Earl Griffin
I am more familiar with firearms than the average person. I sold them for a living for several years. I worked as a Peace Officer. I have trained on many firing ranges under the tutelage of men and woman whose instruction was of great value. I grew up hunting and shooting recreationally with my late father and with my granddad. I have had an opportunity to become intimately familiar with the function and workings of a wide variety of firearms.
There is a falsehood being perpetrated upon the public. You see an “Assault Rifle,” has what is known as a selector switch. This switch allows the shooter to change the weapons function from semi automatic (like a hunting gun) to rapid fire or in some cases auto fire. Rapid fire allows the weapon to fire a burst of three rounds. Auto fire allows it to continue to fire so long as the trigger is depressed.
This is important: An AR15 is NOT an “Assault Rifle.”
It’s Military counterpart, the M16 IS an “Assault Rifle.”
The AR15 is made of modern materials and because of that its detractors like to say it is something that it is not. The AR15 is NOT an “Assault Rifle.”
The term “Assault Rifle,” is a value loaded term much like “Terrorism,” Those who wish to manipulate public sentiment like to use these kinds of terms to sway the opinions of those who don’t really know much about the topic but who love their families and want things to get “better.”
Better often means a further roll back of our Constitutional freedoms. Rolling back freedom is never better.
Here is something to think about: The AR15 is just another semi automatic firearm, much like a 12 gauge shotgun used for bird hunting or a semi automatic hunting rifle used for deer. It is not at all unlike a boy’s .22 caliber rifle used for squirrel or rabbit hunting.
The big difference is that it is made of modern materials instead of wood. If you allow the proponents of gun control to describe every semi automatic rifle (and shotguns – it is the same action) then the next step in this nefarious exercise will be to ban ALL semi automatic rifles and shotguns – that means your hunting weapons. It also means your family heirlooms passed down from granddad or dad.
In conclusion let me repeat: The AR15 is just another semi automatic rifle with a fancy stock made of modern materials. It is not a “Machine Gun,” or an “Assault Rifle.” No amount of describing it this way will change this.
People who use those terms either don’t know what an “Assault Rifle” really is or they are perpetrating a mean spirited falsehood designed ultimately to rob you of your 2nd Amendment rights.
Do your own homework. Do your own thinking. Don’t get carried away by emotion as doing so makes it easier for others to exert control over you.
Protect every word of the Constitution. Stand firm against those who would see your rights curtailed. They will not be satisfied until there is no Second Amendment.
Some Rights Reserved: Feel free to re-post this article on the internet with full credit to the author and a link back to the original post. If you with to publish this in print please contact the author.
Image via Wikimedia Commons.
[...] This article first appeared at Barking Window [...]
Dear Earl,
That was a damned fine article about what is and what isn’t an assualt rifle. I and millions of patriots agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank you so very much.
Dear WILDBILL,
Thank you sir, for you reading my article and for your kind words.
Best,
Earl
Earl,
Awesome piece. I will be using these truths come Christmas when my liberal in-laws will be demanding to outlaw self-defense.
And to those continue to ask “why does someone need a 30, 50, or 100 round clip”? My response has been “Why do non-military government agencies need over 1.6 billion rounds of ammo purchased over the last year”?
Thank you for your time Earl, and Merry Christmas
Hi Backyard Farmer,
I wish you joy of the Christmas season. I wish you good luck with your in-laws! Hopefully we can all work together to overcome this rising tide of tyranny.
Merry Christmas,
Earl
Earl, here’s another truth, there are NO such designations as 30, 50 or 100 round “clips”. Items holding these amounts are referred to as “magazines”.
[...] Barking Window – by Earl Griffin [...]
[...] This post first appeared on Earl Griffin’s blog, Barking Window. [...]
[...] This post first appeared on Earl Griffin’s blog, Barking Window. [...]
A very good article except for one technical error; the M-16/M-4 is not an Assault Rifle. It is considered to be a Light Rifle. An Assault Rifle fires a heavier bullet like a Main Battle Rifle (M1 Garand, M-14, etc), usually .30 caliber, with a reduced case and powder charge fitting within the rest of your explanation.
The best example of an Assault Rifle is the AK-47, firing the 7.62 x 39mm round. The M-16/M-4 fires a .20 caliber bullet (.223 Remington/5.56 mm NATO) so it is not considered to be a good choice for an Assault Rifle.
Of course, the term the gun grabbers keep using is “Assault Weapons” which includes a whole slew of things that nobody in their right mind would even consider…
Hi Ol’ Grey Ghost,
Thank you for reading my article. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. You have given me some things to think about. I was focused on the mechanism of an assault rifle without considering the influence of caliber. More than anything I hope that like minded people will be able to educate those who are clueless.
Warm Regards,
Earl
Greetings Earl,
I have a similar article in the works for my blog with the working title, “What’s in a Name.” I should have it wrapped up sometime after Christmas.
