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 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.
In red above. Hehehehehe. I can't help but like that statement.
I think the Thompson gun could have been called the first "assault rifle". It has full auto capability, sub-rifle powered round, flash hider/compensator, prominent pistol grip, split upper and lower receiver, many of the things we use to define "assault rifle" today.
Which just goes to show that firearms, like a lot of mechanical devices, do not spring from the mind of a single inventor in a single invention, but evolve over time. Every modern mechanical invention is derivative, starting with the stone wheel, which evolved from the wooden log.
Language evolves the same way. The military does not have control over language, it also evolves. While you might think the military defines terms for its weapons, that is not so. Look at the Bazooka. No military organization named the bazooka, the GI's named it, the brass went along with it.
Even if no military organization ever acknowledges or uses the term "assault rifle" it's heaere to stay and will probably become more and more used over time until the debate over it's origin fades and folks just accept it.
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
I think the Thompson gun could have been called the first "assault rifle". It has full auto capability, sub-rifle powered round, flash hider/compensator, prominent pistol grip, split upper and lower receiver, many of the things we use to define "assault rifle" today.
No cigar. The Thompson fires a pistol cartridge, not an intermediate rifle cartridge, and is by definition a "submachinegun". How about the M2 Carbine?
quote:
The military does not have control over language, it also evolves. While you might think the military defines terms for its weapons, that is not so. Look at the Bazooka. No military organization named the bazooka, the GI's named it, the brass went along with it.
Bogus analogy. That "Bazooka" drives its name from what G.I.'s called the 2.75 in rocket launcher is not how "assault rifle" was given to name an AK47 or M16. Just as "rubber Mary" refers to what grunts call an air mattress, "bazooka" is jargon popularized by military personnel for an existing military item; "assault rifle" is not a military term but rather a fiction contrived by civilians who have no business or say in military nomenclature.
Just too bad we cannot get all this erudite discussion concerning how we still call it "Gun Rights"..when one has to get on their belly and beg some 'official' to exercise it...
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.
You are a reasonably good composition student, sonny, but let's restructure that line a bit, as follows: "I'm afraid the damage is done, and irrevocably so."
Now, don't fret. You just keep trying and you'll get it down, one of these days.[:)]
Okay, before reading this post, I am requesting that you do something first. Go to google, and do a search for "assault rifle sale". Look particularly at the first one or two, and then browse through a couple of pages. Count the number of pro-gun sites, firearm dealers, etc, that currently appear to have no qualms about attracting people by using the term "assault rifle". Go ahead and visit some of the dealers who are showing up, and when you visit their on-line store, do a search within their site for the word "assault", and see what pops up. How many times are firearms related dealers using the term "assault rifle", "assault weapon" and such to advertise their products?
Do a google search for "assault rifle auction", and look at the first couple of pages. Look at the web sites that come up when you do a search for "assault rifle auction", just out of curiosity. Heck, use some imagination, and do searches for variations on the theme, such as "assault weapon sks" or similar variations on the theme.
Shucks, before you get all wound up, perhaps you have a couple or more favorite on-line firearm related businesses you buy from. Go to their site, and on their site, do a search for "assault". What pops up?
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
I'm afraid the damage is done and irrevocable.
That is a given, accept it.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
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.
It is largely a matter of business sense vs. political ignorance. If you had performed the searches I indicated, and looked around, it is quite simple, the word "ASSAULT" SELLS AN ITEM! We now have assault holsters, assault backpacks, assault boots, and an assault flashlight? Apparently, there is a significant portion of the population that won't buy an item unless the word "assault" is tacked on front. The word will continue to attract a certain type of person, and there will always be savey businessmen willing to sell to these individuals. The word "assault" was used as a marketing ploy 40 years ago, and it continues to be employed the same way today.
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 just took it to mean now there is evidence of a reloading manual dating to the 1960's that used the term "assault rifle" in what was considered a benign way. So now we have one firearm manufacturer, three advertisers, and one reloading manual suggesting that the term was being used to convey a general sense of the nature of a firearm.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
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 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
Guys, I admire you for your intentions and commitment. Yes, it would seem logical to attempt to stamp out the term if possible, but as DWS said, "the damage is done and irrevocable." Before we (as a firearms community) could even begin to try to stamp the words from the vocabulary of the anti-gun forces, we would have to somehow make it clear to all those on "our side" that there are grave consequences for continuing to use the term. Frankly, that is not going to happen, because there are far too many consumers willing to buy something if has the word "assault" tacked to the front, and businessmen will continue to cater to those individuals.
This is a catch 22 situation. Any noticeable attempt to eradicate the term from the collective vocabulary will be recognized by the anti-gun forces. If the greater portion of the "pro-gun" forces begins boycotts against those who deal in what they wish to call "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", the first thing that would probably happen is the sale of assault flashlights and assault boots will skyrocket. Those FFL dealers, as well as the manufacturers of accessories who see a benefit from the use of the term "assault" and who continue to see economic gratification from the use of the term will object because we are somehow attempting to infringe on their own First Amendment rights. And while all this is happening, the anti-gun forces will sit back and take notes (while they catch their breath between laughing spells). I can see the evening news now, "firearm organization XYZ boycotts marketers who use the term "assault weapons" or something to that effect.
And then, assuming it was possible to get all the pro-firearm forces on the "same page", it would then be necessary to somehow attack the anti-gun forces for using this term. A term that has been so commonly used within the firearms community for so many years, it can never really be denied. "They" will simply not let this word die, it will continue to exist regardless of your best intentions. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If you don't want to use the term, don't, and feel free to explain why. But this battle you are proposing is untenable. My own attitude is, if there is a poll asking, "should Americans have the right to own assault weapons" I will answer yes. It really doesn't matter what your definition of assault rifle is, we need to answer, "yes".
quote:Originally posted by Frogbert
You are a reasonably good composition student, sonny, but let's restructure that line a bit, as follows: "I'm afraid the damage is done, and irrevocably in."
'Fraid not. Both "done" and "irrevocable" are adjectives of the noun "damage". You end a sentence with a preposition and then presume to be instructing anyone?
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
It is largely a matter of business sense vs. political ignorance. If you had performed the searches I indicated, and looked around, it is quite simple, the word "ASSAULT" SELLS AN ITEM! We now have assault holsters, assault backpacks, assault boots, and an assault flashlight? Apparently, there is a significant portion of the population that won't buy an item unless the word "assault" is tacked on front. The word will continue to attract a certain type of person, and there will always be savey businessmen willing to sell to these individuals. The word "assault" was used as a marketing ploy 40 years ago, and it continues to be employed the same way today.
There is a world of difference between a term used to push product and a legal term used to polarize public opinion and enact restrictive gun laws. The current appeal of those items said to be an "assault" this or a "tactical" that is laughable to me; what is not so laughable is the conviction on the part of even pro-gun people that "assault rifles" exist outside of language (read: beyond legal description). I further suggest that it is not the specific laws themselves that should give us the most concern, but rather the method used to draft and pass these laws, and this because such manipulations of language can be used to infringe on any remaining Constitutional rights we may have. It is the same method used to supplant the term "invasion of privacy" with "homeland security" and a whole laundry list of other redefinitions as suits the agendas of those with the power to realize them. The issue is a lot bigger than just RKBA.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
It is largely a matter of business sense vs. political ignorance. If you had performed the searches I indicated, and looked around, it is quite simple, the word "ASSAULT" SELLS AN ITEM! We now have assault holsters, assault backpacks, assault boots, and an assault flashlight? Apparently, there is a significant portion of the population that won't buy an item unless the word "assault" is tacked on front. The word will continue to attract a certain type of person, and there will always be savey businessmen willing to sell to these individuals. The word "assault" was used as a marketing ploy 40 years ago, and it continues to be employed the same way today.
