An “Assault Weapon” is an item that’s used by the aggressor in an assault. Period. It can range from panty hose, to a baseball bat, to a flower vase, to a sharp instrument (knife, box cutter, etc.). Politically, this is the umbrella term for firearms so that they can be compartmentalized, implying that their removal will eliminate an entire category of crimes. Of course, this is untrue, the criminal will simply find another avenue to his desires.
A while back I wrote an article for the American Free News Network regarding this subject. It’s reproduced below.
The “Assault Rifle” Myth
My family has been associated with the military since my father and his three brothers fought in WWII. I served in the United States Army Infantry. It wasn’t until several years after I left the Army in 1980 that I first heard the term, “Assault Rifle”. Looking up the term on the Internet I found that it was political in nature. It was being applied to menacing looking rifles to place credence in the belief that there were certain classes of rifles that shouldn’t be owned by the population at large.
That particular definition has since experienced a number of edits and today we’re told by Wikipedia that “An Assault Rifle is a selective fire rifle…” In that case we can discard this definition here because “selective fire” means the rifle can be alternated between semi-automatic fire (the trigger must be squeezed for every shot) and fully automatic fire (holding the trigger to the rear will fire the rifle until the magazine is empty).
Rifles capable of fully automatic fire fall under the purview of the 1934 National Firearms Act, an infringement of the Second Amendment which, while not outright banning the ownership of fully automatic rifles and machine guns, places such extensive and expensive requirements on their ownership that they’re out of reach for most individuals. The likely primary impetus for this was law enforcement, who felt they were outgunned by the crime syndicates of the time.
It’s worthy of note that, in the same article, Wikipedia says:
“The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler, who used the German word Sturmgewehr (which translates to “assault rifle”)…”
Well, no. Sturmgewehr translates to “storm gun”.
Today, the preferred term for the firearms denigrated by various anti-gun groups and the media as “weapons of mass destruction” is “Assault Weapon”. This term is applied to the common semi-automatic rifle, pistol, and shotgun which have certain attributes. These attributes are not set in granite and individual municipalities may change the definition of “Assault Weapon” to suit their whims as to what should be illegal for a citizen to own and, therefore, be banned. Some examples are collapsible stocks, detachable magazines, a pistol grip, and (are you sitting down?) a bayonet lug. Supposedly, these features will transform a normal rifle or shotgun, suitable for hunting and defense of home and hearth, into a fearful and destructive menace. Some descriptions use the ambiguous term, “military-style feature”, the definition of another indefinable attribute used as an excuse to further chip away at the Second Amendment and which is entirely subjective.
If we’re going to play at semantics let’s take a closer look at “Assault Rifle”. The term “rifle” is (or should be) relatively straight forward. But “Assault”? An assault is a physical attack. Weapons designed for personal use, in the military and civilian arenas, are made to protect the individuals who carry them. Even in a military context the purpose of a personal weapon in a defensive posture (holding the ground) is not assault. Does the term then become “Defensive Rifle”? No, it remains what it is, simply the individual’s rifle. Even that firebrand, GEN George S. Patton, Jr., when describing the M1 Garand, which figured so heavily in WWII and Korea, described it as, “…the greatest battle implement ever devised.” Not a hint of “Assault”. The word sure sounds scary, though.
“Assault Weapon”. Or, a weapon used to perpetrate a physical assault. This would include knives, baseball bats, flower vases, shoes, body parts, pantyhose, cars, 2x4s,…etc. All of these have been used in physical attacks. So, should we tag them with this scary adjective as some do with firearms? Do the terms “Assault Bats” or “Assault Pantyhose” cause you to furrow your brow with concern?
If this all seems silly, it’s because it is silly. The anti-Second Amendment faction attempts to ban entire classes of firearms based upon fluid definitions which contextually make no sense and vary by jurisdiction.
They say the Trojan horse appeared benign but carried a dangerous payload. Some would have you believe that various firearms – which don’t appear benign – also carry a payload and attributes so dangerous that they should be termed “Assault Rifles” (or “Assault Weapons”) and banned.
The Assault Rifle, like the Trojan horse, is a myth.
~ Dempsey 🌵
Chalk Dust 