Why Young Women Want AR-15s

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by jsipprell
 


Well, sure then . . . if somebody added it to wiki, I guess it legit.




If you think you have a better definition, why not edit WP for the betterment of all?



From your same soure:

Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate.[3][4][5][6][7] As a political and legal term, it is highly controversial. Critics have asserted that the term is a media invention,[8] or a term that was intended by gun control activists to foster confusion with the public over differences between fully automatic and semi-automatic firearms.[9]



Original definitions and uses of the term for assault rifles in German, Sturmgewehr, literally "storm" (or assault) "rifle", included capability of fully automatic function. Later definitions from the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban only specified semi-automatic weapons.[7][12] Actually possessing the operational features, such as full-auto, is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is now enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon.[


Wiki showing the very ambiguous political definition doesn't not discount the truth that before 1989 there was no political term "assault weapon" Assault rifle . . . yes. And they were banned. I was alive and remember full well the invention of this term, at the time.

It's a made up definition that suits only the political agenda of demonizing "scary" looking guns, in order to shape public perception about bans. If this definition is "accepted" then why, in the last decade, as it grown to only mean one characteristic, instead of three? Why were characteristics that made an "assault weapon" in 94, not considered characteristics today? Please answer the questions in my last post about the diffence between the AR platform, a Mini-14 tactical, and a Mini-14 ranch? Why are handguns now "assault weapons"?

You know why . . . so they can move the goal posts in any direction they choose to make something "scary" or "dangerous". Most Americans (and even some gun owners) don't know what it means, so they take the media and gov's word on it. Nothing they are banning is due to functionality or lethality . . . it's all perception and simply meant to demonize firearms that are effective defense weapons. Notice, they don't list any semi-auto "long guns", why? You know why . . . they make poor defensive weapons under 100yds.



Hey, all I said was that the term "Assault Weapon" does have a non-technical political definition. You chose to walk whatever paths from there that your personal worldview deemed inviting. Notice now that I am not actually walking, with or without you, as that was never my intention.




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I don't know you personally or your views (I'm not going to go through all your posts), so I don't want to put you in a box and write you off. However, you are using the same circular logic that Biden and Feinstein use.

G: "we are calling for a ban on all "assault weapons"
P: "what is an "assault weapon"?"
G: "here's the definition"
P: "that's not a real class of guns and the term didn't exist before 89"
G: "yes, it's a real class, here's the definition"
P: "well then, what weapons are classified as "assault"?"
G: "Military "style" weapons"
P: "What makes it military style"
G: "They look like military weapons"
P: "What makes them more dangerous then?"
G: "They are assault weapons"

Saying it's a political definition just backs up what I am saying . . . do they use the term, sure. Is it describing anything of substance that holds up when put against other "non-scary" weapons, no.

It's not really about having a "better" definition. There is nothing to define. It's a made up class of weapons, so shouldn't be relevent to any control debates to begin with. But, yes . . . Biden and Sara Brady started crusade against them in the late eighties, so if they say they're real . . . they must be. The media keeps talking about them, so it must be so. You walk in to any gun store in the country and ask to purchase "an assault weapon" and see how they respond to you.

Whether you want to debate this is beside the point . . . there is no class or platform of weapon called "assault" that is available in the US. If this was a real class of weapon . . . they wouldn't need to change the definition every time they bring legislation.

With that said . . . agree to disagree on the semantics of it, I suppose.
edit on 1/28/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Your opinion of gun owners clearly has no bias.

Lots of people here are licensed gun owners, Me as well. That's why it isn't always black and white.
The 2nd amendment was designed way back when for these folks:



Not these folks:



When this was deemed a good weapon for self defense:



Not this:



I think there's a gun in there somewhere

The cruise missile analogy is a bit of a stretch,, but what is the limit?
Or do some people think there shouldn't even be a limit?






edit on 28-1-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by canucks555
 


The second was designed with future generations in mind, be it in the 19th, 20th, or 21st century. The framers weren't oblivious to progress of arms. In fact, it was the "revolutionized" American long rifle that help defeat the imperial powers. The american long rifle was the pinnacle of the day, for personal arms, and at the time of the signing had already evolved from what was used at the outset of the war. There is a reason that the framers used the language the did (Arms, not rifles or musketts). It is intended to be relevent to the times you live in, not take you back to the 18th century.

As far as your pictures . . . what's your point? What doe the AR set-up prove other than the owner is an idiot? How is that overly accesorized AR any more dangerous than a Mini-14? 'Cuz they got lots of lights and lazers? Yep, better keep us safe from a gun with 5 light sources on it . . . those things are killing machines.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   



The cruise missile analogy is a bit of a stretch,, but what is the limit?
Or do some people think there shouldn't even be a limit?

edit on 28-1-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)


There already is a limit and there has been since '68! Then, it was expanded in '86. It was then expanded in '94, but expired. Now they want to bring back '94's ban, plus add a whole new list on it including handguns.

I don't know how anyone that takes the time to learn the history of these issues can claim the hyperbole of need, based on factors that have nothing to do with legality. If this agenda had the law and "a majority of Americans" on their side . . . they would not have to use the media to fear monger their way into the avg Americans heart. They wouldn't have to make up definitions for a class of weapons that don't exist.

But, it's only a right when it pertains to you? As long as your shotty is protected who cares? As long as you have the same attitude when your shotty is deemed illegal or not necessary . . . have at it.
edit on 1/28/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


It means that these are different times. If everything was ok then you wouldn't be having this debate.
How is that overly accesorized AR any more dangerous than a Mini-14?
-AR-15s are more popular than that mini-14s, maybe that's why (?) not sure
edit on 28-1-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-1-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
I don't know you personally or your views (I'm not going to go through all your posts), so I don't want to put you in a box and write you off. However, you are using the same circular logic that Biden and Feinstein use.

G: "we are calling for a ban on all "assault weapons"
P: "what is an "assault weapon"?"
G: "here's the definition"
P: "that's not a real class of guns and the term didn't exist before 89"
G: "yes, it's a real class, here's the definition"
P: "well then, what weapons are classified as "assault"?"
G: "Military "style" weapons"
P: "What makes it military style"
G: "They look like military weapons"
P: "What makes them more dangerous then?"
G: "They are assault weapons"


Fallacious. I never stated "it's a real class [in the technical sense]" nor did I make any claims as to the veracity or usefulness of the definition. I merely provided evidence that a political definition did exist. Anything beyond that is unsubstantiated speculation and therefore either projection, dicto simpliciter, or simply egregiousness on your part.

It is not that I don't have opinions on the matter, although they likely are both different and more nuanced than you are expecting, it's that the entire reason for my posting was merely to repudiate an assertion that the term "Assault Weapon" was devoid of meaning.





top topics
 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join