Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

WATCH on TheBlaze TV: Latest Updates on Tornado Aftermath, Including Updates From Glenn Beck in Oklahoma

So What Is an ‘Assault Rifle’ Really? We Look at the Definitions and How the Term Is ‘Demonized’

Jan. 11, 2013 10:22am Liz Klimas

“Make a promise to yourself that you will stop calling rifles ‘assault weapons.’”

That’s what Glenn Beck said on his morning radio show Thursday as he discussed AR-15s. But why? Is an AR-15 not an assault rifle? Does the “AR” in AR-15 not stand for “assault rifle”?

Gun Experts Decry Use of the Term Assault to Describe Civilian Firearms

A man with an AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle allowed for civilian ownership. (Photo: Shutterstock.com)

It doesn’t. In fact, it doesn’t mean “automatic rifle” either, as many might think. AR actually stands for ArmaLite rifle, which is the company that first developed it in the 1950s.

It seems that there is a lot of confusion as to the difference between military rifles and those designed for civilian ownership, especially because of the language often used to describe the latter. The most popular terms to describe the weapons at the center of the recent gun control debate are “military-style” and “assault.” These words have long been used to to describe civilian firearms like the AR-15, but some consider it an inappropriate association that is deliberately being made to “demonize” the guns.

As Beck radio producer Stu Burguiere put it on the show Thursday, “they are targeting these weapons because they think the public is confused enough that they can get away with it — and they are.”

With what seems to be little understanding or agreement on the definition of what constitutes an assault rifle and the difference between civilian and military arms, TheBlaze went searching.

Military vs. Civilian Rifles — What’s the Difference?

For the purpose of this article, we’ll focus on AR-15s since it is what CBS calls “the most popular rifle in America” and one often designated an “assault” rifle. An AR-15 is the civilian equivalent to the military’s M-16. So what’s the difference?

Kelly Alwood, a firearms trainer and consultant, told TheBlaze the only difference is that one is fully automatic and the other is semi-automatic. It’s a small yet simultaneously big distinction. Firearms for use by the military are able to shoot continuously with one pull of the trigger, machine-gun style. Civilian firearms, on the other hand, only allow one shot per trigger pull.

M-16, a military automatic rifle. (Photo: Wikimedia)

Chris Parrett, a firearms enthusiast, pointed out that modifying a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic one is not only highly illegal with extreme penalties but also no easy feat.

What Constitutes an ‘Assault’ Rifle?

Merriam-Webster Dictonary defines “assault rifle” as “any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.” The keywords here are “designed for military use.”

If that definition doesn’t quite cut it for you, here’s how David Kopel (via the Washington Examiner) describes it in an article in the “Journal of Contemporary Law” based on a definition from the Department of Defense (emphasis added):

As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.[22]

Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934.[23] Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints.[24]

Many civilians have purchased semiautomatic-only rifles that look like military assault rifles. These civilian rifles are, unlike actual assault rifles, incapable of automatic fire.

Based on these two definitions, since AR-15 is designed for civilian use, it therefore doesn’t fit with the definition of an “assault” weapon. This then begs the question why the association is being made in the first place.

“It was the Left who needed a term to call them,” Beck said on radio Thursday. “They are trying to make you think …’an AR-15, nobody needs that.’ An AR-15 is just a rifle, unless it has a fully automatic switch on it and then it becomes a machine gun — and you can’t buy that.”

(Editor’s note: machine guns, or automatic weapons, are reserved for the military but they can be purchased for a relatively high cost after a very lengthy background check and licensing procedure. See David Kopel’s definition we included above.)

“It’s a way to demonize something for a political agenda and misconstrue [the guns] and the public on the Second Amendment,” Alwood said.

Alwood, who the day he spoke with TheBlaze was traveling around helping police departments with their rifles, pointed out that all arguments for further gun control regulations or bans seem to go back the question “what would you possibly need this for?” Or rather, why would someone need the civilian equivalent to a military firearm?

