• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What is a military style firearm? It seems rather broad to me.

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
I am sick of hearing about how no one needs a military style rifle, handgun, shotgun, weapon, etc.

Do people who make those claims realize that a musket was a military weapon? What about long bows, short bows, re-curves, etc? Archers were a big part of military history and were even used against those armed with muskets, pistols, and rifles.

Many hunters use a bolt action rifle with the joke being they are based on the Mauser action or the Winchester Model 70 action. The Mauser was used as a military rifle. The Mosin Nagant is a military rifle and so are most of the bolt action rifles in use. Most hunting rifles have a design that has been used by the military at some point in time. From muzzle loading, falling blocks, rolling blocks, lever actions, bolt action, and various auto designs.

As for semi-autos, like the AR15 the military took as used a varmint hunting round the .222Rem and made first the .223Rem and for the sake of out NATO "allies" loosed the .223Rem up into the 5.56 NATO. Either way semi-autos went out into the hunting world were improved upon and then taken up by military forces because they work. So, if the military uses the same design does that suddenly turn that style of action into a military style weapon?

Then there are pistols. The military went from a muzzle loading pistol to the new revolver at the time. Should that not make all revolvers military style handguns? What about the 1911? It was designed for and used by the U.S. military for many years. Then there are all the other manufactures who sell different handguns to different military forces around the world.

So an attack on military style weapons is really just an attack on all weapons and firearms fueled by the stupid, the ignorant, the unthinking, and those who want to impose tyranny upon us.

Use the basis of this rant to help you think of ways to counter all those who say we should ban military style weapons.
 

mobiushky

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
830
Location
Alaska (ex-Colorado)
According to Fienstein, any gun that has a trigger and can fire bullets is "military styled" and needs to be confiscated. She evil incarnate and will fight to subjugate you.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
It is purposely designed to be loosely and widely interpreted.

The best analogy I can think of off hand would be a car that's "NASCAR styled."

NASCAR only races 2-door coupes, with rear-wheel drive and V-8 engines and 4-speed manual transmissions.
That didn't stop Ford from entering a 4-door, front-wheel drive, V6 with with a 5-speed automatic (Ford Taurus) into NASCAR races. The fact that there wasn't a single, shared part between the two never even entered the picture.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It is the term du jour for what used to be called "assault weapons." Almost all firearms are derived from (or are precisely) designs for weapons either used by or developed and proposed for use by military. Since there is no real distinction between "military style" firearms and non-"military style" firearms, laws tend to focus on cosmetics to make the distinction. Semi-auto is semi-auto is semi-auto, whether the firearm styles military or not.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
can you tell which is military and which is not. by the way i don't think,they are not covered by the AWB


m14s_zpsddccce03.jpg



Mini14GB_zpsb0767f5e.jpg
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
can you tell which is military and which is not. by the way i don't think,they are not covered by the AWB


m14s_zpsddccce03.jpg



Mini14GB_zpsb0767f5e.jpg

Papa don't give them any ideas. IMO I would rather have the M-15/M-2 than the AR. I believe Springfield armory sells the civilian version M-15 as a M-2. I would also rather have the mini 14 than the AR, the mini 14 used to be a very popular rifle. I would get the mini 30 though. The Garand style rifles will still function with a broken stock, a AR will not. I never did like the pistol grip on ARs, I don't understand why a pistol grip would make a gun more dangerous, complete stupidity IMO on liberals part.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
can you tell which is military and which is not. by the way i don't think,they are not covered by the AWB
--pictures snipped--

Hmmm......both have a stock, sling, removable magazine, flash suppressor and trigger. Definitely both "military style" according to the wicked witch of the west coast.

I'd like one of each, please.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Hmmm......both have a stock, sling, removable magazine, flash suppressor and trigger. Definitely both "military style" according to the wicked witch of the west coast.

I'd like one of each, please.

I like the way you're thinking.

Make enough to arm a platoon with one of each, over here though.
 
Last edited:

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
I am sick of hearing about how no one needs a military style rifle, handgun, shotgun, weapon, etc.

Do people who make those claims realize that a musket was a military weapon? What about long bows, short bows, re-curves, etc? Archers were a big part of military history and were even used against those armed with muskets, pistols, and rifles.

Many hunters use a bolt action rifle with the joke being they are based on the Mauser action or the Winchester Model 70 action. The Mauser was used as a military rifle. The Mosin Nagant is a military rifle and so are most of the bolt action rifles in use. Most hunting rifles have a design that has been used by the military at some point in time. From muzzle loading, falling blocks, rolling blocks, lever actions, bolt action, and various auto designs.

As for semi-autos, like the AR15 the military took as used a varmint hunting round the .222Rem and made first the .223Rem and for the sake of out NATO "allies" loosed the .223Rem up into the 5.56 NATO. Either way semi-autos went out into the hunting world were improved upon and then taken up by military forces because they work. So, if the military uses the same design does that suddenly turn that style of action into a military style weapon?

Then there are pistols. The military went from a muzzle loading pistol to the new revolver at the time. Should that not make all revolvers military style handguns? What about the 1911? It was designed for and used by the U.S. military for many years. Then there are all the other manufactures who sell different handguns to different military forces around the world.

So an attack on military style weapons is really just an attack on all weapons and firearms fueled by the stupid, the ignorant, the unthinking, and those who want to impose tyranny upon us.

