Is it crazy not to buy assault weapons now?

[Neverwinter]

http://www.luntzglobal.com/expertise-issues-answers.php

Either take control of the debate, or the debate will take control of you. It really is that simple. Silence is no longer an option. The news cycle never ends. Either you determine the message or someone else will.

Our focus is on language. We already know the words that work – or we’ll find them for you…fast.

Consider our record:

We changed the “estate tax” to the “death tax” and that changed the course of legislative history.

We changed “global warming” to “climate change,” and while that was highly confidential, even opponents acknowledged how those two words significantly impacted the public debate.

We changed “drilling for oil” to “exploring for energy,” and that helped energy companies secure the rights to develop more energy resources right here in America.

We changed “school choice” to “parental choice” and “vouchers” to “opportunity scholarships,” and that has helped the education reform efforts in more than a dozen states.”

Time after time we have succeeded in changing the course of the debate, and the impact can be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The lesson here is rather clear. If you do not work against it, your opponents will use emotionally charged language to produce a narrative which doesn't have to rely on facts and evidence to defeat you.

As we can see from the global warming to climate change transition, even being more technically accurate can be detrimental in spite of no impact to the overwhelming facts on your side. The liars on the other side will come out ahead of you as they try to change the discourse.

We should not even be calling them semi-automatic, use modern sporting rifle.

 

[mike.h]

Quote:
Originally Posted by happygeek
http://www.luntzglobal.com/expertise-issues-answers.php
Quote:
Either take control of the debate, or the debate will take control of you. It really is that simple. Silence is no longer an option. The news cycle never ends. Either you determine the message or someone else will.

Our focus is on language. We already know the words that work – or we’ll find them for you…fast.

Consider our record:

We changed the “estate tax” to the “death tax” and that changed the course of legislative history.

We changed “global warming” to “climate change,” and while that was highly confidential, even opponents acknowledged how those two words significantly impacted the public debate.

We changed “drilling for oil” to “exploring for energy,” and that helped energy companies secure the rights to develop more energy resources right here in America.

We changed “school choice” to “parental choice” and “vouchers” to “opportunity scholarships,” and that has helped the education reform efforts in more than a dozen states.”

Time after time we have succeeded in changing the course of the debate, and the impact can be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The lesson here is rather clear. If you do not work against it, your opponents will use emotionally charged language to produce a narrative which doesn't have to rely on facts and evidence to defeat you.

As we can see from the global warming to climate change transition, even being more technically accurate can be detrimental in spite of no impact to the overwhelming facts on your side. The liars on the other side will come out ahead of you as they try to change the discourse.

We should not even be calling them semi-automatic, use modern sporting rifle.

this X2



So here's so words I used back in 1966:I, [Mike], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

no expiration date here boys






__________________

 

[asia331]

Really don't care for the term "assault" rifle myself. Using it in my view allows the anti-liberty crowd to define the terms IAW their agenda.

I do have several self loading rifles suitable for potent self defense.

 

[JHenry]

im hoping to have an ak and a good amount of rounds before the year is up

 

[JustinJ]

Because words mean things. The definition of an "assault rifle" has a specific meaning that includes the ability to fire full-auto or bursts.

Therefore claiming that your AR15 or Saiga AK derivative is an assault rifle is demonstrably incorrect.

The general authority on the meaning of words begs to differ:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

The Free Dictionary: Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

The claim that the military definines an assault rifle as being select fire is derived from a 1970 army intelligence paper about weapoons identification of Eastern Communist Nations. But its a stretch to say such a document is the deciding factor for the general use of a word. The military actually has numerous definitions of words that are not used by the general public. In reality, the army has no official definition for the word "assault rifle" as one can find by reading Army Regulation 310-25 Dictionary of United States Army Terms.

The first asault rifle may have been select fire but it was also german so is that a requirement as well? No. The unique characteristic of the first assault rifle was the use of an intermediate round to create a rifle ideal for a specific military objective.

But don't take my word for it. All we have to do is look at what's been said on the topic by those who actively pursue to reduce your right to own a firearm.

I'm fully aware that gun control advocates try to use words with certain connotations to their advantage but that does not make a term innacurate. Gun rights advocates, and all other political action organizations, do as well. The fact is, for multiple reasons, assault rifle is a term generally understood by most to include military style rifles available to civilians and using the term is not proof of conspiracy.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

^ It is inaccurate, inanimate objects do not "assault". Why do you think the anti gun crown anthropomorphisizes firearms..yes, it is to give them negative human charachteristics, and therefore demonize them. While not proof of conspiracy, you have to admit that using the term Assault Weapon, conjures up a more negative image for the average person than does "rifle". Using terms to describe firearms that negatively impact gun rights is irresponsible.

