Defense rifle vs assault rifle

[evenflow1969]

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

Unless you're planning on standing off a squad of infantry and your home is extremely isolated a rifle is a terrible choice for home defense.

whats your address???

You don't know what I do, so I'm just gonna let that slide. I should give it to you, would serve you right.

I dont care about your sex life,, just give us your address so we can let people know you defend you house with a water gun,,

Operate a security contracting and consulting company. I don't have a gun cabinet, I have an armory. I have my own range with pop-ups and a shoot-house. When business is slow we teach defensive shooting.

For home defense I keep a short old school remington 870 with a pistol grip and extended magazine. Also, being the kind of business it is and the people I employ I'm on a first name basis with local police, sheriff, and FBI.

Still wanna stop by?

Ya, I wanna play with some of that armory and those targets. I got a shit load of walleye and perch to bring. Fish fry and target shooting sounds like a good time. I just have bottles and concrete blocks to shoot. I have always wanted to try one of those good guy bad guy pop up target deals.

 

[night_son]

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

A "defensive" rifle can be defined in several ways or terms, most of which are interchangeable with "offensive" rifle. In the Army we have what are called DDMs or Designated Defensive Marksmen. They are soldiers—infantrymen or sometimes special forces—who are designated for their mid to long range shooting skill to carry accurized M16/M4 rifle systems (sometimes M14 variants) equipped with higher than standard issue power rifle optics and bipods. Their primary function within a combat arms unit is to provide mid to long range highly accurate defensive covering fire as their fellow troops advance on the battlefield. Of course, their role can be offensive as well. I myself worked a year for a private military contractor in Afghanistan as a DDM riding "shotgun" on civilian contractor convoys. Thus is it could be safe and factual to define a defensive rifle in the preceding manner, same as defensive rifle could be any civilian carbine or rifle owned and set up by an American for the purpose of defending his home and family against intruders. Such defensive equipment as flashlights, laser sights, red dot sights, folding iron sights, etc. could be added to the rifle for this purpose.

An "offensive" rifle definition does not really translate well into civilian terms. In military terms an offensive rifle could be defined as a Main Battle Rifle or any modern standard issue service rifle. Or it could be defined as a Long Range Personnel Target Interdiction Rifle or, in laymen's terms, sniper rifle. This type of weapon would be any rifle of higher than standard caliber tailored to neutralize enemy soldiers at extreme ranges, usually 800 meters and beyond. Such rifles could be bolt action or semi-automatic, and could be chambered in a host of calibers from 7.62mm and .338 variants, all the way up to special purpose cartridges such as .510 whisper and .50 BMG.

But here's the "rub", right? A civilian could easily justify desire for ownership of an "offensive" rifle for long range hunting, defensive purposes, target shooting or competing in shooting competitions. Thus we have arrived back the interchangeability between the terms "offensive" and "defensive" rifle.

Suffice it to say any American who sets out to purchase or build an AR15 cannot automatically be accused of wanting to own an "offensive" rifle for some nefarious purpose. And even if they did intend to acquire an "offensive" rifle there's absolutely nothing wrong (or illegal) with that intent or desire.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I’ve always been partial to ‘Modern Sporting Rifle.’

 

[Shawnee_b]

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

Ask fienswine and shoemer, they made up the definition for the 94 AWB

 

[Shawnee_b]

Your opinion means nothing.

Like yours.

 

[progressive hunter]

Your opinion means nothing.

Like yours.

as does yours,,,

 

[Hum Dinger]

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

The AR-15 is based on the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M16), it's classified as an assault rifle.

AR-15 style rifle - Wikipedia
ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia
Assault rifle - Wikipedia

And you're classified as a know-nothing if you think an AR15 is an assault rifle. See my post above. Pay particular attention to the "selective fire" part.

Wrong again, dimwit!

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban created a classification of 'Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles':

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia

makin shit up to fit a narrative doesnt change reality,,

doesnt matter anyway since the 2nd amendment was specifically for military grade weapons,,

So you're saying that I made up the 1994 Federal assault rifles ban?

You have to be a flaming idiot!

NO, the 2nd amendment was not specifically for military grade weapons.

Try researching...and stop making up stuff to suit your opinion!

