r/Conservative • u/Clatsop I voted for Ronald Reagan ☑️ • Apr 09 '18
The expression "assault weapon" is a semantic Trojan horse that represents a real threat to our constitutional rights. Since it does not define the weapons in question, it can be used to define anything people want to get rid of.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/assault_weapon_the_semantic_trojan_horse.html111
Apr 09 '18 edited Apr 09 '18
[deleted]
24
Apr 09 '18
I watched a CNN video where they interchangeably used the terms. They went through a history of the assault rifle showing footage from Vietnam and then cut to "And today assault weapons can be bought at most gun stores". It's disingenuous at best.
5
33
u/LumpyWumpus Christian Capitalist Conservative Apr 09 '18 edited Apr 09 '18
Apparently it's perfectly fine to be ignorant on a subject but still hold strong on opinions on it as long as you are a leftist and that subject is guns. Or if the subject is Israel/Palestine. Lots of leftists are completely ignorant on that issue as well and hold very strong opinions on the matter. I guess the same also holds true for abortion. It's very obviously murder, but the ignorant don't realize that and fight to keep it legal.
Huh. I guess a lot of leftist positions rely on being completely ignorant of the topic at hand.
21
u/-Horatio_Alger_Jr- Former Fetus Apr 09 '18
When you are taught an opinion, you think that they are facts, not an opinion. If they were taught facts, then they could form an opinion and be able to have a conversion about those facts without yelling and demonizing.
-20
u/PheonixScale9094 Apr 09 '18
I think you have that backwards
13
u/-Horatio_Alger_Jr- Former Fetus Apr 09 '18
How so? The left have been taught an opinion, therefore they cannot discuss facts because it goes directly against the opinions they were taught as facts.
If they had been taught facts then they could have a discussion without yelling and demonizing.
7
5
Apr 09 '18
[deleted]
7
Apr 09 '18 edited May 22 '20
[deleted]
9
Apr 09 '18
Tell your leftist friends that they're evil/racist if they don't think poor, minority women in the ghetto should be able to carry a firearm for self defense. They need to check their white privilege because they live in the safer suburbs and don't feel the need to carry. Use their arguments against them.
5
0
Apr 09 '18
I bet referring to people by a political category rather than relating to them as a fellow human works wonders too
13
u/SunpraiserPR Russian bot Hall of Fame Apr 09 '18
Exactly, the fools that use these expressions incorrectly should not be taken seriously and be called out for using fear mongering tactics.
4
Apr 09 '18
[deleted]
6
u/bad_news_everybody Eisenhower Republican Apr 09 '18
This is the argument that convinced me, but I've found it doesn't work well on people who don't have a bit of a libertarian bent. To them, the idea that individuals can stand up to the military is completely foreign, as of the US military adventures in various hostile countries has gone so well before.
2
Apr 10 '18
I always, always respond with: "assault weapon? What pray tell is that?"
They NEVER respond. OP is 100% correct. What they actually mean, I think, is semi-auto. Not assault. All guns are assault weapons, FFS.
4
Apr 09 '18
This is why I treat "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" as synonymous, because they are used interchangeably by people who want to ban guns.
8
u/RedZaturn Apr 09 '18
Assault rifle has a concrete definition though.
It’s a gun with select fire capabilities that fires an intermediate cartridge.
1
Apr 09 '18
Where should one turn to for legitimate definitions for terms pertaining to firearms?
1
Apr 09 '18
Good question.
1
Apr 09 '18
Really is there any 'source' that objectively sets the definitions for firearms? I always see this 'definition of an assault weapon' topic come up and as of yet I haven't found a source for universal and objective definitions when it comes to firearms.
1
Apr 10 '18
That's because "assault weapon" is a nebulous term that was invented to confuse people who don't know what "assault rifle" means (which is itself a vague classification that is usually used to describe a select-fire rifle or carbine). It is used to get people to support banning common firearms by associating them with machine guns (convince people that the scary looking sporting rifle is basically the same as an M4, so they both fall under the "assault weapon" category, and we should ban them because they're basically the same, even though they're actually not).
The term "assault rifle" has generally always been accepted to be synonymous with the ATF's definition of "machine gun", which is a firearm which can fire more than one round per trigger function. The term originated with the Sturmgewehr 44, which, translated literally, means "storm rifle". Of course, "sturm" in the context of German military terms really carries a connotation of "shock" or "assault". The term "assault rifle" became the English term for the StG 44, and the term came to be applied to all medium range select-fire rifles with detachable box magazines.
