Assault Weapon....Really?


PDA






Archangel14
December 29, 2012, 05:40 PM
We all need to start thinking more clearly about the words that are used. We'll be able to argue more effectively when we're able to clear the dust from people's eyes.

One good example is the whole "assault" weapon moniker. It's morphing into "military style weapon". It's not a coincidence that we are beginning to see that term. I'll use the acronym "MSW". The anti-gunners are very well organized at the INTERNATIONAL level and they are very well funded. They are smart and they know what works and what doesn't. The term "assault weapon" is old and tired. They thought they succeeded back in the 90's only to have their butts handed to them on the issue. Watch for a purposeful move away from the term "assault weapon" and watch for more and more use of the term MSW, or a derivative. I know these people. I had a client who was a higher up in a far-left international think tank. He coined and advocated the phrase "opportunity state" to replace the phrase "welfare state". That latter term is now being used much more in Europe, purposefully. They know that people can be tricked by the simple use of confusing phraseology.

How do we combat this? Well, every time some uses the phrase MSW (or even the 'ole "assault weapon" phrase), remind them that just about every rifle in existence had it's beginning in a military somewhere. Remind them that the bolt-action rifle you use to hunt with IS essentially the same thing as the main battle rifle of the Nazi and the Soviet. Remind them that bolt action rifles were used in the MILLIONS in war after war across the globe for decades, and still are. Remind them that the "small capacity" Garand was the main rifle of the freedom fighting GI during WWII and thereafter, and that none other than General George Patton called it "the greatest battle implement ever devised". Militaries have, are, and will use bolt action rifles to "assault" for ever more. Remind them how your Remington Model 700 is a BETTER battle rifle than most of the bolt actions used by numerous nations throughout modern warfare. Just because such rifles are not presently in fashion in modern forces doesn't detract that they were, and often still are, "military" borne "battle" rifles used to "assault" enemy forces.

As for my "things are really bad assault weapon".....a Yugo M48. Much like the rifle the Germans used against millions of combatants. Is that of enough of a "military style weapon" for you? Better be......

Argue smart...................

If you enjoyed reading about "Assault Weapon....Really?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
browningguy
December 29, 2012, 05:48 PM
When you start arguing smeantics you have already lost.

We didn't like Assault rifle because it didn't fit a narrow definition, now we don't like military style weapon (which is what it is). We tried Modern Sporting Rifle, but even among the people that shoot them a lot that never caught on.

I suggest we remind everyone that it doesn't matter, the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about hunting rifles.

Bill2e
December 29, 2012, 06:06 PM
You the term MSW makes them harder to take away if you read the Miler decission. Unfortunately I am not sure we will have justices that follow the constitution if the time comes.

somerandomguy
December 29, 2012, 06:11 PM
Next they'll be calling pistols "assault weapons"...just watch. I'm totally ashamed to be associated with the Democratic Party and plan to be voting straight Republican next term.

AlexanderA
December 29, 2012, 06:17 PM
I agree that "military style weapon" helps us from a constitutional standpoint. The problem is that most people don't realize that the constitution protects military-style weapons, since its purpose was to promote militias (in the 18th century, that meant the whole body of the people) in preference to standing armies. Unfortunately, Justice Scalia didn't clarify this in his opinion in the Heller case.

Archangel14
December 29, 2012, 06:58 PM
When you start arguing smeantics you have already lost.

I'm not arguing issues of semantics (which is the study and meaning of language). In fact, you've committed the very thing that makes us so less effective in arguing with the anti-gunners! Of course we should clarify things with others. Better yet, make such points with those who are not anti-gunners, but who have simply been swayed by recent events and the nonstop barrage of the the anti-gunners.

When someone says "military style weapon", just reply, "oh, like my bolt-action deer rifle?" And then explain why your bolt action is essentially, at its core, a military rifle. There's no semantics in that at all. It's argument.............

Hacker15E
December 29, 2012, 06:59 PM
We tried Modern Sporting Rifle, but even among the people that shoot them a lot that never caught on.

WalMart seems to have adopted it:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/Hacker15E/IMG_6798.jpg

Archangel14
December 29, 2012, 07:00 PM
I agree that "military style weapon" helps us from a constitutional standpoint.

