• 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.

BAN the term "Assault" weapon.

dakatak87

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
46
Location
Livingston County
I have recently become very passionate about the wrong term being used by too many people. It is up to us the people to show what terms are acceptable or not.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/addword.htm
I would like to see a particular word added to or deleted from the dictionary. What can I do?

Every day, Merriam-Webster receives many letters from people who want to lobby to have a word added to the dictionary (often a term they have just coined) or removed from it (often because they find the term offensive). However, the selection of which words to include in the dictionary is not based on personal preferences or popularity-contest-style votes; it is based on usage. Simply put, to gain entry to the dictionary, a word must be widely used in a broad range of professionally written and edited materials over an extended period of time. Any word that has sufficiently widespread use in such publications is eligible for dictionary entry (for more details on how words are entered in the dictionary, read the article How words get in the dictionary).

Since words are entered into the dictionary on the basis of actual usage, the best way to get a word in the dictionary is to use it and to encourage others (especially professional writers and editors) to use it. The best way to work toward getting a word removed from the dictionary is to avoid using it yourself and to discourage its use in published writing.


I ask us all to;
1- Stop using the term "Assault weapon" or any other variant with "Assault"
2- Do not allow people around you to use the aforementioned terms.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

Assault rifle; noun(Concise Encyclopedia)

:any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

:Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to *switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.* Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 ft (300–500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.


*full Auto firearms are not legal to purchase under current legislation. Therefore the media and politicians are fighting for something that is already in place.*

A person is not a criminal until commits and/or is convicted of that act. These recent tragic "mass" shooting are horrible, though **the assailant did not commit a crime until the first shot was fired.** (**I know that is a general statement, it gets the point across.**)

This post is done is some hast and does not reflect all known facts nor points. I do welcome healthy debate about the people using corrected terminology. It is up to us people to enforce correctness. Thank you for reading this whole post.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Honestly to not call an ar15 an assault rifle is like not calling a Lamborghini an exotic car... as long as the Lamborghini has less the 500 horse....NASCAR cars are still race cars even after they put restrictor plates on them....

That definition says "has capacity to switch". I'd say the rifles do have the capacity. With modification you can make it work. It doesn't say "capacity in its PRESENT form". For example.... Remington 700 will NEVER have capacity to become full auto or even burst fire. So its not remotely an assault rifle.

99.9% of my Ar is the same as my issued rifle in the military rifle (i would say due to my 400 geissele trigger my personal rifle is much better). So of my rifle is designed to be deployed by soldiers then its an assault rifle.

The debate shouldn't be what to call it... debate should be that we can KEEP it. IMHO to try and fight the name it almost seems dishonest.

Let the screaming begin....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
Any weapon used in an assault is an assault weapon.

If someone is stabbed with a pencil, then that pencil is an assault weapon.

A bolt action rifle could be used to assault someone. Bolt action rifles were at one time the main battle rifle issued to every major army.

That definition says "has capacity to switch". I'd say the rifles do have the capacity. With modification you can make it work. It doesn't say "capacity in its PRESENT form". For example.... Remington 700 will NEVER have capacity to become full auto or even burst fire. So its not remotely an assault rifle.
Your distinction between a bolt action and a semi-auto does not make much sense to me. A bolt action gun is not a select-fire rifle and does not meet the military definition of assault rifle. A semi-auto only gun is not a select-fire rifle and does not meet the military definition of an assault rifle. Even a full auto only gun is not a select-fire gun and does not meet the military definition of assault rifle. But any of these could be made into a select-fire weapon with enough modification. Even a bolt action rifle can be made semi-auto with a Pedersen device. And with a little bit of work, you can transform some plumbing parts and a few springs into a machinegun, too. So, are some metal plumbing parts an assault rifle because they have the capacity to become a select-fire rifle, though not in the present form?

I think a definition has to be considered in "the present form." If a blade is something capable of cutting, and a piece of steel could be capable of cutting if you sharpened it, that doesn't make the piece of steel a blade. Not until you actually sharpen it.

Pedersen Device:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_device

Machinegun made from plumbing parts:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6118520/expedient-homemade-firearms-bsp-9mm-smg-p

So of my rifle is designed to be deployed by soldiers then its an assault rifle.
Some soldiers are issued a remington 700 style rifle like the M24.

