Yes, the StG 44 was the only rifle actually named the "assault rifle". The concept was copied by numerous countries but no other country called them an "assault rifle" (Sturmgewehr). The StG was originally developed as a "machinen pistole" but it's alleged that when the weapon was demonstrated to A.H. he changed it's nomenclature to "Sturmgewehr" and "44" the year it was adopted by the German military.
Diane Feinstein knew jack squat about firearms but knew good propaganda when she heard it so the term "assault rifle" became a staple of her anti-gun agenda. Libturd journalists (urinealists?) went along with it and the term is now part of anti-gun history and lore.
Yeah, my opinion is that the term is archaic, yet legitimate. I don't recall Feinstein calling them that very often, but she loved using the term "assault weapon" as often as possible.
Furthermore, while the old kike hag was still alive in the 60's, her agenda wasn't fully realized yet, meanwhile the US military had already officially adopted the term- not just slang- by the time the M16A2 was put into service (1967). It is still in official use for M4 variants and their HK replacements/counterparts.
I don't allow the term to be corrupted, because it's clearly defined. I'm a fan of Title III firearms (but not the 1934 NFA or the 1986 Hughes Amendment that mark them as such), and all of Title III dealers and MG collectors I know share the same nomenclature freely. When libshits incorrectly use the term, it actually makes the debating easier by calling out their ignorance.
Not to put to fine a point on it but show me any select fire weapon from the US or any other country that is stamped "assault rifle, X.XX mm".
You won't see one. Same way you don't see "submachine gun" stamped on an MP9, "heavy machine gun" on an M2, "battle rifle" on an M14, "S.A.W." on an M249 or M60, "anti-material rifle" on an M82, or "sniper rifle" stamped on an M40. Should I move on to grenade and missile designations and their types or have I made my point? Doesn't change the facts that that is what each of them are.
To elaborate on me saying saying that the term "assualt rifle" is archaic: It realistically should be classified as "infantry rifle", "select-fire rifle", or maybe something else, but they're not. Note that both light and medium "machine guns" are generally referred to as "squad automatics" now, and both are partially defined by being belt-fed; assault rifles fall under neither those former classifications nor latter umbrella, thus cannot be described as such.
Maybe while we're at it, we should argue the semantics of the even-more-archaic term "machine gun", even though all modern firearms are technically machines, and that full auto firing mechanisms are generally simpler than semi-autos? All that matters is none of this matters, because "assault rifle" is the accepted nomenclature for the particular class of weapon we've been talking about, and it hasn't been updated by the manufacturers or end-users; full fucking stop. What propagandists call anything does not matter.
Nevertheless, this all boils down to fact that you are rejecting a term because enemies of truth used it incorrectly or otherwise demonized it, which is an absurd notion.
Unrelated to firearms: Do you still say the words "nigger", "kike", or "retard"? What about "rioters" and "looters"? Or do you now call them whatever the fuck the media chooses to this week? Are you afraid of being called a racist or anti-semite? You shouldn't be, because there's nothing inherently wrong about those words/terms based on true definitions. Don't fall victim to the euphemism treadmill; it edges you closer to doublespeak whether you realize it or not.
I covered every fucking base here as logically as possible, but perhaps I cannot help the willfully ignorant.
(post is archived)