The Truth About Assault Weapons

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cbrgator

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
2,525
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir8wpI5_e9g

I have begun a quest to rebut all different gun control/awb arguments. Here is my first video explaining how average hunting rifles are far more powerful than an AR/AK and why the term "high powered assault weapons" is a hoax.

P.S. Remember that this was designed to educate laymens and not gun experts. I'm not nearly as big an idiot as I sound but I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible for people who have no idea what I'm talking about.

P.P.S. I know I left out the .270 in that picture. Get over it =).

What do you guys think.
 
not bad...you might reconsider being all pixilated ,however.It makes it LOOK like you're hiding. If you really ARE hiding,you may want to reconsider being in a movie. On the plus side,you had your facts straight.
 
cbrgator, an assault rifle is a selective fire rifle chambered in the same calibre as the regular PBI rifle with a shorter cased cartridge. There have been exactly two in history. The German StG 44 and the Russian AK47. Every other military rifle since is a battle rifle.
Your video is running with very low quality too. Then the video quits altogether. Thought you'd want to know that.
 
the bans you speak of are mainly going to affect weapons qualified as assault weapons due to a mix of design, caliber, and capacity,, comparing an ar 15 or ak 47 or the likes to a hunting rifle based purely on power of the cartridge is a cheap arguement and imho not a true stand... the right to have them in and of itself should be the only debate.. anything else is simply a moot point.... such arguements imho would sooner make hunting rifles illegal than to bring aw haters to the other side... we have the right to have them... that is the arguement, that is the stand...
 
I've said this on many sites, we the pro gun groups, are our worst enemy. This video only adds to the anti gun war chest. I believe we will see a resurrection of Obamanations effort for the AWB and points as brought out in the video will be used to support the ban
 
Sunray: "cbrgator, an assault rifle is a selective fire rifle chambered in the same calibre as the regular PBI rifle with a shorter cased cartridge. There have been exactly two in history. The German StG 44 and the Russian AK47. Every other military rifle since is a battle rifle."

That's the first time I've seen that definition, anywhere. I guess the AR-15, AUG, and CETME aren't assault rifles after all.

I prefer "para-military" to "assault." But they're your guns, you can call them whatever you like. Personally, I like to give mine girl names and tart them up on Saturday night.
 
I watched it and have similar comments to others

if you haven't watched this
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

do so, it's fun, although it's 30 minutes long and its called "Why you should not talk to the police" a lot of what is in there is applicable to your video, and what people are perceiving from your discussion. My take away (if I was anti) would be ban the 30-06.
 
At 3:52 I would not say "deadly energy", by saying this you are doing exactly what anti's do which is inserting "scary" words to scare people. I would also get rid of the pixelation, it looks kind of gangbanger to me.

Besides that I liked it. Good information.
 
how average hunting rifles are far more powerful than an AR/AK
Click to expand...

Actually, you may not want to put that in your report. Power per bullet is certainly more potent, but you're just as dead with a x39 or 223 as you are with a 30'06 or 338. AK/AR platforms are more powerful than your average 5-shot hunting rifle with sheer round capacity.
 
I see what your doing. But the 2A has nothing to do with hunting deer.

Come on folks. :)
 
I thought the video was well thought out, concise, and accurate. I think it would fit well into the context of multiple videos debunking different myths or misconceptions. Since you mentioned that this is your first video, I assume there will be more. I'm looking forward to watching them.

As far as the negative points earlier posters have brought up, I suppose that some anti-gun type of person might use your points to argue for banning .30-06 ammo, but that kind of person probably already has their mind made up anyway. For every argument there is a counter-argument, so yes, somebody could counter your video. Just because somebody might disagree with it, though, is not a reason to keep silent. I still think it was a good video.
 
You should remove this video.

It sends the message to try to ban the .30-06 as well as other guns.

Gun rights is the argument like a previous poster said.

Nobody who is Anti-Gun Rights will watch or understnad this video or be swayed by the message.
 
Some good information. The pixelation is just weird, man.

I'm still wondering what an assault weapon is.
 
cbrgator,

I think it is great that you are actually doing something to educate people.

Unfortunately, I agree with those that think your video is counterproductive to our cause. While the argument you make may well be accurate and true, it isn't the argument we need to be making.

Anytime we try to tell the anti's that our "assault weapons" aren't really that dangerous, we come across as disingenuous. It will only increase their distrust of us and strengthen their certainty that we are hiding something from them. The pixelization reinforces the idea that you are hiding from them. If you don't want your face in the video, find another image or video to show while you are narrating.

Also, the naked David seemed a little out of place, but it is interesting to consider that David killed a giant with a thrown rock when discussing foot pounds and whether or not assault weapons are really powerful.

The fact of the matter is that 5.56 is what our troops use in combat, so people know (or would easily understand) that it is an effective people killer. It doesn't really matter how many rifle rounds are more powerful.