The debate shouldn't be what to call it... debate should be that we can KEEP it.
I agree.

(Although, we should take the offensive when it comes to forming definitions too... A 15 round magazine is not a high capacity magazine for a 9mm handgun. It is the standard for many, and many hold more by standard. A 10 round magazine is a low-capacity magazine that wouldn't even exist for most guns if not for government regulations... I like calling them low-caps because it emphasizes how the government has restricted us. It is dishonest to call them "standard" when they are really more "crippled" than "standard". The Federal government buys a bunch of select-fire AR-15 for the DHS and calls them "personal defense weapons" out one side of their mouth while out the other side they want to ban semi-auto only AR-15 in our hands while calling them "assault weapons." It is the same rifle either way, so why do they get to call theirs "defense" guns while they call ours "assault" guns? If anything, the civilian is more likely to use them in a defensive role and the Feds are more likely to use them in an offensive role. Personally I think it is all stupid. Any weapon that is used for assault is an assault weapon. I refuse to call )

We could quibble over what an "assault rifle" or an "assault weapon" is, but far more important is to realize that there really isn't a considerable difference that should result in one being legal and one not. Basically every modern cartridge firearm is an extremely efficient tool for killing.

Rather than spending all of our effort trying to say that certain guns are not as bad as other guns, we should be arguing against restrictions on any gun.

The truth is, all guns are deadly, the difference in killing efficiency between a single shot shotgun and a full auto rifle is actually very small, especially when the opponent does not have a weapon at all. In a battle, everyone wants any advantage they can get, even if they are small.

But trying to argue that one is relatively benign is a waste of energy. Instead we should be arguing that civilians ought to have the most effective and deadly weapons.

That is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.

The whole point of a defensive firearm is to be as effective as a weapon as possible. If the fact that a weapon can be employed effectively stands as an argument for banning it, then on the same grounds we will ultimately lose in trying to justify our possession of any weapon.

Machineguns were used in some well publicized killings in the 30's. Some have argued that semi-autos are not as evil as machineguns. So they stay legal while machineguns are banned. And now people want to ban semi-autos because some well publicized killings involved semi-autos. One only has to look at other countries to see where it goes from there. In Australia, I believe they even held pump-action guns to be in the same category of "evil" firearms.

If you look at the average rate of fire maintained in even the most notorious mass killings involving firearms, most of them average to be as slow as a shot every few seconds... a rate achievable by practically any gun short of a muzzle-loader.

When one denounces a semi-auto only rifle on TV and misleadingly calls it an assault rifle or a machinegun and shows videos of machineguns firing full auto, many on the pro-gun side are quick to say, "but it isn't a machinegun," and point out the deception. This is all true, and the lies are dastardly, but if we leave are argument at that, is that not practically tantamount to a concession that machineguns are bad? And by extension, all effective weapons are bad? Perhaps what we ought to be saying is, "We want our machineguns back, actually! You already took them from us!"
 
Last edited:

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
I have recently become very passionate about the wrong term being used by too many people. It is up to us the people to show what terms are acceptable or not.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/addword.htm
I would like to see a particular word added to or deleted from the dictionary. What can I do?

Every day, Merriam-Webster receives many letters from people who want to lobby to have a word added to the dictionary (often a term they have just coined) or removed from it (often because they find the term offensive). However, the selection of which words to include in the dictionary is not based on personal preferences or popularity-contest-style votes; it is based on usage. Simply put, to gain entry to the dictionary, a word must be widely used in a broad range of professionally written and edited materials over an extended period of time. Any word that has sufficiently widespread use in such publications is eligible for dictionary entry (for more details on how words are entered in the dictionary, read the article How words get in the dictionary).

Since words are entered into the dictionary on the basis of actual usage, the best way to get a word in the dictionary is to use it and to encourage others (especially professional writers and editors) to use it. The best way to work toward getting a word removed from the dictionary is to avoid using it yourself and to discourage its use in published writing.


I ask us all to;
1- Stop using the term "Assault weapon" or any other variant with "Assault"
2- Do not allow people around you to use the aforementioned terms.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

Assault rifle; noun(Concise Encyclopedia)

:any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

:Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to *switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.* Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 ft (300–500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.


