Let's call them what they are MODERN.


PDA






Owen Sparks
June 7, 2007, 08:10 PM
As most of us are aware, liberals tend to appeal to peoples emotions rather than using facts, reasons or logic to sway peoples opinions on gun issues.

"Assault weapon" is a term with a strong negative connotation. This phrase carries the presupposition that these weapons are suitable only for committing a criminal assault. Our enemies in Congress knew what they were doing when they named the Assault weapons bill.

Using loaded language to exploit the subtle shades of words meanings, neutral or even pleasant things can become unpleasant. Conceder the difference between:

fragrant and smelly a mobile home vs a trailer inexpensive vs cheap

Using this method it's easy to take something as innocuous as your scoped mini 14 ranch rifle and turn it into a high capacity semiautomatic assault rifle with no legitimate sporting purpose, the weapon of choice of disgruntled snipers.

Now how can we counter this? Let's look at some facts and reasons.

One of the most effective ways of doing this is to use "loaded" words and phrases.
Certain words have negative connotations that invoke an emotional response.

Suppose you read a news story that starts with the phrase "disgruntled former employee". You immediately start thinking "Another nut goes on a murderous rampage" simply because you have heard that word used so many times in that context even though the word disgruntled simply means disappointed and unhappy.

Even a purely technical term like "semi automatic" can evoke negative emotions in uninformed people whose primary exposure to that term has been in connection with story's about crime and mass murder.

Since the invention of the musket, men have endeavored to make firearms more accurate, handier, faster to load and to increase the number of shots.

Muskets have to have long barrels to get even marginal accuracy. With the advent of rifled bores, this was no longer true. Although long barrels were retained for military rifles because no one wanted to give up the extra reach they afforded in a bayonet charge. Also, with iron sights the farther apart they are the more accurately they can be aimed.

Now days bayonet charges are no longer in vogue and improved sighting systems make long cumbersome barrels unnecessary.

Traditional firearm stocks were made of wood. With the development of synthetic stocks more ergonomic shapes evolved. Pistol grip stocks feel more natural in the hand but were difficult to make out of wood which tends to split along its grain. That's not a problem with plastic.

Since the invention of the self contained cartridge faster and easier ways to load have evolved. Semi automatic operation and detachable magazines eliminated down time.

To put it all into perspective, these so called assault weapons are simply

MODERN FIREARMS

which are in use by every established military in the world. Just like the brown Bess musket was in 1776! (remember, everyone who ever lived lived in modern times)

So the next time you debate an anti gunner be sure to call these guns what they really are

MODERN FIREARMS !

Why Senator Foghorn, Do you really believe the second amendment is not meant to apply to modern firearms?

If you enjoyed reading about "Let's call them what they are MODERN." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
trueblue1776
June 7, 2007, 08:12 PM
nice, I agree

1911Tuner
June 7, 2007, 08:20 PM
Another point worth invoking is that all rifles are...by design and intent..."Assault Rifles." In 1775, the Brown Bess Musket was an assault rifle. In 1860, it was the Enfield and the Springfield Rifle Muskets. In 1873 and 1874, the Trapdoor Springfield and the Sharps rifles filled that role. In 1896, the bolt-action Mauser took over, and in 1936, the M1 Garand ruled the day.

Don't expect it to sway very many though. "My mind's made up. Please don't confuse me with facts."

yhtomit
June 7, 2007, 08:25 PM
Oleg, this is a meme that should be spread far, wide, and high. It should also be coupled with demonstrations / explanations that emphasize the internal similarity of many cosmetically different guns; a "21st century look" (or really, a "last several decades look") isn't worth getting bent out of shape about, if the shape-bender is pretty OK with guns that look like what granddad might have had.

timothy

Ratzinger_p38
June 7, 2007, 08:47 PM
I dont think a true 'assault rifle' term fits anything until the MP44. Anything before that I call a 'battle rifle'.

rickomatic
June 7, 2007, 08:52 PM
Good idea. But I would go even a step further.
We all know how some interest groups have taken it upon themselves to redefine certain words to put themselves in a better light. One clear example is the homosexual communities appropriation of the word "gay". It was clearly done concisesly to make themselves look more acceptable.
We need to do the same. If we redefine the term "assault weapon", we go on the offensive. We should agree on a word that not only puts those firearms themselves into a more acceptable light, but those of us who chose to own one as well. My suggestion would be Homeland Defense Weapon. It not only connotes a positive image, it also paints us as "the good guys". What do you think?