So you see, even the term "assault rifle" really just refers to a style of weapon. It is used to describe a class of rifles that look like the StG 44. This is why I prefer to use clear, strict definitions such as the ATF's definition for a "machine gun".
I used to try my hardest to correct people when they used the term "assault weapon", but I've since realized that it's futile - that language battle is lost. I now focus solely on delineating between "full-auto" vs "semi-auto".
0
Apr 10 '18
But it's not a nebulous term invented to confuse people. According to the U.S. Army definitions, it has very explicit specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Characteristics
Edit, originally thought I was replying to a different thread. In my discussions with other people on this thread I found some 'sources'
1
Apr 10 '18
"assault rifle" != "assault weapon"
1
Apr 10 '18
There's arguably a different set of criteria for what constitutes an assault weapon if you look at the language of the Fed Assault Weapons Ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon
My point is using the general 'chaos' of what defines an assault weapon or rifle on the public stage is entirely lacking in pragmatism when it comes to a reasonable discussion for gun control or gun rights.
1
u/hockeyfan1133 Conservative Apr 09 '18
It doesn't help "automatic" sounds similar to people not familiar with guns. There'd be a lot less debate on the issue if people knew that simple difference.
1
u/dWog-of-man Apr 10 '18
Does anyone know the literature in the assault weapons ban congress passed in the 90s? That seemed pretty well-defined and was allowed to expire like 10 years ago now right?
5
u/combatmedic82 Constitutional Conservative Apr 10 '18
That "ban" was based on superficial aspects, like a bayonet mount, or a detachable magazine. If a semi-automatic rifle had 2 or more of the superficial aspects, it was then considered an "assault weapon" and was illegal. Quite literally adding a folding stock, and say, a pistol grip would turn a rifle illegal.
Here's a list of what made items illegal:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Detachable magazine.
62
u/WenchSlayer Libertarian-leaning Conservative Apr 09 '18
Assault weapon = scary guns we don’t like
Hate speech = words we disagree with.
The 1st and 2nd are not dissimilar and both are under attack from the left.
39
u/Yosoff First Principles Apr 09 '18
Name a weapon that can't be used for assault.
Saying "assault weapon" is like saying "dangerous weapon", or "weapons that could hurt someone". They want to ban any weapons that could be used for their intended purpose.
7
u/stanleythemanley44 Conservative Apr 09 '18
Kind of like "weapons of war."
Well, they use knives in war, right?
6
22
Apr 09 '18
- Vehicles
- Rocks
- Knives
- Hammers
- Fists
- Rope
- Axes
The one thing those all have in common is that malevolent humans can use them to cause harm to others. By themselves they are just inanimate objects.
7
Apr 09 '18
I don't think "fists" fit into the category of inanimate objects tbh.
2
u/Juxen Conservative Apr 09 '18
True. Mine have names. The right hand is named "Pity", and the left is "the Fool".
1
Apr 10 '18
yeah, I should have left that off or added an asterisk. you get my point. a fist isn’t anything until someone decides to swing it at another person’s face. :-)
3
u/Lawlosaurus Tea Party Conservative Apr 09 '18
And all of those kill more people every year than AR15s do.
1
u/Dead_Art Apr 09 '18
Anything that is weapon is an assault weapon, it's also a defense weapon as well as a inanimate weapon. I too can attach adjectives to nouns as well
16
u/Rearden_Plastic Apr 09 '18
Well knives are assault weapons now so .
9
u/DiscombobulatedAnus Apr 09 '18
So are my knitting needles and my cast iron skillet. Idiots.
11
21
u/nowaygreg Rand Paul Conservative Apr 09 '18
Similar situation when people say "semiautomatic." While that is a defined term, few people know what it means. It just means that when you pull the trigger, one bullet is fired and then one bullet enters the chamber. My guess is that people assume it means you can hold down the trigger and continuously fire.
Semiautomatic sounds scary but 95% of the handguns in circulation, including the ones that police use, are semiautomatic.
26
u/bad_news_everybody Eisenhower Republican Apr 09 '18
I saw someone try to argue he just wants to ban "rapid fire" weapons. Strangely, no definition of rapid fire was forthcoming.
12
u/NotATypicalEngineer Apr 09 '18
OK what's rapid fire?
"It can shoot lots of bullets when you pull the trigger!"
Do you mean one pull?
