We Are The People of the Gun

The rabbi is pissed-off that the media refers to all legal-to-own military-style semi-automatic long guns as “assault rifles.” Anyone who knows guns knows shares the rabbi’s ire; the term is misleading by design. Americans don’t own “assault rifles” to assault anyone. They keep and bear these long arms for the same reasons they owned rifles before modern semi-automatic rifles existed: hunting, self-defense, target practice, competition and any other damn reason they can think of (ownership being a Constitutionally-protected right and all). Except, of course, criminal activity. Anyway, that semantic battle’s been lost. But the rhetorical war continues . . .

Gun grabbers have been actively promoting the term “assault clips” to describe ammunition magazines that carry [subjectively and arbitrarily defined] “extra” ammo. Setting aside the fact that an ammunition magazine isn’t a “clip,” the general public has taken to the term “assault clip” like Lieschen Botes takes to hot fudge sundaes.

And now there’s a new kid on the block: The People of the Gun. Hey! That’s you! Someone who shuns “common sense” gun control championed by those who see unconstitutional legislative restrictions as a way to increase—rather than decrease—public safety. Here’s the new soon-to-be common usage as demonstrated by Gov. Quinn stands up to People of the Gun at Chicago’s suntimes.com.

In a message to legislators, Quinn wrote that while he is a “strong supporter” of the Second Amendment, “the proliferation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines undermines public safety and the right of personal security of every citizen.”

It’s about time, and Quinn’s timing is exquisite.

In a civilized society, the sole purpose of assault weapons is to slaughter us in our theaters, schools and shopping malls.

Quinn’s proposal would outlaw the Uzi, Beretta AR-70, TEC-9, Colt AR-15 and Street Sweeper among many others. Such weapons are “designed to kill humans quickly and efficiently,” according to the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

His opposition is rabid and loaded for bear. The People of the Gun — pro-gun legislators, activists and pundits — have excoriated Quinn, accusing him of using the Aurora massacre to grab cheap media limelight and score political points.

Yes, and . . .? He’s a politician.

I have my beefs with Quinn, but he’s on target here.

So to speak. But let’s not tarry over the inanity – indeed insanity – of prohibiting modern sporting rifles or any other gun. Focus instead on the whole “People of the Gun” thing. I don’t think that means what Laura Washington wants it to mean.

For one thing POG is a hell of a lot better than its predecessor. The fact that Washington hangs fire on throwing the term “gun nuts” at Quinn’s opposition indicates just how far gun culture 2.0 has infiltrated American culture. Or re-infiltrated.

I prefer the media to call pro-gun folk “Armed Intelligentsia.” But let’s face it: not all armed Americans are particularly intelligent. Don’t get me wrong: they’re as smart as they need to be (thank you Charles Darwin). But they’re using all their intellectual energy to put food on the table and, OK, play X-Box Batman, rather than hashing-out firearms-related political issues.

Besides, The People of the Gun has a kind of in-yer-face realism that isn’t necessarily pejorative. Come to think of it, we are the People of the Gun. We understand that firearms are central to our safety both as deterrents and last resort personal protection.  They are key to the security of our loved ones. And our liberty.

To Washington and her peers, I’ll say this: The People of the Gun are here to stay. We The People of the Gun shall not go quietly—or defenseless—into that long good night. Ever.

comments

  1. avatar Lemming says:

    Heck, I think we’ll adopt the attempted pejorative with more enthusiasm than we did with “bitter clingers.”

  2. avatar Michael B. says:

    Why did the Aussie video post just disappear?

  3. avatar C. Walther says:

    All I can think of is Randall from Clerks II.

    “PORCH MONKEYS!?”
    “Oh, no, it’s cool. I’m taking it back!”

    1. avatar Loyd says:

      I was thinking the same thing

  4. avatar Nathan says:

    AR-70s? I had to look that up to even find out what it was. Anyone here even own one? You would think if they were going to ban a gun by name, it would be one that people actually own.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Personally, I was transported to the late 80’s when I read “Street Sweeper.” I haven’t heard that term in forever. Capitalized like that, to me it refers to a drum fed semi-automatic shotgun, and those were labeled as destructive devices by the ATF well over a dozen years ago. You can own one with a tax stamp, but I can think of much better uses for $200 and a six month wait.