Ratzinger_p38
June 7, 2007, 08:57 PM
If we redefine the term "assault rifle"

But they (the antis) rarely use the term assault rifle, they use the more vague 'assault weapon' as it allows them to include any type of firearm, not just rifles. Uzis? Assault Weapon. (machine pistol, it would be hard to call it an assault 'rifle'.)
Assault rifle has an exact definition, while an AW does not.

1911Tuner
June 7, 2007, 09:04 PM
I dont think a true 'assault rifle' term fits anything until the MP44. Anything before that I call a 'battle rifle'.

Correct in the sense that the German "Sturmgewer" was the forerunner of the modern assault weapon. The point is that rifles are primarily instruments of attack. The Sturmgewer filled the gap between the MBR and the sub machinegun.

1911Tuner
June 7, 2007, 09:04 PM
I dont think a true 'assault rifle' term fits anything until the MP44. Anything before that I call a 'battle rifle'.

Correct in the sense that the German "Sturmgewer" was the forerunner of the modern assault rifle. The point is that rifles are primarily instruments of attack. The Sturmgewer filled the gap between the MBR and the sub machinegun.

rickomatic
June 7, 2007, 09:13 PM
Quote:
If we redefine the term "assault rifle"
But they (the antis) rarely use the term assault rifle, they use the more vague 'assault weapon' as it allows them to include any type of firearm, not just rifles. Uzis? Assault Weapon. (machine pistol, it would be hard to call it an assault 'rifle'.)
Assault rifle has an exact definition, while an AW does not.

Excellent point! I just edited my post. Thanks.

ndolson
June 7, 2007, 09:21 PM
An assault rifle is a select fire carbine that can be fired full auto. None of the guns any of you own are assault rifles unless they are class III and you paid big bucks for em. Sorry ;) What you really should do is correct people when they hear or refer to a semi auto rifle that looks "evil" as an assault rifle. I don't know how many times I've seen a news blip about a shooting, and they flash a picture of an SKS on the screen and use the term "assault rifle". It's sickening the misinformation they perpetuate.

Ratzinger_p38
June 7, 2007, 09:30 PM
I don't know how many times I've seen a news blip about a shooting, and they flash a picture of an SKS on the screen and use the term "assault rifle".

Yup. This happened today on the radio, on WHIO. They were talking about a shooting in Springfield Ohio and played a sound byte of a policeman saying what weapons the shooter had in his car, "he had a X, an X, and a SKS-AK47" As if the SKS were a version of the AK. The SKS entered service in the final stages of World War II and predates the AK's wide spread usage by several years.

MBane666
June 7, 2007, 09:48 PM
Interestingly enough, this thread mirrors a discussion we had today at the highest levels of the industry. Rather than "modern weapons," we're sort of liking the phrase "high-tech weapons/firearms" for all the reasons outlined here. We're thinking about a pretty major campaign on this...does "high-tech" fill the bill?

Michael B

rickomatic
June 7, 2007, 10:07 PM
Michael,
Depending on how the campaign is structured, "high tech" could be good. While not "technically" correct, (That is, black rifle and combat pistol technology has been around for decades), that term does, in fact, invoke "the very best". Everyone except the most strident Luddite appreciates and wants the very best available technology available in any and every field.
I can envision the juxtaposition of images of our finest young men and women equipped with "high tech" weaponry next to one of an honest citizen armed with that same "high tech" Homeland Security Weapon. ;)
No gang banger image there....

ArfinGreebly
June 8, 2007, 01:24 AM
I like "modern" although, truth be told, some of our "modern" designs are anywhere from 50 to more than 100 years old.

Our good friend, the late Derby FALs, favored "Homeland defense rifles."

I have tended to lean toward "General Purpose Rifle" or GPR.

It has come up before (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3137906#post3137906) in a thread or two, and I think I may have mentioned (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3138627#post3138627) my preference for that term more than once (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3149410#post3149410).

I've grown kind of fond of the term.

Think I'll stick with it.

Jamie C.
June 8, 2007, 01:41 AM
Instead of "Modern", how about "Contemporary"?


J.C.

FlaXD
June 8, 2007, 02:37 AM
1984.

It's always been recognized that she who defines the language wins the arguement. Study any communist, totalitarian, repressive govt (or wannabe) and you will find excellent examples of this.

benEzra
June 8, 2007, 08:12 AM
They're modern-looking civilian rifles.

