Military Style, Weapons of War?

TomNJVA

New member
Just curious, do ANY militaries actually issue SEMI-automatic rifles for warfare? I am under the impression that the militaries of the world use automatic/semi-automatic rifles, i.e. switchable between semi and automatic.

If I am right, then why does the left refer to AR-15s as "Military Style Rifles" or "Weapons of War". Of course I already know the answer to that one.:rolleyes:
 
The US military has, and issues, several variations of bolt action rifles and semi-automatic M1s to snipers and long-range marksmen(women). But, you are probably asking about general issue rifles; and I have no idea.
 
They are all; Weapons of war; thus, military style !!!!

If I am right, then why does the left refer to AR-15s as "Military Style Rifles"
First off, they are not informed on the labels but want others to be more un-informed. In fact Liberal or Conservative, most folks are uninformed. I have known many Gun-Guys who are open about hating "Black-Guns" because they mainly do not find them "Attractive". They talk about AR and AK style and find ways to label them, that way. My Ruger 10/22 is one the ban list. Can a 10/22 be used as a Weapon of war? You bet it can. !!!! :eek:

Be Safe !!!
 
First off, they are not informed on the labels but want others to be more un-informed. In fact Liberal or Conservative, most folks are uninformed.

Deja Vu:
To quote a very wise man I know: It is much easier for an ignorant man to express an uninformed opinion than for a wise man to express a learned opinion.
 
Military Style, Weapons of War?

You mean like the Springfield 03?
Maybe the M1 Garand
How about the M1 Carbine
How about the M14 where the Vast majority had full auto locked out or the M1As in use today
I know how about the Winchester 1887 12 gauge
You know what I’m being silly maybe a lowly .38 or .45 Smith Revolver........

Point is ....... and I am not generally “THIS GUY” but.......SLIPPERY SLOPE.
 
I'm always interested in how they say they want to get these "dangerous weapons" off the street. I don't know about you guys, but all mine are secured and not out on any street!
 
As I remember it was "Pelosi" that called them assault rifles first

the person credited with having coined the term "assault rifle" was Adolph Hitler.

If I am right, then why does the left refer to AR-15s as "Military Style Rifles"

They call them military style rifles because if they called them military rifles it would be an actual lie.

"style" is an open ended word, and as long as there is at least a superficial outward resemblance they they aren't technically lying.

Everyone does that all the time. We do it all the time. Just look at how many pistols are called 1911s.

I am under the impression that the militaries of the world use automatic/semi-automatic rifles, i.e. switchable between semi and automatic.

The term you are looking for is "select fire" or "selective fire". Able to switch from semi to full auto at the flip of a switch or the push of a button on the gun.

And, generally, today, no military issues a semi auto only version of a select fire arm for a general service rifle, as there is no point.

Even the M14 was, and is, a select fire weapon, legally, (in the US) a machine gun. The fact that the majority of the issued rifles were not switchable by the user does not matter.
 
The left call's guns by strange names because if they did some investigation to find out the real names & functions of the guns they would find that they are totally wrong about their ideas of the guns.
A gun is nothing more than a tool to be used for a wide purpose.
It is up to the user if is for good or bad.
 
I have strict curfews on all mine! No transgression.

Too bad other parents can control orteach manners to their offspring.
 
Just like everything else in modern society, the terms were focus group tested on groups of uneducated people to see which had the most emotional impact.

The real travesty is that the small group of people that are capable of changing the narrative have no interest in actually understanding the issue, let alone the mechanical differences.
 
Just like everything else in modern society, the terms were focus group tested on groups of uneducated people to see which had the most emotional impact.

The real travesty is that the small group of people that are capable of changing the narrative have no interest in actually understanding the issue, let alone the mechanical differences.
Well said!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
The real travesty is that the small group of people that are capable of changing the narrative are still changing the narrative, and each time in a fashion further and further from the truth.

To me, the ironic thing is that they act as if "weapons of war" are a bad thing. The Founding Fathers didn't believe so. Read Tenche Cox.

They are our right, and some say our responsibility as citizens. They are not bad things. THINGS are not bad, only people can be.

The problem is not any tool, the problem is people shooting other people for fun or profit. THAT IS BAD.

Pretending that the tool used is bad is juvenile and not something adults do.
 
We must remind the anti gun folks it's not against any law for a gun to kill someone. Nor a knife, baseball bat or chain saw, for that matter.

Are bows that shoot arrows weapons of war?
 
Are bows that shoot arrows weapons of war?

They WERE for a long time....

also good for hunting....

There is only one weapon I can think of that doesn't also have a use for hunting or as a tool.

The Sword.

and if you believe Tenche Cox, the sword is our birthright.

along with every other terrible weapon of the soldier....

He wasn't wrong then, he's not wrong now.
 
The Hippocrates

A gun is nothing more than a tool to be used for a wide purpose.
Ah, but you miss the point as some are ugly and some are pretty neat. From the gun grabbers point of view, they are all ugly. Thus, they all should be banned. The truth is that they can't be banned, only regulated. The gun-grabbers do have one arrow in their quiver and that is full confiscation. ..... :confused:

I recall when they they started talking about Assault- Rifle ban, they ended up with a list of Over 200 firearms. It's easy for them to make that measure.

By the way, every day we hear about Gun-Violence that needs action. If we want to hold inanimate objects accountable, what about Car or Knife Violence?

Be Safe !!!
 
The gun-grabbers do have one arrow in their quiver and that is full confiscation.

This is a yes and no thing. No, they can't, not now, not until they can get a future court to overrule Heller. Then, perhaps, they could. One of the things we got clearly stated in the Heller decision, they cannot completely ban an entire class of firearms.

They can, however, and will try to make things so heavily regulated as to make it difficult and expensive, in the misguided hope people will decide they don't want the hassle and expense of LEGAL gun ownership. Won't do a barking thing about illegal gun ownership, though...


I recall when they they started talking about Assault- Rifle ban, they ended up with a list of Over 200 firearms. It's easy for them to make that measure.

Because they got to write the definitions, and ignore established usage, the entire thing was quite the boondoggle.

It is somewhat interesting seeing how they twisted terminology, and when that prooved too cumbersome, simply made up a new term and defined it to include guns that had never before been defined that way.

They played on the ignorance of the general public and some ignorance in the shooting community as well. It began with the Stockton CA schoolyard shooting, which was done with a semi auto rifle (an AK-47 variant) and since the killer killed himself, the press was left with only the weapon to focus on.

They called it an "assault rifle". We said, "no, its not an assault rifle", and gave them the proper definition, which had been in use since 1944. Since naming it an assault rifle was a proven lie, they countered by calling it, and all other military style semi auto rifles "semi-automatic assault rifles"

Since that was a cumbersome term, not well suited to the sound byte era and didnt' generate the fear and loathing they desired, they dropped that term (for a while) and created a new term entirely of their own devising,
"ASSAULT WEAPON"

and by their definition, assault WEAPONS were SEMIAUTOMATIC (NOT select fire, just ordinary semi auto rifles, shotguns, and pistols) became "assault weapons" if they had certain cosmetic features.

The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban did not ban a single assault rifle. Assault rifles are, among other things select fire, and under US law, being capable of full auto fire classifies them as machine guns, under the 1934 National Firearms Act.

I find it amuzing, in the abstract, that the gun ban people are only active and vocal in times of relative peace. After the Sept 11 terrorist attack (done without ANY guns involved) the gun ban people essentially shut up and sat down and were very very quiet for several years.

Now, here we are, almost 20 years later, and they are yapping again.
 
Back
Top