BAN the term "Assault" weapon.

Fuller Malarkey said:

The term "assault rifle" is an oxymoron. It demonstrates a lack of capacity in understanding the English language. An inanimate object can do nothing but be used in the manner the individual wielding the object desires, whether for good or ill. The term is also redundant......every firearm is designed to "assault" something...be it a duck, a target, a critter, whatever is on the receiving in will experience an "assault".

Personally, I prefer the term "rifle". I'd rather fight about the word "infringed".

People like Gabby Gifford and Primus are predictable. First they label, villainize, move to control the purchase, who is privileged to possess, how they will be stored, where and how they can be used, how many rounds they can hold, the ammo available for them, how many rounds you can possess.

This does not describe what was held in Heller v. District of Columbia and later in McDonald v. Chicago.....that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Heller also focused on the prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans traditionally possess and use for various purposes from sporting use to self defense.

Click to expand...

I may have misread but I thought the op and thread title were about the term assault weapon and its use....

Now your talking about gabby Gifford and building an argument no one here has made to attack it?

Can't say it enough.... it is what it is. To bury your head in the sand and say "well I've never assaulted anyone with it so its a paper target rifle" is a waste of energy.

Stand up and say... YES its an assault weapon that I should be able to have for defense of my home and this country if need be. In fact more to the point there is precedent that based on a milita system it was required for houses to have the same rifle that the military did for common defense.

We have let them turn it into an "evil term". We've let then turn it into a "scary word". As if assault is scary or evil. If you threaten me or my family I will assault you at the very least. Period. I won't point a "sporting" rifle at you and "sport" you with it. I will take the most effective means I have to stopping the threat.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Correct as an example that its not a sporting rifle. It can be used for sporting but its DESIGNED for other uses.... stay with me brother.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

First, you are not my "brother" in any sense of the word. You are the enemy of everything I value.

By your criteria, all firearms are "assault weapons". I'm not obligated to subscribe to that propaganda.

Fuller Malarkey said:

First, you are not my "brother" in any sense of the word. You are the enemy of everything I value.

By your criteria, all firearms are "assault weapons". I'm not obligated to subscribe to that propaganda.

Click to expand...

If I'm the enemy of anything its because YOUR making it so. Its clear in these very threads. I'm attempting to speak rationally and it drives you crazy to do so. Your not my enemy in anyway shape or form regardless of how much you hate me or anything I may believe in.

A 10-22 is not an assault weapon. A .22 target pistol is not. There are hundreds of firearms that are not assault weapons because they were not designed to be used as such.

It works both ways..... you can't label a 10-22 as assault anything.... other then maybe squirrels. Its not designed to be effective in that manner so its not.

You can't label a single shot .22 bolt action target rifle as "assault weapon". Its designed to shoot paper at a set distance. Hell I'll go so far as saying something line a Remington 700 isn't an assault weapon. Sure there's an M24.... but its still a hunting rifle. Just being used to hunt people in that situation.

Again..... a minivan isn't a dragster no matter how hard you smash the gas....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

I may have misread but I thought the op and thread title were about the term assault weapon and its use....

Now your talking about gabby Gifford and building an argument no one here has made to attack it?

Can't say it enough.... it is what it is. To bury your head in the sand and say "well I've never assaulted anyone with it so its a paper target rifle" is a waste of energy.

Stand up and say... YES its an assault weapon that I should be able to have for defense of my home and this country if need be. In fact more to the point there is precedent that based on a milita system it was required for houses to have the same rifle that the military did for common defense.

We have let them turn it into an "evil term". We've let then turn it into a "scary word". As if assault is scary or evil. If you threaten me or my family I will assault you at the very least. Period. I won't point a "sporting" rifle at you and "sport" you with it. I will take the most effective means I have to stopping the threat.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

No straw man on my part. Propaganda is perpetuated by repetition. I used Gifford and you as examples, misapplying a label is very much on topic.

No. I won't perpetuate the misnomer that semi auto rifles with detachable magazines and adjustable stocks are "assault rifles". Propagandists first attempt to establish to villainize the label...the name. It's a rifle. Mine have never "assaulted" anyone. Some have several thousands of rounds passed through them. Never "assaulted anyone. Evidence they are not "assault" rifles.

Primus said:

If I'm the enemy of anything its because YOUR making it so. Its clear in these very threads. I'm attempting to speak rationally and it drives you crazy to do so. Your not my enemy in anyway shape or form regardless of how much you hate me or anything I may believe in.

