The term "Modern Sporting Rifle"

[Unlicensed Dremel]

The proper term is:

***HOMELAND DEFENSE RIFLE***

 

[Regular Joe]

To me, the term "MSR" defines the gun as a popular firearm that doesn't require some qualifying purpose. "Sporting" could mean competitive events, but it more commonly means "what I like to take out to the desert to blow stuff up".
I wore out my first AR upper just playing around with different hand loads, shooting at paper. That upper never appeared at any "real" gun range, and neither did it ever shoot more than maybe 50 rounds of factory loaded ammo.
My trio of Ruger 10/.22's are "MSR's" as well. I use them for almost exactly the same thing as I use my AR's for.
I have no problem at all with calling all of my long guns "MSR's", because that's what they are to me. To me, that's more appropriate than calling any of them "weapons", because that's not what I use them for. My rifles have not been used as weapons, any more than any knife, or blunt instrument, or flame producing article in my possession have been used as weapons, though they all have that potential.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I just call it a semi-automatic. It applies to a pistol or a rifle where one shot fired prepares the next to be fired if the trigger is pressed again.

When someone says its a military rifle. I tell them "No,it isn't".

When someone says it looks like a military rifle I tell them "So what?".

I then ask them if anyone driving a Land Rover, a Hummer H2 or one of those boxy Mercedes Benz 4x4s is driving a military vehicle? The answer is usually "no, but...", at which I swiftly and deftly interrupt with "Precisely! I rest my case!" and walk away.

 

[Panfisher]

While I do like the term Modern Defense Rifle and a couple of others, in the end it simply makes no difference whatsoever what we decide to call them. Unless we all quit our jobs and become writers for mainstream media it will never change from Assault Rifle to anything else.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My rifles have not been used as weapons, any more than any knife, or blunt instrument, or flame producing article in my possession have been used as weapons, though they all have that potential.

However, the blunt instrument, flame producing article and knife are not constitutionally protected for their role in SD, protecting against tyranny and foreign invasion.

That you want to play gun games with yours is irrelevant to the argument.

There is process called concept formation and part is the core identity of the object. The core identity of the EBR is as a weapon to the vast majority of folks and that core concept is the reason for its protection. That is not true for most knives, blunt instruments or firestarters. Their use as weapons is secondary.

The sporting or game use of the EBR is secondary. In fact, the organized sporting use (as compared to shooting a rock at the ranch) are derivatives of training to use lethal force.

That's why MSR is stupid as a defense to keeping a very dangerous item.

 

[zukiphile]

However, the blunt instrument, flame producing article and knife are not constitutionally protected for their role in SD, protecting against tyranny and foreign invasion.

That you want to play gun games with yours is irrelevant to the argument.

The argument? Which argument?

The use to which one puts an arm may not bear on the constitutional issue, but it would bear on whether a term like MSR is fairly descriptive.

There is process called concept formation and part is the core identity of the object. The core identity of the EBR is as a weapon to the vast majority of folks and that core concept is the reason for its protection. That is not true for most knives, blunt instruments or firestarters. Their use as weapons is secondary.

The sporting or game use of the EBR is secondary. In fact, the organized sporting use (as compared to shooting a rock at the ranch) are derivatives of training to use lethal force.

That's why MSR is stupid as a defense to keeping a very dangerous item.

That position is problematic. If you assume that the right to bear an item only has constitutional protection in the presence of a specific reason, and argument that the specific reason no longer applies would militate against a robust preservation of the right. We have the right described in the 2d Am. for the utility of protection is the other side of the argumentative coin that reads the unwanted dangers of widely distributed arms outweigh the benefits.

If on the other hand, the right exists as an attribute of a free people, then ideas about why one author or another may have seen utility in that right become less central to the preservation of the right.

It is reasonable to conclude that sport involving arms or horses or team interaction are in some sense secondary to or derivatives of coordinated military action. Yet, for most people who participate in foxhunting or dressage, or three gun, the sport itself is their primary focus.

I do find curious the assertion that MSR is a "politically correct" term. "Politically correct" is a term that stands in opposition to "actually correct". It is an accusation that the thought involved is a counterfeit designed to fit into and serve a political structure or argument.

