Can we present a united front re: the "Modern Sporting Rifle"?

ZeSpectre,

I'm not looking for a compromise on RKBA, just for a new message that helps preserve it.

 

I like Modern Sporting Rifle. It is simpler than "semi-automatic" because that leads the media to believe that if you just "remove" the "semi" and it becomes a dreaded automatic or assault weapon. I fully embrace semi-automatic weapon. To a sane and reasonable person it tells you much about the operation of the rifle just by placing it in that category.

 

I said I was a weapon, I didn't say it was made for killing. By accepting the anti's premise that weapons are 'made for killing', you've already given away the store. The rest is just the terms of the surrender.

It's not being wedded to terminology. It's about debasing the language, and being forced to lie, and getting pushed further and further down a path of illogic and rose tinted glasses. A weapon isn't 'made for killing'. It's a tool, made to cause damage to things. That damage has no morality, it has no intent. It can be used for ill or for good, justified or unjust. The only reason why 'weapon' has a negative connotation is because of conversations like this one, where we've ceded the point, and agreed to fight on the enemy's ground. I see no need to apologize or dissemble about the fact that I own and am prepared to use weapons for legal sport, or for the defense of me and mine. People put food on their table with weapons. People defend their homes with weapons. There are a great many people alive and free because of men with weapons and good intent, standing against those with bad. So I refuse to buy into, by meekly accepting my opponents terms and logic or by veiling my purpose, this moral equivalent argument that a good person with a weapon is the philosophical equal of a bad person with one - because all weapons are evil - ,or that it is good and proper to let voting age adults be terrified of a word.

Once upon a time that was understood that good people could use and recreate with weapons, which is why so many sports are of martial origin; we don't throw the javelin because someone thought it looked cool, we did it to practice throwing spears at the enemy, and then at some point it morphed into a fun activity. But now we're in a time where the idea, that I, as a tax paying, law abiding adult might want to own a weapon give hippies the vapors. I'm sorry (not really), but if someone can't wrap their brain around the fact that empowering good people to take care of themselves, to be prepared gasp! do harm if needed to things that threaten them is a good thing, then there's no hope for them. Or the society that cuddles them. And in the end, you can call it what you like, they will think you're a blood thristy murderer in training anyway, because it rationalizes away their own worthlessness.

It wasn't a rant, sir. It was a statement of principle. I refuse to take one more step towards infantilizing this country. I refuse to aid and abet the half of the country that want to hide under the sheets and hope the bad stuff goes away by magic. If you want to tilt at that particular windmill, good luck, godspeed, and pack a lunch, but I'm done.

 

I hate the term "modern sporting rifle."

It is a semi-automatic rifle. That's it, that's all.

 

They are semi automatic rifles. A technically accurate term devoid of political bias. Yes they have detachable magazines and pistol grips, adjustable stocks and threaded barrels. Those features do not warrant a seperate classification. Assault weapon is an agenda driven semantic with clear political motivations, as is modern sporting rifle. The more specific you are, the easier it is to break up arms into different classifications that can be restricted. I support the second amendment, but... assualt weapons, hicap pistols, sniper rifles. They are arms. The whole objective is to classify them as something other than arms. Refer to them as arms. Arms are protected from infringement, assault weapons and modern sporting rifles are not.

 

This! This all over the damn place!

I may need to print and frame that. Well said.

 

Easy there, junyo, I'm on your side. I have the same goal you have: to stop the anti-gun trend. I agree with just about everything you posted as principles, but we're not fighting a principled adversary. We cannot defeat the antis with principles, facts, or time-honored truths about self-reliance. The anti doesn't ever hear those kinds of things.

Let me state it again: it's not about what we know to be true or untrue; it's about what antis perceive. That's how messaging works, and it's at messaging that we're failing so badly.

 

"Modern rifles" or "modern firearms" at most. No reference to sporting, self defense, home defense, or anything else.

Every product is subject to improvements on a wide variety of areas based on research, development, and field experience. What was the bees knees a couple decades ago isn't necessarily so today. Firearms are no different.

Not too long ago, long guns with pistol grips weren't even a thought for a hunting rifle, nor for self-defense. Ergonomics changed that, as it did for so many other things.

Visual appearances change all the time because such things appeal to people. This isn't something that's only true for fashion clothing...it's every bit as applicable to firearms as well.

I would like to see us get away from the "assault rifle" term, with respect to civilian firearms. I'm having a hard time seeing that happen, though.

But who knows? As a Boomer Baby who grew up during the height of the Cold War, the end of the Cold Was wasn't something I saw something that would happen when it did. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised with this, as well.

 

Modern compared to what? They've been around a while.

Would you refer to a Ruger 10/22 as "modern"?

