Assault weapons belong on the battlefield?

So several anti groups have said that assault weapons belong on the battlefield. Where pray tell is the "battlefield" ? If I wanted to send a letter to "the battlefield" what must I write on that envelope to make sure it arrives there?

As usual, I can disarm this argument with my flawless sense of logic and stunningly fast wits and cat like grace....

I'm sure you know, as all the cool kids do, that terrorism can strike anywhere, and last I checked, there was a global war on terrorism going on. So since there's a war against terrorism and terrorism can come anywhere, the battlefield is everywhere, and since assault weapons belong on the battlefield they belong anywhere a civilian can be,

Isn't logic just swell?

EMNofSeattle said:

So several anti groups have said that assault weapons belong on the battlefield. Where pray tell is the "battlefield" ? If I wanted to send a letter to "the battlefield" what must I write on that envelope to make sure it arrives there?

I'm sure you know, as all the cool kids do, that terrorism can strike anywhere, and last I checked, there was a global war on terrorism going on. So since there's a war against terrorism and terrorism can come anywhere, the battlefield is everywhere, and since assault weapons belong on the battlefield they belong anywhere a civilian can be,

Isn't logic just swell?

Click to expand...

What the bloody hell are you talking about?

So called "assault weapons" are fully automatic capable weapons, issued to our military forces to use on whatever battlefield they are sent to. NO civilians own what would be considered a genuine "assault weapon" unless they have a lot of disposable money, to pay the state and federal fees to be allowed to possess one.

Civilians own various semi-automatic rifles, generally of .22 and .30 caliber variety, with bits of plastic and wood fastened onto them to make them appear like the military versions. These are what the ignorant "anti's" are referring to.

They are NOT assault weapons...............get that through your head and educate yourself.

Last but not least, what does this have to do with OC? Your post is referring to long guns, which from my aging memory, I believe have no place on this OC forum.

Washington ceasefire has a link on their Facebook page supporting pending federal legislation by using an interview with a retired general to say "assault weapons belong on the battlefield not in our cities"

I thought general RBKA and civil liberties issues were acceptable too.

The entire State of Washington could become a battlefield if Senator Ed Murray and Obama get their way.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...obtain-a-monopoly-on-the-ownership-of-weapons

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/dangerous_old_men.html

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1420954__Dangerous_Old_Men__With_Nothing_To_Lose.html

OlGutshotWilly said:

What the bloody hell are you talking about?

So called "assault weapons" are fully automatic capable weapons, issued to our military forces to use on whatever battlefield they are sent to. NO civilians own what would be considered a genuine "assault weapon" unless they have a lot of disposable money, to pay the state and federal fees to be allowed to possess one.

Civilians own various semi-automatic rifles, generally of .22 and .30 caliber variety, with bits of plastic and wood fastened onto them to make them appear like the military versions. These are what the ignorant "anti's" are referring to.

They are NOT assault weapons...............get that through your head and educate yourself.

Last but not least, what does this have to do with OC? Your post is referring to long guns, which from my aging memory, I believe have no place on this OC forum.

Click to expand...

Assault rifle = automatic

Assault weapon = semi automatic



Last but not least, this may be an OC forum, but don't we OC to exercise our right to? I'd say the majority of threads on this forum are about people (govt and civvie) intruding our right to OC a handgun.

Our rights are being infringed upon with this upandcoming legislation. It may be long guns / assault weapons at this point in time, but once they ban those, who knows what is next on their agenda. Look at the UK.

So yes, in my opinion, a threat to our 2nd amendment right has a place on this forum.

Let's just call them "military-style firearms" irregardless of function - and move on....:banghead:

Unless you are counting a 3-round burst as an automatic weapon, then the military is not all issued an assault rifle in the context some are saying here and in other threads. Just wanted to bring that up so people can broaden their definition perhaps. I was issued a M-16A2 from Desert Storm until I retired in 2008, and those only have a 3-round burst. The older M-16A1 was full automatic, and yes, there are some other issued weapons that are full automatic. Not everybody gets those however.

mohawk001 said:

Unless you are counting a 3-round burst as an automatic weapon, then the military is not all issued an assault rifle in the context some are saying here and in other threads. Just wanted to bring that up so people can broaden their definition perhaps. I was issued a M-16A2 from Desert Storm until I retired in 2008, and those only have a 3-round burst. The older M-16A1 was full automatic, and yes, there are some other issued weapons that are full automatic. Not everybody gets those however.

