What IS the definition of "assault weapon", officially?

outrider58 said:

View attachment 461598

Click to expand...

Rickles! Of course. The Garand of insult weapons.

dblas said:

So you only glanced at the entire white paper, not read the whole thing? And you probably won't but you will take a "fact sheet" from VPC. Mkay

Click to expand...

Why, yes, when I am looking for specific information to back up a certain point of discussion, or further investigate a point that somebody made, my instinct is to CTRL-F and search for the information that I'm looking for. In this case, I found no information which claims that the VPC invented the term, as you argued. What I did find was information which suggests that the VPC turned "assault weapon" into a political buzzword and a new gun control policy frontier, which is hardly the same thing as saying that they conjured up the term out of thin air (as you seem to be implying).

But I'm more than happy for you to quote the specific part of the article that you believe supports your point. I've done the same thing previously, so it shouldn't be too much to expect the same from you.

dblas said:

Not at all, since you highjack ed a Maryland Specific lawsuit to start your diatribe. Now, if you had started a separate thread on the subject then you might have a chance and saying I am mis using context., when in point of fact, you keep moving the goal post.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not moving goal posts at all; you just keep resorting to distraction tactics. Somebody made a claim in the other thread (i.e., that the antis invented the term "assault weapon", and our side never did), so I posted that example to refute their claim. Simple.

BTW, I "hijacked" that thread because, in case you forgot, somebody posted an article which said essentially the same thing I've been saying.

Also, IMHO, "moving the goal posts" is what you are doing when you keep resorting to discussing legal definitions (which I don't care about) vs. definitions based on practical differences between firearms (which is what I'm talking about). This really wouldn't be a "definition" debate at all if you and your buddy Boats didn't keep making it into one.

dblas said:

Your definition sucks and makes absolutely no sense.

Click to expand...

OK, because you said so bluntly?

dblas said:

From a shooter, one who has actually used both, function. I have never been deployed with anything other than a select fire rifle (I have carried all three, FA, 3 round burst, and the step child SA/3RB/FA). Have I ever used anything other than SA? Nope. Have I ever had the need to? Nope. How about you? Have you ever been ANYWHERE "down range"? Have you ever been anywhere where you have needed FA or 3RB? Have you ever even fired said firearms, or are you just providing your opinion based on what you have read and watched in videos?

Click to expand...

So in other words, you are saying that when you went downrange, you used your issue M16 or M4 (whichever it was) only in the same FC setting that you are limited to on your personal AR-15s?

And yes, I'm providing my opinion based on what I've read, and what I've watched, and people I've talked to (either online, or IRL). I'm not sure what else I can do. Maybe you think I should go enlist in USAR or the Guard now? Think they'll take me when I'm almost 40 years old?

BTW, being a biological male who doesn't advertise his pronouns on his social media profiles, I am biologically incapable of having children. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to let feminists tell me that I have no right to an opinion on the abortion debate. I've also never had student loans, but I'm still not going to be dissuaded of my opinion on the Biden Administration's student loan forgiveness program.

dblas said:

Versions of the same weapons, yes, but not the same weapons in function. THAT is the difference, and they matter enough that you, me, and everyone else reading this thread, need to spend $200, get finger prints and wait about 9 months, before you can own a select fire, firearm.

Click to expand...

Right, that may be relevant from a legal perspective. Yes, an M4A1 has a different fire control function than a civilian AR-15, by virtue of the difference in fire control group. But what we're talking about (or rather, what I am talking about) is the practical difference. I am especially thinking about the practical difference for someone with minimal training, vs. someone who is an experienced shooter.

dblas said:

I know enough to know what I am talking about based on real life support in the military, certain units, in certain places. What experience do you have?

I'm so glad you approve based on what you have watched, instead of what you have actually experienced.

Again, approving of my post based on watching a video, instead of personal experience. I'll take my personal experience over your video watching.

Click to expand...

Oh, that's rich. So basically, according to you, nobody can speak about the differences between firearms based on anything except their military experience?