I'm not saying that WE should call all rifles MSW's. We shouldn't. But when others characterize the AR and AK as a MSW, point out that it's all rifles are essentially MSW. History proves this point.

napjerk
December 29, 2012, 07:01 PM
When you start arguing smeantics you have already lost.

We didn't like Assault rifle because it didn't fit a narrow definition, now we don't like military style weapon (which is what it is). We tried Modern Sporting Rifle, but even among the people that shoot them a lot that never caught on.

I suggest we remind everyone that it doesn't matter, the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about hunting rifles.
This exactly.

Same goes for the whole "clip vs. magazine" argument. When the opposition is thinking dead kids and mayhem, you're arguing over exact terminology. It makes you seem petty and niggling. Every time I hear someone make a big show out of correcting someone on the "clip/magazine" issue it reminds me of some trekkie nerd lecturing someone about the origins of klingons vs romulans.

Yes, we need to define our terms in order to debate, but at this point everyone knows what a "clip" is. And everyone involved knows what an assault weapon is.

Archangel14
December 29, 2012, 07:38 PM
And everyone involved knows what an assault weapon is.

You just made my point....and you're a gun guy! By THEIR definition, every center fire rifle is a "military style weapon". "Well look, they're the same guns that the army has!" Have you bought into the whole lie that as AR is an "assault weapon"? And recall that that is not our phraseology, it's the anti-gunner's!

The point, which is now painfully missing upon everyone, is that ALL rifles can be defined as military style weapons. So when someone calls a AR a MSW, point out that your bolt action is also a MSW, and describe why if asked.

Again, my Yugo M48 is not just a MSW, it IS a frigin' battle rifle, designed and implemented as such! But put it up side-by-side with an AR and most people would certainly not recognize the Yugo for what it actually is. By pointing out the folly of the descriptives, we can make people see the light. It's almost like using humor to humiliate.

Archangel14
December 29, 2012, 07:42 PM
you're arguing over exact terminology

I'm not! I'm pointing out folly.

I have no problem with arguing the realities of things (clip vs. mag). But what is being lost here in all the word-play mumbo jumbo is the lie behind it all.

Want to call an AR a "military style weapon"? Superb...so's my Yugo, here's why.....

While we're at it, remind people that we need to ban the 24 pack of beer. It leads to excessive alcohol consumption and unneeded drunk driving!

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 07:48 PM
Writers of the 2ND Amendment were pretty clear in their definition. They understood advances were to be made in weaponry, they had seen this themselves. So to avoid any confusion or argument the sentence reads;
"keep and bear ARMS,,," plural, indicates possession of multiple types of weaponry, no general classifications implied....

sidheshooter
December 29, 2012, 07:50 PM
I like "Military Style Weapon". Who doesn't support our troops? Even if someone hates the Military (and they're out there) no serious person can begrudge the fact that our armed forces are useful.

But not many are in favor of "Assault". Assault is synonymous with "a criminal act of violence" to most. That's why we all hate the term applied to our lawfully owned firearms. I'm not sure, outside of .22s and some upland bird shotguns, that I own anything that isn't "Military style" from the last 150 years or so.

mike.h
December 29, 2012, 08:05 PM
MSR, modern sport rifle, I like it. Sounds way less threatening then assault weapon.

Warp
December 29, 2012, 08:13 PM
*Tinfoil hat warning*

I think they might be using the term "military style weapon" now because there are plans to attempt to restrict the trade of "military style weapons" when the United Nations meets to discuss the arms treaty. If they can convince enough people that semi automatic civilian (private citizen) legal rifles are military style, well....there you go.

/tinfoilhat

coloradokevin
December 29, 2012, 08:16 PM
I agree that semantics won't win arguments, but it does make me a bit irritated whenever I see someone posting on here about: "Help me pick my next assault rifle".

I think we do well to change our own vernacular on this subject, so that we don't fuel the fires the anti-gun folks are trying to light on this subject. I prefer the term "Modern Sporting Rifle", as has been used around here quite often.

