Does Obama Think U.S. Soldiers Use AK-47s? (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/07/25/Obama-Thinks-US-Soldiers-Use-AK-47s)


President Barack Obama, speaking to the National Urban League on Wednesday evening, sounded a call for gun control--and revealed his apparent ignorance about the U.S. military in the process. Obama told the audience that "AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals." However, the U.S. military does not generally use the AK-47, a weapon originally developed in the Soviet Union that was subsequently adopted by many other communist states. The AK-47 also became the weapon of choice for guerilla armies and terrorist groups.

[clip]

The AK-47 is popular among private owners--as well as irregular armies in third world countries--because it is small, easily maintained, and relatively inexpensive. It is possible to obtain AK-47s on the black market in formerly war-torn countries such as Mozambique, for example, for as little as 10 U.S. dollars. Some argue that the U.S. should adopt the AK-47 (or a variant thereof) to replace the M-16 and M-4 rifles. For now, however, it is not typically supplied to, nor carried by, U.S. combat soldiers, as President Obama ought to know.

Though President Obama has cultivated an image of a strong and decisive commander-in-chief--partly through apparent White House leaks of military secrets--he has frequently demonstrated an elementary lack of familiarity with the basic facts about the forces he leads. At the National Prayer Breakfast in 2010, for example, he referred to U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsmen as "corpse-men," mispronouncing the word.Does Obama Think U.S. Soldiers Use AK-47s?



Co. shooter Used an AR 15 not even an Assault weapon, but a semi automatic rifle

Co. shooter Used an AR 15 not even an Assault weapon, but a semi automatic rifle

The AK is the most popular military rifle in the world so what he said was entirely truthful, not really applicable to the event, but nonetheless truthful.

Co. shooter Used an AR 15 not even an Assault weapon, but a semi automatic rifle

He was talking about his civilian army, not the current US military.

Wirelessly posted

Co. shooter Used an AR 15 not even an Assault weapon, but a semi automatic rifle

The AK is the most popular military rifle in the world so what he said was entirely truthful, not really applicable to the event, but nonetheless truthful.

He wasn't talking about that incident when he made the comment. He was taking about reinstitution of the assualt weapons ban. While he may have both been mentioned in the same speech they were distinct and separate thoughts.


And only an idiot would take what Obama said about AKs to mean that he was talking about US soldiers.

[And only an idiot would take what Obama said about AKs to mean that he was talking about US soldiers.

And only a bigger idiot would not know the huge difference between the military-grade full-auto AK-47s used in practically every second- and third-world army throughout the world and the ones that can be bought and sold in the USA. Like the one I own...for example.

Welcome to that exclusive club...you and Barry. :howdy:

Wirelessly posted

[And only an idiot would take what Obama said about AKs to mean that he was talking about US soldiers.

And only a bigger idiot would not know the huge difference between the military-grade full-auto AK-47s used in practically every second- and third-world army throughout the world and the ones that can be bought and sold in the USA. Like the one I own...for example.

Welcome to that exclusive club...you and Barry. :howdy:

You mean like the one I bought back before they started making them with the stupid thumb hole stock? I would have thought you with all your alleged life experience would know that even a guy with limited abilities can convert the ones available here to full auto. You might not be able to switch back and forth, but full auto is achievable. Of course that would be illegal so I wouldnt reccomend it.

Here's a clue for all you idiots out there. An assault weapon is whatever they define it as in the ban.

You might not be able to switch back and forth, but full auto is achievable. .

Hey dimbulb..that is very much against the law already. What "new" laws are needed there?

With my limited ability (and my extensive machine shop) I could manufacture full-auto firearms all day long too. Another supposition that involves a) an illegal act and b) nothing to do with this tread. :howdy:

You mean like the one I bought back before they started making them with the stupid thumb hole stock? I would have thought you with all your alleged life experience would know that even a guy with limited abilities can convert the ones available here to full auto. You might not be able to switch back and forth, but full auto is achievable. Of course that would be illegal so I wouldnt reccomend it.

Here's a clue for all you idiots out there. An assault weapon is whatever they define it as in the ban.

