NY Times admits "assault weapons" was made up.

[Deanimator]

As for being made up, all such terms are made up. "Rifle" and "Pistol" are made up terms as well.

"Rifle" and "pistol" weren't made up to deceive.

"Assault weapon" is the equivalent of "resettlement to the east" and "10 years of corrective labor camps without the right of correspondence".

 

[tipoc]

Either way a majority oppose such bans and infringements. A recent poll was reported on by ABC on Dec. 15th.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-oppose-assault-weapons-ban-doubts-stopping-lone/story?id=35778846

Support for such methods has been declining (down to 45%) while opposition grows (up to 53%). People are voting with their feet as well, as gun sales soar including those for "Modern Sporting Rifles" a term that sounds like exactly what it is...a term made up by corporate consultants in a back room in Connecticut.

tipoc

 

[zb338]

New Jersey just decided that any pellet gun with a suppressor
attached to it is an "assault rifle" and is illegal. If a person is caught
by the police having one it is a jail sentence.

Zeke

 

[tipoc]

Another article from the Times this one is by Erik Eckholm and titled "Where Support for Assault Rifles Is in 'Good, Clean Fun"

Many gun enthusiasts express deep exasperation of their own. They argue that most non-shooters do not understand the technology and appeal of modern weapons that are widely used for target shooting and, increasingly, hunting. They say proposed bans would do nothing to prevent crime or even lessen the toll of mass shootings.

“From my experience, the bad guys are always going to get the guns, and gun control is only going to affect law-abiding citizens,” said Oscar Plasencia, 57, a retired police officer who was practicing on a recent Saturday at the Markham Park range.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/u...ult-rifles-is-all-in-good-clean-fun.html?_r=0

tipoc

 

[benEzra]

What does FA capability have to do with it?

Because the entire concept of the military assault rifle was to allow a single weapon to fill the roles of both the infantry rifle and the submachinegun, instead of issuing soldiers one or the other. The requirement for select-fire was the very core of the concept; take away the cyclic capability, and it's just a smallish caliber semiauto.

The newspaper is simply reporting how one group twisted language to suit its own purposes -- like conservatives saying "partial birth abortion" or "tax relief."

You should be THANKFUL for a news organization exposing this, rather than condemning them.

The editorial admitting the fraud was published in 2014, yet here we are fifteen months later and they are still pushing the lie, and calling for "assault weapon" owners to be disarmed or jailed. Just last week, the NYT called for these same guns to be outlawed and confiscated nationwide. That duplicity is worthy of the deepest contempt.

 

[tipoc]

The article that begins this thread was written by Steve Straub. I do not see a date on when it was written. maybe someone else does. It could have been a year ago or more recently.

Both the headline of the piece in the Federalist Papers Project, and the content are misleading.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...mes-finally-admits-assault-weapons-are-a-myth

Mr. Straub fails to mention who wrote the article in the Times or provide a clear link to it (you have to poke around for that). He gives the impression that the article is the opinion of the NYT when it clearly is not.

The opinion pages of most major newspapers are and have been for over 100 years clearly divided into two sections, the opinions of the editors and owners of the paper and editorial opinion by columnists and guest editorials. Only the opinions expressed in the section reserved for the editors of the paper can be seen as the opinion of the paper. It usually says so right on the pages. Other articles are the opinion of the columnist.

In the case of the article being discussed the authors were not the editors of the NYT.

Mr. Straub uses a bit of slight of hand to give the impression that the New York Times "admitted" something that it did not. It published a piece that told some of the truth...for a change.

The article, "The Assualt Weapon Myth" appeared in the Times on Sunday Sept. 12, 2014. It was written by Lois Beckett , a reporter who covers "gun violence" for ProPublica. It was not the opinion of the NYT. Because of this the editors of the Times were not lying. They disagree with Lois Beckett. The owners and editors of the Times are dishonest and unscrupulous on many things but they have consistently been anti second amendment for a long time.

Here is a link to the article by Beckett:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=1

Here is a link to ProPublica the group Beckett works and reports for:

https://www.propublica.org/

Straubs piece leaves out the title of the Article by Beckett, it does not mention her name, it does not say that she does not work for the Times but another organization with it's own agenda. He uses a bit of duplicity to make the point that the Times are lyers who are not to be trusted as is the rest of the liberal media. He deliberately misdirected/lied to show that the NYT are liers. He didn't have to do that, but he did.