JohnL2
June 8, 2007, 09:46 AM
God I love how THR can be both educational and asskicking at the same time.

KenW.
June 8, 2007, 09:52 AM
While we're at it:
Let's switch from "high" capacity magazines to full (or standard) capacity magazines.

junyo
June 8, 2007, 09:58 AM
The problem aren't the terms themselves, the problem is the associations and connotations that has been attached to the terms. Perception is reality for the most part, since most people won't have a chance to experiance a lot of things first hand. And the mass media controls perception for the most part. If you don't control the media you don't control the idea or how it's percieved. You can call them "Fairy Dust Spewing Giggle Sticks" (FDSGS) for all the good it'll do you.

MrRezister
June 8, 2007, 09:59 AM
My suggestion would be Homeland Defense Weapon. It not only connotes a positive image, it also paints us as "the good guys". What do you think?

This....
Is my PATRIOT STICK!

wooderson
June 8, 2007, 11:37 AM
"Homeland Defense Weapon" is, seriously, the dumbest phrase I've ever heard. That's a half step better than a "concealed-carry badge."

glummer
June 8, 2007, 11:48 AM
My preference is "militia rifle" (as referenced in the Second Amendment.) It ties the idea of the weapon to the idea of the Constitutional right. I think it would be very useful if the NRA added a "miltia rifle" category to High-Power competition.

obxned
June 8, 2007, 11:54 AM
It's a mystery:

Why do 'tree huggers' want us to kill a bunch of trees to make stocks when we could use modern materials and spare the forest??

Maybe instead of calling them black rifles we should call them 'green' rifles!

flynlr
June 8, 2007, 12:25 PM
in the spirit of classification
if its not C&R it's Modern .

Owen Sparks
June 8, 2007, 01:50 PM
The term "militia" has been so tainted by the media in the last decades that it now has a negative connotation to most uninformed Americans who probably could not tell you who the vice president is, much less quote the second amendment.

"Hi tech weapons" may scare some people just the way the Thompson sub machine gun was called "A frightening new killing machine" in the news media of the day. Besides, many people are made uncomfortable by anything "Hi tech" because they simply don't understand it. My Mom is a good example. At 79 she has no use for computers and cell phones and does not want to learn.
To people like this a "high tech weapon" sounds like some kind of star trek ray gun that has "no legitimate sporting purpose" Also, the Tech 9 has received its share of bad press as being "the weapon of choice" of gang bangers.

Modern on the other hand simply sounds up to date. After all, who wouldn't want to drive a modern car, live in a modern house with modern plumbing and a modern kitchen?

For my two cents worth the term "modern firearms" sounds like a better name than any kind of "weapon" so let's simply call them

MODERN FIREARMS

And do it ...(pause for effect)...for the children.

waterhouse
June 8, 2007, 02:47 PM
My issue with the "assault" term is that assault has the definition, or at least the vernacular usage, of being an attack. This takes away from an important class of firearms: those which are used in defense.

Surely, if my AR-15 is built for assault, my 870 was built for defense, right? I'm still waiting for the "Defense Weapons" bill, where every taxpayer is given a 12 ga. pump shotgun.

ctdonath
June 8, 2007, 03:54 PM
I'm with ArfinGreebly: most of these "modern" guns are of mostly antique design. The quintessential "modern/assault weapons", the AR15 and AK47, were invented some 50 years ago - early models are officially turning into collectible "relics" (on a C&R license). The modern versions we are excited to get are merely piecemeal refinements (stunted to mere semi-auto) of these antique arms.

Truly modern arms are epitomized by such guns as the FN P90 and HK MP7 - new designs re-invented from bullet onward for ergonomic control of (IIRC) high-pressure, high-velocity, high-capacity, full-auto applications. Unfortunately, federal law 922(o) prohibits to citizens the very function which makes these weapons effective: full-auto. Even availability of the anemic stunted semi-auto-only versions are further limited by their nature of being compact short-barreled rifles, requiring obnoxious paperwork & taxation to obtain*.

While I understand the point of the thread, and agree with the sentiment, I'll be anal-retentive (WITH a hyphen thank you very much) enough to disagree, noting that what we would like to call "modern" is in fact refined reproductions of antique arms. Take grave note that "modern" rifles are flatly forbidden, despite the 2nd Amendment. When someone makes a suitable quip about muskets, remind them that what we are allowed isn't much newer.



