Assault Rifle definition

[Withergyld]

This is a paper I have been working on for one of my College classes. Tell me what you think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 13, 2004 the Assault Weapons Ban will expire. There is much debate about the effects if any this law has had in crime. There is proposed legislation that would redefine the weapons that are prohibited by the Assault Weapons Ban. If one were to look up the term “assault rifle” in the dictionary, the definition may or may not include semi-automatic rifles in the definition of what constitutes an assault rifle. The definition in the current Assault Weapons Ban has most certainly influenced the definition of which weapons are categorized as assault rifles.
In order to get a clearer understanding of the historical definition of the attributes of an assault rifle, it is helpful to find reference material from before the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban. One source that is helpful is Small Arms of the World by W.H.B. Smith. This book contains a history of firearms and information on almost all military arms produced before it was published. The 1973 printing does not define the term “assault rifle”, however the index of the book lists several weapons under the heading of “assault rifle” (765) . A careful examination of the characteristics of the rifles listed shows that all of the rifles listed have the detachable magazines, and are select fire. Select fire means that the firearm can fire in either semi-automatic mode or full-automatic mode depending on the position of the selector switch. The Firearms Encyclopedia by George C Nonte Jr. also published in 1973 defines an assault rifle as “a military rifle intended purely for one man operation and equipped to provide either semiautomatic or fullautomatic fire by means of a selector switch or other fire-control device. They are chambered for an intermediate cartridge, have barrels under 20 inches, make extensive use of plastics and stampings, use gas operation and locked breeches, have magazine capacities of 20 to 30 rounds, weigh from six to ten pounds, and are quite compact.” (12). By comparing these two sources the primary characteristics of an assault rifle are the ability to function in either full-automatic or semi-automatic modes, fire an intermediate cartridge and the ability to use detachable magazines of 20 to 30 round capacity. An intermediate cartridge is a cartridge smaller then the 30-06 and larger then the .30 carbine (Smith 587). Although the Bushmaster XM 15 looks identical to the M 16 assault rifle, the Bushmaster XM 15 is not an assault rifle because it does not have the ability to provide full-automatic fire. A careful analysis of the characteristics of the M 16 and the Bushmaster XM 15 will show that while they are similar, they are not identical.
Both the M 16 and the Bushmaster XM 15 rifles fire the .223 rifle cartridge. The .223 is an intermediate size cartridge because it is smaller then the 30-06 rifle cartridge and larger then the .30 carbine cartridge. The M 16 rifle is generally issued with a 29 round magazine. According to the Bushmaster web page the XM 15 is usually sold with a five or ten round magazine. The 20 round military magazines designed for the M 16 will fit and function in the Bushmaster XM 15. The M16 rifle was designed in the early 60’s as a military assault rifle. It has been issued in several configurations. All of the issued configurations of the M 16 are select fire. The Bushmaster XM 15 is a civilian version of the M 16 rifle that is limited to semi-automatic fire only. The M16 rifle and the Bushmaster XM 15 rifle are composed of two major components, the upper receiver which consists of the barrel, bolt and bolt carrier and the lower receiver which contains the firing mechanism, butt stock and magazine well. The upper receiver of the Bushmaster XM 15 is interchangeable with the upper receiver of the M16 rifle. Many of the parts of the two rifles are interchangeable including the magazine. The primary difference between the two rifles is in the firing mechanism. The M16 has a selector switch has three positions, safe, semi and auto. The safe position prevents the rifle from being fired. The semi position allows the rifle to fire in semiautomatic mode. It will fire one bullet and one bullet only each time the trigger is pulled. To fire again the trigger must be released and pulled again. The auto position will allow the rifle to fire automatically. When the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire bullets as long as the trigger is held back and there is ammunition left in the magazine. The selector on the Bushmaster XM 15 only has two positions, safe and semi. The rifle functions the same as the M16 when the selector is in the safe and semi positions. The inside of the Bushmaster lower receiver is machined differently so that the parts that allow the M 16 to produce full automatic fire will not fit. This is to prevent the installation of M 16 parts in a Bushmaster XM 15 in an attempt to allow the Bushmaster XM 15 function exactly the same as the M16.
The current Assault Weapons Ban defines a “new” type of weapon. This definition found the United States Code Title 18 Chapter 44 § 921 (a)(30)(B) defines a semiautomatic assault rifle as “a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and a grenade launcher.” The proposed legislation to strengthen and renew the current Assault Weapons Ban is known as in the Senate as S. 1431 and in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2038. Both Bills define a semiautomatic assault rifle as “ semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has: a folding or telescoping stock; a threaded barrel; a pistol grip; a forward grip; or barrel shroud.” The term “semiautomatic assault rifle” defined in § 921 of the United States Code, H.R. 2038 and in S. 1431 is a contradiction in terms because the historical meaning of “assault rifle” is a rifle that can fire both full automatic and semiautomatic.
As has been shown the M 16 and the Bushmaster XM 15 are similar in design and almost identical in appearance. Although the Bushmaster XM 15 fires an intermediate cartridge and has the ability to use 20 round magazines, it is not an assault rifle because it lacks the ability to fire in full-automatic mode. The ability to fire in either semiautomatic or fully automatic modes is one of the defining characteristics of the assault rifle.