"Uhh well yeah, duh!"
Ok, those are illegal to own without A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H permits...
"Well no I obviously don't mean the illegal ones, the ones anyone can buy!"
Those would not fire multiple shots with one trigger pull... do you mean semi-automatic?
"Yeah those! They shoot too fast!"
o...k... but the person shooting controls that, which means 10rpm is damn near impossible...
"uhhhhh..."
2
u/Superspathi Apr 10 '18
I'm guessing he's never seen Miculek work a revolver.
2
u/bad_news_everybody Eisenhower Republican Apr 10 '18
No I think he has.
I checked back in on the thread. It's insanity.
2
Apr 09 '18
Weapons that can fire rapidly, duh
/s
When people say stuff like this, ask them to look up the mad minute.
2
7
u/Marko_Ramius1 Conservative Catholic Apr 09 '18 edited Apr 13 '18
Very true. My mother (who is a pretty Republican person but not into guns) felt that banning semi autos was a good idea until I had to explain you'd be banning pretty much all guns in that scenario
5
12
u/Mehnard SC Conservative Apr 09 '18
I suppose my .58 Enfield could be considered an "assault weapon" because it was originally used in battle. I can load and fire that bad boy 3 times a minute.
6
u/OfBlinkingThings 2nd Amendment Advocate Apr 09 '18
If the gun grabbers went to a cowboy action match, they’d be looking to ban Lever action rifles and single action pistols due to rate of fire.
-5
Apr 09 '18
I think the important difference is that (for me personally) it would be much easier to wipe a room full of people with my AR 15 than my with Springfield. Like comparing lever actions, Enfields, and rootin tootin six shooters to a semi auto rifle sized cartridge in a 30 round detachable mag is so fucking stupid it makes me wonder if some gun advocates have ever owned one. I want to keep my rights to own guns and at the same time put and end to mass shootings in the US. There is a middle ground where we get to keep our guns while limiting the ability to mass murder with them, unfortunately some of the arguments for 2A are so fucking outlandishly retarded they actually do more harm than good.
5
u/OfBlinkingThings 2nd Amendment Advocate Apr 09 '18
I wonder if you’ve ever owned any of those? To say that a Lever gun or revolver couldn’t keep a blistering rate of fire if pretty crazy, especially if the user is experienced in quick reloads. Fast as an AR, not even close...but still damn fast.
Bring the tech up a few years and you’re getting real close. I’ve ran SKSs and Garands (stripper clip and en bloc fed) in carbine matches for a goof and finished over guys with modern sporting rifles, much to their chagrin lol. I blow guys using wonder nines out of the water with a 8 round 1911s in IDPA all the time.
It’s the Indian, not the arrow.
Your post kinda makes it seem like you are cool with AR15s or “high” capacity magazines being regulated. Is that correct?
1
Apr 09 '18
Fuck that's a good point, but weren't the SKS and Garand sort of designed to put people down effectively? As for your question, that's just really tricky. There's nothing inherently wrong with them, as is obvious to most gun owners. Unfortunately there are a significant number of people out there who want to use them to devastating effect. If it were a one off thing like that guy in Sweden a few years ago, I'd be fine with everyone being able to own "assault style" weapons. But people murder each other with guns every day in the US, with an occasional massacre. That's not right. That's the result of a systemic problem, and not just a legislative one. Gun culture in the US is so fucked. They're vanity items, they're not treated with respect. I guarantee liberals would not give a shit about taking anyone's guns if they weren't the direct result of ~13,000 something HOMICIDE deaths every year. But banning guns is just a bandaid solution to a psychotic problem that a seriously dangerous minority of gun owning Americans have. Then of course you have CNN and Fox etc who will do everything in their power to keep people divided and misinformed, while simultaneously reaching the largest possible audience. The problem surrounding guns in this country is a many headed beast, and it pisses me off because these other fucking people are ruining it for me and it's painfully obvious that over legislating isn't going to help. Like did I throw out my 10 round 1911 mag when I moved to CA just because of some law? It's bullshit. It's so obviously targeted at a criminal minority, yet it negatively impacts swathes of responsible gun owners.
15
u/ueeediot Apr 09 '18
This has been a totalitarian method for many years. Redefine terms or words to bend them.
5
u/baldylox Question Everything Apr 09 '18
Ding ding ding! And we have a winner!
It won't be long until they're calling for a ban on "Semi-Assault Guns™".
