Firearm Nomenclature

Another round of gun grabbin' is afoot and with it, some of the same old arguments with the same crap verbiage.

Assault weapon - A nebulous term at best. Webster has a definition. "Any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms." In short, there's no apt definition. A fork can be an assault weapon.

Weapons of war - This term was coined by the 4th circuit judge, Robert King (Not SCOTUS as I have been claiming on other threads, apologies)

"We are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are ‘like’ M-16 rifles — ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’ — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach,” the decision reads. “Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such
coverage.”

The weapons he's describing as "most useful in military service" would assumed to be what is issued. Say the M4A1 or the new sig squad rifle. Not an AR=15. However, where you will find a similarity is handguns. The Glock 19 is on it's way out as the Sig M17 is on it's way in. Both 9mm semi automatic handguns.

High capacity magazines - This is where it gets tricky. For any AR-15, AK-47, and some ranch rifles, a 30 round magazine is standard. In handguns, say a subcompact 9mm, that is typically a 10+1 capacity. So that would leave something like drum magazines and extended pistol magazines respectively.

Gun crime statistics - this one is thrown around quite abit. So I'll hit you with the tagline:

In 2020, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC.

However, upon closer inspection, it's not quite what it seems:
54% = Suicide
43% = Murder
3% = Gun deaths that were unintentional, involved law enforcement or had undetermined circumstances.
Source

When the former VP announced that the CDC released new info where guns are the leading cause of child deaths, he also used these stats which also include...suicide.
Source

From 2019 to 2020, the relative increase in the rate of firearm-related deaths of all types (suicide, homicide, unintentional, and undetermined) among children and adolescents was 29.5% — more than twice as high as the relative increase in the general population. The increase was seen across most demographic characteristics and types of firearm-related death

Background checks - We already have these. Anyone who has bought a firearm from a retailer know this. What is being asked for is a registry, or any other synonym they choose. Those are illegal

Red Flag Laws - Now these sound innocuous. See a psycho, say something. Cops run in and capture the guns. Well, the problem with that is that it will, absolutely, be abused. Secondly, it's a direct violation of a persons 4th amendment rights, due process.

I may have forgotten a few but this is the quick and dirty.

a reply to: JinMI

I believe one of these rulings means that caltrops, flails, warhammers, glaives, trebuchets, and giant solar powered concave mirror incinerator rays, are not in fact eligible for second amendment protection because they're weapons of war.

Now the horses are going to be able to gallop or trot right onto your property with no fear of caltrops being lodged in their hoof. First the libs want to stop culling the wild mustangs, now this. They let them run wild and take away caltrops so you can't even defend your property. Nobody can say this wasn't planned.

They almost got away with it. Not on my watch, Mr. Ed, not on my watch. WE GOT EM!

F Mr Ed.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

a reply to: JinMI

a reply to: JinMI

Let's get this into perspective. Most liberals aren't experts on guns, and most aren't really interested in the specifics.

So arguing over exactly what is or isn't an Assault Rifle, isn't really going to get you anywhere. It's a strawman at best.

Liberals see something that looks like an AK47, or an M16, or like whatever is in the latest Call of Duty video game, and to them that's what an Assault Rifle is. It doesn't really matter what its exact fire rate is, or what attachments it has on it. If it looks like it belongs in the hands of a solider then that's what they think of.

If it's not a bolt action hunting rifle, or a long barrel semi automatic with a 5 round magazine, then they don't think that you should be owning one.

Red flag laws don't have to be a due process violation, simply add in some checks and balances. Make sure that due process is done first. Red flag laws could keep guns out of the hands of a lot of mentally unstable liberals. We all know that they're big on drugs, and can't go more than 5 minutes without threatening to kill somebody over some online slight. If somebody is a junkie and Tweets about killing conservatives, then sure, take their guns away from them.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: JinMI

I believe one of these rulings means that caltrops, flails, warhammers, glaives, trebuchets, and giant solar powered concave mirror incinerator rays, are not in fact eligible for second amendment protection because they're weapons of war.

This is why you can carry a full auto assault rifle in some states, but not a hunting knife.

originally posted by: JinMI


Gun crime statistics - this one is thrown around quite abit. So I'll hit you with the tagline:

In 2020, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC.