[jody]

1. Suggest you search DU's archive under J/PS for relevant discussions

The definition of Assault Weapon used in federal law has little to do with assault rifles or machine pistols.

The term was invented by gun-grabbers who intentionally wanted people to associate semiautomatic firearms with assault rifles and machine pistols.
:hi:

[Withergyld]

2. I agree.

That is the point of my paper I am working on.
I would search the archives, but I don't have my "star" yet.

[Hrumph]

4. Just a suggestion...

Winning a debate on public policy, or anything else, for that matter, is always easier if you are able to define the language of the debate itself. As far as I've been able to determine, the popular term "assault weapon" was coined by Josh Sugarman of the VPC. The M-16 was probably (and perhaps still is) the most visually recognizable military weapon ever issued. And to they layman, the M-16 is indistinguishable from the civilian AR-15 and, therefore, a ripe target for such symantic manipulations.

I think you might do well to concentrate a little bit more on the evolution of the language and a little less on the technical differences between the two rifles.

[Lefty48197]

5. And the "definition of assault weapons"

was invented by NRA nuts who want us to spend the rest of our lives chasing our tails in circles, in order to prevent us from implementing our left wing agendas.

[Withergyld]

9. cite please

"And the "definition of assault weapons" was invented by NRA nuts who want us to spend the rest of our lives chasing our tails in circles, in order to prevent us from implementing our left wing agendas.
I haven't heard this before.

[Lefty48197]

15. Yes you have

eom

[Withergyld]

19. can you give a cite

showing where the NRA came up with the definition in the AWB??

[leanings]

11. How do you enact laws without definitions?

And what is your definition of an assault weapon? Pro-controllers don't seem too happy with the results of their last attempt to legally define them; what additions to the definition should made? What will occur if, supposing a new ban is enacted, gun manufacturers comply with it and turn out firearms basically similar to the ones that were just banned?

The differences between "assault weapons" and any other semi-auto are almost entirely cosmetic. Magazine capacity is the only variation that has even the remotest relevance, and it's a pretty tiny difference. I've got a ten round mag for my Remington 7600 30-06 rifle, all wood, run-of-the-mill deer gun. I can put out 20 rounds within a couple of seconds of the time it would take to do the same out of a bayonet-lugged, pistol-grip, compensated FAL "assault rifle", with the same accuracy. If I want to cut those few seconds off I could fabricate a couple of 20 round mags for the Remington in an afternoon. What purpose does this legislation perform? That's a REAL issue, not some right wing fabrication. Just look at the last attempt to define them in the '94 law.

It's not the NRA who made up an issue here.

[Booger]

3. fan that Mini 14

and you have one fine and effective assault weapon.

And golly, it looks like grandpa's old squirrel shooter!

Sorry, no real help, just a thought.

[Lefty48197]

6. I think mini 14's only shoot .22 rounds right?

Not even comparable to the .223's that McVeigh used to spray around the pumpkin patch.

[Romulus]

7. bzzt - thanks for playing

"I think mini 14's only shoot .22 rounds right?"
Not even comparable to the .223's that McVeigh used to spray around the pumpkin patch.

