Why hasn't anyone redefined Assault Weapon?

[Dr. CCW]

Its a political term, not a gun term. Would it be that difficult for one of our senators to redefine it? The general public thinks they are full-auto rifles. The majority don't know a thing about evil features.

Assault Rifle:
A rifle designed for no other purpose than assault, that uses high power rounds that have no other purpose than killing humans, capable of firing such rounds in fully automatic mode, and using magazines with more rounds than the standard capacity of modern sport riles.

All this nonsense about grips, bayonet lugs, adjustable stocks, barrel length, normal capacity magazines, flash suppressors, and so forth are meaningless to John Q public. John Q public believes that assault rifles are fully automatic weapons that take plutonium tipped projectiles. Shouldn't we agree with them and redefine the term? I doubt there would be resistance.

If you redefine the term to describe what it implies, there would not be such a misconception about any rifle currently on the market and readily available for purchase.

The democrats are assaulting the 2nd amendment from so many angles to see what sticks, why isn't there an equal backlash?

 

[IPSC_DRL]

Actually it WAS redefined.

By Josh Sugarman of the VPC.

 

[edhead35]

Legal definition doesn't mean much if the swine in the media lie about it and convince the sloth public of the lie.

 

[45collector]

Actually it WAS redefined.

By Josh Sugarman of the VPC.

Yep. He thought up the term "Assault Weapon" in what, 1992?

 

[drgrant]

"Assault Weapon" is a completely bullshit term that needs to die, not be redefined. It was invented by antis to make firearms sound "more scary" to people than they actually are- by demonizing them with menacing terms. It's never had any kind of legitimate use in the industry.

-Mike

 

[cekim]

Only Criminals and Governments "Assault" the rest of us "Defend."

It's their term, they are going to spread the BS far and wide and we don't really get a say in the matter directly. Indirectly, we can combat this with education so that their flat-earth claims land on educated ears that hears them for the BS that they are.

This and the claim that "your other rights are subject to restriction too!"

Yes sir/madam they are, but only after due process and on an individual basis. Nowhere are you allowed to issue blanket restrictions on fundamental rights without Due Process to an entire class of people. That went out with Slavery and the re-statement of "Equal Protection."

This one is bad as "our side" doesn't have that argument ready. They accept the "reasonable restriction" fiction without challenge until they get backed into a linguistic corner. Don't fall for it!

 

[Neuro]

I prefer "Standard Capacity Government-Style Defensive Firearm".

 

[edhead35]

Government style implies that only the government should have it. IMO

 

[cekim]

Government style implies that only the government should have it. IMO

Which is why "Personal Defense Weapon" captures the truth of it better.

PDW flows off the tongue better than "semi-auto rifle"

AR works too, but obviously causes confusion to the "next level" idiots who think that means "Assault Rifle".

 

[45collector]

Assault Rifle:
A rifle designed for no other purpose than assault, that uses high power rounds that have no other purpose than killing humans, capable of firing such rounds in fully automatic mode, and using magazines with more rounds than the standard capacity of modern sport riles.

You'd be doing nothing to help our cause by describing machine guns with that language. Plenty of people have machine gun licenses, but what the general populace doesn't understand is that the guns dubbed "assault weapons" are not fully automatic. Rather than using those words "no other purpose", "high power rounds", "killing humans" etc... to try to get the sheep to understand the difference between the two "assault" terms, get them to understand that real machine guns are practically never used in any of the high profile shooting sprees that gain media attention, and then go further with the fact that even "assault weapons" as we know it, are rarely used in those shootings either. Shit that was long-winded. Sorry.

 

[MrJones79]

Its a political term, not a gun term. Would it be that difficult for one of our senators to redefine it? The general public thinks they are full-auto rifles. The majority don't know a thing about evil features.

Assault Rifle:
A rifle designed for no other purpose than assault, that uses high power rounds that have no other purpose than killing humans, capable of firing such rounds in fully automatic mode, and using magazines with more rounds than the standard capacity of modern sport riles.

All this nonsense about grips, bayonet lugs, adjustable stocks, barrel length, normal capacity magazines, flash suppressors, and so forth are meaningless to John Q public. John Q public believes that assault rifles are fully automatic weapons that take plutonium tipped projectiles. Shouldn't we agree with them and redefine the term? I doubt there would be resistance.