As I understand it, AWBs are more concerned with semi-auto actions and large capacity magazines. Those features really can make a rifle more dangerous/effective, and that is really why we tend to want them. It is what makes them suitable for taking into battle against armed humans, and therefore it is what makes them particularly protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Let's educate people that the 2nd Amendment is all about Assault weapons, then people will see an assault weapons ban for what it truly is- unconstitutional.
 
I'm still wondering what an assault weapon is.
Click to expand...
The only correct answer so far!

This discussion may have been valid in the early 1990s and during the previous AWB, however the definition of "Assault Weapon" has changed since then.

While many of those in the gun community may still believe they know what the term "assault weapon" refers to, they would be wrong.
It is not an AR, it is not an AK.
Some of the latest bills to "renew" have expanded the term to practicly any semi auto at will.
The term can include shotguns, pistols, or weapons with magazines that exceed a set number. Not just the scary looking ones people could cite off the top of thier heads either.

Since the term is a legal term, not a real one, the definition can continue to change and expand (and has) with new legislation.
What was not an "assault weapon" in 1995 can be and often is one today in some states.


If you think you know what an assault weapon is then you are playing into the hands of the antis. Who have already applied the definition to other things.
A single shot .50BMG is an "assault weapon" in California.
A pistol over 50 ounces in weight was an assault weapon requiring no other features. It still is in some states like New York.

So if you explain to people that a semi auto AR or AK is an "assault weapon" and the particular individual agrees with them being too scary or not concerned with thier restriction, then they think they agree with a definition that has since expanded dramaticly.

You do not know what an assault weapon is, the definition varies greatly from state to state in states that choose to define the term in legislation.

They cannot give up the term because everyone has heard it. It was once effective (and still is some places) and combines two scary sounding words. After all who needs a weapon to "assault" people except a criminal. :rolleyes:


If the line in the sand was moved you can be sure eventualy it would get to "hunting" rifles, better known as "sniper rifles" by those who wish to restrict them.
The antis might even point out they are even more powerful and worse than something already banned (assault weapons) in thier "logic".
Brazil went down all these paths before. Where anything that could defeat body armor was a "cop killer" round. They now cannot have any rifle cartridges (except one less powerful than many pistol cartridges) and no pistol more powerful than a .38 special.
The officialy stated logic leading up to that gradualy being anything that could defeat then common body armor posed a danger to the nations' LEO/military.
The ability to pose a danger to agents of tyranny is the very purpose of the USA's 2nd Amendment. Would those enforcing tyranny have body armor? Of course. The Redcoats today would be wearing the latest and most effective body armor available. There were after all the premier empire of the world at the time.


So while your information is true, don't think it is something the thoughtful antis planning legislation have missed.
They know full well that a black "military assault weapon" is less powerful than the average hunting rifle.
They know terms like "semi-automatic assault weapon" confuse people that don't know what the term "semi-automatic" means.

I have heard people voice thier belief that "semi-automatic" was guns like the 3 round burst military's M-16. It was "semi" "automatic" meaning partialy fully automatic by thier deduction!

Of course then you tell them no, that is a machinegun by law, semi-auto just fires one round per pull of the trigger.
But that is only the legal definition of "machinegun", the military would never consider such a firearm a "machinegun", and they have been using the term longer than the NFA or laws defining "machinegun have existed. That should really confuse them. ;)
Then you can describe what a LMG and HMG is. :neener:


Creating terms and then redefining terms to encompass more is an old anti strategy. "Assault weapon" will continue to change meaning.
Under HR 1022 any semi-auto firearm used by any federal LEO at any time, or by the military at any time was automaticly considered "unsporting" unless the Attorney General (now Eric Holder) said otherwise. It was presumed unsporting just by having such a history, and any make or model similar or based on a similar design was also automaticly presumed unsporting unless exempted.
They became "assault weapons".

Still think you know what "assault weapon" means? There is more examples.
 
Zoogster,

While I agree with you that the definition of an assault weapon can be nebulous and the legal definition varies from state to state, I still believe it is a waste of time to try to come to an agreement of what is or is not an assault weapon.

I would say an assault weapon is any weapon that the anti's want to ban with an awb because it is particularly effective (or perceived to be particularly effective) for killing people.

What is more worth our time is educating the public that the 2nd amendment refers specifically to arms that are effective people killers.

If we do that, then everything they decide to lump into the "assault weapon" category has that much more relevance to the 2nd amendment protection.

Anti's are happy to ignore the 2nd Amendment when discussing assault weapons. We must not allow ourselves to leave it out of the discussion. It is the foundation of our legal right to own assault weapons.
 
I think it is great that you are actually doing something to educate people.

Unfortunately, I agree with those that think your video is counterproductive to our cause. While the argument you make may well be accurate and true, it isn't the argument we need to be making.
Click to expand...

What he said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top