<ROFL>

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=1801&return=Y

[Lefty48197]

16. Oh Great! Now we're playing the...

you don't know as much about guns as I do, so you shouldn't even enter the discussion about gun control. Kind of like Bush letting the Oil industry regulate itself.

[leanings]

29. No one is saying you shouldn't enter the debate

But familiarity with the subject is crucial to understanding the argument. The Brady Campaign screaming about "assault rifles" is more akin to the Bushistas screaming about the "death tax"; if don't know the facts about the issue, it sounds horrible. Like the Repubs, the Brady's rely on the impact of the phrase rather than the facts behind it.

[CarinKaryn]

8. I like the definition -

a weapon used for assault. Why do we keep messing around like this? These are guns used for killing people. EOD

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CarinKaryn]

12. What are you referring to?

[Withergyld]

17. this

all military guns are designed to kill. They are ALL assault weapons. You have no reason, and no right to possess these arms.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=17583#17841

[Valarauko]

28. all military guns are designed to kill

Actually, military guns are designed to PROTECT

[slackmaster]

80. www.centuryarms.com keeps giving me a login prompt for your graphic

I don't have an account with them.

:D

[Withergyld]

82. I don't know why it is doing that

I was multi-tasking when I posted this thread, I thought it was just a bug on my pc

[slackmaster]

83. It's happening on both my home and work machines

At first AI thought it was a fluke. Apparently the Web server at Century thinks you need to have a Windows domain account in order to view that graphic.

administrator/century, administrator with no password, and a bunch of other obvious possibilities don't work.

:D

[Withergyld]

84. I just figured out what is happening

unfortunately, it is too late to go back and edit the url for that post.
edit to add
I sent FlashHarry a p.m. asking him to modify/delete the ofendig post

[leanings]

13. Messing around like what?

Which particular 50 cents worth of metal on which particular "assault rifle" draws your ire? The bayonet lug, without which so many mass bayonettings would be possible? The "flash hider", which reduces the amount of light that a shooter sees coming out of the barrel? The pistol grip which apparently allows everyone to shoot a gun from each hip with deadly accuracy, just like Rambo? (still trying to get this one to work for me)

[Lefty48197]

18. Didn't the DC sniper use a flash suppressor to conceal their location

and thereby prolong their killing spree? And isn't that the same 'flash hider' that you are implying is so benign?

[Withergyld]

21. cite please

I do not think their rifle had a "flash hider"

[BullDozer]

23. Wrong

The stolen rifle they used was completely compliant with all aspects of the 1994 AWB.

It had no flash suppressor.

No bayonet lug
No threaded muzzle
No folding or collapsible stock
No Grenade launcher

[leanings]

25. No, my friend

And this type of reaction is what really frustrates those of us who know guns. It's physically impossible to "hide" muzzle flash. When a weapon is discharged, a large plume of flame shoots several feet out of the muzzle. Flash hiders, or flash suppressors, or compensators generally have one or two purposes; to keep the amount of flash viewed by the shooter to a minimum in order to retain night vision in low light and/or to redirect the hot gases which cause the plume in order to counteract the natural "muzzle flip" of the firearm. There's no way to "hide" the flash from the muzzle from observation to the sides or front.

[slackmaster]

34. No, that is not correct

They used a Chevrolet Caprice to conceal their location. The shots were fired from inside the trunk of the car.

Regardless of what kind of device was on the muzzle of their rifle most of the muzzle flash and blast (noise) would have been concealed by the car itself.

That does raise an interesting (though probably moot) legal issue: The shooters could probably be prosecuted for possessing an unregistered sound suppressor ("silencer") because of the way the car was used.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

33. exactly

i went into the gun store and they have cheap ak47 knock-offs, from like the czech republic or something, that just have a thumbhole grip cut into the stock instead of a pistol grip. The whole assault weapons ban was just meandered around through loopholes - or in this case - thumbholes.

[slackmaster]

35. That's what happens when laws are written by ignorant people

If you really want to write effective laws, ones that actually accomplish what you want them to accomplish, you cannot do it without consulting technical experts.

Of course the AWB was enacted for political reasons largely unrelated to a quest for improved public safety.

[jhfenton]

14. With that definition...

no weapon in my possession would ever be an assault weapon, because I have never committed and will never commit an assault.

