Sporting Equipment or Assault Weapons?

I like to call my pseudo-military rifles and pistols Assualt weapons and/or Assault Pistols. Sometimes, I even call them Flesh-Blasters, and Animal Euthanizers.

As far as I'm concerned, the ones who are brainwashed are those who fear calling their guns something politically incorrect!
 
All my guns(other than the air guns) I consider as firearms. While they can all be considered by some to be weapons, not all the weapons I own are firearms. As has been stated, since most anything can be used as a weapon, what's the big deal?
 
The big deal is the attempt by progun folks to assuage the antigun folks by saying that a firearm is not a weapon. Thus, please don't ban them.

The ultimate foolishness is the modern sporting rifle moniker for ARs.

Thus, if you say the core purpose of owning firearms is for sport, then you negate the reason for constitutional protection. That some firearms are not optimized for weapons usage is really irrelevant to the debate.

Look at IPSC race guns - not optimized for carry. So lets ban the optimized for carry guns and let you keep your race gun locked up at the range.

Olympic guns - IIRC, a Russian team with their 22 S popguns had their bus stopped by hijackers in the boonies. The team loaded up their popguns and confronted the hijackers - who did not want to endure a hail of 22S from them. Also, the first SW cartridge revolver was a 22S.

Deer rifle vs. Snipe killer rifle - anyone remember than argument by the antis. Now tactical O/U shotguns are appearing - yuk.
 
For all we know, an Olympic .22 short isn't even protected under the 2nd amendment, being that it has no militia purpose.
Click to expand...
Marksmanship and training would certainly be considered a militia purpose.
 
Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:

The big deal is the attempt by progun folks to assuage the antigun folks by saying that a firearm is not a weapon. Thus, please don't ban them.

The ultimate foolishness is the modern sporting rifle moniker for ARs.
Click to expand...


Soooooo, you're saying that an AR is not a modern sporting rifle? That it is not a modern designed rifle used in the shooting sports? That to an anti the word weapon is more offensive than the word gun? Are you implying that there would be a difference in reaction if someone screamed "Oh my God, he has a gun!" in a movie theater as opposed to them screaming "Oh my God, he has a weapon!"?

Sorry but IMHO, all this snibbling over semantics is pretty petty and not a big deal.
 
Lots of firearms are not intended to be weapons, duck guns and deer rifles, for example.
Click to expand...

I think I know what you mean, them being sporting arms, but I have to disagree that they are not intended to be weapons, they are. They are just not intended to be used against humans.

I think we are missing the point by discussing what is, and isn't a weapon. It DOES NOT MATTER.

What matters is, WHY ARE WE ACCEPTING that ownership of a weapon is a BAD thing? its not. Unless you wish to be someone's overlord, against their will. Then, them having is weapon is a bad thing, for you!

Coming up with what is the current PC term for our guns is already accepting part of the anti's positions as valid. Its wrong, and we should not do it.

Their underlying, and not always unspoken principle is that interest in, knowledge of, and especially ownership of WEAPONS makes us dangerous unstable ticking time bombs all just waiting for the specific trigger to set us off on a rampage of mass murder.

I do not believe this is true, and I am sick of apologizing because they tell lies.

And I am even more tired of being expected (or even forced) to live my live in accordance with their fears, so that they feel better.

I believe fear of weapons (or any other inanimate object) is irrational, and possibly a mental illness. I don't get the shakes when I see the Hobbit's "Sting" on a wall plaque. I don't get tense and worried at the sight of a military style rifle. If you do, I suggest you seek professional help, one that does not suffer from that same delusion you do.
 
Arguing about semantics - give me a break.

The meaning of words is crucial to the laws passed and how they are enforced by the government and the courts.

As Mitt Romney said about ARs - these weapons are for killing. Thus, he wanted to ban them.

They are protected as they are lethal instruments that protect us at home and from tyranny.

Deer rifle or sniper rifle - the meaning of those two words could determine the ban on a scoped Remington 700. Isn't that gun the basis of some lethal weapons?
 
44 AMP said:
WHY ARE WE ACCEPTING that ownership of a weapon is a BAD thing? its not.... Their underlying, and not always unspoken principle is that interest in, knowledge of, and especially ownership of WEAPONS makes us dangerous unstable ticking time bombs all just waiting for the specific trigger to set us off on a rampage of mass murder.
Click to expand...
+1. Furthermore, an integral part of the "ticking time bomb" argument is that gun rights supporters are irrational, stupid, or even delusional. This is one of the oldest tricks in the propagandists' book; once you convince your supporters that the opposition is crazy and/or dumb, it's no longer necessary to actually refute their arguments.

Promoting trite nonsense, like denying the fact that a gun is a weapon, does not help us in this respect. Looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a ______. :rolleyes:
 
Good point. Put a picture of a Remington AR pattern rifle with camo and scope next to a picture of a policeman with AR and scope on top of an APC at Ferguson. Then try to convince a person that the former is a just a sporting toy.
 
Originally posted byGlenn E. Meyer:

Deer rifle or sniper rifle - the meaning of those two words could determine the ban on a scoped Remington 700.
Click to expand...


No it wouldn't.:rolleyes: If the Model 700 is banned, it would be because of meeting certain criteria found to be offensive or undesirable to the governing body, not what the casual observer calls it. Hi-Cap mags were once banned but were defined as to what a Hi-Cap mag was, there were certain criteria, not just what folks called them.

Same goes for calling a firearm a weapon or not. The word weapon is not going to get a firearm banned. Not calling a firearm a weapon is not going to protect it from getting banned, regardless of how much one snibbles over the semantics.
 
The word weapon is not going to get a firearm banned.
Click to expand...

Backtrack to 1994, and the Assault WEAPONs Ban.

They defined, in LAW certain semi automatic firearms, either by name, or by a combination of features, called them assault weapons, and banned them.

While I do agree that saying "its not a weapon, and please, please let us keep them" is a bad tactic, without the underlying idea that having a weapon is bad, wrong, or somehow evil, calling it a weapon is meaningless.

We have a fundamental natural (or God given, if you prefer) RIGHT to own weapons. Vilifying this fact, or us, because of it is a lie.

Who do these people call on when they are threatened? A man (or woman) with a WEAPON! Yet they would deny us that ability, simply because of their own fears.

Yes, bad people use weapons, but guess what, so do the good guys. "False is the idea to take fire from man, because it burns." Its an old quote, but still apt, I think.
 
crstrode said:
So, why do some people insist on calling all firearms “weapons” in any situation? The answer is simple: Brainwashing.
Click to expand...
I picked up the habit of calling firearms "weapons" in the Marine Corps. Call it brainwashing if you want, but it has stuck with me ever since.
 
They are weapons. Just like a sword may sometimes be used for ceremonial purposes, but they are weapons! A missing man formation of jet fighters at a military funeral is a ceremonial display, but they are weapons.

NRA blunders when they try to ban the term, "weapon."
 
My main purpose in owning firearms is to own them as weapons for self-defense. So your argument isn't really useful to me as the purpose I most want to protect isn't the ability to punch paper; but the ability to use them as a weapon.
 
Originally posted by 44 AMP:

Quote:
The word weapon is not going to get a firearm banned.


Backtrack to 1994, and the Assault WEAPONs Ban.

They defined, in LAW certain semi automatic firearms, either by name, or by a combination of features, called them assault weapons, and banned them.

While I do agree that saying "its not a weapon, and please, please let us keep them" is a bad tactic, without the underlying idea that having a weapon is bad, wrong, or somehow evil, calling it a weapon is meaningless.

We have a fundamental natural (or God given, if you prefer) RIGHT to own weapons. Vilifying this fact, or us, because of it is a lie.
Click to expand...

Again, they did not ban those firearms because they were called weapons, only because they met certain criteria. The law did not ban all weapons. This is my point about snibbling over semantics. The word weapon alone means little. It's when you put an adjective in front of it and criteria defining it behind it, that it takes on a definite meaning. Again, while all firearms may be considered weapons, not all weapons are firearms.

While one can claim we have a God given right to own weapons, the Constitutional Right that guarantees it to us Americans never mentions the word "weapons", only "Arms". OMG....now we are in trouble!:rolleyes:
 
If arms are not weapons, they aren't much use...;)

I get your point, and agree, the word itself matters less than the idea behind it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top