      I’m not real clear on how outlawing them would make any difference whatsoever.

  5. avatar Bill F says:

    I first read the moniker “People of the Gun” on this site. I approved of it then and said so. As dramatic as the phrase may sound, it implies a sense of unity and paints a picture of a larger group than “gun nuts”, which implies a a small, outlier group that is completely out of touch with “normal society”. To the liberal who chose this name thinking it would be more disparaging than any number of alternatives, Thank You.
    Now if the same liberal will put the word/warning out that “People of the Gun” are everywhere–soccer moms, Grandmas and Grandpa’s, LEO and military, Olympic competitors, people who choose to be responsible for self and family, politicians/public figures and their bodyguards, etc., etc., that’ll really cripple us.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I agree that it implies a sense of unity, but the question is, what kind of unity? A tribe? A religion? A cult? Tribe is cool but the rest take us down a negative path.

      1. avatar Bill F says:

        What kind of unity? Just a large slice of the population that believes in our RKBA. Nothing more sinister or mysterious than that. That is our unity and we’re made up of: soccer moms, Grandmas and Grandpa’s, LEO and military, Olympic competitors, people who choose to be responsible for self and family, politicians/public figures and their bodyguards, sportsmen, collectors, etc., etc., etc.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          I was not refering to any definition of the group, merely to the image the phraseology evokes or may evoke. To be effective, it should be a positive image, not an image of separateness of differentness. You wouldn’t want to be “one of THOSE people”, would you?

        2. avatar Bill F says:

          I’d rather thumb my nose at the antis by using the label their drama queens gave us. It only reveals their own delusions to those who are riding the fence. Don’t assume the fence riders (they know responsible gun owners too) will automatically buy into the antis’ smug and smarmy righteousness. The fad of being always politically correct is cliche and losing favor. Every time they wring their hands and sob, “If it only saves one life”, and “We must do it for the children”, the words grow weaker and their lack of a real argument becomes more apparent. Their newest invention, “The People of the Gun” helps validate their lack of credibility and proves how silly they really are.

  6. avatar Pascal says:

    Quick, we need “People of the Gun” T-Shirts. That should spin their eye balls around a few times like a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

    1. avatar Wiregrass says:

      Was just going to say I’ll take a T-shirt with that on it. XXL please I’m an OFWG.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        +1 on the xxl. lotta years of good living.

        1. avatar Snachnim says:

          +2 On the xxl!!

  7. avatar Thomas Paine says:

    Ah, the People of the Gun, living according to their covenant, in peace with the Goyim. Shall their be a prophet to spread the word?

    on another note, how come no press on the woman who shot seven people on the riverboat in Detroit? apparently a gun free zone. She got away.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      Simple, nobody died

  8. avatar zbaer says:

    So does that mean that pogey bait now refers to ammunition?

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    I prefer to think of us as People With a Brain, and the anti crowd as Scheiße Köpfe.

  10. avatar Joe says:

    I’m beginning to think the Rabbi is anti semantic… I’m not sure I approve… People of the gun implies I own one gun… And it is “the” gun… I have yet to find “the” gun…

    1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

      You must first choose a master, young padawan. Will it be John Moses Browning, of the single-action glory and longstanding popularity? Or perhaps Gaston Glock, he of the polymer and high capacity? Perhaps you will choose (all rise) Jeff Cooper (be seated), he of the Four Rules. Or will it be one of the others, with their excellent construction but questionable support for the American gun owner? No one can make this choice for you, padawan, but once the choice is made it can not be unmade.

      [/sarc]

      1. avatar Fyrewerx says:

        That seems like a Trinity right there.

        1. avatar Aharon says:

          This is getting really deep…

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          More like deep doodoo.

        3. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          “This is getting really deep…”
          ——
          Bewbie sprinkles. Better?

  11. avatar Jay says:

    Why do these people want to remove their own countrymen of their right to arms, but arm Syrians?

