We need to define the terms

LouisianaJoe

LouisianaJoe

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
3,052
Location
Louisiana
Anti-gun proponents like to call the guns terms that sound evil and aggressive like EBR and Assault Weapons. The term "Assault Weapons" was invented by them to define our legal guns as unacceptable.

They redefine words to use them against us. An example is that they use "Extremist" to define pro-Constitution, conservative and/or religious citizens.

We need to refrain from using their terms and use our own.

I intend to use "Personal Defense Weapon" in place of EBR and Assault Weapons. It better defines what I bought the gun for. I also intend to correct the misuse of terms defined by the media and others.

Even DHS used this term in a bid request for AR type rifles.

I would be interested in the views of our forum members on this.
 
Register to hide this ad
100% with ya Joe. The govt. uses the "terms" to suit their adgenda. If we own them it's one term, they own them it's another.

I've never owned an "assault rifle" and I've never assaulted anyone either.
 
A little late to change now isn't it.

I do agree on the idea, but it should have been embraced from the start,,like 40+yrs ago.

We (the pro 2A side) have used the terms as much or more than that other side has.
Even written books and countless magazine articles about A/W's using that same language.

They have their side of it,,we have ours. The line is clearly drawn and out in the open after many years of successfully (some say not so) skirting the issue.
Attempting to appear warm and fuzzy now by a change in deffinition or word choice would only add an appearance of insincerity to our argument.
JMHO
 
Hate to disagree, but "they" didn't invent the phrase. I have stacks of old gun magazines with articles about assault weapons - and they aren't talking about the full-auto ones. I have Guns & Ammo Assault Weapons Digests, and if you remember Mel Tappan and the "survivalist" craze of a few decades ago it was assault weapons galore.

GunDigestBookofAssaultWeapons_zps2b0ee60c.jpg


When the phrase was turned against us in 1994 we started our own PC back-pedal, and came up with "modern sporting rifle" and the "standard capacity magazines".

I don't mind owning an assault rifle with high-capacity magazines.
 
Last edited:
sigp220.45 said:
Hate to disagree, but "they" didn't invent the phrase. I have stacks of old gun magazines with articles about assault weapons - and they aren't talking about the full-auto ones. I have Guns & Ammo Assault Weapons Digests, and if you remember Mel Tappan and the "survivalist" craze of a few decades ago it was assault weapons galore.

GunDigestBookofAssaultWeapons_zps2b0ee60c.jpg


When the phrase was turned against us in 1994 we started our own PC back-pedal, and came up with "modern sporting rifle" and the "standard capacity magazines".

I don't mind owning an assault rifle with high-capacity magazines.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I did notice that the book you show talks about Assault-Type weapons. I have always used that term for years to describe Semi-Auto guns.
 
First off, we need to stop using the term weapon when we refer

to our guns or firearms.

Guns are not weapons, unless we decide to use them as such.

The same goes for a hammer, ice pick, baseball bat, or an SUV.

JMHO.

Stu
 
The term "Assult Weapon" was defined by the Federal Government years ago. The mass media and most gun owners misuse the term. The true definition always includes a function of full-auto, weather constant or select fire. A true assult weapon is not in pistol cartridges, like for example 9mm or 45acp, nor is it main battle cartridges like 308 win, 30-06 govt, or 8x57 Mauser. Assult cartridges are in reduced power and case capacity like, 223Rem., 7.62x39, 8x33 or the original 6.5 Jap.(yes, I know, but the Russians considered this reduced compared to 7.62x54R) An AR-15 is not an assult rifle, a M-16 is, a SKS is not leagally speaking an assult rifle, even though the Russians were intending it to be so. Don't let the 6 o'clock news ignorant reporters control the language, they will get it wrong. Ivan
 
Call them what you will, same thing as Liberals calling themselves Progressives. They are what they are, guns or politicians.
 
I prefer the term MSR, I don't see why replacing the wooden stock on a .22, with a black plastic one makes it an "assault" anything.
 
Terms are whatever people want them to be. Look at the confusion that can come from explaining the term "automatic". It is usually descibing a self-loading firearm that also cocks the hammer with the same motion. A 1911 or Beretta 92 is called an automatic pistol. A Remington 1100 is called an automatic shotgun, and a Ruger 10-22 is called a .22 automatic. We know these are actually semi-automatic firemarms. If one uses the term "automatic weapons", most would think that they were referring to fully automatic firearms like machine guns and true assault weapons. We forum members mostly know what select-fire means, but a great deal of the general public probably doesn't. Our opposition in the fight to defend the 2A, doesn't care. They will use whatever terms they can frighten the uninformed, the most with.
 
If using for defense then its defense rifle. If used to hunt or target shooting its a sporting rifle. To me its just a modern rifle.
 
I think we should take back the term assault weapon and use it. They'd certainly be a pretty effective tool to have if one were assaulted.

We make the point that the 2A is not about hunting guns, which it clearly is not. It covers all "arms" including those appropriate to militia use. Arguing that a military style weapon (which an AR15 certainly is) should be thought of as "sporting rifle" is playing right into their hands. It makes it look like we are equivocating on what 2A really means.

Call them what they are. Letting the opposition force us to redefine what these weapons are IS letting them set the terms of the debate. The 2A covers these "weapons" as much as any other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lihpster
That's what we need, a new law!
2
Replies
21
Views
756
quikdraw67
quikdraw67
BC38
Can't we just ENFORCE the law?!?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
1K
Muss Muggins
Muss Muggins
Ματθιας
The F-4E Trooper : We Get So Close, Near Enough to Phight
Replies
11
Views
695
sigp220.45
sigp220.45
6string
Went to the range. Got shot at!
2 3
Replies
47
Views
1K
zeke
Z
DWalt
Need to shoot down a pesky drone?
2
Replies
21
Views
979
SMSgt
SMSgt

Latest posts

Back
Top