Why does the term assault rifle trigger /k/ and /pol? Is it because

>>29428246

For the small chance that you're not a troll:

An assault rifle is by definition a weapon that fires an intermediate-size cartridge and is capable of firing in either semi-automatic or fully automatic.

It's not a scurry black rifle that just so happens to look like one used in the military.

We're fine with the term if you use it correctly. When you call things assault rifles that aren't, particularly if you are an antigun faggot talking about bans, we wish you would die.

>>29428271
>It's not a scurry black rifle that just so happens to look like one used in the military.
Exactly. The AR-15s on the market are not designed for "assault".

So instead, people started attacking "assault-style" rifles. Incapable of attacking the weapon's characteristics relevant to "assault" rationally, they started attacking the "style".

you're thinking of assault weapon op

>>29428246
That gun triggers me because it's mirrored

Assault rifle doesn't trigger us. They're neat, many of us want one, a few of us even own one. Assault weapon triggers us, because there's no such thing.

>>29428296
That's what makes the M1A useful in California. It looks like a hunting rifle or great-grandpa's M1 Garand but it's just about as killy as the scary ones they ban.

Incorrect use of an otherwise arbitrary term that's been used by the media to make an object seem scary. The term is either used for click-bait or to push an agenda (or both); people in the know don't like that and thus are fairly fervent to correct dipshits that use it because it helps demonstrate that they don't know what they're talking about.

because the term assault rifle is used by anti-gunners to describe semi automatic sporting rifles

File: 1421980565724.gif (446KB, 300x186px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 300x186px

>>29428292

Aren't high end AR-15s pretty much on par, if not better, than some of the small arms the military uses?