In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
But shouldn't that definition include the definition that is legally accepted in a few States?
If not, are we looking at controversy with people who think such laws protect them from fully automatic rifles?
For example, someone who is inclined to take an anti-gun position will look at such an on-line definition and somehow believe the assault rifles the laws are protecting them against are full auto firearms, which is not at all the case.
Of course, the media will continue to allow people to believe that those laws that "protect" us from "assault rifles" are protecting them from fully automatic weapons. Which, of course, is rubbish.
So, the real term continues to be meaningless....except in the eye of the beholder....
The terms unicorn, Santa Claus and Easter Bunny are in the dictionary, as well; does that make them real? And as with all notation, words come into being in myriad ways. Question: If the StG44 was the first "assault rifle", how is it that the term "assault rifle" does not appear in any English dictionary until nearly two decades later? If the AK-47 and M16 are "assault rifles", how is it the term did not exist contemporary to their introductions? More, if "assault rifles" are select fire shoulder weapons firing an intermediate cartridge using a detachable magazine, how is it (1) no military in the world refers to such weapons either by name or nomenclature as an "assault rifle", and (2) how can a semi-automatic, civilian look-alike be by definition an "assault rifle" when it does not meet the criteria specified for one? And more, if by definition an "assault rifle" fires an intermediate cartridge but a "battle rifle" fires a full-power cartridge, how is it that an FNC and FAL are both considered an "assault rifle" under the AWB? Simple, because unlike a Buick, the term only exists in language.
A-HA!! Then , you admit that there are "specified criteria"! This changes everything....
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by Frogbert
A-HA!! Then , you admit that there are "specified criteria"! This changes everything....
[?][:0][?]
Sure, just like there's specified criteria for a unicorn. What's your point?
POINT! THERE IS NO POINT IN THIS ENDLESS, BLATHERING EXCHANGE!!! WHO NEEDS A FLIPPING POINT?
Next...
boeboe I did read your post[:D]theyre coming in fast though and im a slow typer[V]We are on the same side here. I just dont get the relivance of the origin of the term itself....it doesnt matter, the term is here and it isnt leaving. The important thing is how the term is defined and how the public should be educated on it,we all seem to agree on that..... K, Im over it now,have at it fellas[:D]
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Eventually they will get to small arms, but these are highly enlighting.
Well, when they do, be sure to let us know, okay? For now, there is nothing mentioned in your cited source remotely referring to an "assault rifle". But keep looking, Sherlock.
quote:Originally posted by SG
boeboe I did read your post[:D]theyre coming in fast though and im a slow typer[V]We are on the same side here. I just dont get the relivance of the origin of the term itself....it doesnt matter, the term is here and it isnt leaving. The important thing is how the term is defined and how the public should be educated on it,we all seem to agree on that..... K, Im over it now,have at it fellas[:D]
[;)]
quote:Originally posted by SG
The important thing is how the term is defined and how the public should be educated on it,we all seem to agree on that...
No cigar. Defining a term as suits a purpose is not a definition; it is an agenda. Consider: Other than perspective, what by definition is the difference between an "insurgent" and a "freedom fighter"? Between a "semi-automatic, military look-alike rifle" and an "assault rifle"? Answer: Language meaning and use. And that is exactly the problem.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by SG
The important thing is how the term is defined and how the public should be educated on it,we all seem to agree on that...
No cigar. Defining a term as suits a purpose is not a definition; it is an agenda. Consider: Other than perspective, what by definition is the difference between an "insurgent" and a "freedom fighter"? Between a "semi-automatic, military look-alike rifle" and an "assault rifle"? Answer: Language meaning and use. And that is exactly the problem.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by SG
The important thing is how the term is defined and how the public should be educated on it,we all seem to agree on that...
No cigar. Defining a term as suits a purpose is not a definition; it is an agenda. Consider: Other than perspective, what by definition is the difference between an "insurgent" and a "freedom fighter"? Between a "semi-automatic, military look-alike rifle" and an "assault rifle"? Answer: Language meaning and use. And that is exactly the problem.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Instead, we should save our fights for the anti-gun forums.
Sorry, but any member who insists that "assault rifles" exist or that AR15's and Mini-14's are "assault rifles" is making this an anti-gun forum. The adoption of the enemy's nomenclaure ("He's not an insurgent; he's a freedom fighter!"), even if out of sheer ignorance, does not excuse it; by virtue of one being able to recognize a term (like "unicorn") does not mean that the thing to which it refers actually exists.
So the question that I have for all of you that consider the M14 a "battle rifle" and the M16 an "assault rifle" is: If you handload the 7.62Nato with a 125 grain bullet to a velocity of 2400 fps, so you have performance similar to the AK47, and subsequently have manageable recoil so that you can hold the trigger back while you gain fire superiority and shoot your way out of the L-ambush, does your M14 now become an "assault rifle"?
