AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - AR-15 (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/29/2009 4:54:20 PM EDT
|
I'm in a debate about the AR-15 and need some help.
Is the AR-15 a "assault rifle" or not?? Some people are saying it has to be abot to shoot both fulll auto and semi-auto to be a assault rifle while others are saying it can be semi-auto only and be a assault rifle. Who's right? |
|
I own a defensive weapon, it is a defensive weapon because I use it to defend myself. If a person were to assault people with any weapon it would be an assault weapon.
An AR-15 cannot shoot full-auto, that would be illegal to have unless you have the correct permits and paperwork (as well as a large sum of money) Send these people here link Edit: By the way, you might want to try the GD for this discussion. Link |
| I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Weapon" is: Any weapon that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault weapon". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault weapon"... IMO |
|
Quoted:
I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle 
|
|
It could be an "assault weapon", because that is a political term. A scare tactical. "Assault Rifle", on the other hand, is a technical term... It is well defined. -Intermediate Cartridge -Detachable Magazines (Generally seems to be considered a cartridge between roughly 30mm and 45mm in case length... They're usually necked down) -Closed, Locked Bolt Firing -Selective Fire The AR-15 meets 3 of the 4 criteria... So it is not an Assault Rifle. Some will get into |
|
Quoted:
It could be an "assault weapon", because that is a political term. A scare tactical. "Assault Rifle", on the other hand, is a technical term... It is well defined. -Intermediate Cartridge -Detachable Magazines -Locked Bolt Firing -Selective Fire The AR-15 meets 3 of the 4 criteria... So it is not an Assault Rifle. First assault rifle was the German MP-44, met all 4 of the above criteria |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". |
|
Quoted:
It could be an "assault weapon", because that is a political term. A scare tactical. "Assault Rifle", on the other hand, is a technical term... It is well defined. -Intermediate Cartridge -Detachable Magazines (Generally seems to be considered a cartridge between roughly 30mm and 45mm in case length... They're usually necked down) -Closed, Locked Bolt Firing -Selective Fire The AR-15 meets 3 of the 4 criteria... So it is not an Assault Rifle. Some will get into I stand corrected. I should have used "weapon" where I used "rifle". I fixed it on my original opinion about this. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. |
|
Quoted:
It could be an "assault weapon", because that is a political term. A scare tactical. "Assault Rifle", on the other hand, is a technical term... It is well defined. -Intermediate Cartridge -Detachable Magazines (Generally seems to be considered a cartridge between roughly 30mm and 45mm in case length... They're usually necked down) -Closed, Locked Bolt Firing -Selective Fire The AR-15 meets 3 of the 4 criteria... So it is not an Assault Rifle. this is it. no other answers needed |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dose'nt the "AR" in AR-15 stand for assault rifle? Or dose it stand for "automatic rifle"? Armalite Model 15 This. Armalite was a division of Fairchild Aircraft Corporation. Eugene Stoner of Armalite developed the AR-15, then sold the patent to Colt. Hence the nomenclature AR-15 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. Same thing with pump shotguns. They were designed for sporting/hunting, but the military started buying them and using them. Does that make them a military weapon? No. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. Same thing with pump shotguns. They were designed for sporting/hunting, but the military started buying them and using them. Does that make them a military weapon? No. I agree with your statement and the statement of the previous poster on this. The Rem. 700 was not designed to shoot people... therefore it's not an assault weapon in any form. Even a Sniper Rifle. Pump shotguns were not originally designed to shoot people either... therefore they are not assault weapons... But the AK47, AR15, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M14, M1A, Springfield 1861 Musket, Brown Bess Revolutionary War Musket... and the list goes on... All assault weapons. Originally designed for one purpose. To shoot people. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. Same thing with pump shotguns. They were designed for sporting/hunting, but the military started buying them and using them. Does that make them a military weapon? No. The Winchester 97 Trench gun with bayonet lug was definitely a military weapon. Germans in WW1 feared them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. Same thing with pump shotguns. They were designed for sporting/hunting, but the military started buying them and using them. Does that make them a military weapon? No. I agree with your statement and the statement of the previous poster on this. The Rem. 700 was not designed to shoot people... therefore it's not an assault weapon in any form. Even a Sniper Rifle. Pump shotguns were not originally designed to shoot people either... therefore they are not assault weapons... But the AK47, AR15, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M14, M1A, Springfield 1861 Musket, Brown Bess Revolutionary War Musket... and the list goes on... All assault weapons. Originally designed for one purpose. To shoot people. sorry, but fail.