  12. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    I think that it should be noted that “People of the Gun” was the brainchild of Jeff Soyer at the blog Alphecca ( http://alphecca.com/ ). He runs a great blog and has been a tireless advocate for gun rights. The fact that the MSM has picked up on People of the Gun is a testament to how unnerving and dangerous they find the concept. And that’s a very good thing indeed. Keep the MSM off balance and panicked; the people who git it are our friends, those that don’t are simpletons and fools.

    BTW, Jeff has hit some hard times and does great work for the movement. I check his blog every day. You should too. While you’re there, hit his tip jar, you’ll be glad you did and it will make hippies cry.

    1. avatar Greg in Allston says:

      Also, if you don’t believe me about the value of Jeff’s blog please note that he’s on the blogrolls of many of our greatest and most influential gun rights advocates like Glenn Reynolds Instapundit, Tam’s View From The Porch, David Codrea’s War on Guns, Joe’s View From North Central Idaho and David Hardy’s Of Arms and the Law.

      1. avatar Bill F says:

        And here I’ve been crediting Laura Washington. http://www.suntimes.com/news/washington/14037774-452/bowing-low-to-the-people-of-the-gun.html

        I guess I still have to credit her with plagiarizing, I mean promoting the title to a broader audience.

        1. avatar 19DCav says:

          People of the Gun can also be traced back to a 2002 Jerusalem Post Article by by Larry Derfner. An Archived copy is on the JPFO website.
          http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/derfner-people.htm

    2. avatar Snachnim says:

      I would do it to make a hippie cry lol

  13. avatar rsh2k1 says:

    I love the term: People of the Gun.

    But let’s not just be on the defensive. We need a phrase/term to describe those on the other side. Gungrabber is okay, but I don’t think it reflects what is truly wrong with them — their worldview which is at odds with things like… reality.

    People of the Run?
    My Little Ponies?
    Delusionauts?

    Suggestions wanted.

    1. avatar Bruce says:

      Targets? or victim?

    2. avatar racer88 says:

      “People of the Dumb”

      Besides being accurate, it’s cleverly alliterative! 😀

  14. avatar BeninMA says:

    A bit OT, but I’ve been thinking…

    Instead of replacing one ill-defined term (“assault rifle”) with another (“modern sporting rifle”) why not just talk about “semi-automatic rifles”? The term is neutral and descriptive enough that most people will actually understand what it refers to and the press might actually adopt it.

    1. avatar Fyrewerx says:

      I’m still not sure about the word “-automatic” in semi-automatic. It stands out too much for the grabbers. Like saying “almost automatic”. It works for me though.

      1. avatar BeninMA says:

        But does it bother the average American? I’m guessing that most people know what a “semi-automatic pistol” is and don’t really have a problem with it. Throw in the word “rifle” and the effect is about the same.

        But once you start re-naming “assault rifle” with cutesy names meant to sanitize public perception, I think it would give people the sense that you’re trying to pull one over on them. On the other hand, using a precise, descriptive term will probably be welcomed by everyone but the gun-grabbers.

        Truth and honesty are on our side — our choice of terms should reflect our desire to enhance public understanding.

        1. avatar racer88 says:

          I will disagree that most people know what a semi-auto is. They DON’T. Most people have no clue and assume auto and semi-auto are the same. They’re all “assault weapons” and nobody “needs” them.

    2. avatar Kelly in GA says:

      How about “self loading rifles”? Exceptionally accurate, skips over the word automatic, and isn’t misleading at all. They do load themselves.
      And I think it kind of makes them sound benign. Although “self loading” might bring about some bad IGOTD press.

      1. avatar BeninMA says:

        I like it! That’s probably the most descriptive, neutral-sounding option for people who know nothing at all about guns. Has an old-timey sound to it.

  15. avatar danster says:

    your assessment of the average intelligence of the american public does not bode well for the general election in november . there are, in addition to this, more complex issues in play.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American.

  16. avatar Aharon says:

    People of the Gun
    MGTOW – Men Going Their Own Way
    Urban Mountain Man

    Cool. I now know who I am and can pull myself out of my mid-life crisis.

