6.8 SPC Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
41 - 52 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
The military doesn't really use the term assault weapon/rifle. They have used Battle Rifles...
You're partially correct. As a rule, the US military does not use either "assault rifle" or "battle rifle" in weapon nomenclature, just "rifle".

There are two exceptions to the rule: The Mk14 EBR (Enhanced Battle Rifle), and the Mk16/Mk17 SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle).

"Battle rifle" is an academic term used primarily by authors to distinguish select-fire, magazine-fed rifles that fire full-power ammo from those that fire intermediate-power ammo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
501 Posts
I blocked that troll long ago. I just wish his messages didn't show up when people quote his inane ramblings.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Me too, in fact I'd completely forgotten about him. I thought I was going crazy, or missing something until AirTrainer dropped his name. Suddenly everything was clear even without seeing his 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 usually agree with you, but I've got to object to this one.

1) Anything can be used as a weapon, but that does not make it a weapon outside of the particular case. It's the intent of the user that makes it a weapon, not the item itself. Someone is assaulting with <object>, not <object> is assaulting.

2) Its assault with a weapon, not an assault weapon. Assault with a hammer, not an assault hammer. Assault with a knife, not an assault knife.
Assault with stanc's big pink... (Sorry, forgot, family friendly) ...pool noodle, not stanc's assault noodle.

Liberals/democrats/lawyers/politicians/gun grabbers conveniently forget that "with a" part, but it's pretty important.

Just my 2¢ and I won't even charge tax.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
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.
I doubt that I've contradicted myself, but it's certainly possible. Since you make the accusation without showing what you perceive to be contradictory, I'm unable to evaluate the matter.

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 you need to reread Exodus 20:16

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?
It seems to me that you're waaaay off topic. However, since the moderators are allowing it, okay, I'll play.

People who operate on belief will accept as true whatever they want to believe. I do not operate on belief. I prefer logic and evidence.

I think that the idea of "God given rights" is nonsense. There was a time when Christians believed that kings had the God given right to do as they pleased (see: "the divine right of kings"), and the general population had few, if any, rights. As best I can tell, the concept of "rights" was created by men. The reality is that you have only such "rights" as you can either convince others to willingly respect, or force them to unwillingly heed.

I doubt that your God exists. And I sure hope not, since the Bible tells of a being that has no regard for human life, a being that inflicted disease and famine on humans, fomented wars between humans, destroyed entire cities, and even committed genocide on a planetary scale, killing untold numbers of defenseless men, women, and children.

I believe I have the right to self defense, and the responsibility to defend those that are unable to defend themselves.
Okay. Living beings do whatever they have the ability and the will to do.

I believe that where a government fears its people, there is freedom, and that where a people fears its government, there is tyranny.
Well, I've been told by folks in this and other gun forums that in the United States, the people are the government. So, we have to fear ourselves?

I believe that the Supreme Court ruled wrongly in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Yeah? What do you think about the SCOTUS maintaining in Heller that the government can restrict and regulate the right to keep and bear, despite the "shall not be infringed" wording of the 2A?

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. "
So, does that make the AR15 a "battle rifle"? 😁

Okay, now it's your turn.
Done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
447 Posts
I doubt that your God exists. And I sure hope not, since the Bible tells of a being that has no regard for human life, a being that inflicted disease and famine on humans, fomented wars between humans, destroyed entire cities, and even committed genocide on a planetary scale, killing untold numbers of defenseless men, women, and children.
WOW. I can't believe you just went there. Insult a man's religion and his belief in the all mighty God, you had no call to do that. While I could go toe to toe with you for that, I will not stoop to your disgusting level. You should really think about that. I will be blocking you (not that you really care). Have a nice life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Storm Woodard

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,259 Posts
Psalm 14:1 states: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Psalm 53:1 states: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good."

Hmmm... when God says something twice, one who is wise might take note and take heed. Common sense tells me that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
WOW. I can't believe you just went there. Insult a man's religion and his belief in the all mighty God, you had no call to do that. While I could go toe to toe with you for that, I will not stoop to your disgusting level. You should really think about that. I will be blocking you (not that you really care). Have a nice life.
It is not rational to take insult from my comments. First, I was giving my input on the subject, as per AirTrainer's request. Second, what I said was accurate -- the Bible does tell of God doing things like destroying the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and killing their residents, as well as causing a gigantic flood that destroyed every city on Earth, killing all but a few people.

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

Psalm 14:1 states: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
Psalm 53:1 states: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good."
Hmmm... when God says something twice, one who is wise might take note and take heed. Common sense tells me that.
a. God did not say it. Those lines were written by a man.
b. I did not say there is no God.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,259 Posts
It is not rational to take insult from my comments. First, I was giving my input on the subject, as per AirTrainer's request. Second, what I said was accurate -- the Bible does tell of God doing things like destroying the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and killing their residents, as well as causing a gigantic flood that destroyed every city on Earth, killing all but a few people.

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


a. God did not say it. Those lines were written by a man.
b. I did not say there is no God.
II Timothy 3:16 states: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

"I doubt that your God exists." Your words, typed by your hands.

