Assault Rifle

[TahoeHorn 107]

What is an assault rifle?  Do you have a definition that can be used by manufacturers and police?

The Brady Bill which was passed in '94 or whenever banned assault rifles.  It had an elaborate definition of an assault rifle. 

My brothers had "tests" to identify what was legal and what wasn't.  The test had dozens of highly similar rifles and you were supposed to say which were legal.  You could study the rules for a long time and still not know whether something was legal or not.

My brothers also used to drag me into gun stores and talk about which models were pre-94 models (and thus legal), and discuss what had to be done to modify it to make it legal.  For example you might remove the bayonet mount, or put a weld on a folding stock.  Or change the length of something.  They'd show me the minor cosmetic change that made the new model legal.

All of these guns functioned the same. 

So if we are going to ban assault rifles what the hell are we banning?   Do we still have a manufacturing date (e.g. 2018) where old models are grandfathered?  Is the definition like in '94 based on cosmetic features like bayonet mounts?  Is it so broad that it covers essentially every hunting rifle?

I have no idea what an assault rifle ban means.  Help me out.

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

I also have no idea what an "assault rifle" is, other than by example.

But it seems a pretty simple if we need a legal definition to work with: An assault rifle is any long gun  that doesn't require manually chambering the next round. Hunting rifles, shot guns, and hand guns would not be considered "assault rifles".

I'm not a gun nut, so I'm probably missing something.

[TahoeHorn 107]

38 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

...

I'm not a gun nut, so I'm probably missing something.

You are.

Military assault rifles are essentially illegal.  Civilian "assault rifles" (there really isn't such a thing) function no differently than hunting rifles.  They just look scary.  The 1994 assault rifle ban defined scary looking features and said you can have some but not all.  Your choice.  So to make a model legal manufacturers had to do something like take away the bayonet mount or the folding stock.  But so it would still look cool they'd weld the folding stock instead of putting on a regular stock.

But these guns are designed to have parts changed.  You can buy different barrels and use one to hunt coyotes and another to hunt bear.  The one for deer is also good for people, but the one for coyotes or bear work too.  If you don't like your stock you can change it.

Think of a car.  The basic Camaro is legal.  The sport model with pin stripes, a fire decal, a number on the side and a different muffler looks much "tougher" and is deemed a hot rod and illegal.  You can put a fire decal on.  Or a number.  Or whatever.  You just can't do three scary features.  Only two.  But the cars go the same speed.  They function identically.  And they are much less of a race car than mom's S Mercedes.  And unless you know an awful lot about cars you can't tell whether a given Camaro is deemed a hot rod under the law.  And a little tweek will make an illegal one legal or a legal one illegal.  Maybe a little fire decal is ok but not a big one.  Or a decal of a hornet is illegal but a decal of a bluebird is ok.  You have to have a degree in hot hod law to know.  And it has nothing to do with changing deaths due to traffic accidents.

The kind of Camaro that is a real race car is illegal to drive on the street.  It doesn't have headlights, tail lights, turn signals, air bags and a zillion other things.  It functions differently too.  It goes much faster.  Hell it doesn't even use the same kind of fuel.

Saying that putting a number and a fire decal on a stock Camaro makes it a hot rod or a NASCAR stock car is silly.  It's just used to fool soccer moms that Dem politicians are addressing the traffic death problem by banning hot rods.  Every time somebody gets killed the TV guy starts talking about hot rods.  That's not a hot rod.  That's a PT Cruiser with custom hub caps.  And it doesn't go as fast as mom's Cadillac.

What's a hot rod?  And what does it have to do with traffic deaths?

Edited March 30, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[scottsins 1966]

Agree with lots of this. It has always appeared to me that the “assault style” language is not very illustrative. I guess magazine capacity for semi-auto long guns would be an actual feature that “matters” as far as potential policy discussions.

[JBJ 3654]

Most shotguns are semi-automatic long guns.  And most 22s are as well.

[Anastasis 23469]

Assault rifle: A compact, magazine fed, select fire rifle that fires intermediate cartridges.  

Edited March 30, 2018 by Anastasis

[Parliament 14260]

7 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Hunting rifles, shot guns, and hand guns would not be considered "assault rifles".

 

AR15's are EXCELLENT rifles for hunting coyotes, groundhogs, pigs and gophers.  In a target-rich environment, a quick followup shot kills another critter.

 

Assault rifle: A compact, magazine fed, select fire rifle that fires intermediate cartridges.  