There is a world of difference between a term used to push product and a legal term used to polarize public opinion and enact restrictive gun laws. The current appeal of those items said to be an "assault" this or a "tactical" that is laughable to me; what is not so laughable is the conviction on the part of even pro-gun people that "assault rifles" exist outside of language (read: beyond legal description). I further suggest that it is not the specific laws themselves that should give us the most concern, but rather the method used to draft and pass these laws, and this because such manipulations of language can be used to infringe on any remaining Constitutional rights we may have. It is the same method used to supplant the term "invasion of privacy" with "homeland security" and a whole laundry list of other redefinitions as suits the agendas of those with the power to realize them. The issue is a lot bigger than just RKBA.
Great discussion, DWS, I agree with you in so many ways, I hope this topic is not "poofed" or locked....
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by Frogbert
You are a reasonably good composition student, sonny, but let's restructure that line a bit, as follows: "I'm afraid the damage is done, and irrevocably in."
'Fraid not. Both "done" and "irrevocable" are adjectives of the noun "damage". You end a sentence with a preposition and then presume to be instructing anyone?
So now you resort to "misquoting a source" to make a point.
I didn't write "irrevocably in". I wrote "irrevocably so", and formed an adverbial phrase, modifying the verb "done". Your origional sentence is not technically incorrect, just clumsy.
But then, you're just a mudslugging jarhead. Nobody expects you to be able to actually write.[:D][:o)][:D]
If you don't want to use the term, don't, and feel free to explain why. But this battle you are proposing is untenable. My own attitude is, if there is a poll asking, "should Americans have the right to own assault weapons" I will answer yes. It really doesn't matter what your definition of assault rifle is, we need to answer, "yes".
Howsabout if we compromise and do it your way and my way? Depending on what type of discussion we are in (your poll above, the debate here) participate in the manner that will help gun rights the most?
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
to save time and effort, I asked the woman that knows everything, (read my wife) what an assault rifle is.
I am pleased to let you know that they are:"high powered multi bullet shooting quick shooting thingy rifle"
now....my second question to her was: "are you afraid of them" and her answer: "yes stupid, they are dangerous"
3rd question: "are you afraid of my shotguns?" "no, they are beautiful and used for hunting."
"have you ever seen an 'assault rifle'?" "no, aren't they illegal?"
I think this is a wonderful example of the public's perception of this.
Gived her a big hand for being our guinea pig.
One of the shortest, poignant, and enlightening posts on this thread. In a few short sentences the poster has shown us exactly how bad the situation really is.
Everyone here who thinks it is OK to to continue widely using the term "assault weapon" and to claim, without qualifying the term that Americans should be allowed to own them, should ask someone close to them (wife, child, non-gun owning brother/sister, etc) what an "assault weapon" is and should gun owners be allowed to own them. Only then will you start to believe how dangerous to gun rights the situation is. If the anti-gunners get back into strong political power (they will) it will be relatively easy for them to get broad and strong support for outlawing all "assault weapons". This term can easily be expanded to include high capacity handguns as well as ANY high capacity rifle or shot gun as was done with the Streetsweeper shotgun, which I believe is still illegal.
So maybe each of us should quit using the term, try to correct someone when we hear them use it, and when the subject comes up voice our opinion by saying that "yes, lawful Americans should be allowed to own assault weapons". I believe that covers all the bases.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
to save time and effort, I asked the woman that knows everything, (read my wife) what an assault rifle is.
I am pleased to let you know that they are:"high powered multi bullet shooting quick shooting thingy rifle"
now....my second question to her was: "are you afraid of them" and her answer: "yes stupid, they are dangerous"
3rd question: "are you afraid of my shotguns?" "no, they are beautiful and used for hunting."
"have you ever seen an 'assault rifle'?" "no, aren't they illegal?"
I think this is a wonderful example of the public's perception of this.
Gived her a big hand for being our guinea pig.
One of the shortest, poignant, and enlightening posts on this thread. In a few short sentences the poster has shown up exactly how bad the situation really is.
Everyone here who thinks it is OK to to continue widely using the term "assault weapon" and to claim, without qualifying the term that Americans should be allowed to own them, should ask someone close to them (wife, child, non-gun owning brother/sister, etc) what an "assault weapon" is and should gun owners be allowed to own them. Only then will you start to believe how dangerous to gun rights the situation is. If the anti-gunners get back into strong political power (they will) it will be relatively easy for them to get broad and strong support for outlawing all "assault weapons". This term can easily be expanded to include high capacity handguns as well as ANY high capacity rifle or shot gun as was done with the Streetsweeper shotgun, which I believe is still illegal.
So maybe each of us should quit using the term, try to correct someone when we hear them use it, and when the subject comes up voice our opinion by saying that "yes, lawful Americans should be allowed to own assault weapons". I believe that covers all the bases.
JMHO
Thanks TR...I am glad I was able to make my point...and yes that conversation really did happen.
I also agree that it is with patience and consideration that we will get farther along in our desire to protect our rights.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
There is a world of difference between a term used to push product and a legal term used to polarize public opinion and enact restrictive gun laws.
And the term "assault rifle" remains, after all these years, something that is used both to push product and a legal term used to polarize public opinion and enact restrictive gun laws. I strongly suspect that in the future it will continue to remain both.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
The current appeal of those items said to be an "assault" this or a "tactical" that is laughable to me;
Of course it is, to a point, but should be looked at with some seriousness as well. It goes to show the tremendous power of the word. We now have assault holsters, assault boots, assault flashlights, etc, etc, and only because of the widespread use and acceptance of terms such as "assault rifle" and "assault weapon".
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
what is not so laughable is the conviction on the part of even pro-gun people that "assault rifles" exist outside of language (read: beyond legal description).
Agreed. I am not arguing that there is one specific definition of the term, it is apparent just from this discussion that there are several definitions. These include legal definitions (and even those might vary from State to State), technical definitions (as so many argue here, ie, intermediate cartridge, capable of full auto or burst fire, etc), and personal definitions (as in, I want an assault rifle, is the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle a good choice?). Of course, these are only examples of the different definitions used. Beretta, apparently, has their own definition. Understand, I am not subscribing to any one definition. I am simply pointing out this condition.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
I further suggest that it is not the specific laws themselves that should give us the most concern, but rather the method used to draft and pass these laws, and this because such manipulations of language can be used to infringe on any remaining Constitutional rights we may have
Of course, as I think I said (or implied) earlier, the use of the term can be misconstrued very easily. We all know the liberal press and gun-grabbers want everyone to believe that "assault rifles" are "automatic weapons", and they are not going to be willing to explain that fully automatic weapons are already controlled, and that "assault weapons laws" have nothing to do with full auto. Again, going to the multiple definitions used, and how confounding those diverse definitions can make things.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
It is the same method used to supplant the term "invasion of privacy" with "homeland security" and a whole laundry list of other redefinitions as suits the agendas of those with the power to realize them. The issue is a lot bigger than just RKBA.
Well, that's ANOTHER can of worms!
