headed term used in articles, on television firearm and outdoor shows and even in some catalogs and it is routinely used in gun and sporting goods stores. Nothing is a weapon until that particular item (whatever it is) is used in a single specific incident against a human being. For example a purse, baseball bat, golf club or tire iron is just that unless that item is used in a specific instant against a human; then it can be defined as a weapon--generally in a prosecutor's case.

And then there is the newest media term "gun violence." We at Shults Media have never seen a gun or any inanimate object commit violence on its own. This too is a pure propaganda term and when we hear or see it used we remind the user that inanimate objects can't commit violence and they look foolish for its use.


We hope you do not perceive our remarks as political correctness run amok. The use of these terms is as technically inaccurate as referring to a muzzle loading rifle as a machine gun. When we hear or see these words used incorrectly we should inform the person or entity that is using them of the error and why they are fueling the anti-Bill of Rights people. We found in all cases reasonable people and organizations appreciate learning the facts and the clarification.
Click to expand...
The above make the same point I try to stress -- by allowing the gun grabbers to control the terminology, we allow them to define the argument. IMHO this is especially true with respect to the new catch-phrase, "gun violence." We ALL agree that reducing or eliminating violence is a good thing and something we should all be working toward. But, by allowing them to define the discussion as being about "gun" violence, we allow them to limit the discussion to guns. Which is what they want to discuss. They are not interested in eliminating violence nearly as much as they are interested in banning guns.

Don't allow them to control (and limit) the argument. It ISN'T about guns -- it's about violence. And, currently, it's about school security. At risk of being branded as insensitive, I believe we HAVE to look at the idiocy of a school "security" plan that locks the doors but leaves glass sidelights that are vulnerable to attack by any tool that produces a moderate amount of impact. Have they never heard the expression, "Locks are made for honest people"?

Behind those locked-but-vulnerable front doors, what was the next layer of security? Three women in the front office -- unarmed.

What was the third layer? Oh, yeah -- the classroom lockdown drill. But wait -- I saw a video of an interview with the teacher's aide from one of the classrooms. They realized they needed to lock the door, and THE TEACHER DIDN'T HAVE THE KEY. Fortunately for them, a brave custodian came along and locked their door. Muchos kudos to the custodian, who really deserves a medal. But what's wrong with a security "plan" that calls for locking the doors but doesn't ensure that each teacher has the freakin' key?

Lt. Colonel David Grossman nailed it, even before Sandy Hook. He says the problem is denial. School boards pay lip service to "security," but they don't really believe it will ever be needed, so they aren't serious about it and they don't make sure they have overlapping layers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top