Visual Aid: The Stupidity of What Constitutes an ‘Assault Weapon’

First of all, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” But, despite that fact, when leftists try to define what an “assault weapon” is, all they really end up doing is describing what such a weapon looks like not what the weapon does.

Essentially you get this…

Note that the two weapons in the illustration above are both single shot muskets. But when all sorts of cosmetic bric-a-brac is added to the musket, it sure makes it appear more menacing.

All the fancy grips, plastic stocks, bayonet lugs, scopes, all this stuff is superficial, cosmetic, and none of them make the weapon any more dangerous than when it started out.

Well, this is where we are with the nonsensical “definitions” that liberals foist on us all as they attempt to define what an “assault weapon” is. All we get are what it looks like, not what it does.

As the photo above proves, ANY GUN can be made to LOOK LIKE an “assault weapon.” But what a gun looks like has precisely nothing to do with what it can do, how quickly it can fire, how supposedly “dangerous” it is.

But, liberals don’t care about truth and facts. You see, there is only ONE REASON liberals are using this fake “assault weapons” line. They think that by using it for so-called “common sense” gun banning laws they can get their foot in the door for later attacks on the Second Amendment.

When Democrats say that no one wants to take your guns away, they are liars. They have every intention of doing so and they start by whittling away at our rights bit by bit.

Today they have invented a fake “assault weapon” to scare people. They are lying about what an “assault weapon” is. Tomorrow they will simply dispense with the subterfuge and start confiscating guns altogether.

It is time Americans started a campaign of civil disobedience, beginning to ignore gun laws. Do NOT sign up for registration processes. Refuse to obey these unconstitutional laws and defend yourself against illegal enforcement.

Could CNBC Be Depriving Viewers of Vital Information?
The Blessing of the Second Amendment
  • Vagabond661

    I will get my background checked after Obama gets his.

  • GarandFan

    The definition of an ‘assault weapon’ = ANYTHING POLITICIANS SAY IT IS.

  • Brucehenry

    What IS the point of having plastic stocks, pistol grips, scopes, and so forth, then?

    • Paul Hooson

      It’s probably just a guy thing, Brucehenry. It visually appeals to some guys, but just intimidates some others. Some guys get a hard-on from guns, while I get my joy in life from music, motorcycles and a young girlfriend.

      • Brucehenry

        No, no. Are the plastic stocks, pistol grips, etc, not added to make the rifles more accurate, with less recoil and whatnot, and hence more efficient at hitting targets? What else was the point of adding them?

        And don’t say to make them appear “military-style” and so more cool-looking. Why does the military want plastic stocks, pistol grips, etc.?

        • retired.military

          Yes they want it to make the rifle lighter and more accurate. What is wrong with making a tool more efficient? I take it if you had your way a hammer would have a 1/4 inch circumference head and cars cant have tune ups because they make them more efficient.

        • jim_m

          Not necessarily more efficient at hitting targets as none of those really add a lot in that way. None of them effect recoil significantly since that is a function of caliber (not effected by those modifications) and weight (there are more efficient ways to add weight to a rifle than adding a pistol grip).

          In fact making the stock out of plastic reduces weight and thus increases felt recoil. The reason the military made these modifications was to reduce weight and make it easier to carry the weapon. Carrying a heavy weapon around the countryside is not easy and detracts from the ability of troops to engage the enemy.

          Most of the accessories make it easier to handle the weapon (such as a barrel shroud which protects the user from the hot barrel).

          This just goes to show that the left is outrageously ignorant about guns and even more so about the concept of liberty.

        • “Are the plastic stocks, pistol grips, etc, not added to make the rifles more accurate, with less recoil and whatnot, and hence more efficient at hitting targets?”

          In the hands of someone that really knows what they’re doing, they’re entirely unneeded. In the hands of someone who’s a neophyte, they MIGHT help some, but likely not all that much. And a lot of them are actually cosmetic, designed to make it appealing to the buyer.

          Take the 9mm Hi-point carbine, for example. Functionally, the thing’s just a simple 9mm rifle. A rifle in 9mm is rather laughed at in the gun community, because it’s a pistol cartridge and not designed for either long-distance shooting or deadly ballistics at long-range. But it’s cheap to shoot, since 9mm rounds (pre-famine) were pretty cheap.

          And some folks just like the way it looks. Slap on all the accessories you want – laser, pistol grip, lights, scope – it won’t change the functioning or inherent accuracy one bit.

          Add in the fact that it’s relatively inexpensive, and you’ve got something you can take to the range with a lot of ammo for well under $500. What’s not to like? Aside from the fact it’s made of black plastic, that is.

          But changing it to wood wouldn’t change much. The Hi-Point’s a pretty distinctive rifle – put a wooden stock on it, and it’d be unexceptional and not terribly appealing.

          For simple target shooting – it’s a good bit of fun and reasonably accurate, and before the ammo famine pretty cheap to shoot. I can regularly (with 3-4 shots, it’s not exactly set up for the distance) hit a standard clay pigeon at 100 yards. If I got the thing zeroed properly, even with my lousy eyesight I’d be hitting a pigeon at 100 yards in a couple of shots.

          But at that distance? There’s plenty of rifles designed to hunt big game that would blow big bloody chunks out of the far side of whatever animal it hit at that range. A 9mm might go in, but it’s a 50-50 chance it’d go out the other side, and certainly wouldn’t do a (comparably) great deal of damage in the process.

          It’s certainly not on a par with the .30-30 rifle my father left me, a lever-action rifle that could be used for big game. But yet the Hi-Point’s on Boxer’s ban list, while rifles that’ll do real damage aren’t – because of its appearance.

          “And don’t say to make them appear “military-style” and so more cool-looking.”

          Why not? Think of marketing. You’re appealing to a civilian audience. You’re appealing to folks who don’t have $1500+ to buy something that’ll put 3 rounds of .223 through a one-inch hole at 300 yards. You’re looking to sell to folks who don’t have much money, but want a reliable, reasonably accurate rifle or carbine that they like the looks of.