 

[Hum Dinger]

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban created a classification of 'Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles':

emphases added on "created"

I will just sit over here being right.

Yes, classifications are created. What's your point?

 

[Hum Dinger]

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

The AR-15 is based on the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M16), it's classified as an assault rifle.

AR-15 style rifle - Wikipedia
ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia
Assault rifle - Wikipedia

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

You're asking how a machine can be classified as an automobile if no one intends to drive it.

Pretty stupid question!

 

[progressive hunter]

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

The AR-15 is based on the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M16), it's classified as an assault rifle.

AR-15 style rifle - Wikipedia
ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia
Assault rifle - Wikipedia

And you're classified as a know-nothing if you think an AR15 is an assault rifle. See my post above. Pay particular attention to the "selective fire" part.

Wrong again, dimwit!

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban created a classification of 'Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles':

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia

makin shit up to fit a narrative doesnt change reality,,

doesnt matter anyway since the 2nd amendment was specifically for military grade weapons,,

So you're saying that I made up the 1994 Federal assault rifles ban?

You have to be a flaming idiot!

NO, the 2nd amendment was not specifically for military grade weapons.

Try researching...and stop making up stuff to suit your opinion!

where did I say you made it up,,

and of course the 2nd was for military type of weapon,, because at the time all weapons were used by them,,,

maybe its you that need to do some research?? in fact I know its you,,

 

[Hum Dinger]

If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.

You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.

In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.

That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

 

[Hum Dinger]

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

A "defensive" rifle can be defined in several ways or terms, most of which are interchangeable with "offensive" rifle. In the Army we have what are called DDMs or Designated Defensive Marksmen. They are soldiers—infantrymen or sometimes special forces—who are designated for their mid to long range shooting skill to carry accurized M16/M4 rifle systems (sometimes M14 variants) equipped with higher than standard issue power rifle optics and bipods. Their primary function within a combat arms unit is to provide mid to long range highly accurate defensive covering fire as their fellow troops advance on the battlefield. Of course, their role can be offensive as well. I myself worked a year for a private military contractor in Afghanistan as a DDM riding "shotgun" on civilian contractor convoys. Thus is it could be safe and factual to define a defensive rifle in the preceding manner, same as defensive rifle could be any civilian carbine or rifle owned and set up by an American for the purpose of defending his home and family against intruders. Such defensive equipment as flashlights, laser sights, red dot sights, folding iron sights, etc. could be added to the rifle for this purpose.

An "offensive" rifle definition does not really translate well into civilian terms. In military terms an offensive rifle could be defined as a Main Battle Rifle or any modern standard issue service rifle. Or it could be defined as a Long Range Personnel Target Interdiction Rifle or, in laymen's terms, sniper rifle. This type of weapon would be any rifle of higher than standard caliber tailored to neutralize enemy soldiers at extreme ranges, usually 800 meters and beyond. Such rifles could be bolt action or semi-automatic, and could be chambered in a host of calibers from 7.62mm and .338 variants, all the way up to special purpose cartridges such as .510 whisper and .50 BMG.

But here's the "rub", right? A civilian could easily justify desire for ownership of an "offensive" rifle for long range hunting, defensive purposes, target shooting or competing in shooting competitions. Thus we have arrived back the interchangeability between the terms "offensive" and "defensive" rifle.

Suffice it to say any American who sets out to purchase or build an AR15 cannot automatically be accused of wanting to own an "offensive" rifle for some nefarious purpose. And even if they did intend to acquire an "offensive" rifle there's absolutely nothing wrong (or illegal) with that intent or desire.

In

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court said:

" that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated "

The question is "What is a reasonable level of arms for civilian purposes"

The AR-15 has a destructive capability and range far beyond what could be considered 'self-defense'. It's destructive capability makes it useless for hunting. By design its not suited for any valid civilian purpose - it is a public hazard.

Handguns and shotguns are reasonable for self-defense.

Yet, as someone who has lived in high crime areas for many years, I've never had a reason to own a gun.

I don't understand why anyone would want one - but I suspect in most cases people want them to intimidate their friends into staying away from their wives!

 

[progressive hunter]

If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.

You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.

In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.

