Posted on 07/14/2008 3:48:20 AM PDT by Schnucki
OKLAHOMA CITY - An Oklahoma City church called off plans to give away a semiautomatic assault rifle at a weekend gathering of teenagers, the church's pastor said.
Plans called for Windsor Hills Baptist to give away the weapon as a way of encouraging attendance at the gathering but plans changed when one the event's organizers was unable to attend, KOCO 5, Oklahoma City, reported Sunday.
The church's pastor, Bob Ross, said officials anticipated hundreds of teenagers from as far away as Canada would attend.
"We have 21 hours of preaching and teaching throughout the week," Ross told KOCO 5.
The church Web site featured a video showing the shooting competition from last year's conference. A gun was given away last year, but this year organizers decided to highlight the giveaway in promotions for the conference.
Ross told the TV station the church was not "putting a weapon in the hand of somebody that doesn't respect it who are then going to go out and kill."
The gun giveaway has been taken down from the Web site, but Ross said the church will give the gun away next year.
That press would be full of praises if this church decided to give away condoms at a teen conference
Right!
What kind of gun was it then?
Did Pastor Bob Ross say that it would be an “assault” rifle, or did the media say that?
A shooting competition. Great idea!
I attended camps that had such, and was placed in the prone position with a .22 hunting rifle when I was 7 years old. And that was in northern California!
I’ve been members of churches that have had men’s outings with shooting events. It’s great!
To the MSM, all guns are assault weapons and any gun that holds more than 2 bullets is a semi-automatic.
My 11yr. old just attended a similar camp, shooting guns, archery and fishing. He had to take the online hunters safety course BEFORE attending, when he got there they received the hands on gun safety. They mostly shot .22’s and shot guns, he won the skeet competition for his age group.
Around here, the kids grow up with guns. I assume every household has firearms. My children began learning about them at a very young age. They have been shooting since they are about 6. They understand the power of a firearm, guns are not a mystery to them.
I initially would have agreed with you, as I’d assume the media would call any rifle an “assault rifle” even if it’s just a Ruger 10/22.
I’d read on another forum that the actual gun was supposed to be an AR-15, and even I have a hard time calling that something other than an assault rifle. Of course, I have absolutely no problem with people owning AR-15s - just that in this case, the media description would actually be correct.
There is always the chance that whatever other forum I read was just nothing more than wild speculation.
It is not an "Assault" anything unless it is used in an assault.
Just call it a rifle, willya? It is even less to type. The carpal tunnel you save may be your own, and you are not playing into the MSM "eeevil gun" fantasy.
If you let them redifine a semiautomatic rifle as an equivalent of the M4 or other select-fire weapons capable of full auto, then you are muddying the water and helping the assault media in their attack on the RKBA, an ongoing assault on our rights.
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The main characteristic of an assault rifle is the ability to use it to enter rooms and use a three round burst repeatedly to take out multiple targets.
As part of the devotional festivities, they could have sung “Onward, Christian Soldiers.”
Pentagon’s definition of “Assault rifle” is a rifle capable of FULL auto and semi auto and chambered in an intermediate caliber (which .223 is). But an AR-15 is NOT an M-16 or an M-4.
They look similar but the AR-15 is missing a lot of the internal parts the others have and the selector on an AR-15 only has “Safe” and “Fire” which shoots once for each trigger pull. The full auto versions will have three or four positions, Safe, Semi, Burst, and Auto.
Well, it wasn’t a (semi-automatic) (assault) rifle. Pick either parenthetized adjective, and it’s possible; it cannot, however, be both.
Like a sandwich made of (kosher) (pork) sausage.
In my book an “assault” weapon would have to be at least select fire, probably with a burst mode. This is an “assault” weapon in the same sense as the ones banned in 1994 (IOW, scawy wooking).
A Ruger 10/22 would be great, but something like an AR-15 straight off the bat is a little much.
How is that Spencer rifle loaded?
It's not a single shot? I don't see where the tube mag would be.
In the modern medical field, I think that’s called a colonic...
:)
See KOCO story
I just wish they hadn't wimped out, there is nothing illegal about giving away a gun, provided the recipient is not ineligible to receive and possess a firearm. 18 is the minimum age for possession of a long arm.
You should, by DoD definition an assault rifle is a select fire weapon (full auto or burst fire as well as single shot per trigger pull) firing an *intermediate power* cartridge.
