What IS the definition of "assault weapon", officially?

[MattFinals718]

What point are you trying to make?

Explain it to me like I'm a stupid, fat, ugly Jew.

IMO, any automatic weapon is an assault weapon

What I said earlier (and also what MexicanBob said earlier): The term "assault weapon" wasn't invented by the VPC or the Brady Bunch. It was first used in our community, and the other side simply got it from us and gave it a negative connotation. In the 1980s, it was considered a useful marketing term by the gun industry.

Also: The two guns that you see on the book jacket are not automatic weapons. Top one is an Uzi Carbine (you can tell by selector markings) that is fitted with the shorter display barrel that came standard with those guns, to make them look like SMGs. The bottom one is an Uzi Pistol. Both semi-auto Title I firearms, not NFA versions.

 

[mpollan1]

Violence Policy Center
I thought they were dead.

Assault Weapons

Assault weapons manufactured for the civilian market, equipped with detachable high-capacity ammunition magazines, are virtually identical to their military counterparts designed for the battlefiel…

vpc.org

From the linked drivel: "Assault weapons manufactured for the civilian market, equipped with detachable high-capacity ammunition magazines, are virtually identical to their military counterparts..."

Human genetics are virtually identical to that of a chimp. Guess that makes me a chimp. Maybe even an assault chimp.

 

[MattFinals718]

From the linked drivel: "Assault weapons manufactured for the civilian market, equipped with detachable high-capacity ammunition magazines, are virtually identical to their military counterparts..."

Human genetics are virtually identical to that of a chimp. Guess that makes me a chimp. Maybe even an assault chimp.

LOL, dude, I know you think you're being clever, but it just doesn't work. That's such an apples and oranges comparison.

The VPC is wrong about almost everything, but they're not wrong that lacking select-fire doesn't mean that a particular firearm ceases to be an assault rifle/assault weapon/whatever. On the other hand, if the guns they hate really are just slightly neutered versions of military weapons, I would argue that this makes them the most constitutionally protected firearms of all, ergo, cannot be banned.

 

[mpollan1]

LOL, dude, I know you think you're being clever, but it just doesn't work. That's such an apples and oranges comparison.

The VPC is wrong about almost everything, but they're not wrong that lacking select-fire doesn't mean that a particular firearm ceases to be an assault rifle/assault weapon/whatever. On the other hand, if the guns they hate really are just slightly neutered versions of military weapons, I would argue that this makes them the most constitutionally protected firearms of all, ergo, cannot be banned.

So dude, since I am a mere chimp and you are of far more superior intellect than I, please do define for the class just exactly what is an assault weapon.

 

[MattFinals718]

So dude, since I am a mere chimp and you are of far more superior intellect than I, please do define for the class just exactly what is an assault weapon.

Nope, not going to resort to name-calling in this thread. I criticized your faulty analogy, nothing else. I'll just leave it at this: If the shoe fits, wear it.

Elsewhere, I've said: "Assault weapon" (as the left uses it) = "Semi-automatic version of a fully-automatic assault rifle or submachine gun." Others would (not incorrectly) define the term as encompassing both select-fire and semi-only versions of assault rifles and subguns. (You'll note that I'm leaving "battle rifles" and "combat shotguns" out of this definition, for reasons described in my first post in this topic.)

Otherwise: I invite you to go back and read my first post on Page 1, then come back to me and tell me where you disagree.

 

[mpollan1]

Nope, not going to resort to name-calling in this thread. I criticized your faulty analogy, nothing else. I'll just leave it at this: If the shoe fits, wear it.

Elsewhere, I've said: "Assault weapon" (as the left uses it) = "Semi-automatic version of a fully-automatic assault rifle or submachine gun." Others would (not incorrectly) define the term as encompassing both select-fire and semi-only versions of assault rifles and subguns. (You'll note that I'm leaving "battle rifles" and "combat shotguns" out of this definition, for reasons described in my first post in this topic.)

Otherwise: I invite you to go back and read my first post on Page 1, then come back to me and tell me where you disagree.

It's a perfectly reasonable analogy given what was presented in the article. If the shoe does not fit your foot that's OK by me dude. And for the record, and in my opinion, to categorize any firearm (full auto or otherwise) as an "Assault Weapon" is buffoonery. I can assault someone with my fists, or my pogo stick, or my cheese grater. Does this make these objects assault weapons. Buffoonery...

 

[308Scout]

Human genetics are virtually identical to that of a chimp. Guess that makes me a chimp. Maybe even an assault chimp.

'Zat choo? ...

 

[mpollan1]

'Zat choo? ...

