arma virumque cano (et alia)
Thank you Laci for pointing out that a select fire weapon such as the stg44 is the definition of assault rifle and proving that semi auto rifles do not meet that definition no matter how often communist like you dishonestly claim they do...MBIAC.,.
You're pretending to miss the point of the post. You lying bullshit-artists have countless times accused us of inventing the term. We didn't.
So someone using a term means that they invented it? I am not sure that you are using logical consistency here.The fact is that "assault weapons" are an imaginary weapons designation that has no meaning outside the circle of the ignorant. It was literally coined to refer to guns that look scary. Seriously. As to who did the coining...who cares?
John, the term is used on gun-nut magazine covers. Are they part of the "circle of the ignorant?"
So are we now going to be posting the same claim and photo every couple of months?http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/07/no-such-thing-as-assault-rifle.html
Thanks for reminding me. I think I need to repost some of my favorites too.
For someone who throws insults at his opponent’s intelligence as his only form of debate, you sure don’t pay much attention yourself. Let me rehash for you what the point is: “Assault Rifle” is a real class of firearms, and “Assault Weapon” is a political definition. Yes, the Sturmgewehr is a real assault rifle, because it is select fire (capable of switching between semi-auto and full-auto) and uses an intermediate cartridge. If you listen to any of the people arguing about “assault weapon” vs. “assault rifle”, they often bring up the Sturmgewehr, or M-16/M-4, or a full-auto AK-47 as a “real assault rifle” and a civilian AR-15 is not one. Assault rifles have been banned for civilian production for almost 30 years now. And here you are using the terms interchangeably (after how many decades of debating for you?), as does the poster. Look closely at the magazine covers. More than half of them are definitively talking about full-auto capable firearms. Four of them use the term “Assault Rifle” and not “Assault Weapon”, three of them explicitly state “full-auto” in the smaller print (and one that doesn’t is just a different cover of the exact same edition that does say “full-auto”), one has a nice little picture of an “only one operator”, and another says “for the Military and Law Enforcement”. The main point is that the gun control crusade has tried to confuse the public by conflating civilian semi-autos with military grade full-auto capable guns, and boy, this poster yet another fine example.That said, is there still a point to be made for you guys regarding these terms? Yeah, probably. Was it Sugermann or Guns and Ammo that coined the term? I personally don’t care, and pictures of magazine covers don’t answer that question anyway. And no doubt, Gun Digest used the term “Assault Weapon” to cover a broader class of military/law enforcement guns that includes submachine guns and machine pistols. The one magazine shown that you can definitely criticize is the bottom middle. The title is “Assault Rifles: complete data on semi-autos from:” so they are using the term “Assault Rifle” to describe guns that you guys want to ban that aren’t already banned. And then the other one that is questionable is the middle left which says “buyers guide to”, which unless it is targeted to military and law enforcement procurement personnel, might be referring to guns the public can buy (but perhaps in this case they embraced the political definition). The bottom right is a book I’m familiar with and is about military infantry weapons from around the world, as Nigel Bennett’s book is also about the military AK-47. And Jack Lewis’ series (which shows up five times here) is clearly about guns not for civilians. This is pretty weak and sloppy, and further drives the point that you guys want to confuse military and civilian guns.
" Let me rehash for you what the point is: “Assault Rifle” is a real class of firearms, and “Assault Weapon” is a political definition. "Maybe you're the one not paying attention. Those gun nut magazines pictured all use the term "assault weapon," which apparently is NOT a political definition, and certainly not one made up by the opposition.In you're second paragraph, after your usual prolix bullshit, you said you don't care anyway. What a cop out.
But they weren't using the term "assault weapon" to describe "semi-automatic battle field rifles" as the title of the poster claims. They used it to describe full-auto military weapons. I said I don't care who coined the term. I do care that you guys continually lie about what what the guns are by conflating them with military and law enforcement only guns, and this is a perfect example.
You're doing that lying thing again, TS. There have been quite a few cases of people calling for stricter gun laws who are completely ignorant of guns and their classifications. At times these people confuse automatic with semi-automatic. I don't believe this amounts to what you say, "you guys continually lie about what what the guns are by conflating them with military and law enforcement only guns." That part is total bullshit and you know it.Gun rights folks have frequently claimed that we invented the term assault weapon for shock value. That's apparently not the case, as shown by Laci's post.
Well this poster is either ignorant or lying for showing a bunch of books and magazines about full auto guns. Take you're pick. And Laci is also either ignorant or lying for posting it here (twice I might add).