A 10-22 is not an assault weapon. A .22 target pistol is not. There are hundreds of firearms that are not assault weapons because they were not designed to be used as such.

It works both ways..... you can't label a 10-22 as assault anything.... other then maybe squirrels. Its not designed to be effective in that manner so its not.

You can't label a single shot .22 bolt action target rifle as "assault weapon". Its designed to shoot paper at a set distance. Hell I'll go so far as saying something line a Remington 700 isn't an assault weapon. Sure there's an M24.... but its still a hunting rifle. Just being used to hunt people in that situation.

Again..... a minivan isn't a dragster no matter how hard you smash the gas....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The point is, Primus, that how the general population regards an item is driven by the common usage by which it is described. The press and the antis have made great strides in categorizing the AR-15 and its clones as an "assault weapon" and that characterization drives many of the uninformed to consider it to be evil. Those of us in the 2ndA community full well understand that the AR platform is nearly identical to the M16/M4 military select-fire rifle, but that it is limited to semi-automatic operation and that the difference between it and hunting rifles are cosmetic, not functional. The press and the antis (generally one and the same) use emotional words to sway public opinion and to support laws against this rifle.

Perhaps that's one reason why DHS put out a procurement for some large number of these rifles, but called them Personal Defense Weapons in the specification. They understood that DHS agents and other federal LEOs should not be carrying "assault weapons" among the general population. They understood that what you call something has an effect on how it is regarded, no matter how it operates or looks.

The NRA understands this. In our Instructors' manuals and classes we are admonished to never refer to a firearm as a "weapon." It is a gun, a handgun, a rifle, a shotgun, etc., but the word weapon has negative connotations.

If we don't stand together in our terminology, it will be that much harder to advance the cause.

"Discover the 2014 Camaro ZL1 high-performance sports car - the highest-performing production Camaro of all time."


http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro-zl1-sports-car.html


Now show me where Colt sells an "assault rifle".

"Colt rifle customers want the genuine article. They know that the story of today’s Colt commercial and sporting rifles began with the Stoner AR-15® design that Colt transformed into a military-grade rifle -- the Colt M16 automatic rifle."

Kinda looks like they changed a Sporting Rifle into a military grade firearm. At least by their own admission. So it might be more accurate to state that the military is using a modified Sporting Rifle.

How Hitler Coined the Term ‘Assault Rifle’

http://historicalfirearms.tumblr.co...cal-trivia-how-hitler-coined-the-term-assault

Over time the term entered military vernacular and came to describe the next generation of infantry rifles which were “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub-machine gun and rifle cartridges.”

I find it interesting that known statists are so willing to throw around a Nazi coined term to infringe on citizens rights.

Grapeshot said:

Good luck getting the media and the gummermit to not use the word(s).

Let us know how that works out.

Meanwhile - educate, educate, educate.

Click to expand...

Yep the media and tyrants love the term as it inflames passions for the antis.

The antis, media, and tyrants work on the thoery that if you tell a lie enough people (stupid people) will believe it such as...

An AR-15 is and assult rifle and is always bad.

Primus said:

f you build a stock car is it not a race car until its been officially raced?

The object is what it is regardless of use.

In fact I would submit that if you used a an ar 15 in a murder (whether large or small) it then become a murder weapon. That would be the name change.

The Ar platforms are esplicitally designed after military weapons that are used to kill people. Period. That's why I want it. In case I ever need to in defense of myself or family. I want to best most effective rifle. Well so does the army.

This idea that ars/aks arent assault rifles because the antis use that against us is the same as saying..... Can't call the Shelby cobra a muscle car (implying its fast) because MADD uses the term muscle car in bad way so we can't call them that... its a lie.

Click to expand...

No, an SKS is a semi-auto only rifle. An assault rifle, by military definition, is select-fire. And an SKS is not select-fire. Therefore it is not an "assault rifle." It is still an effective weapon, but it isn't an assault rifle. A military M60 is also not an assault rifle because it doesn't have the semi-automatic mode and it does not shoot an intermediate cartridge.



Calling a semi-auto only rifle an assault rifle is more like someone took the fiberglass body off of a NASCAR race car and put it on the chassis/engine of a Ford Pinto with a governor built in restricting it to 65 mph. It may look like a race car, but it is not a race car.

You could still race in it on the streets, but that still does not make it NASCAR just because it aesthetically appears to be NASCAR. The exterior body of a NASCAR is not the only defining characteristic of a NASCAR.