 

[JustinJ]

It is inaccurate, inanimate objects do not "assault". Why do you think the anti gun crown anthropomorphisizes firearms..yes, it is to give them negative human charachteristics, and therefore demonize them.

Are you serious? Does "race car" imply a car races itself? Are "running shoes" believed to run on their own? Does anybody think "reading glasses" comprehend written word? Placing the verb that describes the purpose of an item before it does not in anthropomorphise it.

While not proof of conspiracy, you have to admit that using the term Assault Weapon, conjures up a more negative image for the average person than does "rifle".

Sure, "assault rifle" has a darker connotation than "rifle" alone but a news article's purpose is to inform. "Assault rifle" or "military style rifle" is simply more informative. I don't like the fact that people using these guns for nefarious purposes hurts public opinion of gun rights but its not fair to fault media outlets for using these terms.

 

[Patriotme]

There is never a bad time to be prepared. That being said I doubt we will see the same behavior as we did right before the first time he was sworn in.

Everyone who was/is truly worried already owns one.

I disagree. There are many Americans that are coming of age during Obama's first term and they may now be able to buy "Assault Weapons." There are also many people that are putting aside the blind trust, cult like devotion and love for Obama. Some may now want to hedge their bets against a future ban, higher gun taxes or more regulations. Obama has put two anti gun Justices on the Supreme Court for life. This kind of trumps letting us carry concealed in National Parks.
I think that we'll see an increase in prices and a run on guns next year if Obama looks like he has a decent chance at winning a second term.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

Are you serious? Does "race car" imply a car races itself? Are "running shoes" believed to run on their own? Does anybody think "reading glasses" comprehend written word? Placing the verb that describes the purpose of an item before it does not in anthropomorphise it.

Oh I'm serious all right. Race cars are for racing. Running shoes are for running, reading glasses are used for reading. No one is saying the guns do it themselves, but it gives them personaity and purpose. I don't purchase rifles for assaulting, and those that do are called criminals. THAT is the link the anti gun rights crowd wants the public to draw between gun owners and firearms whose looks offend them. They liken gun owners to criminals for the type of firearm they purchase. Gun owners are portrayed as those types of people that purchase rifles for ASSAULTING people. Who wouldn't want to vote to ban guns that people purchase with the intent of ASSAULT. It really isn't that hard to understand.

Assault rifle" or "military style rifle" is simply more informative.

Yeah, assault rifles are select fire or full auto. The term is used incorrectly. If the purpose is to inform, why use adjectives whose purpose is to influence reader opinion. Right now I am sitting at my assault computer, wearing military style socks. Does that make you feel more informed about my attire and surroundings?

I understand that you are deeply in love with your opinion, but try to look at the issue objectively.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Sure, "assault rifle" has a darker connotation than "rifle" alone but a news article's purpose is to inform. "Assault rifle" or "military style rifle" is simply more informative. I don't like the fact that people using these guns for nefarious purposes hurts public opinion of gun rights but its not fair to fault media outlets for using these terms.

BS
yellow journalism is the standard today
Accuracy has never inhibited the media

 

[Lone_Sheep_Dog]

I got caught unprepared during the 2008 election. I learned my lesson and now I know what to expect in 2012.

 

[Dnaltrop]

I have no intentions of committing the crime of assault with a gun, a stone, my cane, or a whipped-cream pie.

And should I do so, I think re-naming everything involved as "Battery weapons" would be a bit awkward.

That being said about the myth of "assault" weapons... I think rifles and handguns with a "tactical" feel to them are here to stay. We've all watched too many spy and war movies , and the people who "Need" them for their employment or genuine self defense issues, will always be followed by the "enthusiast" (be they just prepared, or the worst of Mall-ninjas)

 

[JustinJ]

Oh I'm serious all right. Race cars are for racing. Running shoes are for running, reading glasses are used for reading. No one is saying the guns do it themselves, but it gives them personaity and purpose. I don't purchase rifles for assaulting, and those that do are called criminals.

