Why is an AR-15 not an assault/military rifle?
- Thread starter dakota.potts
- Start date
Theohazard
New member
The problem is that dictionaries define terms based on their popular usage, whether or not that usage is technically correct. For example, the word "fortuitous" primarily means "happening by chance". It's completely correct to say, "He got hit by a bus, how fortuitous!" But people confused it with the word "fortunate" and incorrectly used "fortuitous" to mean "lucky". Now, people have used it incorrectly for long enough that "lucky" is now a secondary definition of "fortuitous", even though "happening by chance" is still the primary definition. (And a lot of people still don't accept "lucky" as an official definition of "fortuitous", they see it as giving in to ignorance.)JimDandy said:
It's the same with "magazine" and "clip"; we all know those are two separate things with two different technical definitions, but because of popular usage, dictionaries have conflated the two words. So it really doesn't make sense to use a dictionary to define "assault weapon" or "assault rifle", considering they're not going to use the technical definitions, they're going to use the popular definitions. And we all know that the popular definitions of firearms are usually incorrect.
Unfortunately, weapons bans and related laws tend to be very specific about firearms, down to the model numbers. So avoiding some politically incorrect terms gets you nowhere.
Yet another problem is the lack of any particular precision with regards to names of many firearms and companents, to include clips and magazines, on the part of manufacturers and major users, like armies. This tendency to over-define something works both ways, of course. The drill sergeant you had in basic training denied you the use of the word "gun." It was a rifle. At least that's what mine said. Maybe things have evolved in the last 45 odd years. After basic training, I had artillery training. I didn't see any guns there, either.
Yet another problem is the lack of any particular precision with regards to names of many firearms and companents, to include clips and magazines, on the part of manufacturers and major users, like armies. This tendency to over-define something works both ways, of course. The drill sergeant you had in basic training denied you the use of the word "gun." It was a rifle. At least that's what mine said. Maybe things have evolved in the last 45 odd years. After basic training, I had artillery training. I didn't see any guns there, either.
Theohazard
New member
Those are the least-restrictive parts of the various "assault weapons" bans. It's easy to just change the name and model number of a gun. If I recall correctly, that's exactly what Colt did after the 1994 AWB passed: They changed the gun's name to "Colt Match Target" and officially stopped selling "AR-15s".BlueTrain said:
NulodPBall
Inactive
Sorry if I'm repeating what someone else already said, but I skipped to the last page or two and still saw the same discussion so I didn't bother reading the other pages.
Under California Law, the list of Assault Weapons (yes, I said "Weapons") is very specific and defined by that law. The AR-15 as sold in California is not an Assault Weapon, and neither is the civilian version of the AK47.
As already mentioned, intent to use Full Auto doesn't matter, only the fact that Full Auto exists on the weapon you are talking about.
I agree that "Assault" anything is misused and I usually choose to correct people when they use the term. Misuse indicates ignorance, and I choose to educate.
Under California Law, the list of Assault Weapons (yes, I said "Weapons") is very specific and defined by that law. The AR-15 as sold in California is not an Assault Weapon, and neither is the civilian version of the AK47.
As already mentioned, intent to use Full Auto doesn't matter, only the fact that Full Auto exists on the weapon you are talking about.
I agree that "Assault" anything is misused and I usually choose to correct people when they use the term. Misuse indicates ignorance, and I choose to educate.
I agree that "assault" is meaningless when applied to weapons, irrespective of the German usage, although they are otherwise typically excruciatingly correct. It does have a certain legal meaning, however. If you take a swing at someone and even if you miss, that is an assault. If you connect, that's assault and battery.
But to apply the term to a weapon is not helpful for anyone. But then, I also don't like the term "home invasion" either.
But to apply the term to a weapon is not helpful for anyone. But then, I also don't like the term "home invasion" either.
and so are the following:
repeater - a gun that squawks "BE CAREFUL" before each shot
automatic - a gun that knows who the bad guy is and will automatically kill him without human assistance.
semi-auto - a gun that can be controlled remotely
full-auto - a robotic gun that is loaded to capacity
bump-fire - what happens when you accidentally bump into someone who is carrying a gun
1911 - a model of Steyr 9mm pistols
M16 - a gun that any 16 year old should be capable of handling
AR - abbreviation for "automatic rifle"
AK47 - "Accurate Killer" from 1947
...
You're trying too hard.
A cartoon appeared in Soldier Magazine (British) something like 50 years ago. It showed one soldier saying to another, "I love these new self-loading rifles."
The cartoon showed crates of rifles leaping onto the back of a truck all by themselves.