Primus said:

I can use a laptop to hit a ball doesn't make it a bat... can use a hammer to kill someone its still a TOOL designed to hammer nails not kill people.

Ars and aks are designed to put rounds into people efficiently at an effective range. Period. When the designers of the original M16a1 sat down they didn't say... hmm let's see how good of a sporting rifle we can make..... nor did AK. They chose the caliber with people in mind for a target. Not deer moose ducks or paper. They designed the magazines to allow soldiers to carry a standard combat load (7mags). The designed the operating system (gas impingement for Ar piston for ak) for efficiency is BAD environments.... dirt mud water. Do you take you "sporting riffles" and leave them in the dirt? Negative. Soldiers do.

Click to expand...

The Mauser 98K is also designed to put rounds into people efficiently at a range. And it is a bolt action rifle.

In fact, the Brown Bess Musket was designed to put rounds efficiently into people at a range. And it is a muzzle-loader. And it is also not a rifle because it lacks rifling.

That doesn't make them assault rifles. They are effective weapons yes, but not assault rifles.

Probably most hunting rifles are based off of the Mauser design. The Mauser was a military rifle, but that does not necessarily mean that another bolt action rifle cannot have been designed for sport. Sure the sport rifle could be used in a guerrilla war and be deadly and effective.

In the same way, a semi-auto only rifle can be designed for sport. The reason your AR-15 doesn't qualify as a military rifle, is that the military won't issue it. The military insists on the fun switch and some differences in other small parts. A lot of sporting semi-auto rifles also cannot withstand the mud as well as their military counter-parts. Some of the civilian rifles for instance are made to tighter tolerances which makes them more accurate but also makes them easier to gum up.

I have a semi-auto feather AT-22 rifle in .22lr. It looks like a military weapon and would be an "assault weapon" pretty much everywhere where such a term describes a banned weapon.

But it jams every other round. I'd rather take single shot Anshutz .22 rifle into war than that rifle.

While we ought to argue in favor of owning war hammers, let us call a spade a space. A spade is not a war hammer, although you could kill someone with it and many people over the millenia have charged into battle with a spade against others with more purpose designed weapons.

When our enemies want to ban our spades and they call them war hammers, we can argue for keeping war hammers AND spades. But amongst ourselves we should use the correct terminology.

Felid`Maximus said:

--snipped--
While we ought to argue in favor of owning war hammers, let us call a spade a space. A spade is not a war hammer, although you could kill someone with it and many people over the millenia have charged into battle with a spade against others with more purpose designed weapons.

When our enemies want to ban our spades and they call them war hammers, we can argue for keeping war hammers AND spades. But amongst ourselves we should use the correct terminology.

Click to expand...

Not an assault shovel, but some are trained in an alternate use.
http://www.spetsnaz-gru.com/spetsnaz-entrenching-shovel-1.htm

Nightmare said:

The antis, media, education establishment, and tyrants work on the theory that if you tell a lie enough people (stupid people) will believe it HTH

Click to expand...

Here's something I posted on the subject on another thread some months ago (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?116873-Knock-game-not-so-fun&p=2022479#post2022479 post #8):

Rusty Young Man said:

SNIP... like every time an AR 15 is mentioned, there is always a little tidbit along the lines of "the type of weapon used by the shooter at an elementary school massacre in Newtown, CT." It reinforces the notion that the GUNS, not the people operating the inanimate object, are the cause of "gun violence."

It is a fairly standard technique (trick), used since at least Nazi Germany (and undeniably, with great effect) to repeatedly drill a notion, however false, into the minds of the masses:

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” - Joseph Goebbels (Hitler's Minister of Propaganda)

Click to expand...

Just like with using the term "clip" to refer to a magazine, erroneous information or use of words gets passed along intentionally by the media. Why else would we call victim empowerment zones "Gun Free Zones" when the Internet is full of instances that prove they are not free of guns? If the media and lawmakers wanted to be honest (but I think it's safe to assume they don't want to be since it doesn't suit their agenda) they would call them "Victim Disarmament Zones" or "Unarmed-Children Zones".

As much as it could help to TRY to get the media to be honest and factual in its reporting, I doubt it will happen any time soon. It doesn't help their ratings to be factual, concise, and accurate.