That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

you have that backwords,,, the constitution doesnt grant that right it protects it because its inalienable,,, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

a constitutional right is in fact not a right but a privilege/law granted by the government and can take it away,,, as the 2nd says,, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.

The official designated term should be pew pew guns..

 

[EvMetro]

You're asking how a machine can be classified as an automobile if no one intends to drive it.

Pretty stupid question!

No, I am not asking about automobiles, I am asking how a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner.

 

[Crepitus]

How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?

Unless you're planning on standing off a squad of infantry and your home is extremely isolated a rifle is a terrible choice for home defense.

whats your address???

You don't know what I do, so I'm just gonna let that slide. I should give it to you, would serve you right.

I dont care about your sex life,, just give us your address so we can let people know you defend you house with a water gun,,

Operate a security contracting and consulting company. I don't have a gun cabinet, I have an armory. I have my own range with pop-ups and a shoot-house. When business is slow we teach defensive shooting.

For home defense I keep a short old school remington 870 with a pistol grip and extended magazine. Also, being the kind of business it is and the people I employ I'm on a first name basis with local police, sheriff, and FBI.

Still wanna stop by?

r/iamverybadass

And this is why I almost never mention it here.

And, you have been one to throw that shit around yourself.

I have no doubt you have the will and ability to defend your home. Why do you doubt our ability?

I have never argued you shouldn't be able to defend your home. I said a rifle was a poor choice to do it. I am also a proponent of licensing, registration, and insurance requirements. (You wouldn't believe what the insurance here costs).

My 100lb wife can't handle my 12 gauge. She is a great shot with a 9mm handgun, but WAY more accurate with the AR15.

You want me to limit her the ability to defend herself when I am away?

You wouldn't be a proponent of licensing free speech or the right to vote. Is it a right or not?

She's more accurate at indoor distances with an ar? I find that difficult to believe. Also at 100lb she's gonna have an easier time maneuvering the 9. Make sure you've loaded with something that won't go through too many walls.

Neither free speech nor the right to vote are physical objects that can kill your children if left unsecured. False equivalency is still false.

If she were going room to room hunting down the intruder, maybe (assuming no SBR or equivalent), but holding a position is much better achieved with a rifle, particularly a semi-auto with a large-capacity magazine so she doesn't have to reload.

It's very subjective I guess, I wouldn't recommend it but if that's what the two of you are most comfortable with who am I to say it's not right for you?

Just be mindful of what's down range.

 

[Crepitus]

Neither free speech nor the right to vote are physical objects that can kill your children if left unsecured. False equivalency is still false.

Right. We need to license and regulate computers and other forms of communication....

True equivalency....

You've completely and possibly deliberately misread the point of my statement.

No, the point of your statement is that you want to convert a right into a privilege, issue a license, charge a fee, and require insurance.

Other folks have rights too. Like the right to not accidentally be shot by someone who has no idea how to handle a gun, and the right to have their expenses taken care of if it does happen.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.

You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.

In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.

That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

WRONG AGAIN!!!

Jesus. You and rights do not belong together in the same sentence. You are a willing subject.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Neither free speech nor the right to vote are physical objects that can kill your children if left unsecured. False equivalency is still false.

Right. We need to license and regulate computers and other forms of communication....

True equivalency....

You've completely and possibly deliberately misread the point of my statement.

No, the point of your statement is that you want to convert a right into a privilege, issue a license, charge a fee, and require insurance.

Other folks have rights too. Like the right to not accidentally be shot by someone who has no idea how to handle a gun, and the right to have their expenses taken care of if it does happen.

And the burden to prove it happened due to another's negligence.

The gun owner has the right to due process.

 

[Crepitus]

Neither free speech nor the right to vote are physical objects that can kill your children if left unsecured. False equivalency is still false.

Right. We need to license and regulate computers and other forms of communication....

True equivalency....

You've completely and possibly deliberately misread the point of my statement.

No, the point of your statement is that you want to convert a right into a privilege, issue a license, charge a fee, and require insurance.

Other folks have rights too. Like the right to not accidentally be shot by someone who has no idea how to handle a gun, and the right to have their expenses taken care of if it does happen.

And the burden to prove it happened due to another's negligence.

The gun owner has the right to due process.

And?