I also understand that the US Constitution was intending to preserve Americans' rights to own military arms, but good luck selling that one to our politicians at the moment. The game is a sound-bite based sales pitch at the moment, and I think it is helpful to stop using the term "assault rifle". Most of us aren't using (or even intending to use) our rifles for the purpose of "assaulting" anything. We DO use these rifles for hunting, target shooting, plinking, and competition. They are modern designs, used for sporting purposes. Don't let the news convince you otherwise.

Warp
December 29, 2012, 08:20 PM
It isn't semantics.

Words have meanings. Definitions matter.

When people try to infringe upon our Rights by banning or restricting "assault weapons" or "assault rifles" or "military style ___", the definition of whatever term they are trying to ban is VERY IMPORTANT.

When talking to the ignorant public, it is important to clarify just what it is the antis are talking about. A LOT of people think that when the media says assault rifle, or AR15, or auto, or whatever, they are talking about machine guns, for example.

KLL
December 29, 2012, 08:29 PM
Warp is correct.

Over the last couple of weeks, I've talked with several people who are unfamiliar with guns about 'assault rifles'. Every single person thought they were full auto, and that's why they were 'bad'.

One thing I did, just for good measure, was make sure I told my representatives the difference. Hopefully they already know, and doubtful my message would ever make it to them, however even if it educates one staffer, and they can educate another staffer, the more people who understand can only help bring some sense to the situation.

VA27
December 29, 2012, 08:30 PM
*Tinfoil hat warning*

I think they might be using the term "military style weapon" now because there are plans to attempt to restrict the trade of "military style weapons" when the United Nations meets to discuss the arms treaty. If they can convince enough people that semi automatic civilian (private citizen) legal rifles are military style, well....there you go.

/tinfoilhat

No tinfoil, I think you are spot on!

napjerk
December 29, 2012, 08:31 PM
I agree that words mean things, but it's not productive to the cause when you get into the kind of word-splitting that happened in this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=691907

klyph
December 29, 2012, 08:59 PM
Assault rifle, modern sporting rifle, home defense carbine, evil black rifle, talisman of freedom, all labels with an obvious agenda. If you mist be specific, they are semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines and vertical grips. That is a technical, accurate description void of political bias. The constitution calls them arms, a VERY broad definition. The more specificity we assign to our arms in public debate, the easier it is to restrict certain categories that we ourselves define. There are detachable drum fed shotguns, fixed magazine rifle stocked AKs, and single shot ARs. Firearms are not specific groups, they are a spectrum of features arranged in every configuration imaginable. Refer to them as "ARMS" that is what they are, that is what is constitutionally protected. Force them to amend the constitution, that's the only legal means of banning any weaponry.

Warp
December 29, 2012, 09:03 PM
Assault rifle, modern sporting rifle, home defense carbine, evil black rifle, talisman of freedom, all labels with an obvious agenda. If you mist be specific, they are semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines and vertical grips. That is a technical, accurate description void of political bias. The constitution calls them arms, a VERY broad definition. The more specificity we assign to our arms in public debate, the easier it is to restrict certain categories that we ourselves define. There are detachable drum fed shotguns, fixed magazine rifle stocked AKs, and single shot ARs. Firearms are not specific groups, they are a spectrum of features arranged in every configuration imaginable. Refer to them as "ARMS" that is what they are, that is what is constitutionally protected. Force them to amend the constitution, that's the only legal means of banning any weaponry.

Not really. Rifles that are banned under various federal or state laws, called "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", do not necessarily have a "vertical grip".

What is a "vertical grip", BTW?

klyph
December 29, 2012, 09:10 PM
Sorry I meant to say pistol grip. But that only reinforces my point, the more specificity we introduce into the debate, the more we obscure the point of the discussion: the infringement of the people's right to keep and bear arms.

fxstchewy
December 29, 2012, 09:12 PM
Mines a MSR, thats what i call it.

Warp
December 29, 2012, 09:13 PM
Sorry I meant to say pistol grip. But that only reinforces my point, the more specificity we introduce into the debate, the more we obscure the point of the discussion: the infringement of the people's right to keep and bear arms.