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
orginally posted by BoeBoe:
If you don't want to use the term, don't, and feel free to explain why. But this battle you are proposing is untenable. My own attitude is, if there is a poll asking, "should Americans have the right to own assault weapons" I will answer yes. It really doesn't matter what your definition of assault rifle is, we need to answer, "yes".
Somehow I fail to see what I am suppose to be compromising. Already, I only use the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" to point out particular facts. Examples of such facts may include (1) Beretta used the term to describe their BM59 during the 1960's, or (2) the AR15 is legally defined as an assault rifle in the State of California, or (3) the anti-gun community uses the term "assault rifle" to instill fear in the general population. I can also say that (4) the term "assault rifle" carries no negative connotations with me personally, and regardless of how you define "assault rifle", I like them, and believe Americans should have the right to own them. I can also say that (5) I see no reason for the pro-gun forces to apologize to the gun-grabbers for first using the term.
I cannot compromise facts. Do I like the fact that the gun-grabbers use the term in the manner they do? Of course not. Do I like the fact that many people believe the SKS and the Mini-14 are assault rifles? Of course not. I already correct people when they use the term in a manner that is "out of context" for a particular discussion. Will I cower with remorse or fear when it is used in the correct context? No. I fail to see what sort of compromise or concession I should really make. Long, long before this particular discussion came up, I understood the dangers of flippantly using the term. I know exactly what you guys are saying. But the damage is done. This is not a term we will be able to stomp from existence. If every gun owner in the country swore an oath to never let the words pass from their lips again, it will still be used. It is, unfortunately, a phrase with that much power.
Can't we just agree that the "assault weapons" term usage is not a black and white, either or yes or no type of situation. Just as when you wash your hands to help prevent disease, you know that you are only helping the odds of not contracting some hand-borne bacteria causing you a disease. But sometimes, for one reason or another, even when you wash your hands you will still contact a disease from bacteria on your hands. But it makes sense to keep on washing our hands. Sense for the good it actually does as well as for the fact that it is just plain the smart thing to do.
Same with gunners not helping to popularize the term, as well as making some effort to supress the term and to try to explain the term to people when it is incorrectly used. Otherwise we will have let the anti-gunners hang a sign around our neck that says "This gunner thinks he should be able to own a machine gun ('assault rifle').
I, for one, am not going to let the anti-gunners do that to me, without a lifetime of fighting back by me.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Can't we just agree that the "assault weapons" term usage is not a black and white, either or yes or no type of situation. Just as when you wash your hands to help prevent disease, you know that you are only helping the odds of not contracting some hand-borne bacteria causing you a disease. But sometimes, for one reason or another, even when you wash your hands you will still contact a disease from bacteria on your hands. But it makes sense to keep on washing our hands. Sense for the good it actually does as well as for the fact that it is just plain the smart thing to do.
Same with gunners not helping to popularize the term, as well as making some effort to supress the term and to try to explain the term to people when it is incorrectly used. Otherwise we will have let the anti-gunners hang a sign around our neck that says "This gunner thinks he should be able to own a machine gun ('assault rifle').
I, for one, am not going to let the anti-gunners do that to me, without a lifetime of fighting back by me.
I honestly don't feel like I am arguing with anyone here, except perhaps that there seems to be building evidence that the term was used more prolifically 30 and 40 years ago than people are willing to admit. If anyone cared to spend a few days reading old copies of Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Gun Digest, etc, etc, I think that would become clear, but I don't see the need for it.
The only other reason I can think that most people here and I are not in agreement is the basic principle that it should not matter what the name of a firearm is, or classification, the Second Ammendment indicates a person should be able to own such, because the right "shall not be infringed". Over, and over, and over again, the right has been infringed. And the only reason it has been infringed is because those who support the Second Ammendment let their guard down, and were willing to compromise.
If anything has been learned by Second Ammendment supporters over the last century, it is that when bleeding heart liberals come pleading to compromise our position, we should tell them to turn around and bend over.
If some anti-gun nut wants to tag me with a sign that says I think the right of Americans to own machine guns or assault rifles should not be infringed, I am fine with that. If they want to attempt to gain enough support to pass a Constitutional Ammendment to the contrary, that is their perogative.
And as far as I am concerned, it is their only option.
Pardon me, but I'm going to jump in here, just for a second.
Dances, you wrote - "... and (2) requires a sudden change in the common meaning of the 19th Century German word Sturm from "Storm" or "Shock" to "Assault"... ."
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but, ............
...... doesn't the word "storm", in all languages, have the additional meaning of "assault"? Consider, "The brave knights, undaunted by the threat of boiling oil, stormed the castle."
Doesn't the word "storm" in this example clearly translate to "assault"?
quote:Originally posted by .280 freak
Pardon me, but I'm going to jump in here, just for a second.
Dances, you wrote - "... and (2) requires a sudden change in the common meaning of the 19th Century German word Sturm from "Storm" or "Shock" to "Assault"... ."
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but, ............
...... doesn't the word "storm", in all languages, have the additional meaning of "assault"? Consider, "The brave knights, undaunted by the threat of boiling oil, stormed the castle."
Doesn't the word "storm" in this example clearly translate to "assault"?
quote:Originally posted by .280 freak
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but, ............
I'm afraid you have to dig a little deeper than consulting a thesaurus. Like maybe read some German history. The term Sturmtruppen (Stormtrooper) dates back to the late 1800's. Sturm in this context (and until the early 1960's) was always translated as Storm or Shock. How terribly and wonderfully convenient that that translation should suddenly change with Ezell, 20 years after the advent of the StG44. But while we're on synonyms, how about a few for "assault"... like "molest" and "violate". Maybe the Sturmgewehr was really "the first molestation rifle", Eva Braun's bedside companion?
I'm still considering the first part of the opening sentence- that being that the poster wants to get a rifle with the aforementioned characteristics. I do not begrudge anyone the right to own or like what they want, though I do prefer to roll-up the car window when another car at the stoplight has rap noise reverberating from their vehicle. I do wonder what the attraction of these semi-auto version of military rifles is. I admit that I tend towards older, more conservative things and styles, so it comes as no surprise when I say that I prefer Winchester M12,21,54,70,1885,1886,1894 along with other rifles like the Springfield 1903 Mark I. Having gotten over my desire to use a rifle like a garden hose several years back, I prefer actions of forged steel and barrels capable of precisely placing well placed shots.
So those that prefer rifles like the M16, AKs, SKS and the like, What is it about those rifles that attract you to them?
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by .280 freak
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but, ............
I'm afraid you have to dig a little deeper than consulting a thesaurus. Like maybe read some German history. The term Sturmtruppen (Stormtrooper) dates back to the late 1800's. Sturm in this context (and until the early 1960's) was always translated as Storm or Shock. How terribly and wonderfully convenient that that translation should suddenly change with Ezell, 20 years after the advent of the StG44. But while we're on synonyms, how about a few for "assault"... like "molest" and "violate". Maybe the Sturmgewehr was really "the first molestation rifle", Eva Braun's bedside companion?
I would agree it may take some deeper research, but .280 freaks conjecture seems, at face value, to be extremely valid. I consider the point is very well taken. Generally, the similarity in ancestry and commonalties between the German and English people is well known. Even during WWII, their characteristics as "cousins" were capitalized upon in propoganda released by the German government. To be realistic, we would really need to dig into distant commonalties of the language of these people and see if it would be appropriate for the Germanic people to use a term such as "strum" for "assault". The point of .280 freak is very well submitted, and deserves attention.
