What is an assault rifle? (1 Viewer)

[Go for Broke]

Due to recent news, its 24-hour coverage and the constant use of the term "assault rifle", what exactly is an assault rifle and what makes an AR-15 an assault rifle? The AR-15 is semi-automatic, just like some hunting rifles. Is it its high capacity 30-round mags and/or compact length? Some might argue, why own one when you can't hunt with it. But you can hunt with it and is very handy in denser brush. I don't own one as I'm kind of old fashion. I would get a M-1A (civilian M-14) though. All my hunting friends got AR-15s. I think we see it so much whenever someone goes crazy, because its a neat looking weapon and appeals to most people who wants to own a rifle. Any thoughts?

 

[BLReed]

Any thoughts?

Why open a bag of worms? You know this is baiting. Any answer is political.
http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?58593-Orlando

 

[Mirof]

The AR15 ( munition 5.56mm) was adopted by the US Army in the 60ies under the designation M16, it was a ligther version of the AR10 ( munition 7.62 )
The Belgian army adopted the FAL, curiously after Canada ( Belgian made by FN, 10 countries including the US constructed it, 7.62mm, sold in 51 countries to official armies )
The URSS and associates made the AK47 ( 7,62mm)


And for the definition look here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

 

[Go for Broke]

Thanks Mirof. An assault rifle is a compact weapon with automatic firing capabilities of a smaller caliber round. The AR-15 looks like an assault rifle, smells like an assault rifle, raises the public fear like an assault rifle, but does not fire like an assault rifle and as a result, is not an assault rifle and should not be labelled as one. I feel the problem is not the AR-15 rifle, but high capacity magazines. Just my opinion.

 

[theBaron]

Why open a bag of worms? You know this is baiting. Any answer is political.

It's a bit harsh to question his motives and accuse him of baiting, don't you think? It's a legitimate question. If anyone gets political in his response, the moderators will deal with it.

 

[BLReed]

It's a legitimate question.

It is not a legitimate question when an accurate response violates forum rules.

 

[nysoldiers]

PM our Australian, UK and Canadian members....they will give you some insights.

 

[BLReed]

PM our Australian, UK and Canadian members....they will give you some insights.

Australia/Population 23.13 million (2013)
United Kingdom/Population 64.1 million (2013)
Canada/Population 35.16 million (2013)
United States of America/Population 318.9 million (2014)

 

[zblang]

What do the population stats mean?

 

[nysoldiers]

Nothing!
look at the "per capita".......

 

[theBaron]

It is not a legitimate question when an accurate response violates forum rules.

Nonsense. You can give a description without including the political connotations, and again, I think it's offsides to accuse the original poster of baiting the others.

 

[tdubel]

An assault rifle is by definition a miltary grade automatic weapon. The term is misused by the press, politicians, basically everyone all the time. High capacity magazines have nothing to do with the definition. All military automatic weapons that I know of have high capacity magazines. Another misunderstood fact is that true assault weapons are regulated by the federal government and NOT the States. Any eligible individual can legally own an automatic weapon if they have and maintain the proper federal firearms license.

Tom

 

[BLReed]

You can give a description without including the political connotations............

No you can't. At least and be accurate. The liberal Media is trying to define the term, and is incorrect.

 

[zblang]

And it seems like yet again, you just want to argue rather than participate. If you can't discuss without getting political, let those who wish to, proceed.

Ps, tom just did describe it with not a hint of politics

 

[BLReed]

Tom just did describe it with not a hint of politics

Tom only gave half of the complete picture. Although what he gave was good.

 

[mikemiller1955]

It is not a legitimate question when an accurate response violates forum rules.

Mr. Reed...you are really trying hard to stir the pot huh?

 

[Peter Reuss]

Mr. Reed is no longer a part of this thread.

I recognize that this could veer out of control very quickly, so please keep to the topic at hand.

 

[nysoldiers]

I think that to properly define an "assault weapon" in the context that it is used today does become emotional and political.
But lets look at history to help define or at least understand the conflicted nature of definition.

When the Constitution and Second Amendment were ratified in 1788 there was very little if any distinction between civilian and military guns. Most guns/muskets were muzzle loading and at best could fire two to three balls a minute. They were inaccurate and after several discharges could misfire and clog up. There is no record that these guns were used
in "mass" murders by a single shooter in a civilian setting. So by today's definition I doubt you would call these guns assault rifles. I also doubt that the Founding Fathers would have worded the Second Amendment as they did if they could envision the military style, automatic weapons we have today. This is conjecture but logical in many senses.

Today we differentiate civilian weapons from military weapons. Civilian weapons are for personnel defense, hunting and target shooting. Military weapons are for killing your enemies and are deemed assault weapons. When a civilian weapon has the potential to kill many people in a short time, similar or the same as a military weapon, then they would be termed assault weapons as well.

 

[mikemiller1955]

I have always defined an assault weapon in regards to the size of the clip...

even an Uzi pistols with a 30 round clip would fall in that category to me...

I have a Ruger P85...it came with a 10 round clip...but 30 round clips are available...

so pretty much any hand gun that has large unlimited rapid succession fire power...

 

[Panzer ace]

I think that to properly define an "assault weapon" in the context that it is used today does become emotional and political.
But lets look at history to help define or at least understand the conflicted nature of definition.

When the Constitution and Second Amendment were ratified in 1788 there was very little if any distinction between civilian and military guns. Most guns/muskets were muzzle loading and at best could fire two to three balls a minute. They were inaccurate and after several discharges could misfire and clog up. There is no record that these guns were used
in "mass" murders by a single shooter in a civilian setting. So by today's definition I doubt you would call these guns assault rifles. I also doubt that the Founding Fathers would have worded the Second Amendment as they did if they could envision the military style, automatic weapons we have today. This is conjecture but logical in many senses.

Today we differentiate civilian weapons from military weapons. Civilian weapons are for personnel defense, hunting and target shooting. Military weapons are for killing your enemies and are deemed assault weapons. When a civilian weapon has the potential to kill many people in a short time, similar or the same as a military weapon, then they would be termed assault weapons as well.

Interesting post and a great thread. The last paragraph leads me to wonder if more definitions and/or clarifications are in order? For example the term "many" can be construed in vast and different ways?