Notice From My Cold Dead Hands......

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
SlyPokerDog said:
No.

Gun manufacturers, sellers, and support organizations like the NRA have rebranded/remarketed/renamed assault rifles into sporting guns.

Look at the dates of the magazines and ads I posted.

Assault rifles got a shit reputation. So they changed the term. Same guns, different market branding. A branding that supports, "Hey, this is just a fun gun for fun times! For sporting times!" one that sadly through their ads is desperately trying to say these guns don't kill kids, they're for kids!

lQ6Dmb6.jpg


The new claim of these guns are for hunting boars & wild pigs are also bullshit since pig carcasses are routinely used to test guns and ammo. They're the closest you can get to the human body.
Click to expand...
Here we go... This was from the 70s.

U.S. Army Intelligence document FTC-CW-07–03-70

1) A rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. Examples would be the 5.56x45/.223, and the 7.62x39.
2). It’s fed from a detachable magazine.
3). It is selective fire. That means it fires either semi-auto or full auto or burst fire.

Its+a+military+term+fstccw070370+small+arms+_2921281ef9c961e7a2fee3d66baa797f.jpg

The civilian Ar15, which is not manufactured with the capability of full auto is specifically NOT an assault rifle.
 

Attachments

  • Its+a+military+term+fstccw070370+small+arms+_2921281ef9c961e7a2fee3d66baa797f.jpg
    Its+a+military+term+fstccw070370+small+arms+_2921281ef9c961e7a2fee3d66baa797f.jpg
    48.6 KB · Views: 1
Phatguysrule said:
Here we go... This was from the 70s.

U.S. Army Intelligence document FTC-CW-07–03-70

1) A rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. Examples would be the 5.56x45/.223, and the 7.62x39.
2). It’s fed from a detachable magazine.
3). It is selective fire. That means it fires either semi-auto or full auto or burst fire.

View attachment 47719

The civilian Ar15, which is not manufactured with the capability of full auto is specifically NOT an assault rifle.
Click to expand...

0SGu8Al.jpg


pezJhZM.jpg
 
SlyPokerDog said:
0SGu8Al.jpg


pezJhZM.jpg
Click to expand...
I think the US Army definition is a bit more reliable than some magazines trying to inflate sales. Don't you?

Again, if you want to go after those magazines for false advertising or whatever, be my guest.

They don't determine what is and is not an assault rifle.
 
Phatguysrule said:
I think the US Army definition is a bit more reliable than some magazines trying to inflate sales. Don't you?

Again, if you want to go after those magazines for false advertising or whatever, be my guest.

They don't determine what is and is not an assault rifle.
Click to expand...

So these magazines and advertisements want to ban them?!?

Phatguysrule said:
Who calls them assault weapons? People who want to ban them... They are actually called sporting rifles.
Click to expand...
 
SlyPokerDog said:
So these magazines and advertisements want to ban them?!?
Click to expand...
Lol, well I'm not really sure if those magazines are showing converted ARs, or what. As such, I wouldn't actually assume they are calling AR15s assault weapons, they could be talking about anything. That's the thing about marketing... You can't trust it.

However, after your lawsuit gets settled we should know a lot more...

To me, it looks like a case of false advertising. And yeah, I guess I didn't consider that somebody would try to use shady marketing as a way to classify a piece of equipment.

When I buy a 12 piece tool kit on Amazon and it shows up with 10pcs I don't try to change the meaning of a dozen to 10...
 
Phatguysrule said:
Lol, well I'm not really sure if those magazines are showing cenverted ARs, or what. As such, I wouldn't actually assume they are calling AR15s assault weapons, they could be talking about anything. That's the thing about marketing... You can't trust it.

However, after your lawsuit gets settled we should know a lot more...
Click to expand...

I didn't say I was suing anyone or wanted to sue anyone.

You made a claim that the only people who call them assault weapons are doing so to get them banned.

You got it wrong, people and companies that support and/or sell these types of weapons also call them assault weapons.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I didn't say I was suing anyone or wanted to sue anyone.

