So tired of people saying assault rifle's are not a thing.

[Eko]

Just google "gun magazine assault rifle", plenty of them seem to think so.
Eko.

[ret5hd]

1. That pedantry reminds me of this guy:

(same goes for those arguing clip vs magazine. What a bunch of twits)

https://youtube.com/shorts/KSGTbN_L07g?feature=share

[rsdsharp]

2. An assault "rifle" is most definitely a thing.

It’s assault “weapon” that gets fuzzy.

[Eko]

3. Is a rifle not a type of weapon?

I dont see how that is fuzzy at all.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

4. Speaking as a Marine veteran,

there is a difference, an assault rifle is a select fire weapon, whereas, an assault weapon is whatever Congress deems it is.
Personally, I would like to see the NFA opened up to include certain types of semi auto rifles.

[Eko]

5. So a rifle is not a weapon.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

9. Where does it say that?

[Eko]

10. See post 3 and 4

[MarineCombatEngineer]

22. You definitely need better reading comprehension,

nowhere did I say anything like that.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

19. Wow!!!!

That's what you got out of my post?
Apparently, you didn't bother to read the rest of my post.
Sad, sad, sad.

[yagotme]

37. I read his post , like, 6 times,

and didn't see where he said that. A rifle is a weapon. A weapon is not necessarily a rifle.

[Eko]

6. Armalite even advertised the civilian AR15 as a assualt rifle.

[Kaleva]

17. Do you believe gun manufacturers to be accurate and honest?

If so, why?

[Eko]

18. I mean they made the gun, if anyone can classify what it's for wouldnt it be them?

Who would you use to decide what it is?

[Kaleva]

21. I'd do further research and not depend on what a company itself says

As most everyone knows, ads aren't always accurate or even truthful

[MarineCombatEngineer]

20. Aanndd............?

35 years in the Marines, I think I know what I'm talking about.

[TheRealNorth]

25. That seems like a very narrow definition of assault weapon to me...

That because an AR-15 lacks the mechanism to make the rifle fire automatically or in short bursts, it's not an "assault rifle". It's not like the AR-15 can't be modified to convert it back to automatic fire.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

26. It can be converted, but there are consequences for that if one is caught with

an illegally converted semi auto.

I would support opening the NFA for certain semi autos, I know with some, this isn't very popular, but I really don't give 2 cents worth what they have to say.

[yagotme]

31. Well, let's define "convert it back".

All AR-15's made today are semi-auto only. M-16's are full auto/burst. VERY early AR-15's were issued in full auto to the military, but these are few and far between. A current AR-15, converted to full auto, is illegal without filing the proper paperwork.

After all, a 9-iron or a baseball bat could be considered an assault weapon...

[rsdsharp]

7. So is a halberd.

[Eko]

12. I agree.

[hlthe2b]

8. In absence of honest debate, semantics, moving the goalposts, strawmen, & everchanging nomenclature

are all you have...

[Eko]

11. Say what?

My post was very clear and didn't involve any of that.

[hlthe2b]

13. Umm. I am totally agreeing with you and supporting your argument.. ????

It really should have been clear that I was talking about the NRA crowd. Bizarre... Why would you think otherwise?

[Eko]

14. My bad,

This made me think you were talking about me. "are all you have.."
Once again, My bad.

[hlthe2b]

15. ahh, okay

[Kaleva]

16. Armies around the world are armed with assault rifles

And have been for decades.

[AndyS]

23. If you're looking for a REAL made up name

try "Modern Sporting Rifle". Assault Weapon has been around at least since WWII. "Modern Sporting Rifle" was made up by the NSSF sometime in '80s or '90s.

What 'sport' is it designed for? Competitive Mass Murder?

[SYFROYH]

27. I think the term came out of legislation or regulation that allowed sporting rifles to be imported.

[AndyS]

28. According to the NSSF:

The term “modern sporting rifle,” aka MSR, was coined to describe today’s very popular semi-automatic rifle designs, including the AR-15 and similar variants.

The NSSF came up with the term in an attempt to blunt the more accurate Assault Rifle and market it more successfully.

It's all about marketing. Ya' know, selling more guns.

[SYFROYH]

29. Maybe marketing, but also trying to meet legislative standards

Rifles for sporting purposes were considered good, but large capacity military magazine rifles were bad. Hence, the term modern sporting rifle.

Semiautomatic rifles that were considered not for sporting purposes were made legal to import as sporting rifles when certain features were removed, like pistol grips.

You like to read. Have at it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080920043945/http://atf.treas.gov/pub/treas_pub/assault_rifles/typscope.pdf

[AndyS]

30. According to your link the AR and it's dirivatives are not MSRs but

large capacity military magazine rifles.

All that aside, when the NSSF tells me that they coined the term I tend to believe them. They made up a new name for a semiautomatic assault rifle.

[yagotme]

32. An "assault rifle" is capable of full auto fire.

A semiautomatic rifle (only) is not. Thus, the separate name/definition.

[AndyS]

33. I just read the link. Go argue over the nits you choose to pick with them. nt

[yagotme]

34. Just letting you know that the document, like a lot of federal documents,

is not entirely correct. 1st page, it talks about the Vepr rifle not being included, as "it does not fall within this type
because it does not have the ability to accept a large capacity military magazine." It has a detachable magazine. All one has to do is make a 20 round mag for it, and you have a listed arm. This is why details are important, and to have someone that knows what they are talking about when discussing a particular topic. When you have a diesel mechanic dicussing ways to regulate appendix removal, you're gonna get some crazy regulations.

[AndyS]

35. Which is why I have begged the gunners who supposedly know so much

to propose and support laws that will save lives in this crazy ass world. For 40 years I've asked for input from those 'law abiding responsible gun owners' and got nothing. All I've got is more of this nit picking bull shit about what a gun is.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

[yagotme]

36. Post #39

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=213080

[AndyS]

38. Leading is NOT

waiting for someone to be wounded or killed which is what you continue to propose.

So follow or get out of the way.

[yagotme]

39. Remember, Minority Report is just a movie.

Deciding guilt on a crime not yet committed is not currently allowed.

[AndyS]

40. No one has proposed that.

If you can't respond to thingsthat have been suggested this exchange is a waste of my time.

Good day.

[yagotme]

41. You have suggested removing semi-auto's from law abiding citizens...

before they commit a crime, have you not?

[AndyS]

42. No. Can you cite something? I may have mispoke

but at one time I suggested banning all semi autos but then modifed my view to add them to the NFA. Not confiscating existing firearms unless paid for.

[yagotme]

44. Post 22.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172212577

ETA: 6 months old.

[AndyS]

45. This is like Scalia finding "self defense" in the 2nd.

From the post you cite.

January 22 and there are 44 mass shootings. But hey, the night's young!
Still gonna' tell me there's not a problem here that involves guns and the easy access to them?
Asking for a friend . . .

Where do you see that, " (I) have suggested removing semi-auto's from law abiding citizens before they commit a crime?"

[yagotme]

46. "(P)roblem here that involves guns and the easy access to them"

If you believe the access is too easy, therefore, logically, you would wish to reduce said access. To reduce said easy access, before a crime is committed, you would have to reduce/remove the availability of said guns to fewer people. To do that, some lawful citizens would end up being denied the right to purchase a lawful arm, unless you made such arms totally illegal. Criminals will still get access to guns (they are, after all, criminals), and when the "new" laws don't work, well, we'll have to reduce availability some more. If you don't agree with my assessment of "reducing availability" not working, see: NFA 1934, GCA 1968, failed AWB 1994, etc. These laws were passed to "reduce availability" of certain arms, registration, background checks, etc, and we still have a gun crime problem. They didn't stop the "44 mass shootings since Jan 22".

[AndyS]

48. I'm sorry but you're just making shit up now.

Good day.

[yagotme]

47. Here's another. OP

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172212510

[AndyS]

49. Still nothing about TAKING guns of any kind FROM law abiding

citizens. Give it up.

Good day.

[yagotme]

50. "Get rid of...all kinds..."

"We must stop fucking around trying to pacify the gunners and just get rid of semi automatic weapons of all kinds that accept removeable magazines. Long guns, short guns restrict them ALL"

To get rid of ALL kinds of semi auto's, you're going to have to "take" them from law abiding citizens. Did you even read your post before responding? If you can't see what you wrote yourself, I guess I will have to give it up.