However, upon closer inspection, it's not quite what it seems:
54% = Suicide
43% = Murder
3% = Gun deaths that were unintentional, involved law enforcement or had undetermined circumstances.
Source

When the former VP announced that the CDC released new info where guns are the leading cause of child deaths, he also used these stats which also include...suicide.
Source

From 2019 to 2020, the relative increase in the rate of firearm-related deaths of all types (suicide, homicide, unintentional, and undetermined) among children and adolescents was 29.5% — more than twice as high as the relative increase in the general population. The increase was seen across most demographic characteristics and types of firearm-related death

.

After the Covid debacle, I’m not interested in any number the CDC releases.

Could someone give me a reasonable answer (as I'm British and don't do guns) Why would an ordinary citizen need any multi round rifle (excluding hunting rifles which i would say it would not be essential to be an automatic) apart from the vaunted "the people need them against a domestic enemy" I take this as meaning an insurrection/ rebellion?

If one is talking about personal safety then a pistol should be good enough, not withstanding getting into a firefight with a perp with an automatic weapon.

Please don't reply "because the law says we can". What is your reason?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: JinMI

Let's get this into perspective. Most liberals aren't experts on guns, and most aren't really interested in the specifics.

So arguing over exactly what is or isn't an Assault Rifle, isn't really going to get you anywhere. It's a strawman at best.

Liberals see something that looks like an AK47, or an M16, or like whatever is in the latest Call of Duty video game, and to them that's what an Assault Rifle is. It doesn't really matter what its exact fire rate is, or what attachments it has on it. If it looks like it belongs in the hands of a solider then that's what they think of.

If it's not a bolt action hunting rifle, or a long barrel semi automatic with a 5 round magazine, then they don't think that you should be owning one.

Red flag laws don't have to be a due process violation, simply add in some checks and balances. Make sure that due process is done first. Red flag laws could keep guns out of the hands of a lot of mentally unstable liberals. We all know that they're big on drugs, and can't go more than 5 minutes without threatening to kill somebody over some online slight. If somebody is a junkie and Tweets about killing conservatives, then sure, take their guns away from them.

this is where the problem exists. it's why this thread and so many others were written. Long before you should rail on and on to ban something, it would be wise to understand that which you wish to ban.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

So what you're saying is:

"Liberals have no idea what they're talking about but let's do what they want anyway."

Ok Buddy

originally posted by: crayzeed
Could someone give me a reasonable answer (as I'm British and don't do guns) Why would an ordinary citizen need any multi round rifle (excluding hunting rifles which i would say it would not be essential to be an automatic) apart from the vaunted "the people need them against a domestic enemy" I take this as meaning an insurrection/ rebellion?

If one is talking about personal safety then a pistol should be good enough, not withstanding getting into a firefight with a perp with an automatic weapon.

Please don't reply "because the law says we can". What is your reason?

I can't give you a 'reasonable' answer, just a personal observation.

Americans love their hobbies; some as avid fans and others as participants. The range is vast, from fishing to sports to shooting. Hobbies are something you can passionately throw yourself into and forget about the daily grind of the workweek.

Shooting used to be an relatively inexpensive hobby and was fun to do, with accuracy being a challenge when successfully met. As with racecars, firearms continued to evolve into 'bigger. faster, better' weapons. The powerful feeling of rapid-fire can be pretty intoxicating, and a lot Americans have always seemed to have enough disposable income to indulge their favorite hobbies.

That's the hobbyists perspective from an 'ordinary person'. We've always been afforded the right to collect and use anything we wanted and could afford. Even the second amendment said we could. 'It's in the constitution!' is the battle cry when threatened with loosing something Americans have always had and pretty much took for granted always would have.

It's like saying 'we're going to ban TV's for most households, and only allow certain programs with limited view times except for a select few', or 'we're going to outlaw all motor vehicles except for taxis, busses and semis except for a certain portion of society deemed important enough to own one'. You can't take away a kids' favorite toy without an ensuing tantrum.

Just to be clear, most Americans see these actions as the first step in government over-reach intended to disarm the citizens, and the constitution is very clear on what the results will be.

Legal possession of firearms in the US can also be seen as protection against a rogue government.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: AaarghZombies

So what you're saying is:

"Liberals have no idea what they're talking about but let's do what they want anyway."

Ok Buddy

If that's you're takeaway then you're part of the problem.

a reply to: crayzeed

How many coyotes are in a pack? Razorback hogs? Wolves? Ever watched the videos of any of the riots in 2020?