"Select-fire" means you can select between semi and full-auto, and that IS the correct definition of an assault rifle.  Select-fire weapons are legal, but very rare and require fingerprints, passport photos, a background check, and your local sheriff's permission.  And you pay $200 for the privilege.

Most, in not ALL, of the recent mass shootings were done with semi-automatic guns.  They were not assault rifles.

People get that mixed up, either on purpose or out of ignorance.  It vexes me very much. 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Parliament

[bad_teammate 13195]

Hey cool another "well actually, it's a magazine not a clip" thread.

[Parliament 14260]

Words mean things.

[JBJ 3654]

Go away, Ben.  Grown ups are talking.

 

I'd think the general consensus would think of it as a magazine-fed rifle with intermediate-to-full cartridge size.

[BabaYaga 15298]

7 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

What is an assault rifle?  Do you have a definition that can be used by manufacturers and police?

The Brady Bill which was passed in '94 or whenever banned assault rifles.  It had an elaborate definition of an assault rifle. 

My brothers had "tests" to identify what was legal and what wasn't.  The test had dozens of highly similar rifles and you were supposed to say which were legal.  You could study the rules for a long time and still not know whether something was legal or not.

My brothers also used to drag me into gun stores and talk about which models were pre-94 models (and thus legal), and discuss what had to be done to modify it to make it legal.  For example you might remove the bayonet mount, or put a weld on a folding stock.  Or change the length of something.  They'd show me the minor cosmetic change that made the new model legal.

All of these guns functioned the same. 

So if we are going to ban assault rifles what the hell are we banning?   Do we still have a manufacturing date (e.g. 2018) where old models are grandfathered?  Is the definition like in '94 based on cosmetic features like bayonet mounts?  Is it so broad that it covers essentially every hunting rifle?

I have no idea what an assault rifle ban means.  Help me out.

Spot on.  It, in all practicality, means banning all semi-auto rifles.  An impossibility.  But seemingly a target.  Despite hundreds of millions in circulation and over five trillion rounds of ammunition in civilian hands and their use representing a minute fraction of use in crime and shootings (<2%)   As an operating system, "modern" rifles are not much different than the vulnerable Remington Model 8 patented more than a 100 years ago.  Advances in optics and the manufacturing process have led to lighter, easier to produce, and modular designs.  But the basic operation has changed very little (we see this also with bolt guns).   In terms of function, there are no material differences between an AR platform and a Ruger Mini 14/30.  There are dozens of examples.  The old Hakim 8mm's, Model 81's, old Mossberg Semi's such as the 353T.  Then there are your carbines easily that have been easily accessible to the public for years such as the old M1 or SKS.    Then when shooters switch to pistols (VTech, Major Nadar) and kill dozens more, we banning those too?  High capacity?  We tried that from '94-'04.  Results were a spectacular failure.  What about shotguns?  Ever seen what they can do at close range?  Pipe bombs?  Driving dads diesel through the pick-up line, mowing down dozens.   Or maybe, just maybe, focus needs to shift away from the medium, to the target.  "Hardening" soft targets, as has been done across the globe when they become vulnerable.    Funny how inner city schools with guards and metal detectors are never targeted...

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It’s mostly a semantics debate.  However, it would be more accurate to describe them as “military style weapons” instead of assault rifles.

I wouldn’t describe an AR-15 or AK-47 as a “hunting rifle”.  The gun dealers get away with calling them “sporting rifles”.  In reality, they’re semiautomatic civilian versions of assault rifles.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

I hesitate to wade into this, but you are absolutely right, "assault rifle" is a meaningless pejorative (or laudatory, depending on the redness of your neck) term.

From a functional standpoint, the dividing line between what has traditionally been viewed as a sporting arm and what the mass murderers like is probably a semi-automatic rifle with a magazine capacity exceeding five rounds (leaving off shotguns for the moment).

[bad_teammate 13195]

4 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Words mean things.

Definitely, and it's very important that we constantly lament to each other how other people who are not here say that particular phrase in a way we find inaccurate. We must address this epidemic here where zero people actually use it inaccurately in discussions.

[BB65 478]

 

 

 

 

 

Both of these firearms shoot the same  cal ammo, at the same rate of fire. Both are semi automatic .22 caliber rifles made by the same manufacturer. Accessories can be bought to make the top firearm look like the bottom. The accessories do not change the action. The larger magazine will fit both rifles

 

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

It's why we need to just band the sale, manufacture, gifting, import, export, and inheritance of all fully and semi-automatic weapons. Simple enough to understand and a truly meaningful distinction (unlike bayonet mount or gun color).

