Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
inthered

modern black rifle: "Tactical Rifle" and "Modern Sporting Rifle."

Rate this topic

145 posts in this topic


I just want one.  So what?      screamin-meanie.gif



 



The problem (imho) is that everybody who uses this description uses it with prejudice.



 



Coming to a common understanding of what we are talking about, and using terms consistently, might led to actual “discussions” between gun control advocates and 2nd Amendment proponents.  This is an angry contest between those fearing the lost of rights to protect themselves, from whatever, and those fearing mass killings by nut-jobs.



 



Assault weapons, assault guns and assault rifles are not all the same thing.  One side calls them "weapons of war" that have no place on America's streets. The other side says the term "assault weapons" is simply a menacing moniker designed to stir up anti-gun passions.  Some states have assault-weapon bans, but the definition of "assault weapon" in those measures varies.



 



Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, notes on his blog The Volokh Conspiracy, that the bans on assault weapons don't address many of the features that influence how deadly a gun is, such as longer barrels, caliber or type of bullet. Some of the military-style features that assault weapons bans have focused on don't necessarily make the guns more powerful.  



 



It has been demonstrated that a description of what we are talking about is certainly necessary.  In 1989, California lawmakers -- horrified by a mass shooting at a Stockton schoolyard -- adopted the first assault-weapons ban in the country. They simply named the guns that would be banned, and gunmakers responded by changing their names and model numbers. Since then, California and other states, as well as the proponents of a new federal ban, have incorporated a list of military-style characteristics that seem to make the most popular assault weapons especially deadly.



 



The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", "storm" as in "military attack"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularize the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.  A feature of assault rifles is that the firing mode is selectable, out of semiautomatic into one, or either, of fully automatic and automatic bursts.



 



But Second Amendment groups — and many firearm owners — heatedly object to the use of “assault weapon” to describe guns that they say are routinely used in target shooting and hunting. The term, they argue, should be used only for firearms capable of full automatic fire, like those employed by law enforcement and the military. They prefer the term “tactical rifle” or “modern sporting rifle” for the semiautomatic civilian versions.



 



The National Shooting Sports Foundation -- a firearms trade association based, coincidentally, in Newtown, Conn. -- says "the term 'assault weapon' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie.”   



However, Phillip Peterson, a gun dealer in Indiana and the author of “Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons” (2008), wrote, “The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon’ originated with antigun activists, media or politicians is wrong.” Mr. Peterson wrote. “The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.”



 



“The reality is there’s very little difference between any sporting firearm and a so-called assault weapon,” said Steven C. Howard, a lawyer and firearms expert in Lansing, Mich.



 



In 1984, Guns & Ammo magazine advertised a book called "Assault Firearms"; the ad read, "If you are interested in survival tactics and personal defense, we'll give you a look at the newest civilianized versions of the semi-auto submachine gun."  The term “assault weapon” became widely used starting the late 1980s. Many attribute its popularization to a 1988 paper written by gun-control activist and Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann.



 



The Pentagon defines the term “assault rifle,” and David Kopel quotes that definition in an article in the Journal of Contemporary Law. He writes:



As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”  In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.



Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints.



 



Where do we go from here?    LL.jpg



 



Machinegun and sub-machinegun seem to be regulated reasonably enough.



 



Limiting the size of detachable clips doesn’t seem to be too meaningful to me.  In Korea, 30 round clips were taped 3-together: one up, one down and one up.  Carry one pack in the rifle plus 3 more and one would have 360 cartridges on really.  



 



However, I can’t understand why limiting the size should be a great issue regarding shooting sports.  Certainly, there shouldn’t be a demand for high capacity clips using rifle ammo in a hunting situation (think hamburger here).  Maybe a ban on new civilian rifles featuring replaceable clips might be a beginning.



 



The scary gun thing—that will make me piss my panties—shouldn’t be an issue at all, and yet perhaps this deserves some earnest thought, if this might attract the attention of nut-jobs—and it might.  After all: 




  • They have been advertised with, "If you are interested in survival tactics and personal defense, we'll give you a look at the newest civilianized versions of the semi-auto submachine gun."

  • In addition to “modern sporting rifle” it seems the term “tactical rifle” is equally preferable to assault weapon, for the semiautomatic civilian versions.


 



And there seems to be (to my mind) an ambiguity/disparity among the depicted targeted reader, “Ultimate Warrior,” and the imagery in this:



 



1000



 



But then, I'm nobody.   bucktooth.gif


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Semiauto submachine gun??? This term makes no sense whatsoever. You read that in a book about guns??? It makes about as much sense as "horse drawn diesel truck convertible"


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


howdy.gif   Well.  OK then.




Originally Posted by fishinambition View Post   just so you libbies know, no one says modern black rifle. just black rifle. or modern sporting rifle. smile.gif



 



headscratch.gif  I just heard of "black rifle."  Wellll excCUuuuuuse Me!  wink.gif   You presented information that I appreciated, because of I was ignorant of this.



 



And then you had to go muck up an otherwise sincere post by suggesting that either only "libbies" can be ignorant or that or that all conservatives would have know this, or both.  Good deed. icon14.gif


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont take it personal man. it's second time it's been posted today so felt it necessary to give you guys an fyi. cuz as you said. i wouldnt a had to tell the conservatives that. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Hummm.