Why should I care what the government tells me what is what? Because you claim you’re a gun owner, your very own statement should concern you. Banning things. It’s shameful that we should accept a government that limits us this way.

Why should I care what the government tells me what is what? Because you claim you’re a gun owner, your very own statement should concern you. Banning things. It’s shameful that we should accept a government that limits us this way.

i never said that i accept it or like it, but the reality is that an assualt weapon is whatever they define it as in the legislation.

Hey dimbulb..that is very much against the law already. What "new" laws are needed there?

With my limited ability (and my extensive machine shop) I could manufacture full-auto firearms all day long too. Another supposition that involves a) an illegal act and b) nothing to do with this tread. :howdy:

you are the one that brought full auto AK-47's into the discussion there Gillitard :bigwhoop:

And i like how you selectively edited my post to take out the part where i said that converting a gun to full auto is illegal, just so you could make that point :killingme

And only a bigger idiot would not know the huge difference between the military-grade full-auto AK-47s used in practically every second- and third-world army throughout the world and the ones that can be bought and sold in the USA. Like the one I own...for example.

Welcome to that exclusive club...you and Barry. :howdy:

Ok, but, not to defend Obama but, his audience, who he is speaking to, AK-47 conjures up the fear and loathing imagery he wants a lot better and quicker than AR-15. He can get away with a lot saying "AK-47" so ubiquitous is the imagery. Saying "M-16" or "AR-15" or "M-4" instantly gets the conversation down in the weeds and the point is lost.

Does he know the difference" Probably not and it doesn't matter. I would not expect Dubbya or Bush 41 or McCain or Romney to being able to explain in a few words the difference between an M-16 and an AR variant. However, even though the exact same variations exist in AK land, it's just not as readily identifiable or arguable in terms of the differences.

Obama ain't speaking to us.

:buddies:

Obama ain't speaking to us.

:

Good point. He never has..and never will.

I've already ordered wunna deze printers for our office. :buddies:


A Working Assault Rifle Made With a 3-D Printer | Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-07/working-assault-rifle-made-3-d-printer)

i never said that i accept it or like it, but the reality is that an assualt weapon is whatever they define it as in the legislation.

This is the problem with the government defining things for us. They will use terms that make it sound in the context that they want it, creating negative emotions in people, giving them the leverage to manipulate the status of that thing. Pine trees in FL fall on homes when big storms come around. I think we need to call them assault trees since they do so much damage. That’s how dumb it is to accept what the government defines for us.

These weapons are NOT assault weapons. Weapons do not assault people. Calling them automatic or semi-automatic weapons just doesn’t put the emotional impact they need in order to effectively ban them.

Good point. He never has..and never will.

The larger problem is it's not like Mitt is. :lol:

You watch. After he's beaten Obama, he'll re-institute the AWB in some deal to get congressional support for whatever.

You watch.

The larger problem is it's not like Mitt is. :lol:

You watch. After he's beaten Obama, he'll re-institute the AWB in some deal to get congressional support for whatever.

You watch.

I'll be OK with that. I've already got all I need.:whistle:

I'll be OK with that. I've already got all I need.:whistle:

Be damned the constitution. :ohwell:

Be damned the constitution. :ohwell:

The what? :lol:

Be damned the constitution. :ohwell:

I'm more looking at the armageddon we're facing soon after the fiscal collapse and the revolt of the starving masses of entitlted persons. At that point, the fewer people besides me that have a lot of weaponry, the better off I'll be.:buddies:

And the Constitution...will be a distant memory by that point. :whistle:

I'm more looking at the armageddon we're facing soon after the fiscal collapse and the revolt of the starving masses of entitlted persons. At that point, the fewer people besides me that have a lot of weaponry, the better off I'll be.:buddies:


I have a different view. You, me, assuming a SHTF world, were gonna want as many people as possible with weapons because there WILL be central powers even if the SHTF and they won't necessarily be benign. They will likely be remnants seeking to, at all costs, hold onto the old orders; government of, by and for the government. It would then be critical to have the tools to deal with that as individuals come around to seeing the lay of the land.