Keep up the great work and may you and yours have a joyous Yuletide,
Peter AKA The Ol’ Grey Ghost
P.S. You might be interested in this…
http://olgreyghost.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-few-thoughts-about-connecticut-school.html
You’re both wrong. There is NO SUCH THING as an “Assault Rifle or Assault Weapon. It’s a made up term coined by the professional cowards occupying the news media and the halls of Congress. The M-16, M1, M-14, M-4 are referred to in military manuals as “SERVICE RIFLES”. Stop writing about topics you know only a little more about than the creeps trying to give this country away.
I suggest that you consult with some of more popular encyclopedias of military weapons. There is a designation for “Assault Rifles” which is given a specific definition. This was the starting point from which the Gun Control Freaks (GCF’s) would create the ambiguous and all encompassing term, “Assault Weapons.”
The M-16/M-4 rifles are listed as Light Battle/Combat rifles due to their lighter bullet weights (50 – 70 grains) and shorter casings. They are recommended more for Urban Combat.
Of course, U.S. military manuals would list them as “Service Rifles” because they are the designated “service rifle” of the U.S. armed forces.
What was that you said about topics you don’t don’t know about? “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
As a former M-16 rifle instructor (U.S. Navy), I can assure you that I’m quite well versed on this topic. Colt doesn’t call the M-16 an “Assault” anything and neither does the military. I don’t care how some unqualified editor of any “popular encyclopedias of military weapons” decides to re-write or re-name a weapon. If you call that weapon anything other than a rifle while engaged in training on a military base you will be ridiculed for your ignorance.
Hi Jack,
Thanks for reading Barking Window. I appreciate your unique insight. No doubt we all come from a different place and have different experience. Yours is appreciated. Thank you for taking time to comment.
Best,
Earl
“If you release you anchor to the Past, then you will flounder in the Present and capsize in the Future.”
As a former Police Firearms Instructor and Armorer I can personally attest that the editors of such encyclopedia were well qualified and certainly had an idea what they were talking about and they made their decisions long before the GCF’s came up with their altered term (try during the Eisenhower administration).
To dissect a movement like the GCF’s have then one must study the past to determine the roots of the words and term they are want to use. If you engage in historical revisionism by denying that the term “Assault Rifle” ever existed, then you only give them more ammunition for their work in the future.
If you are going to argue with those who are on the same side of the issue as you appear to be, then our position is hopeless…
“Those who fail to study History are doomed to repeat it – in Summer School.”
[...] This post first appeared on Earl Griffin’s blog, Barking Window. [...]
Earl,
With all due respect, the subject is moot. The Second Amendment stipulates that the People’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because that right (of self-defense) is granted by God, not government.
The amendment is predicated on the need for national defense, thus mentions the vital importance of citizen militias. Whatever the gun-grabbers call the various ‘military grade’ firearms and other weapon systems, the citizen militia members should own, and train with under the State militia command structure as applicable.
This includes every type and caliber of firearm, projectile and hand-thrown explosive, optical devices (i.e., IR and night vision) that might be used by the enemy — even a domestic enemy such as tyrannical police, state, or federal ‘troops’.
This was how citizen militias were meant to exist: as America’s sole defense force. Read article I, Section 9 of the Constitution; you find only militia and navy mentioned — only for up to two years, and only to “repel invasions” and “suppress insurrections”. No full-time, paid federal mercenary force for industry.
So. If anyone should have ANY kind of firearms and other weaponry available today, it should be responsible citizens ready and trained for militia duty — NOT simply “Law Enforcement Officers” and federal employees tasked with overseas invasions for plunder.
Thus, silly media and politicians’ terminology is immaterial until they can amend the U.S. Constitution as stipulated in Article V.
Thank you.
D.M. Zuniga
Founder, AmericaAgain! Trust
Author, “This Bloodless Liberty”
(With respect to the hyperventilating gun-grabbers after every social atrocity, I suggest the national dialogue is either evil or idiotic, as explained in this monograph:
http://americaagain.nationbuilder.com/mass_murder_our_national_pastime )
Of course I meant to type “Article I, Section 8″; didn’t proof-read; sorry.
DMZ
Hello D.M. Zuniga,
Thanks for reading! Thanks for commenting. I appreciate your comment on the Constitution. My focus in this article is to help those who really don’t understand the difference in a semi automatic rifle and a military or “assault rifle.” I believe that in working to educate those who have little interest in firearms or whose interest does has not led them to a greater understanding of the subject. I think it is important to dispel terms like “assault rifle” from our conversations about firearms that are just plain semi automatics. I wish you very well in your work sir. Thank you again for your comment.
Best,
Earl
[...] This post first appeared on Earl Griffin’s blog, Barking Window. [...]
[...] This post first appeared on Earl Griffin’s blog, Barking Window [...]
[...] Be patient in your efforts to educate. [...]
I appreciate the info as one who does not own a gun or rifle, but also thinks how one defends himself or his family is not for government to decide.
In light of an assault on the 2nd Amendment and the self-evident right of personal defense from crooks and government I may have to.