Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The left constantly twisting the truth to suit their agenda...
Merriam-Webster Dictonary defines “assault rifle” as “any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.” The keywords here are “designed for military use.”
If that definition doesn’t quite cut it for you, here’s how David Kopel (via the Washington Examiner) describes it in an article in the “Journal of Contemporary Law” based on a definition from the Department of Defense (emphasis added):
As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.[22]
Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934.[23] Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints.[24]
Many civilians have purchased semiautomatic-only rifles that look like military assault rifles. These civilian rifles are, unlike actual assault rifles, incapable of automatic fire.
Based on these two definitions, since AR-15 is designed for civilian use, it therefore doesn’t fit with the definition of an “assault” weapon. This then begs the question why the association is being made in the first place.
“It was the Left who needed a term to call them... “They are trying to make you think …’an AR-15, nobody needs that.’ An AR-15 is just a rifle, unless it has a fully automatic switch on it and then it becomes a machine gun — and you can’t buy that.”
I have a Remington semi-auto made from the 50s and 60s. It has a short barrel, a removable magazine and is chambered in .30-06. I've seen some hi cap mags for it too. It's classified as a antique yet it has far more destructive potential vs an AR-15. I can even put the evil, scary black stock and Pic rail on it but it never made the ban list even during the last one in CA.
So much for the bans. Remington made millions of em.
The left constantly twisting the truth to suit their agenda...
Merriam-Webster Dictonary defines “assault rifle” as “any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.” The keywords here are “designed for military use.”
If that definition doesn’t quite cut it for you, here’s how David Kopel (via the Washington Examiner) describes it in an article in the “Journal of Contemporary Law” based on a definition from the Department of Defense (emphasis added):
As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.[22]
Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934.[23] Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints.[24]
Many civilians have purchased semiautomatic-only rifles that look like military assault rifles. These civilian rifles are, unlike actual assault rifles, incapable of automatic fire.
Based on these two definitions, since AR-15 is designed for civilian use, it therefore doesn’t fit with the definition of an “assault” weapon. This then begs the question why the association is being made in the first place.
“It was the Left who needed a term to call them... “They are trying to make you think …’an AR-15, nobody needs that.’ An AR-15 is just a rifle, unless it has a fully automatic switch on it and then it becomes a machine gun — and you can’t buy that.”
Notice the LACK of responses from the gun haters. The won't admitit because then they couldn't whine about the "evil assault" rifles.
This is a dead horse you are beating. No one cares about your definition of assault anything. When the left says assault weapons they mean all guns. Every gun is an assault weapon just so we know where they stand. No one on the left cares about you or any gun person telling them what a selector switch is.
...any firearm not intended or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
Just nit picking here, but that's not an antique. The BATFE defines an "antique" firearm thusly:
Just sayin'.
It may come under Cruio and Relic. I can buy a SKS delived to my door because I have a FFL Curio and relic lisc. Antiques have to be pre 1899 and not take modern ammo. C&Rs need to be over 50 years old and on a list that BATF updates on a regular basis.
Oh, wait, that doesn't look scary enough. THIS is an "assault weapon":
Both are semi-automatic, and both have detachable magazines - the two main points of contention of those who would like to see the "assault weapon" banned. Both also have a gas operated action.
So what's the difference between the two rifles?
One is very accurate, even at very long distances. The other? Not so much.
One fires a very powerful round ("bullet"), designed to accurately hit its target from those long distances, while retaining penetrating power. The other fires a much smaller round, with a lot less gunpowder propelling it, and has a much shorter effective range.
Other than that, the differences are cosmetic. One "looks" more dangerous than the other.
Oh, there is one more thing... The one that people want banned is the "less lethal" of the two. If I had to be shot for some hypothetical reason, and I could choose between the two, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'd pick the AR-15 over the 30-06, any day of the week. Which reminds me...
There was someone debating in one of these threads last week, saying (paraphrasing here) that he'd rather be shot by a .45 than an AR-15 in a close quarters situation. And he's a typical representative of the type that wants to decide what we can and can't own. Scary. Can you blame people for being so vocally opposed to guys like that crying for bans on things they so clearly don't understand?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