Some of those things you mentioned are true, others are a little strained. "Automatic" has been a common term for an automatic pistol ever since they were introduced well before my father was born. "AR" comes from Armalite. Browning sells a rifle they call the BAR. The "A" means autoloading. There was a model of the 1911 called the 1914 but that was someone else's model for it. The Luger had been around for years before it was called the P-08 but it was still a Luger. Full-auto is unappreciated. Firepower kills. Winchester had a model variation of the 1894 (which came before the 94) called a musket, which was also a repeater. All I can say is to contact the manufacturers and tell them to stop using incorrect terminology for their guns---I mean rifles---I mean weapons. Whatever.
A cartoon appeared in Soldier Magazine (British) something like 50 years ago. It showed one soldier saying to another, "I love these new self-loading rifles."
The cartoon showed crates of rifles leaping onto the back of a truck all by themselves.
Some of those things you mentioned are true, others are a little strained. "Automatic" has been a common term for an automatic pistol ever since they were introduced well before my father was born. "AR" comes from Armalite. Browning sells a rifle they call the BAR. The "A" means autoloading. There was a model of the 1911 called the 1914 but that was someone else's model for it. The Luger had been around for years before it was called the P-08 but it was still a Luger. Full-auto is unappreciated. Firepower kills. Winchester had a model variation of the 1894 (which came before the 94) called a musket, which was also a repeater. All I can say is to contact the manufacturers and tell them to stop using incorrect terminology for their guns---I mean rifles---I mean weapons. Whatever.
If you called it a "gun" you got to do pushups (or run, or something else very tiring) until you learned the error of your ways.
On the other hand, I am surprised that you didn't see any "guns" in Arty school, according my DIs that's what "guns" were, artillery. (also tank cannon were "guns").
Of course, the military has their own definitions, and often THEY do not match what is in the dictionary, EITHER!
And the slang terms used in the military often match neither.
How many "trucks" are there on an Army base? (for just one example)
If you've served, you may know. If you haven't, odds are VERY high you'll give the wrong answer.
I saw lots of trucks. We used a 2 1/2-ton truck to tow the howitizer, which is what they were called. Strictly speaking, it wasn't a gun; it was a howitizer. But we don't always speak strictly, do we?
However, to be fair, common usage in the army, all armies, actually, deviates from the dictionary all the time, everywhere. Sometimes it can be an interesting exercise to learn about words. This is true in other languages, too. Such words are referred to as slang or jargon or lingo. It is found in lots of professions and can be used to indicate membership of the in group and sometimes to confuse people who are not part of the group.
Likewise, the meaning of words change over time (like "gay," for example) or become obsolete (like "heater"). It happens.
Some months back, for example, I became interested in Pre-WWI French infantry and their equipment. One item was a mug or cup which is referred to in all the literature I found as a "quart." I was never able to find a translation of cup or mug that equaled "quart." Finally, in studying a pre-war French field manual about cooking, I discovered that the official term was "goblet," a term probably no one used. But the capacities of the different utensils was given and the capacity of a "goblet" was one-quarter litre, or "le quart" in French.
More than you wanted to know. I still don't know why those little .32 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) pistols were called "Rubies."
However, to be fair, common usage in the army, all armies, actually, deviates from the dictionary all the time, everywhere. Sometimes it can be an interesting exercise to learn about words. This is true in other languages, too. Such words are referred to as slang or jargon or lingo. It is found in lots of professions and can be used to indicate membership of the in group and sometimes to confuse people who are not part of the group.
Likewise, the meaning of words change over time (like "gay," for example) or become obsolete (like "heater"). It happens.
Some months back, for example, I became interested in Pre-WWI French infantry and their equipment. One item was a mug or cup which is referred to in all the literature I found as a "quart." I was never able to find a translation of cup or mug that equaled "quart." Finally, in studying a pre-war French field manual about cooking, I discovered that the official term was "goblet," a term probably no one used. But the capacities of the different utensils was given and the capacity of a "goblet" was one-quarter litre, or "le quart" in French.
More than you wanted to know. I still don't know why those little .32 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) pistols were called "Rubies."
Stevie-Ray
New member
There was a scene in Full Metal Jacket that I saw once. On the firing range, a boot complained to Gunny Hartmann that his "gun" was screwed up. Hartmann exploded, "YER GUN...THAT'S A RIFLE!!" Next scene was This is my rifle, this is my gun..... Every other version I've seen since has NOT had the lead-in scene.
My late father, who served as an infantryman in WWII, in the Italian campaign where he was evenually camptured in time to spend almost a year in a POW camp (Moosburg, not far from where I was stationed) told me that one rifle he was issued wouldn't shoot straight. He was being harassed over the matter until he managed to convince the captain to shoot the rifle. The captain finally admitted that the rifle would not in fact shoot straight. My father was quite a talker and apparently very convincing, more so than I ever was. However, he claimed you couldn't hit anything with a carbine.