I like this definition. Thank you. This way, an "assault weapon" is the non-lethal counterpart to a "murder weapon," a weapon used to commit a murder.

By the way, my guns aren't used for killing people. In fact, I am committed to buying up as many firearms as I can, as a public service. :)

"Keep this gun off the streets. Buy it for yourself."

[Lefty48197]

20. Good job jhfenton!

If you see any Tim McVeighs, Nichols brothers, or Columbine killers, then please buy up all their guns too. Thank you.

[jhfenton]

22. Thanks for the encouragement

I do have a major financial limitation in my quest to acquire firearms. I'm not rich and firearms are expensive. Therefore, I will gladly accept donations to be put toward keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. ;-)

[rl6214]

26. Correct me if I'm wrong but

the only illegal firearms any of these people had was the sawed off shotgun the columbine killers had. None of them had "assault weapons".

[slackmaster]

32. Using the federal definition of AW you are absolutely correct

n/t

[Valarauko]

27. LOL!

Then baseball bats surely fit in too?

[slackmaster]

31. Did I wake up on another planet just now?

CarinKaryn wrote:

"I like the definition - a weapon used for assault. Why do we keep messing around like this? These are guns used for killing people. EOD"

No object I own has ever been used for an assault, therefore none are assault weapons.

I like that definition too!

A toast to the post.

:toast:

[CarinKaryn]

37. Nice spin!

You are really good at this!
That's like claiming that because you've never put out a fire with your extinguisher, its not for extinguishing fires.

So your claim is that you buy, maintain, practice with and fondle your assault weapon, but it is not for assault?
:puke:

[slackmaster]

39. You haven't explained why I shouldn't own a lethal weapon

Even one expressly designed for killing humans.

As long as I don't USE it for killing humans, what's it to you?

So your claim is that you buy, maintain, practice with and fondle your assault weapon, but it is not for assault?

If you are going to do the sexual put-down routine why not come right out and make some stinging wisecrack about the size of my Johnson? Don't be shy.

But in all seriousness every firearm that I own that is legally classified by either the state of California or the federal government as an assault weapon is simply an item in my gun collection, which is a component of my retirement plan. My firearms are mostly financial investments.

[Booger]

40. AHHAHAHAHA

"practice with and fondle your assault weapon"

I was going to address that one myself, and almost didn't catch your catching of it.
Ah, yes, the true agenda shines eventually.

[CarinKaryn]

45. Better question - Why should you have the "right" to own them

You can't own fighter jets, biological or chemical weapons and that prohibition works well. Let's tighten the screws and ban the weapons that are still available and doing damage.

The BOR does not say you have an individual right to own these.
If it did you'd sue to overturn gun laws saying you can't.

[slackmaster]

47. Your understanding of our legal system seems to be inverted

By default anything that is not specifically prohibited by due process of law is allowed.

You can't own fighter jets...

Not true at all!

Thousands of private citizens own them. It's a very expensive hobby but there are no special permits or licenses required to own a fighter jet. Old Russian MIGs are among the most affordable.

...biological or chemical weapons...

True in a practical sense, but the actual reason you can't is that the paperwork would take longer than your lifetime to complete. There is no law prohibiting you from owning chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons.

Let's tighten the screws and ban the weapons that are still available and doing damage.

Fair enough. My "assault weapons" and other firearms are not doing damage, so keep your paws off my private gun collection.

The BOR does not say you have an individual right to own these.

Yes it does. Let's not bother getting into a "no it doesn't", "yes it does" volley because obviously you and I disagree on this point. I'm willing to agree to disagree.

If it did you'd sue to overturn gun laws saying you can't.

First of all there is no gun law saying I can't own any kind of "assault weapon" as long as I follow the rules. Second, although I believe I would have standing to challenge a gun law I do not have the time or the resources to go it alone.

[Spoonman]

58. Even Better Question - Why should we continue the ban?

"ban the weapons that are still available and doing damage"

Which weapons are those?
What damage are they doing?
Dont forget to include evidence to back up any claims.

[Valarauko]

41. No, it's NOT for assault

it's for DEFENSE - as all weapons.