  17. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    I don’t think that the term “assault weapon” is going away anytime soon, it is too imbedded in the lame-stream “news” media. So maybe it’s time we embraced it as well, properly defined. An “assault weapon” is whatever scary firearm they’re pissin’ their drawers over in the hands of a criminal used to assault the law-abiding. An “anti-assault weapon” is the exact same group of weapons in the hands of the law-abiding used for lawful purposes including repelling a criminal assault. We just need to remind folks that just about anything can be turned into an assault weapon and denying us anti-assault weapons makes us vulnerable to violence. This will help refocus the attention away from the tool and towards the use or purpose for which the tool has been used. Criminal use = bad, self defence use = good, very good. 90% of gun control laws would be ok (perhaps redundant) if they only applied during criminal use of the weapon.

  18. avatar Levi B says:

    “right of personal security”

    Where’s that amendment?

  19. avatar Gw says:

    Which of the following are the more intelligent?
    Persons aware that humans are the most dangerous animals to ever inhabit the planet and provide themselves with a firearm in the event one is needed for protection; or
    persons aware that humans are the most dangerous animals ever to inhabit the planet, refuse to own a firearm, insist on the necessity for enacting more gun control laws in order to feel safer and more secure — all-the-while failing entirely to realize that in essence, they’ve relegated the entire value of their own life to no more than that of a 10cent bullet?

    People of the smoke detector. People of the first aid kit. People of the fire extinguisher. People who wish that common sense was actually common.

  20. avatar IdahoPete says:

    I shall remain, a lone voice calling from the wilderness, in support of CEFE.

    “Charmingly Eccentric Firearms Enthusiasts”.

    Hey, you want to do political correctness, I can at least fake it …

  21. avatar Gw says:

    Least we forget, the word ‘politician’ is essentially a derogatory term most applicable to those devoid of the Moral character, personal integrity and the actual intelligence necessary to qualify themselves as ‘Statesmen‘.
    Not that it matters and nothing really matters and what if it did—
    given the fact that the keeping and bearing of arms is specified to be a “Right” of the Citizens in the majority of State Constitutions and additionally in the Constitution of the United States; and
    among the many purposes served is that of a written law which, on the one hand represents limitations imposed on powers afforded to those in government by consent of the governed, and on the other a law which those in government are bound under law to ’secure’ for the people…
    When was the last time, ( or at any time ) you heard a politician respond to the calling for enactment of more “Rights”-violating Citizen Disarmament Laws say anything to the effect that:-
    “As a representative of the Citizens, not only am I without any authority under the laws in the Constitution to violate the “Rights” of the Citizens to keep and bear arms, the laws as written, in fact, strictly prohibit me from doing so.”

    What better excuse for is there for political inaction than absence of authority and prohibitive laws? And why aren’t these blatantly-obvious legal loopholes frequently used?

    ( Someone once said that Politics, in sum, is who gets what, and the people get exactly what they deserve from every politician they elect…good and hard. )

  22. avatar Buuurr says:

    sigh…. but they are assault rifles. They were created and designed for such instances. They were not designed to bake cakes. We all own and use combat knives. Do we change the name of those too? How about urban zucchini peeler? Just because the media is putting a negative ‘spin’ on these rifles does not make them not what they are. An AK-47 is an assault rifle. An AR-15 is an assault rifle.

    The only time they are not is if you don’t live in a state that allows full auto…

    1. avatar Winston Smith says:

      I agree with you right up to the last point. Even in a full auto friendly state, who cares about the name?

      I don’t have any problems with the moniker “assault weapons”. If somebody “assaults” me, I’ll “assault” them right back in self defense with my semi-automatic self-loading rifles and carbines.

      If this bothers you, you’re pandering to the wrong crowd.

      1. avatar Buuurr says:

        Correct, Winston. I have a handgun (sidearm -always on me), a semi-auto shotgun (room sweeper – not good for hunting), an assault rifle (last ditch for if I run out of shot shells) and a hunting rifle (hunting rifle – for hunting).

        If folks can’t make distinct definitions in their heads right away as to what that means then they either don’t own these guns or are in need of an education of what guns they do own. I wouldn’t hunt with my Ak-74. Why? Because it is inaccurate and not built mainly for that purpose. I have it for shooting down hallways if my home is under assault. I have a Mossberg rifle for hunting. Why? Because it is very accurate and not too good for firing down hallways after the first round.