There are state laws that ban 'assault weapons' even if they don't have a protruding pistol grip.

tactikel
December 29, 2012, 09:13 PM
The second amendment does NOT guarantee me the right to shoot rabbits, ducks, or targets! It guarantees me the right to posess a firearm to protect me and my family from tyranny, the tyranny of street crime, and the tyranny of a government ( such as was King George in 1776) which does not respect even minimal human rights.

zorro45
December 29, 2012, 09:15 PM
How about "Freedom Protection Device"

Carl N. Brown
December 29, 2012, 09:16 PM
The proposed UN Arms Trade Treaty is boosted by Amnesty Internayional, among other Non Government Organizations registered with the UN. (The NRA is a registered NGO to have some say for our side.)

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/hopes-raised-strong-arms-trade-treaty-2012-07-27

AI published some comparisons under the heading "Can you spot the difference?" demonstrating virtual identity between military/police weapons and sporting arms. Since military/police "riot guns" are virtually the same as "deerslayer" shotguns, since military/police sniper rifles are virtually the same as long-range target rifles, all have to be regulated the same as military weapons under the ATT, according to AI. The military lookalike loophole.

The same goes for police vehicles that differ from military vehicles only in paint job. It would not take a stretch to extend that to civilian 4-wheel drive vehicles, helicopters, motorized rubber boats, 2 two radios, night vision, camping gear, hiking gear, etc etc etc.

jim243
December 29, 2012, 09:22 PM
Are you guys talking about my Personal Protection Defensive Weapon (PPDW) the AR-15 or the big black evil M-16 or M4's??


Thanks
Jim

klyph
December 29, 2012, 09:23 PM
Yes, they pass legislation that prohibits "features", but if there are arms that possess these features, then it is the armament itself that is prohibited, not the feature, making it clearly an infringement on keeping and bearing that armament. That is the sum of my point: use the words in the constitution. It makes your point clear without the need to spell it out. It cuts through a hundred years of unconstitutional legislation like a hot knife through butter. Assault weapons = arms, ban = infringement.

Archangel14
December 30, 2012, 12:47 AM
My point is very simple: when someone refers to an AR as a"military style weapon", just point out that your bolt-action deer rifle is also a MSW. It will draw a quizical look. You can then tell your listener that the bolt action was the original MSW. Crap, the musket was a MSW!

Warp
December 30, 2012, 12:48 AM
My point is very simple: when someone refers to an AR as a"military style weapon", just point out that your bolt-action deer rifle is also a MSW. It will draw a quizical look. You can then tell your listener that the bolt action was the original MSW. Crap, the musket was a MSW!

True story

MAKster
December 30, 2012, 12:10 PM
I believe that the term Modern Sporting Rifle was something that the NSSF created to make it easier for chain stores like Walmart and Dicks to sell ARs.

GEM
December 30, 2012, 12:13 PM
Won't make a difference about the name. The only thing that counts is full auto vs. semi. You will not convince one person that the guns are less harmless because of term. Clearly, the message has gotten through as we hear semi-auto assault weapons.

You cannot argue they are not so dangerous, so please, please can we keep them.

Archangel14
December 30, 2012, 12:18 PM
I believe that the term Modern Sporting Rifle was something that the NSSF created to make it easier for chain stores like Walmart and Dicks to sell ARs.

Maybe if we just start referring to all shoulder mounted firearms as "rifles", we can start to simplify the issue, and stop falling into the anti-gunner silly language traps.

Let me give you an example: the term "date rape". For years the aggressive act of sexually violating a woman against her will was called "rape". All of a sudden someone came up with the idea of calling such an act that occurred on or after a date as "date rape". I'm a lawyer, and my question through the years has been, "what the heck is the difference? If a man violates a woman, it's rape!" It doesn't matter how it occurs. But the term "date rape" has stuck, and it means nothing.

Same with rifles. An AR is a freakin' rifle! A Remy 700 is a rifle. An AK is a rife. They are all rifles. But once we start allowing people to categorize the names of certain rifles, we fall into THEIR trap. Thus we have "assault rifle". Now we have "military style weapon". Next we'll have "personal hyper-rapid projectile launchers". :D

Me, for one, will call my rifles what they are: rifles.

El Chivato
December 30, 2012, 12:21 PM
My AR-15 is not an "assault weapon", mine is an "Anti-Assault Weapon".