Even the former legal term was "assault weapon", which had one federal definition and various other definition in some states. It's real meaning is "scary looking semiautomatic firearm".
Why? Any kid old enough to legally receive an AR-15 is old enough to handle it. A 10/22 will kill you just as dead if it's misused, although it might not be quite as likely to do so, in these days of good trauma care and antibiotics. (.22 rim fire is a notoriously dirty round, it picks up everything, including germs)
I’m not saying they can’t handle it; just personally, I’d wait until a child is 13 or so until they receive their first Evil Black Rifle.
Until then, they could shoot mine before getting their own. Various .22s would be fine for their own closet until I feel they’re ready.
And it still sends the wrong message for a church to have an AR-15 as a prize. Some wackos might think they’re trying to start another Crusade.
We're not talking 13 here. Unless they give the rifle to a parent. Kids under 18 cannot posses rifles or shotguns. 21 for handguns. (Presumably after their second tour in Iraq and/or Afghanistan). But they can have them in their household and they can use them under supervision, direct or indirect.
So if it was your under 13 y/o that was awarded the Evil Black Gun. You are still their parent, and would be the legal owner of the firearm. You would control when, or even if, they get to shoot it.
Now that said, I remember being 15 and riding down a major thoroughfare (a "mile road" street) in my city, with a shotgun over the handle bars of my bicycle, and in company with other 15 year olds. Nobody thought a thing about it. I also remember being out with two of my cousins when we were younger than that, on walking the creeks and shooting at the water skimmers (with the opposite bank as a backstop) with a "plastic" stocked semiautomatic rifle. One of them was even scoped. (They each had one, gifts from their grandfather, my great uncle Joe, brother to my great uncle Sam :)) Sure they were just Remington Nylon 66's but they did have a high capacity magazine and were ugly green guns, yea Seneca Green. Hardly ever see a green one, Apache Black and Mohawk Brown were much more common, the green was discontinued in 1962, and I'm sure Uncle Joe bought them new, so I was probably quite a bit younger than 15, more like 12-13. (The green was not a Kelly green, but more like Moss green).
The green was the rarest version and now sells for twice what the really ugly Mohawk Brown's go for.
You grew up in a different era than I did. Heck, I can’t remember if I’ve ever seen a movie that has scenes which FReepers used to do when they were young.
I was only born in 1985; if I was 12 or 13 and saw a kid riding a bike with a shotgun on the handlebars, the next thing I’d hear would be half a dozen cop cars screaming towards the poor soul, guns drawn.
Doesn’t help I grew up in Brooklyn, NY either.
I understand the AR-15 does not meet the “formal definition” of assault rifle. Of course, the M14 and M1 do not mean the formal definition since they use high-powered ammunition. The only difference between the M14 and the AK is the length of the bullet.
The AR-15 is for all intents and purposes the civilian version of the M16 (it started as an entry to become the M16). Now, if you want to distinguish between a civilian version and a military version you can. I’m at least trying to acknowledge that there is a huge difference between an AR-15 and other “semi-automatic sporting rifles” such as the Remington 7400, Browning BAR, Ruger 10/22, and so on. The AR-15 can accept drum magazines (I’ve seen it) and is easily modified to be fully automatic (I’ve seen that too).
Hell, most people on the AR15.com boards will acknowledge the term “assault rifle” is fitting. As I said before I don’t have a problem with civilian ownership and use of AR-15s. Like it or not, however, the term “assault rifle” as it is commonly used (even if it’s from the gross mischaracterization of the dead ban) applies to the AR-15. Forgive me but I don’t see how one can effectively argue with a gun grabber if you start by assuming that the AR-15 is no different than any other 4-shot autoloading rifle.
Sort of the "Jim Zumbo" school of weapon classification.
I lost it late one day when I was hightailing it over a local rancher's fence, snagged on the barbed wire, fell on it and broke it in half, and had to leave it there so I wouldn't get nabbed.
Ah, the good old days... !
Um....what do you suppose the "AR" stands for?
Yea the Browning BAR and Remington 7400 are much more powerful than the AR-15, at least in it's original 5.56mm loading. They are more akin to semi auto versions of the M14, like the M1A or M14S, which is classed as a "battle rifle". It would be possible to feed them with a Drum magazine too, if anyone made one. That's true of any removable magazine fed rifle (save some exotics like the FN PS-90)
Which "bin" would you put the Mini-14/30 "Ranch rifle"? Or the M-1 Carbine for that matter. They too have removeable magazines, and exist as both semi-auto and full auto versions (AC-556 for the Mini-14 and M2 Carbine for the M1 Carbine)
So as real differences you are down to pistol grip and bayonet lug.
