Then you're admiring the King's clothes. I will, however be honest and state that the 'King has no clothes' on. The guns were designed to look like military weapons, but you object to them being called assault weapons. Perfect. Let's call them "rays of sunshine" or "beautiful flowers", then, eh?
you are the one with credibility but hay keep typing the people i show your comments to think your jokes are funny
I see you forget to mention the Quotes from the LEADERS OF THE DNC which Fully Support Obama. Why do you liberals claims to back women's right but want them to be disarmed against RAPIST AND THUGS? a gun is just a tool just like a jeep or a fire alarm
Anything can be used to assault people with cell phones are used in Muslim Terrorist bombs so are ball bearings and steel shreds Muslims use kids as human bombs to kill Israelis You just want to assign assault weapon to guns specifically to make them sound scary and evil. the same people who want ban guns for example Chicago's former Mayor hated gun owners but he had a ARMED security detail so does Rosie O donnald
Semantics are nonsense. The first use of the term for military-style select-fire carbines firing intermediate powered cartridges was "Sturmgewehr", coined by Adolph Hitler to define the new German MP-44, which was the very first so-called "assault weapon". "Sturmgewehr" translates literally into English as "Storm Rifle" or "assault rifle." I've come to believe that arguing over who first coined the term or the merits of the term is a waste of time. Every emotional debate has its catchphrases that each side utilizes to demonize their enemies while making themselves sound like the good guys. Restrictions on types of weapons are nonsense as well. An honest person will use a weapon responsibly, while a criminal will misuse it. So long as we have militaries we will have guns, and so long as we have guns there will be a black market in those guns. All we achieve with gun control is tilting the balance of power towards those who disregard the law. Call it an "assault weapon" or a "tactical carbine" or whatever term floats your boat. Whatever you call it, it is a tactically superior weapon that can be utilized most effectively for the purpose of defense of self and home. It is superior to the handgun or shotgun for the overwhelming majority of applications. There is no good logical reason to enact legal restrictions upon their availability for sale to private citizens. My personal "assault weapon": a Robinson Arms XCR in 5.56x45mm.
Why thank you, friend. You're very kind. But you DID neglect to address your error in criticizing my source when it was actually a pro-gun site. You know, the type of site that you like to copy/paste from and call them your own words? We''ll just have to try to forget those pesky transgressions I guess.
Oh, we're supposed to ignore your dinning silence on your contradictions that I took the time to show you above? It's called a logical argument born from critical thinking. You should try it. It's much more rewarding than school yard taunts and denials. Your inability to respond shows that my observations are spot on.
No, that's SPECIFICALLY what I was referring to, friend. I don't know how you would have missed this. The DNC and the quotes you produced are completely outside the scope of the conversation and your continued use of them shows a troubling problem with your reasoning skills. Are you OK? They do? Excuse me if I don't take your word on that. It hasn't exactly been too dependable thus far, what with your lack of supporting evidence for your rants and all. Yep, and a hammer is a tool just like a drill is. Glad we got that cleared up. Maybe you want to post something relevant now?
Congratulations! Your post is once again outside the scope of our conversation. This must be too hard for you.
First of all there IS a distinction between an assault weapon and an assault rifle as you well know. This isn't semantics because I didn't coin the term and these terms have been widely accepted by all but some here as practical descriptive of certain classes of weapons.
The StG44 is not an "assault weapon". It is an assualt rifle. The StG44 is not governed by any "assualt weapon" laws. A randomish thought, I am Denver for the weekend. Denver has its own AWB, however it only applies to firearms with a 21+ round mags. So I can possess my M&P45, however my pistol would banned by most AWB's. I could bring any of my firearms as long as I don't bring any of my 30rd. mags. I am amazed at how much the definition varies.
Oh, is there? Pray tell, please define it for us (most gun control advocates can't). I'll throw a halfway apology to you in that I was not attacking you in my original comment about decrying semantics, but it did seem that I was, and I apologize for that. Nevertheless, I do feel that the debate about terminology has become spurious and nonsensical. Instead of discussing facts, we argue about what terms to use, which I find laughable because most on the gun control side don't even know the most basic terminologies regarding firearms or their use. Something as simple as using the incorrect term "clip" when one is speaking of a detachable box magazine is only one example. Calling ANY semi-automatic rifle an "AK-47" is another. "Saturday Night Specials" and "Armor piercing bullets" and any one of a slew of other nonsensical terms are also thrown around, and "assault weapon" is just one more catch-all term that is completely asinine and factless.
