Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: AR-15, assault weapon or personal defense weapon?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    220

    AR-15, assault weapon or personal defense weapon?

    AR-15, assault weapon or personal defense weapon?

    Answer: when government buys it, it’s “PDW”. If civilian buys it, it becomes assault weapon.

    Homeland Security seeking to purchase 7,000 'assault rifles'
    January 26, 2013
    By: Joe Newby

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is seeking to purchase up to 7,000 “personal defense weapons” (PDW) -- the same rifles called "assault weapons" when owned by civilians, The Blaze reported Saturday.

    The initial request was posted last June, but just recently came to light, Jason Howerton wrote.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/home...assault-rifles

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    OP is no longer a grasshopper .. has learned much

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Regardless of what DHS or the press or the anti's want to call it, the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. It is a semi-automatic rifle, no different in function that the Browning automatic sporing rifle (see link) or the Ruger 10/22* in end function.

    http://www.browning.com/products/cat...er.asp?f1=002B


    *The Ruger 10/22 is not gas operated, nevertheless it IS a semi-automatic rifle.


    Assault rifles by definition are shoulder arms of light to medium power which are capable of selective rates of fire.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 03-03-2013 at 07:00 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    I have a safe filled with "arms". Not a one of them is a weapon. A weapon is an object used to force others to do what you desire... a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Arms are objects used in defense of one's life, liberty and property.
    "Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Arms in the safe are not weapons? I can see that.

    But the one on my belt most certainly is.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  6. #6
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Arms in the safe are not weapons? I can see that.

    But the one on my belt most certainly is.
    Only if your intent is to initiate force against another. Otherwise, it is no more than a tool of defense. Read the writings of the men who lived through the era of Revolution. They refer to "arms", which includes any object that can be used in defense. Weapons are used to initiate harm against others which is immoral.

    It's for this reason that just about every piece of legislation I've studied that is contrary to the natural right of bearing arms uses the word "firearm or weapon" instead of "arms". The moment the word arms is inserted in such legislative text, it immediately is an infringement on a natural right. The arms community has allowed themselves to be manipulated by the anti-freedom advocates by going along with the government's terminolgy of using "firearms and weapons" instead of defending the debate as the Revolutionist did who repeatedly used the word "arms".
    "Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Keylock View Post
    I have a safe filled with "arms". Not a one of them is a weapon. A weapon is an object used to force others to do what you desire... a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Arms are objects used in defense of one's life, liberty and property.
    Silly definition. All of my arms are weapons, weapons I will use against those who would harm me.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Silly definition. All of my arms are weapons, weapons I will use against those who would harm me.
    Is that immediate harm or likely future harm?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Is that immediate harm or likely future harm?
    If I felt that discussion with you would be fruitful, I might answer you.

    I don't. So I won't.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Keylock View Post
    ...Weapons are used to initiate harm against others which is immoral...
    If you are starting your own language, you can say this; but you need to let us know. We are usually using English here.

    Can you site an authority which limits the word to your definition?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    if i felt that discussion with you would be fruitful, i might answer you.

    I don't. So i won't.
    fail

  12. #12
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    If you are starting your own language, you can say this; but you need to let us know. We are usually using English here.

    Can you site an authority which limits the word to your definition?
    How about the Second Amendment to start. Then read the many writings of the founders, drafters and State ratifiers. Throughout their writings they refer to "arms". "Arms" are those objects that can be used to defend, be they rocks, clubs, sabres, knives, etc. As I mentioned before, take any anti-2A legislation and insert "arms" each and every time the word "firearms & weapons" is used and it becomes obviously clear that when "arms" is used it immediately causes the legislation to be an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. It's for this reason politicians don't use the word "arms" in any legislation. By them using "firearms, weapons, knives, etc", they decide on what is an offensive tool. Not the people. Thus, an "assault weapon" in their mind is not an "arm"... and thus subject to banning as technically "firearms and weapons" are not mentioned in the Second Amendment. This is how these people think. It's clear if you listen to them on video that they dance around the word arms if pressed. You can keep you "hunting rifle, or your sporting guns"...

    It may be a matter of semantics to most here, but the legal field demands succinct use of language (I'm married to someone who is in the field of law). Common, everyday language is much different than that used in legal text. When I presented this concept to my state legislator to be used in anti-2A legislation at the state level (nullification), he said he had never viewed the issue from that perspective and agreed with the premise I put forth.