Use the basis of this rant to help you think of ways to counter all those who say we should ban military style weapons.

Unfortunately, the term "military-style weapon" seems to be whatever the liberals wish to redefine it to be. (In favor of the idiots in D.C., they are much closer to correctly identifying the semi-automatic ARs and AKs as military-style, than they were calling them "assault weapons" - but STYLE should have nothing to do with anything.) And the most popular "one common feature" thus-far is focused entirely on cosmetics... which makes their arguments look even more ridiculous. The "Hummer" is a military-style vehicle, as is the Jeep. Perhaps they should be banned also. The boots that I wear when riding my motorcycle are military-style boots. I have a military-style compass, and a military-style Bomber Jacket as well. Oh, yeah... the military also issues Ka-Bar knives. I have two of those. So, if military-style is the problem, I imagine the lefties will be coming after those soon also. Pax...
 
Last edited:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
With the responses so far, it would seem that I am in the same boat as the other contributors. That in short "military style" means anything anyone wants it to mean.

Maybe we should call things "military tested designs" or "field proven" in our own circles?
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
They say, oh, these guns are designed only for one purpose, and that is to kill people, and therefore there is no reason for civilians to need them. However, if a civilian is planning on using a firearm for self-defense against malicious people (should the need arise, which is out of their control), then isn't a firearm designed to stop a person exactly what they need?

But they don't see it this way because - they do not properly recognize the principle of self-ownership, which is the basis for self-defense rights and property rights. They do not recognize the fact that I have the right to use force, potentially even deadly force, to defend myself.

And even if you don't consider self-defense, even in hunting "assault rifles" have places. They say you don't need an "assault rifle" to go hunting... Clearly they've never been hog hunting in Texas, where they blast hogs with "assault rifles" from helicopters just to keep the population under control and protect land and produce.

I try not to think about it too much because I'll just drive myself crazy realizing the countless ways in which many of the "leaders" of this nation are either extremely incompetent or just plain evil.

As far as whether or not there's even really a difference between "military" and "non-military" firearms... Sure, there are differences, but the differences are not what they're making them out to be. A competition pistol shooter with a competition pistol could probably unload more rounds and unload them far more accurately than I could do the same with a so called "assault rifle". Is his pistol now an assault weapon? No, it's still a competition pistol. What about the use of hunting rifles in warfare in veitnam? How can you really claim a vast difference between a military rifle and a hunting rifle in those cases? Moreover, think about the fact that no matter how the body of the firearm is styled, isn't what's coming out the end the exact same thing? But, there is a big difference between a round suited for hunting and a round suited for warfare? Not really, deer and hogs and elk are all made of flesh and bones just like you and I. I'd have to point out that the need is so similar indeed that it has even led to the creation of laws forcing hunters to use higher calibers to reduce the number of wounded but not killed animals.

So yeah, I'd have to agree the majority of posters (I guess that's to be expected on an open carry site). It's all a bunch of shenanigans.
 
Last edited:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
SNIP
I try not to think about it too much because I'll just drive myself crazy realizing the countless ways in which many of the "leaders" of this nation are either extremely incompetent or just plain evil.

You're an optimist. I have learned that those who are writing the laws for them to sign are not incompetent at all, they are plain evil.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Interesting discussion. Just a couple of points, if I may:

1. The people proposing, writing, and submitting the "assault weapons" ban legislation are not proceeding on a logical basis.

2. An emotional appeal is far more likely to influence the majority of the largely uneducated (concerning firearms) populace.

3. The mainstream media (Dr. Goebbels, anyone?) constantly plays on those emotional appeals with words like "assault weapon", "powerful rifle", and several others.

4. What it is finally going to come down to is either one hellacious legal battle in the courts of our land or, God forbid/Deity forbid/whateveryouwanttosay forbid, or the bloodiest Civil War that the world has ever seen. If it comes down to the latter, there are other countries who will gleefully step in and divide this once-great nation among themselves.

For what it is worth, I most sincerely hope that I am completely wrong on this, especially on number 4.
 

Raffie

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
75
Location
Lynnwood
Well if they made the rifles less aggressive looking an renamed them to something like 'Threat Neutralizing Hardware' or 'Political Decision Maker' that would help.

Also paint a AR15 real colorful like a Pez Candy Dispenser and the magazine like Pez Candy you put in it (Red Cherry, Yellow Lemon and so forth).

Maybe Pink and put the statement "Fighting Breast Cancer 1 shot at a time"

Serious, perception is reality right?
 

Raffie

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
75
Location
Lynnwood
Not sure if Bloomingdale tried that with colorful guns.

He should go late at night into South Bronx and tell them he wants their weapons and they have to obey.
I call that leading by example. Its a short example, but still he should do that for us so I can feel safe.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
The Ruger Mark II .22 pistol was a modern military-issued combat firearm.
 
Last edited:

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
According to Fienstein, any gun that has a trigger and can fire bullets is "military styled" and needs to be confiscated. She evil incarnate and will fight to subjugate you.
If a bullet comes out, and I shoot first, you have been assaulted

Then there are those with "Military Style" thinking..............:shocker:
And that person would be me.

The Ruger Mark II .22 pistol was a modern military-issued combat firearm.
This is Truth! I was issued one in VN with a suppressor. Used it for all kinds of things.
 
Top