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Instead, we should save our fights for the anti-gun forums.
Sorry, but any member who insists that "assault rifles" exist or that AR15's and Mini-14's are "assault rifles" is making this an anti-gun forum. The adoption of the enemy's nomenclaure ("He's not an insurgent; he's a freedom fighter!") out of sheer ignorance does not excuse it.
But unfortunately, it was initially "our" nomenclature. "Assault rifle" was first used by the firearms loving community. That the anti-gun forces hijacked the term and used it to promote the image of a typical "gun owner" is really not much of their fault.
Besides, why should American citizens not be allowed to own such firearms? Should we apologise for our past?
I don't think so. This continues to be a basic question regarding the Second Ammendment. The bottom line is, we SHOULD be rightfully able to own such arms, regardless of any nomenclature.
And, there I was, wondering when Dances was going to chime in to this thread! (Hey! I don't get on here very often these days; kinda busy, ya know? Gimme a break.)
By the way, Sturmgelingus?
OH......MY.....GOD! The funniest thing I've seen on this forum for some time. Good one, Robert!
quote:Originally posted by Ray B
So the question that I have for all of you that consider the M14 a "battle rifle" and the M16 an "assault rifle" is: If you handload the 7.62Nato with a 125 grain bullet to a velocity of 2400 fps, so you have performance similar to the AK47, and subsequently have manageable recoil so that you can hold the trigger back while you gain fire superiority and shoot your way out of the L-ambush, does your M14 now become an "assault rifle"?
Now,see what you've done!! Just when he was getting off to sleep.[:(!]
quote:Originally posted by Ray B
So the question that I have for all of you that consider the M14 a "battle rifle" and the M16 an "assault rifle" is: If you handload the 7.62Nato with a 125 grain bullet to a velocity of 2400 fps, so you have performance similar to the AK47, and subsequently have manageable recoil so that you can hold the trigger back while you gain fire superiority and shoot your way out of the L-ambush, does your M14 now become an "assault rifle"?
Suppose over a period of many years you replace every original piece on your bicycle. Is it the same bicycle? Of course it's still a bicycle, but that's not the question. Similarly, if you downsize the cartridge fired by a "battle rifle" to that of an "assault rifle", or upsize the cartridge fired by an "assault rifle" to that of a "battle rifle", have you in effect changed one thing into another regardless of actual use? This is the problem with such terms; they are meaningless, except to the taxonomic compulsions of gun writers and the minds of their zombie following.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
But unfortunately, it was initially "our" nomenclature. "Assault rifle" was first used by the firearms loving community.
No, it was first used by the firearms reading community, who accepted without question what gun writers like Ezell and Taylor told them. Do some research: There is no historical basis for Ezell's Sturmgewehr claim, and Taylor admitted up front that the term "assault rifle" was used only for convenience of comparison testing with its larger caliber counterparts (i.e., "battle rifles"). But what pisses me off is that some here still insist on the point just because a long time ago they read that there were "assault rifles" and "Easter Bunnies". As regards "assault rifles", this attenuation is unforgiveable, given the political climate and high stakes involved.
Yea, and its just because of our political climate that makes the meaning of a word as important as they are subjective. It is as if the word itself has the power to subject or civil rights...yet, its the song and dance before the word that makes it a codified political tool. Dances just wants us to keep 'em dancin', and not give them any help in giving their vague paranoid agenda any artificial clairity.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
But unfortunately, it was initially "our" nomenclature. "Assault rifle" was first used by the firearms loving community.
No, it was first used by the firearms reading community, who accepted without question what gun writers like Ezell and Taylor told them. Do some research: There is no historical basis for Ezell's Sturmgewehr claim, and Taylor admitted up front that the term "assault rifle" was used only for convenience of comparison testing with its larger caliber counterparts (i.e., "battle rifles"). But what pisses me off is that some here still insist on the point just because a long time ago someone told them there were "assault rifles" and "Easter Bunnies". As regards "assault rifles", this attenuation is unforegiveable, given the political climate and high stakes involved.
What I have sufficiently substantiated it that the term "assault rifle" was used by the pro-gun community as far back as the early 1960's. That is the extent of what I claim.
What I do not understand is that, as far as I can tell, everyone here seems to think the battle for gun rights is lost. Every one of you seems to be cowering in a corner, ashamed that the pro-gun community could have every used such a term.
So what is this? Hey, we might as well toss in the hat now, and slip out the back door and burry our "assault rifles" assuming erroneously that somehow, our children will be able to dig them up and use them someday. It is clear, right, the anti-gun forces have won! None of you are willing to to take a position that the American citizen has the right to own an "assault rifle", regardless of how you define that term!