    I've discussed this personally with my friends and many acquaintances and after giving it some thought they see the merit of using "arms" in the debate. Even the least knowledgeable American knows that the 2A uses the term "arms". They may not be on our side of the debate but I don't believe they would agree to support legislation that directly infringes upon the Bill of Rights. If you haven't noticed, politicians use deception to advance their agenda. The greatest tool of deception is words. Lies.

    Anyways, I have been in the habit of using "arms" for a couple of months now. It takes some work to train yourself to use it. But it becomes habit after a while. I like to think of it as a way to keep the ideals of the Revolutionists alive. The final tool of freedom always comes down to "arms". Because in the future there will be advances in technology that renders "firearms" obsolete. And if we allow the politicians to dictate the language, they'll ban that future technology from the people but ensure that they have it. But by insisting that new "arms" technology is termed "arms", they to will be available to us.
    "Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"

  13. #13
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Keylock View Post
    I have a safe filled with "arms". Not a one of them is a weapon. A weapon is an object used to force others to do what you desire... a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Arms are objects used in defense of one's life, liberty and property.
    I own several "arms" and several "weapons". they are all both the same. I own my guns for the purpose of ever needing to use them to defend life liberty and property BY forcing a criminal/tyrant/dictator/terrorist/invader/etc to do what I desire. and what I desire is to not succumb to injury/theft/death/oppression/rape/etc etc.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  14. #14
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    I own several "arms" and several "weapons". they are all both the same. I own my guns for the purpose of ever needing to use them to defend life liberty and property BY forcing a criminal/tyrant/dictator/terrorist/invader/etc to do what I desire. and what I desire is to not succumb to injury/theft/death/oppression/rape/etc etc.
    You seem to be overlooking that IF you use your arms against tyrants... it is because the tyrant imposed action previously against you. Thus you are defending your rights and are in compliance with the non-aggression principle.

    At this point in time we have all been injured by the government. It is the government that has initiated action against us. Not us against them. But as the Declaration states:

    "experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

    By calling "arms" as "weapons", you allow the government to dictate what is and what isn't. And you've forgotten that government is your servant. That the legitimate and true object of government is to protect natural rights. The current Unites States government does not do that simple task and instead forces the people to follow it's dictates. Have we forgotten that the purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT the government? Do we not realize that the Constitution does not apply to the individual who is not employed by that organization? Based on what many put to words on this and other arms forums, I'd say we have completely forgotten who the Constitution applies to and instead we live in fear of it. And they don't fear us. And in the end your children and grandchildren will never know freedom. My generation is the last of what could be called a "free American". And I have no children so I suppose I shouldn't care that your children and grandchildren are serfs. Yet I do care. Stupid me.
    "Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"

  15. #15
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Silly definition. All of my arms are weapons, weapons I will use against those who would harm me.
    Agree. The Second Amendment clearly knows what arms are and were as the word is the primary subject of that sentence. At any rate, a firearm can be a weapon or an arm or a weapon in the context of one of the poster's text as it would depend upon in who's hand that firearm was used.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Keylock View Post
    How about the Second Amendment to start. Then read the many writings of the founders, drafters and State ratifiers. Throughout their writings they refer to "arms". "Arms" are those objects that can be used to defend, be they rocks, clubs, sabres, knives, etc. As I mentioned before, take any anti-2A legislation and insert "arms" each and every time the word "firearms & weapons" is used and it becomes obviously clear that when "arms" is used it immediately causes the legislation to be an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. It's for this reason politicians don't use the word "arms" in any legislation. By them using "firearms, weapons, knives, etc", they decide on what is an offensive tool. Not the people. Thus, an "assault weapon" in their mind is not an "arm"... and thus subject to banning as technically "firearms and weapons" are not mentioned in the Second Amendment. This is how these people think. It's clear if you listen to them on video that they dance around the word arms if pressed. You can keep you "hunting rifle, or your sporting guns"...

    It may be a matter of semantics to most here, but the legal field demands succinct use of language (I'm married to someone who is in the field of law). Common, everyday language is much different than that used in legal text. When I presented this concept to my state legislator to be used in anti-2A legislation at the state level (nullification), he said he had never viewed the issue from that perspective and agreed with the premise I put forth.