Click to expand...

When I was on active duty (USMC), the A1 was the weapon of issue. The three-round burst thing was non-existant. We were taught fire-discipline and ammo conservation, because sustanted full-auto would red-glow and warp barrels. Neat to see at night after a 'Mad Minute" at the end of a live fire excercise though!

theaero said:

Assault rifle = automatic

Assault weapon = semi automatic



Last but not least, this may be an OC forum, but don't we OC to exercise our right to? I'd say the majority of threads on this forum are about people (govt and civvie) intruding our right to OC a handgun.

Our rights are being infringed upon with this upandcoming legislation. It may be long guns / assault weapons at this point in time, but once they ban those, who knows what is next on their agenda. Look at the UK.

So yes, in my opinion, a threat to our 2nd amendment right has a place on this forum.

Click to expand...

Assault weapon = any weapon that can be used at a tool to assault someone.

Assault rifle = is a rifle that has a select fire between semi-auto and either full auto or burst fire.

Battle rifle = any rifle that can be used in combat generally an AR15 is considered a battle rifle, however with historical precedence the Sharps rifle, the model 98 Mauser, and the M1 Garand are all considered battle rifles as they were used in military combat. Throw on the Enfield .303 and the Mosin Nagant rifles to that list also.

LarryM said:

When I was on active duty (USMC), the A1 was the weapon of issue. The three-round burst thing was non-existant. We were taught fire-discipline and ammo conservation, because sustanted full-auto would red-glow and warp barrels. Neat to see at night after a 'Mad Minute" at the end of a live fire excercise though!

Click to expand...

Understood. Until Desert Storm I was issued a M-16A1 also. Was taught to try and keep the burst to three rounds for accuracy, and ammo conservation as you pointed out, and was always assuming that was why they put it as a 3-round burst on the M-16A2. I have seen the red glow also. When I was new and young I was given more 30-round magazines that I could fit into my ammo pouches. They were blanks and it was for an exercise. I wanted to get rid of them all so went full auto and whenever I saw someone I would just unload the whole magazine at one time. Could only carry the weapon by the stock at the end because even the hand guards were getting a little warm. Yes, the arms room NCO was a little ticked off at me.

EMNofSeattle said:

So several anti groups have said that assault weapons belong on the battlefield. Where pray tell is the "battlefield" ? If I wanted to send a letter to "the battlefield" what must I write on that envelope to make sure it arrives there?

As usual, I can disarm this argument with my flawless sense of logic and stunningly fast wits and cat like grace....

I'm sure you know, as all the cool kids do, that terrorism can strike anywhere, and last I checked, there was a global war on terrorism going on. So since there's a war against terrorism and terrorism can come anywhere, the battlefield is everywhere, and since assault weapons belong on the battlefield they belong anywhere a civilian can be,

Isn't logic just swell?

Click to expand...

This logic is fairly swell. Its similar logic that is use by the Swiss as to why they they have gun rights. You could also add to that with the possibility of a tyrannical government on our hands the battlefield will be in our back yards.

Hey, I saw Red Dawn movie .... battlefield = Main St., Jerkwater USA

EMNofSeattle said:

Washington ceasefire has a link on their Facebook page supporting pending federal legislation by using an interview with a retired general to say "assault weapons belong on the battlefield not in our cities"

I thought general RBKA and civil liberties issues were acceptable too.

Click to expand...

They are...in the social sub forum

EMNofSeattle said:

So several anti groups have said that assault weapons belong on the battlefield. Where pray tell is the "battlefield" ? If I wanted to send a letter to "the battlefield" what must I write on that envelope to make sure it arrives there?

As usual, I can disarm this argument with my flawless sense of logic and stunningly fast wits and cat like grace....

I'm sure you know, as all the cool kids do, that terrorism can strike anywhere, and last I checked, there was a global war on terrorism going on. So since there's a war against terrorism and terrorism can come anywhere, the battlefield is everywhere, and since assault weapons belong on the battlefield they belong anywhere a civilian can be,

Isn't logic just swell?

Click to expand...

They should be careful what they ask for. They're basically asking to turn every village square in America into Lexington Green;...to turn American streets into the road from Boston to Concord.

OlGutshotWilly said:

What the bloody hell are you talking about?

So called "assault weapons" are fully automatic capable weapons, issued to our military forces to use on whatever battlefield they are sent to. NO civilians own what would be considered a genuine "assault weapon" unless they have a lot of disposable money, to pay the state and federal fees to be allowed to possess one.