That is what bothers me most in this discussion. There is a presupposition that the battle is lost. As long as we, the firearms community, are willing to refer to our firearms as "hidden pink squirrel plinkers" and not "assault rifles" we are somehow going to be safe against the anti-gun forces.
My position remains, there should be no restriction against the ownership of whatever definition of assault rifle you choose. That right is a Second Ammendment right.
As I said, it is clear to me that the overabundance of viewers here have taken the defeatist postion. They will get our firearms, all of them, and there is nothing we can do to prevent it.
I don't know why any of us could feel any different.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
What I have sufficiently substantiated it that the term "assault rifle" was used by the pro-gun community as far back as the early 1960's. That is the extent of what I claim.
Sorry, boeboe, I cannot find similar substantiation. What I find is the term "assault rifle" used to name a single BM59 variant marketed by Beretta, which fired a full-power cartridge (and so by definition is not an "assault rifle" anyway), and Ezell's claim, written some twenty years after the fact, that the StG44 "was the first 'assault rifle'." I can find no other literature, other than advertisements, to support your claim. Such occurrences can hardly be characterized as "use by the pro-gun community", which did not occur until ten years later with the advent of survival and non-sporting gun rags like SWAT, Soldier of Fortune and Pistolero. I think you confuse the "pro-gun community" with the "pro-gun writing community", as there are a good number of pro-gun people (myself included) who do not acknowledge the term "assault rifle" but do acknowledge that gun writers are frequently full of crap.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by Frogbert
Foreskin and foreplay have an e after the r, unforgivable does not.
A day late and a dollar short, as usual. Isn't it time you put on your jammies with feet and cuddle with your Popeye The Sailor blowup doll?
Ho boy, you may be right. All I've got left of Popeye though, is the hat and the spinach can, since the wind caught him when practicing boarding a foreign vessel in the back yard and blew him into the razor wire.
Good night, boys, see you in the funny papers...[:D][^][|)][|)][|)]
badwrench quote: Professional Loading of Rifle, Pistol and Shotgun Cartridges by George Leonard Herter, edition of 1966, uses the term "assault rifle", referring to the 7.92 Kurz and 7.62X39 as "assault rifle cartridges", neither of which were ever chambered for the BM59. Mid 60's, use of the term in reference to the cartridges fired by the German Sturmgewehr and the AK47, respectively, and no mention of the BM59.
Just because a published work uses a term, does not mean it is set in stone. The history of linguistic terms is ultimatly a meaningless activity, if one means to squeeze a final meaning out of a word. A Chevrolet is a unamibiguous term. A "jazz musician" is not. The definition of jazz is not the same for everyone. Was Zappa a jazz musician? Your answer would depend on how you wish jazz music to be defined, this is something that is not exacally uniform.
While we might agree that Armstrong was a jazz musician, it does not settle anything because the word is rife with artistic and stylistic agendas.
All this because one guy asks for a recommendation of what rifle to buy...Maybe he should have just asked for a recomendation of what "black rifle" to buy...(stir, stir)[:D]
Call it whatever you want and call me a defeatist if you want. But by widely using the term "assault rifle" as an automatic, no room for argument "evil" term promoted by the anti-gunners, they put one over on us. And if they come up with several more ways to "put one over on us" yes, then gun rights just might be totally lost.
Reason being the the gun rights war is going to be generally decided by that huge, middle class of non-gun owners who neither like nor fear guns. It is they whom we pro-gunners and anti-gunners are playing to. So, if for no other reason than the fact that the anti-gunners WANT you, and everyone else, to use the term "assault rifle", try and stamp out that term.
In regards to so many here spending time and energy fighting with each other, you time would be better spend visiting an anti-gun site and fighting with them. You just might convert one or two of the anti-gunners. Because here basically your time is wasted as basically we are all on the same side.
quote:Originally posted by badwrench
Professional Loading of Rifle, Pistol and Shotgun Cartridges by George Leonard Herter, edition of 1966, uses the term "assault rifle", referring to the 7.92 Kurz and 7.62X39 as "assault rifle cartridges", neither of which were ever chambered for the BM59. Mid 60's, use of the term in reference to the cartridges fired by the German Sturmgewehr and the AK47, respectively, and no mention of the BM59.