I have my ancestor's original "assault weapon" hanging in my house. It was used against Brittish forces in 1776 or so.

Archangel14
December 30, 2012, 12:23 PM
You cannot argue they are not so dangerous, so please, please can we keep them.

Everyone thinks I'm advocating the point-by-point argument to make people see the light. Like the video I saw where some guy compared an AR to a bolt action. It was a bit tedious an required a lot of attention and interest in the subject to begin with. So what I advocate is taking a quick, obvious example approach that makes the listener see the light. "Oh, an AR is a military assault rifle? Well, so is my bolt action Mauser, which is, in fact, a military BATTLE rifle." If they want to learn more, they'll ask.

And I have re-thunk this a bit. You're right, don't try to convince rabid anti-gunners of anything. But for those who don't own firearms, but are not anti-gunners, this approach can work well.

Archangel14
December 30, 2012, 12:25 PM
I have my ancestor's original "assault weapon" hanging in my house. It was used against Brittish forces in 1776 or so.

My point exactly! El Chivato, you're a genius!

Point out to everyone who will listen that you have a state of the art 1776 military style weapon hanging on your wall!!!

asia331
December 30, 2012, 10:45 PM
I'm totally ashamed to be associated with the Democratic Party and plan to be voting straight Republican next term.

You thought the last 4 yrs were OK? Glad you came around brother.

BLACKHAWKNJ
December 30, 2012, 10:52 PM
In 1775 the British could have argued the colonists didn't "need" "Military Styled Weapons", and numerous problems arose when colonists carrying their old fowling pieces were rushed by British troops with bayonets on the muzzles of their Brown Besses.
My idea of an "assault weapon" is the M1888 .45-70 I carried up San Juan Hill in 1898. The Regulars had the Krag.

Archangel14
December 30, 2012, 11:14 PM
My idea of an "assault weapon" is the M1888 .45-70 I carried up San Juan Hill in 1898.

First off, I'm totally impressed by your longevity. And you made a excellent point.

Another example: my brother - who is not a "gun guy" - asked me last week what type of assault weapon he should get. Yes, even typical non-gun types are worried about a ban on semis. I opened my safe, showed him my beautiful Mauser and told him that he should get something like it. The guy looked at me and said, "yeah, but I need something that I can use when things get crazy, like a military rifle."

I then explained to him what a Yugo M48 really is, and guess what? He got it! He understood! THEY'RE ALL MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS.

Ragnar Danneskjold
December 30, 2012, 11:32 PM
Whenever you try to argue logical issues with someone who bases their views on emotion, you're not going to win. Archangel14, your first post seems to be along those lines. You seem frustrated that there is a mixup in terminology and that you can clear things up by educating antis about the facts of guns, like your bolt action 700 being the same gun that was used in past wars.

Those are facts. And unfortunately, you're not going to win with facts. Too many antis "feel" guns are bad or scary or just plain dangerous on their own. They are basing their views on emotion. And any attempt to appeal to their sense of logic probably won't make any difference.

MudPuppy
December 30, 2012, 11:40 PM
Where are you guys finding reasonable Anti's to have discussions with?

Seriously though, I think none of this would matter in the tiniest to most/all the anti's I know. For the most part, they've got to hear it off of CNN or somewhere other than FoxNews so they'll know what to think. I appreciate the enthusiasm and hope I'm completely wrong--and it doesn't cost us much to be aware of the words we use.

Trent
December 31, 2012, 11:21 AM
Civilian Marksmanship Program. The Government used to give it's "Military Style" rifles to civilians who qualified for their use - the same long arms used by the military, proper..

Now the same Government doesn't trust it's civilians enough.

Granted, if I were this Government, I'd probably have a lot to fear too. They spend 50% more than they raise in taxes, every single year, while simultaneously piling on even MORE social programs... and their "solution" to the problem ... raise taxes more??

Yeah, the Government has an awful lot to be held accountable for. They need to get these dangerous weapons off the street.

Warp
December 31, 2012, 04:24 PM
Civilian Marksmanship Program. The Government used to give it's "Military Style" rifles to civilians who qualified for their use - the same long arms used by the military, proper..