They're light, quick-handling, powerful and accurate enough to be very effective, have a high-capacity capability, and use ammo that is easier to carry in larger numbers.
quote:Originally posted by Ray B
I'm still considering the first part of the opening sentence- that being that the poster wants to get a rifle with the aforementioned characteristics. I do not begrudge anyone the right to own or like what they want, though I do prefer to roll-up the car window when another car at the stoplight has rap noise reverberating from their vehicle. I do wonder what the attraction of these semi-auto version of military rifles is. I admit that I tend towards older, more conservative things and styles, so it comes as no surprise when I say that I prefer Winchester M12,21,54,70,1885,1886,1894 along with other rifles like the Springfield 1903 Mark I. Having gotten over my desire to use a rifle like a garden hose several years back, I prefer actions of forged steel and barrels capable of precisely placing well placed shots.
So those that prefer rifles like the M16, AKs, SKS and the like, What is it about those rifles that attract you to them?
I don't necessarily prefer one over the other, but have at least a couple of each style that you mention. If I'm hunting, then usually the Win-94 is with me. If it's home defense, my personal choice is a Rem. 870. For shooting clays, Benelli M-1, for nostalgic plinking, Springfield 1861, or 1888.
I like the lever and bolt guns, but when the indians attack, I'll be reaching for the AC556, or AR-15 before reaching for the 1903 or Garand.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by .280 freak
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but, ............
I'm afraid you have to dig a little deeper than consulting a thesaurus. Like maybe read some German history. The term Sturmtruppen (Stormtrooper) dates back to the late 1800's. Sturm in this context (and until the early 1960's) was always translated as Storm or Shock. How terribly and wonderfully convenient that that translation should suddenly change with Ezell, 20 years after the advent of the StG44. But while we're on synonyms, how about a few for "assault"... like "molest" and "violate". Maybe the Sturmgewehr was really "the first molestation rifle", Eva Braun's bedside companion?
I would agree it may take some deeper research, but .280 freaks conjecture seems, at face value, to be extremely valid. I consider the point is very well taken. Generally, the similarity in ancestry and commonalties between the German and English people is well known. Even during WWII, their characteristics as "cousins" were capitalized upon in propoganda released by the German government. To be realistic, we would really need to dig into distant commonalties of the language of these people and see if it would be appropriate for the Germanic people to use a term such as "strum" for "assault". The point of .280 freak is very well submitted, and deserves attention.
I give you good reason why it doesn't and in rebuttal you merely insist on the claim as if your agreement and iteration is a substitute for evidence. Perhaps a better and proper rebuttal would be to consult historical records to find instances where the proper noun Sturmtruppen appears as "Assault Trooper" rather than "Storm Trooper". Be advised, however, that mere mention that Storm Troopers "assaulted Cambrai" does not constitute evidence of a change in such translation, as "Storm Troops" or "Shock Troops" is a specific name for a specific class of German soldiers, in much the same way that SEALS is a specific name for a specific class of American sailors. In other words, not all German soldiers who assaulted positions were Sturmtruppen, any more than all sailors are SEALS.
quote:Originally posted by Ray B
I'm still considering the first part of the opening sentence- that being that the poster wants to get a rifle with the aforementioned characteristics. I do not begrudge anyone the right to own or like what they want, though I do prefer to roll-up the car window when another car at the stoplight has rap noise reverberating from their vehicle. I do wonder what the attraction of these semi-auto version of military rifles is. I admit that I tend towards older, more conservative things and styles, so it comes as no surprise when I say that I prefer Winchester M12,21,54,70,1885,1886,1894 along with other rifles like the Springfield 1903 Mark I. Having gotten over my desire to use a rifle like a garden hose several years back, I prefer actions of forged steel and barrels capable of precisely placing well placed shots.
So those that prefer rifles like the M16, AKs, SKS and the like, What is it about those rifles that attract you to them?
Interestingly, when it comes to handguns I doubt you want a single shot handgun; or any handgun that has to be operated like a bolt action, pump or single shot rifle. I am sure that when it comes to handguns, you demand one that will hold numerous rounds and give you one shot per one trigger pull.
However,yours is a very fair and honest question. In answer I would say that, even if I had no attraction to military semi-automatic look-alikes, I would STILL defend the right of lawful gun owners to freely buy, sell, use and own such firearms.
I would take this stand for at least three good reasons. #1 The Second Amendment, and my state of KS state constitution giving citizens the right of firearm ownership, gives absoutely no hint of there being any right for the government or for the anti-gun crowd to single out one particular type of firearm which can be banned. Therefore I do not want to see a trend started whereas the government and the anti-gun crowd can/will say that "yes" we gunners have the right to own firearms, but not that particular type of firearm . If we gunners were to let this situation come about, I can guarantee you that the group of firearms that we could not own would get larger and larger and the group of firearms we could own would get smaller and smaller. At some point we gunners would be left with single shot rifles/shotguns and, if we were lucky, 5 shot revolvers.
#2. If I did not care for military semi-auto look-alikes, I would still defend my fellow gunners rights to own such firearms. I would do this in the hopes my fellow gunners would respond in kind and help me defend my rights to own firearms they may not care about.
#3. If we gunners allow and accept the anti-gun crowd's claim that certain firearms can/should be banned basically just because of the way they look, then pretty soon ALL firearms will LOOK like to the government and anti-gun crowd that ALL firearms need to be banned.
BTW, while I don't want one, I am still unsure if the government was on good legal ground to ban machine guns in the 1920-30's. In a way that almost sets a precedent that certain guns can be banned simply because of the way they function. This also leads to the situation we have now in that if a firearm looks like a machine gun, then it must be an "evil" gun. This in spite of the fact that my AR-15 is no more of a machine gun than my 6 shot revolver which, like my AR-15 only fires one shot per one trigger pull
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Can't we just agree that the "assault weapons" term usage is not a black and white, either or yes or no type of situation. Just as when you wash your hands to help prevent disease, you know that you are only helping the odds of not contracting some hand-borne bacteria causing you a disease. But sometimes, for one reason or another, even when you wash your hands you will still contact a disease from bacteria on your hands. But it makes sense to keep on washing our hands. Sense for the good it actually does as well as for the fact that it is just plain the smart thing to do.
Same with gunners not helping to popularize the term, as well as making some effort to supress the term and to try to explain the term to people when it is incorrectly used. Otherwise we will have let the anti-gunners hang a sign around our neck that says "This gunner thinks he should be able to own a machine gun ('assault rifle').
I, for one, am not going to let the anti-gunners do that to me, without a lifetime of fighting back by me.
I honestly don't feel like I am arguing with anyone here, except perhaps that there seems to be building evidence that the term was used more prolifically 30 and 40 years ago than people are willing to admit. If anyone cared to spend a few days reading old copies of Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Gun Digest, etc, etc, I think that would become clear, but I don't see the need for it.
The only other reason I can think that most people here and I are not in agreement is the basic principle that it should not matter what the name of a firearm is, or classification, the Second Ammendment indicates a person should be able to own such, because the right "shall not be infringed". Over, and over, and over again, the right has been infringed. And the only reason it has been infringed is because those who support the Second Ammendment let their guard down, and were willing to compromise.
If anything has been learned by Second Ammendment supporters over the last century, it is that when bleeding heart liberals come pleading to compromise our position, we should tell them to turn around and bend over.
If some anti-gun nut wants to tag me with a sign that says I think the right of Americans to own machine guns or assault rifles should not be infringed, I am fine with that. If they want to attempt to gain enough support to pass a Constitutional Ammendment to the contrary, that is their perogative.
