Assault Weapon....Really?

[tactikel]

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]

How about "Freedom Protection Device"

 

[Carl N. Brown]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".

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

 

[El Chivato]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

They'd probably counter with "so why do you need /want more firepower than the guys storming the beach at Normandy?"

 

[Cosmoline]

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]

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]

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.