Military Style, Weapons of War?

terms

Logic and facts deflated the Left's use of the term "assault rifle". So now, they have come out with the sinister sounding "military style" or "weapons of war".
all word games, smoke and mirrors.
 
"Saturday Night Special"
"Cop Killer Bullets"
"Assault Rifle"
"Weapon of War"

PR buzzwords that make for a catchy video clip. t doesn't need to have any
basis in fact--just needs to sell.

More people are killed by blunt force each year that by all types of rifles combined,
but that doesn't fit the agenda.
 
Weapons of war !!!

Are bows that shoot arrows weapons of war?
They WERE for a long time....
Click to expand...

They still are if you look hard enough. Let's go back a bit further and Look at the "Shepherd's-Sling." It's still a weapon of war and deadly. ...... :eek:

Be Safe !!!
 
The 30 cal carbine was/is semi auto. the M2 carbine has a full auto selector on it. that is supposed to be the only difference in the two.
 
Yeah, this kinda went a little sideways and the term to describe military rifles as AW's came up in CA back in the 80's.

As 44 Amp posted, the school yard shooting is what brought on the first ban in CA. Senator Art Agnos was the one that kept pushing the term assault rifle/firearms to describe military weapons.

It will never change now, no matter what we call them or refer to them as. The media and politicians have latched onto the term assault weapon(s) and will continue to use it because it scares people.
 
As of last year, in Washington state, the law changed and now legally defines EVERY semi automatic rifle as a "semiautomatic assault rifle".

Every single one, no matter what caliber, when made, or what features it has, ALL are now legally "semiautomatic assault rifles". Not just the military look alike ones, ALL of them, because of the definition they used in the law.

That law is currently under challenge in court, because of other provisions, but it could be years before the matter is legally resolved.

Meanwhile, there is an additional waiting period (10 days) and "enhanced" background check (no idea what that is) special training required (again, without specifying WHAT that is), and (believe it or not) access to your medical records is required, before they deem you suitable to own a semi automatic assault rifle.
 
I remember talking to a woman a couple months back about the riots and she mentioned that she was grateful that some citizens were armed and willing to protect businesses from looters. But, I knew she was anti-2a, even though she said she supported gun ownership. How do I know this? I proceeded to tell her that I supported 2a and her response was, “I support 2a, just not the ability for guns to hold 30 round mags.” She didn’t see the irony in her statement, namely that earlier she was grateful for armed citizens protecting businesses from destruction, some of whom were armed with AR’s and 30 round magazines. I just walked away from the conversation because you can’t reason with ignorance.
 
I did not know the State of Washington was THAT screwed up regarding firearms.
Click to expand...

WA is currently that screwed up thanks to the population imbalance, voter initiative passed laws, and a slick marketing campaign that targeted the metro west side telling people telling them the law was needed to keep domestic abusers from getting guns (a complete lie).

After being defeated multiple times in the legislature, the gun banners took to voter initiative, and while it passed ONLY in the 5 counties in the Seattle metro area / I-5 corridor, the numbers there were enough to override the rest of the state.

WA gun control laws made it a great place to live for a long time. Until recently...:mad:
 
The use of semi or select fire battle rifles depends on your country's military budget and who your country's management is aligned with these days.
"...why does the left refer to AR-15s..." Makes the innocent AR-15 sound scarier.
"...do not find them "Attractive"..." The M-16 was ordered adopted by McNamara because he thought it was sexy. The U.S. military didn't want it.
"...The Sword..." Like hand guns, were and still are status symbols. Very few rank and filers during Middle Ages could afford one. OR's don't get 'em for parades now either.
"...THINGS are not bad..." Yep. 'Things' are inanimate objects. Inanimate objects cannot do anything.
The real issue is that unelected civil servants were give the ability to make law by regulation with no legislation or input by elected representatives.
I don't think you have the Constitution right to own property either.
 