        The media can say what they want and the cattle can think what they want. It makes no difference to the choice of firearm in your home, nor its title, whether the term assault rifle offends you as the owner of it or not – it is an assault rifle.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          “I have… an assault rifle… I wouldn’t hunt with my Ak-74. Why? Because it is inaccurate and not built mainly for that purpose.”

          Not to mention the fact that full-auto would likely render any meat inedible.

          If you’re going to make comments about other peoples’ abilities to make “distinct definitions,” you might want to make sure you’re using the right ones to begin with.

        2. avatar Gw says:

          Oh my.
          ‘Assault’ is an act, often directly associated with human act-tivity. ( activity )
          A Fire-Arm of any type is essentially an inanimate object, incapable on its own accord of any intentional act of ‘assault’.
          Referring to any Fire-Arm as an ‘assault weapon’ is either ignorantly or intentionally suggestive of ‘intent’ on the part of a person. Use of terms such as ‘assault weapon’, ‘assault rife’ and now ‘assault clips’ explains why proponents for the necessity of enacting more ‘gun control laws’ seldom if ever refer to the GUNS they want restricted or banned as ‘hunting’ or ‘plinking devices’, ‘sport / utility’ firearms, or ‘defensive platforms‘.
          ( Exception given to ‘sniper rifles’ )
          Reiterating, I know many people who own GUNS, of MANY types.
          No no-one I know, or would care to know, ever refers to them using the word ‘assault’.
          Any Questions?

  23. avatar Wayback Machine says:

    Welcome to 2007: http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/10/people-of-gun.html

    So glad you are catching up.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Day-um. Oh well. We’re here now.

  24. avatar Buuurr says:

    “Matt in FL says:

    August 8, 2012 at 12:49

    Not to mention the fact that full-auto would likely render any meat inedible.

    If you’re going to make comments about other peoples’ abilities to make “distinct definitions,” you might want to make sure you’re using the right ones to begin with.”

    How so? I think what we have here is a classic case of missing the point, Matt. What about the statement, “…Because it is inaccurate and not built mainly for that purpose…” is any different from what you said? Is it because you pointed out the obvious?

  25. avatar Buuurr says:


    Gw says:
    August 11, 2012 at 06:57

    Oh my.
    ‘Assault’ is an act, often directly associated with human act-tivity. ( activity )
    A Fire-Arm of any type is essentially an inanimate object, incapable on its own accord of any intentional act of ‘assault’.
    Referring to any Fire-Arm as an ‘assault weapon’ is either ignorantly or intentionally suggestive of ‘intent’ on the part of a person. Use of terms such as ‘assault weapon’, ‘assault rife’ and now ‘assault clips’ explains why proponents for the necessity of enacting more ‘gun control laws’ seldom if ever refer to the GUNS they want restricted or banned as ‘hunting’ or ‘plinking devices’, ‘sport / utility’ firearms, or ‘defensive platforms‘.
    ( Exception given to ‘sniper rifles’ )
    Reiterating, I know many people who own GUNS, of MANY types.
    No no-one I know, or would care to know, ever refers to them using the word ‘assault’.
    Any Questions?”

    Again, sigh…

    assault rifle
    noun

    Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE
    : any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

    …. sigh…

    assault rifle

    noun
    1.
    a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.

    2.
    a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

    …and sigh again…

    Assault rifles are selective fire intermediate-power rifles.

    Note: this specific term should not be confused with the loosely-defined term assault weapon, which refers to any number of classes of pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

    Just because you do not intend to ‘assault’ anyone with your assault rifle does not make it not an assault rifle. Objects know no intent. If I drive a I drive a Bugatti Veyron I am driving a high performance car designed for speed trials and racing. No, I am not racing it. But even the five year old on my street know it’s a badass race car. It is called an assault rifle because there was nothing like it at the time and that was what it was called loosely. It wasn’t a bolt rifle, it wasn’t a sniper rifle, it wasn’t a machine gun, it wasn’t a sub-machine gun. Get over it. They called it an assault rifle. Get over it.