          Why not talk about the appearance?

          Think about car styles. You can change the shape with fiberglass bodies. You can put all sorts of different rims and tires on a car, and customize it with paint jobs in all colors of the rainbow. You can put in multi-kilowatt sound systems that’ll deafen anyone coming within 50 yards. But in the end, it’s still a vehicle with (usually) 4 wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine, designed to haul people around. Everything else is just design and marketing – what’s the real difference between a Fiat and a Ferrari?

          Why ban a Fiat, and keep the Ferraris on the road?

    • retired.military

      What is the point of having 20 pairs of shoes in a closet Bruce? Noone is trying to control shoes just because they have buckles and pumps which they dont need to be effective.

      Pistol grips, scopes usually make a rifle more accurate. As for plastic stocks it makes the rifle lighter. I take it you dont mind if a rifle has a 20 pound metal stock even if it shoots a 50 caliber round?

    • jim_m

      Liberty is being able to do what you want simply because you want to. The problem is that people on the left are opposed to allowing their fellow citizens the right to run their own lives.

    • jim_m

      What is the point of banning so-called assault rifles when the administration openly acknowledges that it will do noting to effect crime?

      This is only the left asserting their raw power to limit the rights of law abiding citizens. The left in several states has admitted that the end is gun confiscation regardless of the fact that there will be no impact on crime.

      SO why won’t you admit that the only reason to advocate an assault rifle ban is to move closer to the ultimate goal of universal gun confiscation? Why not admit that like Castro and Hitler and Stalin you want to create a society in the same mold as what any of them did?

      Or have you simply not thought about the ultimate extension of your ideological goals? Are you really that stupid?

      • Brucehenry

        LOL I ask a couple of honest questions and now I’m Hitler/Stalin/Castro.

        It seems to me that the idea that there is no such thing as an assault weapon is specious. Those modifications were done to make rifles more efficient at hitting targets — therefore, more efficient killing machines.

        I am not advocating banning so-called assault weapons. I’m just making the point that they do exist.

        If you want to keep these weapons legal, argue their merits. Don’t call their detractors stupid. It’s not helpful. It just makes you look nutty. Almost as nutty as a guy who compares anyone and everyone who questions NRA talking points to Hitler and Stalin and Castro.

        • jim_m

          Incorrect. You have no statistical data that they make it easier to hit their targets.

          Technically, assault weapons are defined as full auto or select fire rifles used by military or law enforcement for certain clearly defined purposes. What is available to US citizens is a cosmetic look alike that does not necessarily even fire the same caliber, bears superficial similarities in terms of cosmetic features and is restricted to single fire.

          SO no. assault weapons are not available to the public and you are an ass for suggesting that a plastic stock makes the weapon more accurate or more deadly because there is nothing that supports your claim.

          You are trying to claim that your question is why do people need these cosmetic features? The answer is for the simple reason that they wish to exercise their liberty. We are not confined to exercising our freedoms only in ways that manage not to offend the sensitivities of ignorant lefties. The idea of liberty is that you get choices. Your idea of liberty is that we get what you decide for us and we like it.

          Why do we need more than one brand of cereal? Why do we need more than one kind of shirt or pants? Perhaps we should all dress in uniforms like Maoist China?

          The point of freedom is that you get to do things without some fascist like you Bruce looking over your shoulder telling you when, where, why and how you get to do things.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, so plastic stocks don’t reduce recoil. Question asked, question answered. But I presume pistol grips and scopes are there to increase accuracy, and the barrel shrouds you mention keep the shooter protected from a hot barrel — which is only necessary if the temperature of the barrel is increased by rapid firing. Rapid firing is pretty handy in an assault, no?

            “Restricted to single fire” means little if a shooter can manage 30-60 “single shots” in less than a minute.

            You say on the one hand that this whole argument is about liberty, but on the other hand seem to have no problem with “true” assault weapons –full-auto weapons — not being available to the general public. Why do citizens not have the liberty to possess those? Why are you OK with this abridgment of their rights? Why should the government go only this far and no further?

            And no, my question is not why do people need these features, so quit fighting that straw man. My question is, why pretend that there is “no such thing” as an assault weapon? Obviously there IS such a thing. If you think they shouldn’t be banned, fine, but don’t pretend that the modifications that have been made to Grandpa’s Thirty-ought-six over the years didn’t have a purpose, other than to make it “look cool.”

          • jim_m

            A gun gets hot if you fire repeatedly. It does not require full auto fire to heat up a barrel to the point where it is uncomfortable to handle.

            Pistol grips are merely more ergonomic. Why do you need a chair with an adjustable back support. toughen up. Ergonomics don’t necessarily make you better at sitting behind a desk, but they do make it more comfortable to do so.

            Again, why should any of it have to be justified? And what if they really did ahve a significant impact on accuracy? Does that mean that there should be some measure of accuracy beyond which citizens should not be allowed to have certain weapons? WTF?

            All you do with your questions is further convince me of your antagonism toward personal liberty, The idea that we should have to justify what something does and why we should be allowed to have it is diametrically opposed to liberty.

            Your whole mindset is in opposition to freedom. Anyone who believed in freedom would not bother to ask because they would understand that part of being free means that you don’t have to justify yourself to government in order to exercise your freedoms. That’s called authoritarianism, where the government tells you what you can and cannot do. It is apparently what you believe in.

          • Brucehenry

            Just trying to get folks to question their assumptions and talking points, Crazy Man. Warner says there is no such thing as an assault weapon, because these modifications are merely cosmetic. I say that’s illogical, that these modifications must have been made for reasons of efficiency — to make these weapons more effective.

            I am not asking for justifications. I am pointing out that assault weapons exist, even though Warner says they don’t. If you want these weapons to stay legal, argue the case why that should be. Don’t pretend those who recognize them are delusional. They aren’t.

