TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Dave2 wrote:What would've they said if it was a .30 hunting round fired from a .30 caliber AR? Or a 9mm fired from an MP5?

They would probably say it came from a deer rifle since it is highly unlikely that anyone on the other side of the border would be shooting an assault rifle with hunting rounds in it. Hunting rounds are not typically used in assault rifles. They cost too much. In the case of the 9mm, the MP5 might have gotten off the hook due to common sense as well. Most 9mm rounds are used and sold for handguns. Yeah... I know the exception exist. But that does not change the facts. The media and law enforcement go with the most likely situations first and the ridiculously rare last. Who knows, but if the bullets are hunting rounds, they usually blame a hunter and assume it came from a "hunting" rifle. It just seems to be the way they think.

I am not sure what anything in that question has to do with me pointing out why the media and law enforcement call them "assualt" weapons.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Unfortunately for gun owners, the campaign to name any weapon that has a military look an "assualt rifle" has been a huge success. Truth of it is though, we referred to them as assualt rifles back in the seventies, we just weren't as worried about losing our right to buy them as we are now. The distinction was not a threat to us in the "good ole days". The "assualt" weapons ban, brought to us by George Bush Senior, caused the distinction to be an issue. To be fair, if the bullet was a 30 caliber hunting round, they would have said the bullet looked to come from a "deer" rifle. I have heard the distinction made many times. If it were a 9mm, they would have said it looked to come from a hand gun. I wish they would say "semi-auto" before the word "assualt-rifle". Who knows though, maybe this time it did come from a full auto rifle.