your wasting your time these are the same people who want American tax dollars to build a Victory Mosque on Ground Zero
OK, we'll ignore all conventional use of this term, and the use of it to describe semi-autos in Gun Digest too. We'll just go by YOUR definition then, OK?
I point to wezol's post, Jarlaxle, as well as the video posted by Wolverine. Sorry, but you are simply wrong on this one.
All your sarcasm aside, Danct, the use of the term "assault weapon" to describe civilian-legal semi-automatic-only weapons is incorrect terminology. Period. You don't have to like it, but them's the facts. Lots of people - including those who should know better - also call magazines "clips", but that doesn't make the use of the term accurate. It's simply incorrect terminology no matter who uses it, and the antis love to use it to demonize whatever weapon they find personally offensive. They call anything semi-automatic an "assault weapon" just like they call a standard Remington 700 hunting rifle with a scope a "sniper rifle". It's a term that's been bastardized into a propaganda tool, pure and simple.
bravo very well said Danact is a Hardcore gun grabber "I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Senator Howard Metzenbaum 1994 "Gun registration is not enough." - Janet Reno (Attorney General) December 10th, 1993 "[the United States] can't be so fixed on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." - President Bill Clinton, Piscataway, NJ March 1, 1993 "We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!" - NY Representative Charles Schumer November 30, 1993 "We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."- Mr.. Nelson T. Shields, III. "Pete" founder of the National Council To Control Handguns, which became Handgun Control, Inc. quoted from July 26, 1976 issue of The New Yorker Interview "A Reporter At Large - Handguns", page 53.
Another issues is that Gun Digest's "Assault Weapons" also includes reviews on holsters and flashlights, hardly what I would call "assault weapons".
And you don't have to like it either, but the term assault weapon is a commonly used term by ALL parties to describe a certain semi-auto gun. Them's the facts. See how easy this is? We weren't talking about "clips" but thanks anyways. Ahhh, who's "demonizing" who now? Hmmmm? Oh, the irony!
His point is that because a book is written on the subject, or just because someone writes an article, does not make the terminology correct. The use of the word "clip" instead of "magazine" is a good example.
In the latest edition the author made a forward that touches on the difference in the guns produced. Ah, they NOW call them "combat arms". Does THAT term offend anyone?
They are not really combat arms either, it is simply the "gun culture" militarizing firearms to make them seem more appealing.
Exactly. Then why be surprised or indignant when these arms are called "combat" or "assault" weapons? The other member went so far as to ascribe the term to a nefarious pro-control demographic, when the truth is that the term goes hand in hand with the actions of the gun industry themselves.
Hmmmmmmm..... interesting point. I can concede to that for the notion of "combat arms", however not "assault weapons".
Actually both are meaningless inflammatory purely political terms. Any firearm can "assault" or be used as a "combat arm".
On the term "combat arms". The term is used in the Air Force to describe small arms. The weapons training and maintenance unit is called CATM - Combat Arms Training and Maintenance. Small arms includes handguns, rifles and crew-served weapons (such as the M-2 and M-240.)
However the difference is that "assault weapon" was coined by the pro-gun control lobby to demonize a particular type of semi-automatic sporter. "Combat arms" is simply the gun industry shooting itself in the foot, a term that will certainly be picked up by the gun control lobby and used against gun owners.
I sense your position is somewhat superfluous and splitting hairs. I see little difference between the two.
Nice dodge. I have previously addressed that particular argument here already. Party-line rote doesn't carry much weight.
You can keep repeating this, but it won't make it any truer. The term wasn't "coined" by the "pro-gun control lobby". I have shown you that Gun Digest used the term in 1986 in a book on this weapon. Your previous response about flashlights wasn't worthy of a response.
I have come to expect such sophomoric 'argument by dismissal fallacies' from you here, friend. If you have a reasoned response to my argument then get to it. Anything less is low brow fluff. Your choice.
My apologies for having taken so long to respond, I have been very busy. My contention is with your position of what is an accurate portrayal. Your argument still focuses on the outward appearance of the thing in question. Here are two situations. The Kings advisors tell him, here your Highness; this firearm appears to be a simple single shot rifle, but it is covered in the most exquisite material coating it, making it an all powerful assault weapon. But, it is only visible to those who are clever enough to see that it is an assault weapon. Only a fool would not be able to see it is an assault weapon. This is no different from this situation. The advisors tell him, look your Highness, you can plainly see from its outward appearance that this firearm is an assault weapon worthy of a king. But heres the twist, the firearm did in fact have those cosmetic additions. My point is that in either case, the advisors are being dishonest to the King. The functionality of the weapon did not change in the slightest; there was just a more convincing packaging in the second situation to cover up the fact that the firearm was no different than any other single shot rifle. You state that you are just calling it what it is designed to be. But the problem with that argument is that the cosmetics do not allow the firearm to fire more than one bullet per pull of the trigger, a defining feature of what a military assault weapon is. It may be designed to look like a military weapon, but the labeling of it as an assault weapon based solely off of its outward appearance, well, I posit that this is the real case of the crowd trying to ignore that the King really is not wearing any clothes.
Yes, I fully understand what you're trying to say, but I fear you have confused the parable I used that focuses on the appearance (or lack thereof) of something (the king's "clothes"). The parable has nothing to do with the functionality of the king's "clothes" in any direct sense. You have attempted to twist the meaning to include something as to functionality which is not there, which, I believe makes MY analogy valid and yours not. You appear to have bought into the narrow view that "assault weapons" have everything to do with false perceptions and nothing to do with created perceptions by the gun manufacturers. I disagree. If I were to manufacture a Volkswagen Beetle to look like a race car using solely cosmetics, then I should NOT be surprised or insulted when people call my new car a "sports car". Common sense.
Functionality is simply the term I use to highlight what the reality of the situation is, but I will replace it directly with terms from the story itself. There was no need to twist anything, the story lends itself perfectly for my argument. The whole point of the parable is that the King and those in the crowd tried to ignore the reality that he was naked. They instead exclaimed he was clothed. Only the child in the crowd pointed out the King was naked. I never made the argument that created perceptions were unimportant. However, the entire parable we are discussing is a commentary on the fact that created perceptions can be false. The analogy really only fits with the position that 'assault weapon' is equivalent to 'clothed'. To me is seem as though the people holding on to the 'assault weapon' view are the ones who have bought into this perception. If the gun manufacturers have created a perception that is so strong that people are compelled to only look at the outward appearance, I suppose its understandable that same group of people would look at the child in the crowd with shock when he exclaims that the firearms are really 'naked'. And I would be very surprised if anyone ever called a Volkswagen Beetle, no matter the disguise, a sports car.
Your argument would have more merit if the weapons in question did not have more abilities to "assault" than their former counterparts. You and others wish us to believe that either hunting rifles need large magazines or that a large capacity magazine would not be a benefit to one in combat with other humans. To avoid this nasty little reality is to admire the kings new clothes. Ah, but you assume to know what is beneath the hood. I find this presumptuous. If you see a car that appears to be a sports car, then you will usually assume it to be a sports car, no? At the very least you should not be surprised when others do.