And as far as I am concerned, it is their only option.
I fear you have forgotten about Clinton's 10 year "assault weapons" ban from 1994-2004. Surely that disproves your statement in red. And you can bank of the fact that such a ban will return. In fact, in some states/cities it never went away. Instead it became a local ban instead of a federal ban. Instead of arguering debating endlessly among ourselves, we need to unite and provide a common front and act in concert for a common goal. From the endless debates here you can see that is not happening now.
Comments
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.
In red above. Hehehehehe. I can't help but like that statement.
Which just goes to show that firearms, like a lot of mechanical devices, do not spring from the mind of a single inventor in a single invention, but evolve over time. Every modern mechanical invention is derivative, starting with the stone wheel, which evolved from the wooden log.
Language evolves the same way. The military does not have control over language, it also evolves. While you might think the military defines terms for its weapons, that is not so. Look at the Bazooka. No military organization named the bazooka, the GI's named it, the brass went along with it.
Even if no military organization ever acknowledges or uses the term "assault rifle" it's heaere to stay and will probably become more and more used over time until the debate over it's origin fades and folks just accept it.
I think the Thompson gun could have been called the first "assault rifle". It has full auto capability, sub-rifle powered round, flash hider/compensator, prominent pistol grip, split upper and lower receiver, many of the things we use to define "assault rifle" today.
No cigar. The Thompson fires a pistol cartridge, not an intermediate rifle cartridge, and is by definition a "submachinegun". How about the M2 Carbine?
quote:
The military does not have control over language, it also evolves. While you might think the military defines terms for its weapons, that is not so. Look at the Bazooka. No military organization named the bazooka, the GI's named it, the brass went along with it.
Bogus analogy. That "Bazooka" drives its name from what G.I.'s called the 2.75 in rocket launcher is not how "assault rifle" was given to name an AK47 or M16. Just as "rubber Mary" refers to what grunts call an air mattress, "bazooka" is jargon popularized by military personnel for an existing military item; "assault rifle" is not a military term but rather a fiction contrived by civilians who have no business or say in military nomenclature.
Still thinks y'alls queer...
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.
You are a reasonably good composition student, sonny, but let's restructure that line a bit, as follows: "I'm afraid the damage is done, and irrevocably so."
Now, don't fret. You just keep trying and you'll get it down, one of these days.[:)]
[:D][}:)][:D]
Do a google search for "assault rifle auction", and look at the first couple of pages. Look at the web sites that come up when you do a search for "assault rifle auction", just out of curiosity. Heck, use some imagination, and do searches for variations on the theme, such as "assault weapon sks" or similar variations on the theme.
Shucks, before you get all wound up, perhaps you have a couple or more favorite on-line firearm related businesses you buy from. Go to their site, and on their site, do a search for "assault". What pops up?
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
I'm afraid the damage is done and irrevocable.
That is a given, accept it.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
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.
It is largely a matter of business sense vs. political ignorance. If you had performed the searches I indicated, and looked around, it is quite simple, the word "ASSAULT" SELLS AN ITEM! We now have assault holsters, assault backpacks, assault boots, and an assault flashlight? Apparently, there is a significant portion of the population that won't buy an item unless the word "assault" is tacked on front. The word will continue to attract a certain type of person, and there will always be savey businessmen willing to sell to these individuals. The word "assault" was used as a marketing ploy 40 years ago, and it continues to be employed the same way today.
http://oakley.com/o/o1691d
http://www.lara.com/reviews/sf-m6.htm
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 just took it to mean now there is evidence of a reloading manual dating to the 1960's that used the term "assault rifle" in what was considered a benign way. So now we have one firearm manufacturer, three advertisers, and one reloading manual suggesting that the term was being used to convey a general sense of the nature of a firearm.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
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 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
Guys, I admire you for your intentions and commitment. Yes, it would seem logical to attempt to stamp out the term if possible, but as DWS said, "the damage is done and irrevocable." Before we (as a firearms community) could even begin to try to stamp the words from the vocabulary of the anti-gun forces, we would have to somehow make it clear to all those on "our side" that there are grave consequences for continuing to use the term. Frankly, that is not going to happen, because there are far too many consumers willing to buy something if has the word "assault" tacked to the front, and businessmen will continue to cater to those individuals.
This is a catch 22 situation. Any noticeable attempt to eradicate the term from the collective vocabulary will be recognized by the anti-gun forces. If the greater portion of the "pro-gun" forces begins boycotts against those who deal in what they wish to call "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", the first thing that would probably happen is the sale of assault flashlights and assault boots will skyrocket. Those FFL dealers, as well as the manufacturers of accessories who see a benefit from the use of the term "assault" and who continue to see economic gratification from the use of the term will object because we are somehow attempting to infringe on their own First Amendment rights. And while all this is happening, the anti-gun forces will sit back and take notes (while they catch their breath between laughing spells). I can see the evening news now, "firearm organization XYZ boycotts marketers who use the term "assault weapons" or something to that effect.
And then, assuming it was possible to get all the pro-firearm forces on the "same page", it would then be necessary to somehow attack the anti-gun forces for using this term. A term that has been so commonly used within the firearms community for so many years, it can never really be denied. "They" will simply not let this word die, it will continue to exist regardless of your best intentions. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If you don't want to use the term, don't, and feel free to explain why. But this battle you are proposing is untenable. My own attitude is, if there is a poll asking, "should Americans have the right to own assault weapons" I will answer yes. It really doesn't matter what your definition of assault rifle is, we need to answer, "yes".
You are a reasonably good composition student, sonny, but let's restructure that line a bit, as follows: "I'm afraid the damage is done, and irrevocably in."
'Fraid not. Both "done" and "irrevocable" are adjectives of the noun "damage". You end a sentence with a preposition and then presume to be instructing anyone?
http://www.extextoys.com/vfxashel1.html
"assault holster"
http://www.copsplus.com/prodnum3310.php
"assault T-Shirt"
http://skibuckmans.com/product_view.php?age=&category=178&subcategory=244&id=2105
"assault sunglasses"
http://shop.vendio.com/sinfultrends/item/736724239/?s=1149069602
"assault vests"
http://www.army-surplus.co.uk/Merchant2/4.13/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=1&Category_Code=V
"assault vehicle"
http://www.cloudster.com/sets&vehicles/Stripes/UrbanAssaultVehicleTop.htm
It is largely a matter of business sense vs. political ignorance. If you had performed the searches I indicated, and looked around, it is quite simple, the word "ASSAULT" SELLS AN ITEM! We now have assault holsters, assault backpacks, assault boots, and an assault flashlight? Apparently, there is a significant portion of the population that won't buy an item unless the word "assault" is tacked on front. The word will continue to attract a certain type of person, and there will always be savey businessmen willing to sell to these individuals. The word "assault" was used as a marketing ploy 40 years ago, and it continues to be employed the same way today.
There is a world of difference between a term used to push product and a legal term used to polarize public opinion and enact restrictive gun laws. The current appeal of those items said to be an "assault" this or a "tactical" that is laughable to me; what is not so laughable is the conviction on the part of even pro-gun people that "assault rifles" exist outside of language (read: beyond legal description). I further suggest that it is not the specific laws themselves that should give us the most concern, but rather the method used to draft and pass these laws, and this because such manipulations of language can be used to infringe on any remaining Constitutional rights we may have. It is the same method used to supplant the term "invasion of privacy" with "homeland security" and a whole laundry list of other redefinitions as suits the agendas of those with the power to realize them. The issue is a lot bigger than just RKBA.