Time for a movie script! :lmao:

I have a different view. You, me, assuming a SHTF world, were gonna want as many people as possible with weapons because there WILL be central powers even if the SHTF and they won't necessarily be benign. They will likely be remnants seeking to, at all costs, hold onto the old orders; government of, by and for the government. It would then be critical to have the tools to deal with that as individuals come around to seeing the lay of the land.

Time for a movie script! :lmao:

Red Dawn.

I have a different view. You, me, assuming a SHTF world, were gonna want as many people as possible with weapons :

well..OK..I agree. But then again, you, me and those like us that we would want to have such weapons and around us..already have them. :buddies:

well..OK..I agree. But then again, you, me and those like us that we would want to have such weapons and around us..already have them. :buddies:

The people who we don't want to have weapons have them too. But I'd much rather have my shotgun, AR, and 1911 when they come at me with a .25 shooting from a gansta pose.

The people who we don't want to have weapons have them too. .

Sure, but I'm counting on most of the future starving people to be the ones who will realize too late that they picked the wrong side for all those years..and there won't be any guns for sale once they change their minds :buddies:

well..OK..I agree. But then again, you, me and those like us that we would want to have such weapons and around us..already have them. :buddies:

Have what? :shrug:



:lol:

Have what? :shrug:



:lol:

I have a pretty good idea where mine went to the bottom in that unfortunate boating accident.

Sure, but I'm counting on most of the future targets to be the ones who will realize too late that they picked the wrong side for all those years.:buddies:

Now, see. That's an interesting question you pose. Who is 'our' side? Christians? White's? Rednecks? I ain't opening the gates for Micheal Moore and I am for Walter Williams. There was a Marine general who got canned for saying publicly that we are at war with Islam. While I am not much of a Christian, I am opening the gates for that guy. David Patreus? Wes Clark? I don't know. I really don't.

Now, see. That's an interesting question you pose. Who is 'our' side? Christians? White's? Rednecks?.

A very good question actually. I could see there being many "sides" after the meltdown, with some of them only loosely affiliated or agreeing at least not to compete with each other and other openly hostile to each other. But only two sides?.....hardly likely, is it.

A very good question actually. I could see there being many "sides" after the meltdown, with some of them only loosely affiliated or agreeing at least not to compete with each other and other openly hostile to each other. But only two sides?.....hardly likely, is it.

Exactly. This is the history of tribe, of religion, the identifiers of whose side you're on. The evolution of that process goes on to this day and is the reason we are in conflict with Islam. America, the ideas of the individual, that is a mortal threat to fundamental Islam. It just is. And fundamental, one size fits all rule is mortal to America. That's why our quest for 'group' identity, our fascination with Too Big To Fail are so toxic to what I see as the idea of America. We're supposed to be a bunch of individuals.

We're supposed to be a bunch of individuals.

We will be again. :buddies:

This is the problem with the government defining things for us. They will use terms that make it sound in the context that they want it, creating negative emotions in people, giving them the leverage to manipulate the status of that thing. Pine trees in FL fall on homes when big storms come around. I think we need to call them assault trees since they do so much damage. That’s how dumb it is to accept what the government defines for us.

These weapons are NOT assault weapons. Weapons do not assault people. Calling them automatic or semi-automatic weapons just doesn’t put the emotional impact they need in order to effectively ban them.

a rose by any other name....

it doesnt matter what they call them, you could call them automatic puppy petters and we are still talking about the same thing- banning certain types of firearms according to the definition that is chosen by the legislature. You can hate the terms all you want, the terms doesnt change anything. If you are worried about the term you are spun up over the wrong thing, IMO

a rose by any other name....

it doesnt matter what they call them, you could call them automatic puppy petters and we are still talking about the same thing- banning certain types of firearms according to the definition that is chosen by the legislature. You can hate the terms all you want, the terms doesnt change anything. If you are worried about the term you are spun up over the wrong thing, IMO

The simple fact is that the gummint has banned some products based on looks and looks alone. That should be something worth getting spun up over in a 'free' society. Imagine a Camry being banned because someone put a Corvette body on it.

