6.8 SPC Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
451 Posts
Liberals and Commies did not create the "assault weapons" term. It was coined by gun guys.

"Assault weapons" and "wepons of war" are political terms. Not military terms.

Phillip Peterson (as implied) didn't coin the term. The original, assault rifles (subsequent and intentionally morphed into the politically nebulous assault weapons) was coined by a Socialist Democrat. Kalifornia's Socialist Democrats overreaching ban was, at least temporarily, declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. Stanc, do you have a problem with the rule of law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozarkpugs

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
You seem to be missing the point Stan. Most, nearly all of the "ARs" in civilian possession are not select fire and therefore not the "Assault Rifle" that all those gun guys are talking about.
That was supposed to be the point? That's far different than the absurd statements I responded to, like "you also haven't seen an assault rifle if you haven't witnessed a military assault/attack."

@stanc - You've posted three times to this thread, and it seems that your primary concern is that forum members accept the gun guys/academic definition of an assault rifle as being the only correct way of understanding the use of the word 'assault' in the context of firearms.
False. My concern is the misuse of the term "assault rifle", not use of the word "assault".

The closest you get to stating an opinion regarding the original post is to say, "Nevertheless, it's good to get such a ruling".
Yes, that is my opinion of the ruling. Do you think it is not a good thing?

Do you fall into the group that you believe exists here "who also want some "infringements" by government on the RKBA"?
I'll decline to answer that question here, as I don't want to be the only one to answer. If you start a new thread, I'll be happy to participate. Ask questions like: Do you want people to be able to buy -- without any government restrictions, background checks, etc -- items such as hand grenades, Claymore mines, Javelin missiles, anti-tank mines, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles?

Just to clarify , do you agree with most of us that the AR 15 style pistol / carbine / rifle are not assult rifles because of the simple fact they are not select fire r do you believe the AR semi automatic is an assult rifle / pistol / carbine ?
According to the generally-accepted definition, the AR15 is not technically an assault rifle, since it is not select-fire. However, according to the definition posted by some here, those AR15s which have bee used in mass shootings are assault rifles, being rifles which were used to assault other people.

My position is that the AR15 is a semi-auto variant of an assault rifle. Considering that the select-fire M4A1 is fired by soldiers in combat almost exclusively in semi-auto mode, there is virtually no practical difference in actual use
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
That was supposed to be the point? That's far different than the absurd statements I responded to, like "you also haven't seen an assault rifle if you haven't witnessed a military assault/attack."


False. My concern is the misuse of the term "assault rifle", not use of the word "assault".


Yes, that is my opinion of the ruling. Do you think it is not a good thing?


I'll decline to answer that question here, as I don't want to be the only one to answer. If you start a new thread, I'll be happy to participate. Ask questions like: Do you want people to be able to buy -- without any government restrictions, background checks, etc -- items such as hand grenades, Claymore mines, Javelin missiles, anti-tank mines, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles?


According to the generally-accepted definition, the AR15 is not technically an assault rifle, since it is not select-fire. However, according to the definition posted by some here, those AR15s which have bee used in mass shootings are assault rifles, being rifles which were used to assault other people.

My position is that the AR15 is a semi-auto variant of an assault rifle. Considering that the select-fire M4A1 is fired by soldiers in combat almost exclusively in semi-auto mode, there is virtually no practical difference in actual use
Why do you beat around the bush and not answer my question ? I didn't ask if the general public thought the AR 15 variants were assult weapons, I asked if YOU think they are . You seem to be implying you don't by saying the term " assult rifle " is misused . I think you are confusing the point by claiming some on here are defining AR s as assult rifles because they can be used as assult weapons . If I purposely drive a chevrolet pu into a crowd of people I have used the pu as a weapon to assult those people and will be charged with assult with a deadly weapon but I don't think you or anyone on here or even the media will classify chevrolet pu s as an assult vehicle because of it . Don't play the devil's advocate , we are not talking grenades or rocket launchers we are talking AR style rifles . That said I agree , it was a good thing and even if it gets overturned on appeal it gives hope . This is not an absurd question it is a straight forward question . Do you believe AR style semi auto guns should be classified as assult rifles by definition ? I'm not saying if it is used in a crime , we understand even a hammer can be an assult weapon . I'm talking about the millions of Ar style guns owned by law abiding citizens .

Sent from my LM-K920 using Tapatalk
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
That was supposed to be the point? That's far different than the absurd statements I responded to, like "you also haven't seen an assault rifle if you haven't witnessed a military assault/attack."
Yes, I am pretty sure that is what they were trying to say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirTrainer

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
That's just nonsense. Of course there is a such thing as an assault weapon. If I choose to beat you with a coke bottle that coke bottle is an assault weapon. The issue at hand is whether or not the semi auto AR15 is classified as an assault rifle. My opinion is that it is not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
What you fail to comprehend is that "assault rifle" is not a label created by Liberal anti-gun people. It is a term used by authors and subject matter experts to identify a class of small arms that have certain characteristics. The term is also used as nomenclature by some of the world's military forces; for example, the Mk17 SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle).


Apparently you and Mikie do not understand the difference between a type of weapon, and an infantry assault.


Yup, that's the most generally used definition of "assault rifle".


Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has repeatedly held that the government can "infringe" on the RKBA, through regulations, restrictions, and even outright bans.

For that matter, there are a number of folks who consider themselves to be pro-2A, but who also want some "infringements" by government on the RKBA. If you ask the right questions, you'd probably find some of them in 68forums.


Liberals and Commies did not create the "assault weapons" term. It was coined by gun guys.

Here we go, by your reasoning and that these should be called what some author decided to coin as a phrase, doesn't make it so. Sure it has a nice catchy ring to it that anti gun activist and politicians like to throw to the public to scare the crap out of them in order to get gun control. By this reasoning, that would make AR in the AR15 (AR14 if you're Slo Joe) stand for Assault Rifle, which as most of us know it does not. I have a Ruger Ranch Rifle, just by putting a threaded barrel (or having the current one threaded), it becomes a so called assault rifle as per anti gun politicians and activist. By using the definition Wikipedia uses, makes a semi auto 22 mag with a detachable mag an assault rifle. You may tell yourself it's (22 mag) is not an intermediate cartridge, and I would agree with that. However, when you have guys on YouTube putting videos out shooting 400 plus yards with it (one out to 1000yds), then an anti gun politician can make a good case it is an intermediate cartridge.

I'm finished feeding the Troll for today. Have a wonderful and blessed day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
The original, assault rifles (subsequent and intentionally morphed into the politically nebulous assault weapons) was coined by a Socialist Democrat.
False. "Assault rifle" is the English translation of the German "Sturmgewehr" and has been used by military historians and gun writers since the Second World War.

Why do you beat around the bush and not answer my question ? I didn't ask if the general public thought the AR 15 variants were assult weapons, I asked if YOU think they are .
No, you did not ask me if I think AR15s are assault weapons. You asked me if I think they are assault rifles. And I did answer your question as precisely as I could, but I'll try again.

Since the semi-auto AR15 does not meet one of the characteristics (i.e., select-fire) usually attributed to assault rifles, it is not technically an assault rifle.

However, since the semi-auto AR15 has the exact same capabilities as the select-fire M4A1 as it is nearly always fired (i.e., semi-auto), I'd opine that for all practical intents and purposes, yeah, the AR15 is an assault rifle.

There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
That is Democrat-manufactured term...
False. The term "assault weapons" was created by publicists for the gun industry before anti-gun politicians began using it.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
I just had a conversation with a Major at an unnamed Sheriff's department about this very topic. I said something about more people drown every year than are killed with an AR. He confirmed it. I also said more people are bludgeoned to death, than are killed with rifles, He also confirmed that. In fact he said the number one item used to bludgeon someone is the Ball Pein hammer. So I guess we will have to out law the Ball Pein hammer as an assault weapon too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guts

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
1) Hat tip to Waterloo Kid for having the funniest signature line! Thank you for that!

2) Apologies extended to wmw3.

3) Stan, you've contradicted yourself at least twice in this thread. I initially thought I would highlight those contradictions, but I'm glad I didn't. Instead, I think you should just spell out your thoughts here, with a focus on the words that you wrote in your first entry - Nevertheless, it's good to get such a ruling.

I think that was a difficult sentence for you to write because you really don't like the court's ruling. Whatever the motivation, you lied when you wrote those words.

I think that if we are going to have an intelligent conversation on this topic the subterfuge needs to discarded. I think you need to state your true thoughts on the topics at hand, knowing that they will not likely be received with warmth. I'm not going to insult you for stating your beliefs as you hold them, but I will humiliate you for deception.

I understand that you may receive this recommendation with trepidation. I will go first.

I believe in God, the Father. I believe in His Son, Jesus Christ. I believe in the Holy Spirit. I believe that the rights of man flow directly from God to the whole of humanity. I believe that God has a plan which I am unable to know or comprehend. I believe that God's plan is perfect just as God is perfect. I believe that this life is not the reward; it is the test. The test has one question: Will I choose to love and serve God?

I believe I have the right to self defense, and the responsibility to defend those that are unable to defend themselves.

I believe that where a government fears its people, there is freedom, and that where a people fears its government, there is tyranny.

I believe that the Supreme Court ruled wrongly in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

I believe that the recent court's ruling on California's AWB is good. I particularly like these words: "...a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle. "

Okay, now it's your turn.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,259 Posts
There were a record number of gun violence deaths in 2020: 19,379.

So? What percentage of these were "justifiable"? In other words, how many of these souls got what was deserved ("good shoot")? How many were A.V.A.N.H.I. ?
(A-hole Verses A-hole, No Humans Involved)

According to MSN... 2020 saw more gun deaths in the US than any year in over two decades, showing even a pandemic couldn't stop the violence (msn.com)


The last numbers I see listed on abortions are for 2018-20 (incomplete numbers, appear to be a repeat of 2017's numbers): 2018-20 862,320

So? What percentage of these were "justifiable"? In other words, how many of these souls got what was deserved? And, BTW... that number is down from a high of 1.6 Million in 1990.

According to Christian Life Resources... U.S. Abortion Statistics By Year (1973-Current) - Christian Life Resources


I'd suggest the "tongs" used in an abortion clinic are far more worthy of "Assault Weapon" status than ANY semi-auto firearm ever got accused of being.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 · (Edited)
False. "Assault rifle" is the English translation of the German "Sturmgewehr" and has been used by military historians and gun writers since the Second World War.





False. The term "assault weapons" was created by publicists for the gun industry before anti-gun politicians began using it.
It was originally known as the MP44 or Machine Pistole 44. The story is that after some minor upgrades, Hitler decided on the name Sturmgewehr 44, (Storm Gun literally translated) for Propaganda reasons. It had a scarier name. than machine pistole. Basically the same reason liberals want to call the AR15 an assault rifle. It has a scary name.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
451 Posts
That's just nonsense. Of course there is a such thing as an assault weapon. If I choose to beat you with a coke bottle that coke bottle is an assault weapon. The issue at hand is whether or not the semi auto AR15 is classified as an assault rifle. My opinion is that it is not.
I agree, I do not think the AR 15 is an assault rifle. It is intentionally not capable of burst or automatic fire.

What I don't get is the minutia of the semantics (mostly I don't care to get the semantics), but let me see... You are bringing an assault bottle to a gun fight but I can't bring an assault rifle? Both can be used as weapons. If I shoot you before you can swing or throw the bottle, I guess that would be an assault rifle. It would real be an assault bullet, since we're arguing semantics. I could choose to beat you with the rifle, that would an assault with a rifle. If I waited until you took the first swing that would be a defensive rifle...

Does the military us an AR15 to assault the enemy or for that matter, stanc a computer to assault the the internet? The military doesn't really use the term assault weapon/rifle. They have used Battle Rifles and do use M16's. Stanc insults more than assaults with his computer.

If a detachable magazine is the definition of an assault rifle, then an en bloc or stripper clip loading semi-auto with an internal magazine (M1 Garand, M14) is just a sporting rifle. So, to make an AR15 not be an assault rifle by that definition, the magazine could be pinned and welded to the lower, the upper then hinged forward and the now fixed magazine loaded with a stripper clip and definitely no longer an assault rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
1) Hat tip to Waterloo Kid for having the funniest signature line! Thank you for that!

2) Apologies extended to wmw3.

3) Stan, you've contradicted yourself at least twice in this thread. I initially thought I would highlight those contradictions, but I'm glad I didn't. Instead, I think you should just spell out your thoughts here, with a focus on the words that you wrote in your first entry - Nevertheless, it's good to get such a ruling.

I think that was a difficult sentence for you to write because you really don't like the court's ruling. Whatever the motivation, you lied when you wrote those words.

I think that if we are going to have an intelligent conversation on this topic the subterfuge needs to discarded. I think you need to state your true thoughts on the topics at hand, knowing that they will not likely be received with warmth. I'm not going to insult you for stating your beliefs as you hold them, but I will humiliate you for deception.

I understand that you may receive this recommendation with trepidation. I will go first.

I believe in God, the Father. I believe in His Son, Jesus Christ. I believe in the Holy Spirit. I believe that the rights of man flow directly from God to the whole of humanity. I believe that God has a plan which I am unable to know or comprehend. I believe that God's plan is perfect just as God is perfect. I believe that this life is not the reward; it is the test. The test has one question: Will I choose to love and serve God?

I believe I have the right to self defense, and the responsibility to defend those that are unable to defend themselves.

I believe that where a government fears its people, there is freedom, and that where a people fears its government, there is tyranny.

I believe that the Supreme Court ruled wrongly in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

I believe that the recent court's ruling on California's AWB is good. I particularly like these words: "...a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle. "

Okay, now it's your turn.
You are correct in him contradicting himself . As matter of fact I had him blocked but became curious when it appeared some of the comments to others were saying ARs were fausly labeled as assult weapons . After I unblocked him to see if he had come around to rational thinking I found he is still a troll who doesn't really know what he identifies as . I will waste no more time engaging him in posts and re blocked him .

Sent from my LM-K920 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
You are correct in him contradicting himself . As matter of fact I had him blocked but became curious when it appeared some of the comments to others were saying ARs were fausly labeled as assult weapons . After I unblocked him to see if he had come around to rational thinking I found he is still a troll who doesn't really know what he identifies as . I will waste no more time engaging him in posts and re blocked him .

Sent from my LM-K920 using Tapatalk
Yeah, I get it. I may wind up blocking him as well, but I haven't gotten to that point just yet.

I do not participate in social media platforms; this place is it for me. Social media is rife with deception and I don't do well with liars. I can tolerate a person that disagrees with me, but I won't put up with a liar.

The fact is that I wouldn't have been so involved here over the past month if I wasn't benched with the wuhan. I put about 21 hours on the job last week, and we'll see how this week goes. As I shake off the lingering effects of the virus, I'll be paying less attention here.

Now it's time to get moving for work. You all have a good day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: earlytom

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
I think Stan is just bored and loves to wind people up. He seems to be pretty good at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: earlytom

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
Yeah, I get it. I may wind up blocking him as well, but I haven't gotten to that point just yet.

I do not participate in social media platforms; this place is it for me. Social media is rife with deception and I don't do well with liars. I can tolerate a person that disagrees with me, but I won't put up with a liar.

The fact is that I wouldn't have been so involved here over the past month if I wasn't benched with the wuhan. I put about 21 hours on the job last week, and we'll see how this week goes. As I shake off the lingering effects of the virus, I'll be paying less attention here.

Now it's time to get moving for work. You all have a good day.
Hopefully you get over it soon . It was no worse than a common cold for me and my family but others got hit hard .

Sent from my LM-K920 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
I think Stan is just bored and loves to wind people up. He seems to be pretty good at it.
Lol. At first it seemed he was off the kool aid or at least cutting back but he is still the same old confused liberal so I blocked him again .

Sent from my LM-K920 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
It was originally known as the MP44 or Machine Pistole 44. The story is that after some minor upgrades, Hitler decided on the name Sturmgewehr 44, (Storm Gun literally translated) for Propaganda reasons. It had a scarier name. than machine pistole. Basically the same reason liberals want to call the AR15 an assault rifle. It has a scary name.
I was curious about the "gun" or "rifle" translation, so I asked a German acquaintance. In case it's of interest, here is his reply:
"Gewehr" is a very general term for a small arm held with both hands, for which no English equivalent exists, as far as I know. Shotgun (Flinte) and hunting rifle (Jagdbüchse) both belong in this category. Büchse has a more civilian context. Nobody calls a sniper rifle a Scharfschützenbüchse, its a Scharfschützengewehr.

Gewehr as in G3 or G36 (described as "automatische Handwaffe" or automatic small arm in the respective field manual) would best be translated assault rifle.

Maschinengewehr got its German name around 1900 because it fired rifle-ammunition (Gewehrmunition) in a machine-like fashion.

The name Sturmgewehr was created around October 1944. The first use I am aware of was on Hitlers decree that announced its adoption. I think it was selected because of the well known names Sturmboot and Sturmgeschütz. The latter is translated assault gun.
The predecessor to the MP43/MP44/StG44 was the MKb42 Maschinenkarabiner (machine carbine). If only they had stayed with calling it a carbine, we could've avoided all the "assault riffle" controversy...

=================================================================

I think Stan is just bored and loves to wind people up. He seems to be pretty good at it.
You could be right about the "bored" part. I've spent lots more time posting in gun forums since I stopped writing articles for gun magazines.

However, it has never been my intent to "wind people up." All I have intended is to make statements of fact, and present my honest thoughts.

I've never understood why some individuals get so riled up.
 
21 - 40 of 52 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top