Misnomer's........Sniper Rifle

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am torn on this issue.

I personally don't think it is such a good idea to use the term "sniper" in anyway when dealing with our rifles. For the vast majority we are not using our rifles for shooting human targets as Sniper is so often associated with in the real world. At the same time I don't like the idea of us being so damn politically correct all of the time. Why do we have to jump on each other for using the world sniper. I guess it goes back to not wanting anyone to tell me what to do or not to do when it has nothing to do really with them.

In this case though, the gentleman who suggest we do not use sniper have a valid point. When I tell my non-shooting friends that I have a rifle that I shoot 1000 yard matches with, somehow they find reference to "I am glad we are on the same team" or somehow they relate my target shooting to killing. It has nothing to do with it. Even some of my more braindead gun owning friends who are so sucked up into this liberal world look at my black Rem 700 VS with its big Leupold LRT scope and say, "Man that has to be illegal." Lets face it, people are stupid. They don't know their head from their ass when it comes to guns. When they see a scoped, scary looking rifle, they think sniper and they think killer.

Lets not give them more reason to badger our precision rifles. I think it is a wise idea to say precision rifle as there is a good deal of merit to the idea that the anti-gun forces are seeking to ban long range rifles (they are hot after .50 bmg's) as they are "easily deployed for hitting targets miles away." We know this is BS as you must be trained and practice to do such a thing, but since when did the anti's use logic, reasoning, or facts in their efforts?
 
Tshoes, interesting point. Another has already been made about the regulation of weapons. Assault rifles were and are steadily under attack... it's probably just a matter of time before rifles fitted with a scope are. England, Canada, and Australia already are "taken care of".

Tshoes is just thinking ahead, defensively, as one would do in enemy territory, and Gentlemen, if we are to win this outcome it couldn't hurt if we started doing so as well. To the scared society, words are a powerful thing. The words "I'm going to bring a gun to school and shoot you-" will currently get your house a personal raid by the authorities (no matter how young the individual is that makes this statement). If your kid says it, your guns are gone. Bye-bye. The word "Gunshow" is another favorite among the politicians. Sniper rifle hasn't come up yet... but it probably will. This forum *is* monitored, anyone who doesn't believe that is living a pleasant pipe dream.
 
Maybe I'll be ripping off Cooper a bit with what I'm going to say here. . . . .

I think a lot of people learn to shoot/buy these to have the capability to splat people at long distances.

Now, these are good, honest, hardworking nonviolent people, that would never ever want to USE such capability, they just want to have it.

It's the capability the antis don't like - if you're going to be banned from that capability you are banned from havin that capability.


It's like carrying a gun - you have the capability to empty a bit of lead at short ranges. That's for shooting people, too. Most folk who carry don't tend to shoot at people, 99.99999% never will, and would never want to either. They just want the capability to do so should they need to.


Yeah, and training's fun; would it be as much fun if not using the capability as a subtext? If so, just shoot air rifles/paint guns up close.

Point is, if you have to sugar coat your capability (please don't ban this gun, it sux and isn't good for splatting people, honest). They end up making you the liar when you do that.


Freedom's freedom, a right's a right, no matter what you call it.
 
Correction for A. Rex

The gungrabbers are already making noises about banning sniper rifles. Their definition fits every scoped rifle in the world.

The next round in the battle has already begun. This little argument is nothing more than a skirmish at the far edge of the battle.

Doc Hudson
 
Some Australian states had a distinction between "high powered rifles" and other for a while.

Although for a while that meant velocity (e.g. 223 high powered big 45 rifles not), then non-22, then (at least for the media reports) any rifle.


Battler.
 
Oh, about sniper rifles. . . .

See how a couple of states only allow shotgun hunting?

Since the only reason to own a gun is for hunting, why would anyone NEED a sniper rifle?


Battler.
 