I'm not sure of your point here. Beretta and Ezell precede Herter, and prior use of the term was already conceded; the issue is not whether the term existed but whether the thing to which the term refers existed prior to introduction of such notation. Consider: A gun writer notes that there are distinguishing characteristics shared among certain select-fire military rifles. These characteristics include firing an intermediate cartridge from a detachable magazine. The gun writer then names this class of weapons "assault rifles", as means to distingush them from modern military rifles which do not share these characteristics ("battle rifles"). The gun writer then looks at back at recent military weapons development, and decides twenty years after the fact that the first rifle meeting the criteria of this class of weapons was the StG44, and so therefore the StG44 must have been "the first 'assault rifle'". But was it? There is a difference between grouping like things and giving it a name and saying that because a group of like things now has a name they have always been that thing. In other words, the adoption of a linguistic convention or taxonomic convenience is confused with historical fact, the problem being that the notation "assault rifle" (1) was not contemporary to the StG44 itself and (2) requires a sudden change in the common meaning of the 19th Century German word Sturm from "Storm" or "Shock" to "Assault" which is not substantiated by any military or historical record contemporary to the event.
To say that people use words incorrectly and that over time such usage becomes convention is only stating the obvious. But it is hardly the point if one is making a distinction between a term used to name a thing and the existence of the thing itself.
while clarity is at little issue here in the details, I have to try to bring us to common ground.
DWS, would you illuminate your point in terms that even an idiot like me might understand?
We as gun owners seem to have an uphill battle to hold on to what we believe. I think DWS is saying that the fact that the media and anti gun lobby has stoked this fire called assault rifle until the public is afraid to even say the word. I have that in my mind as an absolute. So what do we do? Paint our AR15s pink and give them cute little names?
I suggest that we appear less antagonistic. We put forth a more intellectual front. We show ourselves not as rabid gun toting lunatics looking for a punk to make our day, but as people who are salt of the earth trying to protect our rights and live our lives.
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
while clarity is at little issue here in the details, I have to try to bring us to common ground.
DWS, would you illuminate your point in terms that even an idiot like me might understand?
We as gun owners seem to have an uphill battle to hold on to what we believe. I think DWS is saying that the fact that the media and anti gun lobby has stoked this fire called assault rifle until the public is afraid to even say the word. I have that in my mind as an absolute. So what do we do? Paint our AR15s pink and give them cute little names?
I suggest that we appear less antagonistic. We put forth a more intellectual front. We show ourselves not as rabid gun toting lunatics looking for a punk to make our day, but as people who are salt of the earth trying to protect our rights and live our lives.
I think that as regards matters of law the sloppiness of parlance cannot be so easily forgiven, simply because our rights as gun owners are being taken away because of it. Unlike the term "marijuana" which names a physical thing with tangible properties and effects, the term "assault rifle" has no such corresponding palpable; it is merely a linguistic convention comparable to terms like "Far out" and "Yo, dog", which certainly have meaning and use but no correspondence to a physical thing. If you were to try to describe the difference between a semi-automatic, military look-alike rifle and an "assault rifle" as defined by the AWB, you would not be able to say the difference except to point to certain features or characteristics like a bayonet lug or collapsible stock. But what do these features have to do with something being an "assault rifle", when to begin with an "assault rifle" is by definition a select fire weapon? No matter that a heretofore legal "semi-automatic, military look-alike rifle" has been misnamed and in so doing demonized, it is now illegal and controlled, and this for reasons totally removed from any actual purpose, function and use. Compare this with marijuana, and you see an entirely different type of law being imposed, one which can turn any thing into an assault thing simply by mention of the word.
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
ding ding ding...it's starting to get there.
are we not, then, asking that the "ignorant masses" be re-indoctrinated?
I'm afraid the damage is done and irrevocable. Historically, a term used or misused for a prolonged period is resistent to change, and this even in light of indisputable cause for correction. Perhaps one ploy might be to get gun makers and distributors to henceforth refer to all such firearms as "Homeland Rifles"; perhaps over time and by determined use, "Homeland Rifle" will replace "assault rifle" in much the same way that "physically challenged" replaced "handicapped". The problem is, there is a large group of people intent on keeping this from happening, as the term "assault rifle" has served their anti-gun agenda for more than twenty years, aided and abetted by pro-gun people too ignorant to know any better.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
ding ding ding...it's starting to get there.
are we not, then, asking that the "ignorant masses" be re-indoctrinated?
I'm afraid the damage is done and irrevocable. Historically, a term used or misused for a prolonged period is resistent to change, and this even in light of indisputable cause for correction. Perhaps one ploy might be to get gun makers and distributors to henceforth refer to all such firearms as "Homeland Rifles"; perhaps over time and by determined use, "Homeland Rifle" will replace "assault rifle" in much the same way that "physically challenged" replaced "handicapped". The problem is, there is a large group of people intent on keeping this from happening, as the term "assault rifle" has served their anti-gun agenda for more than twenty years, aided and abetted by pro-gun people too ignorant to know any better.