[TwiceHorn 31471]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I hesitate to wade into this, but you are absolutely right, "assault rifle" is a meaningless pejorative (or laudatory, depending on the redness of your neck) term.

From a functional standpoint, the dividing line between what has traditionally been viewed as a sporting arm and what the mass murderers like is probably a semi-automatic rifle with a magazine capacity exceeding five rounds (leaving off shotguns for the moment).

 

3 minutes ago, BB65 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Both of these firearms shoot the same  cal ammo, at the same rate of fire. Both are semi automatic .22 caliber rifles made by the same manufacturer. Accessories can be bought to make the top firearm look like the bottom. The accessories do not change the action. The larger magazine will fit both rifles

 

 

 

 

And, I suppose, add to it "center-fire."  No sense taking away semi auto .22s.

[BB65 478]

Fully autos are already illegal unless you have a special permission from the ATF, FBI etc...

[BabaYaga 15298]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s mostly a semantics debate.  However, it would be more accurate to describe them as “military style weapons” instead of assault rifles.

I wouldn’t describe an AR-15 or AK-47 as a “hunting rifle”.  The gun dealers get away with calling them “sporting rifles”.  In reality, they’re semiautomatic civilian versions of assault rifles.

I'd argue the exact opposite.  Hunting, especially with smaller Texas deer, with either the 5.56 or 7.62x39 rounds, is done all the time.  Many young hunters learn on the AR platform as they are highly accurate with minimal recoil.  Using larger grain bullets (55-72gr) will absolutely wreck a whitetail or pig.    The 7.62x39 is becoming such a popular round Ruger now chambers ranch rifles dedicated to it (semi and bolt options).   Further, the AR is a modular platform.  Replace the uppers and you can run a gambit of calibers, from 22lr for practice up to larger .30-cal and ever bigger.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I'd argue the exact opposite.  Hunting, especially with smaller Texas deer, with either the 5.56 or 7.62x39 rounds, is done all the time.  Many young hunters learn on the AR platform as they are highly accurate with minimal recoil.  Using larger grain bullets (55-72gr) will absolutely wreck a whitetail or pig.    The 7.62x39 is becoming such a popular round Ruger now chambers ranch rifles dedicated to it (semi and bolt options).   Further, the AR is a modular platform.  Replace the uppers and you can run a gambit of calibers, from 22lr for practice up to larger .30-cal and ever bigger.

A 30-30 works just fine too.

[Gut Wagon 8071]

Just so you guys know, I'd have "liked" a bunch of the posts on this thread, but I'm fresh out of ability to "react" any more today. I'll try again later. In the meantime, glad to see so many here with practical knowledge of firearms, as opposed to the idiocy we're seeing and hearing in the MSM. Keep it up.

[SDG 3319]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's why we need to just band the sale, manufacture, gifting, import, export, and inheritance of all fully and semi-automatic weapons. Simple enough to understand and a truly meaningful distinction (unlike bayonet mount or gun color).

Yeah, that’s a shit ton of bannings...  

[JBJ 3654]

Most people I know who own them use them as ranch rifles.

I only know one hunter who owns one and he uses it for feral hogs.

[BB65 478]

I have an idea why will the government not just ban murder. Make murder go away and we all can have any firearm we want.

[jimmyjazz 45955]

Words do have meanings.  Intentionally initiating a Virginia Reel of semantic bullshit does nobody any good, but carry on, because it's the same old same old.

BUT BUT BUT it's just painted black so that's why you hate it!!!

BUT BUT BUT my grandfather's pig pistol was an awesome killing machine!!!

 

Come to the table or don't, but if you don't, I would caution you not to be surprised when the end result is less attractive than it could have been.  Your choice.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Military style gun. Loud, fires fastest biggest bullets. Unlimited clips in the magazines. Fires 700 rounds per second. Automatic machine gun. "AR" in AR-15 is for assault rifle. 

Or, if you want a non democrat angle this website is really nice and simple for people unfamiliar with firearms.

http://www.assaultweapon.info

[BabaYaga 15298]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

A 30-30 works just fine too.

If we're going down that road - aren't  single/double-wides "fine" too?  Why do you "need" 3000+ sqft.  Why do you "need" a car that goes faster than 70 mph, has more than 150 hp.  Aren't both "fine"?  We can go down that rabbit hole all day.  