*full Auto firearms are not legal to purchase under current legislation. Therefore the media and politicians are fighting for something that is already in place.*

A person is not a criminal until commits and/or is convicted of that act. These recent tragic "mass" shooting are horrible, though **the assailant did not commit a crime until the first shot was fired.** (**I know that is a general statement, it gets the point across.**)

This post is done is some hast and does not reflect all known facts nor points. I do welcome healthy debate about the people using corrected terminology. It is up to us people to enforce correctness. Thank you for reading this whole post.
Only commenting on the bolded portion; Yea, let's suppress someone else's right to free speech, because they use a word, term, or phrase that we don't like! Because that's not the exact opposite of what our cause tries to promote when it comes to the 2A, and never mind that its the 2A that protects the 1A from people like you who want to ban words, or prevent people from using words you don't like.

I don't like it when people use anti-gay slurs, or call a magazine a 'clip', but you don't see me trying to ban such words/terms, or "do not allow people around you to use aforementioned terms" Because, ya know, I (we) may not like it, and it may get on our nerves a lot, but we have no right to barge in and say 'oh well you can't use that word because you're misapplying it to something in particular!' or 'we're gonna ban a word because people use it wrongly and we really don't like how its used!' No better than people who say 'we're gonna ban guns because we don't like that criminals use it in crimes, and we don't like seeing anyone except <insert Government agency personnel> to have them!'.

End /rant.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Any weapon used in an assault is an assault weapon.

If someone is stabbed with a pencil, then that pencil is an assault weapon.

A bolt action rifle could be used to assault someone. Bolt action rifles were at one time the main battle rifle issued to every major army.



Your distinction between a bolt action and a semi-auto does not make much sense to me. A bolt action gun is not a select-fire rifle and does not meet the military definition of assault rifle. A semi-auto only gun is not a select-fire rifle and does not meet the military definition of an assault rifle. Even a full auto only gun is not a select-fire gun and does not meet the military definition of assault rifle. But any of these could be made into a select-fire weapon with enough modification. Even a bolt action rifle can be made semi-auto with a Pedersen device. And with a little bit of work, you can transform some plumbing parts and a few springs into a machinegun, too. So, are some metal plumbing parts an assault rifle because they have the capacity to become a select-fire rifle, though not in the present form?

I think a definition has to be considered in "the present form." If a blade is something capable of cutting, and a piece of steel could be capable of cutting if you sharpened it, that doesn't make the piece of steel a blade. Not until you actually sharpen it.

Pedersen Device:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_device

Machinegun made from plumbing parts:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6118520/expedient-homemade-firearms-bsp-9mm-smg-p


Some soldiers are issued a remington 700 style rifle like the M24.


I agree.

(Although, we should take the offensive when it comes to forming definitions too... A 15 round magazine is not a high capacity magazine for a 9mm handgun. It is the standard for many, and many hold more by standard. A 10 round magazine is a low-capacity magazine that wouldn't even exist for most guns if not for government regulations... I like calling them low-caps because it emphasizes how the government has restricted us. It is dishonest to call them "standard" when they are really more "crippled" than "standard". The Federal government buys a bunch of select-fire AR-15 for the DHS and calls them "personal defense weapons" out one side of their mouth while out the other side they want to ban semi-auto only AR-15 in our hands while calling them "assault weapons." It is the same rifle either way, so why do they get to call theirs "defense" guns while they call ours "assault" guns? If anything, the civilian is more likely to use them in a defensive role and the Feds are more likely to use them in an offensive role. Personally I think it is all stupid. Any weapon that is used for assault is an assault weapon. I refuse to call )

We could quibble over what an "assault rifle" or an "assault weapon" is, but far more important is to realize that there really isn't a considerable difference that should result in one being legal and one not. Basically every modern cartridge firearm is an extremely efficient tool for killing.

Rather than spending all of our effort trying to say that certain guns are not as bad as other guns, we should be arguing against restrictions on any gun.

The truth is, all guns are deadly, the difference in killing efficiency between a single shot shotgun and a full auto rifle is actually very small, especially when the opponent does not have a weapon at all. In a battle, everyone wants any advantage they can get, even if they are small.

But trying to argue that one is relatively benign is a waste of energy. Instead we should be arguing that civilians ought to have the most effective and deadly weapons.

That is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.