You made a claim that the only people who call them assault weapons are doing so to get them banned.

You got it wrong, people and companies that support and/or sell these types of weapons also call them assault weapons.
Click to expand...
True, people who don't know what they are talking about and dishonest people call them assault weapons. I guess I should have been more specific.

The magazine cover didn't call an AR15 an assault weapon. The little ad in the magazine called a semi auto an assault weapon, and also a 308, which is not an intermediate round as required to meet the spec as an assault weapon either. So yeah, definitely false advertising.

That ad was in the same place you'll find ads for Adding inches to your manhood... Let me know how that turns out. :-D

So the point is, if you want to come off as dishonest or like you don't know what you're talking about, by all means continue calling them assault weapons.

You're not convincing anybody who knows anything about guns.
 
I must say @Phatguysrule, I admire your willingness to continue to engage in this thread as the sole voice on your side of the discussion, and do so respectfully. It must be exhausting attempting to fend off all comers.

That said, I have to ask (and I apologize if this has been addressed at some point in the earlier 1000 posts which I'm not reading in their entirety): If it is the case that semi-automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines are the tools used in the majority of mass shootings in the US over the past 25 years (I'm assuming--I could be wrong), what is the primary issue with legislating against those types of weapons? And I might also ask the same question regarding handguns with similar characteristics.
 
On another topic, I just have to mention: being that cigarette manufacturers have been held financially liable for mass lung cancer deaths, and pharmaceutical manufacturers have been held financially liable for the opioid crisis, it just seems unamerican that weapons manufacturers can't be held financially liable for mass shooting deaths. But then again, laws passed because of special-interest lobbying that go against the best interests of the public at large are probably actually as "American" as anything.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
On another topic, I just have to mention: being that cigarette manufacturers have been held financially liable for mass lung cancer deaths, and pharmaceutical manufacturers have been held financially liable for the opioid crisis, it just seems unamerican that weapons manufacturers can't be held financially liable for mass shooting deaths. But then again, laws passed because of special-interest lobbying that go against the best interests of the public at large are probably actually as "American" as anything.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of The Runaway Jury. Good movie.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I didn't say I was suing anyone or wanted to sue anyone.

You made a claim that the only people who call them assault weapons are doing so to get them banned.

You got it wrong, people and companies that support and/or sell these types of weapons also call them assault weapons.
Click to expand...

And that is a big problem. Creating that cool factor to get young people to buy these guns. Even if they aren't truly assault rifles, the perception that they are has been dangled out there long enough that it's stuck. A culture has been created. The result is, this easy to get gun, that many identify as an assault rifle, has become the gun of choice for mass shooters. Maybe it's time to do something about that.

The company that sold the guns the shooter in Uvalde bought had such ads to try and get younger buyers. Well, unfortunately it worked.
 
I fail to see the importance of what the guns are called. Whether you call them assault rifles, sporting guns, or cute fluffy kittens, they were still used to kill a bunch of kids.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I fail to see the importance of what the guns are called. Whether you call them assault rifles, sporting guns, or cute fluffy kittens, they were still used to kill a bunch of kids.

barfo
Click to expand...
Muddy waters! Smokescreen. Whatever you want to call it.
It makes the conversation about something other than what it needs to be about.
 
BREAKING: 'My friend's grandma got shot... like she was some type of animal': One elderly woman is killed and two men are injured after gunfire broke out at Xavier University of Louisiana during a high school graduation ceremony
  • One elderly woman was killed and two men suffered non-life-threatening injuries after they were shot at Xavier University, in New Orleans
  • Police said the gunfire broke out as two women were fighting in the parking lot following a high school graduation ceremony for Morris Jeff HS students
  • Three suspects have been detained and several guns were confiscated
An elderly woman was killed and two men were injured when a gunfight broke out on Tuesday at the conclusion of a high school graduation ceremony taking place at Xavier University, in New Orleans, police said.

