Is an SKS an "assault" rifle?

[CLW .45]

Firearms Law Must Be Reformed - Before The Next Election

Yep, and so is my Mauser 98.

The term is on a par with Saturday Night Special - which I thought was my weekly bath, until Trudeau senior.

That some firearms owners like to call select fire rifles assault weapons just muddies the water.

The difference between the Swiss Green and the 550 is only a concern to those who have them, and don't want them stolen by government.

They are all firearms, and as such they are targets for a law that was designed specifically to disarm you.

Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to do everything in your power to see that firearms law is reformed - before the next election.

 

[garybusey]

Assault rifles lolol

 

[basic_drill]

After being on this website for a year I have really noticed a large amount of "odd" first posts...

Its the press getting "inside information" (said with a deep serious voice). "Going undercover" has better TV ratings. There's probably some arsehole right now scrolling a page like this one with a video camera trained on it.

 

[Evil_Edie]

pffft, Assault is designation for children's toys. SKS is battle rifle for real men! *spoken with thick russian accent*

 

[EL34/6L6]

If you rob a corner grocery store with a hockey stick, like what happened in Ottawa a week ago, does that now reclassify hockey sticks as assualt hockey sticks or assault weapon? Do we need a registry, permits, ATT's for possesion of an assault hockey stick?

The SKS does not meet any implied definition of Assault anything. Intermediate, semi-auto carbine rifle.
No removeable magazine, no select fire semi/auto/burst etc.
It falls under the same classification of every civilain built semi-auto sporting rifle.

What an assinine analogy.
The SKS was built for war. A hockey stick was built for sport.
We now use the SKS for sport. A hockey stick insnt the choice object of war today.
Which would you deem more appropriate? An SKS used to assault someone to death, or cuddle them into submition?
Dodging the truth with condescending analogies is what hurts firearm owners credibility as a whole.

 

[CLW .45]

What an assinine analogy.
The SKS was built for war. A hockey stick was built for sport.
We now use the SKS for sport. A hockey stick insnt the choice object of war today.
Which would you deem more appropriate? An SKS used to assault someone to death, or cuddle them into submition?
Dodging the truth with condescending analogies is what hurts firearm owners credibility as a whole.

It doesn't matter what it was built for. It is a firearm.

The SKS isn't "the choice object of war today" either. But if it was, it wouldn't matter. It is still just a firearm

 

[EL34/6L6]

It doesn't matter what it was built for. It is a firearm.

The SKS isn't "the choice object of war today" either. But if it was, it wouldn't matter. It is still just a firearm

You misinterpreted. Obviously the SKS isn't today's choice. Cmon.
I said the stick isnt today's choice because he ludicrously asked if it would be restricted in light of recent events.

 

[CLW .45]

Firearms Law Must Be Reformed - Before The Next Election

You misinterpreted. Obviously the SKS isn't today's choice. Cmon.
I said the stick isnt today's choice because he ludicrously asked if it would be restricted in light of recent events.

His question about the stick was valid.

The arguments applied to restrictions on firearms, Tasers, and bear spray could just as easily be applied to restricting hockey sticks.

Calling the hockey stick an assault weapon is no more ridiculous than using the term to demonize a particular firearm, or class of firearms.

 

[EL34/6L6]

His question about the stick was valid.

The arguments applied to restrictions on firearms, Tasers, and bear spray could just as easily be applied to restricting hockey sticks.

Calling the hockey stick an assault weapon is no more ridiculous than using the term to demonize a particular firearm, or class of firearms.

No, I disagree.

 

[Steiner]

What an assinine analogy.
The SKS was built for war. A hockey stick was built for sport.
We now use the SKS for sport. A hockey stick insnt the choice object of war today.
Which would you deem more appropriate? An SKS used to assault someone to death, or cuddle them into submition?
Dodging the truth with condescending analogies is what hurts firearm owners credibility as a whole.

Not really. It just shows the willy nilly approach of labeling something, and the label all of a sudden makes it dangerous.
Bolt action rifles were designed for with military intent in mind.
WW1 bolt action guns were military issue - one role was to assault the enemy trench. But now the bolt action it has become a legitimate hunting tool.
Atomic/nuclear energy was first harnessed for military purposes. It wasn't banned on that premise, was it?
Many daily items have military origin:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31510/9-things-invented-military-use-you-now-encounter-everyday-life
Cell phones can be used to set off IED's - should we ban cell phones too?

Go to Stats Canada, there are years when knife homicides surpass gun homicides. Does the government knee jerk and start banning knives?

The point is there are MOSTLY responsible users in the firearms hobby. We are just trying to make people aware that POTENTIALLY many things can be used to cause 'bad scenarios', but we don't ban them all.

Canadian gun laws have turned into a 'Seek the guilty, but instead punish the innocent' attitude.

 

[basic_drill]

'Seek the guilty, but instead punish the innocent' attitude.

The police mentality is such that "somebody has to be punished" and they really don't care who.

 

[twig_40]

To the Op, you don't happen to be Darrell Ballaart, The author of that terrible piece of reporting?