The problem with that argument is that there are veterans in Congress who have also appealed to their military experience to make the argument that AR-15s should be banned. During the debates about VA's gun ban in the past few months, Dan Helmer kept telling everyone that we should trust him that ARs need to be banned because he's a veteran. For that matter, at the en banc hearing in the 4th, Judge Wilkinson tried to make the same argument based on his service in Vietnam (50+ years ago). I suppose that I'm supposed to listen to him when he says that, "The kick was so powerful that when a bullet struck a human being, it splintered them in all sorts of different pieces. There was very little left of the human being?"

I care about their military experience about as much as I care about yours: Zero. Doesn't that I'm not open to hearing what you have to say, but if you think you can tell me, "Shut up, I know better than you because I served," that ain't happening.

dblas said:

Not "ugly" sporting rifles, just semi-automatic rifles, for sporting purposes. If you think that is rediculous, then apparently you have absolutely no clue how we got the Colt Sporter HBAR exempted from the regulated list.

Click to expand...

I know what I've read, and what I've discussed with others on this forum.

dblas said:

So you want to let them define the most useful firearm for mass shootings, when in point of fact it is a handgun and not a rifle or shotgun?

Click to expand...

I don't want to let them do anything. I'm making my own observations.

Also, you're once again forgetting that the other side is complaining about certain types of handguns (like the Steyr SPP that I own, which is a semi-auto version of the TMP machine pistol), not just rifles.

dblas said:

No it's not, not by name and not as a copy. That has been challenged and I can introduce you to at least two people that have bought one in Maryland since 2013.

Click to expand...

Noted, I only know what I've seen on MSP's site.

dblas said:

Your exercise in trying not to do so would only set us back in what we do and how we do it in Annapolis and other state houses.

Click to expand...

What you're basically saying here is that you're afraid of the truth, so you want to suppress it.

dblas said:

Move the goal posts much? You used the cover as an example and now you only want to use the part that is useful to your agruement. It doesn't work that way, you either use it all or not at all. Talk about deflecting.

Click to expand...

You want to be the pot or the kettle? You've done that quite a bit in this discussion, especially since you keep trying to make this debate about legal definitions, vs. practical differences. You have also deflected my arguments about the differences between semi-automatic "assault weapons" vs. other types of semi-automatic firearms, to hyper-focus on what I've said about those same guns vs. their full-auto counterparts.

Anyway, I would surmise that, even if the Gun Digest cover is to be used for your argument, Boats is misusing it. He's making a spurious claim based on factually incorrect assertions about why the cover lists those types of firearms. He's claiming that it represents some sort of definition, when in fact, as I've told him, it does not.

dblas said:

That is something a lot of us have been saying for a long time, in may of the discussions we have with the other side. To include educating them on the difference between semi-auto and full auto. You seem to think that having such a discussion and making the distinction is a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Where did I ever say that? I would do the exact same thing in your position. I agree with you that there are too many people who think "assault weapons" (the ones that the antis want to ban right now) are full-auto weapons. My own wife thought that way until I took her shooting.

I just want us to stop pretending that all semi-automatic weapons are exactly the same thing. As I already told Boats: My Glock 34 and Steyr SPP are both 9mm pistols, and both can take magazines that hold over 30 rounds. But there are functional differences between them that make one of those guns (the SPP) far more controllable when it is fired rapidly compared to the other (the Glock).

dblas said:

I'm not aware of anyone that has gone to Annapolis or other state house, that has ever pretended that they are a semi-automatic version of the FA counterpart. Where we disagree is that there is no functional difference between the two versions, when in point of fact there are.

Click to expand...

Except that's not what I said. Yes, of course there are functional differences - which reside in the FCG. I care more about the practical differences (i.e., what can an inexperienced shooter do with one vs. the other), even though you keep trying to shift the debate to talk legal definitions.

Related and important goings on in Virginia.

MattFinals718 said:

Why, yes, when I am looking for specific information to back up a certain point of discussion, or further investigate a point that somebody made, my instinct is to CTRL-F and search for the information that I'm looking for. In this case, I found no information which claims that the VPC invented the term, as you argued. What I did find was information which suggests that the VPC turned "assault weapon" into a political buzzword and a new gun control policy frontier, which is a very different statement than saying that they invented the term.

But I'm more than happy for you to quote the specific part of the article that you believe supports your point.