 

most generic gun names relate to the method of action cycling so semi-auto rifle works for me, I don't care what idiot media or uninformed citizens call it.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not you want to buy a MSR, you should support it being legal in all its parts.

 

In my opinion, there is no need to go any further in the description. But there certainly isn't anything wrong with doing that, depending on the circumstances.

If you want to call a semi-automatic rifle a semi-automatic rifle, more power to you. It's as accurate as anything else.

A muzzeloading rifle made from stainless or other modern steels is also a "modern rifle", because it uses advances in modern technology to improve and construct it.

And yes, a Ruger 10/22 is a modern rifle.


Firearms can be described any number of ways...pick and choose what works best for you in whatever circumstances you find yourself.

The OP is asking his question as a way of addressing methods of countering the intentionally negative labels the gun-control crowd has tagged some firearms with in order to place them in an extremely bad light. To that end, our postings should themselves be positive. They should give people good ideas in how to discuss/describe such weapons.


Place any number of descriptive terms you wish to describe whatever particular weapon you want. They should be accurate enough to get your point across to people that the weapons you're talking about aren't military assault weapons.

 

Sorry, but adopting political correctness is not the answer. Educate folks on good old fashioned values and why the founding fathers created the 2A. Sorry, I can't go along with any political correctness, that is not the answer in my opinion.

 

Messaging can be effective and still avoid being straight up PC nonsense. It is not a dichotomy.

 

Focus: NO COMPROMISE.

 

The antis' ultimate goal is to ban all privately owned firearms. They will pretend middle ground this and half ground that, but, make no mistakes about it, they only have one goal. Why can't some gun owners get that through their head?

 

I thank you, sir.

 

I would go with military service rifle for select fire versions carried by the military and civilian service rifle for semiauto versions carried by civilians. I always found the term modern sporting rifle to be deliberately misleading since the sport that it excels at involves running around and shooting dozens of human shaped targets in the fastest time possible.

 

Mods, please close this thread. It now bears no resemblance to the thread I started, and my original words have been so twisted and misconstrued that the thread looks like just another whiny little compromise thread. It was never that, but cooler heads don't seem to prevail.

 

I do agree that we as a community need to really make more of an effort to expose ARs as hunting weapons. The antis are getting away with saying that they aren't, can't, and shouldn't be used for hunting. We are losing that part of the propoganda war.

 

It's just a rifle. It shouldn't require a description. It's just a semiautomatic rifle in 223. The problem as I see it, is,"as I said yesterday" , is the tactical look of the rifle. If it were to have a different stock like one of the members posted, in that" realtree", pattern, used for hunting rifles,along with a stainless barrell and a 10 round mag was in it along with a scope, the chances are that most people would not give it a second look.
The same goes for taking a 30-06 "deer rifle" and converting it with a large Mag, and a synthetic black stock, and a red dot.
This would make a great print ad or tv ad. I honestlly think that most non gun people aren't aware of the difference between a machine gun, and a semiauto weapon.
Also getting shooting teams to use AR type rifles for Olympic type events would show that the rifle can be used for any purpose.Perhaps a stars and stripes pattern for a color scheme. The great American rifle.
What we need is an Ad campaign, promoting the rifle as an all around American rifle, from the farm to the range, it would sell the gun better than any other stratagy. Showing Police, Farmers, and Target Shooters, along with Border patrol officers, all using the same platform, with different purposes could make the gun more acceptable to mainstream americans who don't get it.

 

I don't like calling them "sporting" rifles - as I don't use them for sport. Some people do, but they are weapons to me. I think we just need to make the case that we have the right to protect ourselves.

I strongly disagree with promoting the concept that guns need a "sporting purpose" to be ok to own - that is why we have the stupid 1968 gun control law import ban which stopped the Walther PPK from being importable because it was too small to have a sporting purpose. So now we have to make do with PPKs made "under license" in Alabama.

SUR - Sport/Utility rifle is a decent term, as that means sport or utility and compares them to SUVs.

In the end, I vote for calling them "modern rifles."

 

Say goodbye to your bolt action rifles once the non gun public realizes that they are actually sniper rifles.

 

Some olympic arms would actually be banned under Feinsteins AWB, especially pistols where the magazine is often exposed. Even bolt/single shot target rifles have "evil" features like pistol grips, etc.



I bet if you showed someone that picture, they'd say no-one needed a firearm that was that dangerous... and it's an airgun.

I think Modern Sporting Rifle is better than "assault weapon" or "weapon of mass destruction", and is probably the easiest term to use collectively. While there's no need to describe it in any particular way, I would agree that something needs to be done about the bastardization of our language in the media. And people don't want specifics... they just want a generic term that can classify certain types of items. Modern Sporting Rifle seems fine...