Civilians own various semi-automatic rifles, generally of .22 and .30 caliber variety, with bits of plastic and wood fastened onto them to make them appear like the military versions. These are what the ignorant "anti's" are referring to.

They are NOT assault weapons...............get that through your head and educate yourself.

Last but not least, what does this have to do with OC? Your post is referring to long guns, which from my aging memory, I believe have no place on this OC forum.

Click to expand...

+1

We haven't had legal assault weapons since they were outlawed in 1934.

Alpine said:

+1

We haven't had legal assault weapons since they were outlawed in 1934.

Click to expand...

Really? Ask Oregon residents. Kentucky, etc...

gogodawgs said:

Really? Ask Oregon residents. Kentucky, etc...

Click to expand...

Well, MOST of the US given the effect of the three laws on them, their prices and finding a "transferable NFA class III" item.

gogodawgs said:

Really? Ask Oregon residents. Kentucky, etc...

Click to expand...

Don't forget Idaho and Texas.

Alpine said:

+1

We haven't had legal assault weapons since they were outlawed in 1934.

Click to expand...

Assault rifle is the term; assault weapons is a term invented by anti-gunners to slop negative emotions from machine guns over onto lots of other semi-automatic firearms. If you use the term assault weapons, you are playing into the anti-gunners' hands by letting them define the argument.

Regarding assault rifles, they were highly regulated before they were even invented. The anti-machine gun regulations date from the 1930's; the first assault rifle, the Sturmghewer, was invented by the Germans in 1944 or so. Mikhail Kalashnikov created his in 1947 after deciding it would be good for his country to have one. And, Eugene Stoner invented the AR/M16 in the mid-1950's or so.

If anybody gives you an opening, just look amused, and off-handedly twist the argument back by redefining the argument without saying you are doing so and say, "Oh, assault rifles were illegal before they were even invented."

Citizen said:

Assault rifle is the term; assault weapons is a term invented by anti-gunners to slop negative emotions from machine guns over onto lots of other semi-automatic firearms. If you use the term assault weapons, you are playing into the anti-gunners' hands by letting them define the argument.

Regarding assault rifles, they were highly regulated before they were even invented. The anti-machine gun regulations date from the 1930's; the first assault rifle, the Sturmghewer, was invented by the Germans in 1944 or so. Mikhail Kalashnikov created his in 1947 after deciding it would be good for his country to have one. And, Eugene Stoner invented the AR/M16 in the mid-1950's or so.

If anybody gives you an opening, just look amused, and off-handedly twist the argument back by redefining the argument without saying you are doing so and say, "Oh, assault rifles were illegal before they were even invented."

Click to expand...

QFT

You see how insidious the anti's are with their serial misinformation and media assaults (pun intended)? Right here, just in this one thread, were several "gun people" who didn't know what an "assault weapon" is versus an "assault rifle." ASSAULT WEAPON is a made-up term. It's not a real "word." It's a lie with just the tiniest grain of truth (all good lies are like that) deliberately made up to SCARE IGNORANT PEOPLE because "assault weapon" SOUND LIKE "assault rifle." "Assault rifle" has a very specific and immutable definition. If a thing does NOT fit that definition, it is NOT an assault rifle. A Browning M-2 50-cal is NOT an assault rifle. An M-62 Vulcan is NOT an assault rifle. An SKS is NOT an assault rifle. It should also be noted that "assault rifles" are, by definition, NOT HIGH-POWERED!

However, being a completely ******** made-up term, the definition of "assault weapon" can be easily modified at will to demonize whatever it is you're trying to scare people about. There is NO fixed definition of "assault weapon." The current usage seem to be any semi-auto firearm with some kind of "scary" attachment (pistol grip, flash hider, "grenade launcher" [groan], etc). My new Ruger 10/22 was not an "assault weapon" when I brought it home, but it is now because I put a scary-looking black plastic stock with a pistol grip on it. The fact that it is mechanically the same firearm is completely irrelevant when all one is trying to do is scare people who don't know any better. Recently the anti's have been trying to call semiauto handguns "assault weapons" as well, especially with normal capacities of more than 10 rounds.

Us "gun people" should avoid the phrase "assault weapon" like the bad cliche it is. AR-15's, AK-47 knockovs, etc, are NOT "assault" anythings. They are simply semiautomatic rifles.