Why is an AR-15 not an assault/military rifle?

Let me just say here that it seems like there is an ongoing attempt to make something less evil or even harmless by definition and that is a problem. A rifle is still a rifle that makes holes in things, usually in order to kill them (not to wound) and saying something is not an assault rifle or assault weapon or an offensive weapon merely be one difference in the specification doesn't change that fact.

No offense to target shooters out there. I realize your rifles are relatively harmless.
 
Let me just say here that it seems like there is an ongoing attempt to make something less evil or even harmless by definition and that is a problem.
Click to expand...


I agree that people who think a rifle is evil is a problem. No matter what features is has, or doesn't have. And people who think rifle A is ok, and B is evil because of the features isn't just a problem, its a stupid problem.

I'm not going to even try to bother pandering to their sensibilities.

A rifle is still a rifle that makes holes in things, usually in order to kill them (not to wound) and saying something is not an assault rifle or assault weapon or an offensive weapon merely be one difference in the specification doesn't change that fact.
Click to expand...

No, what you call it doesn't change what it does. But it does change what it is.

A V-8 engine is a specific thing. A "straight 8" is another thing. Both do the same job, but because of a difference in the "specification" they are not the same thing. No matter what you add or remove on the outside of the engine block, it doesn't change what's inside. And if you call a straight 8 a V-8, simply because both have 8 cylinders and do the same job, you are still wrong.
 
They are simply firearms used by a military. If I buy the same one for personal use it is simply my firearm. It is not a military weapon because the one I own isnt used by a military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top