Theohazard
New member
Yeah, that's pretty much the same as my boot camp experience. It took me a while to feel comfortable calling a rifle a "gun". (Oh, and that guy was a recruit, not a "boot"; a boot is someone who has finished boot camp but is still a new guy (the term comes from being fresh out of boot camp). In the infantry, usually you refer to the new guys as "boots" until they finish their first deployment.)Stevie-Ray said:
dakota.potts
New member
Let's add some intricacies to the question:
What about my AR-10 with mil-spec parts and a Leupold Mark 4 scope that I make to specs of a Knight's Armament SR-25? Or what if I just buy one from them set up the way that is currently issued in the military? An M40? A Remington 870 or a Benelli M4/M1014? Do you have a military weapon if you own any of those? Or, for a more common example, a Beretta M9?
To another poster's point (can't remember it), what if you stick a a TacCon 3MR bump trigger on your AR 15? I know it doesn't match the legal definition of full auto, but is that not close enough for you to consider it an assault rifle? The lines really start to be blurred, in my opinion, when you've got one of the simulation devices along with an expanded drum magazine and heavy barrel. You're not far off from an M27 support weapon at that point, at least in terms of use and utility. The only difference is that you're firing closer to 400 rounds a minute from the bump trigger rather than 800-900 or you're firing a little less accurately with the bump stock. It may not be as good as our assault rifles are, but does that mean it still isn't an assault rifle?
Final question, and this one is probably more pedantic than the others: If assault is a verb, and a rifle only becomes an assault rifle when you assault someone with it, didn't Lanza et al use assault rifles in their attacks? That seems to be a very specious definition and one that can very easily be used against us. If something does in fact become an assault something when used in an assault, it's a short step from there to seeing a Mossberg 500 as an assault shotgun.
What about my AR-10 with mil-spec parts and a Leupold Mark 4 scope that I make to specs of a Knight's Armament SR-25? Or what if I just buy one from them set up the way that is currently issued in the military? An M40? A Remington 870 or a Benelli M4/M1014? Do you have a military weapon if you own any of those? Or, for a more common example, a Beretta M9?
To another poster's point (can't remember it), what if you stick a a TacCon 3MR bump trigger on your AR 15? I know it doesn't match the legal definition of full auto, but is that not close enough for you to consider it an assault rifle? The lines really start to be blurred, in my opinion, when you've got one of the simulation devices along with an expanded drum magazine and heavy barrel. You're not far off from an M27 support weapon at that point, at least in terms of use and utility. The only difference is that you're firing closer to 400 rounds a minute from the bump trigger rather than 800-900 or you're firing a little less accurately with the bump stock. It may not be as good as our assault rifles are, but does that mean it still isn't an assault rifle?
Final question, and this one is probably more pedantic than the others: If assault is a verb, and a rifle only becomes an assault rifle when you assault someone with it, didn't Lanza et al use assault rifles in their attacks? That seems to be a very specious definition and one that can very easily be used against us. If something does in fact become an assault something when used in an assault, it's a short step from there to seeing a Mossberg 500 as an assault shotgun.
Its the strictly speaking thing that gets us. You call it a truck, I call it a truck, everybody walking on two legs, one leg, or none calls it a truck. Some of the MANUAL call it a truck.
The E-5 oral board for promotion said it was a vehicle. They say "trucks" are on the flagpole.
They were called "Rubies" or "Rubys" because of a Spanish gunmaker, that produced primarily cheap pocket pistols. "Ruby" was part of their name, and was what they were commonly called. Like "Star" the full name of Star is lots longer, so they are just called "Star".
And what if "assault" is not a verb? This is the crux of one part of the confusion. Some of us look at the term as a noun. Some do not. I do wonder how an English scholar (assuming you can find an unbiased one) would rule on this. Context matters.
Personally, I'm in the camp that defines "assault rifles" by a certain combination of features. Not by what one functionally do with it, or what one can almost do with something else.
Select fire, magazine fed, intermediate caliber (by WWII standards of what was a rifle and a pistol cartridge). The Sturmgewehr.
This definition was in use generations before the anti gun crowd even knew they existed, and I'm quite content to continue using it.
If you think something is an assault rifle, based on any other items or usage, I think you are in error. Just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it.
None of those weapons are select fire. So the comparison is flawed.
Except they aren't. additions to a rifle that try and simulate automatic fire does not change how the base weapon functions. Dress up whatever ar15 you want and use a bumpstock or whatever. At its core it is still solely a semi automatic rifle. You can even call it an assault rifle if you really want to. It doesn't make your opinion anymore correct.