Originally Posted by epanzella View Post    Semiauto submachine gun??? This term makes no sense whatsoever. You read that in a book about guns??? It makes about as much sense as "horse drawn diesel truck convertible"



 



And yet I have to think that while you said, "This term makes no sense whatsoever," you perhaps understood what I meantto the extent you believed you could imagine an analogy (but wouldn't post anything constructive).  I would think most would understand what I was driving at.  Are you an exception in this?



 



What would have been the way you would have preferred for me to had said this?  I said this without thinking about it, because if you note where I said this under the "Scary gun thing," you, unfortunately, missed that this was an advertisement that I was quoting; therefore, I had put quotation marks around the entire blurb of advertisement.  Now, if you had asked me where this quote came from, I could have told you that in 1984, Guns & Ammo magazine advertised a book called "Assault Firearms":  "If you are interested in survival tactics and personal defense, we'll give you a look at the newest civilianized versions of the semi-auto submachine gun," the ad said.



 



Yeah, perhaps Guns and Ammo printed an ad. that wasn't up to snuff of standards.  I think you just wanted to follow fishinabition's lead to mockery rather than to say semi-auto and machinegun are incongruous together. 



 



I was trying to point-out that terminology is an issue of its own, and instead of sharing a related thought you have this to offer:  "It makes about as much sense as 'horse drawn diesel truck convertible.'"


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


icon14.gif




Originally Posted by fishinambition View Post

dont take it personal man. it's second time it's been posted today so felt it necessary to give you guys an fyi. cuz as you said. i wouldnt a had to tell the conservatives that. wink.gif



 



I guess I should have continued to read every post in the thread, but I didn't.  LL.gif


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Semiauto submachine gun??? This term makes no sense whatsoever. You read that in a book about guns??? It makes about as much sense as "horse drawn diesel truck convertible"

 

You're right. It makes no sense. Like a pedal powered motorcycle. It doesn't have the function that makes a machine gun a machine gun instead of just an ordinary gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthered View Post


Hummm.




Originally Posted by epanzella View Post    Semiauto submachine gun??? This term makes no sense whatsoever. You read that in a book about guns??? It makes about as much sense as "horse drawn diesel truck convertible"



 



And yet I have to think that while you said, "This term makes no sense whatsoever," you perhaps understood what I meantto the extent you believed you could imagine an analogy (but wouldn't post anything constructive).  I would think most would understand what I was driving at.  Are you an exception in this?



 



What would have been the way you would have preferred for me to had said this?  I said this without thinking about it, because if you note where I said this under the "Scary gun thing," you, unfortunately, missed that this was an advertisement that I was quoting; therefore, I had put quotation marks around the entire blurb of advertisement.  Now, if you had asked me where this quote came from, I could have told you that in 1984, Guns & Ammo magazine advertised a book called "Assault Firearms":  "If you are interested in survival tactics and personal defense, we'll give you a look at the newest civilianized versions of the semi-auto submachine gun," the ad said.



 



Yeah, perhaps Guns and Ammo printed an ad. that wasn't up to snuff of standards.  I think you just wanted to follow fishinabition's lead to mockery rather than to say semi-auto and machinegun are incongruous together. 



 



I was trying to point-out that terminology is an issue of its own, and instead of sharing a related thought you have this to offer:  "It makes about as much sense as 'horse drawn diesel truck convertible.'"





 My questioning of the term "semiauto machine gun"  was directed at the source. That term is an absurdity and no one familiar with firearms would ever put those two word together this side of Saturday Nite Live.  Either the marketing guy that drew up the ad copy was unfamiliar with the subject or the author of the book had no business writing about guns. I apologize for not making my point clearer to you. Most I the people I know have a good working knowledge of firearms and would get this point with a minimum of explanation.     


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is the C&P article from AMERICAN WARRIOR?

 

that does a LOT to convince me that people don't buy these guns in order to feel like badassed Rambos.

Not that I agree with the premise, but so what if they do?

 

Is that justification to control them?

 

I don't get the fixation.

 

Who cares why people buy things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kings over Queens View Post

Not that I agree with the premise, but so what if they do?

Is that justification to control them?

I don't get the fixation.

Who cares why people buy things?



I don't want to control them.



if a bunch of wanna be heros buy American Warrior Magazine,



and assault rifles,



and become rambo in their post apocolyptic fantasies,



I have no problem with that.



 



Though if I was aware of such people in my neighborhood,



I might not want my kid going to that house.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nup.  It was a pop-up here on SOL.




Originally Posted by fish'nmagician View Post


is the C&P article from AMERICAN WARRIOR?



 



that does a LOT to convince me that people don't buy these guns in order to feel like badassed Rambos.





 



I had wanted to find an opinion from a sociologist about the Rambo/nut-job concern over the appearance being/(possibly being) an influence on some of the more loosely-hinged among the public.  I could find it, but if I had, I would have thought twice about post it.  This is because I am not ready to accept everything these professions say and i didn't want to come across as spouting BS; this person was involved in some "violence" study type org.  I had considered that it may may misconstrued as 2nd, A flaming rather than just a loose-nut call to duty thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.