In that context, "assault weapon" is politically correct. "Wildly deadly lead sprayer" would be politically correct. MSR would be politically incorrect in that it fails to describe the rifle as a problem.

 

[g.willikers]

The Mass Media will always call them "Assault Rifles", just 'cause.
It's a permanent part of their agenda.
It then falls to what we wish to call them among ourselves.
To me they are AR pattern rifles.
AR referring to Armalite, the originator of the design.

 

[rickyrick]

You may call them Modern Rifle, but the Sports part of it is not why it's a right.

It's saying that this device, this sporting impliment, has more legitimatacy than owning it for its weapon use.
We do not want our weapons to become classified as sporting impliments, then we will loose our rights to them.

I liked big metal lawn darts, and I could use them safely. Now they are gone.
Any non-constitutionally guaranteed sports toy can be taken away whenever someone in government thinks that they are too dangerous.
As it stands now, they can't take Arms from you, at least on paper.

 

[zukiphile]

You may call them Modern Rifle, but the Sports part of it is not why it's a right.

The "Modern" part isn't why it is a right either, right?

It's saying that this device, this sporting impliment, has more legitimatacy than owning it for its weapon use.

If that were true, we would expect to see those opposed to use of arms as weapon pushing for acceptance of the term.

Aside from articles about the term itself, I recall seeing it in advertisments for Lancer and Remington (iirc) products. In the case of Remington, I got the sense that they were using the term and the camouflaged motif to appeal to hunters.

Any non-constitutionally guaranteed sports toy can be taken away whenever someone in government thinks that they are too dangerous.

This makes the rejection of MSR, a term I don't use, seem overwrought. An argument against "Modern Sporting Rifle" that derides rifles used in sport as "toys" cannot also complain about dubious manipulations of language.

Identifying a rifle as a modern sporting rifle, hunting rifle, squirrel rifle or 3 gun rifle does not imply, assert or state that the rifle is something other than a rifle, or merely a toy.

 

[Nathan]

This all comes down to one rifle....the AR15....OK, maybe all military designed rifles used for sporting use by the public.

That said, the disarmers have made AR synonymous with assault rifle, or as they prefer said on tv, the military assault rifle.

So, to counter that, we need a clear message that convinces the public that they have been lied to....wallah.....AR means Armalite Rifle and it belongs to a group of rifles known as modern sporting rifles.

This is why we need to be correcting people daily, explaining that use of the phrase assault rifle means you accept people representing your interests lying to you and that you are generally an idiot.....or you can use the phrase msr that shows you are a proud 2A American, you are intelligent and you speak accurately.

 

[rickyrick]

I was that guy. The one that said you don't need an AR to hunt, You don't need 30rd mags. I've even said that civilians can suffice on five round mags. I've scoffed when someone showed up with an SKS or saiga to a hunt.
All of the typical stuff.
Fast forward, I learned why we have a constitutional right to own guns. It has nothing to do with sports. Some countries went down the "sporting" road and the gun owners lost. Our politicians and leaders are now holding these countries up high as golden shining examples of "modern" policies. Keep insisting that the rifle is for sporting purposes and you find yourself or your children playing with BB guns. The anti-gun movement love to highlight us as grown-ups playing with their toys, and the MSR reinforces that.
I know we all enjoy recreating with our rifles. That is the activity that almost all of us use it for, but recreation isn't what gives us the right to own them.

 

[zukiphile]

Keep insisting that the rifle is for sporting purposes and you find yourself or your children playing with BB guns.

I wonder whether you mean to offer a strawman. I don't believe anyone has asserted that the AR is only good for sporting purposes. However, it does fill some sporting niches well.

The anti-gun movement love to highlight us as grown-ups playing with their toys, and the MSR reinforces that.

Is that better or worse than portraying gun owners as delusional camouflaged militiamen, or insecure homeowners who anticipate with joy the day we get to shoot a home invader?

Is one who wants to see arms less widely available more likely to vilify the use of a weapon, or permit a benign description of it's more frequent use?

I know we all enjoy recreating with our rifles. That is the activity that almost all of us use it for, but recreation isn't what gives us the right to own them.