Now the same Government doesn't trust it's civilians enough.

Granted, if I were this Government, I'd probably have a lot to fear too. They spend 50% more than they raise in taxes, every single year, while simultaneously piling on even MORE social programs... and their "solution" to the problem ... raise taxes more??

Yeah, the Government has an awful lot to be held accountable for. They need to get these dangerous weapons off the street.

The government still uses the CMP to sell 'military style' rifles to civilians. No, wait...they aren't military style...they actually ARE (were) rifles/weapons used by the military. The real deal!

k_dawg
December 31, 2012, 05:27 PM
I will not accept 'Military Style Weapons' to describe semi-auto rifles, since those are banned for US civillians to purchase new since '86.

wickedsprint
December 31, 2012, 05:34 PM
They'd probably counter with "so why do you need /want more firepower than the guys storming the beach at Normandy?"

Cosmoline
December 31, 2012, 05:39 PM
When you start arguing smeantics you have already lost.

Semantics like this get you 5-10 in federal prison, so they're WORTH ARGUING. We need to be clear and consistent. There is no such thing as an "assault weapon" outside of the bizarre legislation which created the concept. It's focused on purely cosmetic details as we know. There is no substantive difference between AW and other semiautomatic rifles. They are just semiautomatic rifles. Period.

"Assault Rifles" are of course selective fire and Class 3.

The devil is literally in the details, so they matter.

Whenever you try to argue logical issues with someone who bases their views on emotion, you're not going to win.

That's no reason to give up on truth and logic. The more they learn, the less easy it is for them to support their positions. Knowledge is our key to victory.

PavePusher
December 31, 2012, 05:44 PM
When you start arguing smeantics you have already lost.

We didn't like Assault rifle because it didn't fit a narrow definition, now we don't like military style weapon (which is what it is). We tried Modern Sporting Rifle, but even among the people that shoot them a lot that never caught on.

I suggest we remind everyone that it doesn't matter, the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about hunting rifles.
By that criteria, my Springfield 1903, M1A Garand, SKS, AK, AR, Remington 700, Yugoslav Mauser, Mossberg 500, Mosin-Nagants, Colt 1911 and lever-action Winchester are all "military style weapon(s)".

blarby
December 31, 2012, 05:53 PM
The whole issue is moot.

The longer and harder we hide from the fact that weapons are indeed for killing things ( food, criminals, tyrannical government jackboots) and that the 2nd amendment was at its core designed to protect the common mans' liberties against the aforementioned jackboots, the weaker we will be.

I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm very tired of pretending most of us own these things for other than their intended purpose.

The louder, and more clearly, we state that purpose- the more the issue of "military style" or "nerf style" or "egg on your face style" becomes irrelevant.

They are using our reluctance to admit what these tools, and our founders' promise to grant us the liberty to bear them eternally- were made for.

Cosmoline
December 31, 2012, 06:03 PM
We own them so that we will never have to use them for that purpose.

Archangel14
December 31, 2012, 06:03 PM
By that criteria, my Springfield 1903, M1A Garand, SKS, AK, AR, Remington 700, Yugoslav Mauser, Mossberg 500, Mosin-Nagants, Colt 1911 and lever-action Winchester are all "military style weapon(s)".

EXACTLY!!!!! We've allowed the AG's to dictate the terminology. And as I stated in an earlier post, they are a well funded, motivated, organized, smart group of people. The term "military style weapon" did not just show up outta thin air. I guarantee you that some far-left people somewhere in the offices of a far-left think tank, funded by the Tides Foundation or Soros or Center for American Progress, got together to specifically come up with what they think to be effective terminology that will sway everyday folk into thinking that the AR is a terrible, evil thing. Once they came up with "military style weapon" label, they put out talking points to the MSNBC type who then run with it.

And again...stop replying with the "you can't argue with AG's". I'm not advocating that. But for others who might not be "gun" people, but are not AG, it's worth pointing out that your bolt-action hunting rifle IS a military style weapon, assuming the topic comes up. Show people how silly the modern venacular is.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to clean my old S&W .38 revolver. Which, by the way, is MILITARY STYLE WEAPON! Get it?

If you enjoyed reading about "Assault Weapon....Really?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!