It's time to stop saying "Assault Weapon"

Status
Not open for further replies.
AAAHHHH!! I'm blind! or maybe it's just him...


This isn't really about the Second Amendment. It is about terminology. Regardless of any ban or legislation or Second Amendment restriction, I think the more factual we are/the less vagueness in our discourse, the better off we'll be.

So when you tell someone you have an "assault weapon," it does kind of bring up Waco/bank robbers with body armor and ski-masks/"crazy people" imagery to those who are not particular familiar with or interested in firearms.

The term is more of an emotional one than a factual one. If you say, "I have a rifle in 223," those not particularly familiar will just say, "Uhh....ok...I have no idea what that is." And trying to educate them isn't going to happen either...they don't care and don't want to know.


But if you say, "I have an assault rifle!," they flash to images of Rambo or Arnold or some action movie where lots of people die in military situations OR, even worse, they will think of the media and political misunderstanding or propaganda they've heard and immediately demonize you and your evil weapons that have no purpose except for killing lots of people and overthrowing the government.

A perfect example of this is my mother. She's a conservative and avid believer in the second amendment. She has no clue about which firearms are which. But when she heard the term 'assault rifle,' she instantly thought it meant all those fully automatic weapons you see in the movies and any that look like them. I had to explain it to her and now she understands. I also explained how the term "assault weapon or rifle" is all too often used incorrectly.

So, I think if we stay to the factual side and not the testosterone-assault-tactical-ass-kicking rhetoric, there will be less confusion (that's what the AK in AK47 means right? :p ) .

There will still be those who want to ban guns or pass restrictions on the second amendment. But they will have to try to do it specifically, not vaguely or under the emotional influence cause by fear of "assault weapons." (so I agree with you on that part JKimball)
And if we are specific, they will have to be specific. And as some of the videos on THR have pointed out, politicians don't usually have a clue and if they want to debate us, they will have to get one or look like fools. If we use the terms that are vague or incorrect, they can remain vague and incorrect too and get away with it.

Side note, I secretly love the testosterone-assault-tactical-ass-kicking firearms...that's why I own some...don't tell anyone ;)
 
Last edited:
I agree we as gun owners should refrain from using any terminology that the anti gun idiots coined. To them any black rifle is either a Assault weapon or machinegun. And if you have more than one gun you have an arsenal.
 
Just another thought. If we're going to win any Second Amendment fight, then we do have to be careful about saying things like
The 2nd amendment is all about Assault Weapons.
Click to expand...

All this will do is hang us. Because everyone will focus on the "Assault Weapons" portion of our argument.

The argument that needs made is, "The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms. Period"

"Well not assault weapons you wacko!"

"I don't know what an 'assault weapon' is sir. Could you please define it for me?"

"Uh...well...um, it's any of those guns that are black and have large amounts of ammo."

"Are you sure you aren't referring to a paintball gun sir?"

"Of course not, you know the guns I'm talking about. All those guns you see in movies or that our military has!"

"Sir, the movies are just the movies and most military firearms and weapons are restricted to the military; they are not available to the public. You'll have to be specific about which firearms you are categorizing as 'assault weapons' because I am not familiar with them."

At that point they'll probably have a heart attack when their blood pressure spikes :evil:


But seriously, if we force the people who want to ban guns by using some kind of emotional terminology to be specific and we stay specific, then I believe they will lose any argument.
 
This isn't really about the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm trying to make it about the second amendment.

The 2nd amendment refers specifically to the importance of the people keeping and bearing arms so that as the militia they can keep the state secure.

Anybody (like your mom) that professes to believe in the 2nd Amendment should realize that it is talking about militarily effective arms. That means automatic actions and large capacity magazines. Many people are proud supporters of the 2nd amendment, but they don't even make that connection. Let's just help them make it. Then they'll be proud supporters of assault weapons.
 
I personally agree with the idea that every weapon can be an assault weapon. Therefor there is no reason to call anything an assault weapon. It is completely possible to attack a target in Iraq or Afghanistan with a weapon that is not an assault rifle. I've seen pictures of soldiers over in the sandbox with M24's and even some custom bolt action weapons. It seems to me that they are doing a great job assaulting with non-assault type weapons.