Alwood said many gun control advocates would tie this question to hunting. In other words, why would a hunter need such a firearm? As the governor of New York Andrew Coumo said his State of the State address this week, “no one hunts with an assault rifle.” To which Alwood would respond, 1) there are practical applications in hunting with a so-called assault rifle and, 2) “the Second Amendment wasn’t designed for hunting,” an association which he thinks started being made in the 1980s.

“We need these rifles because the government has them,” Alwood explained.

He stopped there to say he realizes this is where gun enthusiasts and riflemen are made out to seem like anti-government “whack jobs” by the media, but that’s just not true.

“I don’t want people to think of me as anti-government. Most gun owners are not anti-government,” Alwood said.

He added that the Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment with protection of the citizens and their freedoms in mind.

“[Without the Second Amendment] there is no way to resist the government, voiding all other amendments,” Alwood said. “Why should [the government] continue to give you your freedom of speech if there is no one to stop them. It’s the only safeguard we have to protect us from a tyrannical government. …Look at all countries in trouble with dictators, they have absolute gun bans.”

The conservative publication Townhall recently called out two countries with a similar sentiment to this in mind:

Neither the Venezuelan nor Chinese governments have particularly good track records when it comes to human rights. By maintaining a government monopoly on guns, both can ensure that further abuses are carried out with less protests from the citizenry. Overall, it is sad to see two dictatorial governments making it easier to abuse their citizens as they please while also squelching the possibility for resistance.

Watch the segment on Thursday’s radio show where Beck takes on the use of the term “assault”:

Editor’s note — The author of this post discussed this story during our live BlazeCast on Friday afternoon:

This story has corrected the spelling of Kelly Alwood’s last name.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (314)

cqb101
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:26pm
Educating the population is a must. the problem as I see it, is the fact that some people are so set in their ways they don’t want to be educated. Maybe it’s because they don’t want to be proven wrong. Maybe their afraid this will make them look stupid? Why are people so afraid to admit that they were or are wrong and have changed their minds after becoming more educated? One of the great things about this country is the fact we are allowed to have our own opinion (for now). I honestly don’t care what your opinion is, as long as it’s made with facts and not emotion.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Mapache
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:25pm
any rifle aimed and fired at me is by MY definition, an assault rifle.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Xiccarph
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:24pm
“Assault weapon” was a political activist’s undefined term that as far as I know, was coined by Josh Sugarmann in the study “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America” (1988). Sugarmann was with the anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The purpose was probably to maximize the confusion with an actual military term “assault rifle”, originally adopted from the German StG44 Sturmgewehr (lit. “storm rifle”) of WW II, by making AWs appear equivalent in “evilness” and menacing looks…and thus by implication “equally as dangerous/the same thing”.
It’s a pity that because of the nanny state, knee-jerk Prohibition era, we probably would still be able to buy select-fire weapons, have short-barreled rifles/shotguns, silencers, quad 50′s, bazookas, and have a grenade or two laying around without the NFA ’34 “tax” nonsense. Note that the NFA used a tax stamp to regulate covered items…the politicians KNEW to ban them outright would be unconstitutional. These agendist politicians KNOW we can have all these types of weapons and devices, but they will try anything to convince the sheeple that there is no “need” to own these to go hunting. Also, any armament that an infantry soldier would use in battle was and still is Constitutional and thus “legal” to own. But, the NFA, CGA ’68 & ’86, and other gun laws now regulate them, as do the individual states. Some states let you have any NFA weapon or device you want, while other states don’t allow any NFA item

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
cqb101
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:19pm
It all comes down to EDUCATION. It seems like a lot of Americans are trying to make policy on something they know nothing about. So they try and get educated, by people that know nothing about guns, their uses or operation.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Rufus.Cornpone
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:08pm
When a liberal starts defending hunting, that is a red flag…Liberals hate hunters an hunting, but are trying to sway hunters to agree with them that “assault rifles” should be banned. After they take those guns, they will go after hunters and their guns…”Why would anyone need to hunt, the Constitution does not protect hunting, animals have rights too” will be the liberal rant…Remember if a liberal say you don’t need something, like a 16oz soda, salt, transfats, assault rifles, then they are going to try and ban it…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Molon_labe_
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:06pm
You know the assault we need to be worried about is ever tiring assault on us, our freedoms we need legislation contains expedient imprisonment for any politician, judge, government bureaucrat that infringes on the constitution other than a constitutional amendment process I’m sick of it!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Xiccarph
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:05pm
what is it with all the frakkin’ 404 errors here???