I almost feel like we are sitting here as a misunderstood cult, represented by images of the guy from "tremors".
I am, as are most of you, a decent guy that happens to believe that we all have the right to own firearms. I happen to believe that the drafters of the constitution had great respect for human nature and the strength of the individual. I think there is great logic in an armed populace as balance of power was a cornerstone of our political and governmental system. Just because the technology of weaponry has advanced doesn't mean it is any less necessary.
Round here, they calls 'em "ranch rifles" and they's two kinds of 'em, small ranch rifles fer spreads of five acres 'r less and large ranch rifles for the fellers that run as many as, oh, say, 20 llamas--big operators.
Comments
Have you really read my posts? You don't see I am on your side now?
I wasn't arguing with you boeboe, only adding to it.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Have you really read my posts? You don't see I am on your side now?
I wasn't arguing with you boeboe, only adding to it.
[:D]
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
But shouldn't that definition include the definition that is legally accepted in a few States?
If not, are we looking at controversy with people who think such laws protect them from fully automatic rifles?
For example, someone who is inclined to take an anti-gun position will look at such an on-line definition and somehow believe the assault rifles the laws are protecting them against are full auto firearms, which is not at all the case.
Of course, the media will continue to allow people to believe that those laws that "protect" us from "assault rifles" are protecting them from fully automatic weapons. Which, of course, is rubbish.
So, the real term continues to be meaningless....except in the eye of the beholder....
The terms unicorn, Santa Claus and Easter Bunny are in the dictionary, as well; does that make them real? And as with all notation, words come into being in myriad ways. Question: If the StG44 was the first "assault rifle", how is it that the term "assault rifle" does not appear in any English dictionary until nearly two decades later? If the AK-47 and M16 are "assault rifles", how is it the term did not exist contemporary to their introductions? More, if "assault rifles" are select fire shoulder weapons firing an intermediate cartridge using a detachable magazine, how is it (1) no military in the world refers to such weapons either by name or nomenclature as an "assault rifle", and (2) how can a semi-automatic, civilian look-alike be by definition an "assault rifle" when it does not meet the criteria specified for one? And more, if by definition an "assault rifle" fires an intermediate cartridge but a "battle rifle" fires a full-power cartridge, how is it that an FNC and FAL are both considered an "assault rifle" under the AWB? Simple, because unlike a Buick, the term only exists in language.
A-HA!! Then , you admit that there are "specified criteria"! This changes everything....
[?][:0][?]
A-HA!! Then , you admit that there are "specified criteria"! This changes everything....
[?][:0][?]
Sure, just like there's specified criteria for a unicorn. What's your point?
quote:Originally posted by Frogbert
A-HA!! Then , you admit that there are "specified criteria"! This changes everything....
[?][:0][?]
Sure, just like there's specified criteria for a unicorn. What's your point?
POINT! THERE IS NO POINT IN THIS ENDLESS, BLATHERING EXCHANGE!!! WHO NEEDS A FLIPPING POINT?
Next...
Eventually they will get to small arms, but these are highly enlighting.
Well, when they do, be sure to let us know, okay? For now, there is nothing mentioned in your cited source remotely referring to an "assault rifle". But keep looking, Sherlock.
boeboe I did read your post[:D]theyre coming in fast though and im a slow typer[V]We are on the same side here. I just dont get the relivance of the origin of the term itself....it doesnt matter, the term is here and it isnt leaving. The important thing is how the term is defined and how the public should be educated on it,we all seem to agree on that..... K, Im over it now,have at it fellas[:D]
[;)]
We're ALL on the same side, here.[:)]
[:D]
The important thing is how the term is defined and how the public should be educated on it,we all seem to agree on that...
No cigar. Defining a term as suits a purpose is not a definition; it is an agenda. Consider: Other than perspective, what by definition is the difference between an "insurgent" and a "freedom fighter"? Between a "semi-automatic, military look-alike rifle" and an "assault rifle"? Answer: Language meaning and use. And that is exactly the problem.
quote:Originally posted by SG
The important thing is how the term is defined and how the public should be educated on it,we all seem to agree on that...
No cigar. Defining a term as suits a purpose is not a definition; it is an agenda. Consider: Other than perspective, what by definition is the difference between an "insurgent" and a "freedom fighter"? Between a "semi-automatic, military look-alike rifle" and an "assault rifle"? Answer: Language meaning and use. And that is exactly the problem.
And that is exactly the problem.....
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by SG
The important thing is how the term is defined and how the public should be educated on it,we all seem to agree on that...
No cigar. Defining a term as suits a purpose is not a definition; it is an agenda. Consider: Other than perspective, what by definition is the difference between an "insurgent" and a "freedom fighter"? Between a "semi-automatic, military look-alike rifle" and an "assault rifle"? Answer: Language meaning and use. And that is exactly the problem.