Hmm, it must have been levered over something. My cousin's drove over theirs with a farm truck and didn't hurt it a bit. But it was laying flat.
I put a round through their screen with the scoped one. They had gone off to church and left me alone in the house. Older cousin left a round in the chamber.. and result was the hole in the screen of an upstairs window. Might have hit the weather vane on the barn too, since that's where the cross hairs were when I pulled the trigger. Ooops.
Although the incident probably saved much more damage a few years later. I'd been hunting with my dad, perhaps at those same cousin's place, I don't remember for sure. Anyway, I was tasked with unloading the car, and when I pulled Dad's old JC Higgins 12 out of the back of the wagon, I threw it to my shoulder, pointed at the loft in eh garage...but did not pull the trigger, after seeing a flashback of the earlier incident. Racked the slide and sure enough, Dad had left a round in the chamber. Now that would have been a mess, probably put a big hole in the roof of the garage as well as messing up whatever was stored in the loft at the time. (Duck decoys, pidgeon transport crates, and all manner of other stuff).
When I returned a couple of days later, the action was a rusted mess. An unfortunate end to a great little rifle.
Most M-16s are today built by FN in South Caroline (IIRC), but M-4 Carbines are built by Colt AFAIK. FN also builds the M-249 and M-240, but those are of FN (Europe) design as well.
It does not mean "Assault Rifle 15", it is for Armalite model 15, the designer, one Eugene Stoner of the Fairchild ArmaLite corporation, it was his fifteenth model of the piece. Armalite later sold the rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt.
If you want to buy into the idea that just because a term is widely misused, especially by the same people who widely support banning the item they villify, then I can't help you.
I will continue to deny that the AR-15 and the M-16 are identical (even though they are based on the same design and are similar in appearance), and continue to fight the media fostered confusion which permits people to think of a semi-automatic rifle as a select-fire weapon (a (sub)'machine gun'), which is precisely why the media fostered the confusion in the first place, to blur the distinction in the minds of those who did not know anything about firearms.
While there are distinct similarities in appearance, the workings in the lower recievers, the bolt carrier and other parts are different, and functionally, they ar not identical.
I can alter a Yugo to do the quarter mile in 10 seconds, but that does not make the average Yugo a race car, nor would paint, tires and wheels, and the appearance of a dragster applied to the average Yugo get it down the track in a week.
Similarly, no modifications, regardless of how difficult or easy they are to perform, make the bulk of AR-15s "assault rifles", nor does the appearance of a select-fire weapon give the semi-automatic rifle the operational characteristics of the select-fire version.
You could alter other individual semiautomatic rifles to look like AR-15s to the casual nitwit, with pistol grips, military looking stocks, flash hiders, and bayonet lugs--the sky is the limit to the skilled individual.
That does not make the rest of them select fire weapons either.
Keep in mind, initially the BAR was a weapon of war, a true automatic rifle, and though it does not have the 'eeevil military appearance' of the AR-15 or the semiautomatic AK-based designs, it is functionally far more capable as a weapon.
That the semiautomatic version looks the same to the untrained eye does not make the semiautomatic version an automatic rifle, nor the full auto version any less capable.
Even the innocuous M2 carbine was full auto capable, it just did not have the 'eeevil appearance' of the more modern rifles.
If you want to let the media define eggs as chickens, that is up to you, but I will not give the people who use words for a living an easy pass. They, especially, are aware of how terms frame the issues, and of the impact something as seemingly casual as a name can have on the outcome of debate.
They know their "Bolshevik vs Menshevik" very well.
As for the M14 versus the M1, one is box magazine fed, and capable of fully automatic operation (a select-fire weapon), the other semi-automatic, fed by an en-bloc clip.
It is like equating the (real, full-auto capable) AK-47 with the SKS.
As for the Ruger 10/22, I have seen magazines readily available with capacities up to 50 rounds, and drum magazines (75 round) for the SKS. Both were commonly available before the "assault rifle" ban, which banned semiautomatic rifles and ammunition magazines of greater capacity than 10 rounds, and which really started the entire misdesignation of semiautomatic rifles as "assault weapons". Put a folding aftermarket stock on with a pistol grip, and add in a bipod or carry handle and you have an instant "assault weapon" as defined by the...media and the Congress, neither of which has been especially friendly to the RKBA for some time, as a rule.
The terms "assualt rifle" or "assault weapon", applied to semiautomatic rifles are the rhetoric of those who are determined to undermine or destroy the RKBA. By using them, you aid and identify yourself with those who oppose our rights. Think about that.
I didn’t say the AR-15 was a four-shot rifle. I was saying it’s a significant stretch to lump it in with other semi-automatic sporting rifles (like the aforementioned 7400) which IS a four-shot rifle. Technically, the BMW M3 and Toyota Tercel are both four-door sedans, but the similarities end there.
I am quite familiar with the differences between the two rifles, so you don’t need to explain them to me. I do know that they are extremely similar as the M16 was originally the military designation for the AR15. It would take a gunsmith in many cases to identify the differences between the two rifles. Of course, there is the key distinction that one is capable of three-round bursts (in the A4 configuration) or fully automatic (A3) while the other is semiautomatic only.
The fact that the appearance is identical is largely irrelevant. As you say, the appearance is not what makes the rifle effective. For the first four shots, a 7400 is more or less identical to an M1; they’re firing the same cartridge. Similarly, many deer hunting rifles are functionally largely equivalent to the M40. The most obvious reason I say the AR15 is an assault rifle is simple: a skilled shooter can accurately put out 30 rounds in a very short amount of time. This is not true of the vast majority of hunting and target rifles, and you might concede if a shooter were told to put 100 rounds into a target at a range the AR15’s time would be a lot closer to the M16 than it would be to other civilian rifles. If it were truly a “sporting rifle” it probably wouldn’t come standard with a 30-round magazine.
You are certainly free to think what you want about terminology and what that makes me. I’m in no way aiding any gun grabbers, and it’s actually quite comical to suggest the use of the term assault rifle means somebody opposes the Second Amendment. I like to think I’m not so naive to equate a 30-round tactical rifle with a four-shot hunting rifle. Whatever terminology you want to use to describe the rifle is irrelevant; the fact remains that the AR15 is a hell of a lot closer to most military rifles than it is to semiautomatic sporting rifles. I stress again (please try to understand this time) that I wholeheartedly support the ownership of such weapons by civilians be it for target practice, collecting, or even safekeeping as protection for the First Amendment.
The "assault weapons ban" banned rifles on largely cosmetic features, not function. In fact the AR-15, stripped of pistol grip, without carry handle, and with no bayonet lug, and a 5-round magazine was NOT considered an "assault rifle" by the criteria put forth in the act. Many firearms were simply cosmetically reconfigured and sold with the same action, barrel, and a lower capacity magazine.
The term, as applied to semi-automatic rifles, is a fabrication of HCI and other anti-gun groups, adopted by antigunners in Congress and splayed around the world by the MSM, without regard for definition. They used it to describe military looking, box magazine fed rifles.
They also used it to describe pistols with the magazine in front of the trigger group, which took in some fine target models as well.
If it were truly a “sporting rifle” it probably wouldn’t come standard with a 30-round magazine.
I guess that is dependent on what you consider "sport". You can hunt deer with the .308 Stoner designs (AR-10), (pretty much a scaled-up AR-15) in my state (no deer hunting with .22 caliber bullets and under, so the AR-15 is out), and you can even lug around as much ammo as large a box magazine as you want. (I know, it only ships with a 20 round magazine.) I'd say that makes it "sporting".
Even if it is offered in an "assault weapon ban" configuration.
It would take a gunsmith in many cases to identify the differences between the two rifles.
A gunsmith? Open it up, (remove the upper receiver) and look. Not hard to tell. The third detent on the safety might give you a clue. You do not need to be a gunsmith, just know the rifle.
So what do you consider an assault weapon?
If I have an innocuous looking, accurate rifle which is capable of being fed more than ten, twenty, thirty, fourty, or more rounds without reloading?
That is not what the gun-grabbers used for criteria, even though they thought magazine size should be limited to 10 rounds.
It was not function, but form they used to define "assault weapon", otherwise the AR-10 would not have been offered in a perfectly legal "assault weapon ban configuration" which functionally was the same action capable of being fed the same number of rounds from the same magazines with the same results. Read the webpage yourself, if you have not already.
