Yes, I Own Assault Rifles
- Thread starter blaxsun
- Start date
- Status
A heavy (relatively speaking) beeyotch of a battle rifle that was as reliable as a sledgehammer?
The FN FAL series of rifles are not, and never were, "assault" rifles. They did not fire an intermediate power round, but a full-sized 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge, which has about the same ballistics (in a shorter case) as the good 'ol 30-06.
Sorry about the hijack. Now, on to the topic at hand.
I think Blaxsun made some good points there. Thanks to the media and Hollywood, everyone that doesn't know any better sees the M-16/AR-15/AK-47 silhouette and thinks "OMFG, it's an assault rifle". Blaxsun explained WHY his "assault rifles" are "commercial models", and the person he was talking to immediately understood the differences between the two.
WE, as enthusiasts, know what the differences are, but the general public, misled by the media and Hollywood, doesn't have a clue. For proof of this statement, look at the "panic" after the Aurora Colorado theater shooting (hell, look at our own Parti Quebecois shooting with the CZ 858): in the general public's eyes, the firearms used were "evil assault rifles".
Blaxsun made a convert of this person, and that's what we need to do - one citizen at a time.
- Location
- Parksville Vancouver Island
I prefer for him to paddle me unsolicited
This B/S really bugs me.
No.
It is a Service Rifle.
As are most every single military small arm rifles designed and fielded by militaries around the globe.
Firing an intermediate cartridge, being capable of burst or fully automatic fire, having a pistol grip or other design feature doesn't matter. What makes an "assault rifle" is it's employment, and has sfa to do with semantics.
As an example, Lee Enfield MkIIIs were employed as "assault rifles" at Vimy Ridge in WWI.
Canadian troops went on offensive action and used those rifles in the "assault" of the prepared German defences.
Not only do we have people in the general public that are clueless about the deployment of service rifles, but we have self proclaimed experts in and amongst firearms owners and gun enthusiasts who have never served in a military uniform that claim to know the difference....
No.
It is a Service Rifle.
As are most every single military small arm rifles designed and fielded by militaries around the globe.
Firing an intermediate cartridge, being capable of burst or fully automatic fire, having a pistol grip or other design feature doesn't matter. What makes an "assault rifle" is it's employment, and has sfa to do with semantics.
As an example, Lee Enfield MkIIIs were employed as "assault rifles" at Vimy Ridge in WWI.
Canadian troops went on offensive action and used those rifles in the "assault" of the prepared German defences.
Not only do we have people in the general public that are clueless about the deployment of service rifles, but we have self proclaimed experts in and amongst firearms owners and gun enthusiasts who have never served in a military uniform that claim to know the difference....
Steve Janes
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Calgary/Ontario
A very valid point
PurpleCrow
CGN Regular
- Location
- The Chilly North
Well that's my point. People are trying to say a rifle has to have certain features to be an "assault rifle" which is silly, ie, if it doesn't have full auto it cannot be an assault rifle. It's just semantics. The word assault comes from a certain use of it. Also, the argument that it has to have a certain sized magazine in order to be an "assault" rifle is also silly. So it's the magazine that dictates what kind of rifle it is? lol. The rifle is a rifle regardless of whether you have a low capacity or high capacity magazine.
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Blaxsun, I for one appreciate you sorting the individual out.
More importantly, did you sell him a Loctite Franchise?
Not yet. He needs to get his RPAL first.
I don't own Assault Rifles but do own semi-automatic rifles.
Assault rifles aren't even defined since antis/media bastardize the simple nomenclature of fully auto rifles.
What the hell is BLACK & SCARY
If someone insist on an answer to "Do you own an Assault Rifle" my most accurate answer is YES, I own a green and pretty rifle.
Assault rifles aren't even defined since antis/media bastardize the simple nomenclature of fully auto rifles.
What the hell is BLACK & SCARY
If someone insist on an answer to "Do you own an Assault Rifle" my most accurate answer is YES, I own a green and pretty rifle.
from google
as·sault ri·fle
Noun
A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
From merriam-webster
Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
as·sault ri·fle
Noun
A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
From merriam-webster
Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Like I said... assault rifle.
{An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between fully automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It should be distinguished from the US legal term assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in terms of using an intermediate cartridge power that is between light machine guns firing full power cartridges, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a lower powered pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Fully automatic fire refers to an ability for a rifle to fire continuously until the magazine is empty and no rounds remain; "burst-capable" fire refers to an ability of a rifle to fire a small yet fixed multiple number of rounds with but one press of the trigger; in contrast, semi-automatic refers to an ability to fire but one round per press of a trigger. The presence of selective fire modes on assault rifles permits more efficient use of rounds to be fired for specific needs, versus having but a single mode of operation, such as fully automatic, thereby conserving ammunition while maximizing on-target accuracy and effectiveness.}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
No one owns an Assault rifle unless you have a prohibited class license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
No one owns an Assault rifle unless you have a prohibited class license.
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Carbean, carbine...
First off, I think the term "assault weapon" is derogatory in a sense. It was made up to imply a certain class of guns are evil by inferring they are used to assault, attack others. Which I don't believe is the case, especially within the borders of the United States, the term "defense weapon" would be far more appropriate. By extension, I thus believe the term "assault rifle" to be inappropriate, because as beltfed said, it is a certain class of firearm designed for a particular usage as the name implies.
Second, I believe in a broad definition of the term sporting usage. It can be anything from target practice, hunting, IPSC, PPC, war re-enactment's, and so forth. Service Rifle...
Thus, if people ask me or misconstrued the facts as I see them, I will do my best to politely explain it to them. But, as to blaxsun's point I will not misconstrued what the sport is to me, nor what their impressions may be or should be. The same as I wouldn't tell some one boxing or Karate doesn't involve fighting or Kendo and Fencing isn't based off the usage of a sword. But, further to that I would ask the other person to really think about that, why do the other sports not have the same notorious stigma that mine does. I am not a criminal any more than someone who practices Taekwondo, nor am I any more likely to assault anyone. According to some statistics I have seen I am less likely than the general population.
Second, I believe in a broad definition of the term sporting usage. It can be anything from target practice, hunting, IPSC, PPC, war re-enactment's, and so forth. Service Rifle...
Thus, if people ask me or misconstrued the facts as I see them, I will do my best to politely explain it to them. But, as to blaxsun's point I will not misconstrued what the sport is to me, nor what their impressions may be or should be. The same as I wouldn't tell some one boxing or Karate doesn't involve fighting or Kendo and Fencing isn't based off the usage of a sword. But, further to that I would ask the other person to really think about that, why do the other sports not have the same notorious stigma that mine does. I am not a criminal any more than someone who practices Taekwondo, nor am I any more likely to assault anyone. According to some statistics I have seen I am less likely than the general population.
Last edited:
- Status
