The Truth about "Assault Weapons". . . .

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't know if this video has been posted here before or not, but a friend brought it to my attention. I think it might be a useful tool for educating fence-sitters about the myth of "assault rifles."

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0[/youtube]

[TexasComputerDude]

wow, excellent find. Did you search for early 90's videos lol. jk

but seriously, I'll be showing some of my anti friends this video.

[ClarkLZeuss]

Thanks for the video! It was very helpful. As a new shooter who's never shot a modern "assault rifle," watches a lot of TV and doesn't know much else, I've thought that it's not a huge deal if AWs are banned. But what was so telling from this video was when he "converted" the wood stock gun to the plastic type. Even though the action was exactly the same, it looked a lot more "menacing" as the BATFE guy says. So this tells me that yeah, it's all about appearances...people look at the wood-stock guns and they think they're old fashioned, no big deal. But they see all the plastic accessories and bipods and things and suddenly the gun is more dangerous.

I think what else is important to emphasize is that an AW is basically a semi-auto handgun with a longer barrel and bigger stock, and usually with more rounds. But otherwise, it functions exactly the same way. So, with this in mind, the AWB could be a very bad thing, as essentially they're banning the technology of semi-automatic fire, which as the police officer said, is 100 years old. So, that could very well be the gateway to a ban on all semi-automatic firearms. It would really suck to only be allowed guns from the 19th century.

[The Annoyed Man]

Yeah, it might be a bit dated, but it does make the point very clearly.

[grim-bob]

I think what else is important to emphasize is that an AW is basically a semi-auto handgun

An AW is NOT a semi-auto at all.... AWs are fully automatic. To concede that the term AW includes semi-autos would only further erode the conversation by allowing the redefining of the term by the Antis. This is the reason that the public doesn't get it already. We need to be diligent in correctly using terminology that the antis are using incorrectly.

[Purplehood]

If it goes bang-bang-bang. It is not an Assault Weapon.

AW's go rat-a-tat, tat!

See what all my gun-knowledge has done for me?

[gmckinl]

Excuse me, but RANT MODE ON…

I saw this video some time ago. The guy makes a HUGE mis-statement at one point; he says a citizen cannot purchase a fully automatic assault rifle… point 1 – private citizens can purchase fully auto firearms; point 2 – saying “fully automatic assault rifles” is redundant, an assault rifle must have select-fire (FA or FA burst) capabilities or else it is not an assault rifle. See the definition below.

ASSAULT RIFLE
By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

Maybe a private citizen can’t buy one in his home state of California, I don’t know or care. That’s not the case for ALL of the other 49 states.

Note some key points in the above definition: selective-fire, intermediate power.

The selective-fire requirement dictates that no semi-auto ever is an assault rife.

IIRC, I wanted to put my fist through the screen the first time I saw it. Given that blatant error up front, I’m not going to waste 10 minutes of my life, again, watching to see if that is the only part driving me up a wall with his talk. Considering this, I really wish this video would go away and never be seen again.

BTW, a point many people miss is that the intermediate power requirement dictates that no full power rifle, even if it’s a select-fire e.g. a M14, G3, FAL, or a full auto BAR, M60, or M1919, would be an assault rifle because they are FULL POWER… not intermediate power. Nor would a full auto UZI or Thompson be an assault rifle because they don’t fire intermediate power cartridges either, they fire handgun rounds.

Please forgive the rant, that video just pushes my buttons. RANT MODE OFF. I need an olive now.

[03Lightningrocks]

Excuse me, but RANT MODE ON…

I saw this video some time ago. The guy makes a HUGE mis-statement at one point; he says a citizen cannot purchase a fully automatic assault rifle… point 1 – private citizens can purchase fully auto firearms; point 2 – saying “fully automatic assault rifles” is redundant, an assault rifle must have select-fire (FA or FA burst) capabilities or else it is not an assault rifle. See the definition below.

ASSAULT RIFLE
By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

Maybe a private citizen can’t buy one in his home state of California, I don’t know or care. That’s not the case for ALL of the other 49 states.