Why are high capacity magazines stressed so much? Because longer gaps before reloading. Back in the late 60’s, most all of the 70’s and even into the 80’s police used 6 shot .38 Specials or 6 shot .357 Magnums as their duty weapon. Dirty Harry (Clint Eastwood movie) used a .44 Magnum. They found themselves outgunned versus the Wonder 9’s This 9 mm Semi-Autos were holding 15 rounds to their 6 and it wasn’t fair. European police (especially West Germany and Italy) were using leftover WW2 9mm that capped out at 8 rounds due to single stacked magazines used at the time. Thus the wonder 9’s were double stacked magazines. Which is to say that they were the same height just wider.

Just by looking, which are the scary guns?



As you probably read, they are all the same gun just different bodied stocks and barrel ends. They also all take the same round and magazine as the AR-15, M16 and M4A1 as well as many other guns.

So other than semi-auto what else uses the .223? There is a lever action, a bolt action, a pump action and a break barrel single shot. Which is to say every type of action. Just like shotguns and most every caliber of rifle. Yes, my grandfather had a bolt action 12 gauge shotgun.

Some do hunt deer with a .223, however Ohio does not allow any bottle necked cartridge to be used only straight walled cartridges of .357 or higher caliber. And you can only have three rounds in the gun at a time regardless of capacity. Reason being is they want heavy rounds that drop fast to lower range. Keep you from shooting a car or house beyond the woods. For coyote hunting in Ohio, max that AR-15 out with a 100 round drum if you want because anything goes….except during deer season. And maybe turkey season.

Hunting has its own laws and are radically different state to state. And even within a state. Never assume anything.

a reply to: network dude

this is where the problem exists. it's why this thread and so many others were written. Long before you should rail on and on to ban something, it would be wise to understand that which you wish to ban.

So that we're clear, before we start, I'm pro-gun ownership, and I'm not advocating these things, I'm simply explaining them.

Liberals know what they want, they want an end to the sale of assault weapons, and they don't want to be tied down as to exactly what makes an assault weapon because that leaves space for loopholes.

Tell someone that they can't sell a 30 round magazine, they'll produce a 29 round one. Tell someone that they can't sell a fore pistol grip, they''ll make it a different shape and call it a hand guard. Put constrains on barrel length, they'll got to within a thousands of an inch of it.

Liberals argue that an assault weapons is the "intent" of the weapon, not the exact nature of the components that make it up. And by intent they mean something that allows the person holding it to simulate the feeling and effect of using a battle field rifle as closely as is allowed by the law.

You will notice that they aren't coming after all guns. Bolt action hunting rifles, precision target shooting rifles, they're not coming after those. They aren't even going after dedicated sniper rifles.

But if it is designed to look and feel like an M16, even if it can't go full auto, they're against that.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Give me bear mace any day.

Don't need to aim it, just hold my breath and lay down a wall of that stuff. A Coyote would have to be rabid to attack after that.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: JinMI

I believe one of these rulings means that caltrops, flails, warhammers, glaives, trebuchets, and giant solar powered concave mirror incinerator rays, are not in fact eligible for second amendment protection because they're weapons of war.

This is why you can carry a full auto assault rifle in some states, but not a hunting knife.

Centuries old weaponry and a mythological laser device are what allows you to carry a full auto assault rifle but not a knife depending on the state?

Isn't that something!

I have 100% confidence you're completely correct and I say that without an ounce of sarcasm. Double cross my heart. Not. A. Shred. Of. Sarcasm.

Liberals see something that looks like an AK47, or an M16, or like whatever is in the latest Call of Duty video game, and to them that's what an Assault Rifle is.

Funny that's exactly how almost all of us feel about groomers, but the left doesn't like that whole "looks like a duck" argument when it comes to child molesters. Maybe the left should give up on trying to convince us that talking about anal sex with a six year old isn't grooming. We're not interested in the finer points on grooming, we don't see adult fetish performance as a critical part of basic education, and we're always going to see it that way. We are part of a small group that's commonly referred to as "literally everybody except child molesters and their supporters".

You killed two birds with one dumb stone there. Now we can stop trying to educate the left about guns and the left can stop trying to educate children about their sexual fetishes. I'd say that's progress.

Let's kill a third bird with your super chill red flag law that isn't abused because of checks and balances. From now on teachers that are accused by anyone of any inappropriate behavior are suspended immediately without pay, without recourse, and without any evidence. This also automatically delists any license they had to teach and places them on a national registry of people prohibited from working with children. The are also prohibited from using the Internet. No criminal charges required, but the full suite of restrictions that criminal charges would bring minus jail. Red flag laws for teachers.

