Assault Rifles: What's in a name?

Assault Rifles: What's in a name?

There are 41 comments on the The Press-Enterprise story from Sep 9, 2012, titled Assault Rifles: What's in a name?. In it, The Press-Enterprise reports that:

Russian designer Mikhail Kalashnikov aims a newer version of his famous AK-47 assault rifle at a shooting range in Russia during November 2002 The definition of a term can change over time.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Press-Enterprise.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#1 Sep 11, 2012
The 2nd amendment prohibits the govt from regulating our assault rifles and our non-assault rifles. The amendment also prohibits police from enforcing the govt's illegal regulating of our weapons.
JustSayin

San Bernardino, CA

#2 Sep 11, 2012
I agree with protecting our rights to keep and bear arms. In my own house, I draw the line with assault weapons. Haven't seen anybody who owns one I would care to be around-looks dubious to me. I grew up with a .22 rifle and a side-by-side shotgun behind the kitchen door. My brothers hunted, quail, dove, rabbits and deer. My mom was handy with firearms---grew up with them behind that same door.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#3 Sep 12, 2012
JustSayin wrote:
I agree with protecting our rights to keep and bear arms. In my own house, I draw the line with assault weapons. Haven't seen anybody who owns one I would care to be around-looks dubious to me. I grew up with a .22 rifle and a side-by-side shotgun behind the kitchen door. My brothers hunted, quail, dove, rabbits and deer. My mom was handy with firearms---grew up with them behind that same door.
The 2nd amendment doesn't protect your right to hunt and the .22 is a wimp.

Most antigun nuts like you always say they support the 2nd amendment.
JustSayin

San Bernardino, CA

#4 Sep 12, 2012
I'll refer you to the 1st amendment. And, some skill in involved with the .22. What is an assault weapon used for?
Tray

French Camp, MS

#5 Sep 12, 2012
JustSayin wrote:
I'll refer you to the 1st amendment. And, some skill in involved with the .22. What is an assault weapon used for?
How do you feel about "assault sticks" and "assault rocks"? Any item used in an assault is an assault weapon, including your little .22. You have been brainwashed by the antigun media to believe one gun is more likely to cause it's owner to "assault" than another. Would you consider a muzzle loader an "assault weapon" because they were used by the military? Would you consider a bow and arrow an assault weapon because the were used for hundreds of years by military's around the world and at the time were the most advanced weapons available? The AK's ballistics and firepower is on par with the old 30-30 from over 100 years ago. It is considered by todays standard of hunting rifle to be underpowered and inaccurate.
JustSayin

San Bernardino, CA

#6 Sep 12, 2012
Don't presume to know what has influenced me. I ask again, what is the primary use for the commonly known assault weapon? I'll leave the "assault sticks" & "assault rocks" for the bullies on the playground."

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7 Sep 12, 2012
JustSayin wrote:
I agree with protecting our rights to keep and bear arms. In my own house, I draw the line with assault weapons. Haven't seen anybody who owns one I would care to be around-looks dubious to me. I grew up with a .22 rifle and a side-by-side shotgun behind the kitchen door. My brothers hunted, quail, dove, rabbits and deer. My mom was handy with firearms---grew up with them behind that same door.
Lol. You drank the Cool-Aid. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or how dubious a firearm appears.
If one day the government decides they've played around the subject long enough, and it's time to dictate, good luck trying to prevent or reverse that dictatorship with your .22 and double barrel.
Let's explore the subject of this thread.
We'll start with the .22 you approve of. You can purchase a Ruger 10/22 for around $200. It is a semi automatic rifle used for plinking, target/match shooting, and varmint hunting. It is not an assault rifle. Now, you can purchase an aftermarket stock for that Ruger 10/22 that sports a thumbhole and/or a pistol grip for around $125. By removing 1 screw, removing the factory stock, applying the new stock, and replacing the screw, you have not changed a single thing about the firing function of the gun. You have however turned it into an "assault rifle". The gun still has to be loaded the same way, fired the same way, cleaned the same way... It is analogous to you changing clothes and then being considered by law to be a lethal weapon because of the clothing you chose to wear.
Gun Nut