But to be specific, at the end of the day, with the option to have one, and one rifle only - it would be an AR.  For home defense.  Hunting.  Practice.  And recreational shooting.  The accuracy.  Minimal recoil.  And most importantly, the modular aspect, you can swap out uppers and barrel lengths and switch from .22lrs with the kids up to 1000+yd shooting with a .338 Lapua in the afternoon.  

[Heavy 6 68]

Nobody in the gun community, if there is such a thing, calls AR-15s “assault rifles.”

It’s a media/political pejorative.

[jimmyjazz 45955]

3 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Military style gun. Loud, fires fastest biggest bullets. Unlimited clips in the magazines. Fires 700 rounds per second. Automatic machine gun. "AR" in AR-15 is for assault rifle. 

Or, if you want a non democrat angle this website is really nice and simple for people unfamiliar with firearms.

http://www.assaultweapon.info

Guess what?  A whole lot of people pushing for more stringent gun control are not nearly as ill-informed as you might think they are.  Keeping fucking that football, though.

[BB65 478]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Words do have meanings.  Intentionally initiating a Virginia Reel of semantic bullshit does nobody any good, but carry on, because it's the same old same old.

BUT BUT BUT it's just painted black so that's why you hate it!!!

BUT BUT BUT my grandfather's pig pistol was an awesome killing machine!!!

 

Come to the table or don't, but if you don't, I would caution you not to be surprised when the end result is less attractive than it could have been.  Your choice.

I own several firearms, none of which could be classified as an AR. However I do own semi auto handguns and shotguns. All of my rifles are either single shot, bolt action or pump action.

I just think it is ridiculous for people to be willing for the government to ban something that they can't define. The same government that failed to do their job when all of the information in front of them was ignored. Changing gun laws should be the last resort, after all other laws have been enforced.

[bad_teammate 13195]

19 minutes ago, SDG said:

Yeah, that’s a shit ton of bannings...  

Sure, but the semi-automatic action is the common denominator and the actual issue at hand.

"lol stupid lib, the only difference between that AR-15 and my mini-14 is how it looks! You're swayed by the name of something and the look of it because you're an idiot."

- "Oh ok let's ban that, too, because then it's just as pointlessly deadly as the AR-15."

"NO! That's called a 'ranch rifle' which means it's OK and it's wood stocked not all black! You can't ban it!"

[BB65 478]

5 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Military style gun. Loud, fires fastest biggest bullets. Unlimited clips in the magazines. Fires 700 rounds per second. Automatic machine gun. "AR" in AR-15 is for assault rifle. 

Or, if you want a non democrat angle this website is really nice and simple for people unfamiliar with firearms.

http://www.assaultweapon.info

Actually the AR in AR-15 originally stood for Armalite Rifle company. The company the made the original AR-15

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Guess what?  A whole lot of people pushing for more stringent gun control are not nearly as ill-informed as you might think they are.  Keeping fucking that football, though.

Sure, but the ones calling for "assault weapons bans" as step one in thier "common sense" gun control are obviously ill informed. Most gun crimes are committed with handguns illegally obtained by gangs in inner cities. What the fuck does that have to do with "assault rifles"? It's never about preventing crimes, or preventing mass shootings, its always about eventually disarming the population to bring in a police state. Look at Euroop. Look at Latin America.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

1 minute ago, BB65 said:

Actually the AR in AR-15 originally stood for Armalite Rifle company. The company the made the original AR-15

You didn't catch my sarcasm. I was listing a bunch of incorrect talking points the ignorant lefties use.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I own just about everything they’re talking about banning and I’m not afraid of them being taken off the market to save lives.  

I don’t need 40 round mags for my AK. I don’t need 30 round mags for my SCAR.  I don’t need 33 round mags for my glock.  

However, I would like them to make suppressors easier to acquire for hearing safety reasons.

[jimmyjazz 45955]

3 minutes ago, BB65 said:

Actually the AR in AR-15 originally stood for Armalite Rifle company. The company the made the original AR-15

He knows that.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Sure, but the semi-automatic action is the common denominator and the actual issue at hand.

"lol stupid lib, the only difference between that AR-15 and my mini-14 is how it looks! You're swayed by the name of something and the look of it because you're an idiot."

- "Oh ok let's ban that, too, because then it's just as pointlessly deadly as the AR-15."

"NO! That's called a 'ranch rifle' which means it's OK and it's wood stocked not all black! You can't ban it!"

So you want to ban the vast majority of handguns and revolvers too because they are semiauto? 

