Fischer: Assault Weapons Just Like Colonial-era Hunting Rifle

AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer says modern-day assault weapons are simply a "fancy-pants" version of the rifles used by colonists in the American Revolution

[rloomis]

"Wow, this is the type of crap that make anti-gun people look insane."

Only to people who don't understand hyperbole.

[morg]

Rifles were used to great effect by the revolutionary forces. The redcoats had smooth bore weapons mostly.

[WildwoodClaire]

Not sure where you got your info, but Continental forces mostly fought with the same weapons (smooth-bore muskets) and same tactics as the British Army.

[trixie]

He has a point. The framers were talking about the military weapons of the day.

[TheCrankyCow]

the point is that despite the wording "right to keep bear arms shall not be infringed" everyone agrees in some weapon control.
It's just a matter of how far you take it.

[KZN]

People can go on comparing how difference between those weapons. How long it takes to load, rate of fire, etc.

[PlanetBongoSan]

When people bring this up in debates about gun control, it's a debate tactic known as 'reductio ad absurdum'. Its true that no-one is seeking to acquire atom bombs for home defence, but by following the arguments of certain gun rights proponents to their logical conclusions, it becomes impossible to argue that anyone would be outside of their rights if they did decide to build such a weapon. That's why it comes up in debates; people who bring it up are not genuinely comparing them to automatics.

[TheTomtuffy]

Like the Swiss, they have do military service and keep the rifle at home, but no ammunition, that's stored elsewhere.It reduced the shooting deaths.

[morg]

Yes on second thought your point is correct. I was thinking about the stories I heard of colonists picking off collumns of british regulars from back in the woods, Yes the regular troops of the american forces were armed with what was availiable in large quanities, namely smooth bore and yes they were easier to load.

[helios]

The difference is that muskets (not rifles, they didn't become practical until the next century) were only effective in formation, a lone gunner with a musket couldn't kill one person with the bullet. Today's weapons can cause massive destruction on their own. That is the difference.

[NicolSD]

Assault rifles are nothing but "fancy pants" hunting rifles? Well, it's true we learn something new every day. Who would have thought they were nothing but "fancy pants" hunting rifles?

[WildwoodClaire]

Someone needs to tell Bryan that "rifles" weren't used in the Revolutionary War. Troops used smooth-bore muskets.

[Evirthewarrior]

Hunters use semiautomatic weapons all the time, the AR-15 is one of the most popular hunting platforms. You dont have to pull the trigger a dozen times, just once...
Its odd how little people think before they say things. there are 7-10 million AR-15s on the in circulation today, it is one of the most common rifles if not the most common rifle in circulation. You can do so much with it, from hunting to home/self defense.

[surlyswede]

The long rifle of the 1700s took over a minute to reload, much longer than the military musket, and it was definitely not an assault weapon.

[franklater]

In the cro-magnon wars, they used clubs to defeat the Neanderthals. These days, we'd use flamethrowers and grenades. So, since they're essentially the same thing, I took a flamethrower to our last baseball game...

[helios]

...as is anyone who tells you the second amendment is about self-defense. It's about having a well-regulated militia for each state to defend itself. That's why there's the first passage of the amendment.

[Rockownz]

"...under Connecticut's firearms laws, considered strong by national standards, the lethal weapon that Lanza employed was perfectly legal to own.
By law, it's not even an assault weapon."
"Connecticut has an assault-weapons ban, modeled after a federal law that was enacted in 1994 before expiring a decade later."
Courant.com

[BillAngelos]

If there is no argument over this, I dont see why I cant have one. I need one to feel safe in my house, I swear its only for home protection and not for selling on the black market to people that would do terrible things with it.

[MIS_right]

In a way he is right. But then again, America already but a limit on what arms a citizen can own, like tanks and missiles.

[Evirthewarrior]

I'm shocked how many people think the A-bomb is a good line of argument.
1. no one is really arguing over the A-bomb.
2. try using it in defense of yourself, others, or your country, guy pulls a gun on you, you employ a nuclear device 15 feet away from you, see how that works out...

Some people know no bounds of reason... I swear. A firearm can be carried safely, stored safely, and used safely, without damage to other people, where as a nuclear device, cannot on planet earth.