At the very least, we should all be educating people during conversation; just by pointing out the true definitions of the terms and what their functional differences are, the people you reach should be able to then make the distinction at later times.
Even better would be to actually invite them to the shooting range to see and try the puppy-killing, rapid ghosting, 30-clip-per-second guns in person. That's how I convinced my mother many moons ago, and a collegue just two months ago. Still working on the extended family.


*Add.*
I'd venture to say most antis you will encounter are ignorant and only spouting off rhetoric. With on-the-fencers, their experience with and knowledge of firearms is likely to be nada, or even worse, comes from the rhetoric of the antis. So their fear probably only stems from fear, and as Yoda said "Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering." So let's try to educate people about firearms to put bring an end to their suffering in ignorance. :lol:
Here are two links on the subject of taking antis and those on-the-fence to the shooting range:

Taking antis to the range
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/tims-thoughts/tim-takes-anti-gunner-to-the-range

Taking friends to the range
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/05/13/take-a-friend-shooting-for-the-first-time/

Have a good idea for a drinking game~~ every-time some politician uses the words "assault rifle" take a drink.

Good thing I don't drink, I would be in a coma...

"SRT members are issued special equipment such as ballistic Kevlar helmets and patrol rifles."

http://wkuherald.com/news/article_67c52c98-894a-11e3-93d2-001a4bcf6878.html

Humourous article. They have no plan, however, with the acquisition of kevlar helmets and "patrol rifles", they'll show up and .......do something.

So what differentiates a "patrol rifle" from an "assault rifle", and why doesn't the department just call a spade a spade?

“The officer, being well-trained, raises his patrol rifle and fires three times"

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/5486399-74/county-hills-penn#axzz2s0uH9nJT


Well looky here. Again with the "patrol rifle":

"Ms. Hornick told police she heard the officer tell her boyfriend to "put the gun down" several times, Superintendent Moffatt said. The officer, he said, fired his patrol rifle three times.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/e...Penn-hills/stories/201401270123#ixzz2s0tOgrfY

Can you find the use of an AR-15 type rifle being carried by law enforcement referred to as an “assault weapon” in the media? If so, please link to the article.

WYANDOTTE: Police officer suspended for taking patrol rifle without authorization

http://www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2012/12/12/news/doc50c78e35ea515833165559.txt

"That’s when the Colt AR-15 patrol rifle was discovered missing."


"Grant said this particular officer prefers to not carry a patrol rifle."

They like that term "patrol rifle" when describing an AR15.

"Also, in most cases, officers are now required to rack their patrol rifles inside the police station after their shifts have ended." See. There it is again.

Now. the same configuration rifle in the hands of a peon citizen:

"Republican candidate Bright raffles assault rifle to aid campaign"

"And not just any rifle, Bright’s email announcement said, but an AR-15."

Ryan Tannehill’s Wife Leaves AR-15 Assault Rifle Behind In Rental Car

http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/ryan-tannehills-wife-leaves-ar-15-assault-rifle-behind-in-rental-car/

"Hot, blonde wife of NFL quarterback leaves assault rifle in back seat of rental car......"

So if an AR15 is in a Pathfinder, it's an "assault rifle". If it's in a Crown Vic, it's a "patrol rifle".

OK. I'm gettin' it....

"Parks had been caught with several other men by U.S. Forest Service police in Washington’s Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest while he was shooting assault rifles at explosive targets and smoking meth last March. Officers seized four assault rifles at the time."

"Evidence gathered at the home showed how Parks had purchased at least three of the AR-15 assault rifles over the Internet. They also found body armor, a revolver and manuals for the assault rifles."

Government sanctioned JBT in possession of an AR15 rifle = "patrol rifle"

Citizen in possession of AR15 rifle = "assault rifle"

Something in all this reminds me of George Orwell's "1984".

Fuller Malarkey said:

"SRT members are issued special equipment such as ballistic Kevlar helmets and patrol rifles."

http://wkuherald.com/news/article_67c52c98-894a-11e3-93d2-001a4bcf6878.html

Humourous article. They have no plan, however, with the acquisition of kevlar helmets and "patrol rifles", they'll show up and .......do something.

So what differentiates a "patrol rifle" from an "assault rifle", and why doesn't the department just call a spade a spade?

“The officer, being well-trained, raises his patrol rifle and fires three times"

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/5486399-74/county-hills-penn#axzz2s0uH9nJT


Well looky here. Again with the "patrol rifle":

"Ms. Hornick told police she heard the officer tell her boyfriend to "put the gun down" several times, Superintendent Moffatt said. The officer, he said, fired his patrol rifle three times.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/e...Penn-hills/stories/201401270123#ixzz2s0tOgrfY

Can you find the use of an AR-15 type rifle being carried by law enforcement referred to as an “assault weapon” in the media? If so, please link to the article.