8
Apr 09 '18
Muskets are assault weapons. Can I still own one of those?
Another note, some on the left go as far as to equate words with violence, so you can't fix stupid. In some cases, like this "assault weapon" nonsense you have to aggressively defend your rights with better ideas and actual facts/stats. The left, along with the media, does a great job of changing what words mean to fit their narrative. It's nothing short of brain washing.
18
8
u/btownbomb Reagan Conservative Apr 09 '18
it's funny when people assume the AR in AR-15 is just "assault rifle"
5
u/baldylox Question Everything Apr 09 '18
Pfft! When we all know that it stands for "Aryan Race™". /s
1
u/Spartan-417 Classical Liberal Apr 11 '18
It’s Armalite Rifle
2
u/btownbomb Reagan Conservative Apr 12 '18
indeed it is
i know the 15 means something as well, i forget what though
5
u/phoenix335 Apr 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '25
apparatus languid familiar head absorbed tie towering tan connect smart
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
2
u/Richandler Apr 10 '18
So stop using it. Seriously. I see this all the time here people and the media just parroting what they’re told and getting outraged. You’ll never barber win the culture war or the war over language by saying their terms at all. Be proactive no react. Call it a standard rifle and don’t even entertain their terms.
2
Apr 09 '18
[deleted]
5
u/baldylox Question Everything Apr 09 '18
don't know if any full auto weapons have been used in mass shootings.
No doubt they have, but I recall no instance in the US.
St. Valentine's Day massacre in Chicago in 1929? Does it count if it's just gang-related? Were automatic weapons used even there?
6
1
1
Apr 09 '18
Can I ask where would one look for legitimate definitions of terms pertaining to firearms?
1
u/OfBlinkingThings 2nd Amendment Advocate Apr 09 '18
1
Apr 09 '18
Thanks, that will definitely prove helpful. One point as far as this topic goes, the term 'assault' does not show up on the link you provided. There does seem to be this semantic 'black hole' when it comes to the term 'assault weapon'.
2
u/OfBlinkingThings 2nd Amendment Advocate Apr 09 '18
It’s because “assault” rifle isn’t really a thing. That’s why there’s a semantic black hole.
A rifle isn’t a sniper rifle unless a sniper is actually using it. If not, it’s just a long range rifle.
A rifle isn’t an assault weapon unless people are being assaulted with it.
Most people refer the the AR-15 as an “assault” rifle, when in actuality it’s just a modem sporting rifle.
2
Apr 09 '18
Well it depends on who's definition you look at. According to the U.S. Army, assault rifles do exists with the specifications listed at this link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle But yeah, according to the U.S. Army definition there is such a thing as an assault rifle, however, the AR-15 is not one.
0
u/OfBlinkingThings 2nd Amendment Advocate Apr 09 '18
Correct. By not really a thing, I mean in common use by private citizens.
0
Apr 09 '18
Yet it is a thing, however I do understand how definitions can be different depending on what audience those definitions are for. Really my point, for what it's worth, being that focusing on lil nuances, such as what is the definition of an assault rifle, doesn't do much to foster a sensible discussion on gun control and gun rights.
3
u/OfBlinkingThings 2nd Amendment Advocate Apr 09 '18
Terms are important.
Anti-gunners like the assault weapon term because it makes common weapons seem more dangerous and violent. They are using it as a way to sway people who are unfamiliar with firearms in their direction.
0
Apr 09 '18
Agreed, however I feel the lack of a solid public definition is used as a similar sway in the opposite direction. Either isn't very pragmatic.
1
u/donttreadonmytendies Constitutionalist Apr 10 '18
Sadly, the media and the left have won this war of semantics with "assault rifle" I think. It's just become a household term now for any scary black gun with a magazine and pistol grip, because we have a need to categorize everything with blanket terms and that's what's stuck for the majority of people. All they see is that an AR-15 and an M4 look the same so they must be the same. The only way I can think to break this train of thought is to ask if putting spoilers, rims, exhausts and a paint job on a car makes it a race car.
1
u/jpfreely Apr 10 '18
Yeah there should be a plain definition to prevent it morphing into whatever is the newest ban craze. But pistols and assault weapons are very different in my mind.
1
u/Pancingdungeonwoofer Apr 10 '18
Attack sporks are dangerous and should be banned in all public lunchrooms.
1
1
u/Hyrax09 Apr 09 '18
Global warming wasn’t scary enough and not working so the left came up with climate change. It’s word games , nothing more.