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. Same thing with pump shotguns. They were designed for sporting/hunting, but the military started buying them and using them. Does that make them a military weapon? No. I agree with your statement and the statement of the previous poster on this. The Rem. 700 was not designed to shoot people... therefore it's not an assault weapon in any form. Even a Sniper Rifle. Pump shotguns were not originally designed to shoot people either... therefore they are not assault weapons... But the AK47, AR15, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M14, M1A, Springfield 1861 Musket, Brown Bess Revolutionary War Musket... All assault weapons. Originally designed for one purpose. To shoot people. Well, the AR was originally a sporting arm believe it or not. It wasn't popular with sportsmen because of the aluminum and plastic, so it was taken before the military. The military brass originally hated it
|
|
The term assault rifle was coined by Hitler to descirbe the STG-44 sturmgewehr is german for assualt rifle
Now to be an assualt rifle by the acepted and popular definition 1. Rifle must be chambered in an intermediate caliber 5.56 I have read several articles and had many discussions on weather or not 5.56 is too small to be an intermediate cartiridge 2. The rifle must be capable of semi auto and full auto fire ar-15 is semi only the M-16 is select fire 3. The rifle is smaller and lighter than a main battle rifle Here the AR-15 does fit. So we have one no one yes and one possible in most courts that means not guilty |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. Same thing with pump shotguns. They were designed for sporting/hunting, but the military started buying them and using them. Does that make them a military weapon? No. I agree with your statement and the statement of the previous poster on this. The Rem. 700 was not designed to shoot people... therefore it's not an assault weapon in any form. Even a Sniper Rifle. Pump shotguns were not originally designed to shoot people either... therefore they are not assault weapons... But the AK47, AR15, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M14, M1A, Springfield 1861 Musket, Brown Bess Revolutionary War Musket... All assault weapons. Originally designed for one purpose. To shoot people. Well, the AR was originally a sporting arm believe it or not. It wasn't popular with sportsmen because of the aluminum and plastic, so it was taken before the military. The military brass originally hated it Except for General Curtis Lemay, he was instrumental in having it adopted by the Air Force |
|
Quoted: The term assault rifle was coined by Hitler to descirbe the STG-44 sturmgewehr is german for assualt rifle Now to be an assualt rifle by the acepted and popular definition 1. Rifle must be chambered in an intermediate caliber 5.56 I have read several articles and had many discussions on weather or not 5.56 is too small to be an intermediate cartiridge 2. The rifle must be capable of semi auto and full auto fire ar-15 is semi only the M-16 is select fire 3. The rifle is smaller and lighter than a main battle rifle Here the AR-15 does fit. So we have one no one yes and one possible in most courts that means not guilty Fail... Weight and size are relative. Unless you get a specific weight range, it has zero value for defining what is an assault rifle. "intermediate power" is not merely bullet diameter alone. It is primarily case length. There are three types of cartridges... Pistol, intermediate, and rifle. Is 5.56x45mm a pistol cartridge? Obviously not, it is in no way similar to 9x19mm, 9x18mm, .45ACP, .40S&W, etc. Is it a rifle cartridge? Obviously not, it is far from 7.62x52mm, 7.62x63mm, 7.92x57mm, 7.62x54mmR, etc. No... It is between those. It is an intermediate powered cartridge. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. Same thing with pump shotguns. They were designed for sporting/hunting, but the military started buying them and using them. Does that make them a military weapon? No. The Winchester 97 Trench gun with bayonet lug was definitely a military weapon. Germans in WW1 feared them. Agreed... But the 1897 wasn't ORIGINALLY designed for that purpose... Not an assault weapon. As stated earlier, I'm working from the Political side of things. Not the technical side. Believe me, I'm actually helping keep weapons "OFF" the "Hit-list" using this definition. Don't give the Liberal Democrats more weapons to try to add to that "Hit-list". It's bad enough they're probably going to give us a ton of grief about our Beloved AR15's. They can have mine "when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers"!!! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. Same thing with pump shotguns. They were designed for sporting/hunting, but the military started buying them and using them. Does that make them a military weapon? No. The Winchester 97 Trench gun with bayonet lug was definitely a military weapon. Germans in WW1 feared them. Agreed... But the 1897 wasn't ORIGINALLY designed for that purpose... Not an assault weapon. As stated earlier, I'm working from the Political side of things. Not the technical side. Believe me, I'm actually helping keep weapons "OFF" the "Hit-list" using this definition. Don't give the Liberal Democrats more weapons to try to add to that "Hit-list". It's bad enough they're probably going to give us a ton of grief about our Beloved AR15's. They can have mine "when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers"!!! .... The quote is hands... and it has nothing to do with prying. "... From my cold, dead hands!" is what Heston said. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. Same thing with pump shotguns. They were designed for sporting/hunting, but the military started buying them and using them. Does that make them a military weapon? No. The Winchester 97 Trench gun with bayonet lug was definitely a military weapon. Germans in WW1 feared them. Agreed... But the 1897 wasn't ORIGINALLY designed for that purpose... Not an assault weapon. As stated earlier, I'm working from the Political side of things. Not the technical side. Believe me, I'm actually helping keep weapons "OFF" the "Hit-list" using this definition. Don't give the Liberal Democrats more weapons to try to add to that "Hit-list". It's bad enough they're probably going to give us a ton of grief about our Beloved AR15's. They can have mine "when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers"!!! .... The quote is hands... and it has nothing to do with prying. "... From my cold, dead hands!" is what Heston said. I wasn't quoting Charlton Heston. I saw that on a Bumper Sticker. I Should have clarified! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. Same thing with pump shotguns. They were designed for sporting/hunting, but the military started buying them and using them. Does that make them a military weapon? No. The Winchester 97 Trench gun with bayonet lug was definitely a military weapon. Germans in WW1 feared them. Agreed... But the 1897 wasn't ORIGINALLY designed for that purpose... Not an assault weapon. As stated earlier, I'm working from the Political side of things. Not the technical side. Believe me, I'm actually helping keep weapons "OFF" the "Hit-list" using this definition. Don't give the Liberal Democrats more weapons to try to add to that "Hit-list". It's bad enough they're probably going to give us a ton of grief about our Beloved AR15's. They can have mine "when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers"!!! You guy's are arguing "the chicken or the egg". ALL FIREARMS were designed to KILL originally. They were never designed to hunt with. That was a side effect. Just like the crossbow and long bow. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. Same thing with pump shotguns. They were designed for sporting/hunting, but the military started buying them and using them. Does that make them a military weapon? No. The Winchester 97 Trench gun with bayonet lug was definitely a military weapon. Germans in WW1 feared them. Agreed... But the 1897 wasn't ORIGINALLY designed for that purpose... Not an assault weapon. As stated earlier, I'm working from the Political side of things. Not the technical side. Believe me, I'm actually helping keep weapons "OFF" the "Hit-list" using this definition. Don't give the Liberal Democrats more weapons to try to add to that "Hit-list". It's bad enough they're probably going to give us a ton of grief about our Beloved AR15's. They can have mine "when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers"!!! You guy's are arguing "the chicken or the egg". ALL FIREARMS were designed to KILL originally. They were never designed to hunt with. That was a side effect. Just like the crossbow and long bow. Touche!... I love this kind of spirited debate! Thanks to all who weigh-in... PLEASE Take no offense. I LOVE Firearms too! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. Same thing with pump shotguns. They were designed for sporting/hunting, but the military started buying them and using them. Does that make them a military weapon? No. The Winchester 97 Trench gun with bayonet lug was definitely a military weapon. Germans in WW1 feared them. Agreed... But the 1897 wasn't ORIGINALLY designed for that purpose... Not an assault weapon. As stated earlier, I'm working from the Political side of things. Not the technical side. Believe me, I'm actually helping keep weapons "OFF" the "Hit-list" using this definition. Don't give the Liberal Democrats more weapons to try to add to that "Hit-list". It's bad enough they're probably going to give us a ton of grief about our Beloved AR15's. They can have mine "when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers"!!! You guy's are arguing "the chicken or the egg". ALL FIREARMS were designed to KILL originally. They were never designed to hunt with. That was a side effect. Just like the crossbow and long bow. Firearms specifically, yes... That's why they're called firearms. But, firearms get their power from gun powder, the earlier form of which is black powder invented by the Chinese who used it for centuries as entertainment before Europeans militarized it. It depends where you start your history. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll probably get royally flamed for this but here goes: My definition of an "Assault Rifle" is: Any rifle that was designed specifically for the purpose of using against other people. Not for hunting, Not for target shooting. You may be surprised to when I tell you that by definition a Civil War Musket is an "Assault Rifle". It has nothing to do with whether it shoots full-auto or semi-auto. If it was designed to be used in War or against "people" it's an "Assault Rifle"... IMO So my Lever-Action would be classified as an Assault Rifle Depends on the model and if it was specifically designed to use to shoot people... Yes, it could be if it's... say... a Winchester 1895 Musket. My statement has to do with "design". Don't get into all this "intent" and "designed" stuff... It is no basis for a solid definition. One many like to use is "fires from the shoulder". Consider an "M16" pistol... It meets all of the criteria... But it is not "designed" to be fired from the shoulder. We can plainly see though that if you are willing to endure a little discomfort, it can be done. So... Would it count or not? The Remington 700 was "designed" as a sporting rifle first... Now it is used as a sniper rifle. Is it an assault rifle? Light weight is a popular one. The StG44 was not very light, relative to more modern designs. How light is light? Let's say I designed the SCAR (I did not) but had every intention of using it to hunt hogs... Does that mean it wouldn't be an assault rifle, even if the military began using it? I didn't design it to be a military rifle, after all. Same thing with pump shotguns. They were designed for sporting/hunting, but the military started buying them and using them. Does that make them a military weapon? No. The Winchester 97 Trench gun with bayonet lug was definitely a military weapon. Germans in WW1 feared them. Agreed... But the 1897 wasn't ORIGINALLY designed for that purpose... Not an assault weapon. As stated earlier, I'm working from the Political side of things. Not the technical side. Believe me, I'm actually helping keep weapons "OFF" the "Hit-list" using this definition. Don't give the Liberal Democrats more weapons to try to add to that "Hit-list". It's bad enough they're probably going to give us a ton of grief about our Beloved AR15's. They can have mine "when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers"!!! You guy's are arguing "the chicken or the egg". ALL FIREARMS were designed to KILL originally. They were never designed to hunt with. That was a side effect. Just like the crossbow and long bow. Firearms specifically, yes... That's why they're called firearms. But, firearms get their power from gun powder, the earlier form of which is black powder invented by the Chinese who used it for centuries as entertainment before Europeans militarized it. It depends where you start your history. The Europeans stole the gun from the Chinese |
| i think an assault rifle has to be defined by the configuration of the gun, not be the action type. as stated earlier, shotguns, lever actions, muzzle loaders ect...have all been used in the military, as well as hunting and for sport. so i don't think you can label any one gun "type" as an assault rifle. like a sawed off shotgun with pistol grips, a laser and flashlight could be an assault rifle, but a 24" barreled wood stock shotgun with choke tubes in all, is obviously for hunting. i depends on the weapon config. like m16s are select fire, while ar15s are not. just my opinion. |
|
Quoted: i think an assault rifle has to be defined by the configuration of the gun, not be the action type. as stated earlier, shotguns, lever actions, muzzle loaders ect...have all been used in the military, as well as hunting and for sport. so i don't think you can label any one gun "type" as an assault rifle. like a sawed off shotgun with pistol grips, a laser and flashlight could be an assault rifle, but a 24" barreled wood stock shotgun with choke tubes in all, is obviously for hunting. i depends on the weapon config. like m16s are select fire, while ar15s are not. just my opinion. So... If I take a Weatherby Vanguard... And tape a dollar store flashlight onto it, tape a key chain laser onto it, and saw on the stock until it is sort of a pistol grip... It becomes an "assault rifle"?  You guys are as bad as gun grabbers... analyzing weapons based on cosmetic features, rather than actual function. The term assault rifle was first widely used around WW2... To describe the StG44. The definition is based off of the specifications of that rifle. Over time, it has developed into the 4 I've mentioned. This isn't some abstract concept... It is an already clearly defined definition. |
|
The 'AR' of AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle, NOT Assault Weapon.