Personality? No. Purpose, yes. Except assiging a purpose to something does not anthropomorphises it. Anthropomorphis means assigning a human characteristic. The fact of the matter is these rifles were designed for assaulting. Many of us today buy them because we've found alternate purposes for them just as people drive certain cars around town and then race them on the weekends. But none of that has anything to do with anthropomorphics.

THAT is the link the anti gun rights crowd wants the public to draw between gun owners and firearms whose looks offend them. They liken gun owners to criminals for the type of firearm they purchase. Gun owners are portrayed as those types of people that purchase rifles for ASSAULTING people.

Most people who oppose these rifles do so because they feel that whatever value is gained by allowing them, of which they generally see none, is not worth the cost of mass shootings. They link these rifles to those events so believe banning them would prevent or at least reduce their occurance. My belief is that rights and the ability of all american to defend themselves is more important than any individual life but that is
ultimately a value judgement that each person must make for themself. Plus, the guns could never be removed from the black market so such events will never be completely prevented. So to answer your question: "Who wouldn't want to vote to ban guns that people purchase with the intent of ASSAULT?" Me and many other like minded people.

It really isn't that hard to understand.

I completely disagree with gun control advocates but i also don't believe in misrepresenting the positions of others either.

 

[Siggyboy]

The terms do actually matter. There's well paid people whose whole job is picking the right sound bites for a politician/public affairs officer/company spokesman/etc. to use.

One of the better known well paid consultants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz


Assault rifle is a real term, but a weapon has to be select fire and fire an intermediate rifle caliber to be one. An assault rifle doesn't need a flash suppressor, pistol grip, folding stock, or be black to be one. It just has to be select fire, feed from a detachable mag, and fire an intermediate caliber. The StG 44 is considered the first true assault rifle and is also where the term itself came from (Sturmgewehr 44 literally meaning storm rifle model of 1944, in this case storm meaning assault, not as in thunderstorm). Apparently Hitler himself named it that for propaganda reasons.

The anti-gunners like to use the made up term 'assault weapon' for the same reasons as the term 'cop killer bullets', to name another infamous example. How can you be for 'cop killer bullets' after all? The term plays well in sound bites and scares those who don't know exactly what's being discussed.

http://www.luntzglobal.com/expertise-issues-answers.php

This is true. Another example is the word "house" which was changed by relators and media to "home" during the McMansion housing bubble to make a more emotional connection. Now everyone still unconsiously says they "bought a home" unstead of "bought a house". A house is not necessarily a home!

 

[Siggyboy]

Deleted since redundant

 

[Justin]

The general authority on the meaning of words begs to differ:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

The Free Dictionary: Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

You said it yourself, general authority. This tactic might work well at ending an argument in fourth grade, but I kind of doubt that Merriam Webster has anyone on staff who could be considered an authority on small arms.

The claim that the military definines an assault rifle as being select fire is derived from a 1970 army intelligence paper about weapoons identification of Eastern Communist Nations. But its a stretch to say such a document is the deciding factor for the general use of a word. The military actually has numerous definitions of words that are not used by the general public. In reality, the army has no official definition for the word "assault rifle" as one can find by reading Army Regulation 310-25 Dictionary of United States Army Terms.

The definition in the first document you talk about is quite clear, and in fact, can be seen here. I fail to understand how, if the definition exists in one military document, it is dismissed out of hand, but the document that does not contain that definition is somehow more authoritative.

The first asault rifle may have been select fire but it was also german so is that a requirement as well? No. The unique characteristic of the first assault rifle was the use of an intermediate round to create a rifle ideal for a specific military objective.

That specific military objective presumably being the implementation of Blitzkrieg during WWII, tactics which were later adopted by nearly every first-world military. The defining characteristic of Blitzkrieg is to hit a point in the enemy's position quickly and with overwhelming firepower. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to presume that the use of fully-automatic rifles in the hands of infantry would be quite helpful in this regard. (However, I will defer to any members here who are experts on the Second World War.)

Sure, "assault rifle" has a darker connotation than "rifle" alone but a news article's purpose is to inform. "Assault rifle" or "military style rifle" is simply more informative. I don't like the fact that people using these guns for nefarious purposes hurts public opinion of gun rights but its not fair to fault media outlets for using these terms.

You yourself have already pointed out that the military specified that full-auto capability is a defining characteristic of an assault rifle. If the gun in use by the perpetrator was not fully automatic, it was not an assault rifle. Furthermore, every source that can be considered to be an authority on rifles and civilian shooters draws a bright distinction between military-issue guns and those available to the average citizen. I fail to understand how your blurring of that distinction is accurate or helpful in any way.

