assault weapon

Three times on Facebook this weekend, I saw the phrase “semi-automatic machine gun.” I don’t know where it’s coming from, but such a beast does not exist.

To explain:
  • A semi-automatic gun fires one shot every time you pull the trigger.

  • A “machine gun” (a fully-automatic firearm) fires multiple shots every time you press the trigger, and keeps firing until you either take your finger off the trigger or run out of ammunition.
Fully-automatic guns have been strictly regulated in America since 1934, and are very difficult to buy. Because it is not legal for ordinary people to buy any fully-automatic gun that was made after 1986, most of the working full-auto guns that are legal for ordinary people to own cost a lot of money ($10,000 or more). Military and law enforcement agencies can and do purchase new full-auto guns, but ordinary people cannot.

So when the media or politicians talk about banning “assault weapons,” they are not talking about banning guns that work like true, full-auto military weapons. Instead, these laws would ban simple, ordinary guns that look like military weapons — that’s all.

It’s very confusing for people who don’t pay close attention to gun issues.
 
Also, to answer the OP more directly, the 1994 AWB outlawed 19 named models of firearms and :

Any semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following features:
  • a folding or telescoping stock.
  • a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
  • a bayonet mount.
  • a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor.
  • a grenade launcher.


A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following features:
  • an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip.
  • a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer.
  • a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned.
  • a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded.
  • a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.


A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of the following features:

  • a folding or telescoping stock.
  • a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
  • a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds.
  • an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

pax
 
If you want to see how the semantics came about, refer back to the Violence Policy Center's original broadside:

Assault firearms are semi-automatic (firing one bullet per trigger pull) and fully automatic (the weapon will keep on firing as long as the trigger is depressed) anti-personnel rifles, shotguns, and handguns that are designed primarily for military and law enforcement use. With muzzle velocities that are often greater than standard long guns and high-capacity ammunition magazines, assault weapons are built to kill large numbers of human beings quickly and efficiently.
Click to expand...

Basically, it could mean anything. In case you're tempted to say "hey, that's intellectually dishonest," welcome to the jungle.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Without any practice at all, how long do you think it would take you to quickly empty the 30-round magazine on your .223 sporting rifle/target rifle? Then tell me how much of a disadvantage you are compared with one that is either burst fire or full auto?
 
All of the aforementioned definitions are technically correct. Wouldn't know it by turning on the TV though.

Assault weapon and assault rifle are being used interchangeably, as are semi-automatic and automatic.

Media outlets really seem to be taking advantage of a lack of understanding here.

Been doing my best to correct terminology with people I talk to, but I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle - their minds have been made up, despite my contentions that "assault" is not an adjective, it is a verb. It only became an adjective due to a crappy translation of German.
 
context context context

Without any practice at all, how long do you think it would take you to quickly empty the 30-round magazine on your .223 sporting rifle/target rifle? Then tell me how much of a disadvantage you are compared with one that is either burst fire or full auto?
Click to expand...

In relation to what?

At a target range, you probably want to aim, so the advantage may be negligible.

At a sporting match where volume compensates for accuracy, it may be a huge difference.

In a HD/SD situation where one is up against full-auto weps, the difference is literally life and death.

So here's plain advice: if we are going to argue, and that's our choice,...control the context.
 
Media outlets really seem to be taking advantage of a lack of understanding here.

Been doing my best to correct terminology with people I talk to, but I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle - their minds have been made up, despite my contentions that "assault" is not an adjective, it is a verb. It only became an adjective due to a crappy translation of German.
Click to expand...

That's because of what I've always said, that the constant bickering over minutia in definitions doesn't matter. I've always called a mag a clip, always called rounds bullets, etc. Languages aren't a law of physics, they're defined by the people using them. Words can and have changed meaning, ever since we learned that writing with charcoal on cave walls was the bees knees.

You can argue definitions until you're blue in the face, but it won't make a believer out of anyone who isn't already. People aren't stupid, they know what these rifles were designed for, regardless of what they're called and why.

Arguing definition and not focusing on the real issue is ignoring the forest for the trees. The forest is getting cut down, and instead of trying to stop it we're arguing that tree X is a holly and not a poplar.
 
IMHO, the best defense is offense. Write your congressman, remember that groups are more effective than individuals when it comes to legislation, that's what we're in the fight of our lives for.

A number of posters have tried to take this discussion to a higher level than just definitions, because that sounds too much like "It's not what it looks like, honey", after we've been caught buying yet another (fill in the blank). Way too defensive. Organize or join an existing organization and be at the table when they make the laws that will affect our lives.

This is not about what we "need", ....that's the playing field the enemy wants to play in. It's about what our rights are. Inalienable.
 
Isn't it clear that the term is self explanatory. A weapon designed to be effective in an assault type scenario. Most importantly though, the second ammendment gives us the right to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. How can we do so if we cannot be armed with weapons capable of defending against what the government will be using against us? You cannot regulate crazy. Therefore, you must be capable of defending against it.

Sent with my Evo 4g from Tapatalk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top