Imagine a Camry being banned because someone put a Corvette body on it.

I could support a ban like that.


:coffee:

The simple fact is that the gummint has banned some products based on looks and looks alone. That should be something worth getting spun up over in a 'free' society. Imagine a Camry being banned because someone put a Corvette body on it.

i have always disagreed with the assualt weapons bans, that doesn't mean there wasn't some logic in choosing the weapons they did. i didn't like the logic, but it was a little more than "they look dangerous".

as i remember the first one had to do with mag capacity, ability to accept a baonet, and a pistol grip on the stock (not to mention the paratrooper style folding stocks). I didn't agree with the logic, but it wasn't just based on looks.

The simple fact is that the gummint has banned some products based on looks and looks alone. That should be something worth getting spun up over in a 'free' society. Imagine a Camry being banned because someone put a Corvette body on it.

pit bull type dogs

I'm more looking at the armageddon we're facing soon after the fiscal collapse and the revolt of the starving masses of entitlted persons. At that point, the fewer people besides me that have a lot of weaponry, the better off I'll be.:buddies:

And the Constitution...will be a distant memory by that point. :whistle:

I don't understand why it has to be that way?

I don't understand why it has to be that way?

Because we, the people, only get annoyed when the other guy is circumventing it.

Because we, the people, only get annoyed when the other guy is circumventing it.

well...there is that. :whistle:

pit bull type dogs

Anh. Pitbulls can be thought of as machine guns; capable of a LOT of damage real quick even though they are 'used' far less frequently than lap dogs.

a rose by any other name....

it doesnt matter what they call them, you could call them automatic puppy petters and we are still talking about the same thing- banning certain types of firearms according to the definition that is chosen by the legislature. You can hate the terms all you want, the terms doesnt change anything. If you are worried about the term you are spun up over the wrong thing, IMO

I disagree. If I mention the guy down the street has a criminal record, people will say "that's about half the population" :bigwhoop: But say he's a child molster, then you have people really paying attention.

Why do you think we had to redefine certain crimes as 'hate crimes' as if hate wasn't already a factor. Attaching 'hate' to it raises people emotions to a different level of outrage. Calling an AK-47 an assault rifle rather than an automatic weapon has a completely different psychological effect. People that define these things know how to appeal to our emotions.

Because we, the people, only get annoyed when the other guy is circumventing it.

Anyone that is circumventing it is the 'other guy'.

and quite frankly....there are more situations where I would want my semi-auto 12-ga in hand than a rifle or a pistol. And nobody ever talks about banning my shotgun. :killingme

Wirelessly posted

a rose by any other name....

it doesnt matter what they call them, you could call them automatic puppy petters and we are still talking about the same thing- banning certain types of firearms according to the definition that is chosen by the legislature. You can hate the terms all you want, the terms doesnt change anything. If you are worried about the term you are spun up over the wrong thing, IMO

I disagree. If I mention the guy down the street has a criminal record, people will say "that's about half the population" :bigwhoop: But say he's a child molster, then you have people really paying attention.

Why do you think we had to redefine certain crimes as 'hate crimes' as if hate wasn't already a factor. Attaching 'hate' to it raises people emotions to a different level of outrage. Calling an AK-47 an assault rifle rather than an automatic weapon has a completely different psychological effect. People that define these things know how to appeal to our emotions.

The problem with your theory is that the assault weapons in question ARE NOT AUTOMATIC. They are semiautomatic. Automatics are already pretty much banned (or at least regulated to death).

Again, it doesn't matter what they call it, they are just giving it a name.

Let me ask you this, has the fact that they call them assault weapons changed the way you feel about the guns? Are you more afraid of them? Then why would you think it would really change what any key else thinks? It is just a name.

[Let me ask you this, has the fact that they call them assault weapons changed the way you feel about the guns? Are you more afraid of them? Then why would you think it would really change what any key else thinks? It is just a name.

