- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 70% of Young Americans think we should be allowed to own Assualt Rifles
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:48 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:48 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
The entire term was made up to ban a certain group of weapons based on cosmetic features.
So.
The.
frick.
What?
The term "Assault rifle" was made up [Sturmgewehr], hell, the term "internet" was 'made up' - but that doesn't mean these things don't have meaning today. We make up words all the time in the English language, it's called 'coining a term'.
quote:
The way the legislation was drafted was that Feinstein (and others) and her staffers leafed through a catalog of firearms and picked out those they wanted to ban based on appearance (this is not seriously in dispute) - figured out the most features they had in common and voila.
So what? They could invent some term like 'commie rifle' to ban the imports of Russian firearms simply in order to boost sales of domestic rifles. Big deal, it doesn't matter what you call them, what matters is what is banned or not.
quote:
The very definition of nebulous.
Actually, while we're bickering over terms, I think 'capricious' would be more appropriate.
3
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:59 am to WildTchoupitoulas
assault weapon is a political term to steer public opinion towards the anti-gun way of thinking
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:08 am to TheDoc
quote:
assault weapon is a political term to steer public opinion towards the anti-gun way of thinking
What, did you just wake up or something?
You cannot blame the politicians for coining a term to have an effect on the population. You must blame the population for falling for it.
But tell me, how does the term 'assault weapon' necessarily steer someone towards a negative view of firearms, and 'assault rifle' not?
I submit, it doesn't. In another country, in another time, a government COULD HAVE coined the term 'assault weapon' to spur the population on to pick up anything they could in order to beat back an invader. "Pick up your assault bats today to drive the Hun out tomorrow!" the headlines could have read.
There is nothing inherently wrong or evil with the term 'assault weapon'. It is only given bad connotations in order to manipulate people. The problem is that people are so easily manipulated, not that the term itself is good or bad.
Like I said earlier, an shop owner decided the term was kind of cool, and so used it to promote the sale of merchandise from his sporting goods store. Are you now going to go tell him that he can't use that term because it a made up term to turn people away from guns, - all the while people are streaming into his shop to buy precisely what he is calling 'assault weapons'? I applaud the guy.
Embrace the 'assault weapon', buy one today!
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:13 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
There is nothing inherently wrong or evil with the term 'assault weapon'.
quote:
It is... to manipulate people.
guess I have a different definition of "wrong" and "evil"
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:15 am to offshoretrash
quote:
So a .22 can be an assault weapon?
If it meets the definition under the law, then yes. For instance:
quote:
That's how stuipid that definition is.
Definitions are intangible. They lack physical substance, let alone the neurons required to make a distinction of "stupid" or "smart" even relevant.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:18 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:19 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
For instance:
IWHI
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:21 am to WildTchoupitoulas
No, the only one dense here is you. The terminology matters and if you think it doesn't then explain why anti-gun groups are hiring PR execs to leadership positions. If "assault weapon" is not a nebulous term then explain why its definition changes with political climate and geography. If sure after this thread you'll stick labels on your magazines, calling them "assault clips" 
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:25 am to TheDoc
quote:
guess I have a different definition of "wrong" and "evil"
So you think the shop owner is wrong for embracing the term and profiting from it?
You're having trouble separating the term from the intent. The intent is wrong, the term itself is neutral. If we don't allow ourselves to be manipulated, we can see the term 'assault weapon' as a positive thing. It's OUR choice to judge the term how we want, we don't HAVE to be cowed by the propagandists.
But ultimately, my point is to shift our focus away from the semantic argument, and focus instead on the functional argument. You want to call a weapon with a pistol grip and a 30 round clip an 'assault weapon'? I don't care. You want to BAN a weapon just because it has a pistol grip and a 30 round clip? I CARE. See the difference?
As long as your attention is diverted away from the substance and toward the semantics, they are winning. That's how I see it anyway.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:26 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
let alone the neurons required to make a distinction of "stupid" or "smart" even relevant.
More of a reflection on those who support such laws than the laws themselves. That could also apply to their use of "common sense".
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:37 am to Clames
quote:
You're not an expert on hardly anything but still you try. If you actually knew about the law AND the firearms it targeted you'd understand that concept of using cosmetic features to define something as an "assault weapon" is idiotic at best. Start with flash supressor, how would you know the difference between that and a linear compensator or a muzzle brake? You, since you lack the technical knowledge, won't and those that quote the law didn't feel necessary to define the term such that any muzzle device could be called a "flash supressor".
A flash suppressor isn't a "cosmetic feature" - it is clearly functional. Maybe you use a different definition for the word "cosmetic" than the rest of us?
BTW - aren't "flash suppressors" - "linear compensators" and "muzzle brakes" all "technical terms" - or did big bad government just make those up, as well?
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 9:40 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:49 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
All of those features listed are cosmetic.
Dude, seriously - you're not using the same definition of words as the entire rest of the world uses.
A flash suppressor clearly has a functional purpose, as do detachable magazines and grenade launchers.
quote:
The first definition was set up to specifically ban AK-47 and AR-15 variants. The second was to ban the Tec-9, and the third was mainly the Spas-12 and Streetsweeper.
These weapons are probably specifically listed then - nothing nebulous there.
quote:
The way the legislation was drafted was that Feinstein (and others) and her staffers leafed through a catalog of firearms and picked out those they wanted to ban based on appearance (this is not seriously in dispute) - figured out the most features they had in common and voila.
The very definition of nebulous.
Again - you aren't really using the same dictionary as the entire rest of the word. I think the word you are looking for in your argument is "arbitrary" - not "nebulous". Flipping through a catalog to ban specific weapons and others with the same specific features may be considered "arbitrary" - but the resulting definition is not "nebulous"
I would seriously be interested in reading about any cases that occurred when the federal ban was in effect in which whether or not the ban applied was a fact reasonably in dispute.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:49 am to Clames
quote:
The terminology matters and if you think it doesn't then explain why anti-gun groups are hiring PR execs to leadership positions.
If the terminology mattered, according to your argument, then all of those things you said one could still legally acquire under the 1994 AWB, would NOT have been legal to obtain. But since the terminology didn't matter, one could still acquire those things
I just don't understand how you don't see this.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:49 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
A flash suppressor isn't a "cosmetic feature" - it is clearly functional.
Then cite in the law where that function is defined and the purpose for including it.
quote:
BTW - aren't "flash suppressors" - "linear compensators" and "muzzle brakes" all "technical terms" - or did big bad government just make those up, as well?
They are and each has a specific function. BTW, only one of those was mentioned in the law but was applied to encompass the other two. Big Bad Government, like yourself, didn't know what it was talking about when that law was enacted.
Children.Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:59 am to Clames
quote:
Then cite in the law where that function is defined and the purpose for including it.
I was unaware that our language was like French in that all of our definitions are a matter of law.
If a law referred to a 'car' as a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motor and able to carry a small number of people, would you freak out and say that that is actually the definition of an 'automobile' and that there is in fact no such thing as a 'car'? I mean, after all, the word 'car' can be considered quite nebulous. What about 'truck'? Isn't that really a lorrie, whereas a 'truck' refers to an undercarriage with four to six wheels pivoted beneath the end of a railroad car?
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:01 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
not "nebulous".
I stand by it - if a weapon that is designed to get around that "feature set" (the post-ban configurations) they will redefine it because what they want to ban is semi-autmatic weapons (on the way to banning all privately held weapons), and will modify the definition to meet the new designs.
They reason they chose cosmetic features, rather than truly functional ones is that the function they want to ban is "firing bullets" - but they can't do that, politically, so they ban the ugly guns.
Deny it all you wish, but it doesn't change this fact - the 1994 "ban" only applied to ugly guns - and ugly as defined cosmetically, arbtrarily and nebulously by people who lack even a basic familiarity with firearms - outside of what they see on television and film.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:02 am to WildTchoupitoulas
Senator Ted Cruz shows the hypocrisy in the "assault weapons ban" back before it was shut down instead of renewed
action picks up at about the 4:50 mark
action picks up at about the 4:50 mark
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:05 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
they want to ban is semi-autmatic weapons (on the way to banning all privately held weapons),
FTW
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:06 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
The term "Assault rifle" was made up [Sturmgewehr],
You should really get off this - the Sturmgeweher WAS something new - it was one part magazine fed rifle, one part machine pistol.
It wasn't like they woke up one morning and said, "You know what? All those bolt action rifles we've been using for 150 years? Those are actually 'precision military sniping rifles'."
That is a made up term. Semi-automatic rifles, with or without the evil "flash suppressors", "adjustable stocks", "pistol grips", "bayonet lugs" - have been in civilian hands for over a century. They're the most effective weapon the average person can successfully and reliably employ.
And that's all you need to know as to why they're being demonized now. Not machine guns. Not artillery. Not ATGMs. Semis - plain old semiautomatic rifles. But the average American isn't going to sign off on that.
"Ban all semiautomatic weapons? That's crazy."
But pull something like "assault weapon" out of your fourth point of contact, get the willing and ignorant press to go out there and fire up the ignorant masses - BOOM - now you're getting somewhere.
It doesn't appear to be working, though, as the black rifle is more popular than ever.
This post was edited on 3/7/14 at 10:08 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:19 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Deny it all you wish, but it doesn't change this fact - the 1994 "ban" only applied to ugly guns - and ugly as defined cosmetically, arbtrarily and nebulously by people who lack even a basic familiarity with firearms - outside of what they see on television and film.
And yet, at least according to the esteemed Chauncey (or whatever), many of those 'ugly' features that were supposed to be banned were still legally available for purchase.
Go figure. No wonder everyone's freaking out, all of those nebulous terms seem to work in their favor.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News