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Xiccarph
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:04pm
“Assault weapon” was a political activist term that as far as I know so far, was coined by Josh Sugarmann in a study “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America” (1988). Sugarmann was with the anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The purpose was probably to maintain the confusion with the real military term “assault rifle”, originally adopted from the German StG44 Sturmgewehr (lit. “storm rifle”) of WW II, by making them appear equivalent in “evilness” and menacing looks…and thus by implication “equally as dangerous”.
It’s a pity that because of the nanny state, knee-jerk Prohibition era, we probably would still be able to buy select-fire weapons, have short-barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, quad 50′s, bazookas, and have a grenade or two laying around without the NFA ’34 “tax” nonsense. Note that the NFA used a tax stamp to regulate covered items…the politicians KNEW to ban them outright would be unconstitutional. These agendist politicians KNOW we can have all these types of weapons and devices, but they will try anything to convince the sheeple that there is no “need” to own these to go hunting. Also, any armament that an infantry soldier would use in battle was and still is legal and Constitutional to own. But, the NFA, CGA ’68 & ’86, and other gun laws now regulate them, as do the individual states. Some states let you have any NFA weapon or device you want, while other states don’t allow any NFA item. Check yo

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Xiccarph
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:01pm
“Assault weapon” was a political activist term that as far as I know, was coined by Josh Sugarmann in a study “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America” (1988). Sugarmann was with the anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The purpose was probably to maintain the confusion with the real military term “assault rifle”, originally adopted from the German StG44 Sturmgewehr (lit. “storm rifle”) of WW II, by making AWs appear equivalent in “evilness” and menacing looks…and thus by implication “equally as dangerous”.
It’s a pity that were it not for the nanny state, knee-jerk Prohibition era, we probably would still be able to buy select-fire weapons, have short-barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, quad 50′s, bazookas, and have a grenade or two laying around without the NFA ’34 “tax” nonsense. Note that the NFA used a tax stamp to regulate covered items…the politicians KNEW to ban them outright would be unconstitutional. These agendist politicians KNOW we can have all these types of weapons and devices, but they will try anything to convince the sheeple that there is no “need” to own these to go hunting. Also, any armament that an infantry soldier would use in battle was and still is Constitutional and thus legal to own. But, the NFA, CGA ’68 & ’86, and other gun laws now regulate them, as do the individual states. Some states let you have any NFA weapon or device you want, while other states don’t allow any NFA item. Check your

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Tri-ox
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:00pm
FLASHBACK (2004): obama opposed bill to allow person to use gun to save own life in own home …

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/11/obama-opposed-gun-ban-exception-defend-home/

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Sumrknght
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:58pm
I find it terribly hypocritical of a administration that passes up the crisis in Denver to start gun-control – merely because it’s election time. That now wants to tout the ‘safety of our children’ to yank at heart strings to get the public to go along with them – when they kill thousands of babies every day through abortion.

That has Diane Feinstein standing in front of reporters holding an AR-15 – when the facts later reveal that the gunman drove to the school, left the AR-15 in the car and used 4 handguns inside the school. Yet they pursue the ‘assault rifle’ angle.

FBI comes out and says more people were beaten and stabbed to death than killed with long rifles… it is more dangerous to fall – or drive. Many thousands die each year, yet they are not trying to ban ladders, rock climbing or cars.