No, I'm not moving goal posts at all; you just keep resorting to distraction tactics. Somebody made a claim in the other thread (i.e., that the antis invented the term "assault weapon", and our side never did), so I posted that example to refute their claim. Simple.

Also, IMHO, "moving the goal posts" is what you are doing when you keep resorting to discussing legal definitions (which I don't care about) vs. definitions based on practical differences between firearms (which is what I'm talking about). This really wouldn't be a "definition" debate at all if you and your buddy Boats didn't keep making it into one.



OK, because you said so bluntly?



So in other words, you are saying that when you went downrange, you used your issue M16 or M4 (whichever it was) only in the same FC setting that you are limited to on your personal AR-15s?

And yes, I'm providing my opinion based on what I've read, and what I've watched, and people I've talked to (either online, or IRL). I'm not sure what else I can do. Maybe you think I should go enlist in USAR or the Guard now? Think they'll take me when I'm almost 40 years old?

BTW, being a biological male who doesn't advertise his pronouns on his social media profiles, I am biologically incapable of having children. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to let feminists tell me that I have no right to an opinion on the abortion debate. I've also never had student loans, but I'm still not going to be dissuaded of my opinion on the Biden Administration's student loan forgiveness program.



Right, that may be relevant from a legal perspective. Yes, an M4A1 has a different fire control function than a civilian AR-15, by virtue of the difference in fire control group. But what we're talking about (or rather, what I am talking about) is the practical difference. I am especially thinking about the practical difference for someone with minimal training, vs. someone who is an experienced shooter.



Oh, that's rich. So basically, according to you, nobody can speak about the differences between firearms based on anything except their military experience?

The problem with that argument is that there are veterans in Congress who have also appealed to their military experience to make the argument that AR-15s should be banned. During the debates about VA's gun ban in the past few months, Dan Helmer kept telling everyone that we should trust him that ARs need to be banned because he's a veteran. For that matter, at the en banc hearing in the 4th, Judge Wilkinson tried to make the same argument based on his service in Vietnam (50+ years ago). I suppose that I'm supposed to listen to him when he says that, "The kick was so powerful that when a bullet struck a human being, it splintered them in all sorts of different pieces. There was very little left of the human being?"

I care about their military experience about as much as I care about yours: Zero. Doesn't that I'm not open to hearing what you have to say, but if you think you can tell me, "Shut up, I know better than you because I served," that ain't happening.



I know what I've read, and what I've discussed with others on this forum.



I don't want to let them do anything. I'm making my own observations.

Also, you're once again forgetting that the other side is complaining about certain types of handguns (like the Steyr SPP that I own, which is a semi-auto version of the TMP machine pistol), not just rifles.



Noted, I only know what I've seen on MSP's site.



What you're basically saying here is that you're afraid of the truth, so you want to suppress it.



You want to be the pot or the kettle?



Where did I ever say that? I would do the exact same thing in your position. I agree with you that there are too many people who think "assault weapons" (the ones that the antis want to ban right now) are full-auto weapons. My own wife thought that way until I took her shooting.

I just want us to stop pretending that all semi-automatic weapons are exactly the same thing. As I already told Boats: My Glock 34 and Steyr SPP are both 9mm pistols, and both can take magazines that hold over 30 rounds. But there are functional differences between them that make one of those guns (the SPP) far more controllable when it is fired rapidly compared to the other (the Glock).



Except that's not what I said. Yes, of course there are functional differences - which reside in the FCG. I care more about the practical differences (i.e., what can an inexperienced shooter do with one vs. the other), even though you keep trying to shift the debate to talk legal definitions.

Click to expand...

HOLY SHIP, MATT/ How about the cliff notes version of your agenda in this and the past 6 pages of your posts.

I got to page 1 and now page 7.

chilipeppermaniac said:

HOLY SHIP, MATT/ How about the cliff notes version of your agenda in this and the past 6 pages of your posts.

I got to page 1 and now page 6.

Click to expand...

I've stated my "agenda" repeatedly now, even if you choose not to read it. My agenda is for us to retire failed arguments, and stick to using the Constitution and other, better arguments (e.g., the fact that AR-15s are statistically not used often in firearms homicides) to make our case against FSA 2013. It's not my fault if your mind is so simple that you see any perspective which doesn't align perfectly with yours as tantamount to having an anti-gun agenda.

