Well this is now a definition game. As a lot of people over the years have pointed out, assault rifle as defined by the military in the 60s (or somewhere there abouts) is a select fire weapon including the option for full auto or 3 round burst. These are and have been illegal for 31 years. So if people want to ban those ... pack up go home, we're already done. On the subject of the term as applied by the "assault weapons ban" it's clearly bullshit. I' should have a couple of videos about it and some general firearms/ballistics info out this week. Outside of those various criticism (don't want to showbiz myself) there's a long standing ehem "theory" that in the 80s people showed AR-15 videos next to M-16 videos, called both assault weapons and asked if people were willing to ban them. Since this was post the NFA being a ban instead of a restriction, the results went like you'd expect.
Thanks for commenting, man! I appreciate the more in-depth explanation. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of banning a rifle based on cosmetics. Let me know when your videos and general info go up and I'll come over and check it out.
While I agree that it's not a logical description, and you certainly hear the term MOST often in the media, the term is defined in the law. However, several states have varying descriptions of what the term means, so there is no hard-and-fast definition.
Cool looking gun... no wonder they are popular. I understand there are some semantics involved in defining a weapon in a specific category- I read two plebs explanation- but I would have considered any military grade/military inspired weapon as an assault rifle. Understand that this classification may now have a charged emotional reaction to it, but that is no excuse (in my opinion) to pretend it is anything other than what it is- an assault rifle. The right to own such a weapon is protected under the 2nd amendment, subject to court rulings as LSP recently covered. I personally disagree that firearms are tools of self defence. In my opinion, they are tools designed to kill. It may be politically necessary to redefine terminology, but I dislike all forms of newspeak. A hunting rifle is designed for killing prey, a pistol is designed for killing at close quarters, and an assault rifle is designed for killing in a military scenario. They are what they are- killing tools. The fact is, after experiencing the tyranny of Britain over her colony, the founding fathers of the U.S. enacted into law the right of citizens to hold and bear arms, the context of which was military grade weapons. Freedom through might of arms is the prevailing sentiment, as I understand it. We both know it is not guns killing people... it is people using killing tools that are killing people. Take away such tools, and they will find another method unless the root of the problem is addressed. As you noted to me in another comment, the root of this problem commenced in the 60's. I agree with that totally. Anyway, this comment may not be what you wanted to read, but that is my opinion. Enjoyed your video... as I always do.
Janus Bifrons You're more than welcome to disagree with me, buddy. Lol. I also dislike newspeak and I certainly hope I'm not guilty of it. I do see your point. Hunting being a notable exception, at all other times guns are used legally in self defense. In war, in law enforcement, and in defense of life and property. But I'm describing their use rather than designed purpose. So, I can't say you're wrong. Thanks for watching and commenting!
So, what do YOU think of the term "assault weapon?"
Well this is now a definition game. As a lot of people over the years have pointed out, assault rifle as defined by the military in the 60s (or somewhere there abouts) is a select fire weapon including the option for full auto or 3 round burst. These are and have been illegal for 31 years. So if people want to ban those ... pack up go home, we're already done.
On the subject of the term as applied by the "assault weapons ban" it's clearly bullshit. I' should have a couple of videos about it and some general firearms/ballistics info out this week. Outside of those various criticism (don't want to showbiz myself) there's a long standing ehem "theory" that in the 80s people showed AR-15 videos next to M-16 videos, called both assault weapons and asked if people were willing to ban them. Since this was post the NFA being a ban instead of a restriction, the results went like you'd expect.
Thanks for commenting, man! I appreciate the more in-depth explanation. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of banning a rifle based on cosmetics. Let me know when your videos and general info go up and I'll come over and check it out.
Its a fabricated term by the mainstream media, which is not a logical description.
While I agree that it's not a logical description, and you certainly hear the term MOST often in the media, the term is defined in the law. However, several states have varying descriptions of what the term means, so there is no hard-and-fast definition.
Cool looking gun... no wonder they are popular.
I understand there are some semantics involved in defining a weapon in a specific category- I read two plebs explanation- but I would have considered any military grade/military inspired weapon as an assault rifle. Understand that this classification may now have a charged emotional reaction to it, but that is no excuse (in my opinion) to pretend it is anything other than what it is- an assault rifle. The right to own such a weapon is protected under the 2nd amendment, subject to court rulings as LSP recently covered.
I personally disagree that firearms are tools of self defence. In my opinion, they are tools designed to kill. It may be politically necessary to redefine terminology, but I dislike all forms of newspeak. A hunting rifle is designed for killing prey, a pistol is designed for killing at close quarters, and an assault rifle is designed for killing in a military scenario. They are what they are- killing tools.
The fact is, after experiencing the tyranny of Britain over her colony, the founding fathers of the U.S. enacted into law the right of citizens to hold and bear arms, the context of which was military grade weapons. Freedom through might of arms is the prevailing sentiment, as I understand it. We both know it is not guns killing people... it is people using killing tools that are killing people.
Take away such tools, and they will find another method unless the root of the problem is addressed. As you noted to me in another comment, the root of this problem commenced in the 60's. I agree with that totally.
Anyway, this comment may not be what you wanted to read, but that is my opinion. Enjoyed your video... as I always do.
Janus Bifrons You're more than welcome to disagree with me, buddy. Lol. I also dislike newspeak and I certainly hope I'm not guilty of it. I do see your point. Hunting being a notable exception, at all other times guns are used legally in self defense. In war, in law enforcement, and in defense of life and property. But I'm describing their use rather than designed purpose. So, I can't say you're wrong. Thanks for watching and commenting!