That said, while it's not a "friendly" term, describing such a rifle as a "military style rifle" is at least technically correct.

I'm fully aware that gun control advocates try to use words with certain connotations to their advantage but that does not make a term innacurate. Gun rights advocates, and all other political action organizations, do as well. The fact is, for multiple reasons, assault rifle is a term generally understood by most to include military style rifles available to civilians and using the term is not proof of conspiracy.

Again, the fact that civilian-legal military-style rifles are not in fact true assault rifles means that this assertion is incorrect. It doesn't matter if the majority of people may believe an AR15 is an assault rifle, they are misinformed.

 

[Shovelhead]

He was personally responsible for millions of firearm and ammunition sales when he was elected the first time.

 

[JustinJ]

You said it yourself, general authority. This tactic might work well at ending an argument in fourth grade, but I kind of doubt that Merriam Webster has anyone on staff who could be considered an authority on small arms.

The definition in the first document you talk about is quite clear, and in fact, can be seen here. I fail to understand how, if the definition exists in one military document, it is dismissed out of hand, but the document that does not contain that definition is somehow more authoritative.

I'd consider dismissing an authority when its not convenient to one's arguement as elemenatary as well. The one time use of a term by an analysis in 1970 somehow does not seem like a better authority on definitions than the dictionary to me. Certainly not in definintion of words in modern times.

That specific military objective presumably being the implementation of Blitzkrieg during WWII, tactics which were later adopted by nearly every first-world military. The defining characteristic of Blitzkrieg is to hit a point in the enemy's position quickly and with overwhelming firepower. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to presume that the use of fully-automatic rifles in the hands of infantry would be quite helpful in this regard. (However, I will defer to any members here who are experts on the Second World War.)

I don't claim to be a WWII expert but i'm quite certain the first rifle christened as an assault rifle was introduced far after the use of Blitzkreig was adopted. Regardless, the tactic i was talking about was attacking, or assaulting, an enemy position. In which case a fully automatic sub machine gun would be quite useful as well.

You yourself have already pointed out that the military specified that full-auto capability is a defining characteristic of an assault rifle.

No, i've pointed out no such thing. The use of a phrase one single time by an analyist in 1970 does not determine a military specification and i never said it did. To my knowledge, the term "assault rifle" is not even used by the military. An official document of military terms i located and referenced certainly lacked it.

If the gun in use by the perpetrator was not fully automatic, it was not an assault rifle. Furthermore, every source that can be considered to be an authority on rifles and civilian shooters draws a bright distinction between military-issue guns and those available to the average citizen. I fail to understand how your blurring of that distinction is accurate or helpful in any way.

And I fail to see what is accomplished by people incessantly claming the word is misused.

Again, the fact that civilian-legal military-style rifles are not in fact true assault rifles means that this assertion is incorrect. It doesn't matter if the majority of people may believe an AR15 is an assault rifle, they are misinformed.

As i've said, the tirades people go on about the misuse of the term has nothing to do with technical accuracy. If it did i'm quite baffled why every post about DD, Bushmaster, LMT, Rockriver, etc "AR15's" is not filled with corrections of defininition.

Shovelhead:

He was personally resposible for millions of firearm and ammunition sales when he was elected the first time.

Actually he wasn't. Given that he has made no attemp to prohibit any of the guns or ammo that was hoarded those sells do nothing but make us all look paranoid. And i'm talking about myself too as i joined in the paranoia purchases.

 

[TexasTurtle]

The year before the last presidential election, I began buying an extra box or two of shells to put away...just in case. I expected that what happened would happen.

I don't shoot too much anyway these days, but I had plenty. (Even had plenty of 380 when there was none on any shelf.)

I'll second what someone else said. There is never a bad time to be prepared.

Am I going to go nuts buying now? Nope. However, I'll throw a box of 9mm or 357 in the basked at Wally World when I'm there. Buy $100 worth at Cabelas when I go up there to waste half a day.

Worst that can happen? You'll be like me and won't have to buy shells for a while.

It's all good.

 

[stickhauler]

No offense, but you are part of the problem. Repeating maketeting terms developed by anti gun rights groups is unacceptable as a gun owner.
Do you want to get a jump on blowing lots of cash on guns that are not needed, but purchased out of fear and sold at a loss like folks did during the last election. Obama has passed more pro-gun legislation that either of the previous two republicans. You can carry in state parks, and amtrak. Nevermind reality, the sky is falling buy em' up.

