Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[pritch]

Intriguing puzzle. There was mention, I think on TV1 News, that Trump was not happy with news releases from the White House. I've checked several US sources and can see nothing as yet, but shown below is Kayleigh McEnany's current Twitter profile.

[TheDemonLord]

You must be a man for fine distinctions. Mind explaining why an AR15 is not an assault weapon? Not arguing, just seeking to understand.

Firstly, 'Assault Weapon' has no technical definition.

Secondly, 'Assault Rifle' requires it to have 3 things: Fed by a detachable box magazine, fires an intermediate cartridge and be capable of Select Fire (going between Semi-auto and full-auto)

Civillian ARs are not capable of Select Fire, ergo are not Assault Rifles.

[pritch]

Firstly, 'Assault Weapon' has no technical definition.

Secondly, 'Assault Rifle' requires it to have 3 things: Fed by a detachable box magazine, fires an intermediate cartridge and be capable of Select Fire (going between Semi-auto and full-auto)

Civillian ARs are not capable of Select Fire, ergo are not Assault Rifles.

Well I had no desire to get into an argument with you but... I'm reliably informed by people who carried them in the US Army that most military issue M16s were not select fire. Mine was, but it was an early issue, later ones were semi auto only. Id'a thunk a military issue M16 is beyond question an assault rifle? Or possibly an assault carbine depending on the relevant dimensions?

[FJRider]

Despite Husa's protestations, the 2nd Amendment, both in it's theoretical conception and it's implementation was definitive about the Public having weapons meant for War.

This is because one of the reasons for having it in the first place was so that the Public could fight a war against the state, should the state turn tyrannical.

Bullshit.

The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is a right for people to possess weapons (arms) for their own defense. Does carrying firearms for their "Own defense" mean carrying them openly in the street ... ??? Is this for their own defense in their daily life ... in their homes (and on the street). Or ... specifically ... to prepare ... and be prepared to fight a civil war against their own tyrannical [by THEIR definition] Government. ... (definition of tyrannical: exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way) What would be a cruel and arbitrary way mean in real life to you that would require the use of firearms ... ??

If the people don't like their Government ... they should just vote them out. It's the US of A for fucks sake ... not the fucking Ukraine ..

[TheDemonLord]

Well I had no desire to get into an argument with you but... I'm reliably informed by people who carried them that most military M16s were not select fire. Mine was, but it was an early issue, later ones were semi auto only. Id'a thunk a military issue M16 is beyond question an assault rifle? Or possibly an assault carbine depending on the relevant dimensions?

Well, y'know - here I am....

but getting back to your point - I'd ask for a citation first an foremost.

I think it's the A3 or the A4 variant that dropped full auto in favour of Burst fire only - however Burst Fire places the rifle in the same category as any other full-auto firearm (in the US the terminology is 'Machine Gun' - which applies to any full-auto or burst first firearm), and therefore burst fire still meets the criteria of being Select Fire.

If memory serves, the technical definition is that more than one round is fired with a single pull of the trigger, which burst fire meets.

Wiki Link, on the right showing the Trigger combination, none listed as showing Safe/Semi only

However, I'll add to that, that it may be similar to the British SLR vs the FAL, where I think the British opted for a Semi only variant, whereas the standard FAL was capable of Full-Auto, so there may be a national variant, referred to as an 'M16' (but actually a local variant of the AR platform - like the NZDF LMT MARS-L) that they carried which didn't have Full Auto, but then even if carried by a soldier - if it lacks the fun switch, it's not an Assault Rifle.

[Kickaha]

Something Something 'Shall not be infringed' something.

They infringe upon it all the time, certain people are not allowed to lawfully own firearms so that is bullshit

Maybe the well regulated militia should fight them with bow and arrows and slingshots.

How many of these people actually belong to a "well regulated militia"

[Kickaha]

whereas the standard FAL was capable of Full-Auto

They weren't considered very good as a full auto, NZ Army had semi auto

[pritch]

They weren't considered very good as a full auto, NZ Army had semi auto

The cooks and drivers also had the full auto version but it was truly a load of shite. The SAS may have had some SLRs modified to fire full auto, but having fired them I fail to see why.

TDL, Citation? I got that from discussing such things with people who carried them in the service of the US of A.

[FJRider]

Maybe the well regulated militia should fight them with bow and arrows and slingshots.

There were a few predating the first US Government. This led to many towns (now cities) with the prefix of Fort.

[TheDemonLord]

Bullshit.

The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is a right for people to possess weapons (arms) for their own defense. Does carrying firearms for their "Own defense" mean carrying them openly in the street ... ??? Is this for their own defense in their daily life ... in their homes (and on the street). Or ... specifically ... to prepare ... and be prepared to fight a civil war against their own tyrannical [by THEIR definition] Government. ... (definition of tyrannical: exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way) What would be a cruel and arbitrary way mean in real life to you that would require the use of firearms ... ??

If the people don't like their Government ... they should just vote them out. It's the US of A for fucks sake ... not the fucking Ukraine ..

Read the Federalist papers.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

The whole point of the 'Well regulated Militia' was to decentralize and localize the means by which to defend an area (County, State, Country), without having to use a standing Army because of the fear that the Government might grow tyrannical and use a standing army against the People.

And it's not like this is Conjecture - they spell it out quite clear that seeing what some of the European kingdoms had done, they decided that a well armed populace is the ultimate check and balance to a Governments use of Force.

[FJRider]

The cooks and drivers also had the full auto version but it was truly a load of shite.

Drivers and cooks usually had M16's ... but auto's (on auto) used a lot of ammo.

Larger caliber weapons were too bulky in vehicles. Light small weapons easily carried and easy to hold getting in (and out in a hurry) were preferred by drives at the "Sharp" end. But they were very short range weapons.

[TheDemonLord]

They infringe upon it all the time, certain people are not allowed to lawfully own firearms so that is bullshit

I believe those people (at least nowadays) are convicted Felons - and as such, the consequence of their crimes removes their claim to certain rights (not just the right to bear arms)

[TheDemonLord]

They weren't considered very good as a full auto, NZ Army had semi auto

Heh - the description I've heard is 'Near uncontrollable' - but I believe the NZ SLRs were based on the British Pattern, which would affirm my memory.

[pritch]

Drivers and cooks usually had M16's ... but auto's (on auto) used a lot of ammo.

Larger caliber weapons were too bulky in vehicles. Light small weapons easily carried and easy to hold getting in (and out in a hurry) were preferred by drives at the "Sharp" end. But they were very short range weapons.

Infantry had Brens, GPMGs or M60s depending where you were geographically speaking. Transport had heavy barrel SLRs instead. The infantry would not want those for a wart on their arse as the instructors put it.

Obviously, as you say, drivers didn't carry LMGs around. A transport company would have them for defence though.

[TheDemonLord]

TDL, Citation? I got that from discussing such things with people who carried them in the service of the US of A.

Well, as far as the Military standards go - all M16 variants have either Burst Fire or Full Auto (or both), and therefore Assault Rifles.

I'd suggest most likely the people you were chatting with didn't consider Burst Fire to be Full Auto and so didn't reference it as such.