United States

#8 Sep 12, 2012
JustSayin wrote:
Don't presume to know what has influenced me. I ask again, what is the primary use for the commonly known assault weapon? I'll leave the "assault sticks" & "assault rocks" for the bullies on the playground."
I can answer your question. First let me clarify that what you see in the media being called an assault weapon is just plain false. I'm a firearms instructor, and operate two facilities in which I teach marksmanship, safety, and tactical defense protection. Now, to answer your question simply, the rifle you refer to as an assault weapon can be used for several different things. It can be used for target shooting, hunting, protection of ones self and property, and as any other semi auto rifle it can be used to commit crimes. The principle reason for the manufacture of any weapon is for defense. The so called "assault weapon" in question is no different.
JustSayin

San Bernardino, CA

#9 Sep 12, 2012
Isn't that what the original article is all about. It's up for debate. Thank you Gun Nut for not stooping to the level of name calling. And I do get the distinction. I was stating what I grew up with. I'm just saying what I believe good for my house--not yours' or anybody else. I do believe for home defense my husband's 357, or his Baretta would probably suffice. Oh, and he is a sharp shooter as well. So you guys can climb off your soap box now.
Gun Nut

Missouri City, TX

#10 Sep 12, 2012
JustSayin wrote:
Isn't that what the original article is all about. It's up for debate. Thank you Gun Nut for not stooping to the level of name calling. And I do get the distinction. I was stating what I grew up with. I'm just saying what I believe good for my house--not yours' or anybody else. I do believe for home defense my husband's 357, or his Baretta would probably suffice. Oh, and he is a sharp shooter as well. So you guys can climb off your soap box now.
I understand, and in that respect to each his own. My real problem with those who are anti Rights is they are almost always uneducated when it comes to firearms. If you watch the mainstream media much, you'll hear them talking about "assault weapons" and referring to them as automatic. They look at a firearm cosmetics and make assumptions. also the media don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine. When they open their mouths, you can see the ignorance all over them.
brb

Downey, CA

#11 Sep 12, 2012
i have zero interest in guns let alone assault weapons but I even have less of a interest in taking away rights of gun owners.. only thing i wish is people would stop pretending they want a ak to hunt with.. its about protecting yourself from the government and im ok with that just own it.. you sound like morons talking about hunting with a gun that shoots 100 bullets a minute

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#12 Sep 12, 2012
A real patriotic American owns an AK or an AR (or similar) to help deter any Govt from oppressing or tyrannizing us (slavery or genocide).

Or Govt has illegally restricted many of the weapons we need to protect ourselves from it.

The 2nd amendment speaks only to the govt. It prohibits govt from regulating our weapons. That is its only purpose.
Gun Nut

Missouri City, TX

#13 Sep 12, 2012
brb wrote:
i have zero interest in guns let alone assault weapons but I even have less of a interest in taking away rights of gun owners.. only thing i wish is people would stop pretending they want a ak to hunt with.. its about protecting yourself from the government and im ok with that just own it.. you sound like morons talking about hunting with a gun that shoots 100 bullets a minute
I mean no disrespect so please know that up front. Your comment echoes talking points from the liberal media. An AK is no different than any other semi auto rifle you can purchase at any gun shop in the Country. The only difference is how it looks. The mainstream liberal media believes that if it looks menacing, then it must be a weapon built for murder, and no other reason. That thinking is fundamentally incorrect. Let me put it a different way. If I purchased a Toyota Prius and put a custom paint job of flames down the side, and slapped some nascar stickers on the side, that doesn't make it a racecar does it?

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#14 Sep 12, 2012
JustSayin wrote:
I'll refer you to the 1st amendment. And, some skill in involved with the .22. What is an assault weapon used for?
Have you ever shot a bear or a pit bull with a .22?
brb

Downey, CA

#15 Sep 12, 2012
Gun Nut wrote:
<quoted text>
I mean no disrespect so please know that up front. Your comment echoes talking points from the liberal media. An AK is no different than any other semi auto rifle you can purchase at any gun shop in the Country. The only difference is how it looks. The mainstream liberal media believes that if it looks menacing, then it must be a weapon built for murder, and no other reason. That thinking is fundamentally incorrect. Let me put it a different way. If I purchased a Toyota Prius and put a custom paint job of flames down the side, and slapped some nascar stickers on the side, that doesn't make it a racecar does it?
that may be the case I stated already that i have zero interest in guns so it would be safe to say I know little about the models.. i do know there is little reason to have a gun that shoots 100 bullets a minute besides protecting yourself from the government/military which is why we have the right to bear arms and i in no way would want to take that away.. like i said i think those who buy those crazy guns should just be honest and say its my right and im gonna own it.. nothing wrong with that.. you dont force me to own a gun and I wont try to take yours away.. I am a lib for the most part but not when it comes to guns