 

[Tengoo]

The term 'assault rifle' has a fairly specific meaning and the SKS doesn't fit it. However the gun press has been as guilty as anyone in labeling military-style semi-autos as assault weapons.

I really dislike being forced by idiots to use PC language, but the term 'sport-utility gun' attracts me...

 

[Grouse Man]

No. No more than a retired soldier is still in combat. "Obsolete military surplus" is a better term.

 

[Kernel Panic]

The term "weapon" really bothers me as well. It's a firearm unless the bearer uses it to harm or threaten another human being. This just feeds the antis.

 

[crash277]

The term "weapon" really bothers me as well. It's a firearm unless the bearer uses it to harm or threaten another human being. This just feeds the antis.

i was outside my building at lunch time having an R and ATT conversation with guy. another guy joins into the conversation, weapon weapon weapon... was all he used...

 

[Oversight]

I just wrote a letter to the publisher of the paper. Text Below.
--------------------------------------------

Good morning,

I have just come across the Nanaimo Daily's article by Darrell Bellaart, March 15th 2014 ("Nanaimo RCMP discover Soviet assault weapons")

I would like to express my serious dissatisfaction with the tone and content of this article. The entire story focuses on these "assault" rifles and the inherent danger they represent. As a news organization, presumably employing professional writers and journalists, I would expect your paper to know that the term "assault rifle" is a coloquialism based on no actual aspect of a weapon. The SKS is a rifle, and an extremely common one at that. It's not an "assault" rifle. Not an automatic. Just a rifle, like millions of others. It's shoots one bullet at a time, just like every other rifle in Canada.

This is a semi-automatic rifle. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that semi- automatics have been used in mass shootings is not at all relevant to the story, so why mention it? They have also been used for hunting, self defence, the defeat of enemy invaders, and a myriad of other uses for over a century - yet the only use mentioned is as a tool of mass murder. This is sort of scare mongering and grandstanding that are making news outlets like yours less and less respected.
The most telling part of the story is that the drugs and stolen property are mentioned almost as after thoughts, as is the man who actually possessed these (likely stolen) weapons.

Who is Christopher Durkin? Is he an ex-con? Has he been arrested before? Is he in fact the danger to public safety? We have no idea, because Darrell Bellaart (and by proxy, Hugh Nicholson) doesn't seem to care. All of the focus is on these "assault" rifles and their inherent danger. Shouldn't we focus on the problem of theft, defiance of the law and the more-than-likely recidivism of the suspect?

Thank you for your time,

 

[catsledman]

Well said but it's hard to educate an ignorant fool. Need to try though.

I just wrote a letter to the publisher of the paper. Text Below.
--------------------------------------------

Good morning,

I have just come across the Nanaimo Daily's article by Darrell Bellaart, March 15th 2014 ("Nanaimo RCMP discover Soviet assault weapons")

I would like to express my serious dissatisfaction with the tone and content of this article. The entire story focuses on these "assault" rifles and the inherent danger they represent. As a news organization, presumably employing professional writers and journalists, I would expect your paper to know that the term "assault rifle" is a coloquialism based on no actual aspect of a weapon. The SKS is a rifle, and an extremely common one at that. It's not an "assault" rifle. Not an automatic. Just a rifle, like millions of others. It's shoots one bullet at a time, just like every other rifle in Canada.

This is a semi-automatic rifle. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that semi- automatics have been used in mass shootings is not at all relevant to the story, so why mention it? They have also been used for hunting, self defence, the defeat of enemy invaders, and a myriad of other uses for over a century - yet the only use mentioned is as a tool of mass murder. This is sort of scare mongering and grandstanding that are making news outlets like yours less and less respected.
The most telling part of the story is that the drugs and stolen property are mentioned almost as after thoughts, as is the man who actually possessed these (likely stolen) weapons.

Who is Christopher Durkin? Is he an ex-con? Has he been arrested before? Is he in fact the danger to public safety? We have no idea, because Darrell Bellaart (and by proxy, Hugh Nicholson) doesn't seem to care. All of the focus is on these "assault" rifles and their inherent danger. Shouldn't we focus on the problem of theft, defiance of the law and the more-than-likely recidivism of the suspect?

Thank you for your time,

 

[basic_drill]

yet the only use mentioned is as a tool of mass murder.

A lot of people don't know the difference between Murder and Killing. The bible for example, in the part where we get the 10 Commandments, (this should explain why the leftists are such antis) it was translated from Greek into English, and most/many of the english translations have "thou shall not kill" but the word in Greek actually makes it "thou shall not murder" because there is a different word for Kill but in Greek the word Murder was used. For whatever reason, the modern translations all use "thou shall not kill" or variations thereof. There is a succinct difference! And the greek word for "Kill" is used elsewhere where lawful killing is explained and excused. Proof that "spin" goes back centuries.

Even Ghandi said that if you're being shot at, and you are armed, you should return fire because life is sacred. Defend it if you value it, or it will be devalued to the point of defenselessness.