They care about children so much they're willing to break rules and deceive parents to bring lifesaving sex ed to students, this should be an easy choice for all those innocent teachers that may occasionally be targeted falsely. After all, the checks and balances would mean their temporary pay freeze and suspension would be quickly lifted. It's for the children, there is almost no downside because of super effective checks and balances, and it costs almost nothing.

Yay problem solving!

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: JinMI

I believe one of these rulings means that caltrops, flails, warhammers, glaives, trebuchets, and giant solar powered concave mirror incinerator rays, are not in fact eligible for second amendment protection because they're weapons of war.

Now the horses are going to be able to gallop or trot right onto your property with no fear of caltrops being lodged in their hoof. First the libs want to stop culling the wild mustangs, now this. They let them run wild and take away caltrops so you can't even defend your property. Nobody can say this wasn't planned.

They almost got away with it. Not on my watch, Mr. Ed, not on my watch. WE GOT EM!

^^^
Stole my thunder.

I humbly submit halberds, half pikes, pikes, morning star, mace, lance, polearms, and lucene hammers to the list.

If we're going to eliminate access to "weapons of war", we cannot do this in a half-@ss manner.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: network dude

Liberals argue that an assault weapons is the "intent" of the weapon, not the exact nature of the components that make it up. And by intent they mean something that allows the person holding it to simulate the feeling and effect of using a battle field rifle as closely as is allowed by the law.

You will notice that they aren't coming after all guns. Bolt action hunting rifles, precision target shooting rifles, they're not coming after those. They aren't even going after dedicated sniper rifles.

But if it is designed to look and feel like an M16, even if it can't go full auto, they're against that.

The logic of targeting "just "weapons of war" falls down upon close scrutiny.

"Precision target"/sniper/bolt action rifles ARE weapons of war.

Give your average joe an M-16 with "high capacity" magazines, and pit him against Chris Kyle with a bolt action rifle, and let's see who walks away from the engagement.

The problem with this thinking is that somehow, magically by eliminating this vague category of firearms dubbed "weapons of war" will eliminate terror and mass casualty events. They wont.

Even knives (as the Chenpeng attack demonstrates) can be used to inflict mass casualties in an opportune setting.

The Boston Marathon Bombers maimed quite a few people with pressure cookers, nails, metal balls and some explosives.

So, when the gun grabbers use vague terminology to describe their quest to disarm Americans, and then justify it as a move to curb mass casualty event, it's clearly just a pretext to .... grab the guns. Because, as we know, knives, improvised explosives, motor vehicles can all do just as much damage as a firearm to unsuspecting victims.

We need an honest conversation about all the factors on the mass casualty phenomenon, including the mental illness epidemic, insufficient hardening on "soft targets" like schools, poor and poorly followed policies and firearms. Ignoring everything on that list and fixating on grabbing guns is pretty telling on their true motives, in my view.

a reply to: JinMI

Assault weapon - A nebulous term at best. Webster has a definition. "Any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms." In short, there's no apt definition. A fork can be an assault weapon.

for years the Army's definition for assault weapon, you could find it on the internet under the U.S. Army Intelligence document FTC-CW-07–03-70.

now it's no where to be found, i saw it here a couple of times through the years, but can't find those threads and a search of the site comes back with nothing found. the only place that i can find anything that is even close to what i remember it saying is a wiki, people can say whet they want about wiki's, i say their always a good place to start when looking for something on the net.

From the wiki,

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[18] In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
.It must be capable of selective fire.
.It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62×39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO.
.Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
.It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are not assault rifles according to the U.S. Army's definition. For example:
.Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 180 metres (200 yd).[19]
.Select-fire rifles such as the Fedorov Avtomat, FN FAL, M14, and H&K G3 main battle rifles are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.
.Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities. .Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

I've tried to find the references listed free on line guess what i haven't been able to yet.

Assault Rifle

these two from ATF, notice that no where is the AR Platform mentioned. the only thing close is the colt SP 1 with two postion selector, which is not a selective fire weapon.

Firearms Guide - Identification of Firearms Within the Purview of the National Firearms Act

ATF definition of machinegun,

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means:
.Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger ​
.The frame or receiver of any such weapon ​
.Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, or .
.Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

AR's as sold and used as intended by any all mfg's in the U.S., do not meet any of the above. if they did they wouldn't be able to sell them to the public.

their continually changing the definitions of something is just a means to gain control of peoples rights. as i and many others have noted and said on this site, that enforcing the hundreds if not thousands of gun laws already on the books in both State and Federal Law would do more to curb the violence that we see than any thing else.