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#16 Sep 12, 2012
brb wrote:
<quoted text> that may be the case I stated already that i have zero interest in guns so it would be safe to say I know little about the models.. i do know there is little reason to have a gun that shoots 100 bullets a minute besides protecting yourself from the government/military which is why we have the right to bear arms and i in no way would want to take that away.. like i said i think those who buy those crazy guns should just be honest and say its my right and im gonna own it.. nothing wrong with that.. you dont force me to own a gun and I wont try to take yours away.. I am a lib for the most part but not when it comes to guns
Rate of fire is a measurement not practical application.

You are not going to take a AR-15 and shoot 100 rounds a minute.

Here is a gun of a different nature if you want to shoot 100 rds. a minute.

&fe ature=related
Gun Nut

Missouri City, TX

#17 Sep 12, 2012
brb wrote:
<quoted text> that may be the case I stated already that i have zero interest in guns so it would be safe to say I know little about the models.. i do know there is little reason to have a gun that shoots 100 bullets a minute besides protecting yourself from the government/military which is why we have the right to bear arms and i in no way would want to take that away.. like i said i think those who buy those crazy guns should just be honest and say its my right and im gonna own it.. nothing wrong with that.. you dont force me to own a gun and I wont try to take yours away.. I am a lib for the most part but not when it comes to guns
I understand what you're saying. However, you keep saying " a gun that can shoot 100 rounds a minute" . Just about any semi auto firearm is capable of doing that. Regular household firearms can fire 100 rounds per minute with no problem. So your understanding of a rapid fire weapon is flawed. What constitutes a " crazy gun". To assume that one wouldn't purchase a semi auto firearm to hunt with would be horribly incorrect. I do have a question that maybe you could shed some light on though. How many rounds do you think a firearm should hold? In other words, if a grandmother finds herself in danger and must defend herself, how many rounds would you say she deserves? Please don't take offense to my comments. None are meant to sound harsh.
brb

Downey, CA

#18 Sep 12, 2012
youre not getting it I don't think there should be any law limiting guns or clips but i would assume a big ole banana clip is not needed for home protection.. of course anything can happen but the chance youre gonna get into a shoot out old west style to save your life is slim at best.. we need the right to own these guns to stop the government/military if it ever gets to that point and thats the reason I support gun ownership even though i wouldnt touch a gun with a 10 foot pole.. you wanted libs to come in here and bash your right to bear arms.. sorry dude i'm not that guy
Gun Nut

Missouri City, TX

#19 Sep 12, 2012
I'm not trying to draw you into anything. I completely understand you don't have any desire to own a firearm, and you don't care if I do. I get it. My question is, how many rounds should be available for protecting your family against anyone? Up to and including defense against government. Again, not trying to draw you into anything. I ask that question because I hear the media saying there's no need to have more than ten rounds in a magazine. I have no idea where the magic number ten comes from and would like to know what their thinking is. Not that you personally would know. Anyway, just some honest questions.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#20 Sep 12, 2012
Gun Nut wrote:
I'm not trying to draw you into anything. I completely understand you don't have any desire to own a firearm, and you don't care if I do. I get it. My question is, how many rounds should be available for protecting your family against anyone? Up to and including defense against government. Again, not trying to draw you into anything. I ask that question because I hear the media saying there's no need to have more than ten rounds in a magazine. I have no idea where the magic number ten comes from and would like to know what their thinking is. Not that you personally would know. Anyway, just some honest questions.
Standard issue police pistols are fifteen rounds.

The question for the media would be why would police need fifteen rounds.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Assault weapon bans should stand 6 hr duzitreallymatter 826
News No wedding for Bristol Palin (May '15) 22 hr Three Days 47
News Facebook Spends $16 Million on Armed Guards for... Apr 29 okimar 1
News Hillary to Voter Calling for More Second Amendm... Apr 24 GoForTheBandit 1
News Crimson Trace Provides Improved Accuracy Apr 22 duzitreallymatter 1
News It's just a bill Apr 20 payme 1
News Advocates: Vegas Woman Slaying Illustrates Find... Apr 19 spytheweb 1
More from around the web