    Remember, if someone sees you smoking a cigarette and states’ Fag’, don’t get offended. It is just a term.

    If you are in your swamp truck strictly used for off-roading in the bayou and someone calls it a monster truck. Don’t get offended.

    If someone sees you parked outside a club with Lamborghini that you just park outside nightclubs to get chicks and wax all day in the yard, don’t get offended when someone sees a race car.

    If you have a wireless cam-ed drone that you use for spying on neighbors and some kid calls it a RC helicopter. Don’t get offended.

    If you owe one or are upset by its name calling then I suggest you not own one. Who wants to incorrectly explain away a term that will never leave the item they own? Sounds frustrating to me.

    Now Imma go sit in my chair (its actually a Lazy-boy recliner) and watch my TV (its actually a large HD monitor) with my kid (she’s actually a child) with my wife (she’s actually a woman whom I love and am bound to by law). But those are just terms, right?

    Any questions?

  26. avatar Buuurr says:


    Gw says:
    August 11, 2012 at 06:57

    Oh my.
    ‘Assault’ is an act, often directly associated with human act-tivity. ( activity )
    A Fire-Arm of any type is essentially an inanimate object, incapable on its own accord of any intentional act of ‘assault’.
    Referring to any Fire-Arm as an ‘assault weapon’ is either ignorantly or intentionally suggestive of ‘intent’ on the part of a person. Use of terms such as ‘assault weapon’, ‘assault rife’ and now ‘assault clips’ explains why proponents for the necessity of enacting more ‘gun control laws’ seldom if ever refer to the GUNS they want restricted or banned as ‘hunting’ or ‘plinking devices’, ‘sport / utility’ firearms, or ‘defensive platforms‘.
    ( Exception given to ‘sniper rifles’ )
    Reiterating, I know many people who own GUNS, of MANY types.
    No no-one I know, or would care to know, ever refers to them using the word ‘assault’.
    Any Questions?”

    Again, sigh…

    assault rifle
    noun

    Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE
    : any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

    …. sigh…

    assault rifle

    noun
    1.
    a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.

    2.
    a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

    …and sigh again…

    Assault rifles are selective fire intermediate-power rifles.

    Note: this specific term should not be confused with the loosely-defined term assault weapon, which refers to any number of classes of pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

    Just because you do not intend to ‘assault’ anyone with your assault rifle does not make it not an assault rifle. Objects know no intent. If I drive a I drive a Bugatti Veyron I am driving a high performance car designed for speed trials and racing. No, I am not racing it. But even the five year old on my street know it’s a badass race car. It is called an assault rifle because there was nothing like it at the time and that was what it was called loosely. It wasn’t a bolt rifle, it wasn’t a sniper rifle, it wasn’t a machine gun, it wasn’t a sub-machine gun. Get over it. They called it an assault rifle. Get over it.

    Remember, if someone sees you smoking a cigarette and states’ Fag’, don’t get offended. It is just a term.

    If you are in your swamp truck strictly used for off-roading in the bayou and someone calls it a monster truck. Don’t get offended.

    If someone sees you parked outside a club with Lamborghini that you just park outside nightclubs to get chicks and wax all day in the yard, don’t get offended when someone sees a race car.

    If you have a wireless cam-ed drone that you use for spying on neighbors and some kid calls it a RC helicopter. Don’t get offended.

    If you own one or are upset by its name calling then I suggest you not own one. Who wants to incorrectly explain away a term that will never leave the item they own? Sounds frustrating to me.

    Now Imma go sit in my chair (its actually a Lazy-boy recliner) and watch my TV (its actually a large HD monitor) with my kid (she’s actually a child) with my wife (she’s actually a woman whom I love and am bound to by law).

    Any questions?