Note some key points in the above definition: selective-fire, intermediate power.

The selective-fire requirement dictates that no semi-auto ever is an assault rife.

IIRC, I wanted to put my fist through the screen the first time I saw it. Given that blatant error up front, I’m not going to waste 10 minutes of my life, again, watching to see if that is the only part driving me up a wall with his talk. Considering this, I really wish this video would go away and never be seen again.

BTW, a point many people miss is that the intermediate power requirement dictates that no full power rifle, even if it’s a select-fire e.g. a M14, G3, FAL, or a full auto BAR, M60, or M1919, would be an assault rifle because they are FULL POWER… not intermediate power. Nor would a full auto UZI or Thompson be an assault rifle because they don’t fire intermediate power cartridges either, they fire handgun rounds.

Please forgive the rant, that video just pushes my buttons. RANT MODE OFF. I need an olive now.

[Aggie_engr]

with 03' lightning. Point taken and I agree, I had the same initial thoughts. I believe, or from what I have always thought, the larger caliber guns were called battle rifles. I am fully open to constructive criticism if needed.

[Oldgringo]

Rants aside, Great job TAM!

The misinformed and misled need to see and hear the basics and this video does that. Should the misinformed and misled want, or need, additional information or clarification about Class "C' licenses and select fire switches, etc., that information is available - in time. First things first (is one of the things I always say).

Thanks again, I've already forwarded it to some of the aforementioned misinformed and misled.

[The Annoyed Man]

Such was my intention, thanks.

I realize that discussions of what constitutes an "assault" rifle versus a "battle" rifle, select fire switches, mid-power military grade ammunition calibers, etc., etc., etc., can be a lot more detailed than what is demonstrated in the video. I think you have to realize that these more detailed discussions are really for the more sophisticated enthusiast because the finer points are not likely to be grasped by the uninitiated. The uninitiated person is simply trying to come to terms with the "assault weapons" myth perpetrated upon them by the brady bunch, and that is what this video is useful for, in my opinion. It is "baby food," if you will. People tend to learn in stages. If this video succeeds in convincing someone about its basic message, then that person will have a foundation upon which to build as they begin to learn about tax stamps for fully automatic weapons or weapons with select fire switches, military power calibers versus true high-powered calibers, etc., etc.

You don't start learning physics by taking graduate level courses in particle theory. Nope. You start by watching a cartoon of Woody Woodpecker playing billiards.

[avid]

That's a very good video, maybe our former President Jimmy Carter should watch it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opini ... ter&st=cse" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons?

By JIMMY CARTER
Published: April 26, 2009

THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has
been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was
finally passed in 1994.

When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on
Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban
expired.

I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them
carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the
right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading
rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office. ( Now he's trying to divide the "righteous" hunters vs. the evil black
rifle group, lame. )

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims
we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate
a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult. (As if we who do own them want to kill the police, his logic is mystifying.)

An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they
also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the
National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s
unreasonable demands.

Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going
to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its
efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case. ( Did he ask people who live in Chicago or
Wash.,D.C or maybe people who travel through National parks/Forest?)

Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police
officers on duty. ( I suppose his hunting rifles wouldn't be able to do it either.) In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted
current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it
opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or
teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide. (Now he's throwing stats that has nothing to do with "Assault
Weapons")

Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to
dispute. ( Again, the same misleading info that the media has been using. )

The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease
their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning
of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend. ( Another fear inducing statement aimed at the firearm
illiterate. )

The year he was elected was my first election, after coming of age, I didn't vote for him then and he has proven my decision to have been right.

[03Lightningrocks]

You don't start learning physics by taking graduate level courses in particle theory. Nope. You start by watching a cartoon of Woody Woodpecker playing billiards.

That has to be the quote of the Month. How true it is!

[The Annoyed Man]

You don't start learning physics by taking graduate level courses in particle theory. Nope. You start by watching a cartoon of Woody Woodpecker playing billiards.

That has to be the quote of the Month. How true it is!

Well, I do try, thank you very much!