The National Coalition to Ban Handguns started in the mid-1970’s. Josh Sugarmann was the communications director. He left to form the Violence Policy Center in 1988. The NCBH went through several name changes to become Brady today.
Sugarmann has opposed the widespread availability of semi-automatic rifles. In 1988 he published a study, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America. It examined the growing popularity of semiautomatic firearms, referring to them as “assault weapons”. Together with the response to a mass shooting in Stockton, California, the following year, his study has been credited for popularizing the use of the term "assault weapons."The Violence Policy Center 1988 study documents advertising by the gun industry that specifically refers to these weapons as assault rifles.
In my opinion, after 10 years of Ted Kennedy trying to ban handguns that went nowhere, the anti’s decided to attack at the fringes. In their view, these new fangled assault weapons were low hanging fruit that no one would oppose the way people opposed handgun regulation.
Along with Stockton, there was Lubys and the 101 California street shooting. By May 1994, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning “semi-automatic assault guns”.
Clinton signed the 1994 AWB in September.
So, in less than 10 years, actually closer to 6, we went from “never heard of them” to “you can’t buy them”.
Assault rifle is a firearm term (select fire, mid range cartridge, etc.) but assault weapon is a political boogeyman word. It’s not a firearm classification.
I recall being used in the media from the late 80s or early 90s.
Usually paired with a clip of someone firing on full auto.
My impression was it had a goal to confuse the public and associate fully automatic military assault rifles and sub machine guns with semiautomatics and drum up more interest and fear for gun control.
I still have that “Assault Firearms” mag stored away somewhere. Got it in the 5th or 6th grade. As a kid I was all into guns and Vietnam and that magazine was just the bees knees so to speak.
You know you raise a good point as I was talking to someone explaining assault weapon being made up and what an assault rifle was and it occurred to me the only real difference between and AR15 and an M4 per say is some fire control parts.
And when you figure how often full auto is actually used in a military or LE context, we are essentially talking about two weapons that differ only due to one hypothetical mechanical capability that one of them has, that is almost never used in practical situations. 99% of the time a select-fire M4 is being used the exact same way as a semi auto Colt 6920.
I dare say that to the average normie, being informed that the lack of one additional selector position is the salient trait that separates a “modern sporting rifle” from an “assault rifle” potentially hurts our case more than it hurts that of the Antis. To us, the lack of a full auto FCG is a big deal, because we are gun nerds. But Joe or Jane Normie is basically going to go “That’s the only difference?? Well shit, they really are basically the same thing…”
Maybe the argument should shift from defensive hand-wringing over nomenclature to purely focusing on the merits an assault rifle has for the average civilian vs more traditional weapons like shotguns.
Another alternative when responding to criticism or hyperbole from Fudds or Antis however is also a good old fashioned “go f*** yourself” which is kind of where I am at this point. Although that’s unlikely to win a lot of hearts and minds.
I only use the term “weapon” when discussing something being used to attack and inflict harm on a person, i.e. knife, sharp stick, claw hammer, broken bottle, etc. When teaching a NRA firearm course, we avoid using the term weapon in the building where the class is being held.
I think the term “assault weapon” is a matter of perspective. I own a couple of old 8mm Mausers, which could have been used to “assault” one of my relatives during WWII. If the media could come up with what they think is a more inflammatory term, you can bet a shiny new dime they will use it.
On the subject of assault rifle or assault weapon being a military term, it is. An example is the name of the program that led to the FN rifles of the same name. Special operations forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR.
Obviously the term’s use by the public and media is meaningless.
It matters not what they call them they hate them, and they hate us, better get your head wrapped around that.
Things are going to continue to go south a little at a time, the media glorifying it all step by step.
Sooner or later it all goes off the rails, and deep down you know this.
As mentioned earlier, the Stg44, or Sturmgewehr 44, originated it. Rumor has it (I don’t know the truth of it) that Hitler himself upon seeing the weapon named it “sturmgewehr”.
My response to the “battlefield” line is that pistols and bolt actions and pump shotguns are used on the battlefield. Should those be banned?
The 2A doesnt say “except things used in war”. The whole point is that the general citizen has the same capabilities as soldiers. Today that means machineguns, body armor, nv, and frags. Do I think it will happen? No time soon, but thats how it should be.
Hell, even nukes and chemical weapons are covered, to be by the letter, the 2A needs to be Amended for these.
The Grabbers actually produced a playbook for messaging and wordsmithing their long term agenda, I’ll post a link after the laptop reboots since I don’t have it on the tablet.
Here’s the playbook I mentioned–it shows the roadmap of first “evil assault weapons” then “evil high powered sniper rifles” then “evil concealed-carry murderguns”, and it needs to go viral so we can take the wind out of their sails and those of their Fuddtard Kapos.
From the video: “I believe any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned,” - Dr. RaShall Brackney, Chief of the Charlottesville Police Department in Virginia
Given enough time and opportunity it wouldn’t be limited to firearms.
There’s a reason their side is called the Evil Party and ours is called the Stupid Party… I wonder if we have any psychobabblers around here who could help. (Sorry, my own Psych ed was largely focused on the autism spectrum and mostly as an adaptive strategy for working around my own case of Asperger’s, so not much I can do with general button-pushing.)
I did not know about the Hitler reference, and I’d forgotten about Josh Sugarmann and his BS. Thank you gentlemen for the education and info. Now I’ll be better prepared to set lefties straight about this.
If we was at Bull Run and I was running up on Yankee invaders with my Kentucky rifle then yes you could say it is an assault rifle. I am actively assaulting and I’m using a firearm with a rifled bore. Assault. Rifle.
But otherwise these guns are semiautomatic rifles that are designed to be ergonomic. Whether they look “cool” or “scary” is simply an emotional response.
Bolt guns are obsolete. If you like them, fine. But instead of being an old geezer thumb up but with a bolt action; I’d rather me and my bros get to blaze semi auto and have fun.
2A is very much “Don’t start shit won’t be shit” mixed with “Wish a MFer would”
The era it was written in was post Colonial insurrection, mistrust of empires, and not wanting a standing army.
Nobody cared about hunting or sports when writing it. Only bisexual Europeans care about crap like that.
I wonder if we have any psychobabblers around here who could help. (Sorry, my own Psych ed was largely focused on the autism spectrum and mostly as an adaptive strategy for working around my own case of Asperger’s, so not much I can do with general button-pushing.)