          • jim_m

            And you are wrong dumbass. An assault weapon is by definition a full auto or a select fire weapon. You don’t see any military anywhere in the world asking troops to assault an objective with single fire weapons.

            Once again you only reveal your ignorance. What you and your fascist friends on the left call assault weapons are 1) single fire weapons and 2) of lower caliber than the full auto weapons used by the US and NATO forces.

            Warner is correct is his assertion that the similarity is cosmetic. Your claim is epically ignorant and you have only shown yourself to be ignorant of what freedom and liberty are. WHat you call an assault weapon is a rifle that looks cosmetically similar to a real assault weapon but lacks the key functionality that makes the military weapon an assault rifle.

            The features you list have no effect on how accurate or deadly the weapon is. But you insist that they must have some effect even though no one has ever submitted any statistical information to back up your bullshit claim.

          • Brucehenry

            They are not assault weapons one would use to assault a platoon of troops armed with full-auto weapons, that is true. But they’ll do, in a pinch, to assault a movie theater or an elementary school, won’t they?

            This faux outrage about ignorant lefties not following your definition of assault weapon is just as specious as Warner’s claim. It doesn’t matter if people are calling semi-auto, as opposed to full-auto, weapons “assault rifles,” even if it contradicts Jim’s New American Dictionary of Acceptable Terms.

            Just accept the terms, Jim. What if every time Obamacare was discussed the argument got stopped by some idiot shouting “Call it the Affordable Care Act, goddammit!”?

          • jim_m

            Hell, we call it obamacare because you object to us calling it the first step to socialized medicine and mass euthanasia. Now THAT would be an accurate description of it and your whole complaint here is about accuracy right?

            Nobody would assault a theater if it werent a gun free zone. Maybe we should just scrap “gun free zone” and call it what it really is “Government enforced zone of vulnerability so people can be mass murdered”. You like that?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I appreciate you deferring to our tender sensibilities in not arguing any more that Obamacare was about soshalizums and euthanasia. Since the term Obamacare was coined, I haven’t heard a single wingnut say that stuff. Not once.

          • jim_m

            Socialized medicine is the ultimate goal. One need only look at the UK to see how the Liverpool End of Life Pathway is abused (and how it is used to terminate people who have a lot of life left in them) . Euthanasia is the final outcome of socialized medicine as meeting budget goals is more important than saving lives.

            Just as the ultimate goal of any gun control law is not public safety but gun confiscation and the total control of government over the population.

          • Brucehenry

            History’s Greatest Monster indeed, Jim. Quiver in fear.

          • jim_m

            Harold Shipman was able to hide in the NHS and murder over 250 people because the socialized medicine system promoted and rewarded terminating people’s lives. His murders went on undetected for decades because that was what he government wanted: Fewer patients.

            You should be afraid. Obamacare is going to end your life years before it would have otherwise.

          • Brucehenry

            Yours first, Enemy of the People!

          • jim_m

            I’ll die far earlier in the gulag I am sure.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m sure that you are sure.

          • jim_m

            There is still a good deal of sarcasm in that statement, but your lefty friends diminish it a little every day.

          • Actually, if you go by strict definitions – the phrase ‘assault weapon’ encompasses anything used to assault anyone. Sticks, rocks, hands and feet, large pillows, car parts, wrenches, hammers… hit someone with it, and it becomes an ‘assault weapon’.

            But it takes a rather peculiar mindset to want to ban something because it’s got a bayonet mount. Seriously, how many drive-by bayonettings have you heard of?

          • Vagabond661

            “If you want these weapons to stay legal, argue the case why that should be.”

            They are legal. The argument that they are not legal is your case to make. and you haven’t done that.

          • Vagabond661

            “If you want these weapons to stay legal, argue the case why that should be.”

            They are legal. The argument that they are not legal is your case to make. and you haven’t done that.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, the first modification to grandpa’s .30-06 was to make it a .223 meaning that is is far less powerful and far less deadly.

            Dumbass. You don’t know crap about guns and you know even less about freedom.

            And the fact is that it doesn’t matter why the changes were made. We are supposed to be free. We are supposed to be able to live our lives without first having to explain ourselves and justify ourselves to fascist slave masters like you.

          • jim_m

            “Restricted to single fire” means little if a shooter can manage 30-60 “single shots” in less than a minute.

            I can let off over 30 shots in less than a minute with just about any pistol on the market. So you are now claiming that all pistols are assault weapons.

            You should just STFU because you are grossly ignorant about what you are talking about whether it is guns or freedom.

          • Brucehenry

            If you can fire 30 shots in less than a minute, what can a full-auto fire? Honest question.

          • jim_m

            an AK47 has a cyclic rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute (ie if you never had to reload you could fire that many rounds). Its practical limit(reload after the 30 round magazine is empty) is about 100 rounds per minute.

            An M16 (which the AR15 is based from) has a rate of fire of 700-950 rounds per minute with a practical rate of fire of 150 per minute. In semi auto mode you can fire 45 rounds off per minute with one reload after the 30 round magazine. You could probably fire off more if you didn’t care much about what you hit.

          • retired.military

            Generaly 400+. Of course you need magazine changes so I would say someone competent with 30 round magazines which are in good condition, decent ammo, and a well maintained weapon (to reduce jams) could probably put out 200 rounds or so in a minute. accuracy would be for shit thought.

            If I were using a M16 (which I fired for 20 years at ranges in the military) on full auto, 30 round magazines fully loaded and no jams I would say that I could probably put out 300 rounds down range in a minute. That consistency would degrade very fast (say 5 minutes) to the 200 round per minute range Of course this is just spraying ammunition. No targeting at all.

          • Why do citizens not have the liberty to possess those?

            Because a law was passed in the ’30s to prevent it – and besides, full auto tends to go through a lot of ammo. I think it should be legal – and the full weight of the law should crash down on whoever uses them for a crime.