[CarinKaryn]

44. Then if you were honest

you wouldn't mind banning "assault" weapons.

[slackmaster]

48. You still haven't given a clear definition of assault weapon

Would you care to offer a more specific explanation besides the circular one you keep referring to?

[Withergyld]

49. this is her definition from another thread

all military guns are designed to kill. They are ALL assault weapons. You have no reason, and no right to possess these arms.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=17583#17841

[slackmaster]

50. I know, and she never gave a straight answer about my Swede

My bolt-action rifle. Should it or should it not be BANNED?

:shrug:

Not that it matters much.

[CarinKaryn]

59. Here's a straight answer.

Weapon of war. You don't need it, or have a right to possess it.

[slackmaster]

60. The federal government and state of California disagree

It's my personal property.

I bought it legally.

I keep it legally.

I use it legally.

I can sell it legally.

It was once a weapon of war. It is now an obsolete weapon of war, just as are swords and clubs and battle-axes. It's now a collector's item. People are allowed to own weapons of war.

Your assessment that I have no need for it is irrelevant. The right of people to acquire personal property is not based on need.

Your claim that I have no right to possess it has no basis other than your personal opinion.

[Liberal Classic]

61. Firearms treated under the AWB are not weapons of war because

Armies use rifles capable of selecting between semi- and full-automatic or burst fire. No army equips their infantry with semi-automatic rifles. The AWB deals specifically with the semi-automatic-only repeaters sold onnly to the civilian market. They cannot be converted to full-automatic fire without major modifications and to do so is already a federal crime.

Nevermind that you don't have the authority to tell me what I need in the first place. :)

[slackmaster]

62. CarinKaryn and I are discussing a bolt-action rifle made in 1900

A Swedish Mauser in my personal gun collection.

She apparently thinks the assault weapons ban should be expanded to include all military weapons.

:eyes:

[jody]

64. Including the Winchester Model 12? eom

[slackmaster]

65. From her answers, definitely so

And pikes.

[CarinKaryn]

67. Sure, why not.

Let's not be coy.
Guns - Unless you use them in your government position, you have no need, and no right to possess them. End of story.

I'm saying what many people are thinking, but its almost useless to discuss this with gun lovers. They just can't visualize a world without their weapons.

[demsrule4life]

70. You have just defined a police state

is this really the way you want it to be?

[CarinKaryn]

85. No, I have defined state regulated by laws.

[slackmaster]

71. And you still have not defined "gun lovers" in a non-circular manner

The two definitions you have posited so far amount to assumptions about processes that are going on inside of peoples' minds:

- Gun lovers love guns more than they love safety or security.

- Gun lovers can't visualize a world without their weapons.

I'm trying to see your POV, but so far it looks like you have some personal anger directed at a perceived enemy. A Bogeyman that like most stereotypes may have a kernel of truth, but doesn't apply to very many real people.

[Liberal Classic]

72. Gun lovers. eh?

Same kind of nonsense I get when arguing against drug prohibition. If I argue against the drug war I must be a 'druggie' or at the very least I am under the influence. The truth is that I know very well the negative consequences of addiction and crime, but supporters of prohibition somehow always manage to claim that I am in favor of them. Now it seems that you have made the same connection. When someone argues in favor of the private ownership of firearms, they're a 'gun lover.' Whee.

[Spoonman]

73. Yes, lets not be coy

"no right to possess them" - Bullshit try again

The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own military rifles and handguns

* Report by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982) -- "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment.... There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard."

* The Supreme Court -- In U.S. v. Miller, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense... when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[Withergyld]

63. Need based??

No one "needs" a Corvette, even though it is designed to go way over the speed limit.
Most people do not "need" four wheel drive.
Most people do not "need" A 5000 sq ft house.
who determines what others "need"???

In U.S. v. Miller, SCOTUS found that a weapon that serves no military purpose was not protected by the 2nd. This would strongly imply that military weapons are protected by the 2nd. By the way, Miller never was in the military, so it would appear from thier ruling that the 2nd guarantees an individual right to own miltary type firearms.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174

[CarinKaryn]

66. I actually meant to include this standard boilerplate argument

just to preempt it, but I forgot.
Civilized society regulates all kinds of behaivors and restricts us from possessing many things.
Think its ok to stockpile biological weapons? If not, there is no reason why society can't forbid other weapons of war.