Related question: If they are "assault weapons"..then what on earth are they doing in the hands of nearly all of our law enforcement personel everywhere throughout the country??:killingme

and quite frankly....there are more situations where I would want my semi-auto 12-ga in hand than a rifle or a pistol. And nobody ever talks about banning my shotgun. :killingme
depending on your model/manufacturer semi-auto shotgun... a potential ban has already surfaced by the ATF a while back

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf

Wirelessly posted



The problem with your theory is that the assault weapons in question ARE NOT AUTOMATIC. They are semiautomatic. Automatics are already pretty much banned (or at least regulated to death).

Again, it doesn't matter what they call it, they are just giving it a name.

Let me ask you this, has the fact that they call them assault weapons changed the way you feel about the guns? Are you more afraid of them? Then why would you think it would really change what any key else thinks? It is just a name.

Assault weapons are both semi and automatic.

It matter to me what you call things. When they are given terms that don’t truly define what they are then you have to conclude they were given those names for a reason. In this case they have called ‘ASSAULT’ weapons because it’s meant give the impression that they are used to assault people, when in fact that are rarely used to assault people. Assault is an offensive act. Most of these weapons are locked in peoples’ homes or in the hands of our military/security forces for DEFENSIVE purposes. The weapon of choice for assault is the handgun.

Calling it an assault weapon changes the way I feel how people interpret these guns. They look at an AR-9 and see a really dangerous weapon. They look at an AK-47 and they see an equally dangerous gun; when in reality the AK-47 is far more dangerous. They look at a pistol and they see…. a pistol; even though pistols are used to kill people on our streets far more than any of these other weapons. That’s why there’s more talk about banning ‘assault weapons’ than there is handguns. The PERCEPTION is assault weapons are more dangerous; when they aren’t.

So is a flamethrower an assault weapon?

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



The problem with your theory is that the assault weapons in question ARE NOT AUTOMATIC. They are semiautomatic. Automatics are already pretty much banned (or at least regulated to death).

Again, it doesn't matter what they call it, they are just giving it a name.

Let me ask you this, has the fact that they call them assault weapons changed the way you feel about the guns? Are you more afraid of them? Then why would you think it would really change what any key else thinks? It is just a name.

Assault weapons are both semi and automatic.

It matter to me what you call things. When they are given terms that don’t truly define what they are then you have to conclude they were given those names for a reason. In this case they have called ‘ASSAULT’ weapons because it’s meant give the impression that they are used to assault people, when in fact that are rarely used to assault people. Assault is an offensive act. Most of these weapons are locked in peoples’ homes or in the hands of our military/security forces for DEFENSIVE purposes. The weapon of choice for assault is the handgun.

Calling it an assault weapon changes the way I feel how people interpret these guns. They look at an AR-9 and see a really dangerous weapon. They look at an AK-47 and they see an equally dangerous gun; when in reality the AK-47 is far more dangerous. They look at a pistol and they see…. a pistol; even though pistols are used to kill people on our streets far more than any of these other weapons. That’s why there’s more talk about banning ‘assault weapons’ than there is handguns. The PERCEPTION is assault weapons are more dangerous; when they aren’t.

The danger angle is debatable. You could certainly argue that there is a reason that military forces use these weapons and that it is lost likely because they have been found to be the most efficient killing machines hey could obtain for the money.

As for the "defensive" argument, there are two sides to each battle, offensive and defensive. On side is usually assuring the others position and one side is defending against such an assault.


As for the name, I don't think it matters one bit. It doesn't change how I feel about the weapons and I doub the name changes the way the gun grabbers feel about them either. It's just a name.

depending on your model/manufacturer semi-auto shotgun... a potential ban has already surfaced by the ATF a while back

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf

My Brownie A-5 is quite safe from such regulatory nonsense...for now anyway.

So is a flamethrower an assault weapon?

Used primarily to set controlled back and counter fires when fighting forest fires. I suppose you could say that the underbrush is being "assaulted"..:killingme

But please try to stay on topic; this thread is about semi-automatic firearms.:howdy:

Wirelessly posted



The danger angle is debatable. You could certainly argue that there is a reason that military forces use these weapons and that it is lost likely because they have been found to be the most efficient killing machines hey could obtain for the money.