This is yet one piece of the puzzle folks. A very necessary piece for them… but of the THOUSANDS of executive orders… the new laws being able to INDEFINATELY DETAIN without trial AMERICAN CITITZENS… and did you notice Obama just gave himself 24/7 Secret Service Protection FOREVER (funny, I thought it was like that anyway … who knew it ended after 10 years? But Obama wants to take YOUR guns – but keep the ones around him.) The playbook he’s following is one of almost every dictator… and once they have ‘gun control’ comes the ‘gun registration’ – which leads to the ‘gun confiscation’ … which leaves a population without defens

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
lketchum
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:44pm
When the government and its agents go back to using the “Brown Bess” smoothbore musket that was only accurate out to about sixty yards, I’ll go back to using a rifled musket, which our founders used to take down officers and other enemy leaders at 300 yards.

The 2nd Amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution is to ensure that “The Whole of the People” have FIRE SUPERIORITY over any potential tyrant and threat to the Constitution – Foreign and or Domestic. As clearly stated, this Natural Right, present at birth and unto death, “Shall Not Be Infringed”, period!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:43pm
This what liberals do. They twist words and redefine in order to make laws mean different things. They do this with the Constitution. Imagine what they will do with obamacare. Remember “is” depends on what you mean by “is”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on January 11, 2013 at 10:20pm
  That’s not how you spell Gandhi.
  
  Report this comment
lketchum
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:43pm
When the government and its agents go back to using the “Brown Bess” smoothbore musket that was only accurate out to about sixty yards, I’ll go back to using a rifled musket, which our founders used to take down officers and other enemy leaders at 300 yards.

The 2nd Amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution is to ensure that “The Whole of the People” have FIRE SUPERIORITY over any potential tyrant and threat to the Constitution – Foreign and or Domestic. As clearly stated, this Natural Right, present at birth and unto death, “Shall Not Be Infringed”, period! Any violation of the 2nd is a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land – The U.S. Constitution. Not some politically baked interpretation as crafted by any temporary elected official.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
VetMike
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:41pm
Very good talk by Mr Beck. The sheeple will follow wherever the Masters lead them. Only a truly free man will find his own path. Our liberty and our rights depend upon the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. People cheery picking which rights we are allowed to have will eventually, if we don’t stop them, strip every right from every body. The sheeple who so blindly followed the Masters will suddenly find that they have no rights. By then it is too late. Liberals, takers and fakers; you re-elected him now you own it. Molon Labe

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Robert Hawk
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:40pm
Marxist-Leninists know that Americans are much better armed in most cases than the US military. They also know it would be near impossible for them to overthrow this nation (as they would like to), while so many Americans remain well armed and many well trained. Every time the Marxist-Leninist rise to power in the United States, this issue of “gun control” always surfaces.
According to the CDC we had 11,493 firearm related homicides in 2009
In that same report we had 599, 413 cases of death due to heard disease which represents 25% of all deaths in the United States the next highest being Malignant Neoplasms 567,628 or 23%, then Cerebovascualr at 128,842, later influenza/Pneumonia at 53,692.
The National Safety Council estimates about 37,261 vehicle deaths per year due to cell phone use.

so why are gun related deaths which include suicide? 11,493 the focal point? Each person stands a 4 times greater chance being killed by a cell phone crash than a firearm, so where is the outrage for cell phones? If the big issue is to reduce the death rate … really…. why not start with the highest occurrences and work down to the lower ones? The only answer to that question can be, this issue is about something other than reducing the death rate.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphonesandtexting.aspx

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
rcguy
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:38pm
1911 – Government in Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Government in Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – Government in China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 murdered 20 million Chinese.
1938 – Government in Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 murdered 16 million Jews, Hungarian Gypsies, Mentally disabled, physically disabled,…
1956 – Government in Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 murdered 1 million Educated people, identified as those wearing glasses.
1964 – Government in Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 and murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Government in Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 and murdered 300,000 Christians.
2013 — Government in the United States disarmed it’s citizens, and between 2013 – 2020 murdered ???? men, women and children.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dcgirl
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:34pm
My AR is painted in pink zebra stripe. Since it looks girly does that mean it isn’t scary enough to be called an assault weapon? :-)

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Apo
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:31pm
How is it that the government can restrict the public but doesn’t have to live under it’s own restrictions?

