Assault Weapon....Really?

[Archangel14]

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...................

 

[browningguy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

 

[Archangel14]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

MSR, modern sport rifle, I like it. Sounds way less threatening then assault weapon.

 

[Warp]

*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]

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]

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]

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]

*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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Mines a MSR, thats what i call it.

 

[Warp]

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.