New Orleans police said they have detained at least three suspects who allegedly opened fire at the parking lot outside the Convocation Center venue once the graduation ceremony ended for Morris Jeff High School seniors.

Police said a fight broke out between two women when someone opened fire, killing the elderly woman and injuring two men, WDSU reported.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...iversity-high-school-graduation-ceremony.html
 
SlyPokerDog said:
BREAKING: 'My friend's grandma got shot... like she was some type of animal': One elderly woman is killed and two men are injured after gunfire broke out at Xavier University of Louisiana during a high school graduation ceremony
  • One elderly woman was killed and two men suffered non-life-threatening injuries after they were shot at Xavier University, in New Orleans
  • Police said the gunfire broke out as two women were fighting in the parking lot following a high school graduation ceremony for Morris Jeff HS students
  • Three suspects have been detained and several guns were confiscated
An elderly woman was killed and two men were injured when a gunfight broke out on Tuesday at the conclusion of a high school graduation ceremony taking place at Xavier University, in New Orleans, police said.

New Orleans police said they have detained at least three suspects who allegedly opened fire at the parking lot outside the Convocation Center venue once the graduation ceremony ended for Morris Jeff High School seniors.

Police said a fight broke out between two women when someone opened fire, killing the elderly woman and injuring two men, WDSU reported.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...iversity-high-school-graduation-ceremony.html
Click to expand...
I wonder how old the people with the firearms were. More 18 year olds? A federal firearm age limit makes the most sense to me as something that could actually be passed.
 
barfo said:
I fail to see the importance of what the guns are called. Whether you call them assault rifles, sporting guns, or cute fluffy kittens, they were still used to kill a bunch of kids.

barfo
Click to expand...
People tend to forget that assault is both a verb and an adjective....if a gun is used in a mass killing, it's been used to assault people.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I must say @Phatguysrule, I admire your willingness to continue to engage in this thread as the sole voice on your side of the discussion, and do so respectfully. It must be exhausting attempting to fend off all comers.

That said, I have to ask (and I apologize if this has been addressed at some point in the earlier 1000 posts which I'm not reading in their entirety): If it is the case that semi-automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines are the tools used in the majority of mass shootings in the US over the past 25 years (I'm assuming--I could be wrong), what is the primary issue with legislating against those types of weapons? And I might also ask the same question regarding handguns with similar characteristics.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you saying that.

From my perspective, guns are near and dear to the hearts of too many Americans for republicans to support restricting semi-automatic rifles. They are barely winning now, and if they don't stand up for gun rights they are dead meat. And semi-automatic firearms are like 95% of guns sold today. And the AR is the most popular rifle sold by a large margin.

Republicans can't afford to look soft on protecting gun rights. And most democrats (politicians) don't really care about it (or the plebs in general). And even if Dems could win that battle, the Supreme Court would just overrule it as violating the 2nd amendment.

There is just no way we can actually remove enough guns in this country to make a difference before the other party takes control and re-institutes gun laws. And this will only make the wrong kind of gun worship grow, as it did with the assault weapons ban, which nobody has been able to show causal evidence had any impact over 10 years. Only a HUGE rise in popularity of those guns and a very toxic gun culture as a result.

I don't believe prohibition works. It has never worked here in America. It didn't work for alcohol, it hasn't worked for drugs, it never worked for abortion, nad it won't work for abortion if Roe gets reversed.

America has had higher violent crime and murder rates than other first world countries since WW2 because we don't have universal healthcare, universal education, or a generous social safety net. Those other countries HAD to have those things after WW2. The gun debate keeps us from focusing on those far more important things. And both parties want us distracted and agitated to keep it that way.

There has never been any gun control I've been able to find that showed a causal reduction in intentional homicides (or for that matter, mass murders). So from my perspective it's a waste of time since we can't show it has an obvious impact on lives, and it gets in the way of what I believe is the true reason other first world countries have lower violent crime and murder rates. Better access to healthcare, education, and social safety net, resulting in far better Gini Coefficients than we have here in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top