Right on the cover
Here's a reference to widespread use of "hip fire" by "assault rifle" enthusiasts.
So as you can see, the gun community was
for the terminology, before they were
against it. The practical differences between an *ahem* "modern sporting rifle" (many of which are based on 1940s and 50s designs and aren't really all that "modern") and a true assault rifle are virtually nil, just some fire control parts. I mean, lets be real here, my Colt 6520 or my SLR-104, and all the other ones I have
are basically assault rifles. The differences (lack of full auto capability) are vastly outweighed by the similarities (
every other aspect of the gun's design and function) .
Personally, I say it's
OUR word and we should take it back. I'm just so tired of the word games. If someone flips out and calls your AR an assault rifle don't get all huffy and rattle off Jane's Defense definition of what an assault rifle is, or berate them with a history lesson beginning with the development of the StG-44, just shrug and say "Yeah? What about it?". Because the Antis want to take your AR regardless of what PC label you use to describe it.
It's an assault rifle, it's primary purpose is killing other people, and that's OK. Killing other people, even large numbers of them, quickly, is a perfectly legitimate purpose. it's
who you kill and
why that determines legitimacy.
Shooting twelve armed gangbangers laying siege to your home in the aftermath of a hurricane = Legitimate.
Shooting twelve third-graders on the playground = Illegitimate.
Bookmarks