An "assault weapon" does not exist. It is fiction. It is a meaningless buzzword used by the gun-grabbers to demonize mean-looking rifles. Thongh the term didn't exist at the time, the first "assault rifle" (fully-automatic rifle) appeared in 1917: John Browning's legendary BAR. (At the time, Browning called it a "machine rifle".)
Lest you forgot, this is a thread about the term "assault weapon". YOU brought into this discussion instead, a reference to an assault rifle which is a different animal being fully automatic, as you fully know. Being coy won't detract from your error. But this is what the thread is about, friend. You may participate or not, but it IS what it IS. Your response above would indicate that you actually agree with MY position as to this topic. Am I reading you correctly?
Actually, the functional definition of an "assault rifle" is that of a rifle firing a mid-power cartridge that possesses select-fire capability. The first rifle to bear the term was, as mentioned before, the German MP44 (later StG44) of World War II fame, which fired the 7.92 Kurz (short) round. The BAR was a big, heavy weapon firing a full-powered cartridge (specifically the .30-'06), and hence cannot be classified as an "assault rifle". Rifles firing full-power cartridges with select-fire capability are called "Battle Rifles"; the Browning Automatic Rifle certainly can be called a "Machine Rifle" as Browning coined the term, but I think it is more a Light Machinegun.
Uh, I hate to break this to you, Danct, but ANY weapon, to correctly be defined as an "assault weapon", must have select-fire capability. Hence, calling a semi-automatic-only weapon of ANY type an "assault weapon" is incorrect. The term is being misused, which was my point. There is nothing coy in anything I wrote (nor any "error"), so spare me the self-righteousness. My position is that the debate about terminology has become nonsensical. Even people on the pro-gun side of the debate get sucked into using inappropriate terminology ("Clip" vs. "Magazine" being an obvious example) and "assault weapon" is just one of those catch-all terms that has no real-world substance. If a weapon does not possess full-automatic fire capabilities then it is not an "assault weapon" of any kind.
Well, for someone who states that they object to semantics and that "terminology has become spurious and nonsensical", you seem to be acting differently than you speak. If you wish to talk about automatic rifles, then there is a better term to describe these than assault weapons. You know this. But this is only stating the obvious, friend. We have been talking about this already. Once again, we are NOT talking about fully automatics but assault weapons here. Care to participate?
It's not a light machine gun...it is designed for one person to use, it uses magazines (20-round, at least originally), it is able to be fired from a standing position without a bipod or other support. It is handy enough to shoot thrown blocks out of the air with it.
No, I don't "know this". Select-fire weapons, with fully-automatic fire modes, are the ONLY weapons that can factually be classified as "assault weapons". Period. Sadly, those on the pro-gun side of this discussion have allowed the antis to insinuate false semantics into the discussion and thus have assisted them in clouding the issue; one of the reason why I find debate about the semantics so bloody tiresome. If you are talking about "assault weapons" then you ARE talking about fully automatics. A semi-auto-only weapon is NOT an "assault weapon". If you have some complaint about semi-auto only rifles styled to resemble military weapons, then by all means let us continue the discussion. If you want to keep harping that there is some justification to continue using incorrect terminologies then no, I have no interest in participating. Don't call a magazine a "clip", and don't call a semi-automatic firearm an "assault weapon".
By your definition here then the M249 SAW is not a light machinegun, as it fits all the above definitions. Certainly it can be used with belted ammunition (its primary mode of function, actually) but it can also be used with standard STANAG 30-round magazines. Are you saying the M249 is not a light machinegun?
Can a normal pesrson (not someone built like an NFL linebacker) shoot an M249 from an unsupported standing position? Can it be fired WITHOUT the stock braced against the shoulder? For a BAR, the answer to all these questions is "yes". And what you posted is BS! The SAW has a 2-man crew (gunner & loader) & is fired off a bipod, tripod, or vehicle mount. (I just e-mailed my brother for confirmation, but I'm 99.999% sure I'm right.)
Yup. Considering it is only 5.56 NATO, it isn't a problem for a single person to shoot. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVD_lCWr83s"]Shooting the SAW - YouTube[/ame]
I'm 5'7", 160 lbs and was a SAW gunner in Afghanistan for a year. I never had a second man, hauled all my own ammo, and could fire from the standing position no problem. I'm far from being built like a linebacker. The SAW is NOT meant to be a 2 man weapon. I think you're confusing the SAW for a M240B.