The difference between you and I is that I can accept the truth, but still be confident in my convictions. The empirical truth is that (1.) there are not many practical differences between the guns that the antis call "assault weapons" and their select-fire counterparts, and (2.) those weapons should still not be banned, because they are constitutionally protected and (even by the antis' logic) not statistically used often in homicides or crimes. It it possible for both (1.) and (2.) to be true at the same time, even though our community lives with a sort of dogma against admitting that (1.) is true.

BTW, I have posted pics of my own ARs in the "Rifles" forum. I also already posted a video by a YouTuber from the community who shares my perspective.

Biggfoot44 said:

So hypothetically, Larry Vickers owns a Dodge Hellcat . Larry usually drives it 25mph to the grocery store and back.

So my clapped out '86 Dodge Ares is actually a Super Car . Because if it it will only go 25mph on a good day with a tailwind , it's still a muscle car, because that's as fast as Larry drives .

Click to expand...

Your analogy would work a lot better if it went something like this:

- You and Larry Vickers both own Dodge Hellcats, but yours has the standard 700 hp engine, and he has an upgraded 750 hp engine. You both race each other on a 100 foot straightaway.
- In theory, Larry's Hellcat should beat yours because he has the more powerful engine, so he should be able to go faster and also accelerate faster. The problem is that the course is so short that the race is over before his car can exploit its advantage over yours, so the powerful engine makes little practical difference in enabling him to win.
- BTW, in this scenario, nobody can pretend that you are Larry don’t have different versions of the same car. One just has a more powerful engine that (can) be an advantage in racing. Nobody can honestly pretend that Larry’s car is a sports car while yours is the equivalent of a Pinto, just because yours has a less powerful engine.

Fabs better watch out or he will no longer be King of the long posts.

MattFinals718 said:

I've stated my "agenda" repeatedly now, even if you choose not to read it. My agenda is for us to retire failed arguments, and stick to using the Constitution and other, better arguments (e.g., the fact that AR-15s are statistically not used often in firearms homicides) to make our case against FSA 2013. It's not my fault if your mind is so simple that you see any perspective which doesn't align perfectly with yours as tantamount to having an anti-gun agenda.

The difference between you and I is that I can accept the truth, but still be confident in my convictions. The empirical truth is that (1.) there are not many practical differences between the guns that the antis call "assault weapons" and their select-fire counterparts, and (2.) those weapons should still not be banned, because they are constitutionally protected and (even by the antis' logic) not statistically used often in homicides or crimes. It it possible for both (1.) and (2.) to be true at the same time, even though our community lives with a sort of dogma against admitting that (1.) is true.

BTW, I have posted pics of my own ARs in the "Rifles" forum. I also already posted a video by a YouTuber from the community who shares my perspective.

Click to expand...

You are simply pushing the "mattfinals definition of assault weapon" at this point in circular arguments. However right you may think you are in defining assault weapon in the way you as an individual do, it doesn't matter to the rest of the planet that uses it in a different way.

"Assault weapon" now continues to simply be a nebulous political catch-all term antigun politicians use to make common guns sound scary in order to ban them. It's as simple as that. There is no universal definition in use now by design. It allows for antigun politicians to toss in things like a glock 19 with a threaded barrel under the umbrella of "assault weapon" when writing new 2a infringements.

You'll argue this, I'm sure, but it doesn't matter. Type another few thousands of meaningless words. The world will go on without the definition you think "assault weapon" deserves.

smokey said:

You are simply pushing the "mattfinals definition of assault weapon" at this point in circular arguments. However right you may think you are in defining assault weapon in the way you as an individual do, it doesn't matter to the rest of the planet that uses it in a different way.

Click to expand...

What's "the rest of the planet"? The only official definition anyone's given me is from a 50-year old guidebook published by an intelligence agency.

smokey said:

You'll argue this, I'm sure, but it doesn't matter. Type another few thousands of meaningless words. The world will go on without the definition you think "assault weapon" deserves.

Click to expand...

Actually, my words are quite meaningful even if they go in one ear and out the other for those who choose not to read/understand them, because they contradict what that person wants to believe. I find your post to be the epitome of talking loud and saying nothing.