WYANDOTTE: Police officer suspended for taking patrol rifle without authorization

http://www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2012/12/12/news/doc50c78e35ea515833165559.txt

"That’s when the Colt AR-15 patrol rifle was discovered missing."


"Grant said this particular officer prefers to not carry a patrol rifle."

They like that term "patrol rifle" when describing an AR15.

"Also, in most cases, officers are now required to rack their patrol rifles inside the police station after their shifts have ended." See. There it is again.

Now. the same configuration rifle in the hands of a peon citizen:

"Republican candidate Bright raffles assault rifle to aid campaign"

"And not just any rifle, Bright’s email announcement said, but an AR-15."

Ryan Tannehill’s Wife Leaves AR-15 Assault Rifle Behind In Rental Car

http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/ryan-tannehills-wife-leaves-ar-15-assault-rifle-behind-in-rental-car/

"Hot, blonde wife of NFL quarterback leaves assault rifle in back seat of rental car......"

So if an AR15 is in a Pathfinder, it's an "assault rifle". If it's in a Crown Vic, it's a "patrol rifle".

OK. I'm gettin' it....

"Parks had been caught with several other men by U.S. Forest Service police in Washington’s Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest while he was shooting assault rifles at explosive targets and smoking meth last March. Officers seized four assault rifles at the time."

"Evidence gathered at the home showed how Parks had purchased at least three of the AR-15 assault rifles over the Internet. They also found body armor, a revolver and manuals for the assault rifles."

Government sanctioned JBT in possession of an AR15 rifle = "patrol rifle"

Citizen in possession of AR15 rifle = "assault rifle"

Something in all this reminds me of George Orwell's "1984".

Click to expand...

Lol yes.... if your smoking meth and shooting then its aw. If your patrolling its a patrol rifle lol...


Its an aw either way.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Fuller Malarkey said:

The term "assault rifle" is an oxymoron. It demonstrates a lack of capacity in understanding the English language. An inanimate object can do nothing but be used in the manner the individual wielding the object desires, whether for good or ill. The term is also redundant......every firearm is designed to "assault" something...be it a duck, a target, a critter, whatever is on the receiving end will experience an "assault".

Personally, I prefer the term "rifle". I'd rather fight about the word "infringed".

People like Gabby Gifford and Primus are predictable. First they label, villainize, move to control the purchase, who is privileged to possess, how they will be stored, where and how they can be used, how many rounds they can hold, the ammo available for them, how many rounds you can possess.

This does not describe what was held in Heller v. District of Columbia and later in McDonald v. Chicago.....that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Heller also focused on the prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans traditionally possess and use for various purposes from sporting use to self defense.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I brought up this topic to begin to educate and gain support for such education that any firearm for sale to the general public is not an "Assault weapon" and we should not recognize it being called such.

The 2A does not state what kind of arm or how many. For any agency to tell an individual what firearm and how many rounds they can have is infringement.
my current understanding is Alaska is the only state with minimal to no infringement. Can we not make a change to end all infringement?

sarcastically "BAN Home Depot, the sell Assault Hammers"

Here's some more "doublespeak":

Suspect arrested in connection with AR15 rifle stolen from PCSO car in San Tan Valley

“The deputy had mistakenly failed to remove his department-issued patrol AR15 rifle,” Mr. Gaffney said."

"On Jan. 28, Mr. Gaffney said in an e-mailed response the incident was related to the theft of the deputy’s assault rifle in San Tan Valley as well as to an officer-involved shooting that took place Jan. 27 in Phoenix."

In the hands of a government agent...."patrol rifle".

Same rifle in the hands of a thief: "assault rifle".

“The deputy had mistakenly failed to remove his department-issued patrol AR15 rifle,.."

So it seems the firearm descriptor is hinged to WHO is in possession of the firearm, more so than anything else.

Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms [e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing], in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning [for example, naming a state of war "peace"]. In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language.

General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP)

"The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW) throughout the life of this contract to numerous Department of Homeland Security components. …"

"The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”

Government agent with AR15 rifle, select fire [full auto capability] = "Personal Defense Weapon"

Peon citizen in possession of AR15 rifle, semiauto capabilities = "assault rifle".

Doublespeak.