The Definition of Assualt Weapon is a Rifle selectable between Semi and Full Automatic Fire. That is it, and its from the Military. Like many things, there are multiple definitions, and the previous definition with additional stipulations, is pretty common as well. That definition might be an attempt to narrow down a class of weapon and avoid the exceptions you often with weapons. A .50 cal machine gun can be made to fire a single shot, but its NOT an assault weapon, is it, nor does it have a selector (IIRC). The last couple of years, with the left's big push to ban more weapons, and their propensity to decide things emotionally, NOT rationally, and this is after the AWB had lapsed, that didn't ban a single assault weapon BTW; suddenly you'll find dictionaries and sources starting to create a new definition for assault rifles. One that are pretty vague and confusing, but would give cover to those that would like to ban any weapon that has a military appearance. Its another case of the Left trying to redefine the language to suite their agenda. I'd like to know, what do you differently to design a weapon to use on people? and what do you differently to design a weapon to kill game or poke holes in targets, etc? A bayonet lug? Yes, because we all know in a rifle the rounds travel farther and do more damage when a knife is attached to the barrel; someone threatens you with a Rifle, and you worry about the Knife instead? Its another non-seqeator to justify their emotional response that has no basis in rationale. How does anyone post on this board and forget that the 2nd amendment is about self-defense and defense of our society, NOT HUNTING. The point is made repeatedly in the Federalist Papers and our founding father's writing, that why the 'well regulate militia' clause was added to the 2nd amendment. No its NOT the intellectually dishonest and laughably arbitrary argument it was to mean only the militia was to have the right to fire arms. You can also find the word "ain't" defined in the dictionary, you can find "ax" defined as "ask", as in "ask you a question" and a musical instrument like a guitar. Peta is even petitioning the oxford dictionary to change the definition of fisherman. |
|
Sorry... That's not a reliable source for firearms definitions. Check Wikipedia. |
|
Quoted: The 'AR' of AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle, NOT Assault Weapon. The Definition of Assualt Weapon is a Rifle selectable between Semi and Full Automatic Fire. That is it, and its from the Military. Like many things, there are multiple definitions, and the previous definition with additional stipulations, is pretty common as well. That definition might be an attempt to narrow down a class of weapon and avoid the exceptions you often with weapons. A .50 cal machine gun can be made to fire a single shot, but its NOT an assault weapon, is it, nor does it have a selector (IIRC). The last couple of years, with the left's big push to ban more weapons, and their propensity to decide things emotionally, NOT rationally, and this is after the AWB had lapsed, that didn't ban a single assault weapon BTW; suddenly you'll find dictionaries and sources starting to create a new definition for assault rifles. One that are pretty vague and confusing, but would give cover to those that would like to ban any weapon that has a military appearance. Its another case of the Left trying to redefine the language to suite their agenda. I'd like to know, what do you differently to design a weapon to use on people? and what do you differently to design a weapon to kill game or poke holes in targets, etc? A bayonet lug? Yes, because we all know in a rifle the rounds travel farther and do more damage when a knife is attached to the barrel; someone threatens you with a Rifle, and you worry about the Knife instead? Its another non-seqeator to justify their emotional response that has no basis in rationale. How does anyone post on this board and forget that the 2nd amendment is about self-defense and defense of our society, NOT HUNTING. The point is made repeatedly in the Federalist Papers and our founding father's writing, that why the 'well regulate militia' clause was added to the 2nd amendment. No its NOT the intellectually dishonest and laughably arbitrary argument it was to mean only the militia was to have the right to fire arms. And this is why USMC-Helo doesn't believe women have a right to own a gun unless they've been in the military. |
| IMO all firearms can be used to shoot people so that must mean they are all assault weapons! A pellet gun can shoot some one so it must be an assault weapon as well! I believa that only one thing makes an assault weapon, if you use it improperly to..... yes you guessed it, assault someone. I can walk into a bank with a muzzle loader and hold it up just as well as I can an AR15, M16, AK47, and so on. I get into this argument weekly with people at work, telling me AR stands for assault weapon and why do you have a rifle that can be made fully automatic in 15 minutes with a nail file! Well it is the ignorance of these people that make these weapons ASSAULT WEAPONS! I am told all the time that my rifles are classified as such, but what makes it this is whose hands it is in. I can kill someone by heating up my tooth brush and making it into a nice sharp point and shanking you prison style, so is my tooth brush an assault weapon? The point I'm just trying to get across is that I'm faced with this argument all the time and it really pisses me off because these people think that I own an assault weapon and am going to use it to kill people because that's what it was made for. It's all in the hand of the operator my friends. |
|
Webster can describe "assault rifles" as a vaginal wort for all I care because IT DOES NOT SET THE LEGAL DEFINITION. The four criteria previously posted are all that matter, everything else dwell on arbitrary semantics. Unless you have a select fire version of an Ar15 and/or can set a new legal precedence, there isn't much to argue about.