Lol, I have evolved a bit since my younger days.

 

[MattFinals718]

It's a perfectly reasonable analogy given what was presented in the article. If the shoe does not fit your foot that's OK by me dude. And for the record, and in my opinion, to categorize any firearm (full auto or otherwise) as an "Assault Weapon" is buffoonery. I can assault someone with my fists, or my pogo stick, or my cheese grater. Does this make these objects assault weapons. Buffoonery...

Do I really have to explain why comparing weapons and human/chimp genetics doesn’t work?

Right now, you’re just repeating an over-used talking point and pretending that this is an issue of definitions alone. You’re also ignoring the fact that (as I’ve said earlier) “assault weapons” is a term that the gun industry came up with, not the gun controllers. So are they the buffoons, or are we?

What you (and our community writ large) is doing is just like what the woke left does, when they try to define gender as a social construct. It is bad for our credibility when a conversation like this devolves into posting silly memes.

 

[INMY01TA]

So the one person on this whole board that swears there are “assault weapons” refuses to define it… I’ve never used the ignore button before but

 

[MattFinals718]

So the one person on this whole board that swears there are “assault weapons” refuses to define it… I’ve never used the ignore button before but

Actually, I did. Whether or not you read it is your problem.

BTW, my main point is that this is not a question of “definitions” alone. It’s about the bigger issue of functional differences between firearms.

 

[brianns]

Caine-jitsu?

I believe you have Caine-Fu pictured.

 

[INMY01TA]

Actually, I did. Whether or not you read it is your problem.

BTW, my main point is that this is not a question of “definitions” alone. It’s about the bigger issue of functional differences between firearms.

No such thing. People have written hundreds of books about ghosts but guess what? They don’t exist either.

 

[mpollan1]

Do I really have to explain why comparing weapons and human/chimp genetics doesn’t work?

Right now, you’re just repeating an over-used talking point and pretending that this is an issue of definitions alone. You’re also ignoring the fact that (as I’ve said earlier) “assault weapons” is a term that the gun industry came up with, not the gun controllers. So are they the buffoons, or are we?

What you (and your community writ large) is doing is just like what the woke left does, when they try to define gender as a social construct. It is bad for our credibility when a conversation like this devolves into posting silly memes.

Sure. Perhaps it will be more enlightening than your assault weapon monologue.

 

[MattFinals718]

No such thing. People have written hundreds of books about ghosts but guess what? They don’t exist either.

Got it, understood. So you’re telling me that the image of the front cover of the “Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons” that I posted on Page 1 was also imaginary?

Also: Functional differences between different types of firearms clearly are not imaginary. I don’t think…

 

[brianns]

No such thing. People have written hundreds of books about ghosts but guess what? They don’t exist either.

Next you gonna tell us Santa Claus ain't real?

 

[BFMIN]

Whatever "looks scary" to a progressive or liberal,!
Its impossible to list all the ludicrous things I've heard described as "assault". Most of them aren't even real, just scary sounding words.

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

The definition given for an assault rifle has existed since WWII…to say other firearms that don’t fit the criteria are also assault weapons are like changing 2+2=4 to 2+2=5 to fit a particular point of view or to justify a ban.

Sometimes we’re our own worst enemies…if we can’t agree on the basic definitions we‘re ceding the argument to the banners.

 

[MattFinals718]

Sure. Perhaps it will be more enlightening than your assault weapon monologue.

Simple: You are comparing biological organisms to machines. Yes, human DNA is over 99% similar to that of chimps, but we’re genetically incompatible with them because that’s not how biology works.

On the other hand, “assault weapons” are machines. I have AR-15s in my safe where nearly all of the major parts are compatible (i.e., interchangeable) with a select-fire M4, other than the trigger and sear. For all intents and purposes: My Colt 6920 SOCOM is almost identical specs to an issue M4A1.

See the difference?

 

[MattFinals718]

The definition given for an assault rifle has existed since WWII…to say other firearms that don’t fit the criteria are also assault weapons are like changing 2+2=4 to 2+2=5 to fit a particular point of view or to justify a ban.

Sometimes we’re our own worst enemies…if we can’t agree on the basic definitions we‘re ceding the argument to the banners.

WWII was also a long time before there was a market for the weapons that we are discussing. Definitions can (and do) change. BTW, nobody’s ever given me an “official” definition of an “assault weapon,” either.

I think our biggest problem is that we’re playing this definition game at all. We can’t define our way out of our problems. We need to own our Constitutional arguments…and let it stand at that. We’re doing ourselves a much bigger disservice by pretending all guns are created equal. Unlike humans, they’re not.