            (I wonder how much a complete set of the US Code currently weighs? Current length is 200,000 pages, A ream of paper (500 sheets) weighs about 7 lbs, so we’re looking at 2800 lbs or so, not counting bindings. Drop something like that on someone from 20 feet – that would preclude recidivism, I’d think.)

          • herddog505

            JLawson I think it should be legal – and the full weight of the law should crash down on whoever uses them for a crime.

            I agree completely.

            I also suggest that the reason we’ve got so many ban-type laws is that we’ve lost trust in our courts to apply the “full weight of the law”. Consider the “three strikes” laws: were they not a response to judges and juries turning the jails into revolving doors, with the result that crooks who SHOULD have been in prison (or their graves) eventually committed an outrage?

            In a strange way, the lefty obsession with gun control is a tacit acknowledgement that we nasty ol’ bitter clingers are right: the police CAN’T protect you. However, where we say that law-abiding citizens should have the ability to protect themselves, the lefties try to fix it to where (they think) nobody will need to be able to do so.

          • Vagabond661

            “But I presume pistol grips and scopes are there to increase accuracy.”

            Scopes are for like target shooting or hunting. Scopes are not used in movie theaters, malls or schools so liberals can rest easy about that.

        • jim_m

          And yes when you ask why should people be allowed to express their individuality you are a freaking fascist. The very idea that someone has to explain to you what liberty is ought to clue you in to the fact that your whole ideological position is fascist.

          • Brucehenry

            Nutjob. Take it easy. Read the comment again. Nowhere am I opposing anyone’s right to their individuality. I’m asking what was the purpose of the modifications that have been made to rifles over the years.

          • jim_m

            My point is that why should the need to be a purpose or lack thereof? there is no need to explain why we want something if we are free. My point is that the mere asking for a justification betrays you mindset that “freedom” must be justified, in which case it is not freedom at all.

          • Brucehenry

            My point in asking is to refute the notion that there “is no such thing as an assault weapon.” The improvements to firearms over the years were made to increase their efficiency — make them more effective. This increased effectiveness makes them more suited to an assault than before these improvements. That’s all. It makes them assault weapons. They exist.

            Again, I’m not an advocate of a ban. I’m, again, just pointing out a ridiculous statement made by Warner.

            BTW, and LOL, “My point is that why should there need to be a purpose or lack thereof? There is no need to explain why we want something if we are free.”

            I’ll remember that quote next time gay marriage is discussed here.

          • jim_m

            My point in asking is to refute the notion that there “is no such thing as an assault weapon.”

            And I said there was and that it was not available to the public. You forgot or ignored that because it conflicts with your fascist ideological aim.

            It is not ridiculous to claim that for the American public there really is no such thing as an assault weapon. We cannot possess them.

            BTW: Then gays should go get married. Who’s stopping them? Just don’t ask me to recognize it. That’s my side of freedom. It doesn’t hurt you for me to own a gun. There is already a law against me murdering you with it. I could murder you with a knife or a rock. If I wanted to I would but I don’t because I understand that murder is wrong. Guns don’t encourage murder. Murder comes from people’s hearts.

          • “he improvements to firearms over the years were made to increase their efficiency — make them more effective.”

            Actually – the change from a 7.62 or .308 caliber to a .223 during the Viet Nam war was for two purposes. The main one was that the .223 ammo was lighter per round so the soldier could carry significantly more ammo.

            Though not a primary consideration, the smaller caliber made it somewhat was less likely to kill an enemy it hit. (Didn’t much believe that one until I roomed with an armorer a long time back.)

            A wounded soldier requires care. Medical attention immediately and long-term, and then there was the psychological effect – having your buddy get hit by a .223 and him screaming nearby would be a bit distracting, wouldn’t you say? But if he got hit by a NATO 7.62 round, he’d far more likely be dead pretty fast. No immediate medical attention required, no MEDEVAC, and the dead are usually pretty quiet on the battlefield.

            But the big reason was weight. If you could carry 400 rounds of .223 instead of 150 rounds of .30-06, you were better off from a firepower standpoint.

          • Brucehenry

            All of which makes the .223 more effective as an “assault weapon,” no?

          • jim_m

            From a military standpoint. Not from the standpoint of shooting someone on the street. The only reason it is a “more effective weapon” is that it is easier to transport ammunition to the front lines.

            It should also be noted that the Nato round is actually 5.56 mm and not .223 Remington. They are the same size bullets but the NATO round has more powder and is therefore more powerful. You cannot fire a 5.56 round in a rifle designated as .223 but you can fire a .223 round in a 5.56 rifle.

          • Brucehenry

            Or from the standpoint of a lunatic wishing to shoot up his local elementary school or McDonald’s.

          • jim_m

            A soldier carries not only his ammunition but everything else. They could be carrying close to 100 lbs into the field and carrying 36 lbs into combat. the amount of weight a soldier carries significantly affects their combat performance.

            The issue for someone shooting up a theater or a school is not weight but accessibility. 30 round magazines are not small and need to be readily accessible. You could carry dozens of them, but it doesn’t mean you can access them easily.

            If it really were that much of an advantage then why is the number of shootings with “assault rifles” so low? Your argument is that they are so effective and deadly, then why don’t people use them more often? They really aren’t that expensive.

          • Brucehenry

            Since the whole argument began anew after Sandy Hook, the argument is about, really, the weapons similar to the ones used by Lanza. Again, not a gun-grabber. Didn’t any of you guys ever take a debate class in high school? Can’t you try to see any position other than your own?

          • jim_m

            No I did not debate. Yes I can see a position other than my own quite well. Yours seems to be questioning why it is that people need “assault weapons” and why the cosmetic features that you are afraid of should not be banned.

            Our position is that 1) the use of assault weapons to describe civilian use rifles is dishonest and an intentional deception to create the impression that civilians are using military weapons and thus weapons that they ought not to be allowed to have. 2) That it is unreasonable to demand that we accept as a price to access our constitutional rights a limitation based on BS fear mongering.