|
|
WTF makes Wikipedia the authority. If i'm not mistaken half that shit is writen by joe blow .........this take from Wikipedia Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. Anyone with internet access can make changes to Wikipedia articles. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference web sites, attracting around 65 million visitors monthly as of 2009. There are more than 75,000 active contributors working on more than 13,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages. As of today, there are 2,927,101 articles in English. Every day, hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world collectively make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to augment the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia. (See also: Wikipedia:Statistics.) By the way if you look up my article for sporting rifle the definition is metro sexual pc term for apologist...  Quoted: Sorry... That's not a reliable source for firearms definitions. Check . |
|
Quoted: Quoted: And this is why USMC-Helo doesn't believe women have a right to own a gun unless they've been in the military. A light hearted attempt at humor? It could be taken as an non-sequitur ad-hominem argument. It was primarily humor. But, women don't count as militia legally until they're military or ex-military. If I recall, men over 45 that aren't ex-military don't count either. So, if you think only "militia" has a right acknowledged by the 2nd Amendment... A lot of people can be deprived of arms without violating the 2nd Amendment... Based on that analysis. |
|
I see the point you were trying to make now, NOT that I agree with it, I'll explain later, but at least its NOT what I took it at first; I thought you were implying I must be misogynistic redneck because I disagreed with you, (I've run into people that this is the only way they know how to defend their ideas).
Since people are throwing around online definitions: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
Pretty true to the meaning of Militia as the founding fathers used it. It survived, unlike the transforming of the term Assault Rifle fit the political agenda of other people. BUT, sorry my friend, I believe the phrase "right of the people" means the same thing in the 2nd amendment as it does in the 1st and the 4th amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that view as well. Women do have the right to keep and bear arms, just as they do to freedom to practice their religion, exercise free speech and be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The "well regulated militia" clause was added to make clear the intent of the right was to have an armed but civil populace to defend itself and collectivly against threats foreign and domestic. An angry mob is NOT a well regulated militia, a hunting party only equipped to bag varmit, is NOT a well regulated militia, a civil society with an armed populace could produce a well regulated militia. BUT, if the founding fathers had intended only Militia members to keep and bear arms, they would have said that instead of "right of the people". The reason for the modifying clause, just like the other amendments is to make the intent clear as to fight the distortion of the intent by those that would try to deny those rights. The founding Fathers foresaw the day people would try to diminish the 2nd amendment by arguing it is all about hunting, NOT defense, and the people may have become so inept at their heritage and servile enough in their attitudes they would believe it. BTW, the Supreme Court has also upheld that the "arms" means the same as the founding fathers writing, and common usage in the day of the constitution; standard issued weapon for the military infantry. |
| As you mentioned the 1st 2cnd and 4th ammendment I believe its the only time in the constitution where you see the phrases "the right of" and "the people" together,Its good to see some one make those links in wording of those ammendments..its pretty simple what the framers were trying to get across...that we the people have rights that cant be taken away..at least the first 10 wich are the charter rights.Those 3 ammendments come straight from the experience with british soldiers who in Boston shot into a crowd of citizens who initially peacefully assembled then the british would kick down doors and illegally search for firearms legally owned.Hell they went to Lexington and concord to to collect the stash of arms and ammunition and what they got were farmers armed who peacefully assembled to make a stand os their doors wouldnt be kicked in for illegal searches by British thugs masqerading as soldiers.King George the 3rd accused colonists of using "assault" rifles against the kings army so I look at it as a nonesense term. |
|
Quoted:
BTW, the Supreme Court has also upheld that the "arms" means the same as the founding fathers writing, and common usage in the day of the constitution; standard issued weapon for the military infantry. Let's be clear about this ruling. 5 members voted that way. The other 4 did not. It would only take "One" vote to swing the court in the opposite direction. Too close in my opinion for something so obviously apparent to anyone with a brain. But that's why that Right may need to be exercised one day. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
BTW, the Supreme Court has also upheld that the "arms" means the same as the founding fathers writing, and common usage in the day of the constitution; standard issued weapon for the military infantry. Let's be clear about this ruling. 5 members voted that way. The other 4 did not. It would only take "One" vote to swing the court in the opposite direction. Too close in my opinion for something so obviously apparent to anyone with a brain. But that's why that Right may need to be exercised one day. Well, to be more clear, it was nearly 100 years ago, if an AWB ever made it to the Supreme Court, the results may be very different today. The guy that lost the case, but produced a very valuable ruling, was suing about a ban on sawed off shotguns. The Supreme Court gave him an opportunity to show evidence that sawed off shotguns were used in the military, or every issued in the military as standard arm for the infantry; if you could show that, the Supreme Court would strike down the law, until he did so, the law would stand. The plaintiff never replied, thus the ruling stood, there was evidence that sawed shotguns had been used in the military in the civil war, he may have won the case if he didn't give up. Either way, the opinion and ruling was clear, banning some types of weapons, or barrel lengths was constitutional, BUT banning military standard issue infantry weapon was NOT, the intent of the 2nd amendment was that it was a right of the people to keep and bear those kind of arms. Yet, 80 years later, the Congress bans weapons just for having the same appearance as the weapons, that constitutionally the people had the right to own. Yet today, we have the U.S. Attorney General arguing any weapon ever used by the Military or Law Enforcement is NOT suitable for civilians to keep and bear, only sporting events and hunting are the only legitimate reason for a civilian to own a firearm, therefore you can only own the firearms specifically designed for those purposes. BUT, Sotomayor is a prime example. That's the problem, people to often forget when they elect a president, they also are electing judges to the courts, attorneys to the federal attorneys office and a Commander and Chief. To too many people, that never enters the equation when deciding their vote, and sadly to too many people they believe the ends justifies the means or just to plain ignorant to understand separations of power, checks & balances, and have NO concept what interpreting law/the constitution means. A lib called into the Sean Hannity show, and started arguing why conservative always complain about activist judges when they are liberal, why didn't Sean and other conservatives complain about the Activist Judges that overturned the DC city gun ban.  I was absolutely floored. As Hannity argued with the guy, it became clear the lib caller had absolutely no idea of the role of the judicial branch NOR the concept of interpreting law. The guy literally believed that reversing a law was what Judicial Activism meant, the idea of making up ridiculously strained arguments as how a law or the constitution doesn't mean what it says, or means something it never says, didn't even register with the guy. Of course Hannity finished with asking who the guy voted for president, do I even need to tell you?
|
|
"Assault rifle" was nothing more than a word created by the Nazis to be used as proganda for their new Sturmgewehr 44. Which actually translates word-for-word to Storm Rifle, which is supposed to mean Assault Rifle. That is what an Assault Rifle is.
Legally speaking, there is no such thing as an Assault Rifle in the United States. However, certain states have codified what they consider an Assault Rifle. While the STG44 key features were already mentioned (intermediate cartridge and select fire), it seems states like Hawaii, California, NY, NJ, etc all have a different interpretation of what an Assault Weapon is. So what does it all mean? Absoluetly nothing, it is a BS word designed to create an emotianal, knee-jerk response with its roots deep in Nazi Germany and rumored to be from Hitler's mouth itself. Quoted:
assault rifle = libtard bullshit . No such animal exists . +1,000,000 |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - AR-15 (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor