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 hughbetcha
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
It looks like an assault rifle, it shoots like an assault rifle, it is ugly like an assualt rifle, it ain't a duck.
You're just nibbling at the bait HeDog. Why dont you just go ahead and call it a Sturmenduck.
Has anyone ever heard of the term "colloquialism". I've heard that words attaining certain connotations in relationship to the area in which they become popular, have definitions attributed to them, and that repeated usage causes said definitions to become legitimate and included categorically under the listing of that word in updated versions of dictionarys.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Why not? What would be the difference? Why limit it to "sturmtruppen" when the German military preficed many things with the word "sturm"? Are you simply seeking to narrow your odds?
I am not limiting it to Sturmtruppen. My point is that the consistent translation of that term is "Storm Troopers", and as such presents a counter-example to Ezell's claim that Sturm (as in Sturmgewehr) means "Assault". That you provide other cases where Sturm does indeed translate as "Assault" is all well and good, but it says nothing about the validity of Ezell's claim that the weapon issued to Sturmtruppen was the "the first Assault Rifle".
quote:Originally posted by Frogbert
Has anyone ever heard of the term "colloquialism".
Yes. Fortunately, none of the other colloquialisms were banned for ten years, and are still banned in some places if the colloquialism has a bayonet lug and detachable magazine exceeding ten rounds.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
That you provide other cases where Sturm does indeed translate as "Assault" is all well and good, but it says nothing about the validity of Ezell's claim that the weapon issued to Sturmtruppen was the "the first Assault Rifle".
So, your arguement is strictly limited to the fact that Ezell claimed the MP-44 was the first "assault rifle", and this claim was without merit? And the only evidence that could possibly substantiate Ezell's position is a WWII dated US newspaper with headlines reading "Hitler Announces Acceptance of StG-44 Assault Rilfe"
It is obvious you will resort to any means, and change any perviously established criterion you have set forth, and contort any nuance of terms, to avoid admitting you are wrong, while fighting an obvioulsy already lost battle over completely meaningless straws of history.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Your arguement is strictly limited to the fact that Ezell claimed the MP-44 was the first "assault rifle", and this claim was without merit?
MP44? Do you mean the StG44?
quote:
Would the claim be with merit if, for example, I provided evidence that Dwight D. Eisenhower (a good blooded German last name, well know participant of WWII, and past President of the USA, mind you) referred to "assault rifles" in communications?
Only if he was referring to the StG44 by name. Else, any rifle used in an assault is an "assault rifle".
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
That you provide other cases where Sturm does indeed translate as "Assault" is all well and good, but it says nothing about the validity of Ezell's claim that the weapon issued to Sturmtruppen was the "the first Assault Rifle".
Your arguement is strictly limited to the fact that Ezell claimed the MP-44 was the first "assault rifle", and this claim was without merit? Would the claim be with merit if, for example, I provided evidence that Dwight D. Eisenhower (a good blooded German last name, well know participant of WWII, and past President of the USA, mind you) referred to "assault rifles" in communications?
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Your arguement is strictly limited to the fact that Ezell claimed the MP-44 was the first "assault rifle", and this claim was without merit?
MP44? Do you mean the StG44?
MP-44, StG-44, whatever, it is still the same firearm.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
[br Would the claim be with merit if, for example, I provided evidence that Dwight D. Eisenhower (a good blooded German last name, well know participant of WWII, and past President of the USA, mind you) referred to "assault rifles" in communications?
Only if he was referring to the StG44 by name. Else, any rifle used in an assault is an "assault rifle".
How can you determine that unless you know exactly what he said? You assume too much.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
How can you determine that unless you know exactly what he said?
Easily. Either his reference to "assault rifles" was specific to the StG44 or to something else; if to something else, then the communication is irrelevant.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
How can you determine that unless you know exactly what he said?
Easily. Either his reference to "assault rifles" was specific to the StG44 or to something else; if to something else, then the communication is irrelevant.
So if Ike referenced the "German assault rifles" without being specific to, or using the term, "Strumgewehr", or "StG-44", you would not be satisfied that there was a valid reference to assault rifles that pre-dated Ezell?
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
So if Ike referenced the "German assault rifles" without being specific to, or using the term, "Strumgewehr", or "StG-44", you would not be satisfied that there was a valid reference to assault rifles that pre-dated Ezell?
No, because Ezell's claim is specific to the Sturmgewehr and the criteria of "a select-fire weapon firing an intermediate-power cartridge from a detachable magazine". What Ike meant by "German assault rifles" is anyone's guess, from G43s to Schmeissers. Again, the issue is not whether the term "assault rifle" existed before Ezell's claim; the issue is whether the term "assault rifle" as a class of military weapons distinguished from "battle rifles" by the characteristics given began with the StG44 and was so named at the time.
Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
That you provide other cases where Sturm does indeed translate as "Assault" is all well and good, but it says nothing about the validity of Ezell's claim that the weapon issued to Sturmtruppen was the "the first Assault Rifle".
So, your arguement is strictly limited to the fact that Ezell claimed the MP-44 was the first "assault rifle", and this claim was without merit? And the only evidence that could possibly substantiate Ezell's position is a WWII dated US newspaper with headlines reading "Hitler Announces Acceptance of StG-44 Assault Rilfe"
It is obvious you will resort to any means, and change any perviously established criterion you have set forth, and contort any nuance of terms, to avoid admitting you are wrong, while fighting an obvioulsy already lost battle over completely meaningless straws of history.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
So, your arguement is strictly limited to the fact that Ezell claimed the MP-44 was the first "assault rifle", and this claim was without merit? And the only evidence that could possibly substantiate Ezell's position is a WWII dated US newspaper with headlines reading "Hitler Announces Acceptance of StG-44 Assault Rilfe"
It is obvious you will resort to any means, and change any perviously established criterion you have set forth, and contort any nuance of terms, to avoid admitting you are wrong, while fighting an obvioulsy already lost battle over completely meaningless straws of history.
Don't ruin this exchange by pouting, boeboe. I have not changed a single criterion, else kindly point it out. Is my demand for specificity in the Eisenhower communication so out of line? I am not asking for banner headlines, and you know it. You have had some very cogent things to say, but this last post only serves to undermine them.
What would substantiate Ezell's claim is any military or historical record contemporary to introduction of the StG44 that called it an "assault rifle"; sparing that, any military or historical record indicating that either Hitler or the German military thought that the StG44 represented a new class of infantry weapon distinguished by the unique characteristics noted by Ezell. I'm afraid that without such documentation, all Ezell has done is retroactively apply a 1960's concept to a 1940's weapon and insist that it was the first representative of a specific class.
I am not certain why a demand for historical proof should upset you. Are you after the truth or only what you want to hear? Or do you simply want to win an argument, regardless of the matter?
Gee- I take a couple hours off to teach a hunter education class and you guys run this thread out to 7 pages- and to think the topic was fully discussed by page 2, oh well, you may fire when ready Gridley, as long as it's from the assault ship.[;)]
quote:Originally posted by Ray B
you may fire when ready Gridley, as long as it's from the assault ship.[;)]
Are "assault ships" a unique class of craft distinguished from "battle ships" by their reduced power and intermediate capacity? And do they always sail full sturm ahead?
They are a special class; they are developed from crossing a "cruzer" with a rapist, on Saturday Night. They have select-fire 8 inch guns, but that frefers to their length rather than the diameter. they also have the ability of being refurbished by injecting chemicals or protheses into the barrel. The use is also specialized in that their primary use is to turn to their flank and charge into a bush, putting out as much seamen as possible.[8)]
quote:Originally posted by hughbetcha
I want to know what Sturm means in the context of Sturm, Ruger and Co. Was Bill Ruger influenced by the sturmgewehr? Are all Rugers Strumrugers?
That would be Alexander Sturm, the first in a class of gun company executives denoted by intermediate stature and selectively firing anyone with a modicum of competency.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
Don't ruin this exchange by pouting, boeboe. I have not changed a single criterion, else kindly point it out.
I already have. I don't see how you can deny the criteria has changed.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
Is my demand for specificity in the Eisenhower communication so out of line? I am not asking for banner headlines, and you know it.
You seem to remain evasive in what you require, with no assurance that you will accept evidence that is presented. The fraction of people who understand what your argument is remains excessively small. Could you please the exact, verbatim, quote from Ezell that seems to have you so upset? I believe this may clarify what substantiation you are seeking.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
You have had some very cogent things to say, but this last post only serves to undermine them.
And your last few posts accomplishes what?????
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
What would substantiate Ezell's claim is any military or historical record contemporary to introduction of the StG44 that called it an "assault rifle"; sparing that, any military or historical record indicating that either Hitler or the German military thought that the StG44 represented a new class of infantry weapon distinguished by the unique characteristics noted by Ezell. I'm afraid that without such documentation, all Ezell has done is retroactively apply a 1960's concept to a 1940's weapon and insist that it was the first representative of a specific class.
I fail to see why this is important. That items, people, or events are defined long after the fact/event really means very little in terms of history. The cliff dwelling of Mesa Verde were inhabited by a people who called themselves by a name we will never know. Modern man and modern researchers have chosen to call them the Anassi. There is no "contemporary" evidence that they knew them selves by this name. The only name they are known by is the name modern man has ascribed to them. In similar manner, we find Native American flint tools, and call them things like "scrapers", "knives", ax heads", "bird points" and such, but certianly, these devices were not known by these names when they were first made. It is overwhelmingly accepted that Julius Caesar was the first of what is considered the "12 Ceasars". But he was not known as this within his lifetime, of course, and was not know as this until centuries later. That there were hundreds of Ceasars of Rome does nothing to diminish what is known as the "12 ceasars". Where is the convention that items, people, or events from history must be labled in a manner that reflects their original name or status?
What was the first "sniper rifle"? What was the first "battle rifle"? I know you have used the term "battle rifle" to define a particular group of firearms, what was the first? Is it incumbent that the designation "battle rifle" be consistent with it's original designation? Do you consider the telescoped muskets used during the civil war, or the telescoped Sharps used by Sgt John Ryan on Benteen's hill? If these were not "sniper's rifles", at what piont would you say the first "sniper's rifle" came into existance? And is there contemporary evidence to support that assertion?
Why are you obsessed with the origins of the term "assault rifle", and not "battle rifle", "sniper rifle", or "pocket pistol"? Have you looked similarly into the term "Saturday Night Special"? In reality, all these term, as well as the term "assault rifle" are only good to place general classifications on firearms, and what may be a "Saturday night special" to one person certainly may be debated by another.
From what I have been able to determine, if a double barrel longarm, or a 4 barrel pepperbox pistol were adjusted to fire all barrels at once, such firearms would be considered "automatic weapons" by the ATF because more than one round is fired by a single function of the trigger. And I believe that such firearms are illegal, and could send a person away for a long time. Do you consider them automatic firearms? Would your opinion matter to the BATF?
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
I am not certain why a demand for historical proof should upset you. Are you after the truth or only what you want to hear? Or do you simply want to win an argument, regardless of the matter?
In the first place, as I indicated, I don't really see any reason there needs to be evidence that the term "assault rifle" was first inappropriately (or inappropriately) used by Ezell to describe the "sturmgewehr". There are so few people who know the real history to the term, and so many more that will continue to use it, it really isn't going to matter what you, or I, or anyone else on this forum cares to debate. What is going to matter is the ongoing use of the term in the future. It is a term that will proliferate regardless of what any of use do, and regardless of what any of us know.
"That would be Alexander Sturm, the first in a class of gun company executives denoted by intermediate stature and selectively firing anyone with a modicum of competency." DWS
Well, how do you like that?! I refrain from posting wise remarks for one lousy page, and DWS starts in on my game!!!Sheesh!![:0][V][:o)][:D]
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I fail to see why this is important. That items, people, or events are defined long after the fact/event really means very little in terms of history.
The historical accuracy of Ezell's claim and the relative worth of his taxonomic exercise are hardly the point. From the beginning this argument has always been about language meaning and use, or rather language lack of meaning and misuse. Everyone knows and uses the term "assault rifle". That we recognize the term and think we know what it means should therefore present little challenge to explain, yet as the past seven pages have shown this is easier said than done.
Consider: An "assault rifle" is said to be a select-fire military weapon firing a reduced power cartridge from a detachable magazine. Q: What practical difference does cartridge power make? A: None. The application of infantry weapons since WWII has been a hodgepodge of calibers and operating systems, and the military--the people who actually use these weapons--neither make nor have need for distinction based on cartridge size. In lieu of being an "assault rifle", the M16 is simply "U.S. Rifle, Caliber 5.56mm, M16", and that's all it is; in lieu of being a "battle rifle", the M14 is simply "U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M14", and that's all it is. That they are otherwise select-fire weapons firing from a detachable magazine with the same maximum effective range suffices their roles. The terms "assault rifle" and "battle rifle" are therefore meaningless in a military context, as the terms do not name their respective function or use and the weapons themselves can and have been used for either purpose.
So if not the military, who does it matter to, and why? Enter Ezell. He notices that since WWII, miltary weapons development evidences a particular trend, i.e., downsizing cartridge power and barrel length while increasing cartridge capacity and adding select-fire capability. This trend separates military weapons like the AK47 and M16 from military weapons like the FAL and M14. He then introduces the notation "assault rifle" to name the class of military weapons exemplified by the trend, and the notation "battle rifle" to cover those that don't. The only problem is, the only people who give a crap are Ezell and his civilian readership, who gobble it up for its heuristic value (they think), regardless of the terms' lack of meaning in a military context. Witness birth of jargon.
Jump twenty years ahead. People have been talking about "assault rifles" for years. They know the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "battle rifle", and they content themselves with knowing the difference. Again, the only problem is, nobody gives a crap but them. Jump ahead a few more years and enter politicians and the media. The term "assault rifle" is expanded to include a class of semi-automatic, military-style weapons they closely resemble, yet themselves are not called "assault rifles" by the people who use them, the military. No matter. An "assault rifle" now does not need to be select-fire", nor even used by the military, but instead only exhibit a certain combination of characteristics, like a pistol grip, bayonet lug, detachable magazine exceeding ten round and a flash suppressor.
Given the above, just what is an "assault rifle"? Answer: A linguistic construct for whatever you say it is. And unlike a real AK47 or U.S, Rifle, Caliber 5.56mm, M16, a linguistic construct can be made to point to whatever legislators say it points to. So excuse me all to hell if I want to kick the nuts of anybody who uses the term or smugly recites the conventional wisdom about where it came from and how.
quote:Originally posted by Frogbert
quote:Originally posted by jbjm04
Damn it, I have created a monster[:0][:0][:0] Please help me kill it before it takes over the entire server[:0][:0]
Ha! Actually, you just awakened the monster, previously created.[:D]
By the way, what did you end up buying? Will you post images?
Almost a monster. I have found this discussion most interesting and rewarding. Simply the fact that I have had to "duel" with someone of the caliber of DWS had necessitated that I, and I hope others, have learned a great deal. I don't want anyone to perceive that the discussion DWS and I have had has left either of us (I hope) with any ill feelings towards each other. From my first few posts, I approached this openly stating that DWS has a valid position, and my position is found in my posts. I find this still true.
My personal feeling is DWS and I have been squabbling between the fly-caca occasionally found in pepper. There is no doubt in my mind that he and I feel very strongly about the principles of the Second Amendment.
TR Fox tasked us to do something beside squabble among ourselves over such things. I wonder, has anyone reacted to that challenge? I have. Because of this discussion, I made a recommendation on another board that they remove the term "assault rifle" as the leader to one of their forums, and they responded by re-naming the forum. While it seems that I am in disagreement with TR and DWS, I still reacted to what they were saying, and now another firearms related board is no longer broadcasting the term "assault rifle" as a lead-in to one of their forums.
I have to ask, has anyone else taken this discussion and used it to promote the Second Amendment? If not, why not? I believe every one of us can grab bits of this discussion, take the information, and somehow use it to support our rights.
Sure, DWS and I may appear to squabble endlessly about nothing. And it may seem I am not listening to TR Fox. Again, I have found the discussion to be very educational and personally rewarding, and have taken the comments of TR Fox to heart. Has anyone else? There have been many other great posters here, .280 freak really surprised me. It is exceptional that we have kept this discussion alive for as long as we have without injecting enough personal comments to see that it gets poofed. I appreciate the patience of the moderators and administration for that.
I may respond to DWS's last post tomorrow, but I wanted to slip this in this evening.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I fail to see why this is important. That items, people, or events are defined long after the fact/event really means very little in terms of history.
The historical accuracy of Ezell's claim and the relative worth of his taxonomic exercise are hardly the point. From the beginning this argument has always been about language meaning and use, or rather language lack of meaning and misuse. Everyone knows and uses the term "assault rifle". That we recognize the term and think we know what it means should therefore present little challenge to explain, yet as the past seven pages have shown this is easier said than done.
Consider: An "assault rifle" is said to be a select-fire military weapon firing a reduced power cartridge from a detachable magazine. Q: What practical difference does cartridge power make? A: None. The application of infantry weapons since WWII has been a hodgepodge of calibers and operating systems, and the military--the people who actually use these weapons--neither make nor have need for distinction based on cartridge size. In lieu of being an "assault rifle", the M16 is simply "U.S. Rifle, Caliber 5.56mm, M16", and that's all it is; in lieu of being a "battle rifle", the M14 is simply "U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M14", and that's all it is. That they are otherwise select-fire weapons firing from a detachable magazine with the same maximum effective range suffices their roles. The terms "assault rifle" and "battle rifle" are therefore meaningless in a military context, as the terms do not name their respective function or use and the weapons themselves can and have been used for either purpose.
So if not the military, who does it matter to, and why? Enter Ezell. He notices that since WWII, miltary weapons development evidences a particular trend, i.e., downsizing cartridge power and barrel length while increasing cartridge capacity and adding select-fire capability. This trend separates military weapons like the AK47 and M16 from military weapons like the FAL and M14. He then introduces the notation "assault rifle" to name the class of military weapons exemplified by the trend, and the notation "battle rifle" to cover those that don't. The only problem is, the only people who give a crap are Ezell and his civilian readership, who gobble it up for its heuristic value (they think), regardless of the terms' lack of meaning in a military context. Witness birth of jargon.
Jump twenty years ahead. People have been talking about "assault rifles" for years. They know the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "battle rifle", and they content themselves with knowing the difference. Again, the only problem is, nobody gives a crap but them. Jump ahead a few more years and enter politicians and the media. The term "assault rifle" is expanded to include a class of semi-automatic, military-style weapons they closely resemble, yet themselves are not called "assault rifles" by the people who use them, the military. No matter. An "assault rifle" now does not need to be select-fire", nor even used by the military, but instead only exhibit a certain combination of characteristics, like a pistol grip, bayonet lug, detachable magazine exceeding ten round and a flash suppressor.
Given the above, just what is an "assault rifle"? Answer: A linguistic construct for whatever you say it is. And unlike a real AK47 or U.S, Rifle, Caliber 5.56mm, M16, a linguistic construct can be made to point to whatever legislators say it points to. So excuse me all to hell if I want to kick the nuts of anybody who uses the term or smugly recites the conventional wisdom about where it came from and how.
DWS,
I agree with everything you said up to one point. That point being:
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
So excuse me all to hell if I want to kick the nuts of anybody who uses the term or smugly recites the conventional wisdom about where it came from and how.
You are obviously passionate about the transgressions associated in using this term, and it is clear from the posters of this thread that others approach your commitment. I think the only thing that separates us is your desire to go back into history and wring Ezell's neck. Excuse me for a moment if I digress.
"If's" play no (or a very limited) part in the logical thought process. We sit around and watch "It's a Wonderful Life" at Christmas, and ponder the "if's" of a persons life wondering how the world would have changed if "I" (or perhaps "they") had never been born. At least, it is still one of my favorite movies. But is is, of course, poppycock. History is what it is, there is no changing that. But let us assume for a moment that Ezell never existed. Instead, someone came along and during the course of human events made a comment to the effect that the StG-44 was the first "storm rifle", and that several following rifles seemed to fit into the category of "storm rifle". If such a pivotal event had occurred, would the anti-gun forces have eventually seized on the term "storm rifle" to promote their attempts to deprive our Second Amendment rights? Would you feel any differently if we, as a collective firearms community, were now faced with having to deal with "storm rifle", "storm weapons", etc, etc. etc.
So what is my point in assuming "if's" could be fathomed? Of course, my point is, in terms of history, it really would not matter. If the anti-firearm community was not able to grasp the term "assault" to further their cause, they would have grabbed the next most appropriate term. If that term was "storm rifle", or "battle rifle", they would have seized it. In fact, if no such term was available, they would have simply invented their own term!
Would the net result have been any different? I don't think so. Regardless of any term we could be faced with, we would, as those who support the individual right of self protection, still be opposing an enemy that desires to deprive of us this right.
I have to ask, DWS, could you agree with the forgoing?
Perhaps those few of us who really understand the history of this aberration of the term "assault rifle" should not be so concerned with the term itself. Perhaps the concept of what it means when some power attempts to deprive us of one of the most inalienable rights of all living creatures is more important, regardless of the terms used. That being, the ability to protect oneself (and family) from any force that one can be perceived. The lowest of creatures has this ability. Somehow, someway, they have been given the right to use whatever resources they have in their effort to survive.
Perhaps those who have followed this thread over all these many pages can see the importance of what you, TR Fox, Frogbert, hubecha, He Dog, ect, etc, etc, has been saying. I don't mean to omit any of the valuable contributors to this thread, but after all, there are so many! And I also hope that our original poster, jbjm04, has something to take away from this that is far, far over and above his original question. Personally, I know I have.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
So excuse me all to hell if I want to kick the nuts of anybody who uses the term or smugly recites the conventional wisdom about where it came from and how.
Understood. Your points are very well taken. As much as I argue with you, I understand why we argue, and there is no hostility there. My opinion, there is not a poster here who is more articulate than you. In my own opinion, those who exceed your general knowledge of firearms are true experts in specialized fields (and we should all humble ourselves before such experts). Just, please, refrain from your initial "knee jerk" reaction to go to the nuts. Pause, and see if through understanding and knowledge, we can win a friend or two, and not make an enemy.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I fail to see why this is important. That items, people, or events are defined long after the fact/event really means very little in terms of history.
The historical accuracy of Ezell's claim and the relative worth of his taxonomic exercise are hardly the point. ...
DWS,
I agree with everything you said up to one point. That point being:
You are obviously passionate about the transgressions...
Perhaps those few of us who really understand the history of this aberration...
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39
This is the most posts I have ever saw on one topic
Yes, normally we try desperately to keep it superficial around here. Sorry for this lapse of decorum.
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I fail to see why this is important. That items, people, or events are defined long after the fact/event really means very little in terms of history.
The historical accuracy of Ezell's claim and the relative worth of his taxonomic exercise are hardly the point. ...
DWS,
I agree with everything you said up to one point. That point being:
You are obviously passionate about the transgressions...
Perhaps those few of us who really understand the history of this aberration...
Oh, puleeeeze.
Clouder..
And, if I could ask, what percentage of the population understands?
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I have to ask, DWS, could you agree with the forgoing?
There is a line in Jaws where Mayor Vaughn says to Chief Brodie, "You yell barracuda, everybody says, "Huh? What?" You yell shark, and we've got a panic on our hands on the Fourth of July."
There is something inherent in certain words that evokes expectation and emotion beyond their mere definition. Like "shark" and "rainbow" and "liberal", "assault" is unfortunately one of those words. In comparison, "storm" is less threatening, a kinder, gentler word. That words sometimes incite emotion and expectation goes without saying. I am not debating that another gun writer or someone else with a compulsion for taxonomy could or would have suggested the same class of weapons, but I think picking a word to describe it that a lot of folks fear and/or love to hate was not the best choice. All water under the bridge. Again, I am not so much interested in the mess it created as much as how that mess was created.
Think of it: Some gun writer suddenly decides that the sum of the world's modern infantry shoulder weapons naturally falls into two distinct types or categories ("assault rifles" and "battle rifles"). He then explains why, and for "assault rifle" gives in support as progenitor the StG44. Of course he is historically incorrect, because the concept and examples of the type existed long before the StG44, but no matter; the connection is forever made. And no matter that the distinction is but an artificial construct that serves no practical purpose whatsoever other than to give survivalists and military weapon afficionados something to chub about. Meanwhile, the military community for whom these weapons were so categorized don't give crap one, continuing to go about their business with systematized nomenclature.
Such is the power of language. The rest is history, and all the coulda, woulda, shouldas in the world don't matter one iota. And what gets lost in the shuffle is that the distinction made is but a contrived, artificial construct, a trick of language. Sure there are select-fire military rifles that shoot full-power cartridges and select-fire military rifles that fire intermediate-power cartridges, but the names of the categories into which they fall are arbitary (read: meaningless) to actual purpose and use. That we recognize the terms and insist that an M14 will reach out and touch someone that an M16 can't does not change this, nor does it make one a "battle rifle" and the other an "assault rifle" except in language.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I have to ask, DWS, could you agree with the forgoing?
There is a line in Jaws where Mayor Vaughn says to Chief Brodie, "You yell barracuda, everybody says, "Huh? What?" You yell shark, and we've got a panic on our hands on the Fourth of July."
There is something inherent in certain words that evokes expectation and emotion beyond their mere definition. Like "shark" and "rainbow" and "liberal", "assault" is unfortunately one of those words. In comparison, "storm" is less threatening, a kinder, gentler word. That words sometimes incite emotion and expectation goes without saying. I am not debating that another gun writer or someone else with a compulsion for taxonomy could or would have suggested the same class of weapons, but I think picking a word to describe it that a lot of folks fear and/or love to hate was not the best choice. All water under the bridge. Again, I am not so much interested in the mess it created as much as how that mess was created.
Think of it: Some gun writer suddenly decides that the sum of the world's modern infantry shoulder weapons naturally falls into two distinct types or categories ("assault rifles" and "battle rifles"). He then explains why, and for "assault rifle" gives in support as progenitor the StG44. Of course he is historically incorrect, because the concept and examples of the type existed long before the StG44, but no matter; the connection is forever made. And no matter that the distinction is but an artificial construct that serves no practical purpose whatsoever other than to give survivalists and military weapon afficionados something to chub about. Meanwhile, the military community for whom these weapons were so categorized don't give crap one, continuing to go about their business with systematized nomenclature.
Such is the power of language. The rest is history, and all the coulda, woulda, shouldas in the world don't matter one iota. And what gets lost in the shuffle is that the distinction made is but a contrived, artificial construct, a trick of language. Sure there are select-fire military rifles that shoot full-power cartridges and select-fire military rifles that fire intermediate-power cartridges, but the names of the categories into which they fall are arbitary (read: meaningless) to actual purpose and use. That we recognize the terms and insist that an M14 will reach out and touch someone that an M16 can't does not change this, nor does it make one a "battle rifle" and the other an "assault rifle" except in language.
Excellent!
I hope it is understood I retain the right to reply. If anyone else feels free to contribute, by all means, join in!
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I fail to see why this is important. That items, people, or events are defined long after the fact/event really means very little in terms of history.
The historical accuracy of Ezell's claim and the relative worth of his taxonomic exercise are hardly the point. ...
DWS,
I agree with everything you said up to one point. That point being:
You are obviously passionate about the transgressions...
Perhaps those few of us who really understand the history of this aberration...
Oh, puleeeeze.
Clouder..
And, if I could ask, what percentage of the population understands?
Comments
It looks like an assault rifle, it shoots like an assault rifle, it is ugly like an assualt rifle, it ain't a duck.
You're just nibbling at the bait HeDog. Why dont you just go ahead and call it a Sturmenduck.
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
It looks like an assault rifle, it shoots like an assault rifle, it is ugly like an assualt rifle, it ain't a duck.
You're just nibbling at the bait HeDog. Why dont you just go ahead and call it a Sturmenduck.
...sturmkoff...
Do you really think that a Remington 7600 is what jbjm04 had in mind?
He would be a better man if it was. Don
(Dang![8D][:p][8D])
Why not? What would be the difference? Why limit it to "sturmtruppen" when the German military preficed many things with the word "sturm"? Are you simply seeking to narrow your odds?
I am not limiting it to Sturmtruppen. My point is that the consistent translation of that term is "Storm Troopers", and as such presents a counter-example to Ezell's claim that Sturm (as in Sturmgewehr) means "Assault". That you provide other cases where Sturm does indeed translate as "Assault" is all well and good, but it says nothing about the validity of Ezell's claim that the weapon issued to Sturmtruppen was the "the first Assault Rifle".
Has anyone ever heard of the term "colloquialism".
Yes. Fortunately, none of the other colloquialisms were banned for ten years, and are still banned in some places if the colloquialism has a bayonet lug and detachable magazine exceeding ten rounds.
That you provide other cases where Sturm does indeed translate as "Assault" is all well and good, but it says nothing about the validity of Ezell's claim that the weapon issued to Sturmtruppen was the "the first Assault Rifle".
So, your arguement is strictly limited to the fact that Ezell claimed the MP-44 was the first "assault rifle", and this claim was without merit? And the only evidence that could possibly substantiate Ezell's position is a WWII dated US newspaper with headlines reading "Hitler Announces Acceptance of StG-44 Assault Rilfe"
It is obvious you will resort to any means, and change any perviously established criterion you have set forth, and contort any nuance of terms, to avoid admitting you are wrong, while fighting an obvioulsy already lost battle over completely meaningless straws of history.
Your arguement is strictly limited to the fact that Ezell claimed the MP-44 was the first "assault rifle", and this claim was without merit?
MP44? Do you mean the StG44?
quote:
Would the claim be with merit if, for example, I provided evidence that Dwight D. Eisenhower (a good blooded German last name, well know participant of WWII, and past President of the USA, mind you) referred to "assault rifles" in communications?
Only if he was referring to the StG44 by name. Else, any rifle used in an assault is an "assault rifle".
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
That you provide other cases where Sturm does indeed translate as "Assault" is all well and good, but it says nothing about the validity of Ezell's claim that the weapon issued to Sturmtruppen was the "the first Assault Rifle".
Your arguement is strictly limited to the fact that Ezell claimed the MP-44 was the first "assault rifle", and this claim was without merit? Would the claim be with merit if, for example, I provided evidence that Dwight D. Eisenhower (a good blooded German last name, well know participant of WWII, and past President of the USA, mind you) referred to "assault rifles" in communications?
Sorry, make that one communication.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
Your arguement is strictly limited to the fact that Ezell claimed the MP-44 was the first "assault rifle", and this claim was without merit?
MP44? Do you mean the StG44?
MP-44, StG-44, whatever, it is still the same firearm.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
[br Would the claim be with merit if, for example, I provided evidence that Dwight D. Eisenhower (a good blooded German last name, well know participant of WWII, and past President of the USA, mind you) referred to "assault rifles" in communications?
Only if he was referring to the StG44 by name. Else, any rifle used in an assault is an "assault rifle".
How can you determine that unless you know exactly what he said? You assume too much.
How can you determine that unless you know exactly what he said?
Easily. Either his reference to "assault rifles" was specific to the StG44 or to something else; if to something else, then the communication is irrelevant.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
How can you determine that unless you know exactly what he said?
Easily. Either his reference to "assault rifles" was specific to the StG44 or to something else; if to something else, then the communication is irrelevant.
So if Ike referenced the "German assault rifles" without being specific to, or using the term, "Strumgewehr", or "StG-44", you would not be satisfied that there was a valid reference to assault rifles that pre-dated Ezell?
So if Ike referenced the "German assault rifles" without being specific to, or using the term, "Strumgewehr", or "StG-44", you would not be satisfied that there was a valid reference to assault rifles that pre-dated Ezell?
No, because Ezell's claim is specific to the Sturmgewehr and the criteria of "a select-fire weapon firing an intermediate-power cartridge from a detachable magazine". What Ike meant by "German assault rifles" is anyone's guess, from G43s to Schmeissers. Again, the issue is not whether the term "assault rifle" existed before Ezell's claim; the issue is whether the term "assault rifle" as a class of military weapons distinguished from "battle rifles" by the characteristics given began with the StG44 and was so named at the time.
So, your arguement is strictly limited to the fact that Ezell claimed the MP-44 was the first "assault rifle", and this claim was without merit? And the only evidence that could possibly substantiate Ezell's position is a WWII dated US newspaper with headlines reading "Hitler Announces Acceptance of StG-44 Assault Rilfe"
It is obvious you will resort to any means, and change any perviously established criterion you have set forth, and contort any nuance of terms, to avoid admitting you are wrong, while fighting an obvioulsy already lost battle over completely meaningless straws of history.
Don't ruin this exchange by pouting, boeboe. I have not changed a single criterion, else kindly point it out. Is my demand for specificity in the Eisenhower communication so out of line? I am not asking for banner headlines, and you know it. You have had some very cogent things to say, but this last post only serves to undermine them.
What would substantiate Ezell's claim is any military or historical record contemporary to introduction of the StG44 that called it an "assault rifle"; sparing that, any military or historical record indicating that either Hitler or the German military thought that the StG44 represented a new class of infantry weapon distinguished by the unique characteristics noted by Ezell. I'm afraid that without such documentation, all Ezell has done is retroactively apply a 1960's concept to a 1940's weapon and insist that it was the first representative of a specific class.
I am not certain why a demand for historical proof should upset you. Are you after the truth or only what you want to hear? Or do you simply want to win an argument, regardless of the matter?
you may fire when ready Gridley, as long as it's from the assault ship.[;)]
Are "assault ships" a unique class of craft distinguished from "battle ships" by their reduced power and intermediate capacity? And do they always sail full sturm ahead?
Any ideas[?]
Yes get audio of this thread and play it when you feel the need to assault someone. Trust me it will be way more effective than any dadgum rifle.
I want to know what Sturm means in the context of Sturm, Ruger and Co. Was Bill Ruger influenced by the sturmgewehr? Are all Rugers Strumrugers?
That would be Alexander Sturm, the first in a class of gun company executives denoted by intermediate stature and selectively firing anyone with a modicum of competency.
Don't ruin this exchange by pouting, boeboe. I have not changed a single criterion, else kindly point it out.
I already have. I don't see how you can deny the criteria has changed.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
Is my demand for specificity in the Eisenhower communication so out of line? I am not asking for banner headlines, and you know it.
You seem to remain evasive in what you require, with no assurance that you will accept evidence that is presented. The fraction of people who understand what your argument is remains excessively small. Could you please the exact, verbatim, quote from Ezell that seems to have you so upset? I believe this may clarify what substantiation you are seeking.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
You have had some very cogent things to say, but this last post only serves to undermine them.
And your last few posts accomplishes what?????
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
What would substantiate Ezell's claim is any military or historical record contemporary to introduction of the StG44 that called it an "assault rifle"; sparing that, any military or historical record indicating that either Hitler or the German military thought that the StG44 represented a new class of infantry weapon distinguished by the unique characteristics noted by Ezell. I'm afraid that without such documentation, all Ezell has done is retroactively apply a 1960's concept to a 1940's weapon and insist that it was the first representative of a specific class.
I fail to see why this is important. That items, people, or events are defined long after the fact/event really means very little in terms of history. The cliff dwelling of Mesa Verde were inhabited by a people who called themselves by a name we will never know. Modern man and modern researchers have chosen to call them the Anassi. There is no "contemporary" evidence that they knew them selves by this name. The only name they are known by is the name modern man has ascribed to them. In similar manner, we find Native American flint tools, and call them things like "scrapers", "knives", ax heads", "bird points" and such, but certianly, these devices were not known by these names when they were first made. It is overwhelmingly accepted that Julius Caesar was the first of what is considered the "12 Ceasars". But he was not known as this within his lifetime, of course, and was not know as this until centuries later. That there were hundreds of Ceasars of Rome does nothing to diminish what is known as the "12 ceasars". Where is the convention that items, people, or events from history must be labled in a manner that reflects their original name or status?
What was the first "sniper rifle"? What was the first "battle rifle"? I know you have used the term "battle rifle" to define a particular group of firearms, what was the first? Is it incumbent that the designation "battle rifle" be consistent with it's original designation? Do you consider the telescoped muskets used during the civil war, or the telescoped Sharps used by Sgt John Ryan on Benteen's hill? If these were not "sniper's rifles", at what piont would you say the first "sniper's rifle" came into existance? And is there contemporary evidence to support that assertion?
Why are you obsessed with the origins of the term "assault rifle", and not "battle rifle", "sniper rifle", or "pocket pistol"? Have you looked similarly into the term "Saturday Night Special"? In reality, all these term, as well as the term "assault rifle" are only good to place general classifications on firearms, and what may be a "Saturday night special" to one person certainly may be debated by another.
From what I have been able to determine, if a double barrel longarm, or a 4 barrel pepperbox pistol were adjusted to fire all barrels at once, such firearms would be considered "automatic weapons" by the ATF because more than one round is fired by a single function of the trigger. And I believe that such firearms are illegal, and could send a person away for a long time. Do you consider them automatic firearms? Would your opinion matter to the BATF?
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
I am not certain why a demand for historical proof should upset you. Are you after the truth or only what you want to hear? Or do you simply want to win an argument, regardless of the matter?
In the first place, as I indicated, I don't really see any reason there needs to be evidence that the term "assault rifle" was first inappropriately (or inappropriately) used by Ezell to describe the "sturmgewehr". There are so few people who know the real history to the term, and so many more that will continue to use it, it really isn't going to matter what you, or I, or anyone else on this forum cares to debate. What is going to matter is the ongoing use of the term in the future. It is a term that will proliferate regardless of what any of use do, and regardless of what any of us know.
Well, how do you like that?! I refrain from posting wise remarks for one lousy page, and DWS starts in on my game!!!Sheesh!![:0][V][:o)][:D]
Have you noted PatBuzard's post on M1A?
Damn it, I have created a monster[:0][:0][:0] Please help me kill it before it takes over the entire server[:0][:0]
Ha! Actually, you just awakened the monster, previously created.[:D]
By the way, what did you end up buying? Will you post images?
I fail to see why this is important. That items, people, or events are defined long after the fact/event really means very little in terms of history.
The historical accuracy of Ezell's claim and the relative worth of his taxonomic exercise are hardly the point. From the beginning this argument has always been about language meaning and use, or rather language lack of meaning and misuse. Everyone knows and uses the term "assault rifle". That we recognize the term and think we know what it means should therefore present little challenge to explain, yet as the past seven pages have shown this is easier said than done.
Consider: An "assault rifle" is said to be a select-fire military weapon firing a reduced power cartridge from a detachable magazine. Q: What practical difference does cartridge power make? A: None. The application of infantry weapons since WWII has been a hodgepodge of calibers and operating systems, and the military--the people who actually use these weapons--neither make nor have need for distinction based on cartridge size. In lieu of being an "assault rifle", the M16 is simply "U.S. Rifle, Caliber 5.56mm, M16", and that's all it is; in lieu of being a "battle rifle", the M14 is simply "U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M14", and that's all it is. That they are otherwise select-fire weapons firing from a detachable magazine with the same maximum effective range suffices their roles. The terms "assault rifle" and "battle rifle" are therefore meaningless in a military context, as the terms do not name their respective function or use and the weapons themselves can and have been used for either purpose.
So if not the military, who does it matter to, and why? Enter Ezell. He notices that since WWII, miltary weapons development evidences a particular trend, i.e., downsizing cartridge power and barrel length while increasing cartridge capacity and adding select-fire capability. This trend separates military weapons like the AK47 and M16 from military weapons like the FAL and M14. He then introduces the notation "assault rifle" to name the class of military weapons exemplified by the trend, and the notation "battle rifle" to cover those that don't. The only problem is, the only people who give a crap are Ezell and his civilian readership, who gobble it up for its heuristic value (they think), regardless of the terms' lack of meaning in a military context. Witness birth of jargon.
Jump twenty years ahead. People have been talking about "assault rifles" for years. They know the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "battle rifle", and they content themselves with knowing the difference. Again, the only problem is, nobody gives a crap but them. Jump ahead a few more years and enter politicians and the media. The term "assault rifle" is expanded to include a class of semi-automatic, military-style weapons they closely resemble, yet themselves are not called "assault rifles" by the people who use them, the military. No matter. An "assault rifle" now does not need to be select-fire", nor even used by the military, but instead only exhibit a certain combination of characteristics, like a pistol grip, bayonet lug, detachable magazine exceeding ten round and a flash suppressor.