[Liberal Classic]

68. Ah yes like the drug war.

There's a smashing success. :)

[slackmaster]

69. Argument is reasonable to propose but it comes down to value judgements

I think most of us would agree that stockpiling bio-weapons is not OK.

By declaring my old Mauser something that ought to be forbidden you have pushed yourself into the far fringes of gun control extremism. Not even Sarah Brady would agree with you; she bought a hunting rifle that is functionally identical to mine for one of her children as a Christmas present a few years ago.

[CarinKaryn]

76. At one time only a minority of people thought

that People of Color should not be sold as possessions.
I'm happy to be in the front of the fight for sensible restrictions on weapons of war.

[demsrule4life]

78. There is that sensible word

again. Who has any doubt that senisble means total ban?

[slackmaster]

79. I do not agree with your statement about slavery

The issue of slavery in America was always controversial. Many people were opposed to it on principle. Most white families today (including all of my known ancestors) never owned a slave and were never involved in the slave trade. I am quite certain that my Mennonite and Quaker ancestors would never have owned a slave. Slave owners were never more than a small minority of the population. In 1860 the population of the "free" states was considerably more than that of the "slave" states.

I'm happy to be in the front of the fight for sensible restrictions on weapons of war.

By implication you are saying that anyone (like me) who does not agree with your proposed Draconian restrictions is not a sensible person. That is tantamount to an ad hominem attack. I'm pretty sure you don't mean it that way, but invoking the concepts of "sensible" and "common sense" provides a convenient way to avoid discussing the actual merits or lack thereof of an idea.

[Romulus]

81. gee, so am I

I'm happy to be in the front of the fight for sensible restrictions on weapons of war.

I'm pretty committed to keeping the BATFE Article III program for full-auto weapons and sound suppressors:

http://www.atf.gov/pub/nfab/index.htm
All NFA firearms (machine-guns, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, or "destructive devices") that are not in possession or control of the United States government must be registered. Possession of an unregistered NFA firearm is a violation of Federal law and subjects the possessor to possible criminal prosecution and the seizure and forfeiture of the firearm.

Individuals not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law may lawfully acquire an NFA firearm in one of three ways:

1. A registered owner of an NFA firearm may apply to ATF for approval to transfer the firearm to another person residing in the same State or to a Federal firearms licensee in another State;
2. An individual may apply to ATF for approval to make and register an NFA firearm (except for a machine-gun); or
3. An individual may inherit a lawfully registered NFA firearm


P.S. Hey, I broke a thousand! :party:

[solinvictus]

24. Definition

California's recent legislation on semi-automatic firearms is so restrictive that many dealers will sell none of them on the market. They're ban includes the Walther Olympia .22 target pistol. Crazy.

[jody]

30. Your thread has provided several quotes from gun-grabbers that

would make humorous additions to your paper. They demonstrate gross ignorance and refuse to acknowledge facts relating to an indiviudual's inalienable right to defend self and property and use firearms as the most efficient and effective tool.

In a seminal case on the Second Amendment, SCOTUS noted:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

QUOTE
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
UNQUOTE

QUOTE
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
UNQUOTE

In addition, SCOTUS said in PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)

UNQUOTE
The Governor argues that this interpretation of the Militia Clauses has the practical effect of nullifying an important state power that is expressly reserved in the Constitution. We disagree. It merely recognizes the supremacy of federal power in the area of military affairs. 22 The Federal Government provides virtually all of the funding, the material, and the leadership for the State Guard units. The Minnesota unit, which includes about 13,000 members, is affected only slightly when a few dozen, or at most a few hundred, soldiers are ordered into active service for brief periods of time. 23 Neither the State's basic training responsibility, nor its ability to rely on its own Guard in state emergency situations, is significantly affected. Indeed, if the federal training mission were to interfere with the State Guard's capacity to respond to local emergencies, the Montgomery Amendment would permit the Governor to veto the proposed mission. 24 Moreover, <496 U.S. 334, 352> Congress has provided by statute that in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own. 25 <496 U.S. 334, 353>
UNQUOTE {emphasis added}

Following SCOTUS' observation, the "unorganized militia", consisting of about 100 million men and women, when called to duty by the governor of their states, could be expected to report with either a M-16 rifle and/or M-9 pistol supplied by themselves. The M-16 rifle and M-9 pistol are standard arms in common use by U.S. armed forces.