Let's be accurate here, he didn't pass pro-gun legislation, he signed bills that INCLUDED pro-gun amendments because he wanted the original legislation made law. Had the pro-gun legislation been passed, and sent to him for signing, he's have vetoed them. Let's not give him credit for unintended consequences.

But I do agree, repeating terms the anti-gun crowd uses for certain firearms makes them more acceptable use in society. Let's not make it easier for the anti-gun side by swaying public opinion to a false conclusion. A AR-based platform firearm in semi-auto configuration is no more dangerous than any other semi-auto firearm.

 

[gym]

I finally bought mine a new carbine m4 top. Picked up a red dot 2 mags a front rail flip up sights that came with it set as backup to the red dot, and a front handle. All for under a grand new. Now I need a case of ammo for a 1x7 twist. TWSC, a new company in Fl. website is tactical weapons system co..They claim to be in the top 10 co's as far as using mil spec parts go.Good quality gun, cheapo dot and handle, just a trial.I don't see getting a solid non plastic gun for less than $800.00 with case and bungee sling,chrome barrell and flash suppressor. I just don't like very much about what's happening overall and discounting any zombies, crime is at the highest levels since the 60's.But discounting that AR prices are now fairlly priced. I bought a full length riser for possible scope down the road. I don't trust Obama when his mouth is moving, and Ron paul may once again split the vote if he runs leaving a hole for our wonderfull Pres to crawl through. It would be catastrophic having a lame duck Obama.

 

[barnbwt]

First, the term "assault weapon" is not technically correct.

It is, however, legally correct.

I love this back and forth . Legal is what matters, right?

Nevertheless, then 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent violent groups like that from taking over our country, right?

AR's can be used to prevent that, they arent just for shooting cans at the range.

I hope that .22LR MP5 at the LGS won't ever be called upon to defend anyone's freedoms...

 

[Ignition Override]

Wow. So much time debating or clarifying definitions. But how do we reach the many thousands of gun owners who probably echo words from the media?

Whether you guys, and the rest of the US gun-owners decide to agree on words or not, the anti-gun people will still use anything that justifies their emotional, inflammatory perspectives.

Once a phrase is coined and makes a sound-byte with 'good copy' in newspapers or tv, when is it traded away for a less colorful phrase which doesn't grab peoples' attention so effectively?

Though this analogy might not be clear, both Shakespeare and maybe Martin Luther (the German Bible) coined expressions and reshaped their languages in the 16th century which resulted in much more effective expressions and sentences, which are still common today. Luther's bible basically created modern (Hoch) deutsch.
Languages retain words for hundreds of years that are effective (if you need a nutshell version).

Don't get me wrong, we can try to delete "assault weapons", but will continue to hear it at gun shows and in the media no matter what we do.

 

[kozak6]

Firearmwise, I think you should buy whatever you were going to buy anyways. Ammowise, you might as well stock up.

I would imagine that a lot of people still have the unreasonably expensive guns they bought during the Great Obama Gun Panic since they probably can't sell them for a good enough price to be worthwhile.

There will be a Second Great Obama Gun Panic if he's reelected, but because of this, I don't think it will be quite as severe.

Ammo just keeps getting more and more expensive, though. I don't really see prices dropping any time soon, and you might as well avoid the scarcity and high prices another Gun Panic will cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HGUNHNTR
. Obama has passed more pro-gun legislation that either of the previous two republicans.....
Are you saying that Obama, who had previously been virulently anti-gun, has seen the error of his 100% anti-gun voting ways?

Obama doesn't like guns. Fine.

But I don't think he hates them. He seems to understand that it isn't politically viable to make anti-gun moves. He can barely even push through old recycled Republican legislation, let alone anything spicy like gun control.

When he suggested some "common sense" measures after the Tucson tragedy, everybody freaked the hell out and he dropped it quicker than a hot potato.

When he privately told Sarah Brady to be patient, that they were "working behind the scenes," (think "Fast and Furious") was just a ploy to get her to shut up while he instead pursued a pro-gun agenda??

How much do you trust Sarah Brady to tell the truth?

 

[MistWolf]

I was using the term "assault weapon" as it has been defined in previous federal law. I know a lot of gun people dont like it, but it is a term in common usage now, and we all know what it means.

You're good with letting our enemies define our terms?