* - yes I'm entirely aware that the legal hurdle is merely a sheet of paper and a $200 check and a 2-month wait ... but that's different/difficult enough from simply picking one up over lunch that they remain very rare; the virtual prohibition is working.


1984. It's always been recognized that she who defines the language wins the arguement.
Indeed. Few realize there is an appendix to the book "1984", and that it is a guide to eliminating opposition by eliminating words needed to express ideas; I highly recommend everyone read it.

ZeSpectre
June 8, 2007, 04:13 PM
Modern firearm with "Standard Capacity" magazines (let the anti's talk about "reduced capacity" for a while, bet they won't like being that obvious).

It all takes me back to this golden nugget of a thread
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=250306

and the "Glossary"
http://gunlaws.com/pdf/PC%27d_Glossary_New.pdf

rickomatic
June 8, 2007, 04:59 PM
"Homeland Defense Weapon" is, seriously, the dumbest phrase I've ever heard. That's a half step better than a "concealed-carry badge."


Gee, wooderson...now you've hurt my feelings. NOT!

But, seirously, besides not being a very "High Road" comment, care to step down off your "senior member" high horse and make your point a bit more clear? What, exactly makes it the "dumbest phrase I've ever heard"? Or, perhaps you have a better suggestion?

wooderson
June 8, 2007, 05:48 PM
Possibly because you're never - ever - going to use that FAL or AR to beat back the commies, the A-rabs or anyone else.

rickomatic
June 8, 2007, 06:08 PM
Possibly because you're never - ever - going to use that FAL or AR to beat back the commies, the A-rabs or anyone else.

Well then, why don't we just call them "Got it cuz it looked cool and I'm a gun nut" weapon?
This thread is about the power of words in the media, and how to inject ourselves into the debate on a larger scale. It's about the perception that words convey. Like it or not, we're living in a media driven society. The "other side" is driving the debate. We're trying to think of ways to counter the negative image thrust on us by the antis.
So, back to the discussion. We know you don't like my suggestion. What is yours?

Carl N. Brown
June 8, 2007, 06:19 PM
What about "assault vehicles"?
Like inflatable boats that take outboard motors,
four-wheel drive cars like the Jeep,
short-take-off-and-landing airplanes like the Cesna and Piper,
or helicopters?
"Assault" or "storm" or "sturm" is the military shorthand for
fast, light, compact, mobile.

"Assault weapons" are just fast, light, compact, mobile firearms.
Plus, detachable magazines make them safer to handle getting
in and out of those "assault vehicles".

The problem is the attention-deficient 30-sec-sound-bite fed
typical TV news viewer seems to think the talking heads are
talking about weapons used to commit assaults!

Owen Sparks
June 8, 2007, 06:26 PM
Thank you Rickomatic.

What if the first amendments freedom of speech applied only to words printed on paper with ink? Think about it. Could the founding fathers ever invision radio, telivision or high speed internet? Isn't there just too much potential for abuse if these technologies fall into the "wrong hands"?

You would want access to modern comunications right? Why would you not want access to a "modern" gun?
OS

SaMx
June 8, 2007, 07:23 PM
I like GPR, like Arfin said. I also like modern firearms. High tech firearms could be good or bad. I can just imagine the Bradys spouting "high tech super effective killing machines" or something to that effect. Modern firearm is hard to turn around that way. Instead of an assault weapon it just a modern general purpose rifle.

I think the biggest key is the meme "just a rifle." when some fudd freaks out when he sees an AR at the range, just reply "relax, it's just a rifle." Whether it's "black rifle" or "modern rifle" or "general purpose rifle" the point is that it is a normal rifle. EBRs should be average.

wooderson
June 8, 2007, 07:37 PM
Well then, why don't we just call them "Got it cuz it looked cool and I'm a gun nut" weapon?
Gun nut aside, that's precisely the explanation I offer for my purchases. Looks good, shoots good, more than I can say for myself. (Alternately, I call them 'rifles' and 'pistols' and 'revolvers.')

Presenting gun owners as harmless hobbyists, plinkers, hunters, sportsmen (shooting and hunting), or even people concerned with the immediate welfare of themselves and their families is far, far less frightening to the great unwashed than the perception that we're a bunch of nuts who think we're getting ready to fend off the Mexican/Chicom/Terra-ist Invasion.

Aside from that angle, you have to assume that the average American is just stupid not to see through such blatant and pointed PR stunts.