You throw your accusations against the Almighty as though you judge Him, His Word, and His works. You fail to include the fact that God discussed his plans to punish Sodom and Gomorrah with Abraham, and that Abraham reasoned with God and asked God to extend his mercy. Or, perhaps you only read what is convenient for your own argument? You also fail to acknowledge that Noah preached for 120 years as he constructed the ark, and that people were given the opportunity to repent and escape the coming flood. Or, perhaps you only read what is convenient for your own argument?

As is so often the case with your input here, it is to troll, stir up contention, argue... and to attempt to project an air of superiority over the rest. It is said that misery loves company, your behavior on this forum appears to me to seek company in your misery. I pray that God's love for your soul/spirit reaches deep inside of you and that you see Him for who he really is, and are able to establish a meaningful relationship with Him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
"I doubt that your God exists." Your words, typed by your hands.
doubt
verb
to be uncertain about (something)

You throw your accusations against the Almighty as though you judge Him,
Hey, I didn't make that stuff up. It was all things that the Bible says God did.

As is so often the case with your input here, it is to troll, stir up contention...
Not true. I was just giving an honest answer to a direct request from AirTrainer.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
I usually agree with you, but I've got to object to this one.

1) Anything can be used as a weapon, but that does not make it a weapon outside of the particular case. It's the intent of the user that makes it a weapon, not the item itself. Someone is assaulting with <object>, not <object> is assaulting.

2) Its assault with a weapon, not an assault weapon. Assault with a hammer, not an assault hammer. Assault with a knife, not an assault knife.
Assault with stanc's big pink... (Sorry, forgot, family friendly) ...pool noodle, not stanc's assault noodle.

Liberals/democrats/lawyers/politicians/gun grabbers conveniently forget that "with a" part, but it's pretty important.

Just my 2¢ and I won't even charge tax.
After giving it some thought I believe you are correct. Calling something an assault weapon would be basically saying the weapon is capable of doing the act of assaulting instead of the person and as well all know, guns don't kill people. People kill people. Forgive my moment of confusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
Stan, you've done poorly with your responses. Like any practiced liar, you have presented a mixture of truth and deception.
I doubt that I've contradicted myself, but it's certainly possible. Since you make the accusation without showing what you perceive to be contradictory, I'm unable to evaluate the matter.
Keep reading, the examples are below. I'm unconcerned with your 'evaluation'.
I think you need to reread Exodus 20:16
Your words once again prove that atheists should not attempt to use God's word as a weapon. You are unqualified and you did it wrong. I'll 'splain it to you. For me to have violated the 8th commandment, I would have had to know (in real time) that the words that I was writing or speaking were false. Didn't happen. More than before, I am convinced that you lied. Hat tip to you for getting some people to go look up some scripture, though!

This post...
False. My concern is the misuse of the term "assault rifle", not use of the word "assault".
...contradicts this post.
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
You cannot be too concerned with the misuse of a term if you write one sentence heeding the term's definition followed by three sentences to justify ignoring the definition. That dog won't hunt. Your use of language is manipulative.

This post...
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.
...is misleading and diversionary. Guts was close. He attributed the naming to a 'Socialist Democrat' where he should have said 'National Socialist' (nazi). As a guy who used to write about firearms, you didn't write ""Assault rifle" is the English translation of the German "Sturmgewehr" and is attributed to the filthy nazi Adolph Hitler". You attempted to put lipstick on a pig AND throw Guts off of the source of the term by mentioning the users - historians and writers. Who cares? You do. You got to avoid the truth by writing something irrelevant.

Contradictory, manipulative, misleading, and diversionary language is never associated with truthful speech. The 8th commandment remains unviolated.

It seems to me that you're waaaay off topic. However, since the moderators are allowing it, okay, I'll play.

People who operate on belief will accept as true whatever they want to believe. I do not operate on belief. I prefer logic and evidence.

I think that the idea of "God given rights" is nonsense. There was a time when Christians believed that kings had the God given right to do as they pleased (see: "the divine right of kings"), and the general population had few, if any, rights. As best I can tell, the concept of "rights" was created by men. The reality is that you have only such "rights" as you can either convince others to willingly respect, or force them to unwillingly heed.

I doubt that your God exists. And I sure hope not, since the Bible tells of a being that has no regard for human life, a being that inflicted disease and famine on humans, fomented wars between humans, destroyed entire cities, and even committed genocide on a planetary scale, killing untold numbers of defenseless men, women, and children.
Those are probably the truest words you've written.
Okay. Living beings do whatever they have the ability and the will to do.
What you don't say in that response is MUCH more powerful than what you present. What a milquetoast response. Are you tired? Do you need a nap? Come on, Stan, tell me of your affection for the right to self defense. Wax poetic. Wow me.
Well, I've been told by folks in this and other gun forums that in the United States, the people are the government. So, we have to fear ourselves?
Straw man argument. Irrelevant. Boring...
Yeah? What do you think about the SCOTUS maintaining in Heller that the government can restrict and regulate the right to keep and bear, despite the "shall not be infringed" wording of the 2A?
I think you missed the point, whether by ignorance or intention. I think I'll discuss Heller with folks that can support the 2nd amendment without equivocation or deception.
So, does that make the AR15 a "battle rifle"? 😁
A smiley? Really?
<sigh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wolverine Fan

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,259 Posts
Time to stop feeding the troll.
 
41 - 52 of 52 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top