Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThe evil Assault Weapons "Loophole"
A loophole is:
At least that's the definition according to wikipedia.
Doctors and lawyers used to learn Latin and read subject matter published in that language because Latin offered a very precise vocabulary often found attractive by those who wrote for those disciplines.
The term "Assault Weapon" is used by some individuals and organizations who share a firearm restriction and control agenda. This terminology is itself a type of loophole because terminology is a quest for precision and the term "assault weapon" is anything but precise.
IMHO, most completely, "Assault Weapon" is a term which collects into a set certain cosmetic and non-interrelated firearm attributes. These attributes were collected from among firearms confiscated by law enforcement after their use in assaults and other crimes. In short, there exists no common thread, other than cosmetics, for most of these features to be grouped in this category.
There is no more material justification for additional attention by law enforcement than there is for cops to more often target red automobiles or black men wearing hoodies.
Why then would all these mostly unrelated and, in some cases, solely cosmetic features be the subject of a ban? The object of the gun control crowd is to ban firearms. In terms of degree, a "better" ban is one which bans MORE firearms.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Because it turns on the potential purchasers by appealing to their baser instincts. These weapons are what the gun culture wants. And that's good enough reason to restrict them.
I love how pro-gunners will always ask "define 'assault' weapon." The definition is pretty clear to me, as is the reason they are so popular among the gun culture.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Then surely you can state it for us. We'll wait....
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)Hope you have a lot of time to wait. Hoyt is always goodfor a laugh
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Yard work, 3 vehicles to repair, some mountain biking or a trail run, dishes, laundry, a promotion report...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Cite please? I've seen ads using the term "tactical".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tactical
Seems quite appropriate for weapons marketed for defensive and sporting use, and to fulfill the readiness purposes of the Second Amendment. So what's the problem with that use?
As far as the term "assault weapon" in advertising, the only reference I've seen was a post by someone (you, perhaps? I don't remember) of a copy of an ad from, IIRC, the mid- to late-80's. A single instance. Wow. Not quite a common term of the industry.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Here are a few in the first 20 or so results:
http://www.assaultweaponsofohiollc.com/
http://www.eastcoastfirearms.com/default.asp?parent_id=112&is_gallery=0
http://www.proguns.com/
Look up "tactical" weapons too -- there's even more to pique your interests and waste your day.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)"Assault weapon" is not found on any of the those three pages, except for the name of the company.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Each site says "assault weapon." One even has a button for "assault" pistols that will likely turn you toters on.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)To different things.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)okay... benefit of the doubt...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)The term "tactical weapons" is of no interest to me here. I addressed "assault weapons". Please try to stay on topic. I haven't read very many gun store or marketer ads which featured the term "assault weapons". Could you, please, enlighten me with a few links?
However, I must congratulate you on a critical point of your characterization. In your sentence, "Because it turns on the potential purchasers by appealing to their baser instincts." you captured something essential in precise language. Perhaps not deliberately on your part, you have highlighted something that bears much consideration. We are all aware of "baser instincts". Lust, greed, envy; these don't exactly exemplify mankind's higher aspirations or achievements. But let me call your attention to another "baser instinct", the one called survival. Frequently firearms are maintained as a means of self defense. While the term "baser instinct" usually is used with a rather negative connotation, it is succinctly on target here.
Thanks for confirming my opinion.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...impressed me, this feeble excuse for a reply leaves me sorting through a number of posts directed to users here who are decidedly NOT ME.
Your limited reply does follow your side in their selective and, generally, lacking responses. Thanks again for the confirmation.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...I didn't find it; just highlighting that the sole substance of your reply is a combination of advertising and obfuscation.
You can stop now, further confirmation of that point from the OP is only redundant.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...examining the links you provided, I find no instances of the term "assault weapons".
As another poster has highlighted, the terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are materially different. Your claim that firearm retailers use the term "assault weapon" in advertizing remains completely without support.
As I said before, the term "assault weapon" as defined by the pro-control legislation in force for the 10 year ban collects into a set some firearms based only on their appearances and/or popularity. This flies in the face of logic and common sense.
What is your purpose in making up this stuff?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You guys just try to obfuscate things. It really is like talking to a a half-witted TBagger.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...who developed the "assault weapon" terminology, which only conflates firearms based on appearance, your subsequent and ironic characterization of pro-rights folks as obfuscational is a rather amusing.
Further, I think you came to this party unarmed.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Assault rifles/weapons/pistols are purchased by folks who like the thought. As the links I gave you demonstrate, manufacturers, guns stores and marketers use the term "assault" to promote their guns to people who like such crap. And, apparently a lot of folks do. I bet the term even got the pro-rights poster boy -- Zimmerman -- excited.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...smirk, wink...
We buy what we buy. There's no reason for a law to force folks to buy "assault weapons" so we don't advocate for that.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)I have seen it used it that manner by the VPC and Brady Bunch...