For a list of "unorganized militias" also known as state guards see
You might wish to bookmark [link:www.saf.org/AllSupremeCourtTable.html">SUPREME COURT CASES ON SECOND AMENDMENT, GUNS & OTHER RELATED ISSUES

[jody]

36. My server crashed before I had completed the above reply. I meant

to say "For a list of 'unorganized militias' also known as state guards see The State Guard Association of the United States, Inc. You might want to see what your state laws are regarding its state guard or unorganized militia.

You might also wish to visit SUPREME COURT CASES ON SECOND AMENDMENT, GUNS & OTHER RELATED ISSUES

[Withergyld]

42. Thanks for the links

I book marked 'em. I already had the US v. Miller.
:thumbsup:

[Hammie]

38. You gotta get your terms straight

"Assault Weapon": Any firearm that meets the arbitrary conditions as defined in various pieces of useless legislation.

Assault Rifle: Select-fire rifle chambered in an intermediate power cartridge.

The former is a made up term that means absolutely nothing outside of the legislation in which it appears.

The latter is a real term with a specific meaning in the military lexicon.

No semiautomatic only weapon can ever be properly referred to as an assault rifle. Certain ones can be properly referred to by the offensive term assault weapon.

[CarinKaryn]

43. Why should be use YOUR terms?

Assault weapon - a weapon used for assault.
What's so unclear about that?

[slackmaster]

46. Useless definition because it would include objects other than guns

Lots of weapons other than guns are used for assault.

Many things that are not designed to be used as weapons are used as weapons in assaults. In fact just about anything COULD be used for assault.

WADR you seem to be attempting to apply a non-technical definition to a highly technical subject.

[Hammie]

86. First, they're not my terms.

I am merely pointing out their correct origin and usage.

Second, ignorance is nothing to be proud of. Clarity of thought and communication requires accurate knowlege of the terms that you use to describe your ideas.

If you are not going to use words properly, you might as well just grunt for all the sense you will make.

[Booger]

51. Straw gun

Actually.
Let me be conservative here again.
If our society hadn't let a few generations go to hell with social programs that encouraged no father to be around. A society that no longer allows kids to be spanked in school. A society that glorifies violence. A society that let's MTV and BET raise our kids for us. a society that doesn't tell kids when they've reached a boundary.

In this case, I'm inclined to mostly agree with this line of thinking.
The guns wouldn't be an issue if these other things weren't occuring.

[Liberal Classic]

52. Definitions: Battle Rifle, Sniper Rifle, and Machine Gun

There seems to be a considerable amount of emotional baggage attached to this issue, and as a result little real debate comes out at the end. In order to facilitate better debate, allow me to define some terms in a technical sense so we may be more able to address the larger issues.

The three main types of firearms that we need to cover, these are Battle Rifles, Sniper Rifles, and Machine Guns. For the purposes of this post I am going to ignore pistols and shotguns in order to stay on topic.

Battle Rifle is defined as firearms suited to combat operations, using medium calibre ammunition. Battle rifles typically are fed through a magazine, have iron sights and are desiged for accuracy and reliability, and semi-automatic and full-automatic fire. Most Battle Rifles are designed to operate to ranges out to 800 meters or 1000 yards.

Sniper Rifles are defined as firearms suited to special operations, using large calibre ammunition. Sniper Rifles typically are bolt-action or semi-automatic, have telescopic sights, are designed for accuracy and reliability. They are designed to operate out to 2000 meters, or nearly a quarter mile for the largest calibres.

Machine Guns are defined as firearms suited to infantry combat operations, using medium to large calibre ammunition. Machine Guns are typically belt fed, but smaller versions are box fed. Large calibres are effective out to 2000m but are heavy crew-operated weapons, whereas small calibres are carried by an individual and are shorter range. Machine Guns are designed primarily to produce a large volume of fire.