Anyway, for the 100th time: I've said before that I care less about definitions, and more about the fact that our side is using definitions to deflect from honest debate. So, to the extent that I'm using any definitions at all, it's to prove how intellectually dishonest our side can be.

In this video from Mark Smith is a clip of a sitting judge being asked by a US Senator what an assault weapon is:

MattFinals718 said:

I'm going to reply to you, because I don't agree, and I'm going to defend my perspective.

Very well aware of what Feinstein said. I've been around this community a long time, so I do understand that there are many on the left who wish they could ban most guns and confiscate them from the people. You misunderstood; what they might want, and what they understand that they are able to do, are two separate things.

The second para in your post exemplifies what I am pushing back against. You're basically telling me that I should continue to perpetuate lies because the "other side" will use them against us. I don't care what they want to do - I care about the truth. You're also acting as though they do not already use our own statements against us: Things like the Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons cover that I posted earlier. Statements by our experts (like Larry Vickers) who say that they essentially fired their issued M16s in combat as if they were AR-15s (i.e., semi only). Instead of telling lies, why not just accept that AR-15s are "assault rifles" (albeit neutered versions), and then say, "Who cares - they're protected by the Constitution, and that's all that matters?"

If you are really so afraid of the truth that you feel the need to suppress it, and you want to encourage the community to suppress it, how are you any different than religious extremists or communists who stamp out free thought? Our community claims to hate authoritarianism, and argues that we need to preserve the RKBA in order to fight it, but yet it practices its own sort of intellectual authoritarianism.

In closing: I'd also like you to watch this video by a guy who shares my perspective:



Maybe you should go tell him that he needs to shut up before the antis use his statements against us in court?



No, I'm trying to encourage us not to be liars and to simply embrace the Constitution, not try and pretend that an M4 that has a semi-only FCG is somehow a "sporting rifle" because we're afraid to tell the antis to shove it, because firearms designed for military use are the most Constitutionally protected of all.

Click to expand...

According to the Colorado legislature (HB23) ANY magazine fed semi auto rifle, ANY pistol with a threaded barrel and many others are "assault weapons", hence an assault weapon is whatever the person uttering the term thinks it is. Gun digest used the term to sell magazines to interested people, the Colorado and Maryland legislature use the term to restrict rights.

"Sporting Rifle" is a different side of the same coin. Albeit more truthful because target shooting, practical shooting, hunting, etc are all "sporting" activities

"Instead of telling lies, why not just accept that AR-15s are "assault rifles" (albeit neutered versions),"


And again: an assault rifle is, by definition, an intermediate caliber, select fire carbine. The AR15 is not select fire, so it is NOT an assault rifle. So stop using that term for the AR15, it is incorrect and makes you sound like you care more about being right than the truth

The AR15 is simply a rifle, or carbine, if "sporting rifle" bothers you so much.

Actual Assault rifle-

MattFinals718 said:

No, I'm trying to encourage us not to be liars and to simply embrace the Constitution, not try and pretend that an M4 that has a semi-only FCG is somehow a "sporting rifle" because we're afraid to tell the antis to shove it, because firearms designed for military use are the most Constitutionally protected of all.

Click to expand...

If the pro2a community is unable to convince the antis that "sporting weapons" are protected, what makes you think that arguement will be MORE effective by telling them to "shove it" or saying "yep, the AR is a weapon of war". Your theory will make everything worse.

Remember, the antis are people who dont know what they dont know. The believe a brace makes an AR full auto. They think 9mm blows the lungs out of a target. They think that magazines are consumable and if they ban them they will go away after they are used once (all are actual quotes from lawmakers). They think that an AR15 and an M4 are basically the same because they look similar despite a significant functional difference (which is also one of your arguments).

And you think these people have the capacity to understand the finer mechanical points of weapon design with regard to public safety? Really?

BurkeM said:

Actual Assault rifle-

Click to expand...

That's a battle rifle.

Assault weapon is redundant. Weapons are used to commit assaults.

MattFinals718 said:

The only official definition anyone's given me is from a 50-year old guidebook published by an intelligence agency.

Click to expand...

Thought you said definitions don't matter.