And that is exactly the problem.....
AHA! Good point.[:D]
We're ALL on the same side, here.[:)]
How very true. But as so often happens here, those of us on the same side spend countless hours and keystokes fighting/arguing with each other.
Instead, we should save our fights for the anti-gun forums.
Instead, we should save our fights for the anti-gun forums.
Sorry, but any member who insists that "assault rifles" exist or that AR15's and Mini-14's are "assault rifles" is making this an anti-gun forum. The adoption of the enemy's nomenclaure ("He's not an insurgent; he's a freedom fighter!"), even if out of sheer ignorance, does not excuse it; by virtue of one being able to recognize a term (like "unicorn") does not mean that the thing to which it refers actually exists.
Clouder..
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Instead, we should save our fights for the anti-gun forums.
Sorry, but any member who insists that "assault rifles" exist or that AR15's and Mini-14's are "assault rifles" is making this an anti-gun forum. The adoption of the enemy's nomenclaure ("He's not an insurgent; he's a freedom fighter!") out of sheer ignorance does not excuse it.
But unfortunately, it was initially "our" nomenclature. "Assault rifle" was first used by the firearms loving community. That the anti-gun forces hijacked the term and used it to promote the image of a typical "gun owner" is really not much of their fault.
Besides, why should American citizens not be allowed to own such firearms? Should we apologise for our past?
I don't think so. This continues to be a basic question regarding the Second Ammendment. The bottom line is, we SHOULD be rightfully able to own such arms, regardless of any nomenclature.
By the way, Sturmgelingus?
OH......MY.....GOD! The funniest thing I've seen on this forum for some time. Good one, Robert!
So the question that I have for all of you that consider the M14 a "battle rifle" and the M16 an "assault rifle" is: If you handload the 7.62Nato with a 125 grain bullet to a velocity of 2400 fps, so you have performance similar to the AK47, and subsequently have manageable recoil so that you can hold the trigger back while you gain fire superiority and shoot your way out of the L-ambush, does your M14 now become an "assault rifle"?
Now,see what you've done!! Just when he was getting off to sleep.[:(!]
So the question that I have for all of you that consider the M14 a "battle rifle" and the M16 an "assault rifle" is: If you handload the 7.62Nato with a 125 grain bullet to a velocity of 2400 fps, so you have performance similar to the AK47, and subsequently have manageable recoil so that you can hold the trigger back while you gain fire superiority and shoot your way out of the L-ambush, does your M14 now become an "assault rifle"?
Suppose over a period of many years you replace every original piece on your bicycle. Is it the same bicycle? Of course it's still a bicycle, but that's not the question. Similarly, if you downsize the cartridge fired by a "battle rifle" to that of an "assault rifle", or upsize the cartridge fired by an "assault rifle" to that of a "battle rifle", have you in effect changed one thing into another regardless of actual use? This is the problem with such terms; they are meaningless, except to the taxonomic compulsions of gun writers and the minds of their zombie following.
But unfortunately, it was initially "our" nomenclature. "Assault rifle" was first used by the firearms loving community.
No, it was first used by the firearms reading community, who accepted without question what gun writers like Ezell and Taylor told them. Do some research: There is no historical basis for Ezell's Sturmgewehr claim, and Taylor admitted up front that the term "assault rifle" was used only for convenience of comparison testing with its larger caliber counterparts (i.e., "battle rifles"). But what pisses me off is that some here still insist on the point just because a long time ago they read that there were "assault rifles" and "Easter Bunnies". As regards "assault rifles", this attenuation is unforgiveable, given the political climate and high stakes involved.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
But unfortunately, it was initially "our" nomenclature. "Assault rifle" was first used by the firearms loving community.
No, it was first used by the firearms reading community, who accepted without question what gun writers like Ezell and Taylor told them. Do some research: There is no historical basis for Ezell's Sturmgewehr claim, and Taylor admitted up front that the term "assault rifle" was used only for convenience of comparison testing with its larger caliber counterparts (i.e., "battle rifles"). But what pisses me off is that some here still insist on the point just because a long time ago someone told them there were "assault rifles" and "Easter Bunnies". As regards "assault rifles", this attenuation is unforegiveable, given the political climate and high stakes involved.
What I have sufficiently substantiated it that the term "assault rifle" was used by the pro-gun community as far back as the early 1960's. That is the extent of what I claim.
What I do not understand is that, as far as I can tell, everyone here seems to think the battle for gun rights is lost. Every one of you seems to be cowering in a corner, ashamed that the pro-gun community could have every used such a term.