          • Brucehenry

            NO, again not questioning why people might need these weapons. AGAIN, questioning why Warner would say that these weapons ought not to be called by that name, whether they are full-auto, semi-auto, or muzzle-loaded.

            Your point number 1) above is the first time you have answered that question. Finally. Jesus. Thank you.

            Your point number 2) above, though, fails to account for the fact that you HAVE accepted limitations on your right to own certain weapons for almost 70 years now. This slippery slope of yours is not all that slippery, is it, if it’s taken 70 years to slide to this point?

          • jim_m

            It’s not my slippery slope if it is 70 years old. I’m only 47.

          • Brucehenry


          • You might find this article interesting on the .223/5.56 controversy…


          • jim_m

            Very interesting. It isn’t really that surprising. My suspicions were that the real issue would be excessive wear on the mechanism rather than immediate failure. I thought that the info on the relatively loose manufacturing tolerances was eye opening.

          • It is, isn’t it? So much for “OMG, it’ll EXPLODE!” crowd…

            There’s also an interesting comparison article on steel vs brass cartridges and the wear & tear and fouling on different types of .223. They were careful not to let the barrel temperatures get much above 700 degrees…


          • herddog505

            I read that article a few weeks ago and thought it was fabulous: an excellent example of putting a theory (steel ammo is BAAAAAD for a rifle) to a thoughtfully designed, carefully monitored test. I wish that there was more data like this for… well, firearms and many other things.

          • Me too. “We have a theory, and let’s experiment to prove it” makes a lot more sense in the long run than “We have a theory, and we’re going to spend craploads whether it’s true or not.”

          • Not if you’re looking at lethality as a criteria.

            Take a 5 lb rock, drop it on someone’s head from 10 feet.

            Take a 1 ounce pebble, drop it on someone’s head from 10 feet.

            Which ‘assault rock’ is more effective?

            You could argue that taking 80 pebbles and dropping them on someone’s head causes more damage than a single rock – but it’s not a more effective way to do things.

          • Depends on terrain and engagement range as well.

        • “If you want to keep these weapons legal, argue their merits. Don’t call their detractors stupid.”

          How about ignorant? Is that acceptable?

          If I wanted to buy a Ferrari – would you object, and tell me I should be satisfied with a Fit or a Fiat 500?

          If someone called a Ferrari a 4-wheeled death machine, based on how people regularly seem to wrap them around telephone poles (especially in Hollywood) – would you think them rather foolish in doing so?

          If I could afford a Ferrari, I’d tell the detractors that – as long as I use it legally – it’s none of their damn business what I’m driving, even if other people regularly bend theirs into a U-shape around a telephone pole, and take out a few pedestrians besides.

          Simply – it’s none of their business as long as the rifle is used legally. Go after the folks that break the laws – not the law-abiding gunowner… and don’t go passing legislation that concentrates on ‘appearance’, instead of safety or power.

          painting a rifle black make it more deadly? Would painting it in a “Hello Kitty” motif make it less so?

          I think it makes them look silly – but if that’s what the owners want, why should I object?

          • Brucehenry

            For the umpteenth time I’m not arguing for a ban. I’m arguing about terminology. Jim says that an “assault weapon” is by definition full-auto, but admits that the term has been used to describe semi-automatic weapons for almost 30 years now. My only point is that “assault weapons” do indeed exist, and calling people who describe semi-automatic weapons with these features stupid is unhelpful.

            I’m not real familiar with how nuclear weapons work, but I’m not comfortable with North Korea or Iran (or, for that matter, India and Pakistan) owning them, and I don’t care whether the missiles they acquire are technically called ICBMs or IRMs or whatever.

          • jim_m

            You still deny that it was used to describe full auto rifles for 70 years and that the people who invented the term for semi autos were politicians seeking to ban those guns.

            Your claim to a 30 year old definition is just as bogus as the definition. Just because people have been inaccurate in their description doesn’t mean that we should continue to use that description and promote ignorance.

          • Brucehenry

            I have denied nothing and concede readily that those who call semi-autos “assault weapons” were and are politicians.

            Just as those who called the Affordable Care Act “Obamacare” or “socialized medicine” are opponents of it, yet those terms are not something you refuse to use to describe it.

          • herddog505

            But you refuse to use them.

            Wow. People use words – even made-up ones – to support their positions. Who would’ve thunk it?

          • Brucehenry

            My point exactly. “Assault rifle” being one phrase used in that manner, “socialized medicine” another.

            BTW, I don’t refuse to use the term “Obamacare” to describe ACA. I do think “socialized medicine” is inaccurate, just as you guys believe “assault weapon” is an inaccurate term. But I don’t refuse to argue on those terms.

          • But that argument about terminology is at the core of the effort to ban ‘assault weapons’. So it’s necessary to precisely define the difference between an ‘assault rifle’, and an ‘assault weapon’.

            An assault rifle has a pretty specific definition, which has clearly been spelled out to you time after time.

            You seem to be content to ignore the efforts, so maybe you’re just looking for a good argument.

            An ‘assault weapon’ is so broad a term to be meaningless, as people have been trying to explain, and the attempt to use the phrase to define a particular limited class of firearm is semantically dishonest at best – and intentionally deceptive at worst.

            “My only point is that “assault weapons” do indeed exist, and calling people who describe semi-automatic weapons with these features stupid is unhelpful.

            Yes, they do exist. Damn near anything sharp or hard you could pick up in your kitchen and throw at or hit someone with is an ‘assault weapon’, as is a stick, tree branch or rock or… you fill in the blank.

            The people using that term are doing it deceptively, attempting to identify ‘assault weapon’ with ‘assault rifle’ in the public consciousness. As the picture of the ‘assault musket’ shows, adding the features they want banned doesn’t do a damn thing to change the inherent nature of the device they’re added onto.

            So what should they be called, aside from (perhaps) fucking liars looking to advance their agenda?

          • Brucehenry

            Well, after umpteen leventy-seven comments, you and Jim finally address my question.Fair enough, and I see your point.

          • jim_m

            Your original question was this:

            What IS the point of having plastic stocks, pistol grips, scopes, and so forth, then?

            SO if your intent was to understand what the fuss was about the term “assault weapons” then why not ask the question instead of asking why it is that anyone needs the features that you and your lefty pals use to define an “assault weapon”?

            I call BS on your claim that you only wanted to understand the objection to the term “assault weapon”. You didn’t arrive at that question until much later.

          • Brucehenry

            My question was what was the point of adding the modifications — if not to make the weapons more effective AS WEAPONS? I’m disappointed that it took you this much time to STILL fail to see my point.

            I NEVER asked why anyone needs these features. That was you putting words in my mouth.

          • jim_m

            You are now claiming that your original question was that you objected to Warner’s claim that the term “assault weapon” was wrongly used. That was not your original claim.

            As to your original claim, regardless of the intent it came off as a challenge to why people should be allowed to have those things. It came off as questioning why freedom should not be restricted over meaningless issues.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, however poorly worded my “original claim” was, I repeatedly explained that I wasn’t questioning need or liberty, but you kept insisting that i was. Whatever my failings as a debater, it doesn’t help when I am intentionally and repeatedly misinterpreted.

          • And a point up from me. Thank you.

            Now do you agree with the point, or do we need to haul out the M1A tactical assault carp and bombard you with them?

          • Brucehenry

            How is calling these weapons “assault weapons,” though, any different than calling the ACA “socialized medicine?” It’s how politics works.

    • Vagabond661

      What’s the purpose of spin hub caps? Or cars with hydraulics? Or gold chains?

      • They’re what the buyer wants. They think it looks cool. What’s the point behind racing stripes, after all?

    • LiberalNightmare

      What is the point of restricting those plastic stocks, pistol grips, scopes, and so forth, from law abiding citizens?

      • jim_m

        Bruce believes that we should have to justify our actions before we should be allowed to exercise any freedoms.

      • Brucehenry

        None, in my opinion. Just don’t pretend that these modifications that have been made to rifles over the years don’t deserve to make these rifles worthy of the moniker “assault weapon.” Keep ’em legal, for all I care, but don’t say they don’t exist.

        • jim_m

          See my comment below. Assault weapons are full auto. Name one weapon available for sale to the general public that is full auto. Dumbass.

          During World War II, Adolph Hitler personally chose the name
          “Sturmgewehr” (literally, “storm rifle”, translated in English as
          “assault rifle”) to describe a new class of small arm, the Sturmgewehr 44, which combined the characteristics of a carbine, submachine gun and automatic rifle. Prior to the 1980s, the term “assault weapon” was used in the context of military weapons systems, such as for the Rifleman’s Assault Weapon, an American grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle.

          In 1985, Art Agnos introduced a bill in the California State Assembly seeking to place restrictions on semi-automatic firearms capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more. In his bill, AB 1509, these guns were categorized as “assault firearms”.

          the term has always been applied by the military and the weapons industry to refer to a full auto weapon. It was not until 1985 that politicians started calling semiautomatic rifles assault weapons. Our contention is correct that the term assault weapon is a political fabrication and is really just a term for “scary looking weapon that we want to ban because we are a bunch of liberty hating fascists”.

          • Brucehenry

            So the term has been in use to describe these weapons for almost 30 years and it’s crazy to call them that? Lol.

            Also, Mr Liberty-lover, you haven’t told me why it’s not a violation of your Second Amendment rights that you can’t own a full-auto weapon.

          • jim_m

            No it’s been misused by gun grabbing democrats who don’t know what they are talking about and have refused to educate themselves about guns for 30 years because they figured that they would have confiscated them by now.

            I note that you ignore the fact that the definition I use has been in use for 70 years, but that means nothing to you.

            And yes, I believe that it is a violation of my rights that I cannot own a full auto weapon. If you knew anything you would know that full auto weapons were outlawed in 1934 by the National Firearms Act, which was passed in order to combat gang crime in the cities. The NFA did nothing to reduce that crime.

    • jim_m

      AS I have said elsewhere the reason for the plastic parts is weight reduction since the limit of effective firepower is the ability o fthe soldier to carry the rifle and ammunition into the field.

      The pistol grip and the telescoping butt are designed for close quarter combat since a shorter weapon is more maneuverable and therefore more useful in close quarter or urban combat (the M16 also comes in a variety of barrel lengths for this purpose as well).

      Other features such as the barrel shroud make the rifle easier to handle. Sights and lighting systems have obvious function but these are not unique to assault rifles.

      What is the point of banning these items? Gun confiscation. Nothing else.

    • Evil Otto

      Do you really need to be told the purpose of a scope, Bruce?

      • jim_m

        Bruce knows that a scope magically puts your rounds on target when you are shooting from the hip spraying rounds into a crowd of frightened people in a “gun free zone”.

        Bruce also knows that a scope makes those rounds more lethal than rounds fired from a weapon with iron sites.

    • herddog505

      Let’s stipulate that plastic stocks, pistol grips, Picatinny rails, flash hiders, bayonet studs, and all the other features that give DiFi the vapors are solely to (somehow) make the rifle more “deadly”. OK: so what?

      Where in the Second Amendment is there a caveat that arms that the people have a right to bear can only be so “deadly”?

      But let’s take some of the items that you list:

      1. Plastic stock: this is easy. Not only is a plastic stock cheaper to make than a wood stock, they are more durable than wood and (this is important for long-range shooters) don’t swell or distort with changes in temperature or humidity;

      2. Pistol grip: While I think it tends to be a matter of preference, the pistol grip can make the rifle more comfortable to fire, especially for the novice shooter;

      3. Scopes: Is this a serious question? They make it easier to hit the target.
      But let’s get to what I think is your real question, one that gun-grabbers seem to love to ask as if it’s a rhetorical ultimate weapon:

      “Why do you need it?”

      I’m an American. I don’t have to “need” anything to have a right to it. This goes for the clothes I wear (do you NEED more than one pair of pants?), the food I eat (do you NEED to be able to eat in a restaurant?), the car I drive (do you NEED anything more than a scooter?), etc.

      By the way: do you NEED a lawyer in court? Do you NEED a jury? Hell, do you NEED a trial at all? Aren’t the police, who will keep women from being raped, have the skills to decide whether people are guilty on the spot?

      • Brucehenry

        Well, that makes three of you guys who have decided, despite my repeated protestations, that I am arguing about need. I am not. All I am saying is that the assertion that there is “no such thing as an assault weapon,” the VERY FIRST LINE IN THIS ARTICLE, is a foolish one.

        Yes, you are an American and have a right to own these weapons, in my opinion. So argue that. Don’t argue that they don’t exist.

        • jim_m

          If many people think that you are arguing for gun control/confiscation then perhaps you should check yourself and how you are presenting your arguments.

          • Evil Otto

            Bruce won’t actually come out and tell you what he believes, because then he would have to defend those beliefs. He’s playing a game where he pretends that he’s just asking questions, seeking honest debate.

          • Brucehenry

            Says the lurker.

          • Evil Otto

            Ooh, good comeback. Really, Brucie.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, thank you, and using the diminutive “Brucie” is even more clever. You’re awesome.

          • Evil Otto

            Would you prefer “drone?” That’s my usual term for people like you, Brucie.

            Now, it should be pointed out that you haven’t actually expressed any beliefs or disproven my point in any way. You’re still playing your dishonest games, Brucie. Now, you may not feel like telling me what you actually support when it comes to gun laws, since I’m a “lurker” and not here every day like you, but I’m going to guess that the regulars might like to hear it.

            So how about it, Brucie… care to spell out your beliefs on gun control in clear terms so that people know exactly what you support? No? Didn’t think so. See ya, Brucie.

          • Brucehenry

            See my reply below, Genius. I’ve done so on previous threads, Lurker.

            Oh, and what point of yours was it that I was supposed to disprove? I must have missed it.

          • Evil Otto

            And which reply would that be, Brucie?

            (God I love trolling you. Dance, Brucie, dance.)

          • Brucehenry

            Hey, I only do this to pass the time. That one.

          • Evil Otto

            “What IS the point of having plastic stocks, pistol grips, scopes, and so forth, then?”

            Ah, that one? Hmm, probably not what you meant.

          • Brucehenry

            Hey, I only do this to pass the time, lol. At least I don’t call everyone who disagrees with me a Nazi.

          • jim_m

            I don’t call everyone who disagrees with me a NAZI. If you dislike my pointing our that left wing political ideology in the form of gun control lines up with 20th century monsters like Hitler and Stalin, then perhaps you should change your views and not complain when people point out the facts. Either that or get used to the fact that you walk in their footsteps.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, Jim!

        • herddog505

          The problems with the term “assault weapon”:

          1. It is a term intended not to properly or precisely define an object (in the way that “revolver” or “over-under” or “top break” do), but rather to scare the ignorant;

          2. The term is intentionally similar to “assault rifle”, which is a well-defined term that describes what is effectively a machinegun. Again, the intent is to scare the ignorant;

          3. The term has no commonly accepted meaning. I suggest that this is intentional so that ANY weapon less pedestrian than a double-barreled shotgun can be defined as one.

          Is short, “assault weapon” is a term that Goebbels would be proud of coining. We know why lefties like to use it, and so we resist its use.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I get it. When you guys finally got around to answering, you made it clear that you think the term is used dishonestly.

            Now please explain why it is that you think it’s fair to characterize the Affordable Care Act as “socialized medicine” when it’s actually not that at all.

            No, don’t, actually. My point is that, like it or not, that’s what these weapons are being called. If you think they shouldn’t be banned, make that case. As you said somewhere on this thread, what a surprise that people use words they choose to employ in an argument.

  • Paul Hooson

    Great visual. Interestingly, some state legislators such as in Oregon are now backing away from any new state laws to ban assault weapons or larger capacity magazines, believing this to be some issue at the federal level.

    With great gun lobby pressure as well as the Republican controlled Congress, any new legislation regarding assault rifles seems unlikely. But, what is needed is some test case to hit the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether assault rifles for ordinary citizens and not police or military are protected by the Second Amendment or not.

    • retired.military

      Republican controlled Congress? Funny I thought that Harry Reid has been Senate Majority leader for the past 6+ years. Once again Paul reports the Liberal talking points.

    • herddog505

      Oregon is backing away? Unless they’ve done so in the past day or two, this is a positively orwellian statement. Further, it’s akin to saying that a would-be murderer is “backing away” when he decides to try to kill you another day.

      The department shall create and maintain a registry for owners of assault weapons and large capacity magazines who qualify for registration under section 4 of this 2013 Act. The department may adopt rules concerning the administration of the registry, including but not limited to renewal and revocation procedures and storage requirements for assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

      (4) The department may conduct inspections of registered owners of assault weapons andlarge capacity magazines to ensure compliance with the storage requirements of section 4of this 2013 Act.

      SECTION 6. This 2013 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2013 Act takes effect on its passage.* [emphasis mine – hd505]

      So, let’s sum it up:

      1. No more “assault weapons”. If you’ve got ’em, turn ’em in or go to jail;

      2. Just to make sure, we’re sending the cops around on unscheduled, unannounced “inspections” to make sure that you don’t have any;

      3. To get this done before the SCOTUS can (possibly) decide that it violates the Second and Fourth Amendments, we’re doing it as fast as we possibly can.

      This is “backing away”????