The whole point of a defensive firearm is to be as effective as a weapon as possible. If the fact that a weapon can be employed effectively stands as an argument for banning it, then on the same grounds we will ultimately lose in trying to justify our possession of any weapon.

Machineguns were used in some well publicized killings in the 30's. Some have argued that semi-autos are not as evil as machineguns. So they stay legal while machineguns are banned. And now people want to ban semi-autos because some well publicized killings involved semi-autos. One only has to look at other countries to see where it goes from there. In Australia, I believe they even held pump-action guns to be in the same category of "evil" firearms.

If you look at the average rate of fire maintained in even the most notorious mass killings involving firearms, most of them average to be as slow as a shot every few seconds... a rate achievable by practically any gun short of a muzzle-loader.

When one denounces a semi-auto only rifle on TV and misleadingly calls it an assault rifle or a machinegun and shows videos of machineguns firing full auto, many on the pro-gun side are quick to say, "but it isn't a machinegun," and point out the deception. This is all true, and the lies are dastardly, but if we leave are argument at that, is that not practically tantamount to a concession that machineguns are bad? And by extension, all effective weapons are bad? Perhaps what we ought to be saying is, "We want our machineguns back, actually! You already took them from us!"
If 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.

I is what I is and so is my rifle. For better or for worse.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
Honestly to not call an ar15 an assault rifle is like not calling a Lamborghini an exotic car... as long as the Lamborghini has less the 500 horse....NASCAR cars are still race cars even after they put restrictor plates on them....
You wouldn't know honest if it bit you.

Snipped

The debate shouldn't be what to call it... debate should be that we can KEEP it. IMHO to try and fight the name it almost seems dishonest.

Let the screaming begin....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
"You" are about as much "we" as Gabby Gifford is. And I believe have the same agenda.


Words have meaning and propagandists use words. WE are not not fighting the words, WE are fighting the propagandists. Primus is spewing anti liberty propaganda. It begins by villainizing the name.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation [NSSF], is the trade association for America's firearms industry.
Our mission: To promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports

Most of US are here to support the right to self defense, however, I use the NSSF material when it fits to further our cause. They offer the following description of the AR platform rifle:


The modern sporting rifle, based on the AR-15 platform, is widely misunderstood. Why? Confusion exists because while these rifles may cosmetically look like military rifles, they do not function the same way. Also, groups wanting to ban these rifles have for years purposely or through ignorance spread misinformation about them to aid their cause.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation asks you to be an informed gun owner and to use the following facts to correct misconceptions about these rifles. Remember, that if AR-15-style modern sporting rifles are banned, your favorite traditional-looking hunting or target shooting semi-automatic firearm could be banned, too.

AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.

The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."

AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an "assault weapon," he or she either supports banning these firearms or does not understand their function and sporting use, or both. Please correct them. "Assault weapon" is a political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.

AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.

Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.

Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.

These rifles' accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.

Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.

These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they're used for target shooting in the national matches.

AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.

The AR-15 platform is modular. Owners like being able to affix different "uppers" (the barrel and chamber) to the "lower" (the grip, stock).

And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!
The NSSF has a pocket fact card you can print out and use as reference when you encounter the propaganda, or give it to those that might benefit from the information.

http://www.nssf.org/msr/PDF/MSR-PocketFactCard.pdf

If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an "assault weapon," he or she either supports banning these firearms or does not understand their function and sporting use, or both. Please correct them. "Assault weapon" is a political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.

AR-15-style modern sporting rifle

AR Sporting Rifle

OTIS makes a cleaning kit for MODERN SPORTING RIFLES AND AR'S.

Modern Sporting Rifle [MSR] Wikipedia:

"Modern sporting rifle (MSR) is a firearms industry term dated to 2009 that originally referred to certain semi-automatic rifles similar to the AR-15.[1] Between 2010 and 2013, some semi-automatic shotguns were added to the list of MSRs."

"Confusion was created for years by referring to AR-15-style rifles as assault rifles and assault weapons. The usage was problematic for two reasons:

AR is an abbreviation for ArmaLite, the original manufacturer of the semiautomatic rifle that is now referred to as the AR-15. The AR-15 is now made by Colt's Manufacturing. Manufacturers of similar rifles include Bushmaster Firearms International, Smith & Wesson, and Stag Arms.