The medical records part would worry me most. Might show I have a little Yosemite Sam mixed in my DNA.
 
The medical records part is specifically worded to INCLUDE any and all records from mental health professionals, And includes "periodic reviews" in the future, in order to determine if you are still qualified to own a semiautomatic assault rifle. The periodicity is not specified, but it is open ended, so that "the state" will have access to your private medical records for the rest of your life (or possibly only as long as you own a semiautomatic assault rifle.

To me, this would seem to violate the HIPPA laws, and at the least the medical confidentiality of you and your doctor's relationship.

To the best of my knowledge, at this time, this part of the law has not yet been implemented. And, I do not think the WA medical community is generally aware it even exists.

I'm fairly sure there would be a huge uproar from the medical community, if/when they do implement it.

And, I'm also sure that once the word gets out that seeing a doctor can get your guns taken away, there will be a bit of lost business for the mental health professionals as well.

Lots of people both gun owners and non-gun owners are going to be very unhappy, especially if their first inkling such a law even exists is when the govt implements it.
 
M14 EBR, M110a1 CSASS and Barret M82 ome to mind that are semi-automatic. I cant think of any standard infantry-issued weapon that is semi-auto only anymore though.
 
A few years ago, Nancy Pelosi was on some stage in CA. With an audience.
After speaking for a while, she gestured to a Police Officer, who came forward with an AK47, with a 30 round magazine in place, bolt forward, safety in the full-auto position. He handed it over.
The Lady waved this shiny piece of kit all over the place. No one in the audience seemed concerned! She described it as an Assult Rifle.
 
We have the natural God given right of self-protection

I did not know the State of Washington was THAT screwed up regarding firearms.
Click to expand...
Sadly many of "US" are uninformed as to the Liberal agenda or just don't care.
My previous reply/point was that eventually any item can be defined as a weapon of war. Kind of depends on who is making the measure. ..... :rolleyes:

To quote Sitting Bull;
" When all the Buffalo are gone and there is nothing left to hunt but mice, we shall become hunters of mice, for we are hunters."

I say that when all guns are gone and there is noting left to shoot but blow-guns, we shall be shooters of blow-gun, for we are shooters..... ;)

By the way, I already have two, in my collection ...... :rolleyes:

Be Safe !!!
 
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
– Tench Coxe
Click to expand...

lets look at that first part again, specifically this...
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American,... Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
– Tench Coxe

Now, one can argue that "weapons of war do not belong on our streets", and in principle, I agree with that, PROVIDED, it goes along with the recognition that it is our fundamental right to have "weapons of war" in our homes, and at need, in our hands.

Our problem is that while we all agree about criminal use of arms being bad, some people believe arms should not be permitted (so that no criminal use can happen) and others of us think they not only should be permitted, but it is our duty to possess them, for lawful purposes.

My personal view is that we should permanently lock up or execute those people who kill others for fun or profit, and the govt should leave the rest of us the hell alone.

But, that's just me...:rolleyes:
 
44AMP, I’m a nationally certified clinical mental health counselor. I never chart sensitive client disclosures as it is. Judges have in fact tried to pry sensitive session disclosures from me without success.
 
Control the language and you control the conversation. In the days of 7.62 mm Nato, some nations like the US decided selective fire was unfeasible. I'll have to look at the FN book to figure out which NATO members did the same with the FN-FAL.

Eastern-Bloc and Far East Commies always kept selective fire; but peasants couldn't personally own firearms and only had access to them if they were in the militia and serving militia duty.

The US is doing some retrograde things too. First M-16 were selective fire. Then when the M16A2 came out, it had a complicated three shot burst feature instead. My classmates said some of their guns did not even have that.

Our civilian "look alike" are distinctly different and have been modified such that selective fire components can't be installed (for the most part). They are not "weapons of war"and would not be carried by our military, national guard. At most they may be carried by unpaid and state organized militia. Would you believe that even Californiastan has a government controlled state militia?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top