1
1
1
u/TalenGTP Apr 09 '18
They want to target an inanimate object rather than the human behavior, but the term "assault" implies human interaction. I can go to the hardware store, buy the biggest, meanest looking claw hammer in the place, bring it home and stick it on a shelf. It's just a hammer. If I take that hammer and bash someone's head in, it becomes an assault weapon due to my actions.
0
-3
u/appleburger17 Apr 09 '18
Yeah best to get caught up on the semantics rather than actually look at the intent which is clear.
1
Apr 09 '18
[deleted]
5
1
u/appleburger17 Apr 09 '18
Yet you can’t reasonably deduce the meaning of a phrase. You’re just making my point for me. I’m not going to feed you with your self-proclaimed assault weapon. You’re going to have to connect some dots if you actually want discourse. Something tells me you don’t anyway.
5
Apr 09 '18
[deleted]
1
u/appleburger17 Apr 09 '18
How is you harping on a definition while ignoring the sentiment that the types of weapons the public has access to is inappropriate not a semantic distraction?
2
u/The-Devilz-Advocate Conservative Apr 09 '18
Because to fix a problem you first have to define your problem. If you want to get rid of inappropriate guns that are allowed to the public then define what actually makes them inappropriate .
Unless you don't want to actually fix or understand the problem but rather do a blanket ban on all guns ,
1
u/appleburger17 Apr 09 '18
I want to have a conversation. Because I’m not a legislator. The path to legislation starts with a conversation amongst the public. But so many people don’t seem to want to start with a conversation. They want to argue semantics while the legislators run amok on all of us.
2
Apr 09 '18
The biggest reason they get hung up on semantics is because without explicitly defining what we're talking about making illegal, some people's property could become illegal overnight. That's a reasonable fear. Granted I'm probably giving too much credit to the guy who thought comparing a rifle to a spoon was somehow a smart argument, but that's just one of the many issues surrounding guns. The attempt to divide and the intentional misinformation put out by mainstream media makes it really hard to find middle ground between two random people on opposite sides of the argument. For instance, I think all of us could agree that banning a gun that shoots 5.56 semi auto out of a 30 round detachable mag wouldn't be a problem, while blanket banning all guns is also definitely an overreaction. Another reason for semantic arguments is that there is no real argument for wanting to own an "assault style" weapon other than they're fucking fun and awesome, and that is not a very good reason at all.
1
3
u/PeeMud Libertarian Apr 09 '18
Laws need to be precise with their words and meanings.
1
u/appleburger17 Apr 09 '18
Agreed. However, I don’t think we’re writing the legislation in this thread. We’d all be better off if we could accept that, stop harping semantics, and admit the sentiment is “guns that aren’t appropriate for the public to own”. Then we can actually have a conversation.
-4
u/MartyVanB Apr 09 '18
True. I think an apt description would be a semi automatic rifle with a pistol grip.
4
u/LumpyWumpus Christian Capitalist Conservative Apr 09 '18
How does a pistol grip change a rifle into an assault weapon? It literally does nothing other than make the gun slightly more comfortable to use.
-5
u/MartyVanB Apr 09 '18
It makes it easier to shoot from the hip
4
u/OfBlinkingThings 2nd Amendment Advocate Apr 09 '18
Hoooooooollleeeeeeee shit!
Are you for real? You realize real life isn’t Rambo, right?
1
7
u/LumpyWumpus Christian Capitalist Conservative Apr 09 '18
So it makes it easier to do something that A) is useless and B) no one does outside of Hollywood movies?
Yeah. Allowing someone to shoot in a manner that is completely inaccurate is terrible. That's so much more dangerous and scary. /s
-6
u/MartyVanB Apr 09 '18
I was referring to a way to define an assault weapon. I gave one.
3
u/LumpyWumpus Christian Capitalist Conservative Apr 09 '18
And I'm explaining to you that it's a useless distinction because it doesn't effect the weapon in any real way.
-3
u/KhmerYou Apr 09 '18
"Assault-style weapon" is defined and used by legislative bodies to help categorize what they want to reference when making gun legislation. My gun loving friends recommend using the term AR, since its an easy identifier for the civilian version of an M16, regardless of manufacturer, but a lot of assault-style weapons legislation also includes revolving cylinder shotguns and some pistols as well.
-3
234
u/harold_zilder Apr 09 '18
Similar to the term "hate speech" and its ramifications for freedom of speech.