If you redefine the term to describe what it implies, there would not be such a misconception about any rifle currently on the market and readily available for purchase.

The democrats are assaulting the 2nd amendment from so many angles to see what sticks, why isn't there an equal backlash?

Well, they are redefining it, or trying to, in many states. The problem? The new definition is a one-feature test instead of a two-feature test. And it's pretty damn effective since a pistol grip (very VERY dangerous you know) will effectively ban all AR's.

It's pretty clear gun control advocates have one goal: ban the AR-15 by any means necessary. First ban didn't work due to redesigns, but if they get the one feature test, then they screw us all. Not to mention banning countless other firearms along with it.

I agree though with your premise. We need a LEGITIMATE definition of assault weapon. Right now the definition is just some clever language that seeks to ban the AR platform just because it looks like a military rifle. Or better yet, let's just get rid of the whole damn term altogether. It's just out there to scare people. I mean, come on.....what do you think your average lay person would answer when asked "Do you support banning citizens from owning ASSAULT WEAPONS?". Of course they're going to say 'yes'. That term scares the shit out of them.

 

[edhead35]

Which is why "Personal Defense Weapon" captures the truth of it better.

Agreed.

 

[BONESTOCK]

Hey the simple fact is that half the dumb asses here on NES don't even know what they have or if it qualifies to be an "assault weapon" so how the hell can you define if for the rest of the country.

 

[edhead35]

I don't think any object has no other purpose but XYZ as defined. Produce can be used for decoration, food, sex toys, and compost. Hammers can be used for building, killing and sex toys. No gun is made just for killing, period.

 

[cekim]

I agree though with your premise. We need a LEGITIMATE definition of assault weapon. Right now the definition is just some clever language that seeks to ban the AR platform just because it looks like a military rifle.

There is no "legitimate definition." It is a BS concept from the start. The very notion of it implies some elevated position or function that simply cannot be demonstrated in peaceful society despite their prolific sales and wide-spread possession. Explained entirely by the reality that it is a TOOL. It is no evil incarnate, it can be used for good or evil, but the user decides. Same with hammers, chainsaws, chlorine, propane, rat poison, and so on and so forth.

DHS did about as well as anyone ever has in explaining how "appropriate" a select-fire rifle that is light and holds a 30 round or greater detachable magazine in 5.56 caliber is for "Personal Defense". They are right. I cannot fault their logic. It is a superb "Personal Defense Weapon."

 

[Big_Red]

"Assault Weapon" is a completely bullshit term that needs to die, not be redefined. It was invented by antis to make firearms sound "more scary" to people than they actually are- by demonizing them with menacing terms. It's never had any kind of legitimate use in the industry.

-Mike

^ This

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It's interesting that a new in box gun is called an "assault weapon" before it is even fired, but a gun only gains the title "murder weapon" after it has been used in one. But the, we park driveways and drive on parkways.

 

[FreeWillie]

The first thing I do is ask them to define this "assault rifle" they speak of. Usually they can't. Then I get to define it. Blows their argument to hell.

Sent from the depths of Hell with TapaTalk V2

 

[Pilgrim]

The general public thinks they are full-auto rifles.

that's what the .gov wants, and is perpetuating.

 

[45collector]

Hey the simple fact is that half the dumb asses here on NES don't even know what they have or if it qualifies to be an "assault weapon" so how the hell can you define if for the rest of the country.

What percentage of users here qualify as dumb asses?

 

[cekim]

that's what the .gov wants, and is perpetuating.

At the end of the day, I think we do ourselves harm by dissembling and trying to back away from full-auto like its some magic evil killyness...

I say that not just out of my own self interest and familiarity, but in the context of the political calculus or negotiating with ourselves and drawing a line giving up something before they even demand it. We open the door to banning "those" and they say "well, why not these too?"

Given the practical difference between a semi and full auto rifle's ability to do damage in the hands of the deranged is about the same as the difference between 10 rd mags and 30 rd mags.