Given the above, just what is an "assault rifle"? Answer: A linguistic construct for whatever you say it is. And unlike a real AK47 or U.S, Rifle, Caliber 5.56mm, M16, a linguistic construct can be made to point to whatever legislators say it points to. So excuse me all to hell if I want to kick the nuts of anybody who uses the term or smugly recites the conventional wisdom about where it came from and how.
quote:Originally posted by jbjm04
Damn it, I have created a monster[:0][:0][:0] Please help me kill it before it takes over the entire server[:0][:0]
Ha! Actually, you just awakened the monster, previously created.[:D]
By the way, what did you end up buying? Will you post images?
Almost a monster. I have found this discussion most interesting and rewarding. Simply the fact that I have had to "duel" with someone of the caliber of DWS had necessitated that I, and I hope others, have learned a great deal. I don't want anyone to perceive that the discussion DWS and I have had has left either of us (I hope) with any ill feelings towards each other. From my first few posts, I approached this openly stating that DWS has a valid position, and my position is found in my posts. I find this still true.
My personal feeling is DWS and I have been squabbling between the fly-caca occasionally found in pepper. There is no doubt in my mind that he and I feel very strongly about the principles of the Second Amendment.
TR Fox tasked us to do something beside squabble among ourselves over such things. I wonder, has anyone reacted to that challenge? I have. Because of this discussion, I made a recommendation on another board that they remove the term "assault rifle" as the leader to one of their forums, and they responded by re-naming the forum. While it seems that I am in disagreement with TR and DWS, I still reacted to what they were saying, and now another firearms related board is no longer broadcasting the term "assault rifle" as a lead-in to one of their forums.
I have to ask, has anyone else taken this discussion and used it to promote the Second Amendment? If not, why not? I believe every one of us can grab bits of this discussion, take the information, and somehow use it to support our rights.
Sure, DWS and I may appear to squabble endlessly about nothing. And it may seem I am not listening to TR Fox. Again, I have found the discussion to be very educational and personally rewarding, and have taken the comments of TR Fox to heart. Has anyone else? There have been many other great posters here, .280 freak really surprised me. It is exceptional that we have kept this discussion alive for as long as we have without injecting enough personal comments to see that it gets poofed. I appreciate the patience of the moderators and administration for that.
I may respond to DWS's last post tomorrow, but I wanted to slip this in this evening.
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39
This is the most posts I have ever saw on one topic
Yes, normally we try desperately to keep it superficial around here. Sorry for this lapse of decorum.
Man even more!!![8D]
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I fail to see why this is important. That items, people, or events are defined long after the fact/event really means very little in terms of history.
The historical accuracy of Ezell's claim and the relative worth of his taxonomic exercise are hardly the point. From the beginning this argument has always been about language meaning and use, or rather language lack of meaning and misuse. Everyone knows and uses the term "assault rifle". That we recognize the term and think we know what it means should therefore present little challenge to explain, yet as the past seven pages have shown this is easier said than done.
Consider: An "assault rifle" is said to be a select-fire military weapon firing a reduced power cartridge from a detachable magazine. Q: What practical difference does cartridge power make? A: None. The application of infantry weapons since WWII has been a hodgepodge of calibers and operating systems, and the military--the people who actually use these weapons--neither make nor have need for distinction based on cartridge size. In lieu of being an "assault rifle", the M16 is simply "U.S. Rifle, Caliber 5.56mm, M16", and that's all it is; in lieu of being a "battle rifle", the M14 is simply "U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M14", and that's all it is. That they are otherwise select-fire weapons firing from a detachable magazine with the same maximum effective range suffices their roles. The terms "assault rifle" and "battle rifle" are therefore meaningless in a military context, as the terms do not name their respective function or use and the weapons themselves can and have been used for either purpose.
So if not the military, who does it matter to, and why? Enter Ezell. He notices that since WWII, miltary weapons development evidences a particular trend, i.e., downsizing cartridge power and barrel length while increasing cartridge capacity and adding select-fire capability. This trend separates military weapons like the AK47 and M16 from military weapons like the FAL and M14. He then introduces the notation "assault rifle" to name the class of military weapons exemplified by the trend, and the notation "battle rifle" to cover those that don't. The only problem is, the only people who give a crap are Ezell and his civilian readership, who gobble it up for its heuristic value (they think), regardless of the terms' lack of meaning in a military context. Witness birth of jargon.
Jump twenty years ahead. People have been talking about "assault rifles" for years. They know the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "battle rifle", and they content themselves with knowing the difference. Again, the only problem is, nobody gives a crap but them. Jump ahead a few more years and enter politicians and the media. The term "assault rifle" is expanded to include a class of semi-automatic, military-style weapons they closely resemble, yet themselves are not called "assault rifles" by the people who use them, the military. No matter. An "assault rifle" now does not need to be select-fire", nor even used by the military, but instead only exhibit a certain combination of characteristics, like a pistol grip, bayonet lug, detachable magazine exceeding ten round and a flash suppressor.
Given the above, just what is an "assault rifle"? Answer: A linguistic construct for whatever you say it is. And unlike a real AK47 or U.S, Rifle, Caliber 5.56mm, M16, a linguistic construct can be made to point to whatever legislators say it points to. So excuse me all to hell if I want to kick the nuts of anybody who uses the term or smugly recites the conventional wisdom about where it came from and how.
DWS,
I agree with everything you said up to one point. That point being:
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
So excuse me all to hell if I want to kick the nuts of anybody who uses the term or smugly recites the conventional wisdom about where it came from and how.
You are obviously passionate about the transgressions associated in using this term, and it is clear from the posters of this thread that others approach your commitment. I think the only thing that separates us is your desire to go back into history and wring Ezell's neck. Excuse me for a moment if I digress.
"If's" play no (or a very limited) part in the logical thought process. We sit around and watch "It's a Wonderful Life" at Christmas, and ponder the "if's" of a persons life wondering how the world would have changed if "I" (or perhaps "they") had never been born. At least, it is still one of my favorite movies. But is is, of course, poppycock. History is what it is, there is no changing that. But let us assume for a moment that Ezell never existed. Instead, someone came along and during the course of human events made a comment to the effect that the StG-44 was the first "storm rifle", and that several following rifles seemed to fit into the category of "storm rifle". If such a pivotal event had occurred, would the anti-gun forces have eventually seized on the term "storm rifle" to promote their attempts to deprive our Second Amendment rights? Would you feel any differently if we, as a collective firearms community, were now faced with having to deal with "storm rifle", "storm weapons", etc, etc. etc.
So what is my point in assuming "if's" could be fathomed? Of course, my point is, in terms of history, it really would not matter. If the anti-firearm community was not able to grasp the term "assault" to further their cause, they would have grabbed the next most appropriate term. If that term was "storm rifle", or "battle rifle", they would have seized it. In fact, if no such term was available, they would have simply invented their own term!
Would the net result have been any different? I don't think so. Regardless of any term we could be faced with, we would, as those who support the individual right of self protection, still be opposing an enemy that desires to deprive of us this right.
I have to ask, DWS, could you agree with the forgoing?