  27. avatar Gw says:

    FWIW
    Colt introduced a semi-automatic only version of the M-16 rifle for sales to ‘civilians’ in 1964.
    From their advertisement:
    “superb hunting partner…Colts new AR-15 Sporter.
    With Colt’s new AR-15 Sporter, you’re ready for a new hunting
    adventure.
    The AR-15 Sporter weighs only six pounds. Its .223 cal., 55-grain bullet has a muzzle velocity of 3,100 fps. Every AR-15 Sporter is factory targeted at 100 yards.
    If you’re a hunter, camper or collector, you’ll want the AR-15 Sporter. At any registered Colt Dealer. $189.50”

    Josh Sugarmann is generally ‘credited’ with introduction of the term ‘assault weapon’ into the modern day lexicon in 1988. The purpose and intent for which is self-evident in the quote as follows:
    “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
    -Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

    If anyone has knowledge of a reference to an AR-15; any hand held or shoulder braced firearm used by the U.S. Military ( of which there have been many ); or any semi-automatic firearm described with use of the word ‘assault’ prior to this 1988 date; for informational purposes, by all means, please post it.

    And BTW,
    Does it matter what a thing is called and by whom? Does it matter what people believe, in contrast to say, what is actual, true or correct? Is there a distinction to made between offense and defense? Between an actual criminal act and written laws which can make any person, act or thing illegal or unlawful? Or that any laws written are enacted with the intent that they be en-forced by armed agents of government…at gunpoint?
    Of course not. We live in a Democracy, government grants us “Rights”, the U.S. Constitution is really nothing but a G-Dam piece of paper and no-one has any “Right” to property, including their own body and the outcome of their labor through personal use of it. Our choices are quite clear.
    Either submit, convert, be enslaved or killed.
    After all, under some currently-existing rule, reg., code, law &/or the like, we’re all criminals anyway, only a matter of selective enforcement.
    Therefore, nothing really matters, and what if it did?

    A hunting, plinking, sport, utility or defensive-platform firearm, or an EVIL — must be taxed and registered if it can’t be banned altogether– ASSAULT WEAPON’?
    “Existence is Futile. Uninvent the NUG!”

    1. avatar Buuurr says:

      “Gw says:
      August 13, 2012 at 13:00

      FWIW
      Colt introduced a semi-automatic only version of the M-16 rifle for sales to ‘civilians’ in 1964.
      From their advertisement:
      “superb hunting partner…Colts new AR-15 Sporter.
      With Colt’s new AR-15 Sporter, you’re ready for a new hunting
      adventure.
      The AR-15 Sporter weighs only six pounds. Its .223 cal., 55-grain bullet has a muzzle velocity of 3,100 fps. Every AR-15 Sporter is factory targeted at 100 yards.
      If you’re a hunter, camper or collector, you’ll want the AR-15 Sporter. At any registered Colt Dealer. $189.50” “

      And? Are we just talking about AR-15s now? Of the group the AR platform is actually least likely to be called an assault rifle. I am clearly talking about former arsenal rifles that have had the selector switch disabled for us civvies. But whatever…

      “Josh Sugarmann is generally ‘credited’ with introduction of the term ‘assault weapon’ into the modern day lexicon in 1988. The purpose and intent for which is self-evident in the quote as follows:
      “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
      -Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

      If anyone has knowledge of a reference to an AR-15; any hand held or shoulder braced firearm used by the U.S. Military ( of which there have been many ); or any semi-automatic firearm described with use of the word ‘assault’ prior to this 1988 date; for informational purposes, by all means, please post it. “

      Josh Sugermann is irrelevant. The assault rifle came about long before he said anything. An assault rifle is any rifle that can sustain near machine gun rates of fire while still being effective at ranges of 200-300m. The Germans invented it. The Soviets perfected it. What is hard in all this for you? An intermediate caliber rifle with full auto capability that is good out to 300M’s… Assault rifle –

      The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally “storm rifle”, as in “to storm a position”). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] to describe the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently renamed Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today’s modern assault rifles.

      The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]
      It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
      It must be capable of selective fire;
      It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
      Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
      And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

      Considering that the Germans called it an Assault rifle during WWII I would have to say there is your answer.

