The issue isn’t with the words rifle and weapon, but “assault rifle” - that is real, and “assault weapon” - anything the antis declare it to be. Could be a shotgun with a pistol grip, a semi-auto rifle with a standard capacity mag, always some type of firearm they hate/fear/do not understand, but it is never any item used to harm someone in a physical attack on someone.
According to military historians, the word was coined for the needs of Nazi propaganda and possibly by Hitler himself.
While it’s a catchy term to represent a loud thing that triggers progs, it is technically and legally meaningless. It started as propaganda, it continues its life as propaganda.
1 Like
Thank you all for this discussion, by the way. I believe words matter, and it seems to me that certain terms and phrases are purposefully used to place limits on the 2nd Amendment. “Assault rifle” is to 2A what “hate speech” is to 1A, if you will.
If we want to defend 2A, it’s important to know where these terms come from and why they’re used. (Is it propaganda or ignorance?) If anyone ever finds these answers, I think it will help all of us.
M-16 is considered an assault rifle because of the switch to change the semi-auto to the burst position. Without the burst position it does not meet the requirement to be an assault rifle.
1 Like
I am a weapon and my rifle is my tool.
But considered an assault rifle by whom? Who decided that anything with fully automatic (or 3-round-burst) fire is an “assault rifle”?
I’m not questioning you, I question the term itself.
As you noted, the Germans did during WWII. That term then became the basis for the term our military used for firearms with those characteristics. Also as you stated, Sturmgewehr is translated to Assault rifle, though its literal translation is storm gun. Our language is filled with words appropriated from other languages, in this instance, a crude translation from German.
I’m really uncomfortable with the idea that we need to regulate our firearms based on Third Reich naming conventions. 
Not to mention questionable translations.
But mostly, I’m falling back to the idea that despite what the AP tells us, the Infantry does not use the term “assault rifle” and that the phrase exists mostly as anti-gun propaganda to suggest that certain firearms are too dangerous to be entrusted to plebes like us. I’ll eat crow if I’m wrong, but I’ve been asking the same question for years and thus far I’ve yet to fire up the grill.
2 Likes
Well, whether or not the infantry uses that term, the auto/burst rifles are “assault rifles”. The term the media and antis use for civilian semi-auto firearms, not just rifles, is “assault weapons”, which is a non-sense term to scare the ignorant. They use that term and include whatever firearms they decide we don’t “need” or claim are “scary”. The new term is “military assault-style weapons”, I gather because “assault weapons” has been used so much that it doesn’t feed the fear any longer. They use the term military, as if that has some scary, dangerous meaning.
Sadly, we are fighting a war of ignorance. The Garand was a military firearm, as was the 1911 and the M92. Those firearms certainly are not any more scary or dangerous than just about any other firearm we are “allowed” to own.
The biggest issue is that we have been fighting an uphill battle since the NFA was passed in 1934. Our government, fueled by media hype, and anti-rights groups, have made certain classes of firearms and people prohibited, and continually add to the lists. They demand that we “compromise”. There is no compromise in these laws, it is always just taking one more piece of our inalienable RKBA. This is why we are where we are today, and why many in our community state “We will not comply.”
2 Likes
Do not have to eat crow. but the term is a term, loosely used like most terms. I have stated before that I am a chef. The fact is, the term is not accurate, the same as a Medium Rare steak is misunderstood. I have had someone order a medium-rare steak with no pink. That is a well done steak. I know this seems far off but, it is the lack of knowledge that echos the inaccuracy of “facts”
I like your response, now we have to educate people.
2 Likes
For what it’s worth, the Brown Bess was a military firearm, too. It even had a bayonet!
We are not “regulating” firearms based on the Third Reich. So, we co-opted a word they used. Probably if you looked closer at our language, there’s more where that came from. We also brought over numerous Nazi scientists for our weapons and rocketry programs.
OK, I see where you and @Dave17 are coming from. Yes, you’re right that this is what many people mean when they say “assault rifle,” and it’s good for us to know that because knowledge is power.
It’ll probably always make me bristle a bit, though, because I don’t believe it’s a real definition. Until I’m proven wrong, I stand by my belief that there’s no such thing as an “assault rifle” in the Army.
1 Like
“Countering the assault rifle comment”
I usually point out that any object or tool including rifles are assault weapons when they are used in an assault capacity. They are Defense Rifles or Weapons when they are used in a Defensive capacity. To further clarify, an AR-15 is a 22 caliber rifle that shoots very small, light bullets. AR-15 Modern Sporting Rifles (as @Harvey pointed out) are much more frequently used for Defense as well as Sport Shooting vs. Assault.
1 Like
“…the very first assault rifle was the German Sturmgewehr Model 1944 (StG-44, also known as the MP-44) Sturmgewehr literally means “assault rifle” in English, so it’s a direct translation.” quora.com
Here’s an image of the very first Sturmgewehr:
The styling is so similar, I can see why that moniker stuck to the AR-15. Even that AR designation (yes, I know what it really stands for), made it easy for everyone to accept that label.
1 Like
Semi automatic rifle.
“Full semi auto”
3 Likes
I don’t understand the term, full semi auto.
Larry
3 Likes
It’s an Oxymoron… which is a rhetorical statement that uses an ostensible self-contradiction to illustrate a rhetorical point or to reveal a paradox. In short, it’s bull$hit.
3 Likes