You want to do some good through redefinition? Instead of 'assault rifles' and 'huntin' rifles' and 'homeland defense rifles' and "Grandpa's .22" and so on, call them 'rifles.' Emphasize similarities, don't create new classes to separate them.

ndolson
June 8, 2007, 09:02 PM
when some fudd freaks out when he sees an AR at the range, just reply "relax, it's just a rifle."

And then you must outshoot him. I've gotten many a scoff at my RRA Varmint A4 that I got 1-1.5" groups @ 100m with milsurp m193. Funny how the scoffing promptly stopped when I hung my spent paper targets up. ;) Put up or shut up. My groups didn't take me 17 minutes and 3 barrel cleanings to shoot either ;)

QuestionEverything
June 8, 2007, 11:31 PM
"Homeland defense rifle" ties into the Orwellian "Department of Homeland Security." A lot of the people you're trying to convince by adopting a new nomenclature don't have a very high estimation of George W. Bush or his new security organization. Using the term to refer to your weapons makes it sound kind of like you fancy yourself a front-line enforcer of Bush's will. "Modern rifles," "self-defense rifles," and "ergonomic rifles" are all much better terms to use.

R127
June 8, 2007, 11:52 PM
Possibly because you're never - ever - going to use that FAL or AR to beat back the commies, the A-rabs or anyone else.

I don't like the HDR phrase either, but I have used my AK to defend my land and my home a couple times against man and beast.

wooderson
June 9, 2007, 12:16 AM
Self-defense is a vastly different construct than 'homeland defense.'

So I wouldn't call a 'self-defense rifle' absurd, but it is redundant - worst comes to worst, any firearm is a potential self-defense weapon.

Caimlas
June 9, 2007, 07:29 AM
"Buddy, you don't need that 16+ inch barrel! That's unsporting, giving you obscene levels of accuracy!"

But more seriously: I agree with your sentiments completely.

Michael:

I believe that "high tech" is a bit self defeating, unlike "modern", for several reasons: "high tech" can indirectly suggest that older guns are junk (ban the unsafe old technology! - they're already trying to do this by requiring key locks in the guns!) and at the same time saying that the modern firearm designs are significantly better (and different than the previous versions at what they do (they aren't), meaning they're more dangerous (feeding right into the antis hands).

I am aware of no negative connotation associated with "modern" - at least by the left and those who typically want to ban guns. "modern" seems to have more of a negative or neutral connotation with conservatives, whereas grabbers tend to like terms like "progressive", "liberal", "reasonable", and yes, "modern". In effect, we'd be taking one of "their words" from them in the same fashion that they stole the meaning of "liberal".

The difference being, unlike their theft and destruction of the language, calling them "modern firearms" or similar will be more accurate and neutral than the previous names.

ctdonath
June 9, 2007, 10:44 PM
Possibly because you're never - ever - going to use that FAL or AR to beat back the commies, the A-rabs or anyone else.You pick your delusions, I'll pick mine.

Without starting a flamewar, let me note some believe there is a non-trivial chance that several southern states could secede in the near future. If 10% of the local population decides they're just not going to cooperate any more, things will get ugly. A non-trivial portion of the population - on both sides of the possible line - believe this and are preparing accordingly.

You may think modern rifles will not be needed in homeland defense in the near future. I hope you're right. Unfortunately, the repeating history does not agree. Last year that 10% decided to make themselves known three times - and did. They may not be commies, they may not be A-rabs, but they are someone else - and they're here in large numbers, and some among them are pushing for secession/annexation.

To the point of this thread, I don't want to deal with the situation with a musket or other outright antique design - I want a modern rifle. Seems you think you won't be needing yours...

Owen Sparks
June 9, 2007, 11:55 PM
Progressive modern guns?

OS

Anteater1717
June 10, 2007, 12:08 AM
Kel-Tec calls them sport utility rifles.

"Modern Rifle" is a good term and I like it.

Caimlas
June 10, 2007, 12:54 AM
Without starting a flamewar, let me note some believe there is a non-trivial chance that several southern states could secede in the near future. If 10% of the local population decides they're just not going to cooperate any more, things will get ugly. A non-trivial portion of the population - on both sides of the possible line - believe this and are preparing accordingly.

Unfortunately, I think you are right. And my observation is that it's not just in the South. I'd not peg it at 10%, but 2% would be enough, historically speaking, for significant problems (socially, economically, culturally...)