      Did the chocolate ration get increased from 30g to 20g, too?
      And while you’re pining for a test case for the SCOTUS to decide that Americans actually don’t have one right that’s in the Constitution, are there any more that you’d like the Wise Latina or the dumpy little mongoloid to take a whack at? As we see, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is also on the block. Maybe we can deny anybody in possession of a nasty ol’ ASSAULT WEAPON the right to counsel? Jury? Oh, hell: dispense with the trial and just tell the cops to shoot them to death on the spot.

      Progressive law enforcement, ladies and gentlemen: progressing to tyranny.



      • Scalia

        Hi, herd. Yes, it appears that Oregon is now backing away. That’s good news.

        • herddog505

          I’m VERY glad to know this. The only problem is that they tried in the first place. That tells me that they’ll try again.

    • Jwb10001

      Paul how can the supreme court make such a decision? What could they draw from to say either yes these weapons are protected or no they are not? What reading of the 2ond amendment would allow such restrictions? Oh and welcome back from your coma, the republicans don’t control congress anymore.

      • Paul Hooson

        It’s probably good news for gun rights supporters to not have to battle a myriad of new unconstitutional state laws across the country, if some state legislators have now let the hysteria over Sandy Hook settle down. That leaves some legislation out of congress, which is unlikely to pass as a test case for the Supreme Court to decide, if and when some law becomes law.

  • LiberalNightmare

    The notion that one weapon is less lethal then another due to some cosmetic checklist is foolish at best.

    And that foolish notion is the idea that is being sold to the public via the assault weapons ban B.S.

  • retired.military

    These questions are for Bruce, Paul Hassoon, and steve Crickmore though others can answer if they want.

    1. If you had total control over what to ban what would you do so as far as weapons go. What features? limitations? etc
    2. same question for magazines.

    Please be as specific as possible.
    Please dont use terms like “assault rifles” as it does not address features of the weapon.

    Thank you.

    • Brucehenry

      I am not an advocate of any ban, although I can see a certain logic in the arguments of those who are. I think “pro-gun” is the side which has already won the “ban” argument. It won’t happen, and the Republic won’t fall. My participation in this thread has been about terminology.

      • jim_m

        You never win the ban argument. You only ever forestall it from happening.

        • Brucehenry

          And you never “buy” beer. You only rent it. That’s politics in a democracy, Jim.

          • jim_m

            What BS. You honestly think that we have won the ban argument? What if a conservative on the Supreme Court leaves and obama appoints some gun confiscator to the post. Then Heller and McDonald go the other way and you have a 5 member majority that will see no limit to the restrictions to the second amendment.

            Freedom is never secure. Only idiots like you think that freedom can be so.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m just saying that yes, you have to keep re-fighting the same battles in a democracy, Jim. Calm down and don’t get so angry.

          • jim_m

            OK. Your original reply came off sarcastic, hence my response.

      • retired.military

        Thank you for your answer Bruce.

        As for me.

        I think that someone should receive at least a minimum of training in a firearm before they purchase. Preferably private companies to keep govt out of it. Right now you can buy a gun and have absolutely no clue how to even load it or put it on safe.

        I am against folks owning automatic weapons unless they have the training for it.

        • retired.military

          I am curious as to the down vote I got. Not trying to start an argument just wondering (if the person who did it will respond) as to why.

          If a person doesnt at least have a modicum of training than they stand a good chance to do more harm to themselves and others than if not.

          • retired.military

            Gee another down vote for asking a serious question. What a brave brave person this downvoter is.

          • herddog505

            My problem with required “training” (and, FWIW, I’m not the down-voter):

            It CAN be a backdoor to registration or a de facto ban:

            — “Ah, you want to buy a gun, eh? That’s fine: you’ll need training. Now, you just fill out this form, which includes your name, address, SSN, and the make, model and caliber of the gun you plan to buy. You can fill in the serial number later…”

            — “Ah, you want to buy a gun, eh? That’s fine: you’ll need training. The only opening that we’ve got available is three years from now and costs $10,000. Non-refundable, of course. And who knows whether we won’t have to cancel before then…”

            — “I’m very sorry, but you scored only 999 / 1000 between your written and practical tests. I admit that the requirement to hit a tin can-sized target at 100 yards with a snub-nosed .38 is tough, but you can try again next year.”

            Now, happily CCW programs DO require a modest amount of training; here in No. Carolina, it is (I believe) usually done by private companies / individuals and, though it has a practical component, is mostly concerned with the laws regarding self-defense. So long as I had any confidence that the gungrabbers left it like that, I wouldn’t object to a training requirement for much the same reason as you (I’ve seen people do things on a range that lead me to wonder if they should be let out without a keeper, much less be allowed to buy a gun). However, given the utter dishonesty and faithlessness of the gungrabbers, whose most sacred word is not to be trusted under any circumstances, I oppose virtually ANY requirements.

  • Jwb10001

    All this talk about weapons, guns and what assault weapons are etc. All these “law makers” working to fashion some new legislation to restrict gun ownership. The only thing I see or hear is how to limit law abiding citizens access to and ownership of guns. I’ve yet to hear anything focused on the people that commit crimes with guns. Like all federal government action in an attempt to stop crime (impossible mission) punish the law abiding. The same people that can’t find a way to deport illegal aliens believe they can confiscate weapons? Of course they can because they know who LEGALLY own weapons, but just like illegal aliens they have no idea where the illegal guns are and don’t seem all that interested. I personally don’t own a gun, I also don’t drink 32 oz soda or eat a lot of trans fats, but I will defend other’s rights to these things.

    • Gmacr1

      The intent is not to stop criminals but to make law abiding citizens into them by passing laws that restrict their rights.

  • Constitution First

    An assault weapon is a Prius hogging the fast lane and driving like crap.

  • Berzrkr50

    Everything these gun grabbing politicians have done beginning with the NFA of 1934 is illegal as far as I’m concerned. I refuse to register my firearms or comply with their BS… period.