The claim from your side was that we invented the term for shock value, not simply that we applied the term wrong. Laci showed you guys for the dishonest hucksters that you are. I know you hate that and that you're incapable of admitting anything. What you are good at is dragging the thread out into a tedious nit-picking continuation of avoidance and obfuscation. C'mon, let's have it.
In other words, I refuse to argue about the point you raised, TS. You are obfuscating because you refuse to fight for the stupid position I have assigned for you.
Apparently the New York Times (not exactly a source of "pro-gun propaganda") didn't get the memo:It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.”"Democrats 'created and then banned'" the category. Couldn't have said it better myself.What are you going to claim next--that conflating so-called "assault weapons" with fully automatic firearms hasn't for decades been a deliberate gun prohibitionist strategy to try to muster popular support for a ban?The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
As said to TS, the confusion over semi-auto and automatic weapons is the result of ignorance. and not the evil gun-grabbing conspiracy that you claim.Even the quote that you love to pull out of your bag of tricks includes the idea that "the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons" is there.It's ignorance not conspiracy.The NYT article that you quoted is simply mistaken, as demonstrated by the post.
Even the quote that you love to pull out of your bag of tricks includes the idea that "the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons" is there.It's ignorance not conspiracy.Wrong, as always, Mikeb. The VPC's Josh Sugarmann clearly advocates cynically exploiting that public ignorance in furtherance of the sick, twisted agenda of banning so-called "assault weapons."But hey--keep pushing for a ban. The next time it looks as if you might succeed, you'll spur yet another buying frenzy, and there will be millions more ARs and AKs (and even a few Tavors, which are apparently so cool that Americans are the only private citizens in the world who can own them) in private hands.Every "assault weapon" bought by the public means that such guns are coming into more "common use," thus granting them greater protection under even the Supreme Court's watered down interpretation of the Second Amendment.
You know what? Laci doesn't get to play the ignorant card. He keeps boasting about how smart and well informed he is, so he doesn't get to say "duh, I don't know any better", when he posts this stuff or implies a StG44 is covered under assault weapons bans.
This post is demonstrating ignorance (or lying) by not knowing the difference between full auto and semi auto. What makes it the end all authority?
The post is not about that at all. It's about the pro-gun lie that we made up the term.You know how you can tell when you and Kurt have gotten yourselves way out on a indefensible limb, ss stays out of the discussion. He's the only half-way reasonable gun nut around here and as such he avoids supporting the lying bullshit positions that you guys love to push.
Mike, we’re talking about the term “Assault Weapon” being used politically to describe semi-auto civilian guns that you want banned. Well these books and magazines shown aren’t about those guns. They are about military select fire (full auto or burst capable) guns. So how can you say this is proof that the industry coined the term for semi-autos when they aren’t even using the term for semi-autos in these examples?
Say . . . this is pretty cool. I'm always intrigued with the ingenious methods gun manufacturers and others use to frustrate the anti-gun agenda, while still complying with the letter of the draconian gun law du jour--a process which we have of course firmly established does not make them "criminals," whether "hidden" or otherwise. Examples would be the "bullet button" magazine changing tool, to get around California's detachable magazine ban, "bump fire" stocks, to simulate fully-automatic fire without having to jump through draconian NFA hoops, the funky looking stock, to get around New York's offensively misnamed "SAFE" Act, etc.Watching a segment from an old 60 Minutes from way back in 1999, I learned of one such "outsmartation" of the gun ban jihadis I'd never been aware of (the relevant portion in the video runs from 4:50 to 7:25). Everyone knows that when passage of the ban started looking distinctly possible, gun (and more specifically, magazine) manufacturers started cranking out standard capacity (as opposed to reduced capacity) magazines just as fast as they could. Even after passage, but before the effective date of the ban, they cranked out millions. Since magazines made (and imported, if made elsewhere) before the effective date of the ban, could be owned, used, and sold without restriction, the more in circulation before the ban went into effect, the better.The clever bit I hadn't known about was when distributors started offering police departments trade-ins of their old handguns (and more importantly, the old mags), for free brand new replacements (because cops were of course exempt from the magazine ban). That way, there were even more pre-ban mags, that the distributors could sell to private citizens at crazy markups, and extend the time before there was a serious shortage of standard capacity magazines. Everybody wins!"Gun control" advocates are certainly outsmarted a lot--notice that?
Thanks for that comment and the link. I think it merits a post of its own.