Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,121
Location: US

12 Apr 2018, 4:59 pm

What do you all think assault weapons are?
What it really defines is probably not what you think and want banned.

Hint the bill never mentions full auto.
Look up the gun control act of 1986



SocOfAutism
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2015
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,323

16 Apr 2018, 12:32 pm

I try to make the Red Dawn argument when people tell me that no one needs assault weapons. But it turns out that people who don’t believe in the 2nd amendment also have not seen Red Dawn.



VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,697

16 Apr 2018, 1:02 pm

Would non-assault weapons be completely ineffective in a Red Dawn scenario if using guerrilla war tactics probably using snipers? Could people still accomplish some resistance even with Pump Action Shotguns, Scoped Rifles, or Revolvers?

Or if they have some successes, just seize enemy weapons if they're not simply given weapons by the government because of the impending invasion.

I think it's also worth considering that a gun culture relying more single action scoped rifles lead to a militia with better marksman and more intimidating and frustrating for the enemy.



Last edited by VIDEODROME on 16 Apr 2018, 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,940
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

16 Apr 2018, 1:12 pm

SocOfAutism wrote:
I try to make the Red Dawn argument when people tell me that no one needs assault weapons. But it turns out that people who don’t believe in the 2nd amendment also have not seen Red Dawn.


Yeah, they're kinda squeamish about anything portraying their comrades are being killed by non-tolerating Americans.



WOLVERINES!! !!


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,940
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

16 Apr 2018, 1:18 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:
Would non-assault weapons be completely ineffective in a Red Dawn scenario if using guerrilla war tactics probably using snipers? Could people still accomplish some resistance even with Pump Action Shotguns, Scoped Rifles, or Revolvers?

Or if they have some successes, just seize enemy weapons if they're not simply given between weapons by the government because of the impending invasion.

I think it's also worth considering that a gun culture relying more single action scoped rifles lead to a militia with better marksman and more intimidating and frustrating for the enemy.


A single action rifle?
That's a new one on me.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 29,119
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

16 Apr 2018, 1:20 pm

I don't know exactly,

But I was hearing a lot of 'its a false term' so if it is a made-up false term, than how is it that it would have an actual definition?

Meh I would say military grade semi and fully automatic weapons, are not something that just anyone should be able to go buy. I say either join the military, or perhaps there could be a system for civilians to take proper training and be able to get a licence to shoot them. I don't 'not believe in the second amendment' I just don't believe it says 'every civilian is entitled to have whatever kind of gun they want, bring it wherever they want and the government is barred from making any regulations whatsoever regarding guns'

I mean I would really like to find a little middle ground on this issue from the different sides, but its really hard when so much as supporting better regulations, not even a gun ban gets you branded a second amendment hater.

I mean do you really think just anyone should be able to go buy any gun regardless of how powerful or destructive it is with no regulations?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 29,119
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

16 Apr 2018, 1:36 pm

Raptor wrote:
VIDEODROME wrote:
Would non-assault weapons be completely ineffective in a Red Dawn scenario if using guerrilla war tactics probably using snipers? Could people still accomplish some resistance even with Pump Action Shotguns, Scoped Rifles, or Revolvers?

Or if they have some successes, just seize enemy weapons if they're not simply given between weapons by the government because of the impending invasion.

I think it's also worth considering that a gun culture relying more single action scoped rifles lead to a militia with better marksman and more intimidating and frustrating for the enemy.


A single action rifle?
That's a new one on me.


Well would you enlighten us on what a more appropriate term would be than?



BaronHarkonnen85
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2016
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 145
Location: Tennessee

16 Apr 2018, 5:23 pm

"Assault weapon" is a made up propaganda term. It's like calling the inheritance tax the "death tax." Most "assault weapons" are just semi-auto rifles that look scary. It was also designed to cause confusion. E.g. people using assault rifle and "assault weapon" interchangeably.

Note: an assault rifle is selective-fire, meaning you can choose between semi- and full-auto (and sometimes three round burst).

However, Websters recently (and incorrectly) changed the definition of assault rifle to include a semi-auto rifle that looks like an assault rifle. This is clearly nonsense. Looking like something and being something are two different things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... lt%20rifle


_________________
--Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
The "Enlightenment" was the work of Satan


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,303
Location: Oz

16 Apr 2018, 5:50 pm

sly279 wrote:
What do you all think assault weapons are?
What it really defines is probably not what you think and want banned.



The epitome of what I think is an assault weapon is this:
Image
Or this:
Image


_________________
I'm not here to change the world...There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin... ;)
Autistic/scout motto: "Give me a better argument and I will listen..."
"Hate me for who I am...Not for who you think I am..."
You have been weighed...you have been measured...and you have been found wanking...:P
"Honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8) I'm a rationalist...Deal with it...:mrgreen:


Last edited by Pepe on 16 Apr 2018, 6:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,940
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

16 Apr 2018, 6:06 pm

BaronHarkonnen85 wrote:
"Assault weapon" is a made up propaganda term. It's like calling the inheritance tax the "death tax." Most "assault weapons" are just semi-auto rifles that look scary. It was also designed to cause confusion. E.g. people using assault rifle and "assault weapon" interchangeably.

Note: an assault rifle is selective-fire, meaning you can choose between semi- and full-auto (and sometimes three round burst).

However, Websters recently (and incorrectly) changed the definition of assault rifle to include a semi-auto rifle that looks like an assault rifle. This is clearly nonsense. Looking like something and being something are two different things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... lt%20rifle

Don't confuse them with facts. They might feel belittled or attacked. :shameonyou:


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,124
Location: The Infodome

16 Apr 2018, 6:16 pm

SocOfAutism wrote:
I try to make the Red Dawn argument when people tell me that no one needs assault weapons. But it turns out that people who don’t believe in the 2nd amendment also have not seen Red Dawn.


I don't like right-wing propaganda films.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,303
Location: Oz

16 Apr 2018, 6:23 pm

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
I don't like right-wing propaganda films.


Who would have thought!... 8O
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


_________________
I'm not here to change the world...There isn't a big enough soiled nappy bin... ;)
Autistic/scout motto: "Give me a better argument and I will listen..."
"Hate me for who I am...Not for who you think I am..."
You have been weighed...you have been measured...and you have been found wanking...:P
"Honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others."
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8) I'm a rationalist...Deal with it...:mrgreen:


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 29,119
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

16 Apr 2018, 7:08 pm

BaronHarkonnen85 wrote:
"Assault weapon" is a made up propaganda term. It's like calling the inheritance tax the "death tax." Most "assault weapons" are just semi-auto rifles that look scary. It was also designed to cause confusion. E.g. people using assault rifle and "assault weapon" interchangeably.

Note: an assault rifle is selective-fire, meaning you can choose between semi- and full-auto (and sometimes three round burst).

However, Websters recently (and incorrectly) changed the definition of assault rifle to include a semi-auto rifle that looks like an assault rifle. This is clearly nonsense. Looking like something and being something are two different things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... lt%20rifle


So for it to be a legitimate assault rifle, it has to have selective firing capacity that allows for a fully auto shooting? Therefore a semi-auto would not count as being an assault rifle?



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,699
Location: Victoria, Australia

16 Apr 2018, 9:33 pm

SocOfAutism wrote:
I try to make the Red Dawn argument when people tell me that no one needs assault weapons. But it turns out that people who don’t believe in the 2nd amendment also have not seen Red Dawn.


A joke? :huh:

I've seen the film, although it was a long time ago, so I refreshed my memory by "Googling" it. I really do hope you're not seriously trying to make a point here, the point that if the 2nd Amendment is done away with you will all be completely defenceless. What about the U.S. Navy? All those nukes you have? The Army? Marine Corps? The world's largest "defence" bill? Who would want to invade you anyway?! What for? To remove Trump? (Well, okay, I guess that's one good reason)



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,832
Location: Sweden

17 Apr 2018, 1:50 am

BaronHarkonnen85 wrote:
"Assault weapon" is a made up propaganda term. It's like calling the inheritance tax the "death tax." Most "assault weapons" are just semi-auto rifles that look scary. It was also designed to cause confusion. E.g. people using assault rifle and "assault weapon" interchangeably.

Note: an assault rifle is selective-fire, meaning you can choose between semi- and full-auto (and sometimes three round burst).

However, Websters recently (and incorrectly) changed the definition of assault rifle to include a semi-auto rifle that looks like an assault rifle. This is clearly nonsense. Looking like something and being something are two different things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... lt%20rifle


"Assault rifle" is just a translation of the german "Sturmgewehr", and the term has been around since WW2. Though it used to have a specific meaning (intermediate power cartridge, selective-fire etc.), now it apprently means "rifle that looks scary".

As for Websters, that's another wonderful consequence of dictionaries being descriptive and not prescriptive; this is the same dictionary that includes "figuratively" as another meaning of the word "literally".


Lintar wrote:
SocOfAutism wrote:
I try to make the Red Dawn argument when people tell me that no one needs assault weapons. But it turns out that people who don’t believe in the 2nd amendment also have not seen Red Dawn.


A joke? :huh:

I've seen the film, although it was a long time ago, so I refreshed my memory by "Googling" it. I really do hope you're not seriously trying to make a point here, the point that if the 2nd Amendment is done away with you will all be completely defenceless. What about the U.S. Navy? All those nukes you have? The Army? Marine Corps? The world's largest "defence" bill? Who would want to invade you anyway?! What for? To remove Trump? (Well, okay, I guess that's one good reason)


I think the usual assumption is that all of those are either otherwhise occupied or actively against you in the "2nd Amendment saves the day"-future


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.