That is to say NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE AT ALL. Full-auto fire is great for intimidating, but in terms of the ability of the ability of the determined to do harm, its no different and no different than gas, fertilizer, etc... If there is a will, there is a way.

So, vilifying full-auto is just starting in the middle of the slippery slope instead of standing your ground at the bottom of the stairs up to the top and saying, "I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore!"

 

[silversquirrel]

Its nothing more than sticks and stones name calling by scared liberal whiners.

What they mean to say is "Scape Goat extra Scary Evil GUN"

 

[mikeyp]

Which is why "Personal Defense Weapon" captures the truth of it better.

PDW flows off the tongue better than "semi-auto rifle"

AR works too, but obviously causes confusion to the "next level" idiots who think that means "Assault Rifle".

Isn't that what DHS called it? Works for me!

 

[cekim]

Its nothing more than sticks and stones name calling by scared liberal whiners.

What they mean to say is "Scape Goat extra Scary Evil GUN"

Exactly, no amount of features or rate of fire will change that on a practical level. They are just trying to drive a wedge and cut to the bone. The destination never changes - COMPLETE DISARMAMENT OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

"Assault Weapon" is a term invented and used by people who want to oppress and commit genocide - plane and simple.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't that what DHS called it? Works for me!

Yes, those words and description are taken from a Request for Quote from DHS (a request to buy "Personal Defense Weapons"), which they aptly described as a relatively short barreled 5.56 rifle with detachable 30 round GI compatible magazine, adjustable stock, select fire and even "concealable".

 

[TomH]

Who cares what they're called, people should be able to own any and all of them, auto or not.

 

[DrNVP]

Its a political term, not a gun term. Would it be that difficult for one of our senators to redefine it? The general public thinks they are full-auto rifles. The majority don't know a thing about evil features.

Assault Rifle:
A rifle designed for no other purpose than assault, that uses high power rounds that have no other purpose than killing humans, capable of firing such rounds in fully automatic mode, and using magazines with more rounds than the standard capacity of modern sport riles.

All this nonsense about grips, bayonet lugs, adjustable stocks, barrel length, normal capacity magazines, flash suppressors, and so forth are meaningless to John Q public. John Q public believes that assault rifles are fully automatic weapons that take plutonium tipped projectiles. Shouldn't we agree with them and redefine the term? I doubt there would be resistance.

If you redefine the term to describe what it implies, there would not be such a misconception about any rifle currently on the market and readily available for purchase.

The democrats are assaulting the 2nd amendment from so many angles to see what sticks, why isn't there an equal backlash?

it is kind of hard to get the truth out there when the "mainstream media" controls the message and is fully complicit with the gun grabbers.

 

[cekim]

BTW, the NSSF and others have also been trying to "re-brand" ARs as "modern sporting rifles" or "MSR" for a while too.

This one doesn't seem to be taking off and I think it suffers from the same dissembling as a lot of these terms.

 

[edhead35]

BTW, the NSSF and others have also been trying to "re-brand" ARs as "modern sporting rifles" or "MSR" for a while too.

This one doesn't seem to be taking off and I think it suffers from the same dissembling as a lot of these terms.

Catchy terms only work if you have the media, schools, and propaganda to back you up. Teach them what a firearm is, what it can do or not do. There is no quick way to ban guns and no quick way to avoid banning guns. They have been using assault rifle for how long and we still have them in most places in the country. They have the media and schools, and we have the truth. We should have lost this battle long ago with those odds. Speak and spread the truth and win the war.

 

[45collector]

You gotta be kidding me. I was just working on my mustang listening to 94 HJY, and that "Charles" guy just came on and said something to the effect of "Lets get something straight with all the assault weapon talk lately... Assault weapons are illegal. No one can own an assault weapon because they are fully automatic machine guns. The guns they're talking about banning are only modeled after assault weapons."

 

[cekim]

You gotta be kidding me. I was just working on my mustang listening to 94 HJY, and that "Charles" guy just came on and said something to the effect of "Lets get something straight with all the assault weapon talk lately... Assault weapons are illegal. No one can own an assault weapon because they are fully automatic machine guns. The guns they're talking about banning are only modeled after assault weapons."

Yep... the ignorance is deafening.... and winning.