I am pleased to let you know that they are:"high powered multi bullet shooting quick shooting thingy rifle"
now....my second question to her was: "are you afraid of them" and her answer: "yes stupid, they are dangerous"
3rd question: "are you afraid of my shotguns?" "no, they are beautiful and used for hunting."
"have you ever seen an 'assault rifle'?" "no, aren't they illegal?"
I think this is a wonderful example of the public's perception of this.
Gived her a big hand for being our guinea pig.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
It is largely a matter of business sense vs. political ignorance. If you had performed the searches I indicated, and looked around, it is quite simple, the word "ASSAULT" SELLS AN ITEM! We now have assault holsters, assault backpacks, assault boots, and an assault flashlight? Apparently, there is a significant portion of the population that won't buy an item unless the word "assault" is tacked on front. The word will continue to attract a certain type of person, and there will always be savey businessmen willing to sell to these individuals. The word "assault" was used as a marketing ploy 40 years ago, and it continues to be employed the same way today.
There is a world of difference between a term used to push product and a legal term used to polarize public opinion and enact restrictive gun laws. The current appeal of those items said to be an "assault" this or a "tactical" that is laughable to me; what is not so laughable is the conviction on the part of even pro-gun people that "assault rifles" exist outside of language (read: beyond legal description). I further suggest that it is not the specific laws themselves that should give us the most concern, but rather the method used to draft and pass these laws, and this because such manipulations of language can be used to infringe on any remaining Constitutional rights we may have. It is the same method used to supplant the term "invasion of privacy" with "homeland security" and a whole laundry list of other redefinitions as suits the agendas of those with the power to realize them. The issue is a lot bigger than just RKBA.
Great discussion, DWS, I agree with you in so many ways, I hope this topic is not "poofed" or locked....
I will need to compose myself, though.
quote:Originally posted by Frogbert
You are a reasonably good composition student, sonny, but let's restructure that line a bit, as follows: "I'm afraid the damage is done, and irrevocably in."
'Fraid not. Both "done" and "irrevocable" are adjectives of the noun "damage". You end a sentence with a preposition and then presume to be instructing anyone?
So now you resort to "misquoting a source" to make a point.
I didn't write "irrevocably in". I wrote "irrevocably so", and formed an adverbial phrase, modifying the verb "done". Your origional sentence is not technically incorrect, just clumsy.
But then, you're just a mudslugging jarhead. Nobody expects you to be able to actually write.[:D][:o)][:D]
Yeah, it's getting downright personal with the name-calling.[:(!]
Funny, it seemed rather mild compared to other encounters I have had![:D]
Yeah, it's getting downright personal with the name-calling.[:(!]
NAH!! It's not personal, it's Navy/Marine Corps tradition. Or, as DWS might suggest, "Don't get your panties in a wad!"[:D]
orginally posted by BoeBoe:
If you don't want to use the term, don't, and feel free to explain why. But this battle you are proposing is untenable. My own attitude is, if there is a poll asking, "should Americans have the right to own assault weapons" I will answer yes. It really doesn't matter what your definition of assault rifle is, we need to answer, "yes".
Howsabout if we compromise and do it your way and my way? Depending on what type of discussion we are in (your poll above, the debate here) participate in the manner that will help gun rights the most?
to save time and effort, I asked the woman that knows everything, (read my wife) what an assault rifle is.
I am pleased to let you know that they are:"high powered multi bullet shooting quick shooting thingy rifle"
now....my second question to her was: "are you afraid of them" and her answer: "yes stupid, they are dangerous"
3rd question: "are you afraid of my shotguns?" "no, they are beautiful and used for hunting."
"have you ever seen an 'assault rifle'?" "no, aren't they illegal?"
I think this is a wonderful example of the public's perception of this.
Gived her a big hand for being our guinea pig.
One of the shortest, poignant, and enlightening posts on this thread. In a few short sentences the poster has shown us exactly how bad the situation really is.
Everyone here who thinks it is OK to to continue widely using the term "assault weapon" and to claim, without qualifying the term that Americans should be allowed to own them, should ask someone close to them (wife, child, non-gun owning brother/sister, etc) what an "assault weapon" is and should gun owners be allowed to own them. Only then will you start to believe how dangerous to gun rights the situation is. If the anti-gunners get back into strong political power (they will) it will be relatively easy for them to get broad and strong support for outlawing all "assault weapons". This term can easily be expanded to include high capacity handguns as well as ANY high capacity rifle or shot gun as was done with the Streetsweeper shotgun, which I believe is still illegal.
So maybe each of us should quit using the term, try to correct someone when we hear them use it, and when the subject comes up voice our opinion by saying that "yes, lawful Americans should be allowed to own assault weapons". I believe that covers all the bases.
JMHO
quote:Originally posted by tacking1
to save time and effort, I asked the woman that knows everything, (read my wife) what an assault rifle is.
I am pleased to let you know that they are:"high powered multi bullet shooting quick shooting thingy rifle"
now....my second question to her was: "are you afraid of them" and her answer: "yes stupid, they are dangerous"
3rd question: "are you afraid of my shotguns?" "no, they are beautiful and used for hunting."
"have you ever seen an 'assault rifle'?" "no, aren't they illegal?"
I think this is a wonderful example of the public's perception of this.
Gived her a big hand for being our guinea pig.
One of the shortest, poignant, and enlightening posts on this thread. In a few short sentences the poster has shown up exactly how bad the situation really is.
Everyone here who thinks it is OK to to continue widely using the term "assault weapon" and to claim, without qualifying the term that Americans should be allowed to own them, should ask someone close to them (wife, child, non-gun owning brother/sister, etc) what an "assault weapon" is and should gun owners be allowed to own them. Only then will you start to believe how dangerous to gun rights the situation is. If the anti-gunners get back into strong political power (they will) it will be relatively easy for them to get broad and strong support for outlawing all "assault weapons". This term can easily be expanded to include high capacity handguns as well as ANY high capacity rifle or shot gun as was done with the Streetsweeper shotgun, which I believe is still illegal.
So maybe each of us should quit using the term, try to correct someone when we hear them use it, and when the subject comes up voice our opinion by saying that "yes, lawful Americans should be allowed to own assault weapons". I believe that covers all the bases.
JMHO
Thanks TR...I am glad I was able to make my point...and yes that conversation really did happen.
I also agree that it is with patience and consideration that we will get farther along in our desire to protect our rights.
I think you guys successfully scared the poor guy off...
...long as he wasn't assaulted.
There is a world of difference between a term used to push product and a legal term used to polarize public opinion and enact restrictive gun laws.
And the term "assault rifle" remains, after all these years, something that is used both to push product and a legal term used to polarize public opinion and enact restrictive gun laws. I strongly suspect that in the future it will continue to remain both.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
The current appeal of those items said to be an "assault" this or a "tactical" that is laughable to me;
Of course it is, to a point, but should be looked at with some seriousness as well. It goes to show the tremendous power of the word. We now have assault holsters, assault boots, assault flashlights, etc, etc, and only because of the widespread use and acceptance of terms such as "assault rifle" and "assault weapon".
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
what is not so laughable is the conviction on the part of even pro-gun people that "assault rifles" exist outside of language (read: beyond legal description).
