chieftain
Member
I still want these folks to define what an "assault rifle" is. (they have arbitrary subjective definitions of what an assault rifle is. They call a rifle that could not vaguely be defined as an assault rifle an assault rifle. Obviously they cannot define them, their answer is that they know one when they see one. That is hogwash. But as we all know that is a semantics argument. Any truly knowledgeable Military man should know the definition.
In fact the term High powered Assault rifle is an oxymoron. By definition an assault rifle MUST be an intermediate power cartridge with full automatic capability. Usually but not restricted to carbine lengths. That's it by the way. The two critical points are intermediate power and full Auto. A battle rifle like a Garand, M14 or FN FAL are battle rifles, because of the power of the cartridge, even if it can fire full Auto. The NATO 7.62 is a full power or "high Power" cartridge.
Are there weapons that might fall in a gray area, a few, but not many.
Those semantic arguments that seem so childish, are exactly why conservatives and we pro gun folks are losing slowly and steadily to the Communist/Dimocrat/Socialist/Liberal/Progressive's on so many issues. First they steal the language of the conflict, then they sell the people on the new language meaning something other than what it does.
That is how they win the long term fights against us. The steal the language, often applying Political correctness.
Look at the fight over Illegal aliens. They argue about migrants. That is not what the fight is about. It is about Illegal aliens. But their fellow ideologues in the Media support their effort to first change the language, which often in and of it self changes the argument. I know, I am the son of a Migrant.
By the way. My father was an undocumented migrant. He received citizenship under his fathers nationalization. So he had no papers of his own at all. When ever he needed a passport or such, he had to get my grandfathers (his fathers) citizenship papers. He finally filed for his own citizenship papers, just so he didn't have to go through the hassle. I know next you will tell me it is only semantics. Yup, that is where the fight begins. Not where it ends.
It is like any meeting engagement, the initial small actions to get and hold the good ground for the coming fight is often what wins or loses the day. That is how I visualize the semantics fight in so many issues.
That is my point.
We as the pro gun side must fight the semantic fight as well as the legal and moral fight to keep our weapons. don't give to the other side by default what may be the MOST important part of the issue. Never forget that words effect people.
Some of you folks have been fighting this fight longer than I have. You know the rest of the "story" and the other issues butchered in the article below.
Rant off.
I will take another Nitro, and blood pressure pill, and settle down. I hope I have made a rational point here about this.
thank you.
Fred
In fact the term High powered Assault rifle is an oxymoron. By definition an assault rifle MUST be an intermediate power cartridge with full automatic capability. Usually but not restricted to carbine lengths. That's it by the way. The two critical points are intermediate power and full Auto. A battle rifle like a Garand, M14 or FN FAL are battle rifles, because of the power of the cartridge, even if it can fire full Auto. The NATO 7.62 is a full power or "high Power" cartridge.
Are there weapons that might fall in a gray area, a few, but not many.
Those semantic arguments that seem so childish, are exactly why conservatives and we pro gun folks are losing slowly and steadily to the Communist/Dimocrat/Socialist/Liberal/Progressive's on so many issues. First they steal the language of the conflict, then they sell the people on the new language meaning something other than what it does.
That is how they win the long term fights against us. The steal the language, often applying Political correctness.
Look at the fight over Illegal aliens. They argue about migrants. That is not what the fight is about. It is about Illegal aliens. But their fellow ideologues in the Media support their effort to first change the language, which often in and of it self changes the argument. I know, I am the son of a Migrant.
By the way. My father was an undocumented migrant. He received citizenship under his fathers nationalization. So he had no papers of his own at all. When ever he needed a passport or such, he had to get my grandfathers (his fathers) citizenship papers. He finally filed for his own citizenship papers, just so he didn't have to go through the hassle. I know next you will tell me it is only semantics. Yup, that is where the fight begins. Not where it ends.
It is like any meeting engagement, the initial small actions to get and hold the good ground for the coming fight is often what wins or loses the day. That is how I visualize the semantics fight in so many issues.
That is my point.
We as the pro gun side must fight the semantic fight as well as the legal and moral fight to keep our weapons. don't give to the other side by default what may be the MOST important part of the issue. Never forget that words effect people.
Some of you folks have been fighting this fight longer than I have. You know the rest of the "story" and the other issues butchered in the article below.
Rant off.
I will take another Nitro, and blood pressure pill, and settle down. I hope I have made a rational point here about this.
thank you.
Fred
The New York Times:
December 12, 2007
Editorial
Weapons of War at the Mall and Church
Barely touched on in the coverage of the two latest gun rampages is how the disturbed shooters could so easily obtain assault rifles — weapons designed for waging war. In separate random massacres, eight people were slain at an Omaha shopping mall last Wednesday and four were more shot dead Sunday at two Colorado churches. The Omaha killer took his stepfather’s rapid-fire rifle from a closet to pick off Christmas shoppers. In Colorado, the gunman, leaving behind an Internet screed referenced to the 1999 Columbine massacre, was equipped with two assault rifles, three handguns and 1,000 rounds of ammunition.
How could this happen? That’s the great American cliché attached to these ever-mounting tragedies. We all know the answer. Guns are ubiquitous in this country, and the gun lobby is so powerful that this year’s toll of 30,000 gun deaths makes barely a political ripple.
Until recently, the nation did have a law designed to protect the public from assault rifles and other high-tech infantry weapons. In 1994, enough politicians felt the public’s fear to respond with a 10-year ban on assault-weapons that was not perfect but dented the free-marketeering of Rambo mayhem. Most Americans rejected the gun lobby’s absurd claim that assault rifles are “sporting” weapons. But when it came up for renewal in 2004, President Bush and Congress caved to the gun lobby and allowed the law to lapse. This was despite Mr. Bush’s campaign vow to renew the ban. It was especially frightening to see the ban expire in the very midst of politicians’ endless post-9/11 invoking of homeland security.
New presidential candidates are now wooing voters. Surely they can’t wait to address the latest slayings with a detailed plan of action at the very next televised debate. Surely moderators can hold off on immigration and finding out who believes more in the bible to bring up the latest rampages.
Instead of asking how could this happen, the country needs to know who is going to stop it.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company