Assault Rifles are Battle Rifles. The only difference in deployment is the ranges are less, typically 500m or so. Assault Rifles are essentially Battle Rifles that weigh a little less, have a bit lower recoil and shorter range. Most modern militaries use Assault Rifles as Battle Rifles instead of the heavier Battle Rifles designed in the early 20th c. and used in WW-II and Korea. Since Assault Rifles weigh less, the theory was that the infantry man could carry more ammunition and other gear. But the difference Battle Rifles and Assault Rifles is primarily one of doctrine not one of technology. They both fire medium calibre ammunition, both have semi- and full-automatic fire selection, both are individual weapons, both have medium range (as opposed to short range pistols or long range sniper rifles) both are fed from a box magazine, and both are designed with combat operations in mind.

So, while not ever Battle Rifle is an Assault Rifle, every Assault Rifle is a Battle Rifle. There is nothing more evil about an Assault Rifle than a Sniper Rifle, and if anything Sniper Rifles should not be considered less deadly as they fire more powerful ammunition and have greater range. Sniper Rifles are also known as hunting rifles or deer rifles. They typically have pretty woodgrain stocks instead of the cheaper plastic, but they are no less deadly and they are far more numerous.

The Assault Weapon Ban that is the subject of this thread was poorly written because it deals with the wrong issues. The AWB classifies rifles by every criterion other than that of ballistics. It puts rifles in one category based on a buttstock, the grip, the existance of a bayonet lug, or a flash suppressor. If you have a rifle without a pistol-grip, bayonet lug, or flash guard then by the letter of the law you do not have an 'assault weapon' but if the same frame and calibre rifle is attached with the bayonet lug, pistol grip, , collapsable stock, and flash suppressor then the rifle magically becomes an 'assault weapon.' Note that the ballistic capabilities are identical -- not similar or very close, but completely 100% identical between weapons cosmetics not withstanding.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge in firearms knows these cosmetic features to a poor determinant to classify such weapons. Cosmetic features do not make a firearm, the trigger assembly, barrel, and ammunition make a rifle. Classifying rifles based on these cosmetic features is the same as categorizing automobiles based on the color of paint and pastic trim, not the number of doors and engine displacement.

The AWB is bad law and should expire.

[slackmaster]

53. Assault weapons are inherently NOT military

They are dumbed-down versions of military weapons. None of the firearms covered by the federal AWB are in use by any military organization anywhere in the world. Both pre-ban and post-ban models were developed specifically for a niche of the US civilian gun market. You get some of the desirable features of relatively modern military weapons without the hassle and expense of dealing with the requirements of the National Firearms Act.

Cosmetic features do not make a firearm, the trigger assembly, barrel, and ammunition make a rifle.

IOW lock, stock, and barrel. Just as has been the case since the first firearms were invented back in the 14th century.

[Liberal Classic]

54. You're right. No AWB rifle would be used by army or police

Because they are semi-automatic only. You're absolutely right, in all the disuccions of 'assault weapons' there is no mention that the models for the civilian market are only capable of semi-automatic fire. I guess I was just trying to define some terms.

[Withergyld]

56. Semiautomatic only

is the basis of my argument. A true assault rifle is select fire.

[Romulus]

55. good one

An "assault weapon," as defined in the AWB, puts as much "military killing power" in the hands of civilians as military-uniform-inspired clothing puts the "military killing mindset" into the heads of civilians. :eyes:

[slackmaster]

57. And everybody had better watch out for me today

I'm wearing a pair of Propper brand BDU pants in Jungle Camouflage today.

[Spoonman]

74. Sniper rifles?

I hope they don't go banning these too.
I've got a Shilling barrel 7mm-08 mauser action custom job that I can split hairs with at 400+ yards with on a still day.
Even with a stiff wind a deer at that range does'nt have a chance.
My all time favorite though is my Rem .22-250 VLS BBL. If I can see it through the 4X12X50 Ziess. It's as good as dead.

My "sniper" rifles keep the freezer full.

[Liberal Classic]

75. Deer rifles are sniper rifles

So much for sporting purposes.

[Spoonman]

77. Say it ain't so..........

:mad: :cry: I just don't know what I'll do without them :cry::cry::cry::cry:(by the way, this is meant to be sarcastic for those of you who seem to lack the ability to figure it out)