If another “word-that-shall-not-be-mentioned weapons ban” were instituted I dare say we place the same restrictions on our Soldiers, Marines, Special Operations Operatives, DEA, LEO’s (the whole of the U.S. government)!!!

Soldiers that carry 40mm grenade launchers into battle should have to apply for the required licenses register each round with the ATF and pay the $800 tax per round.

.50 M2 belts should be cut down to 10 rounds so they can’t slaughter whole villages in seconds.

All Automatic Weapons need to be augmented so that they can only shoot 1 round per pull.

Outlaw rail systems so that soldiers cannot use forward pistol grips, remove the bayonet lug (we don’t use those any more, right BO?)

Take away their collapsible ****-stocks and replace them with fixed stocks.

If the government cannot exist and operate under it’s own regulations then it’s already guilty of tyranny.

The fathers, mothers, sons and daughters of our Armed Forces wouldn’t stand idly by and let the government strip it’s military of it’s ability to “protect freedom” why on EARTH would those same fathers, mothers, sons and daughters support disarming the public.

I don’t hunt, my bullets are fully intended for human consumption and are freely available to anyone who meets the criteria.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The Third Archon
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:30pm
“SO WHAT IS AN ‘ASSAULT RIFLE’ REALLY? WE LOOK AT THE DEFINITIONS AND HOW THE TERM IS ‘DEMONIZED’”
A semiautomatic (or greater firing rate) longarm. That’s a fairy good working definition that gets at the point. If you really want to narrow it further, add to the definition the presence of a detachable box magazine above a certain capacity (say…ten), and you’ve BASICALLY captured the essence of what is meant be “assault rifle”–a weapon designed to kill and/or incapacitate a multiplicity of human enemies, generally in a in a combat-type situation, over a short span of time, from a distance of within 400 yards.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Oregon_TEA
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:29pm
Click the “Take Action” button above and contact your representatives. Get the word out that for one, The nut job at Sandy Hook didn’t even use the AR-15, and two, The Civilian AR-15 is not an “Assault Weapon”.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dcgirl
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:27pm
My AR15 is painted in pink zebra stripe. Since it looks girly would that mean it doesn’t look scary enough to be an assault rifle? LOL

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DarthMims
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:22pm
I’m sorry, but this is a pretty weak argument. You might as well ask what the definition of “is” is. To say that they are not assault rifles because they don’t fit the textbook definition is short sighted. It would be like running down the street yelling “I’m gay, I’m gay, I am so gay today!” and then trying to convince people that the textbook definition of gay means happy. Or go out into the rain and complain to people that you forgot to put your rubbers on without people snickering. The public perception is that assault rifles are used to assault people, and so that has become the definition. Trying to change the definition back to its original meaning is pointless, and wastes time that could be used to prevent the next assault.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
1SFG
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:21pm
I’m recently retired from the Army. I am a small arms/weapons expert. I have my tactical rifles because that is what I trained with and used, and still train with. The Warrior Class in this country will not use a trap and skeet shotgun to defend themselves. They will use what they’ve been trained to use and know like the back of their hands. Rifles are tools, I am the weapon!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
pahrumper
Posted on January 11, 2013 at 12:19pm
Feinstein should be impeached or what ever!!!!! She once said if she could have had the votes she would have banned all weapons. Now she is taking an oath swearing to defend and so on the constitution of the UDSA. Which is it “B” the truth or the oath you swore? so what ever she says it is like the Muslim camel humper (aka Obummer) , forget what they say, what did they really mean? And further when the senate starts on the confirmations, do not relay on what they say they will do you can only believe what thier past record indicates thay willl do!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.