It is solely a question of looks, not function to the gun banners who pushed to eliminate these rifles as "assault weapons"--and will try to do so again.
The only thing which limits a skilled shooter putting 30 rounds downrange with any firearm is the time it takes to acquire the target, the time it takes to reload, the cyclic rate of the firearm, and how many times they have to squeeze the trigger.
The salient difference between the military rifles and the semiautomatic rifles is that with the military rifle, to put those 30 rounds downrange (less accurately, admittedly) you only need to squeeze the trigger once. In any variant, the difference between the ordinary semi-automatic and the Class III firearm is the way it functions, not the way it looks (with the exception of the barrel length fetish).
The obfustication of terminology is the way the opponents of the RKBA have made progress. Talking about relatively ordinary semi-automatic firearms (regardless of how they look) as if they were "machine guns spraying cop-killer bullets", etc.
We need not join in their hyperbole, and should be especially careful not to do so.
I got a feeling your kids are gonna turn out alright. :)
To me, the gun control issue is largely dead. DC vs. Heller should have cemented that (even though recent news suggests DC is planning on requiring trigger locks in direct violation of the ruling). If I were to define an assault weapon, I’d start with what a Marine might choose if he needed a new weapon for tactical assault. I’d think when replacing the M16 or the M4 one would be very likely to choose the AR15. Similarly, a sniper needing to replace his rifle could probably do so with a Remington 700 at Walmart and still be effective to 600 yards or so. This doesn’t make the rifle a “sniper rifle” since it’s in the hands of a sniper. It’s not the gun, it’s the person. I don’t care at all what you want to call it. When I argue this I do not care much for the terminology. That’s not the point. Gun violence remains a human problem, not a gun problem.
Consider the recent past. Somewhere (I believe it was NY) a police officer was shot by a bank robber with an SKS. One of the gun-grabbers in New York shamelessly took this opportunity to plug a renewal of the assault weapons ban. He believes that somebody who has absolutely no problem committing two felonies (robbing a bank and attempting to murder a police officer) is going to not only care but strictly follow the letter of the law regarding guns. Most people can see the error in this logic. I don’t care what you call the gun - if the person’s willing to break the law so easily it doesn’t matter.
I guess I tend to treat issues like this the same way BATF and the government do. As you know the BATF will try to expand definitions, but they never back down from a position. Since the select fire use of an assault rifle is an integral part of the use of the rifle...in the strictest sense...the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. That it can be modified to do the same still does not make an unaltered one an assault rifle.
I see no reason to give BATF any ground on any issue since they never will.
Sadly, it is never a dead issue.
It should have been dead when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, but it was not then, is not, and will never be dead as long as those who stand to make a buck or a living off of mayhem, murder, and tragedy blame the device instead of the people wielding it.
Despite the Heller decision, there was already talk of what constitutes a "reasonable limitation" on the right, before the ink was dry. That alone is enough to tell you the issue is not dead.
Please, for the sake of the right, DO pay attention to terminology. The rhetoric shapes the arguments, and inflammatory rhetoric, even terminology coined by the MSM, the Brady bunch, HCI, and all the other anti-gunners out there is carefully crafted to portray firearms in an evil light.
The more vicious, dangerous, and patently evil they can make something sound, the more likely they are to sway public sentiment against it.
At one point (Clinton Administration) the talk was rife from those quarters of repealing the 2nd Amendment, until they realized that by calling for repeal they were tacitly admitting it protected an individual right (otherwise, why repeal it?).
Expect to see that idea resurrected, on the heels of some murderous rampage, whether or not a military-style (appearing) firearm was used. It is almost a certainty.
We are in complete agreement about the flawed logic of passing yet more laws to burden the honest which will have no effect on criminals, but we are dealing with people to whom logic makes no difference because their thought processes (such as they are) center around feelings.
In that light, allowing those who would ban the arms we see as an absolute minimum of what the framers had in mind (a barely acceptable front-line military arm), to phrase any debate or define any arm as something which by its very name can be readily villified may come back to haunt us all.
If you value your right (and I believe you do), help defuse their arguments by denying them their rhetoric and refusing to use it. They picked it because it is catchy, easy to say, and gives a distinct (and to the hoplophobe, terrifying) image. We can (and must do) better if we are going to keep battering back the infringements on the RKBA, for Heller is not the end, only a beginning.
We have a lot of right to recover before things are as they should be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.