In my humble opinion and no flames intended I do believe we need to use terms and verbage that DOES NOT draw negitive media attention.
For expample, a few months make you may all remember the Special on 60 Minutes or something about LEO Snipers. The media grasp on every negative they could and the ANTI's picked up on all of it.
I don't feel any one here is a war monger, has a cash of assault rifles, class 3 weapons because in time we intend to cause major chaos and reek havoc.
Another example, IPSC shooting startted as Combat and Human like silhouettes were used. To aviod the evil gun monger stigma we were getting we adapted a lower keyed sport. Hence IPSC, new targets, cammo and fatigues were frowned upon. Then we were liked at as okay guys and not wantabe weekend warriors.
We are all here to work towards the preservation of our rights. We are all here cause we all enjoy our firearms were it be long range target, Precision rifle, AR's, AK's or the historic battle rifles.
Sure we have the right to almost any verbage we choose and they have a right to contort what is said to better there cause and take our rifles. Knowing that why use the terms the ANTI's are looking for, the black phases, the evil guns. Why give them any more ammo than they need for the fight against us and the real reason we are here, the right to our firearms. If we start by acting as though we do not own such evil black weapons (in there opinion) then where is the fuel for there fire to come from?

Use what ever verbage you want this is just my opinion.

Karsten
 
Err. . . were you paying attention when they wanted to put an IPSC demonstration on in the olympics?

Stuff like "Terrorist Training" - or "activities that belong in Nato training drills, not in our offices and schools".

IPSC is NOT PC by any means - it's a waste of time to try (though it may let you keep your guns an extra 2 years)


Battler.
 
Travis, I don't think I'm cowering one bit. I just don't want my tongue to betray my movements. You know the class that I teach avoids the use of the words "weapon" and "gun" and a few more. We do this because we're typically the first gun-nuts that the fence sitters come in contact with. This is an awfully hard position for all gun owners to be in...in one had, we want dearly to say everything and anything we want, but on the other, we realize that we turn more folks away everyday by doing that. The folks where I work already think I'm a nut. They're convinced! Chicken Little, tinfoil-hat, you name it. They're all sheeple, but they don't know it. I'm just another member of the "vast right wing conspiracy." You bet I am.

Travis, I don't pull punches about this stuff. However, when I know that my words are being scrutinized by folks who may be the fencesitters, I want to lure them to our side. Once they start asking questions, they hear it all.
 
I don't care what opinion anybody has in these sorts of arguments, but there WILL be polite discourse. We do not spew, nor are we clueless--and we won't be accused thereof.

My own opinion is that it's not the wisest thing in the world to talk about "sniper" anything. It helps the antis, and that not very helpful to us. This is not an issue of rights; it is an issue of common sense in a political world.

We live in a world of politics and perception. We DO NOT live in a world where cold, hard facts have a great deal of importance. I believe this even more strongly than I believe in the utility of my beloved .30-'06.

Given the number of critters I've killed while using shiny guns and while wearing blue jeans, I've never understood the point of black stocks or camo clothing. (I make exception for dove, goose and turkey hunting and maybe ducks.) To me, it's just marketing.

I dunno. In my version of the civilian world, there are huntin' guns and target guns. Seems to me that the LEO (sniper/tactical) guns are target guns used for hunting people. Now, any gun can be used for hunting anything; some are better suited to some types of hunting than are others.

My personal preference is that the word "sniper" be left to its military context. It is inappropriate in any civilian-use context. Charles Whitman was not a sniper; he was a murderer who happened to use a rifle as well as a hunting knife and a "pistolized" shotgun.

$0.02, Art
 
Art,
Not to disagree with you, and by NO means to defame the name of those who serve our country in the capacity of Scout/Sniper, but yes. Whitman was definitely a sniper. (note lack of capitalization)

"Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language"
"Snipe;(5) to shoot at individuals as opportunity offers, from a concealed or distant position."
"Sniper; one who snipes"

My point in mentioning him originally however, was to point out those same non-factual perceptions you mention in your post, I certainly didn't mean to attach a similar tag to anyone here.
 