[AndyS]

51. Okay, taken literally word for word you COULD interpret these word as you have,

however taken with the entirety of years of posts you SHOULD know that I've posted that any "taking" must be compensated. I've said that government does this all the time; it's called eminent domain. It CAN be done, it IS constitutional and it requires compensation. I once proposed a mandatory gun buy program with a grace period. After the grace period you're no longer 'law abiding'.

If that's what you're talking about then I'm guilty. I've since modified my position to moving all semis to the NFA. You see, I'm not in need of a plexiostomy because I don't suffer from cranial rectal inversion. I can change my views. Can you?

[yagotme]

52. Well, when all I have before me is what you typed,

I kind of do have to take it literally, as inflection shows poorly through a computer screen.

[AndyS]

53. Well, as long as we are playing high school debate team and simply trying to score

points instead of having a meaningful discussion of 150,000 people killed and wounded by fire arms, about half of which were done by "law abiding gun owners", what I said in your cited quote was "restrict them ALL" and not take anything away.

I'd rather have a discussion about reducing the carnage that the gun culture has willingly and knowingly brought upon us. I've asked the supposed experts on guns to help. So far they all seem to resist that hopeful request.

I once had an ignore list of ~15 people. After a couple of years I went back and took them all off ignore. All but two had posting privileges revoked or were under permanent review. Who'da thought there'd be that many gun trolls?

I'd rather not start another list and I'm still looking for meaningful suggestions from those who hold themselves out to be gun experts. On the other hand there's only so much time in my day for dealing with minutia of wording and flawed application of logic.

[yagotme]

54. Sorry, but I can't see a distinction between "restrict them all",

without taking them away. (BTW, you did say "get rid of" a few words earlier). If you "restrict them all", then no one has one. Which means, those already in circulation are going to have to be "removed". Buybacks? What's fair market value for all the semi-auto's you want restricted? Bet that amount will sink the budget for years. And those that don't want to sell? You'll have to "take" them, then. Can't wave a wand and make things disappear.

And, we've gone round and round about ideas to reduce carnage. Some of ours are similar, some not. That's the idea behind a discussion board, to hash out differences.

ETA: Clarified quote.

[AndyS]

55. Out of courtesy I'm letting you know I have put you on ignore.

Play all the silly word games you wish. Post all you want. Say all the dumbass shit you want.

I won't see it and won't react.

[yagotme]

56. K.

I don't have an ignore list. I prefer to see the disagreements.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

57. I respect your POV, but putting people on ignore is not a winning strategy.

Jus sayin.

[AndyS]

58. Spending my time responding to someone who refuses to actually understand my

point of view and manufactures things I have said out of whole cloth is a waste of my time. Only so many hours in the day and I don't need to spend them on dipshits who have no interest an honest exchange, only scoring high school level debate points and poorly applied "logic".

Some hills are worth dying on, some not.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

59. Ok, fair enough,

Peace out
Dan.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. I understand the terminology frustrations.

You have also identified a major impediment to progress on lowering crime and improving regulation.

For clarity, "assault weapon" is term used mostly in the media and advertising. "Assault rifle" denotes a very specific set of functional characteristics to anyone with military knowledge or experience. I remember reading that "assault weapon" was initially used in an advertising campaign by a manufacturer. Various state governments and feds have defined "assault weapon" differently. To add to the confusion the media has used these 2 terms interchangeably.

I would really like to see Congress do some work to resolve the confusion.

Here are some links to the Code of Federal Regulations:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-I/part-73/subpart-A/section-73.2
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-2641/subpart-C/section-2641.301

The CFR often has sections defining terms used which is a big help to understanding the scope, spirit, intent and effect of the regulations therein.

[ManiacJoe]

43. So many people not knowing the difference

between the real world definition of "assault rifle" and the made up silliness of "assault weapon".

The only reason the term "assault weapon" exists is to purposely confuse the masses into thinking of assault rifles. Regardless of what silly definition you use for "assault weapon", none of the common definitions ever include actual assault rifles.

[Squatchman]

60. I own ARs

And I call them assault rifles.
Because they are.
Actually I call my first one the War Machine.
The difference I see between military ARs and mine are the military ones have selective fire.
And the kicker is that gun manufacturers actually called them assault rifles first. Had it right in the advertisements.