      “And BTW,
      Does it matter what a thing is called and by whom? Does it matter what people believe, in contrast to say, what is actual, true or correct? Is there a distinction to made between offense and defense? Between an actual criminal act and written laws which can make any person, act or thing illegal or unlawful? Or that any laws written are enacted with the intent that they be en-forced by armed agents of government…at gunpoint?
      Of course not. We live in a Democracy, government grants us “Rights”, the U.S. Constitution is really nothing but a G-Dam piece of paper and no-one has any “Right” to property, including their own body and the outcome of their labor through personal use of it. Our choices are quite clear.
      Either submit, convert, be enslaved or killed.
      After all, under some currently-existing rule, reg., code, law &/or the like, we’re all criminals anyway, only a matter of selective enforcement.
      Therefore, nothing really matters, and what if it did? “

      Errmmmm… yeah… sure. Little right field, kind of out of the park for what is being spoken about here don’t you think? Considering we are talking about the name of something, what it is referred to as. I think it matters a lot what it is called. I like accuracy in my dictionary .Why not just accept it for what it is? If you have to get all out-in-the-ether philosophical and bring in the the rights of man argument, I think you are a little off track.

  28. avatar Gw says:

    Appreciation extended for the reply.

    The agenda is set, the legal definitions are established and the history is readily available for perusal.
    All that’s necessary is for a group of individuals in a State or in the Federal Congress to determine there’s no need for anyone in their State or in the United States to possess any non-hunting, non-sporting purpose firearms defined as ‘Semiautomatic Assault Weapons.’ This would include but not be limited to all military-style ‘Semiautomatic Assault Rifles’ and any ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than 10 cartridges.
    When the laws are passed, maybe those who own these evil weapons of mass destruction will be fortunate enough that the laws only require registration. Maybe.
    These killing machines and ‘hi-cap’ magazines were, uh, ‘banned’ before.
    It’s reasonable to suspect that many supporters of the so-called ‘ban’ never imagined that manufacturers would simply comply with the law as written and continue to manufacture and sell functionally-identical firearms less the ‘features’ which defined them as ‘Assault Weapons’. It’s a given that the language has been revised, the same mistakes won’t be made again and copies of the new version are available.
    Even if, ONLY registration is required, a minor alteration of the law is all that’s necessary to institute a complete ban. If registration is required, owners must register them or become criminals under law. When a ’ban’ is enacted, the choice will then be to either relinquish what was previously legally owned, or face arrest and imprisonment.
    Did any of the owners violate anyone’s “Rights”? No.
    Did any commit any actual crime? No.
    But you did own an Assault Weapon, even called it that yourself, and that’s proof enough of intent. Only reasonable, right?

    1. avatar Buuurr says:

      If they ban assault weapons then my AK-74 is going away, yes. Your point?

  29. avatar Gw says:

    Sincerely desire that it never comes to that, and if it does, it’s just that simple.

    Meanwhile, I’ll retain my preference to use the term ‘firearm(s)‘ instead of
    ‘gun(s)‘; refer to AR’s as AR‘s or rifles; AK’s as AK’s and the variety of firearms still lawfully owned and lawfully used by Citizens now frequently but still erroneously termed ’Assault Weapons’ or ‘Semiautomatic Assault Weapons’ as…‘Sport / Utility firearms‘.
    The simple understanding, of course, being that, while words have standardized definitions and implied meanings, the actual meaning and significance of any word is assigned by, or afforded to it by the individual.
    Obviously in some circumstances, general terms are acceptable, but in other circumstances — in the words of Dennis Prager– “Clarity is critical.”
    [ Clarity such as, “Rights” of the individual in stark contrast to ‘powers’ afforded to government, Constitutional Republic in contrast to Democracy…and etc. ]
    Reiterating;- since no one I know or care to know has any intent to ’assault’ anyone, I naturally object to such implications and inferences, intentional or otherwise, ( especially intentional ) that Morally-conscious, law-abiding U.S. Citizens own ’assault weapons.’

    This, of course, in addition to my humble effort to instill in the Minds of as many as possible the critical distinction separating humans from other animals, associated with the words Conscience, Morality and “Rights.”
    Enjoyed the conversation.
    Related link to opinions expressed in an article posted 10 August by D.Roberts as follows:
    http://www.ammoland.com/2012/08/10/associated-press-perpetrating-assault-weapon-lie-in-journalists-stylebook/#axzz23Z4aJyjk

    Do No Harm / Successfully Defend
    Gw

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email