As for the "defensive" argument, there are two sides to each battle, offensive and defensive. On side is usually assuring the others position and one side is defending against such an assault.


As for the name, I don't think it matters one bit. It doesn't change how I feel about the weapons and I doub the name changes the way the gun grabbers feel about them either. It's just a name.

And I would argue that there is a reason for our citizenry to be equally armed with weapons that are the efficient killing machines. I think enough folks have articulated these reasons. If you don’t get why the 2nd Amendment was written then you’re not going to agree with that.

If there are two sides to a battle then perhaps the more appropriate name for these weapons should be defense/assault weapons. :shrug:

If you don’t think it matters what they call it then why don’t they call handguns like Beretta 92A1, Glock 23, or a Ruger SR9 assault weapons? I’m not addressing this from a ‘gun grabber’s’ perspective. They aren’t going to be affected by names. But those out there trying to decide whether they support certain gun bans will most certainly be affected by whether you call something a rifle vs. an assault rifle. It’s the difference between calling certain crimes just crimes and others hate crimes. Lawyers and politicians love attaching emotional adjectives to things to increase the emotional response from people.

[The danger angle is debatable. You could certainly argue that there is a reason that military forces use these weapons and that it is lost likely because they have been found to be the most efficient killing machines hey could obtain for the money.
.


"these weapons"??? What weapons?? Why are we still talking nothing but apples and oranges? What army anywhere uses a DPMS Panther, or a Colt AR or a Norinco semi-auto AK-47 clone..or an SKS...any other semi-automatic rifle, as their primary field weapon??

Answer: None.

"these weapons"??? What weapons?? Why are we still talking nothing but apples and oranges? What army anywhere uses a DPMS Panther, or a Colt AR or a Norinco semi-auto AK-47 clone..or an SKS...any other semi-automatic rifle, as their primary field weapon??

Answer: None.





G - Your splitting hairs with a progressive robot who doesn't know any better

The root of the discussion…

Although Obama showed a complete lack of understanding of what weapons our military uses, I think we get the premise of what he was trying to say. He supports a ban on ‘assault’ rifles. He said AK-47s (which is to mean all ‘assault rifles’) don’t belong in the hands of criminals. I think this deserves a big DUH! No weapon belongs in the hands of criminals. Do we really need anyone to tell us this? But the other part that AK-47s (all ‘assault rifles’) belong in the hands of soldiers (our military), is just another way of saying non-military citizens should have these weapons.

The root of the discussion is this shows a fundamental deception of the intent of the 2nd. Obama, being a so-called ‘constitutional lawyer’, doesn’t know the 2nd doesn’t call for any limitation on arms ownership? Obama is speaking to a public that he hopes is too ignorant to understand what rights Americans truly have under the constitution and that it supposed to limit government’s authority on these matters, not ours.

Used primarily to set controlled back and counter fires when fighting forest fires. I suppose you could say that the underbrush is being "assaulted"..:killingme

But please try to stay on topic; this thread is about semi-automatic firearms.:howdy:
It fires continuously from the time the trigger is pulled until it's released, wouldn't this make it fully auto? :biggrin:

sent out by Adam Baldwin ....

Adam Baldwin (@adamsbaldwin)
7/28/12 1:37
Explains #ConcernTrolls' fixation on .50 cals: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_… ~ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Suga… ~ #JoshSugarmann's #AssaultWeapons (https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23AssaultWeapons)



Josh Sugarmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Sugarmann)

Josh Sugarmann is the executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Prior to founding the VPC, Sugarmann was a press officer in the national office of Amnesty International USA and was the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.[citation needed]

He is known for taking the position that gun violence should be approached as a broadbased public health issue as opposed to solely a crime issue and that firearms should be held to the same health and safety standards as other consumer products. This is detailed in the 1994 publication Cease Fire: A Comprehensive Strategy to Reduce Firearms Violence, which he co-authored. Noting that only two consumer products sold in America are not regulated for health and safety--guns and tobacco--he argues that firearms should be regulated by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Sugarmann writes frequently on gun violence issues, including two books. The first, National Rifle Association: Money, Firepower & Fear, an expose of the National Rifle Association, was published in 1992 by National Press Books. The second, Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns, was published in 2000 by The New Press and details the arguments in support of banning private handgun possession in the United States.[citation needed]