Perhaps those few of us who really understand the history of this aberration of the term "assault rifle" should not be so concerned with the term itself. Perhaps the concept of what it means when some power attempts to deprive us of one of the most inalienable rights of all living creatures is more important, regardless of the terms used. That being, the ability to protect oneself (and family) from any force that one can be perceived. The lowest of creatures has this ability. Somehow, someway, they have been given the right to use whatever resources they have in their effort to survive.
Perhaps those who have followed this thread over all these many pages can see the importance of what you, TR Fox, Frogbert, hubecha, He Dog, ect, etc, etc, has been saying. I don't mean to omit any of the valuable contributors to this thread, but after all, there are so many! And I also hope that our original poster, jbjm04, has something to take away from this that is far, far over and above his original question. Personally, I know I have.
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
So excuse me all to hell if I want to kick the nuts of anybody who uses the term or smugly recites the conventional wisdom about where it came from and how.
Understood. Your points are very well taken. As much as I argue with you, I understand why we argue, and there is no hostility there. My opinion, there is not a poster here who is more articulate than you. In my own opinion, those who exceed your general knowledge of firearms are true experts in specialized fields (and we should all humble ourselves before such experts). Just, please, refrain from your initial "knee jerk" reaction to go to the nuts. Pause, and see if through understanding and knowledge, we can win a friend or two, and not make an enemy.
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
at the end of the day and a million bucks wont repeal that "right"
hehehhehehehe
[;)]
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I fail to see why this is important. That items, people, or events are defined long after the fact/event really means very little in terms of history.
The historical accuracy of Ezell's claim and the relative worth of his taxonomic exercise are hardly the point. ...
DWS,
I agree with everything you said up to one point. That point being:
You are obviously passionate about the transgressions...
Perhaps those few of us who really understand the history of this aberration...
Oh, puleeeeze.
Clouder..
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39
This is the most posts I have ever saw on one topic
Yes, normally we try desperately to keep it superficial around here. Sorry for this lapse of decorum.
Man even more!!![8D]
AND MORE[:0][:0][:0][:0][:0]
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I fail to see why this is important. That items, people, or events are defined long after the fact/event really means very little in terms of history.
The historical accuracy of Ezell's claim and the relative worth of his taxonomic exercise are hardly the point. ...
DWS,
I agree with everything you said up to one point. That point being:
You are obviously passionate about the transgressions...
Perhaps those few of us who really understand the history of this aberration...
Oh, puleeeeze.
Clouder..
And, if I could ask, what percentage of the population understands?
NRA Lifetime Benefactor Member.
I have to ask, DWS, could you agree with the forgoing?
There is a line in Jaws where Mayor Vaughn says to Chief Brodie, "You yell barracuda, everybody says, "Huh? What?" You yell shark, and we've got a panic on our hands on the Fourth of July."
There is something inherent in certain words that evokes expectation and emotion beyond their mere definition. Like "shark" and "rainbow" and "liberal", "assault" is unfortunately one of those words. In comparison, "storm" is less threatening, a kinder, gentler word. That words sometimes incite emotion and expectation goes without saying. I am not debating that another gun writer or someone else with a compulsion for taxonomy could or would have suggested the same class of weapons, but I think picking a word to describe it that a lot of folks fear and/or love to hate was not the best choice. All water under the bridge. Again, I am not so much interested in the mess it created as much as how that mess was created.
Think of it: Some gun writer suddenly decides that the sum of the world's modern infantry shoulder weapons naturally falls into two distinct types or categories ("assault rifles" and "battle rifles"). He then explains why, and for "assault rifle" gives in support as progenitor the StG44. Of course he is historically incorrect, because the concept and examples of the type existed long before the StG44, but no matter; the connection is forever made. And no matter that the distinction is but an artificial construct that serves no practical purpose whatsoever other than to give survivalists and military weapon afficionados something to chub about. Meanwhile, the military community for whom these weapons were so categorized don't give crap one, continuing to go about their business with systematized nomenclature.
Such is the power of language. The rest is history, and all the coulda, woulda, shouldas in the world don't matter one iota. And what gets lost in the shuffle is that the distinction made is but a contrived, artificial construct, a trick of language. Sure there are select-fire military rifles that shoot full-power cartridges and select-fire military rifles that fire intermediate-power cartridges, but the names of the categories into which they fall are arbitary (read: meaningless) to actual purpose and use. That we recognize the terms and insist that an M14 will reach out and touch someone that an M16 can't does not change this, nor does it make one a "battle rifle" and the other an "assault rifle" except in language.
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I have to ask, DWS, could you agree with the forgoing?
There is a line in Jaws where Mayor Vaughn says to Chief Brodie, "You yell barracuda, everybody says, "Huh? What?" You yell shark, and we've got a panic on our hands on the Fourth of July."
There is something inherent in certain words that evokes expectation and emotion beyond their mere definition. Like "shark" and "rainbow" and "liberal", "assault" is unfortunately one of those words. In comparison, "storm" is less threatening, a kinder, gentler word. That words sometimes incite emotion and expectation goes without saying. I am not debating that another gun writer or someone else with a compulsion for taxonomy could or would have suggested the same class of weapons, but I think picking a word to describe it that a lot of folks fear and/or love to hate was not the best choice. All water under the bridge. Again, I am not so much interested in the mess it created as much as how that mess was created.
Think of it: Some gun writer suddenly decides that the sum of the world's modern infantry shoulder weapons naturally falls into two distinct types or categories ("assault rifles" and "battle rifles"). He then explains why, and for "assault rifle" gives in support as progenitor the StG44. Of course he is historically incorrect, because the concept and examples of the type existed long before the StG44, but no matter; the connection is forever made. And no matter that the distinction is but an artificial construct that serves no practical purpose whatsoever other than to give survivalists and military weapon afficionados something to chub about. Meanwhile, the military community for whom these weapons were so categorized don't give crap one, continuing to go about their business with systematized nomenclature.
Such is the power of language. The rest is history, and all the coulda, woulda, shouldas in the world don't matter one iota. And what gets lost in the shuffle is that the distinction made is but a contrived, artificial construct, a trick of language. Sure there are select-fire military rifles that shoot full-power cartridges and select-fire military rifles that fire intermediate-power cartridges, but the names of the categories into which they fall are arbitary (read: meaningless) to actual purpose and use. That we recognize the terms and insist that an M14 will reach out and touch someone that an M16 can't does not change this, nor does it make one a "battle rifle" and the other an "assault rifle" except in language.
Excellent!
I hope it is understood I retain the right to reply. If anyone else feels free to contribute, by all means, join in!
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by boeboe
I fail to see why this is important. That items, people, or events are defined long after the fact/event really means very little in terms of history.
The historical accuracy of Ezell's claim and the relative worth of his taxonomic exercise are hardly the point. ...
DWS,
I agree with everything you said up to one point. That point being:
You are obviously passionate about the transgressions...
Perhaps those few of us who really understand the history of this aberration...
Oh, puleeeeze.
Clouder..
And, if I could ask, what percentage of the population understands?
Define population. [:D]
Clouder..
P.S. Please--don't.