I don't recall if it was the persons being interviewed or the program host, but now I notice the term "assault rifle" is being used more in the last couple of days.
An assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon, like an M-16, etc. and is usually defined as a selective fire weapon that can be switched between single fire, bursts of a few rounds, or full automatic. (Someone with experience with these can correct me, if I am wrong.)
I suggest that we point out that an "assault weapon" is any object used in an assault, i.e. rock, fist, baseball bat, knife, etc. It does not have to be a gun. Let's not let the anti-gun get away unchallenged with defining the terms of the argument.
I have heard a lot of pro-gun people use the term "assault weapon" to refer to things like AR-15s, etc., that are simply semi-automatic rifles that look similar to "assault rifles". I don't think we should use the term "assault weapon" the way the anti-gun crows uses it, as it gives support to their argument to ban what they call "assault weapons".
I love how now Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, is saying civilians shouldn't have so-called "assault weapons".