AR is also a common abbreviation for assault rifle, which is a fully automatic firearm."


Many features that are commonly found in factory-produced MSRs are:
Semi-automatic firing
Rail-systems for adding additional attachments
Adjustable stocks
A pistol grip
Detachable magazines - most commonly 30 round capacity

***

Googling "Modern Sport Rifle" garnered about 21,000,000 results in 0.33 seconds. I'd say that indicates a measurable degree of universal acceptance of the term.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
"You are about as much "we" as Gabby Gifford is. And I believe have the same agenda.


Words have meaning and propagandists use words. WE are not not fighting the words, WE are fighting the propagandists. Primus is spewing anti liberty propaganda. It begins by villainizing the name.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation [NSSF], is the trade association for America's firearms industry.
Our mission: To promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports

Most of US are here to support the right to self defense, however, I use the NSSF material when it fits to further our cause. They offer the following description of the AR platform rifle:




The NSSF has a pocket fact card you can print out and use as reference when you encounter the propaganda or give it those that might benefit from the information.

http://www.nssf.org/msr/PDF/MSR-PocketFactCard.pdf

If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an "assault weapon," he or she either supports banning these firearms or does not understand their function and sporting use, or both. Please correct them. "Assault weapon" is a political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.

AR-15-style modern sporting rifle

AR Sporting Rifle

OTIS makes a cleaning kit for MODERN SPORTING RIFLES AND AR'S.

Modern Sporting Rifle [MSR] Wikipedia:

"Modern sporting rifle (MSR) is a firearms industry term dated to 2009 that originally referred to certain semi-automatic rifles similar to the AR-15.[1] Between 2010 and 2013, some semi-automatic shotguns were added to the list of MSRs."

"Confusion was created for years by referring to AR-15-style rifles as assault rifles and assault weapons. The usage was problematic for two reasons:

AR is an abbreviation for ArmaLite, the original manufacturer of the semiautomatic rifle that is now referred to as the AR-15. The AR-15 is now made by Colt's Manufacturing. Manufacturers of similar rifles include Bushmaster Firearms International, Smith & Wesson, and Stag Arms.

AR is also a common abbreviation for assault rifle, which is a fully automatic firearm."


Many features that are commonly found in factory-produced MSRs are:
Semi-automatic firing
Rail-systems for adding additional attachments
Adjustable stocks
A pistol grip
Detachable magazines - most commonly 30 round capacity

***

Googling "Modern Sport Rifle" garnered about 21,000,000 results. I'd say that indicates a measurable degree of universal acceptance of the term.
Lol your answer to their propaganda is your own propaganda?

Notice you didn't refute anything I said. Just attacked me. Good ol ad homen right?

So an assault rifle is an assault rifle only because of the burst capabilities? Wow ok... so that settlers the debate then since literally every other part of my rifle is either the same or BETTER.

Also... sporting rifle you say? Too bad its banned to hunt in some states. So I guess its only good for some sports in some states.

I get it.... the name sounds bad. Oh well... save the energy of changing the name and focus on us keeping it.

Or not... I wouldn't except much from you other then huffing and puffing and bashing.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
Snipped


Also... sporting rifle you say? Too bad its banned to hunt in some states. So I guess its only good for some sports in some states.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
AR Platform rifles banned for all hunting in some states? Name 'em.

Pennsylvania is the only state I'm aware of that bans the use of semi auto rifles for deer hunting. I'm aware of NO state that specifically bans the use of AR platform rifles for all hunting. You fail to mention some areas ban ALL larger than rimfire rifle caliber hunting, limiting hunting to the use of shotguns and muzzleloaders. The .223 caliber is restricted for hunting large game in some areas, however, .223 / 5.56 is not synonymous with AR rifle.


Let's see if Primus names the states that ban the use of AR platform rifles for all hunting, specifically identifying the AR platform rifle.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
AR Platform rifles banned for all hunting in some states? Name 'em.

Pennsylvania is the only state I'm aware of that bans the use of semi auto rifles for deer hunting. I'm aware of NO state that specifically bans the use of AR platform rifles for all hunting. You fail to mention some areas ban ALL larger than rimfire rifle caliber hunting, limiting hunting to the use of shotguns and muzzleloaders. The .223 caliber is restricted for hunting large game in some areas, however, .223 / 5.56 is not synonymous with AR rifle.