So what is this? Hey, we might as well toss in the hat now, and slip out the back door and burry our "assault rifles" assuming erroneously that somehow, our children will be able to dig them up and use them someday. It is clear, right, the anti-gun forces have won! None of you are willing to to take a position that the American citizen has the right to own an "assault rifle", regardless of how you define that term!
That is what bothers me most in this discussion. There is a presupposition that the battle is lost. As long as we, the firearms community, are willing to refer to our firearms as "hidden pink squirrel plinkers" and not "assault rifles" we are somehow going to be safe against the anti-gun forces.
My position remains, there should be no restriction against the ownership of whatever definition of assault rifle you choose. That right is a Second Ammendment right.
As I said, it is clear to me that the overabundance of viewers here have taken the defeatist postion. They will get our firearms, all of them, and there is nothing we can do to prevent it.
I don't know why any of us could feel any different.
Foreskin and foreplay have an e after the r, unforgivable does not.
A day late and a dollar short, as usual. Isn't it time you put on your jammies with feet and cuddle with your Popeye The Sailor blowup doll?
NO!! NO!! Wait! He's up and swinging. We may have another round here folks! Don't turn that dial!
[:D][:0][:p][:D]
What I have sufficiently substantiated it that the term "assault rifle" was used by the pro-gun community as far back as the early 1960's. That is the extent of what I claim.
Sorry, boeboe, I cannot find similar substantiation. What I find is the term "assault rifle" used to name a single BM59 variant marketed by Beretta, which fired a full-power cartridge (and so by definition is not an "assault rifle" anyway), and Ezell's claim, written some twenty years after the fact, that the StG44 "was the first 'assault rifle'." I can find no other literature, other than advertisements, to support your claim. Such occurrences can hardly be characterized as "use by the pro-gun community", which did not occur until ten years later with the advent of survival and non-sporting gun rags like SWAT, Soldier of Fortune and Pistolero. I think you confuse the "pro-gun community" with the "pro-gun writing community", as there are a good number of pro-gun people (myself included) who do not acknowledge the term "assault rifle" but do acknowledge that gun writers are frequently full of crap.
quote:Originally posted by Frogbert
Foreskin and foreplay have an e after the r, unforgivable does not.
A day late and a dollar short, as usual. Isn't it time you put on your jammies with feet and cuddle with your Popeye The Sailor blowup doll?
Ho boy, you may be right. All I've got left of Popeye though, is the hat and the spinach can, since the wind caught him when practicing boarding a foreign vessel in the back yard and blew him into the razor wire.
Good night, boys, see you in the funny papers...[:D][^][|)][|)][|)]
Just because a published work uses a term, does not mean it is set in stone. The history of linguistic terms is ultimatly a meaningless activity, if one means to squeeze a final meaning out of a word. A Chevrolet is a unamibiguous term. A "jazz musician" is not. The definition of jazz is not the same for everyone. Was Zappa a jazz musician? Your answer would depend on how you wish jazz music to be defined, this is something that is not exacally uniform.
While we might agree that Armstrong was a jazz musician, it does not settle anything because the word is rife with artistic and stylistic agendas.
Reason being the the gun rights war is going to be generally decided by that huge, middle class of non-gun owners who neither like nor fear guns. It is they whom we pro-gunners and anti-gunners are playing to. So, if for no other reason than the fact that the anti-gunners WANT you, and everyone else, to use the term "assault rifle", try and stamp out that term.
In regards to so many here spending time and energy fighting with each other, you time would be better spend visiting an anti-gun site and fighting with them. You just might convert one or two of the anti-gunners. Because here basically your time is wasted as basically we are all on the same side.
JMHO
Professional Loading of Rifle, Pistol and Shotgun Cartridges by George Leonard Herter, edition of 1966, uses the term "assault rifle", referring to the 7.92 Kurz and 7.62X39 as "assault rifle cartridges", neither of which were ever chambered for the BM59. Mid 60's, use of the term in reference to the cartridges fired by the German Sturmgewehr and the AK47, respectively, and no mention of the BM59.
I'm not sure of your point here. Beretta and Ezell precede Herter, and prior use of the term was already conceded; the issue is not whether the term existed but whether the thing to which the term refers existed prior to introduction of such notation. Consider: A gun writer notes that there are distinguishing characteristics shared among certain select-fire military rifles. These characteristics include firing an intermediate cartridge from a detachable magazine. The gun writer then names this class of weapons "assault rifles", as means to distingush them from modern military rifles which do not share these characteristics ("battle rifles"). The gun writer then looks at back at recent military weapons development, and decides twenty years after the fact that the first rifle meeting the criteria of this class of weapons was the StG44, and so therefore the StG44 must have been "the first 'assault rifle'". But was it? There is a difference between grouping like things and giving it a name and saying that because a group of like things now has a name they have always been that thing. In other words, the adoption of a linguistic convention or taxonomic convenience is confused with historical fact, the problem being that the notation "assault rifle" (1) was not contemporary to the StG44 itself and (2) requires a sudden change in the common meaning of the 19th Century German word Sturm from "Storm" or "Shock" to "Assault" which is not substantiated by any military or historical record contemporary to the event.