High Capacity magazines, is that like the annual super large edition of National Review or something. A mag is a mag is a mag. Whether it has 5, 10, 20, 30, or even 200, there is no reason to control them. Other than keeping track of rate of fire. An acceptable mag the mag with the proper number of rounds for what the individual is doing with it. If I'm at the range, I personally prefer 10 round mags. For home defense, I wouldn't mind having a 30 or 50 round mag. When it comes to ammo, the more the merrier.

----------
"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"
Patrick Henry
 
I think assault weapon should still be used, but only pertaining to real assault weapons. Calling my single shot break open shotgun an atomic weapon does not change what it really is.
As for magazines they are all standard capacity. High, low, evil, or good these are all opinions in relation to the actual round count.
 
I agree with the OP. Although, it doesn't do us any good to change the terms amongst ourselves. We have to educate the media which communicates with the masses. And the media isn't going to cooperate because they need to distort the truth and lie to get peoples' attention. Afterall, the media is another type of hollywood.
 
This is a post I made a while back.
___________________________

Let's call them what they are MODERN.

As most of us are aware, liberals tend to appeal to peoples emotions rather than using facts, reasons or logic to sway peoples opinions on gun issues.

"Assault weapon" is a term with a strong negative connotation. This phrase carries the presupposition that these weapons are suitable only for committing a criminal assault. Our enemies in Congress knew what they were doing when they named the Assault weapons bill.

Using loaded language to exploit the subtle shades of words meanings, neutral or even pleasant things can become unpleasant. Conceder the difference between:

fragrant and smelly a mobile home vs a trailer inexpensive vs cheap

Using this method it's easy to take something as innocuous as your scoped mini 14 ranch rifle and turn it into a high capacity semiautomatic assault rifle with no legitimate sporting purpose, the weapon of choice of disgruntled snipers.

Now how can we counter this? Let's look at some facts and reasons.

One of the most effective ways of doing this is to use "loaded" words and phrases.
Certain words have negative connotations that invoke an emotional response.

Suppose you read a news story that starts with the phrase "disgruntled former employee". You immediately start thinking "Another nut goes on a murderous rampage" simply because you have heard that word used so many times in that context even though the word disgruntled simply means disappointed and unhappy.

Even a purely technical term like "semi automatic" can evoke negative emotions in uninformed people whose primary exposure to that term has been in connection with story's about crime and mass murder.

Since the invention of the musket, men have endeavored to make firearms more accurate, handier, faster to load and to increase the number of shots.

Muskets have to have long barrels to get even marginal accuracy. With the advent of rifled bores, this was no longer true. Although long barrels were retained for military rifles because no one wanted to give up the extra reach they afforded in a bayonet charge. Also, with iron sights the farther apart they are the more accurately they can be aimed.

Now days bayonet charges are no longer in vogue and improved sighting systems make long cumbersome barrels unnecessary.

Traditional firearm stocks were made of wood. With the development of synthetic stocks more ergonomic shapes evolved. Pistol grip stocks feel more natural in the hand to many people but were difficult to make out of wood which tends to split along its grain. That's not a problem with plastic.

Since the invention of the self contained cartridge faster and easier ways to load have evolved. Semi automatic operation and detachable magazines eliminated down time.

To put it all into perspective, these so called assault weapons are simply

MODERN FIREARMS

which are in use by every established military in the world. Just like the brown Bess musket was in 1776! (remember, everyone who ever lived lived in modern times)

So the next time you debate an anti gunner be sure to call these guns what they really are

MODERN FIREARMS !

Why Senator Foghorn, Do you really believe the second amendment is not meant to apply to modern firearms?
 
The man in the street as well as the political class just can't face up to the fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment.

Why don't they want to know?

Because the subject matter is too heavy and it's therefore necessary to pretend all ammunition and firearms are to be possessed solely for lawful sporting purposes either between marksmen in target shooting competition or between men and beasts in hunting.
 
Legitimatizing the expressions of liberals only feeds the fires. I once owned a HK91 sporter. Everywhere I went, people would stare at it like it was a full auto machine gun. The curious got to shoot it, and the ignorant received a curt discussion about their ignorance.