Let's see if Primus names the states that ban the use of AR platform rifles for all hunting, specifically identifying the AR platform rifle.
Grasping for straws... please highlight the part where I said ALL. I'll wait patiently.

Your inserting and assuming that. I specifically did NOT specify all the different types and states that allow the rifle. This is about the AR not a thread about hunting laws. If even ONE state bans the AR for hunting even ONE type of game then my premise stands.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
Lol your answer to their propaganda is your own propaganda?

Notice you didn't refute anything I said. Just attacked me. Good ol ad homen right?

So an assault rifle is an assault rifle only because of the burst capabilities? Wow ok... so that settlers the debate then since literally every other part of my rifle is either the same or BETTER.

Also... sporting rifle you say? Too bad its banned to hunt in some states. So I guess its only good for some sports in some states.

Snipped

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Grasping for straws... please highlight the part where I said ALL. I'll wait patiently.

Your inserting and assuming that. I specifically did NOT specify all the different types and states that allow the rifle. This is about the AR not a thread about hunting laws. If even ONE state bans the AR for hunting even ONE type of game then my premise stands.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Name a state the bans the use of the AR platform rifle, specifically, for hunting.

.223 / 5.56 is not synonymous with AR15.

No state, no premise.
 
Last edited:

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
Your first link to Connecticut doesn't mention the banned use of the AR platform rifle for hunting, does it?

The second link is to NJ...which prohibits ALL rifle use for hunting, doesn't it?

The contention made by primus is that the use of the AR platform rifle is banned for hunting / sporting use, barring it from the identifying moniker "Sporting Rifle".

I'm not seeing any connection one way or the other in your links.

ETA: I suspect Grapeshot is referencing the ban of a class of firearm, which is another can of worms. My contention is that we can control how far the camel gets it's nose under the tent by countering the propaganda. And I contend mislabeling is propaganda.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Your first link to Connecticut doesn't mention the banned use of the AR platform rifle for hunting, does it?

The second link is to NJ...which prohibits ALL rifle use for hunting, doesn't it?

The contention made by primus is that the use of the AR platform rifle is banned for hunting / sporting use, barring it from the identifying moniker "Sporting Rifle".

I'm not seeing any connection one way or the other in your links.
If a gun is banned in total, obviously it is banned for hunting. That is a very direct connection.

I becomes pointless to say banned to carry, banned to shoot, banned for hunting, when it/they are completely banned.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Your first link to Connecticut doesn't mention the banned use of the AR platform rifle for hunting, does it?

The second link is to NJ...which prohibits ALL rifle use for hunting, doesn't it?

The contention made by primus is that the use of the AR platform rifle is banned for hunting / sporting use, barring it from the identifying moniker "Sporting Rifle".

I'm not seeing any connection one way or the other in your links.
An ar is still banned right? I agree that it is banned because it is a rifle and so are the others (non Ar platforms). So its still banned. So at least in said state, NJ for example.... its wouldn't be a hunting rifle. So I guess at least in NJ its not a hunting rifle.

Also for your side, sporting includes more then just hunting that the Ar IS allowed to do.

You have a stock car.... if you use it for something other then racing does it become not a racecar? NO.

The USE of an item doesn't always dictate what the item IS or is called.

You can cir bread with a STEAK knife.... does it become a bread knife? Is it NOT a steak knife until you use it on a steak?

Its DESIGNED to cut steak. So steak knife.

An AR is a damn near an exact replica of issued military rifles. So much so that I can swap parts out easily.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
Snipped

This is about the AR not a thread about hunting laws. If even ONE state bans the AR for hunting even ONE type of game then my premise stands.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
You brought in hunting, I didn't. I simply called you on the fallacy / deception you tried to pass off. Again.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
You brought in hunting, I didn't. I simply called you on the fallacy / deception you tried to pass off. Again.
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
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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.

Again... debate should be we should have the same rifle that the army carries to fend against enemies foreign and domestic. Period.

I can lay out a bolt assembly barrel buttstock buffer spring pistil grip hand guards from an m4 and a civilian Ar. Bet most people would never tell the difference.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
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.
 
Last edited:
Top