I have seen tactical slings, vest etc sometimes called assault *.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)sarisataka
(18,655 posts)The term assault weapon is used in some marketing. I will not apologize since I did not make the claim.
Now your turn:
Please provide an objective definition of 'assault rifles' that clearly enables them to be distinguished for rifles intended solely for hunting and target shooting.
I must request a precise definition as if this is to be used in law I would hate to see a judgement reversed due to said law being vague.
sarisataka
(18,655 posts)sarisataka
(18,655 posts)Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)to write up. Ignore cosmetic features...what matters is functionality, not appearances. One could simply ban sale or possession of any feeding device which holds more than 6 rounds. If one wanted to go further, one could ban sale or possession of any semiautomatic firearm.
Please note that I'm not saying such a ban would be practicable. The black market would explode to an extent unimaginable today...and in any case, such a ban doesn't have the slightest chance of passing in the foreseeable future. But from a gun-banner's point of view, it makes more sense than the absurd "assault weapons" ban.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)I'm waiting...
ileus
(15,396 posts)ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Kurt Hofmann
(4 posts)One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
[link:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#Letter_from_a_Birmingham_Jail_.281963.29|]Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.[/link]
I submit that an individual who breaks the law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.
[link:http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth115046.html|]Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.[/link]
Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them.
[link:http://www.dictionary-quotes.com/unjust-laws-exist-shall-we-be-content-to-obey-them-henry-david-thoreau/|]Henry David Thoreau[/link]
Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.
[link:http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henrydavid122587.html|]Henry David Thoreau[/link]
An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.
[link:http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mohandasga150707.html|]Mohandas Gandhi[/link]
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)It's an honor to have your first post here in this thread.
Kurt Hofmann
(4 posts)That's a gracious welcome, and it's much appreciated.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)I must also confess a decided preference for famous quotes. So many persons through history have conveyed with eloquence and precision the ideas I ponder today.
Kurt Hofmann
(4 posts)I agree. It wouldn't make sense, and could indeed be justifiably seen as arrogance on my part, to try to express with my own paltry command of language what such great men have already so eloquently stated.
I tried, by the way, to include links to establish the provenance of the quotes, but was having trouble figuring out DU's mechanics for posting links. Now that I have figured it out, I can't imagine why it gave me so much trouble earlier (it's not that damned complicated), but at least I should no longer need to ask anyone to take my word for the legitimacy of any quotes I post in the future.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)You'll no doubt hear that your low post count means you have nothing important to add but your first post shows that you indeed do.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...as well.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)Been lurking for a few years but was to intimated by a few posters to actually post. Take Care!!
Kurt Hofmann
(4 posts)The welcome is greatly appreciated.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Or retract it.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Granted, that's not saying much, under the circumstances...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...I like your quote. I like this t-shirt as well:
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)You are so wrong here. What matters is appearances because appearances get legislation passed. It is fundamentally easier to rally support if one does not first have to educate the constituency.
BTW; The sale of magazines with capacities greater than 10 were banned. They were called "Clinton Clips".
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)You could still buy "pre-ban" mags back then, but you paid through the nose. $150 for a normal-capacity Glock magazine as I recall.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...was the sale of magazines with capacities greater than 10 manufactured after 13 September 1994 with exceptions for the military and law enforcement.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Only their manufacture. Every gun show I went to from 1994 to 2004 had tables of pre-ban mags for sale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
During the period in which the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's definition of an "assault weapon" or "large capacity ammunition feeding device", except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. Possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms was outlawed as well, but the law did not ban the possession or sale of pre-existing "assault weapons" or previously factory standard magazines which had been legally redefined as "large capacity ammunition feeding devices". This provision for "pre-ban" firearms created a higher price point in the market for such items, which lasted until the ban's sunset.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)No where was it illegal to sell mags manufactured pre-ban. It was only illegal to sell mags < 10 capacity made after the ban was effective. DUMB!
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)No premium for them these days!
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)are the following"assault weapons"
1866 Henry rifles, both original and replica (15rds cap)
1876 Winchester rifles, both original and replica (15rd cap)
1892 Winchester rifles, both original and replica(12rd cap)
Gatling Gun mags,both original and replica ( 30-100 rd cap)
The BATFE was seriously willing to remove these from
both museums and private owners unless the mags were shortened to only 10 rds.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)And in any case, wouldn't an 1876 Winchester be a "pre-ban" rifle?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)22rimfire rifles. There were no "pre-ban" exceptions for any centerfire weapon, or rimfire that was not 22caliber. They were willing to destroy the value of original rifles in their quest for limiting ammo capacity of ANY rifle. This was only changed after a letter writing and phone call campaign to senators and congress critters. After being asked about this the BATFE backed off.
Oneshooter
Armed andf Livin in Texas