It didn't do any good.

Now that every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the suburbs has a semi auto M16, things are different. Knowledgeable gun owners now see the difference, the public understands a little more that they are legal. After all, if they weren't, they wouldn't be for sale to the public. Gun shows, Academy Sports, where ever, the public sees them on the rack, and they are beginning to know that they aren't the same as what they see on the news - just like a Hummer at the mall ain't like a Hummer in Bagdad.

It's the agenda driven who abuse the term. Don't use it. It's a baby, not a fetus. It's 4WD, not an SUV. It's a sporter rifle, not an assault rifle or machine gun. It's a pistol or revolver specifically, not a gun. Use specific terms for specific things and control the conversation by use of the proper technical term. That empowers 2A supporters and makes the anti gunners appear the emotional and fearful people they choose to be.

Be specific, don't contribute to the enemy's war with words - especially when you try to stuff that clip into your 1911, please . . .
 
Example: Dragunov SVU-A a selective fire sniper rifle which comes in 7.62x54mm http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn19-e.htm
Click to expand...

This is not at all an assault rifle. The Dragunov fires a full-power ("battle rifle") cartridge. This is no more an assault rifle than a BM59.

There is NO SUCH THING (in a technical sense) as an "assault weapon".

John
 
Example: Dragunov SVU-A a selective fire sniper rifle which comes in 7.62x54mm http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn19-e.htm
Click to expand...
This is not at all an assault rifle. The Dragunov fires a full-power ("battle rifle") cartridge. This is no more an assault rifle than a BM59.

There is NO SUCH THING (in a technical sense) as an "assault weapon".
Click to expand...


Yes...that is basically what I was saying in my post:

Thing is, that definition does not really fit either. Not all "selective fire, moderate power cartridge" guns are "assault rifles."

Example: Dragunov SVU-A a selective fire sniper rifle which comes in 7.62x54mm http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn19-e.htm


That's part of the problem with calling firearms "Assault Rifles" is that too many firearms get lumped into the category because the definition is rather vague.
Click to expand...
 
I cringe every time I hear those words. "Assault weapon" :fire: I have a feeling we will be hearing it a lot in the coming months.
 
Remember when the gun grabbers main emotional nonsense label was "A Saturday Night Special". Newscasts often had reporters saying something like: "the victim was killed by a Saturday night special, or John Doe was arrested and was found carrying a Saturday night special.

They could not define it. It was applied to any small handgun. I'm not sure why it is not used now.
 
Not to go off on a tangent...

But quit calling Target Rifles, "Sniper Rifles".

They are in fact, long range target rifles, or short range for that matter. But unless engaged in sniping, they shouldn't be called such.
 
here is my take, If we use a diffrent vocabulary the entire meaning could be misses all together, For instance I have an Uncle who is Belgian, HE was telling a story about this guy who was pissed. And then was laughing, I could not figure it out for the world until I found out pissed was not mad, or angery. Pissed for him ment drunk and slopy.

With this example if I was talking to a commoner about Say a G-3 clone this person might think I was talking about some sort star wars storm trooper or new science experiment. Where as I say Assault weapon then they would have a better Idea. Basicaly every situation is diffrent but some times talking on "their" terms will get a point across instead of getting lost in unfamilar nomenclature.
 
Not to go off on a tangent...

But quit calling Target Rifles, "Sniper Rifles".

They are in fact, long range target rifles, or short range for that matter. But unless engaged in sniping, they shouldn't be called such.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right. It just feeds the antis another media buzzword that they can use to bring up the debate to get them banned.

The word "assault" started out as our cool word to call things. Then the antis took it and used it to ban our modern rifles.

In the 21st century, we will lose far more because of the word "Tactical".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
We need to call things what they are
Replies
5
Views
526
jamesbeat
J
D
  • Locked
Assault Weapons - What defines one...?
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
T.Stahl
T
G
  • Locked
A term to replace "Assault Weapon" : "Modern Rifle"
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
3K
GEM
G
A
  • Locked
Assault Weapon....Really?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Archangel14
A
HoosierQ
  • Locked
A Motion - re: The Term "Assault Rifle"
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Replies
232
Views
8K
Fred Fuller
F
Back
Top