On using the term "modern": you could also just refer to them as "assault weapons" sarcastically, to denigrate and weaken the term. Call a butter knife "assault cutlery" and the like, or call your AR a baby-killing rifle...

munangokeewati
June 10, 2007, 02:10 AM
I've been calling them Home Defense Weapons for sometime now. That's what most of us intend them for--home and neighborhood defense, as in the aftermath of Katrina and the LA riots. Modern Home Defense Weapons has a nice ring to it.

Ratzinger_p38
June 10, 2007, 02:14 AM
Ive always called them carbines.

csspecs
June 10, 2007, 02:28 AM
How about focusing more on that they are designed to fit people better?

User friendly utility rifles.

wooderson
June 10, 2007, 01:02 PM
Without starting a flamewar, let me note some believe there is a non-trivial chance that several southern states could secede in the near future

Speaking of delusions...

wjustinen
June 12, 2007, 02:22 AM
It worked. Now instead of restricted and prohibited "weapons" - handguns and full autos - we have prohibited, restricted and non-restricted "firearms."

I guess we showed them. :banghead::banghead::banghead::fire:

Perhaps we should spend a little more time stressing that all firearms can be used for good or bad purposes, and that the appropriate use of law is to allow those who do bad things to be stopped and incarcerated.

Who are we trying to convince? People who have no recreational interest in firearms; but have a healthy interest in living reasonably secure, free lives.

Caimlas
June 12, 2007, 04:03 PM
wjustinen - that would be great, except for the fact that "good" and "bad" tend to not exist within the vocabulary of those we are trying to convince, except when "good" means the things they like and that are PC, and "bad" are things they disagree with and are traditional worldviews.

We're dealing with "moral relativists" here, and using the argument of good vs bad won't do a lick of good unless you get them to divorce their entire worldview. Remember, these are the same people who argue that murderers, rapists, jihadists and other ner-do-wells are just poor, misunderstood have-nots who are in a bind and being abused by the Haves.

wooderson
June 12, 2007, 04:54 PM
You don't engage in any form of moral relativism, Caimlas? So you don't believe in the concept of 'collateral damage,' right?

And when we torture someone for information, that's clearly and unequivocally wrong, correct?

turtlehitman
July 12, 2007, 12:01 PM
with all the eco-friendly chatter that goes around the media I think that "green rifle" is a good one. infact the military is trying to switch from regular ball ammo to lead free "green bullets". sounds good eh?

IA_farmboy
July 12, 2007, 11:07 PM
Part of the problem is that the definition of "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" is open to interpretation and shifts over time as technology and the political climate changes.

What I particularly dislike about words like "assault", "sniper", or even "defense" when used to describe a firearm is that they give no information about its function. These words describe its use or intended use.

All of the sudden a "hunting rifle" becomes a "sniper rifle" when some crazed yahoo decides that shooting at passing cars sounds like a great way to pass the time. The rifle didn't change, only the target in its sights.

In military lingo terms like "battle rifle", "assault rifle", "personal defense weapon", and "sniper rifle" have very specific meanings and it is rare to have a single weapon fall under more than one definition. Outside of the military these terms do not have such strict definition and tend to be used inappropriately and/or to add political connotations.

In the hands of a civilian all firearms should be defined (IMHO of course) as either a home/self/personal defense weapon, or a hunting rifle/shotgun/firearm. But that won't become common vernacular. No one is likely to see a headline reading "Terror on highway from HUNTING rifle" or "Gangsters wield PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPONS in shootout with police" because that doesn't sell newspapers.

Getting much closer to the topic at hand, I don't like the term "modern firearm" either. Calling something "modern" is just as open to interpretation as "assault". I've seen one hundred year old buildings described as "modern construction" since materials and techniques haven't changed much in a century. Just as firearms haven't changed much since the introduction of the "modern" cartridge about 150 years ago. A modern firearm could describe a wide variety of weapons. Think about that the next time you see a Colt 1911.

Maybe we should take a page out of the bicycle history books. Bicycles really took off after the "safety bicycle" came about. Few people think of bicycles as dangerous anymore. I think I'm going to start referring to modern firearms as "safety weapons". :D

748
July 13, 2007, 01:55 AM
One thing I have told people when I have my M94 Winchester 30-30 is: "this was the most advanced assualt rifle in the world :what:, back in 1895".
When ever you go back and look at when a gun was new if you look at the rest of the guns of the time you can clearly see what guns were assualt rifles 400, 100 or 40 years ago.
They are modern fire arms.

If you enjoyed reading about "Let's call them what they are MODERN." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!