Agreed. I am not arguing that there is one specific definition of the term, it is apparent just from this discussion that there are several definitions. These include legal definitions (and even those might vary from State to State), technical definitions (as so many argue here, ie, intermediate cartridge, capable of full auto or burst fire, etc), and personal definitions (as in, I want an assault rifle, is the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle a good choice?). Of course, these are only examples of the different definitions used. Beretta, apparently, has their own definition. Understand, I am not subscribing to any one definition. I am simply pointing out this condition.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
I further suggest that it is not the specific laws themselves that should give us the most concern, but rather the method used to draft and pass these laws, and this because such manipulations of language can be used to infringe on any remaining Constitutional rights we may have
Of course, as I think I said (or implied) earlier, the use of the term can be misconstrued very easily. We all know the liberal press and gun-grabbers want everyone to believe that "assault rifles" are "automatic weapons", and they are not going to be willing to explain that fully automatic weapons are already controlled, and that "assault weapons laws" have nothing to do with full auto. Again, going to the multiple definitions used, and how confounding those diverse definitions can make things.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
It is the same method used to supplant the term "invasion of privacy" with "homeland security" and a whole laundry list of other redefinitions as suits the agendas of those with the power to realize them. The issue is a lot bigger than just RKBA.
Well, that's ANOTHER can of worms!
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Same with gunners not helping to popularize the term, as well as making some effort to supress the term and to try to explain the term to people when it is incorrectly used. Otherwise we will have let the anti-gunners hang a sign around our neck that says "This gunner thinks he should be able to own a machine gun ('assault rifle').
I, for one, am not going to let the anti-gunners do that to me, without a lifetime of fighting back by me.
Can't we just agree that the "assault weapons" term usage is not a black and white, either or yes or no type of situation. Just as when you wash your hands to help prevent disease, you know that you are only helping the odds of not contracting some hand-borne bacteria causing you a disease. But sometimes, for one reason or another, even when you wash your hands you will still contact a disease from bacteria on your hands. But it makes sense to keep on washing our hands. Sense for the good it actually does as well as for the fact that it is just plain the smart thing to do.
Same with gunners not helping to popularize the term, as well as making some effort to supress the term and to try to explain the term to people when it is incorrectly used. Otherwise we will have let the anti-gunners hang a sign around our neck that says "This gunner thinks he should be able to own a machine gun ('assault rifle').
I, for one, am not going to let the anti-gunners do that to me, without a lifetime of fighting back by me.
I honestly don't feel like I am arguing with anyone here, except perhaps that there seems to be building evidence that the term was used more prolifically 30 and 40 years ago than people are willing to admit. If anyone cared to spend a few days reading old copies of Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Gun Digest, etc, etc, I think that would become clear, but I don't see the need for it.
The only other reason I can think that most people here and I are not in agreement is the basic principle that it should not matter what the name of a firearm is, or classification, the Second Ammendment indicates a person should be able to own such, because the right "shall not be infringed". Over, and over, and over again, the right has been infringed. And the only reason it has been infringed is because those who support the Second Ammendment let their guard down, and were willing to compromise.
If anything has been learned by Second Ammendment supporters over the last century, it is that when bleeding heart liberals come pleading to compromise our position, we should tell them to turn around and bend over.
If some anti-gun nut wants to tag me with a sign that says I think the right of Americans to own machine guns or assault rifles should not be infringed, I am fine with that. If they want to attempt to gain enough support to pass a Constitutional Ammendment to the contrary, that is their perogative.
And as far as I am concerned, it is their only option.
Dances, you wrote - "... and (2) requires a sudden change in the common meaning of the 19th Century German word Sturm from "Storm" or "Shock" to "Assault"... ."
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but, ............
...... doesn't the word "storm", in all languages, have the additional meaning of "assault"? Consider, "The brave knights, undaunted by the threat of boiling oil, stormed the castle."
Doesn't the word "storm" in this example clearly translate to "assault"?
Pardon me, but I'm going to jump in here, just for a second.
Dances, you wrote - "... and (2) requires a sudden change in the common meaning of the 19th Century German word Sturm from "Storm" or "Shock" to "Assault"... ."
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but, ............
...... doesn't the word "storm", in all languages, have the additional meaning of "assault"? Consider, "The brave knights, undaunted by the threat of boiling oil, stormed the castle."
Doesn't the word "storm" in this example clearly translate to "assault"?
Excellent.....
I would like to add that it seems surely they 'saulted the castle, and I imagine they "peppered" it with arrows!
And anyone with any sense knnows that once a castle has been 'saulted and peppered, it's near to being fried!
Oh Gee, [:D][:D]Help me!![:D][:p][:D]I'm dying here!!![:D][:0][:D][:D]
Seems the man's got a valid point, here!
I would like to add that it seems surely they 'saulted the castle, and I imagine they "peppered" it with arrows!
And anyone with any sense knnows that once a castle has been 'saulted and peppered, it's near to being fried!
Oh Gee, [:D][:D]Help me!![:D][:p][:D]I'm dying here!!![:D][:0][:D][:D]
[:D][:D][:D]
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but, ............
I'm afraid you have to dig a little deeper than consulting a thesaurus. Like maybe read some German history. The term Sturmtruppen (Stormtrooper) dates back to the late 1800's. Sturm in this context (and until the early 1960's) was always translated as Storm or Shock. How terribly and wonderfully convenient that that translation should suddenly change with Ezell, 20 years after the advent of the StG44. But while we're on synonyms, how about a few for "assault"... like "molest" and "violate". Maybe the Sturmgewehr was really "the first molestation rifle", Eva Braun's bedside companion?
So those that prefer rifles like the M16, AKs, SKS and the like, What is it about those rifles that attract you to them?
quote:Originally posted by .280 freak
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but, ............
I'm afraid you have to dig a little deeper than consulting a thesaurus. Like maybe read some German history. The term Sturmtruppen (Stormtrooper) dates back to the late 1800's. Sturm in this context (and until the early 1960's) was always translated as Storm or Shock. How terribly and wonderfully convenient that that translation should suddenly change with Ezell, 20 years after the advent of the StG44. But while we're on synonyms, how about a few for "assault"... like "molest" and "violate". Maybe the Sturmgewehr was really "the first molestation rifle", Eva Braun's bedside companion?
I would agree it may take some deeper research, but .280 freaks conjecture seems, at face value, to be extremely valid. I consider the point is very well taken. Generally, the similarity in ancestry and commonalties between the German and English people is well known. Even during WWII, their characteristics as "cousins" were capitalized upon in propoganda released by the German government. To be realistic, we would really need to dig into distant commonalties of the language of these people and see if it would be appropriate for the Germanic people to use a term such as "strum" for "assault". The point of .280 freak is very well submitted, and deserves attention.
They're light, quick-handling, powerful and accurate enough to be very effective, have a high-capacity capability, and use ammo that is easier to carry in larger numbers.
I'm still considering the first part of the opening sentence- that being that the poster wants to get a rifle with the aforementioned characteristics. I do not begrudge anyone the right to own or like what they want, though I do prefer to roll-up the car window when another car at the stoplight has rap noise reverberating from their vehicle. I do wonder what the attraction of these semi-auto version of military rifles is. I admit that I tend towards older, more conservative things and styles, so it comes as no surprise when I say that I prefer Winchester M12,21,54,70,1885,1886,1894 along with other rifles like the Springfield 1903 Mark I. Having gotten over my desire to use a rifle like a garden hose several years back, I prefer actions of forged steel and barrels capable of precisely placing well placed shots.