[jimmyjazz 45955]

2 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Sure, but the ones calling for "assault weapons bans" as step one in thier "common sense" gun control are obviously ill informed. Most gun crimes are committed with handguns illegally obtained by gangs in inner cities. What the fuck does that have to do with "assault rifles"? It's never about preventing crimes, or preventing mass shootings, its always about eventually disarming the population to bring in a police state. Look at Euroop. Look at Latin America.

Well, no, but you might want to find a different football to fuck because that one is plumb wore out.

[BB65 478]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

He knows that.

I guess my sarcasm meter is on the blink

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well, no, but you might want to find a different football to fuck because that one is plumb wore out.

"no" huh? Great rebuttal. 

[DixonHur 11304]

Can someone  please take the "thread starting" keys away from Tahoe?  

[jimmyjazz 45955]

Just now, BB65 said:

I guess my sarcasm meter is on the blink

But again, it's the semantics and gaslighting that are the biggest impediment to discussion.  It matters not one fucking bit that some people incorrectly believe "AR" means "assault rifle".  It just doesn't.  One need not be an expert on weapons history to have a valid opinion on where society should draw the limits on gun ownership.

Of course, "discussion" is not really a desirable action for much of the gun enthusiast crowd.

[scottsins 1966]

Most shotguns are semi-automatic long guns.  And most 22s are as well.

 

Of course they are. So maybe a magazine limit for those? Or maybe factor caliber into the equation.

 

I don’t really “feel” like 30 rounds of 22 is as lethal as the same capacity of .223, but maybe I’m just crazy.

[SDG 3319]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Can someone  please take the "thread starting" keys away from Tahoe?  

Why, because you don’t like the topic?  Don’t click.  

[SDG 3319]

1 minute ago, scottsins said:

 

Of course they are. So maybe a magazine limit for those? Or maybe factor caliber into the equation.

I don’t really know of any legal limitations but then again, I’ve never seen a 22 with a “high capacity” magazine attached.

 

I have a tech-22 with 30 round mags and an old Marlin with 25 a round mag.  There are a ton of them out there. 

[TwiceHorn 31471]

I'm a gun owner.  I own five firearms, all for sporting use, none even for self defense.  Four of the five are semi-automatic.  Three of the five are also rimfire (.22).

I see a reasonable compromise as all semi-automatic center-fire rifles with a magazine capacity exceeding five rounds (not including the chamber), as acceptable.  It's a clean definition.  No pre-this, post that.  It doesn't eliminate use of ARs and other weapons for fun or sport, just an aspect of that fun/sport.

Edited March 30, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Heavy 6 68]

I'm a gun owner.  I own five firearms, all for sporting use, none even for self defense.  Three of the five are semi-automatic.  Three of the five are also rimfire (.22).
I see a reasonable compromise as all semi-automatic center-fire rifles with a magazine capacity exceeding five rounds (not including the chamber), as acceptable.  It's a clean definition.  No pre-this, post that.  It doesn't eliminate use of ARs and other weapons for fun or sport, just an aspect of that fun/sport.

“Compromise” meaning one side gives and the other takes? Fuck that.

[bernorange 8361]

If you are limited to 5 rounds in your magazine, you better hope you have perfect aim under stress should you ever be faced with a real life self defense situation - especially one that involves multiple assailants.

The whole focus on number of rounds in a magazine is misguided IMO. 

[BB65 478]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm a gun owner.  I own five firearms, all for sporting use, none even for self defense.  Three of the five are semi-automatic.  Three of the five are also rimfire (.22).

I see a reasonable compromise as all semi-automatic center-fire rifles with a magazine capacity exceeding five rounds (not including the chamber), as acceptable.  It's a clean definition.  No pre-this, post that.  It doesn't eliminate use of ARs and other weapons for fun or sport, just an aspect of that fun/sport.

For me that might be a reasonable compromise after the government corrects their deficiencies in background check information, investigating reports of potential professional school shooters and enforcing the laws that are already on the books. By government I mean Local, State and Federal.

[BabaYaga 15298]

2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

If you are limited to 5 rounds in your magazine, you better hope you have perfect aim under stress should you ever be faced with a real life self defense situation - especially one that involves multiple assailants.

The whole focus on number of rounds in a magazine is misguided IMO. 

Yep.  Sheet metal and springs.  That is what magazines are made from.  Sheet metal and a spring.  Obviously so advanced in manufacturing as to be beyond the mediocre capabilities of the meek pubic to produce on their own....