NYT wonders: What exactly is an “assault rifle”?
But Second Amendment groups — and many firearm owners — heatedly object to the use of “assault weapon” to describe guns that they say are routinely used in target shooting and hunting. The term, they argue, should be used only for firearms capable of full automatic fire, like those employed by law enforcement and the military. They prefer the term “tactical rifle” or “modern sporting rifle” for the semiautomatic civilian versions.
They argue that any attempt to ban “assault weapons” is misguided because the guns under discussion differ from many other firearms only in their styling.
“The reality is there’s very little difference between any sporting firearm and a so-called assault weapon,” said Steven C. Howard, a lawyer and firearms expert in Lansing, Mich.
The semantics of the assault weapon debate are so fraught that they can trip up even those who oppose a ban.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Next they’ll figure out that they weren’t really banned under the last ban, either. Sure, they had smooth bores, fixed stocks and no bayonet lug. But you could buy them.
TexasDan on January 17, 2013 at 2:23 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/17/nyt-say-what-exactly-is-an-assault-weapon-anyway/
steebo77 on January 17, 2013 at 2:23 PM
Assault rifle= selective fire, intermediate round, example:SG44.
When do I get paid NYT?
Gatsu on January 17, 2013 at 2:27 PM
So, the NYT has lit up the Progressives’ Bat-signal to alert the Dem message machine it needs to operate at full throttle in finding a different cliche to use in their propaganda efforts.
Dusty on January 17, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Its whatever Obama says it is, dumbass.
BobMbx on January 17, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Interesting that the NYT quotes sources at the VPC, but fails to mention the misinformation campaign that Josh Sugarmann conducted. That campaign was designed to mislead people about the distinction between semi-auto rifles and full-auto capable assault rifles.
novaculus on January 17, 2013 at 2:34 PM
Check this out….happened in my county
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pns3_Peke30
jsunrise on January 17, 2013 at 2:51 PM
That gets more depressingly true by the day doesn’t it…
Gatsu on January 17, 2013 at 2:52 PM
FL Deputy Threatens to Shoot Concealed Carry Licensee and Arrests Him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pns3_Peke30
jsunrise on January 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM
These ignorant anti-gun bozos. Do they really think having a flash suppressor makes a gun more lethal? Bayonet lug? Yeah, a lot people have been killed by bayonet charge here in the U.S. A pistol grip does not make anything more dangerous. Oh, and that grenade launcher bit? Yeah, whole lot of those out there in use. I can change out a magazine in about 2 seconds with no practice and for sure when not worrying about somebody shooting me. Gun free zones? Why wouldn’t you want somebody with a concealed carry license on the premise because the bad guy/nut job doesn’t care if it’s a gun free zone in fact that’s probably why he picked that place. Can somebody please on the right take these clowns to task? Somebody who knows a thing or two about firearms would help.
major dad on January 17, 2013 at 2:59 PM
An ‘assault rifle’ is a weapon used to ‘assault; someone. Therefore, I could own a 40mm AA gun and I promise it would not be an ‘assault weapon’. Defense only; of my family, of my community, of my country, of my Constitution.
michaelo on January 17, 2013 at 3:15 PM
This is the important point to be made:
If there is no difference between the arbitrarily assigned term “Assault Weapon”, then isn’t this just a ban on ALL guns and a direct attack on the right of self-defense and the 2nd amendment?
Galt2009 on January 17, 2013 at 3:27 PM
..don’t blink..
The War Planner on January 17, 2013 at 4:34 PM
Does the NYT also wonder whether “assault rifles” are “arms”?
topdog on January 17, 2013 at 4:46 PM
I think so.
It is probably part of the tactic. First set a precedent with an undefined term like “assault weapon” which is just a semi auto with scary looking parts.
Then use that for the next step, which is to be honest and point out that they are just run of the mill semi autos with a certain look.
Then point out that, in order to actually do something, hand guns have to be addressed, because “assault weapons” only account for about 1% of the gun deaths (justified or not..they are all lumped together).
Then make owning or selling a gun as restrictive as possible.
Legislate ALL guns be registered.
Any transfer of guns between ANYONE must include a thorough and expensive background check to be completed within a restrictive time line. Father to son/daughter?..check his/her background. Friends swapping guns?..check them out and send in the paperwork and fee, etc.
Make any violations grounds for denying the right to possess a gun.
Apply the same to ammo purchases or transfers.
All to be done a bit at a time, accompanied with media propaganda support.
Mimzey on January 17, 2013 at 5:01 PM
Yup – all they oppressive have to do is expand that arbitrary definition to all guns and Viola!
No more 2nd amendment!
Galt2009 on January 17, 2013 at 5:14 PM