You also ignore definitions when they are given (see above, you continue to mis-use "assault rifle") because they don't suit your argument. THAT IS moving goal posts. I. E. "Definitions don't matter" to "no one has given me an official definition".

The Maryland delegates have defined an assault weapon. It includes Spas 12 shotguns, Springfield M1A rifles, and AR15s without a heavy barrel. It is an official definition. The Colorado delegates have defined it as ANY semi auto rifle and ANY semi auto pistol with a threaded barrel. It is also an official definition. The federal government gave an official definition during the federal assault weapons ban which was a semi auto rifle with a detachable magazine and one of the following: flash hider, pistol grip, bayonet lug, or grenade launcher.

Those are 3 different official definitions of "assault weapon".

outrider58 said:

Assault weapon is redundant. Weapons are used to commit assaults.

Click to expand...

Yep, I assault paper, steel targets, and soda cans all the time. I dont even ask their pronouns first. How dare I?

Boats said:

According to the Colorado legislature (HB23) ANY magazine fed semi auto rifle, ANY pistol with a threaded barrel and many others are "assault weapons", hence an assault weapon is whatever the person uttering the term thinks it is. Gun digest used the term to sell magazines to interested people, the Colorado and Maryland legislature use the term to restrict rights.

Click to expand...

Cool, keep quoting people who I don't care about, and who I've already told you that I also don't agree with.

Boats said:

"Sporting Rifle" is a different side of the same coin. Albeit more truthful because target shooting, practical shooting, hunting, etc are all "sporting" activities

Click to expand...

No, not more truthful.

Boats said:

The AR15 is simply a rifle, or carbine, if "sporting rifle" bothers you so much.

Click to expand...

An M1 Carbine is also a rifle or carbine. And it also has its roots as a military rifle. But regardless of anyone's definition, there are discernible, functional, AND (most importantly, what I harp on) practical differences between an M1 Carbine, and an AR-15, even though both guns have select-fire variants (in the M1's case: The M2).

Boats said:

If the pro2a community is unable to convince the antis that "sporting weapons" are protected, what makes you think that arguement will be MORE effective by telling them to "shove it" or saying "yep, the AR is a weapon of war". Your theory will make everything worse.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to convince the hardcore antis; mostly those who are persuadable. I think that seeming reasonable and like we're not telling lies is the best way to go about it. I find that those who can accept some truth in their opponents' arguments, but still refute them, tend to be perceived as more trustworthy than those who lie to support their positions.

So, no, it's people with your mindset who are doing the disservice to our community by playing definitions games and being intellectually dishonest. You are not being brave enough to stand by the Constitution, which is on our side. You are giving the intellectual ground to the antis when you attempt to legitimize AR-15s (or other weapons) by pretending that they're not practically the same (functional differences aside) as their select-fire counterparts. And you're also pretty much admitting that that's what you're doing, even if you're not saying it outright.

Boats said:

Remember, the antis are people who dont know what they dont know. The believe a brace makes an AR full auto. They think 9mm blows the lungs out of a target. They think that magazines are consumable and if they ban them they will go away after they are used once (all are actual quotes from lawmakers).

Click to expand...

I don't care about the Sheila Jackson Lees of the world (and yes, that woman should not hold any elected office; her IQ is clearly too low for her to be in any form of public service). I care about the reasonable people who are likely to be scared off when we say things that are intellectually dishonest, and will thus overlook the good points that we can and should make.

Boats said:

They think that an AR15 and an M4 are basically the same because they look similar despite a significant functional difference (which is also one of your arguments).

Click to expand...

That's not my argument; that's you shortening and distorting my argument. There is a functional difference, but not much of a practical difference. I've said that enough times already.

MattFinals718 said:

That's not my argument; that's you shortening and distorting my argument. There is a functional difference, but not much of a practical difference. I've said that enough times already.

Click to expand...

Ok, what is the practical difference for an inexperienced shooter?

At what threshold does a difference become a practical difference to you?

What is an inexperienced shooter to you?

Give a dog a bad name and hang him.



Time-wasting hair-splitting pointless exercise in futility.

Blacksmith101 said:

Fabs better watch out or he will no longer be King of the long posts.

Click to expand...

LMAO!