Emphasis added.

 

[rickyrick]

I agree, honestly I do; but, I don't want to stray from the fundamental reason that gives us the right to own them.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

As others have said, as soon as we accept the "sporting" requirement we lose.

I don't see why it can't just be a semi-automatic rifle b/c it is made of aluminum and has a pistol grip.

 

[zukiphile]

I agree, honestly I do; but, I don't want to stray from the fundamental reason that gives us the right to own them.

It is admirable to want to defend the right. Is it an effective use of the right to be the language cop who disapproves of a term that appears to have no substantive defect?

(I believe that no one in this thread has argued that therm should never be used, or that the term is offensive, just that they don't prefer it, so the following point contains some hyperbole.)

If you want to shape the conversation by eschewing the MSR term, are you at all like the immigration proponent who rails against the term "illegal immigrant" and demands that we use the euphemism "undocumented"?

You and I dislike the term "assault weapon", not only because it is inflammatory, but also because it lacks descriptive accuracy. If MSR is accurate, but we reject it because we think it doesn't fit an argument we want to make, does that point to a defect in the argument? Is that a sign of a politically correct defect in outlook?

Should we skip the intermediate steps and call them Freedom Sticks?

My experience tells me that accuracy is not a condition to avoid.

 

[Nathan]

I totally agree we should not go down a road that labels guns as sporting vs necessary. Everybody gets that.

In today's environment, we want every Tom, Dick and Harry with an AR in their hand, saying the right things. We want Rickyrick to own one and the next Rickyrick. We get that by accurately labeling them as msr's vs assault rifles. Many people don't want to assault their neighbor, so they dismiss these rifles. In that case, we loose.

Remember the good old days? The disarmers split us on the automatic rifle, the suppressor, cheap handguns and modern automatic rifles.....we lost 4 times! We almost lost handguns all together. The NRA got a wedge driven through it and that allowed our message to become splintered. Anymore, I would probably support a person's right to own an aircraft carrier to ensure that person would stand with me to abolish the suppressor tax stamp. I don't even want any of those types of guns, but I will stand unified with my brothers who do.

That is the point with msr. Get msr's in the people's hand and build an army of people with a common American mindset.

I want guns to buy and sell as easy as hammers.....or at least hammers with a quick effective background check. Ever see the line at Cabelas on Black Friday....it proves NICS is not instant. We hear daily it is not effective!

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Freedom Sticks

You know, I think that is actually kind of catchy in a comical 'screw the anti-gunners' kind of way. Like Freedom Fries. I could see it catching on.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Get msr's in the people's hand and build an army of people with a common American mindset.

Yeah, the problem is I've stood next to a clay shooter holding a highly engraved nickel coated semi-auto shotgun that can spew 100+ 22 caliber projectiles as fast as a fll auto AR can dump a mag, while he tells me there is no place in a civilized society for AR type rifles.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I understand the idea of abstract rights of a free people - it's the God Given or Natural Rights view.

Unfortunately, that's not the way humanity works. Various rights and principles existed or were promulgated as they had utility for some.

Many folks have thought many things were natural or part of the universe as part of their philosophy or religion. Many things were changed or abandoned.

Unless there is a reason for having such weapons, the natural rights point of view only convinces the choir (who actually think the weapons have utility).

 

[zukiphile]

Glenn, the utility arguments have merit in themselves, but that utility is also generally only apparent to the choir. Effectively those arguments aren't less circular because often people who want to abridge the right don't want individuals to have the capacity that arms allow them.

As a strategic matter, I don't know which argument will prove more incisive. Measuring public response with a linear rationality doesn't always carry excellent predictive value.

Yeah, the problem is I've stood next to a clay shooter holding a highly engraved nickel coated semi-auto shotgun...

That fellow really gets around. I've met him too.

Freedom Sticks

You know, I think that is actually kind of catchy in a comical 'screw the anti-gunners' kind of way. Like Freedom Fries. I could see it catching on.

"Freedom Sticks" it is then. Let 2015 see the twilight of "rifle", and the dawn of Freedom Sticks. It's now a thing.