How far do we have to be pushed before there is a real problem? Do we wait until they take all our guns before we fight for them? (What will we fight with then?) Will we fight at all, ever? Do we just lie down now and enjoy our golden chains? Give up all our freedom, because we don't want to upset the fencesitters? When does it end??

Does it end at all??
 
In some ways (don't REALLY mean it) I hope they DO try to ban "sniper guns" - at lest they'd get the "they need to ban dum AKs but they'll never come after my deer gun" people on board.


Art Eatman:

If you can't call your gun a sniper rifle, then I guess it's because sniper rifles are for the "collective" to be armed (police, military), for shooting at enemies and criminals. Should they then not close the loophole that allows these so-called sporting rifles, which are only cosmetically/by name any different to sniper rifles, into the hands of criminals and children?

food for thought.


Battler.
 
No Matter What Words

I think many miss the point. Anti-gunners will attempt to ban ALL WAEPONS of ALL TYPES. It does not matter whether you call them 'Sniper', 'Marksman', 'Scoped', or just 'Rifle' they are after them. If they have their way the will even ban TOY GUNS.

They will USE SOME words to inflame those that do not understand the positive purposes the weapons can be used for. But what is more important is, I know they watch these forums, and when people here or at AR-15 or elsewhere talk about ILLEGAL Magazines, they will have to take it from my dead hands............and other such idoitic comments, those are the ones that really hurt those that own weapons for decent purposes.

Spelling Police please excuse the spellllllling

A Chicken called hamburger still tastes and looks like a chicken, a so-called Sniper Rifle called a Sporting Rifle is still a Sniper Rifle........
 
Aristophanes

Let's take this offline.............
No need to clutter the board......
Sorry to come off as I did.......I apologize.
But, we have some issues to discuss on the Sniper rifle you still think you have.
If you want, my e mail addy is in my profile.
Thanks.

ALL, I appreciate your responses, and time, and views.
 
A well regulated skeet team, the right of some of the people to keep and bear hunting rifles shall not be infringed.

How's that for PC?

Anti: 30,000 people are killed in this country with firearms every year. Why are you opposed to banning all guns?

You: (choose):

1. About 30,000 people are killed with firearms every year, but guns are necessary for hunting and shooting sports.

2. They would get killed anyway if we banned guns.

3. About 30,000 people are killed with firearms every year, but guns are necessary for the preservation of freedom.
 
Doc H

Thank you for bringing that to my attention... I had no idea. Goes to show what happens when you take your eyes off the news for even the shortest time.
How dare they (antis) make me have to go buy another rifle before those become illegal as well! The day may come when they ban plastic drinking straws, that are capable of firing a 'dangerous' spitball-like projectile!
 
Battler, I'm in agreement with what you say, but I'm talking politics rather than facts. Well, trying to.

That is, there are two groups out there which we have to deal with. We're obviously aware of those like HCI and Schumer et al--and the Mediahhh, of course. The group of interest to us which words affect is that group in the middle who are not interested in us or HCI except from time to time.

It is this middle group that (IMO) is most affected by words like "sniper" or "militia" or who are (nowadays) made nervous by black or "evil" guns. The "Soccer mom" crowd, if you like. I'm talking about a propaganda game which so far the antis are winning.

Personally, I am unconcerned if somebody invites me to look at or shoot their newest sniper rifle. I'll most likely think it's a Neat Thing. However, in this battle for hearts and minds that we're in, my unconcern--or my enjoyment--about sniper rifles is not germane to the argument.

So, if I see a sniper rifle, I will talk about it if out in public as a "fine target rifle". If the subject of the UT Tower shootings comes up, I'll refer to Whitman as "merely" a murderer.

Doggonit, I know my way works. I've "turned around" a fair number of casually anit-gun folks, or gotten some neutrals interested in shooting and even hunting, just from the way I use words. (I can be a smooth-tongued old scoundrel.)

I just operate on the basis of "Whatever works is a Good Thing."

:), Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top