Some[who?] credit Sugarmann for coining the term "assault weapon", which is derived from the designation Sturmgewehr 44 (literally meaning "storm rifle" but most often translated as "assault rifle"), a style of rifle conceptualized in Nazi Germany during World War II. Sugarmann uses the term because he argues that a semi-automatic rifle is capable of rapid fire that makes it almost as lethal as a fully automatic firearm such as assault rifles. The impression that Sugarmann originated the term may stem from a 1988 study he authored, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, which was the first study to look at semiautomatic weapons the VPC deemed "assault weapons". However, variations on the term were in use in the gun press before Sugarmann's 1988 study.[citation needed]


Violence Policy Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Policy_Center)



hahaha all the usual lib suspects, all :cds: over #AssautWeapons

Wirelessly posted

[The danger angle is debatable. You could certainly argue that there is a reason that military forces use these weapons and that it is lost likely because they have been found to be the most efficient killing machines hey could obtain for the money.
.


"these weapons"??? What weapons?? Why are we still talking nothing but apples and oranges? What army anywhere uses a DPMS Panther, or a Colt AR or a Norinco semi-auto AK-47 clone..or an SKS...any other semi-automatic rifle, as their primary field weapon??

Answer: None.

Mearly countering psy's point about the name.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



The danger angle is debatable. You could certainly argue that there is a reason that military forces use these weapons and that it is lost likely because they have been found to be the most efficient killing machines hey could obtain for the money.

As for the "defensive" argument, there are two sides to each battle, offensive and defensive. On side is usually assuring the others position and one side is defending against such an assault.


As for the name, I don't think it matters one bit. It doesn't change how I feel about the weapons and I doub the name changes the way the gun grabbers feel about them either. It's just a name.

And I would argue that there is a reason for our citizenry to be equally armed with weapons that are the efficient killing machines. I think enough folks have articulated these reasons. If you don’t get why the 2nd Amendment was written then you’re not going to agree with that.

If there are two sides to a battle then perhaps the more appropriate name for these weapons should be defense/assault weapons. :shrug:

If you don’t think it matters what they call it then why don’t they call handguns like Beretta 92A1, Glock 23, or a Ruger SR9 assault weapons? I’m not addressing this from a ‘gun grabber’s’ perspective. They aren’t going to be affected by names. But those out there trying to decide whether they support certain gun bans will most certainly be affected by whether you call something a rifle vs. an assault rifle. It’s the difference between calling certain crimes just crimes and others hate crimes. Lawyers and politicians love attaching emotional adjectives to things to increase the emotional response from people.

:bs: those in the middle who are trying to decide are much less likely to jump to conclusions based on a name than the folks firmly on either side would. I always find it funny when the argument is "well I wouldn't be swayed by X, but the stupid people on the other side would" as if having a different opinion is stupid. Both sides do it, and it's funny every time.

This message is hidden because thatguy is on your ignore list.


:whistle:

Wirelessly posted

This message is hidden because thatguy is on your ignore list.


:whistle:

Nobody was talking to you douche bag :bigwhoop:

I see you are still unable to acutaly ignore what you claim to be ignoring :yay:

Obama ain't speaking to us.

You're correct. He's trying to get a point across to the mindless, liberal, anti-gun crowd to justify future changes in the gun laws. It's like that California Senator, can't remember her name, but quite a few years ago she voted on more gun control and didn't have a clue what the difference was between semi-auto and auto. The gun looked big, black and scary to her so she voted on more gun control. That's the way a lot of people feel because they haven't got a clue, never handled a firearm and never will. Anything ever happens in this country where we'd have to defend ourselves, those people will be the sheep. Gun Control is to make the liberals feel better and it will get to a point, you've heard it before, that the criminals will have the guns. Look at Englands crime rate since they banned gun. It just about doubled.