So those that prefer rifles like the M16, AKs, SKS and the like, What is it about those rifles that attract you to them?
I don't necessarily prefer one over the other, but have at least a couple of each style that you mention. If I'm hunting, then usually the Win-94 is with me. If it's home defense, my personal choice is a Rem. 870. For shooting clays, Benelli M-1, for nostalgic plinking, Springfield 1861, or 1888.
I like the lever and bolt guns, but when the indians attack, I'll be reaching for the AC556, or AR-15 before reaching for the 1903 or Garand.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by .280 freak
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but, ............
I'm afraid you have to dig a little deeper than consulting a thesaurus. Like maybe read some German history. The term Sturmtruppen (Stormtrooper) dates back to the late 1800's. Sturm in this context (and until the early 1960's) was always translated as Storm or Shock. How terribly and wonderfully convenient that that translation should suddenly change with Ezell, 20 years after the advent of the StG44. But while we're on synonyms, how about a few for "assault"... like "molest" and "violate". Maybe the Sturmgewehr was really "the first molestation rifle", Eva Braun's bedside companion?
I would agree it may take some deeper research, but .280 freaks conjecture seems, at face value, to be extremely valid. I consider the point is very well taken. Generally, the similarity in ancestry and commonalties between the German and English people is well known. Even during WWII, their characteristics as "cousins" were capitalized upon in propoganda released by the German government. To be realistic, we would really need to dig into distant commonalties of the language of these people and see if it would be appropriate for the Germanic people to use a term such as "strum" for "assault". The point of .280 freak is very well submitted, and deserves attention.
I give you good reason why it doesn't and in rebuttal you merely insist on the claim as if your agreement and iteration is a substitute for evidence. Perhaps a better and proper rebuttal would be to consult historical records to find instances where the proper noun Sturmtruppen appears as "Assault Trooper" rather than "Storm Trooper". Be advised, however, that mere mention that Storm Troopers "assaulted Cambrai" does not constitute evidence of a change in such translation, as "Storm Troops" or "Shock Troops" is a specific name for a specific class of German soldiers, in much the same way that SEALS is a specific name for a specific class of American sailors. In other words, not all German soldiers who assaulted positions were Sturmtruppen, any more than all sailors are SEALS.
I'm still considering the first part of the opening sentence- that being that the poster wants to get a rifle with the aforementioned characteristics. I do not begrudge anyone the right to own or like what they want, though I do prefer to roll-up the car window when another car at the stoplight has rap noise reverberating from their vehicle. I do wonder what the attraction of these semi-auto version of military rifles is. I admit that I tend towards older, more conservative things and styles, so it comes as no surprise when I say that I prefer Winchester M12,21,54,70,1885,1886,1894 along with other rifles like the Springfield 1903 Mark I. Having gotten over my desire to use a rifle like a garden hose several years back, I prefer actions of forged steel and barrels capable of precisely placing well placed shots.
So those that prefer rifles like the M16, AKs, SKS and the like, What is it about those rifles that attract you to them?
Interestingly, when it comes to handguns I doubt you want a single shot handgun; or any handgun that has to be operated like a bolt action, pump or single shot rifle. I am sure that when it comes to handguns, you demand one that will hold numerous rounds and give you one shot per one trigger pull.
However,yours is a very fair and honest question. In answer I would say that, even if I had no attraction to military semi-automatic look-alikes, I would STILL defend the right of lawful gun owners to freely buy, sell, use and own such firearms.
I would take this stand for at least three good reasons. #1 The Second Amendment, and my state of KS state constitution giving citizens the right of firearm ownership, gives absoutely no hint of there being any right for the government or for the anti-gun crowd to single out one particular type of firearm which can be banned. Therefore I do not want to see a trend started whereas the government and the anti-gun crowd can/will say that "yes" we gunners have the right to own firearms, but not that particular type of firearm . If we gunners were to let this situation come about, I can guarantee you that the group of firearms that we could not own would get larger and larger and the group of firearms we could own would get smaller and smaller. At some point we gunners would be left with single shot rifles/shotguns and, if we were lucky, 5 shot revolvers.
#2. If I did not care for military semi-auto look-alikes, I would still defend my fellow gunners rights to own such firearms. I would do this in the hopes my fellow gunners would respond in kind and help me defend my rights to own firearms they may not care about.
#3. If we gunners allow and accept the anti-gun crowd's claim that certain firearms can/should be banned basically just because of the way they look, then pretty soon ALL firearms will LOOK like to the government and anti-gun crowd that ALL firearms need to be banned.
BTW, while I don't want one, I am still unsure if the government was on good legal ground to ban machine guns in the 1920-30's. In a way that almost sets a precedent that certain guns can be banned simply because of the way they function. This also leads to the situation we have now in that if a firearm looks like a machine gun, then it must be an "evil" gun. This in spite of the fact that my AR-15 is no more of a machine gun than my 6 shot revolver which, like my AR-15 only fires one shot per one trigger pull
JMHO
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Can't we just agree that the "assault weapons" term usage is not a black and white, either or yes or no type of situation. Just as when you wash your hands to help prevent disease, you know that you are only helping the odds of not contracting some hand-borne bacteria causing you a disease. But sometimes, for one reason or another, even when you wash your hands you will still contact a disease from bacteria on your hands. But it makes sense to keep on washing our hands. Sense for the good it actually does as well as for the fact that it is just plain the smart thing to do.
Same with gunners not helping to popularize the term, as well as making some effort to supress the term and to try to explain the term to people when it is incorrectly used. Otherwise we will have let the anti-gunners hang a sign around our neck that says "This gunner thinks he should be able to own a machine gun ('assault rifle').
I, for one, am not going to let the anti-gunners do that to me, without a lifetime of fighting back by me.
I honestly don't feel like I am arguing with anyone here, except perhaps that there seems to be building evidence that the term was used more prolifically 30 and 40 years ago than people are willing to admit. If anyone cared to spend a few days reading old copies of Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Gun Digest, etc, etc, I think that would become clear, but I don't see the need for it.
The only other reason I can think that most people here and I are not in agreement is the basic principle that it should not matter what the name of a firearm is, or classification, the Second Ammendment indicates a person should be able to own such, because the right "shall not be infringed". Over, and over, and over again, the right has been infringed. And the only reason it has been infringed is because those who support the Second Ammendment let their guard down, and were willing to compromise.
If anything has been learned by Second Ammendment supporters over the last century, it is that when bleeding heart liberals come pleading to compromise our position, we should tell them to turn around and bend over.
If some anti-gun nut wants to tag me with a sign that says I think the right of Americans to own machine guns or assault rifles should not be infringed, I am fine with that. If they want to attempt to gain enough support to pass a Constitutional Ammendment to the contrary, that is their perogative.
And as far as I am concerned, it is their only option.
I fear you have forgotten about Clinton's 10 year "assault weapons" ban from 1994-2004. Surely that disproves your statement in red. And you can bank of the fact that such a ban will return. In fact, in some states/cities it never went away. Instead it became a local ban instead of a federal ban. Instead of arguering debating endlessly among ourselves, we need to unite and provide a common front and act in concert for a common goal. From the endless debates here you can see that is not happening now.
If yous gonna assault them ... do it with style ... and bling bling!
Now that's real nice!!!!!! Is it the hawkins .50 cal?
Is it the hawkins .50 cal?
Nah, it's a pimped-out Yellowboy.