Assault weapon is a term promoted by antis to mislead (even though it's origins go back aways). So is the term "gun violence". But you don't have to paint a false picture as Straub does to show that...you can quote Lois Beckett, she does a pretty good job of explaining it. You'd be better off quoting Beckett than Straub, it'll get you further and you will feel cleaner by doing so.

tipoc

 

[yugorpk]

In any case whether it was the New York Times or Pro Publica the term assault weapon. It had existed for decades. They may have coopted it to use as a scare term at that point for their faint of heart readers but they certainly did not coin the term "assault weapon". Personally I like the term and have no qualms using it to describe most of my cache.

 

[tipoc]

I agree. "Assault weapon" predates the it's usage by the Clinton administration.

tipoc

 

[Deanimator]

Personally I like the term and have no qualms using it to describe most of my cache.

Seeing as how it has no fixed meaning, it could be used to describe anything from a matchlock Tanegashima to a 40mm Bofors.

 

[yokel]

Not unlike Lewis Carroll's Theory of Language:

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper some of them- particularly verbs: they're the proudest- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

Through the Looking Glass, Ch. VI

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"Rifle" and "pistol" weren't made up to deceive.

"Assault weapon" is the equivalent of "resettlement to the east" and "10 years of corrective labor camps without the right of correspondence".

So you are SPECIFICALLY talking about the origin of the word and what it was made up to convey???

Really, do you know the etymology of the terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle?" Please share with the rest of us because everyone else here seems a little vague on the true origins and purpose of these made up terms.

The phrase "assault weapon" most definitely predates the Clinton Administration. In fact, the earliest mention I can find of it (so far) is 1959 in the Armored Sentinel from Fort Hood, Texas, referring to the MAW (Medium Assault Weapon) which was a recoilless rifle. Obviously, if this is in military vernacular, it is going to predate a press release.
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth254607/m1/16/zoom/?q="assault+weapon"

Now, the first in print version use of "assault rifle" that I can find appears in 1945, September 3, talking about the Sturngewehr, which it parenthetically called the "assault rifle."
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/130232841?searchTerm="assault+rifle"

Now, maybe somebody can find some earlier uses of the terms, but at least in these cases, neither term seems to be used for deceit.

The Aussies in 1967 started referring to the AK47 as an "assault rifle" in print at least as early as 1967.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/106981339?searchTerm="assault+rifle"

And the US picked it up by as early as 1968.
https://www.elephind.com/?a=p&p=redirect&vhttp=http://cdm.sos.mo.gov/u?/colmo2,130114&vsource=UMCSJ

Interestingly, "assault gun," a term no longer used much, was first employed to refer to vehicular mounted guns in the 40s.
https://www.elephind.com/?a=q&r=1&r...n-100--1--txt-txINtxCO-"assault+gun"---------

These terms were not "made up" by the NY Times or the Clinton administration and well predate the 1990s.

 

[yokel]

From 1988:

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm


After all this long discussion the question is whether the words "fully automatic" can mean "semi-automatic".

 

[tipoc]

Yokel was quoting from this 1988 study:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm

(The date at the top of the page changes, scroll down to see the date the report was published.)

The difference between fully auto, or just automatic and semi auto is something that just has to be patiently explained over and over. This is because many people do not know the difference and some of the antis often deliberately confuse the question to win points. We want to win people over so we have to keep explaining and telling the truth.

tipoc

 

[ramrod1851]

The question is "why are automatic weapons illegal in the first place?"
Now I have no problem calling my AR an "assault weapon" so long as everyone joins me in calling abortion doctors and their clients "infanticidal maniacs." Otherwise I'd urge you to call it a "defense weapon" which is infinitely more accurate than describing abortion as a nothing but a "choice."

 

[yugorpk]

The question is "why are automatic weapons illegal in the first place?"
Now I have no problem calling my AR an "assault weapon" so long as everyone joins me in calling abortion doctors and their clients "infanticidal maniacs." Otherwise I'd urge you to call it a "defense weapon" which is infinitely more accurate than describing abortion as a nothing but a "choice."

You arent going to last long here friend.

 

[ramrod1851]

Oh I just knew that was to low for the high road. Still I think it needed saying.