To say that people use words incorrectly and that over time such usage becomes convention is only stating the obvious. But it is hardly the point if one is making a distinction between a term used to name a thing and the existence of the thing itself.
DWS, would you illuminate your point in terms that even an idiot like me might understand?
We as gun owners seem to have an uphill battle to hold on to what we believe. I think DWS is saying that the fact that the media and anti gun lobby has stoked this fire called assault rifle until the public is afraid to even say the word. I have that in my mind as an absolute. So what do we do? Paint our AR15s pink and give them cute little names?
I suggest that we appear less antagonistic. We put forth a more intellectual front. We show ourselves not as rabid gun toting lunatics looking for a punk to make our day, but as people who are salt of the earth trying to protect our rights and live our lives.
while clarity is at little issue here in the details, I have to try to bring us to common ground.
DWS, would you illuminate your point in terms that even an idiot like me might understand?
We as gun owners seem to have an uphill battle to hold on to what we believe. I think DWS is saying that the fact that the media and anti gun lobby has stoked this fire called assault rifle until the public is afraid to even say the word. I have that in my mind as an absolute. So what do we do? Paint our AR15s pink and give them cute little names?
I suggest that we appear less antagonistic. We put forth a more intellectual front. We show ourselves not as rabid gun toting lunatics looking for a punk to make our day, but as people who are salt of the earth trying to protect our rights and live our lives.
I think that as regards matters of law the sloppiness of parlance cannot be so easily forgiven, simply because our rights as gun owners are being taken away because of it. Unlike the term "marijuana" which names a physical thing with tangible properties and effects, the term "assault rifle" has no such corresponding palpable; it is merely a linguistic convention comparable to terms like "Far out" and "Yo, dog", which certainly have meaning and use but no correspondence to a physical thing. If you were to try to describe the difference between a semi-automatic, military look-alike rifle and an "assault rifle" as defined by the AWB, you would not be able to say the difference except to point to certain features or characteristics like a bayonet lug or collapsible stock. But what do these features have to do with something being an "assault rifle", when to begin with an "assault rifle" is by definition a select fire weapon? No matter that a heretofore legal "semi-automatic, military look-alike rifle" has been misnamed and in so doing demonized, it is now illegal and controlled, and this for reasons totally removed from any actual purpose, function and use. Compare this with marijuana, and you see an entirely different type of law being imposed, one which can turn any thing into an assault thing simply by mention of the word.
are we not, then, asking that the "ignorant masses" be re-indoctrinated?
ding ding ding...it's starting to get there.
are we not, then, asking that the "ignorant masses" be re-indoctrinated?
I'm afraid the damage is done and irrevocable. Historically, a term used or misused for a prolonged period is resistent to change, and this even in light of indisputable cause for correction. Perhaps one ploy might be to get gun makers and distributors to henceforth refer to all such firearms as "Homeland Rifles"; perhaps over time and by determined use, "Homeland Rifle" will replace "assault rifle" in much the same way that "physically challenged" replaced "handicapped". The problem is, there is a large group of people intent on keeping this from happening, as the term "assault rifle" has served their anti-gun agenda for more than twenty years, aided and abetted by pro-gun people too ignorant to know any better.
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
ding ding ding...it's starting to get there.
are we not, then, asking that the "ignorant masses" be re-indoctrinated?
I'm afraid the damage is done and irrevocable. Historically, a term used or misused for a prolonged period is resistent to change, and this even in light of indisputable cause for correction. Perhaps one ploy might be to get gun makers and distributors to henceforth refer to all such firearms as "Homeland Rifles"; perhaps over time and by determined use, "Homeland Rifle" will replace "assault rifle" in much the same way that "physically challenged" replaced "handicapped". The problem is, there is a large group of people intent on keeping this from happening, as the term "assault rifle" has served their anti-gun agenda for more than twenty years, aided and abetted by pro-gun people too ignorant to know any better.
I almost feel like we are sitting here as a misunderstood cult, represented by images of the guy from "tremors".
I am, as are most of you, a decent guy that happens to believe that we all have the right to own firearms. I happen to believe that the drafters of the constitution had great respect for human nature and the strength of the individual. I think there is great logic in an armed populace as balance of power was a cornerstone of our political and governmental system. Just because the technology of weaponry has advanced doesn't mean it is any less necessary.
Clouder..