    I've discussed this personally with my friends and many acquaintances and after giving it some thought they see the merit of using "arms" in the debate. Even the least knowledgeable American knows that the 2A uses the term "arms". They may not be on our side of the debate but I don't believe they would agree to support legislation that directly infringes upon the Bill of Rights. If you haven't noticed, politicians use deception to advance their agenda. The greatest tool of deception is words. Lies.

    Anyways, I have been in the habit of using "arms" for a couple of months now. It takes some work to train yourself to use it. But it becomes habit after a while. I like to think of it as a way to keep the ideals of the Revolutionists alive. The final tool of freedom always comes down to "arms". Because in the future there will be advances in technology that renders "firearms" obsolete. And if we allow the politicians to dictate the language, they'll ban that future technology from the people but ensure that they have it. But by insisting that new "arms" technology is termed "arms", they to will be available to us.
    The way I use the term is contextually dependent upon the instant condition/situation in which I am exposed.

    Example. If I am approaching my car at night in a parking lot and I see some ominous individuals lurking around with something in their hands, I naturally assume they have a weapon. Not because I view them as potential aggressors but rather do to the fact that I can't discern what they are carrying. Once it becomes clear what they have, I use the proper term: handgun, knife, broken bottle, metal pipe. In other words, the word "weapon" is a blanket term which describes a tool one can use to extend their ability to do harm, be it as an aggressor or one defending themselves.

    Now the word arm, as used in the Second Amendment, describes a weapon (remember, it doesn't have to be a firearm - could also be a lance or sword or whatever) which can be carried "on or about the person". This phrase is significant because it is part of English common law which was adopted here in this country in its early beginnings. Here in Virginia, it still exists.

    So an arm can be anything which can be carried by an individual for either offensive or defensive use. And think of this. If you are out and about and are attacked by someone and have to pull your sidearm in your defense, you immediately go on the offense. The same holds true when employing martial arts. Initially, your actions are defensive, but almost immediately turn to offensive in order to quell your attacker's further assault.

    I tend to use the term arms more than weapon, mostly because of its traditional meaning: a weapon carried on or about your person.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Agree. The Second Amendment clearly knows what arms are and were as the word is the primary subject of that sentence. At any rate, a firearm can be a weapon or an arm or a weapon in the context of one of the poster's text as it would depend upon in who's hand that firearm was used.
    Yeah, the poster is just playing games with words and everyone is calling him on it. Arms and weapons are synonymous in common and plain usage for individually carried arms (weapons). We should not be taking issue with the word "weapon" in any bill. When they tack on adjectives that add zero meaning, but are only intended to evoke an emotional reaction* (such as "assault"), then we should get upset about their word games--not just play our own.

    The poster is playing silly word games. Leave those to the antis. It looks like most folks here are on to that. The poster is just stubbornly clinging to a losing argument.

    * Analogous to court objections over evidence that is prejudicial but has no probative value.

    ETA, based on your above post: All arms are weapons; not all weapons are are arms.

    The poster is essentially arguing that we should stop referring to ducks as birds.
    Last edited by eye95; 03-03-2013 at 08:54 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member DamonK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, WA
    Posts
    585

    Re: AR-15, assault weapon or personal defense weapon?

    All this fancy talk about weapons versus arms and what-not. Mine is simply a rifle. Whether it's a modern form of one or not is not important. It is a rifle, that is all.

    Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

  19. #19
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Yeah, the poster is just playing games with words and everyone is calling him on it. Arms and weapons are synonymous in common and plain usage for individually carried arms (weapons). We should not be taking issue with the word "weapon" in any bill. When they tack on adjectives that add zero meaning, but are only intended to evoke an emotional reaction* (such as "assault"), then we should get upset about their word games--not just play our own.

    The poster is playing silly word games. Leave those to the antis. It looks like most folks here are on to that. The poster is just stubbornly clinging to a losing argument.

    * Analogous to court objections over evidence that is prejudicial but has no probative value.

    ETA, based on your above post: All arms are weapons; not all weapons are are arms.

    The poster is essentially arguing that we should stop referring to ducks as birds.
    You're a complete knob. You're so hung up on ridiculing everyone on this forum and being the top dick. You win...
    "Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Keylock View Post
    You're a complete knob. You're so hung up on ridiculing everyone on this forum and being the top dick. You win...
    The wonderful thing about your post, including my quote, is that you provided a wonderful contrast between a post criticizing, with support, the behavior of another poster and a post that is an unthinking insult.

    Thank you.

    My point was made. I'll move on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •