Lieu, one of California’s more out-there Democratic Congress members, tweeted,
“How quaint that some folks are more concerned about kids speaking respectfully than the fact that 17 kids were slaughtered with an assault rifle.”
The incorrect use of “assault rifle” is a tell: it means that the speaker doesn’t know enough about guns to be talking about them, or, in the alternative, just thinks that all guns are bad, and that this is sufficient.
Several people corrected the Congressman, and explained that his terminology referred to banned, military automatic weapons, not the semi-automatic AR-15. Wrote co-founder of “the Federalist,” Sean Davis,
“You said “assault rifle”…Words mean things. If you don’t know which words mean which things, don’t use those words”
Lieu’s signature significance reply:
“NO. I will keep saying assault rifle if I feel like it. I will not let you define what I can or cannot say. In any statute, the term assault weapon or assault rifle would be defined. But in ordinary conversation, I will use assault rifle interchangeably with assault weapon.”
Wow.
Translations:
‘ I’m going to keep saying what sounds the most menacing even though it isn’t true, because that’s what will get people upset.’
‘You have your truth and I have mine.’
‘Automatic, semi-automatic, guns, schmuns, they kill people, OK? Get off my back.’
‘My constituents and the anti-gun zealots don’t know the difference, so what should I care?’
‘The ends justify the means.’
‘There’s nothing wrong with ‘alternate facts” if they are MY facts.
‘I have no shame or integrity. Let me do my job.”
‘I am the moron! Goo goo G’joob.’
____________________________
Facts: Twitchy
Ethics Alarms 
What exactly is “common sense” gun laws? I hear the term bandied about and just what does it mean?
To quote Homer Simpson, “It’s just something people say, like “Ramalama ding-dong,” or “Give peace A chance.”
(My favorite Homer quote ever.)
I believe the actual quote is “Uh, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s like Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong or “Give Peace a Chanc” but yours was close enough for government work. Unfortunately his wasn’t.
Now, you see, this is what I regard as gratuitous trolling. So what? I’m impressed, you can use Google. I recited it from memory, and the main point is completely unchanged or effected by the difference between “Uh, it doesn’t mean anything.” and “It’s just something people say.” That comment isn’t substantive, it’s not helpful, it’s just irritating.
WHAT?!? It was an insult to him, not you. Hence the I clearly said yours was close enough for “government work” while his wasn’t. And, for the record, *I* recited it from memory. All that means is that I wasted more hours of my life re-watching old cartoons, instead of finishing my degree.
I’ve made a point of saying — SEVERAL TIMES — that I love your work and have tried to show how appreciative I am to have your voice out there. I rarely, if ever, disagree with you and, when I do, try and broach my disagreements as questions as opposed to statements, since I realize I may be wrong.
Please assume that ANY comments from me are either lauding your work or are good-natured ribbings (as the above).
SOM might just have OCD, Jack… or Autism, which amounts to the same thing.
I have to stop myself from correcting errors that do not make a difference… it only took me 35 years to learn that doing so was annoying and gratuitous. 🙂
It is a euphamism for I don’t have any ideas that have not been rejected already for being unworkable or useless.
You are absolutely right. In short it means “Do Something that makes me feel better”.
“Common Sense Gun Laws” to me always means “I don’t have a deep appreciation and understanding for the 2nd Amendment like this guy does and am quite content with assuming I will never face a situation in which a firearm will assist me, so intrinsically I don’t care what law passes, so do SOMETHING”
Christopher C. Morton, a man who greatly influenced my own political views for twenty years, wrote it best.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/01/robert-farago/question-of-the-day-what-do-gun-control-advocates-mean-by-common-sense/#comment-3795471
Chris has a track record of making witty comments.
Here is how Chicago practiced common sense gun control.
Chicago required handguns to be registered. No problem, right? What is wrong with requiring registration of handguns? All you do is fill our a form and mail it to the appropriate address, right?
Except that they refused to provide new registration forms. They refused to process new registrations. Of course, for some reason, rich, white people with political connections to the Daley junta somehow managed to be able to register their handguns. Not that they actually needed those forms- one of them had actually been pulled over for suspicion for drunk driving, spat at the arresting officer, was found with a unregistered pistol with the serial numbers filed off (a federal offense), and was later allowed to walk- with the gun.
Can you imagine if voting was treated like this, if officials refused to accept registrations of new voters (especially if huge numbers of the “wrong” kind of people recently moved into the precinct). Would any civil rights organization (let alone voting rights organizations) tolerate a government’s refusal to accept new voter registrations (let alone refusing to provide the forms in the first place)?
It is the height of chutzpah to require registration of anything as a condition of ownership, and then to go on and refuse to accept new registrations. that any politician would defend this is inexplicable by anything except hostility to private gun owners.
No different than NJ, where you have to have a permit to carry concealed, and they just never issue permits because it’s a “may issue” law rather than a “shall issue” law.
What would happen if a state treated voter registration or marriage licenses in the same manner?
Also, I wonder if there are any racial disparities arising from this “may issue” permit system.
I always get this clown mixed up with Leland Yee.
You mean prisoner #5529743
The expiration or “best by” date on school shootings seems to be getting further and further out.
If I read this correctly, the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban legislation specifically included the AR-15.
I’m not a pro in this area, so tell me if I’m reading this wrong;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Charles,
That particular ban is no longer in effect; what’s your point?
My guess is that the point is that there is a definition of “Assault Weapons”. But I’m not sure the point there either, because the definition involves listing all the weapons that *seem* like assault weapons, proving the point that the “definition” for assault weapons can’t even be defined.
I know it’s no longer in effect. My point was the term “Assault weapon” was commonly used regarding federal legislation, and specifically included the AR-15, if I read correctly. Hence when this guy refers to “assault” in common parlance, he’s far from being a moron.
Thanks, at least now I understand your purpose, I don’t have to agree with it.
Understood 🙂
Charles. I just know that you, of all people, do not endorse the practice of saying, when you have been shown to have spoken inaccurately, “I don’t care, I’ll say it if I want to,” because the misuse or misinformation was or is common. I can’t believe you would say that, because it is the water mark of a moron, and also because you understand integrity. The intelligent, ethical response is, “You’re right. Thank you. I will use the correct term in the future.” That’s what someone with integrity says. Not “I’m going to keep misleading people, so there!”
I’d actually go with Jack’s first proposed translation: “I’m going to keep saying what sounds the most menacing even though it isn’t true, because that’s what will get people upset.” That would make him a demagogue rather than a moron. He is just another anti-gun zealot who would rather use lies than engage in honest discussion.
Charles,
You know as well as I that these anti-gunners misuse any terms they can to hype up their base of ignorant people. Rep. Ted Lieu, and it appears you, are trying to rationalizing away the use of military terms to define things in ways that they shouldn’t be defined. An AR-15 is not and assault weapon regardless of the irrationally hyped Assault Ban chose to defined it. Propaganda is propaganda.
Let’s be really open and clear here:
In a military assault, an infantry soldier/marine will be armed with a minimum of a real assault rifle that can be switched from semi-automatic to fully automatic or burst of three with a simple flick of the thumb, many have a semi-automatic pistol similar to the Beretta Beretta 92FS, Colt M45A1, at least one sturdy knife (likely a mountable bayonet), quite likely 1 or 2 other fighting knives, entrenching tools, brass knuckles, etc. Some are armed with very high-power bolt action or semi-auto rifles with or without bi-pods. All these things, and certainly more, can and will be used in real military assaults.
Are all these things considered “assault weapons”?
If I use a hammer or a car to assault and kill a group of human beings are those going to be considered “assault weapons”?
How far are these anti “assault weapon” extremist willing to go with their “assault” terminology?
The slope is very slippery, try not to rationalize that which is nothing but propaganda rhetoric designed specifically to get their base to not think logically and get emotionally fired up.
But the AR-15 is a rifle that even in its basic presentation could compete with a military-style rifle. If you look up videos on YouTube you can see that with a few modifications it can be made into a weapon quite suitable for combat.
Still, the NRA position is the most coherant: https://youtu.be/2OhBBC_Cyeo
The fact that people emotionally brand it an ‘assault rifle’ does not change the fact that it is simply a good dependable and versatile weapon that could be used benignly in home defense or in a civil conflict situation and that it is quite similar to the sort of rifle issued to the miltary except that the civilian model is not automatic.
But I merely repeat what has been said a thousand times already.
Alizia Tyler wrote, “But the AR-15 is a rifle that even in its basic presentation could compete with a military-style rifle.”
So can my Browning BAR 30-06 that was based on the WWII Browning designed BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle). In fact my BAR is far more accurate with my custom loads than the WWII BAR and it can compete with virtually any military grade sniper rifles with the exception of the 50cal.
Alizia Tyler wrote, “If you look up videos on YouTube you can see that with a few modifications it can be made into a weapon quite suitable for combat.”
Operative words “with a few modifications”. Are you talking about modifications that make it a machine gun and therefore illegal for the average citizen to posses?
Point: My Remington Model 700 BDL bolt action rifle is combat ready right now, in fact anything that shoots or cuts is “combat ready”.
Oh don’t get me going with debates on the Browning 30.06. I’ve got my hands full defending Christendom from the neo-pagans!
I completely see and completely understand your point. Makes perfect sense to me.
Obviously, the scared, terrified, and somewhat clueless masses do not know how to understand the 1A issue in such a way that they would grasp that an attack on it will progressively lead to attacks on the other amendments.
So they are susceptible to trigger-terms like ‘assault weapon’. Too bad they can’t call it a ‘Nazi Rifle’, eh?
One small detail is, I suppose, the issue of high capacity magazines. Your Browning and your Remington, do they have high capacity magazines?
It seems to me that in a combat situation, or a civil conflict involving NSA drones swarming down like bats, that one distinguishing feature between a ‘typical’ civilian weapon and a militaryready weapon is the magazine capacity. Would you kindly pontificate upon this point a little?
You want to intelligently discuss magazine capacity as it relates to the United States Constitution then you must understand what is written in this epic blog post first: Putting Gun Control In Perspective: The Second Amendment’s Purpose, And How To Protect It. Pay particular attention to discussion about “the Founders intent in the balance of force is that the common man certainly at a minimum has the right to bear an equal firearm to the standard infantryman.”
Then spend some quality time with this comment of the day.
But why? Seems like that could even justify a nuke? I see no purpose to an auto or semi-auto weapon. Or any weapon that has a rapid fire in the hands of a civilian.
Why? Because in the founding of this country, ordinary citizens had to fight the infantrymen of the tyrannical government they were opposing. Thus, the founders wisely chose to preserve that ability against future aggressors (foreign or domestic). At the time it was written, private citizens owned cannons and warships, and had put them to use in the revolution. I don’t think the founders saw any limit on the rights protected by the second amendment (a theory bolstered by the rather strong language used “shall not be infringed”).
As to “no purpose” for a semiauto weapon, is it your opinion that that also applies to police officers (who are also civilians)?
Years ago when I looked into this issue I remember reading arguments quite like that: the logic of the 2A was understood to mean that a citizen must have access to an armament equal to that of a state soldier. Back in those days that was only a certain sort of rifle. Not sure why other cannon-like arms were not also considered. In any case, it has been ‘grandfathered in’ as a fact of society and culture that citizens can own guns and there are just a few restrictions.
But my point was different. Because my interest is seeing and understanding the present, how people think and perceive, and how they organize their perception, I merely wanted to say that there is a difference between a single fire Browning or 30.06 and a modern miltary-style or miltary-knock-off rifle that also allows high-capacity magazines. I fully understand the logic behind the citizen’s right to have those magazines, and my only purpose is to see clearly how average people, and also cynical advocates of gun control and 2A infringement, see these weapons as ‘assault weapons’. Which they most certainly are even absent the automatic or rapit fire (3 shot burst) capacity.
Rick, only need to see through a dystopic lens and an answer will be found as to why any citizen has a constritutional right to possess AR-15s and comparables. The purpose of the 2A was not for ‘play’ nor for decoration but for the very real situation of having to fight against an oppressive government. There is no other purpose. That is the purpose. Citizens have a right to bear arms and if the need arose to use them against oppressive government.
I think the argument begins, and ends, there.
Why not restrict civilian arms to muskets, then? As technology advances, as the police state and army improve their weapons, civilian options have to keep pace, or the right is illusory.
Why? To keep pace? Is an insurrection around the corner? With technological advancements in ground pounders then the civilian couterpart would be right out of Si-Fi nightmares. Sorry, Jack, that whole argument is just nonsensical to me.
Why right back at you. Jefferson had healthy suspicion of all government. We saw the IRS used to warp an election. We have seen judges block lawful executive orders. We have watched the FISA process abused. We have seen the Democratic arty announce that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t matter. Increasingly colleges support restrictions on speech. Hillary Clinton tried to rig an election. The Fifth Estate is no longer a watch dog, but an organ of one political party, the one that increasingly acts and sounds as if it will undermine American institutions. Public trust of the government was 70% when I was in school–it’s less than half that now, and for good reason.
The possibility of resistance with armed force is vital as a symbol that the citizens of this nation are not subjects. Are there things you will fight for even if you know you’ll lose? In my case, absolutely. The US was outgunned in the Revolution. As I’ve pointed out, all of the Iron Curtain nations’ armies could have crushed the public: they didn’t want to go through that.
Frankly, I don’t see what’s so hard to get. The government has no business telling a citizen that he or she has to be helpless and defenseless unless the government deigns to rescue him. In Baltimore and during the Rodney King riots, the police just stood down, and let the looting go on. Do you want an AR-15…or better…if your life’s work is at risk and the government is AWOL? I do. What’s nonsensical?
Why? To keep pace? Is an insurrection around the corner? With technological advancements in ground pounders then the civilian couterpart would be right out of Si-Fi nightmares. Sorry, Jack, that whole argument is just nonsensical to me.
It is an interesting question. There was in fact, fairly recently, the beginnings of insurrectional conflict: in the Sixties. There were insurrectionist nationalist movements all over Latin America and many of your own intellectuals saw their role as fighting on the home-front in order to usher in the revolution which was to be led by a Black vanguard.
I seem to remember that there was a substantial ‘militia-movement’ in the US that gathered together arms, had a distinct political philosophy, and saw themselves as ‘fighting the good fight’ against a tyrranical state power.
The events of 9/11, depending of course on how they are interpreted (so difficult, so problematic that they cannot even be broached) led to a situation in which the state felt it necessary to undermine quite substantially many Constitutional protections.
Then, more recently, there was all that crazy stuff about NSA spying, which is to say nothing else but government-military-intelligence preparations for …
You can sort of understand why, in the best of all possible circumstances, the governing powers would much rather have an unarmed populace!
A civilian population against our military would be a duck shoot based on technology. I don’t buy into the whole Red Dawn premise. Would the question be would the military fire upon civilians? That is the key. And just what circumstances would cause such a situation? I did notice no foil available today at the supermarket.
Rick M. wrote, “A civilian population against our military would be a duck shoot based on technology.”
This argument is based on an absurd assumption that that kind of condition would ever exist. The reality is that because the military is made up of civilians, the military would be just a fractured as the civilian population. For your argument to be “reality” then the Constitution would already have been destroyed and a dictatorship would exist.
Rick M. wrote, “I don’t buy into the whole Red Dawn premise.”
Then you are tactically ignorant. You need to learn about the French, Polish, etc resistance during WWII. Wars are not fought only on the front lines with military toe-to-toe with military.
Rick M. wrote, “Would the question be would the military fire upon civilians?”
I think the answer is two fold, it depends on if they are fired upon by civilians and if their commanding officer orders them to fire on civilians. There are such things as illegal orders that should not be followed.
Rick M. wrote, “I did notice no foil available today at the supermarket.”
Did you need more to fabricate yourself a new hat?
You do understand I am discussing the legislative process.
Rick M. wrote, “You do understand I am discussing the legislative process.”
Sure Rick I understand that’s your argument in some of your comments, but certainly not all of them. I quote exactly what I’m addressing so take things I say in that context and not necessarily in a broader context.
To be clear; my comment about changing the Constitution to strip individual rights should be taken in the broadest context possible. I don’t care how stripping individuals of their Constitutional rights – any of them – is presented, through illegal confiscation, jail for outspoken individuals, closing courthouses, martial law, legislative process, it doesn’t matter which right is being stripped or how, it won’t go over well in the United States.
With the current political fractures in our society, there is no way to get a legislative majority to strip individual Constitutional rights.
That was why I mentioned Red Dawn. If you wish to play history games examine the resistance. If operation Uranus had failed what would have been the eventual outcome of the resistance? After all, with the advancing Soviet armies, they most certainly had a significant role, but the Germans also had shown an ability to neutralize resistance.
My comment on military action against civilians was in the realm of extreme remote, but if that happened a civilian population would not stand a chance unless you could outfit a few Lear jets as air support.
Rick M. wrote, “If operation Uranus had failed what would have been the eventual outcome of the resistance?”
I usually don’t play what if games and this one is no exception. No one can definitively say what would have happened to the resistance, only what they think might have happened.
Rick M. wrote, “My comment on military action against civilians was in the realm of extreme remote, but if that happened a civilian population would not stand a chance unless you could outfit a few Lear jets as air support.”
So all your arguments about such things are nonsense predictions drummed up to somehow justify disarming the public because they couldn’t fight effectively? Well Rick, if you disarm the public prior to these theoretical conflicts it’s absolutely certain they will not be able to fight effectively and they become sheep.
…and speaking of tin foil! I do not see any ability against a “future soldier.” No, Zoltar, I love alternate histories and “what if’s” although I do avoid Turtledove.
I realize you are (assumption) a Constitutional Conservative and again I fall back on that very document being subject to change. And most certainly open to SCOTUS interpretation. What is coming is restrictive gun laws and the battle will be over just how restrictive?
Rick M. wrote, “…and speaking of tin foil!”
I’m curious what that was referring to.
Rick M. wrote, “I do not see any ability against a ‘future soldier.’ “
What are you trying to say?
Rick M. wrote, “No, Zoltar, I love alternate histories and “what if’s” although I do avoid Turtledove.”
Again, what are you trying to say?
Rick M. wrote, “I realize you are (assumption) a Constitutional Conservative…”
If all you’re trying to say is I support the Constitution, as is, and it doesn’t need to be changed in anyway that strips individuals of rights then okay that’s a fair statement. That said; I really don’t think that supporting the Constitution, as is, is just a Conservative viewpoint, I know lots of Liberals that support it, as is. On the other hand; I don’t currently personally know of any Progressive that thinks the Constitution shouldn’t be changed to strip individuals of some right that they don’t agree with so it more conforms to their world view.
Rick M. wrote, “…I fall back on that very document being subject to change.”
That’s your emotional anti-gun side suppressing your logical side.
Rick M. wrote, “And most certainly open to SCOTUS interpretation.”
As it should always be.
Rick M. wrote, “What is coming is restrictive gun laws and the battle will be over just how restrictive?”
That’s your opinion. My opinion differs. Who will be correct, who will be incorrect?
I know Progressives right now that openly state without any hesitation that anyone that wants to own or currently owns a firearm is mentally ill and a danger to society and they don’t think there is any reason to waste any time going to court to get them declared a danger to society, just put them on a list that can’t own a firearm and be done with it. One of these Progressives is a licensed Psychiatrist, do you really think that that kind of blatant bias hasn’t caused this Psychiatrist to slide down the slippery slope.
I’m just waiting for anti-gun zealots to stand outside gun shops with protesting signs saying “Only Insane Murderers Enter Here”, take photos of anyone that goes in and make claims against their sanity forcing perfectly innocent and sane people to defend themselves against such accusations in court. There were some others that said they would put signs in the yards of gun shop patrons telling everyone that the residents were mentally ill, had guns, and the neighborhood wasn’t safe because of it. Don’t laugh Rick, I’ve heard these kind of things openly talked about as a way to close gun shops and harass gun owners.
FYI: I’ve said since they day they were released to the public that bump stocks should have the exact same restrictions as any other mechanical device that makes a firearm fire as if it is an automatic firearm. It’s literally an add-on mechanical device that mechanically alters the function of the firearm and makes a semi-automatic firearm an automatic firearm. As far as I’m concerned, adding this is not restricting firearms any more than they currently are. I don’t a bump stock and I’ll not purchase one.
This is one of those situations I often encounter where I feel I should not say anything, but I feel compelled to say something. Years ago I read a book about the protracted FBI assault on the Pine Ridge Reservation and the clandestine war that was waged by the FBI. It was all connected to that troubled era or rebellion and insurrection in America. There was AIM (American Indian Movement) and other groups and they were, literally, up in arms.
The Indians were not really doing anything, and my understanding is that the FBI was called in to disrupt their organization to resist the inroads coropations were making to have access to mining rights and such. They wanted to eliminate the faction that wanted to limit access. And there was another faction far more disposed to cooperation. They worked to destroy the former, and they did so very successfully. Do you understand the implications of this? A state police, operating clandestinely, employing military-op tactics more proper to foreign wars against ‘the populace’?
The book outlined a special operations, counter-intelligence, black-ops and psych-ops against this movement on the reservations and it revealed all the tools and tactics of a military, para-military national police.
Now, you might take the side of the State, or you might take the side of the Reservation Indians, but this is not the point. The point has to do with the State and with power. I am very sorry (I actually feel guilty as I often do here) to point this out to you but these sorts of powers exist and they are used in this world. And the US government is a the top in terms of knowledge, skill and power.
Maybe you see a National Police operating para-militarily as a necessity? And you excuse them? Fine. This I understand. I am a naturalized American citizen but I live in Colombia now (my parents lmoved here having left Venezuela some years ago, first to the US and then to Bogota) and this is a place where you can literally see the armed State. On the highways, stopping and patting down people in transit. It used to be ‘worse’ if I can put it like that. But things are infinitely better now because the country is ‘pacified’.
But I was in Cali, Colombia when the FARC blew up the police headquarters with a truck bomb in 2007. I was only a few miles away but the blast woke me up. I have no sympathy for the FARC I should say.
And though these things I imagine frighten you, and though you cannot even imagine such things within (what I sense in you is) a bubble of safety imagined or real, in actual truth there are rumblings going on, especially in your own country. If you wish to see this as the stuff of madmen wearing tin-foil hats, you can. (And you can order tinfoil on Amazon). But I would only suggest to you that you get out of your bubble and try to see the ‘real world’. Behind the scenes, right now, your own government is highly aware of the unstable political situation in your own country and it is now developing plans to deal with things should ‘social unrest’ break out.
At the same time I think it is fair to say that ‘the deep state’, allied with whatever sector it is allied with, through its media mouthpiece, is revealing that it senses a somewhat deadly political struggle is going on.
No one quite knows what to think of the present. And if you do I would surely hope that you would explain it to me!
Yet within this context, within the present, and not only abstractly as a bit of philosophy, one has to think about Constitutional rights and the Second Amendment. Oddly, it must be an aspect of citizenship to hold to and to protect that amendment, not lazily and dreamingly surrender it.
I’m finally starting to get caught up a little bit.
Rick M. wrote, “Seems like that could even justify a nuke?”
Rick how did you your brain twist “the Founders intent in the balance of force is that the common man certainly at a minimum has the right to bear an equal firearm to the standard infantryman” into an absurd statement like “seems like that could even justify a nuke”? Seriously Rick that’s extrapolating an argument to completely absurd levels of hyperbole.
Rick M. wrote, “I see no purpose to an auto or semi-auto weapon. Or any weapon that has a rapid fire in the hands of a civilian.”
There is something the United States has that is a bit unique Rick, our Constitution. Here’s how it works Rick; I can say that I see no purpose to anti-gun rants or any leftist anti-gun brainwashing propaganda that can be rapid fired out of the mouth of civilian and it makes no difference, the Constitution says the government and I can’t stop it; similarly, you can say that you “see no purpose to an auto or semi-auto weapon”, “or any weapon that has a rapid fire in the hands of a civilian” and it makes no difference, the Constitution says the government and you can’t stop it.
To be very blunt Rick, the Constitution is not built around what YOU think has civilian purpose.
If we are going to start the slow destruction of the Constitution then why don’t we start with destroying the right of people to say things that I disagree with. 😉
The Constitution is an evolving document and subject to change. And – again – I see zero purposes for any high powered weapon. Seems like the only think they are good for is in the hands of isiots or would be idiots.
Rick M. wrote, “The Constitution is an evolving document and subject to change.”
Go ahead and try to change it by literally stripping people of their rights and see how far you get.
Rick M. wrote, “And – again – I see zero purposes for any high powered weapon.”
When looking at the world through permanently attached industrial-strength weapons-grade thickened ideological blinders it’s kinda hard to see reality staring you in the face.
Rick M. wrote, “Seems like the only think they are good for is in the hands of idiots or would be idiots.”
Was it your intent to sound like a true blue ideologically blinded Progressive imbecile just for “fun” or is that your real opinion?
True blue? What in the world do you know about my politics? You make an assumption which is nothing new. I happen to be a one-trick pony on this issue I don’t like guns. I like restricted measures on guns
Now since you seem to be on a progressive fixation if you lined me up with say five issues that progressives ardently believe in the only one that I would find any compassion for would be restrictive gun legislation.
Rick McNair wrote, “You make an assumption which is nothing new. “
Actually Ricky, I asked a question “your intent to sound like a true blue ideologically blinded Progressive…” because that is exactly what you sounded like. As they say in the real world, own it.
Rick McNair wrote, “You make an assumption which is nothing new. “
Really? Are you just trolling with that one? How about you back that up claim with some facts.
Rick McNair wrote, “I happen to be a one-trick pony on this issue I don’t like guns. I like restricted measures on guns”
Even if it violates the Constitution?
Rick McNair wrote, “Now since you seem to be on a progressive fixation if you lined me up with say five issues that progressives ardently believe in the only one that I would find any compassion for would be restrictive gun legislation.”
Seriously Rick, think about it, why do you think I asked if it was your intent to sound like a Progressive rather than to say your a Progressive? You’ve read my comments, I don’t coddle, don’t you think I would have stated it outright if I thought you were a Progressive?
By the way; Progressives have a bad habit of labeling anyone that disagrees with them on anything a Conservative, so using Progressive logic we can call you a Progressive regardless of your other opinions. 😉
Oops, bad proof read not catching my bad grammar.
“…rather than to say your a Progressive?”
…should be
“…rather than to say you’re a Progressive?”
Don’t discuss your problems with “grammar” as I can be the master of WTF when I write. At least you catch yours.
Usually, Zoltar, when value judgments are made towards me (True Blue) it is the end of a discussion, but since I am entrenched with my gun stance I can understand you 100% misconception. So, I will go forward on that, so you are perfectly clear.
On another thread, I said I was a part-time Libertarian, but I could also have said part-time conservative or part-time progressive/democrat/liberal – or whatever they call themselves. As you can see part-time would apply to this and certainly apply to each niche depending upon the issue. Easy to make those value judgments since I receive mailers from the NRA and from far-left organizations. So forget about a firm and concrete foundation in my political philosophy.
With the issues of guns, I have explained my position many times on this board and I receive the usual blowback here and elsewhere that I am accustomed to. And I will repeat for you and others the markings and the juggernaut for change has begun and it will only increase in traction. And, again, I see zero purposes for having weapons of such force. Live with that, but also live with the fact the dynamics have now changed and changed dramatically.
Rick M. wrote, “…when value judgments are made towards me (True Blue) it is the end of a discussion, but since I am entrenched with my gun stance I can understand you 100% misconception.”
There was no misconception, only a question based on an observation. Don’t extrapolate to absurdity, read it for exactly what it says.
Rick M. wrote, “…forget about a firm and concrete foundation in my political philosophy.”
If you think I’m dumping you into a narrow category politically, you’re incorrect. Are you clearly entrenched in a narrow political category with gun control, yup, so am I; the difference between you and I on that front is that I’m on the side of supporting individual Constitution rights, you are not.
By the way, some of my view float across partisan political divisions too, I have no problem with that.
My assumption was based on how you responded with true blue and progressive. That was not a leap, but a baby step.
Rick: “A civilian population against our military would be a duck shoot based on technology. I don’t buy into the whole Red Dawn premise. ”
Red Dawn is a false analogy. In a (in)civil war, the battleground is the entire nation. The soldiers have families too, within reach of the insurgents.
Once the military fires on civilians, and kills innocents (collateral damage) how long do you think it will be before someone leaks, steals, or researches the home addresses of the families of those troops? Do you think that the ravages of war will spare the families of troops who kill innocent Americans? This is a far different situation than Red Dawn Cuban troops whose families are safe at home.
There would never be a stand up battle where the military’s advantage could be decisive. Read about how Afghanistan and Iraq layed out against the most powerful military on the planet. Sniping, hit and run, sabotage, and supply line raiding would destroy the military’ ability to fight.
My deer rifles are more powerful than an AR 15 (well, the ones that are NOT an AR 15 clone, anyway.) So are you going to come for them next, Rick? You would have to at that point.
What would a tactical nuke do? And just how repressive would a government be? Frankly, Willy, the whole idea goes into the realm of apocalyptic literature.
That was ‘played out’ not ‘layed out’
Arg
Didn’t notice or my mind adjusts. I usually pay little attention to construction errors since we are all prone to them on quick posting. With me, it comes down to “I know what he (or she) means.” And verbal stuff on the phone? Some of that stuff is a hoot.
Rick,
I do not understand the Tac nuke or repressive government comment, and cannot engage. Could you be a little more descriptive?
It has to do with the argument that one reason for high powered weapons in civilian hands is to keep pace with current levels of technology. That we no longer use muskets so why not the higher profile weapons – just in case we need them for an oppressive government. So, just keep the train moving forward. Tactical nukes. Here is a link to the current level of battlefield deployment. What will it be like in five years? The whole “keep pace” argument just leaves me cold.
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-the-worlds-smallest-nuk-1684923814
What individual soldiers bear tactical nuclear weapons into combat?
This is an interesting Cold War view of some “stuff.”
https://gizmodo.com/the-davy-crockett-tac-nuke-king-of-the-wild-cold-war-f-1566376606
I think those were crew served weapons. What about arms borne in battle by individual soldiers…?
I have no idea what the level of miniaturization is regarding battlefield weapons. If it keeps pace with other weapon systems there may be some amazing stuff in the toolbox. But, seriously, do you actually think civilians would have access to such crap? The idea behind it was simply where do you stop? How do you keep pace? Why would you want to? But to some the high powered weapons are “necessary.” Wonderful.
Do you believe in checks and balances? If yes, what is the final check on a government gone bad…the conscience of that government or the conviction of the people?
It would depend on your view. There were some who viewed Obama and his policies as the end all. Now I see the same only magnified by the left. What I see is not the end of days. We are a strong country with enough grit. I see no revolts for the immediate future.
I don’t think this is relativistic. Whatever you think “bad government” is, we can all agree that something is “bad government”. What do you believe is the check and balance against bad government? That government’s conscience or the empowerment of the people?
Nukes are not standard infantryman fair, nor are crew served weapons. Select fire weapons are vastly expensive, and regulated heavily, but available if you are rich enough.
Here in Texas you can own a flamethrower. How many have been killed by mass flame thrower attacks? (Hint: zero)
You can own a tank as well. Fully functional weapons and all. No mass attacks, despite such vehicles in the hands of civilians. You can even rent them!
http://www.drivetanks.com
My first real experience in Texas was about 25 years ago. We paid a visit to my Aunt in Helotes and the kids wanted to go horseback riding. Off to Bandera. My wife took them while I went to the supermarket to get some grub for a picnic. Walking the aisle I saw this one character with a shoulder holster. He had on a clerical collar. Almost relocated to Hill Country when we retired.
I just cannot buy into the logic of increasing firepower as a countermeasure to a scenario I find highly implausible.
Tragedy often has unintended consequences and the latest will start the legislative ball and probably the mindset ball rolling for extensive restrictions.
“I just cannot buy into the logic of increasing firepower as a countermeasure to a scenario I find highly implausible.”
Rick, with all due respect, the Texas Hill Country is not the place for you to retire to. These sort of people do not go where they know others are armed. They want to kill many people, not get shot after the first kill. Notice the crime rate (taking out the Texas Blue cities) is very low in rural Texas.
Austin, on the other hand, would be far more palatable for you.
You could classify Austin as Hill Country. Like a Cambridge in Texas? But I would rather reside in a Turkish prison than Cambridge. Our Texas move is long gone. I had land in Helotes and the condo in Galveston (wife loves the beach), but now she prefers to stay here. I could easily live in Hill Country. Beautiful area, but San Antonio is starting to encroach.
The issue is the use of the term “Assault Rifle”, which actually has a definition.
An AR-15 is not selective fire, so it is not an “assault rifle”
Assault Weapon is a made up term, that does not have a definition, and the definition of assault weapon changed from year to year and state to state. It is primarily a propaganda tactic to make things sound scary to people who do not have the technical knowledge to know better, and then expand the idea to other weapons and easy ban them with public support.
It is kind of like calling a hunting rifle a sniper rifle. there is not much difference, but they use the term to scare people.
The term he used was “assault rifle” which has a specific military meaning. The term “assault weapon” was intentionally chosen by the gun control lobby so that people would conflate it with “assault rifle”, but actually means pretty much whatever they want it to mean. See the case of Joseph Pelleteri in NJ, who went to prison for possessing a Marlin 60 .22lr rifle which NJ deemed an “assault rifle”.
The 1994 ban did not ban rifles so much as *features*
So you could have an AR 15, just not with a flash suppressor, or a carry handle, or pistol grip. Here is what Wiki says:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.
The Ruger mini 14 is the same weapon with wood furniture (stock, hand guards) so it was fine (does not scare liberals as much lol)
This is where we get the flat top AR 15s (better for using a scope anyway) and the ones without flash suppressors.
Notice that none of the restrictions change what the gun is.
In other words, the ban was cosmetic, and therefor bullshit.
Let’s look past his substantive error in the term “assault rifle” and consider what else wrong he’s doing here:
He’s essentially making a strawman argument. What is he talking about “kids speaking respectfully”? I mean, I have my ideas of what he’s talking about, but I don’t want to post them here in case I’m in error. But the abstract summary is this: If the kids in question are indeed making bad points or indeed are behaving uncivilly in their discussions, then yes, it is perfectly ethical to point out their bad form. If this is the case, then the Lieu is making further implied rationalizations that “These are not ordinary times”.
Humble Talent, on twitter poses something to think about. Everyone keeps saying 17 kids were killed in Florida. This isn’t true, it was 14 children and 3 adults. This does not diminish the heinousness (heineity? heinosity?) of the crime one iota, but it is an subtle additional misrepresentation designed to add just a tiny bit more to the emotions of the situation.
Should this tiny error be called out or allowed to slide?
I don’t know Michael, when I flagged this I gave equal credence to the possibilities where either the people saying “17 kids” didn’t know adults were part of that number, because they were remaining purposefully ignorant (let’s be real… Has anyone not seen the story of the gym teacher who jumped between the shooter and his students? How can you not know about him if you’re following the coverage?), or they knew that they were saying, but made the decision to say those words anyway, with the deliberate intention of misleading people, because children tug on the old heartstrings so much better than gym teachers (I’m going to call that the “Leiu Manoeuvre” going forward.).
At the time, I said that when being described, the choice between ignorant or dishonest isn’t really the kind of situation you want to be in. Having thought of it, I think Lieu’s Manoeuvre is a big part of how the left maintains certain narratives on a lot of their pet projects: They know the truth doesn’t necessarily support them, but it’s not important that they be RIGHT, it’s important that they be VIRTUOUS, and that other people SEE them being VIRTUOUS. And what’s more virtuous than going to bat for the Children? Won’t someone DO SOMETHING? Won’t somebody think of the CHILDREN?!? We’ve got 17 dead kids here guys!
This is exactly why Ben Shapiro was able to Dismantle Piers Morgan on his show: The left likes standing on the corpses of children to put forward their policy positions, whether the policies would actually have made a difference or not, whether the children were real or not, and if anyone left of center wants to take umbrage at that, well then you tell me: Tell me why it is that your compatriots are lying, because that’s at the very least what the Lieu Manoeuvre was. At the very best, explain to me why proponents of gun control remain woefully ignorant on guns, why it is that they barely know the shootey end of a rifle from the grippey end? Why Hillary Clinton thought the Las Vegas Shooting would have been MORE deadly had the shooter used a “silencer”? Why your proponents continually use terms like “automatic weapons” to describe weapons that aren’t automatic, “Assault rifles” to describe weapons that aren’t assault rifles, and “assault weapons” to describe anything, because it doesn’t. And then explain to me which of your “common sense” gun control measures would have prevented or even mitigated this situation.
Because if you can’t do that, why the hell should I listen to you about anything else?
Yep.
THIS
Like the “I am a walrus” reference.
Unfortunately, even for a walrus (I assume), LANGUAGE MATTERS. If it didn’t the English language would have, say, 10,000 words total to cover everything. Language helps express precise thought, actions, objects, feelings, goals, problems, mathematics and scientific concepts,etc. Clearly this moron doesn’t understand this, or more importantly, just doesn’t care. An idiot, and with the analytic ability of a 7-year old (less of a vocabulary…).
I guess if he wants to call a volcano an earthquake he jolly well will.
I blew it, E2. You reminded me that the Congressman is Humpty-Dumpty, as portrayed by Lewis Carroll in “Through the Looking-Glass”:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”
Here’s a better representative photo of Rep. Ted Lieu
Lieu is definitely a moron.
Is there already a Blazing Saddles Gabby Johnson Award for Utterance of Authentic Frontier Gibberish? I nominate Democrat Ted Lieu from California.
Shoulda included a link…
Zoltar et al,
When it comes to the technical aspects of and differences among various types of guns, I yield to all of you.
However, when it comes to issues of common language, definitions and distinctions, as a former philosophy major I’m going to claim the high ground; those are issues I dealt with in substantive terms for years.
The issue here as stated by Lieu was: “in ordinary conversation, I will use assault rifle interchangeably with assault weapon.”
As it happens, he’s quite right.
For one thing, the legislation officially passed by the US Congress in 1994 was commonly known as The Assault Weapons Ban, and it specifically enumerated the AR-15 as included in the banned category. If the Federal Government uses a name like that, right there that’s a pretty strong claim to common language usage.
But it goes much further. Take a look at a typical article from The Federalist, a very gun-rights-friendly publication: The Assault Weapons Ban Is A Stupid Idea Pushed By Stupid People.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/the-assault-weapons-ban-is-a-stupid-idea-pushed-by-stupid-people/
Now, if The Federalist uses the same common language to refer to the same thing, that is another pretty powerful case example of how “Assault weapon” gets used to refer generally to weapons like the AR-15. In that article, they even use the term “1994 assault weapons law” to serve as a link anchor to the actual legislation. Again – common language, ordinary conversation.
In philosophy, there’s a concept of “a distinction without a difference.” It’s used to refer to call something nitpicking by arguing issues not relevant to the larger issue at hand.
In this case, there are clearly differences, but in ordinary conversation, the distinction is not made – not made by Congress, nor even by The Federalist.
To bring it up to date, earlier today the White House said the following:
““He campaigned for president and was opposed to the assault weapons ban, and his position hasn’t changed on that,” Shah said.”
So the spokesman for the President is using the common language term “assault weapons” in the same way that Lieu did.
This is a case where for the vast majority of the population, in common conversation, the “duck rule” applies: If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and swims like a duck – call it a duck.”
You’re not wrong in making all the technical distinctions you’re pointing out, and as Lieu himself said, it’s important in legislation to be specific. But that was not his point: his point was, in ordinary conversation, the term ‘assault weapon’ is legitimate, common, and accepted.
Thus calling him a moron is simply misplaced rhetoric. In this case, Humpty Dumpty was wrong: you can’t make a word mean what you want it to mean, if the vast majority of the population consider it to mean something else.
I explained why he’s a moron, Charles. He was wrong. He was told he was wrong, and he said he doesn’t care that he’s wrong. Moreover, you can’t say its a difference that doesn’t matter since it does matter. Most people think semi-automatic weapons are automatic weapons. Calling them assault weapons perpetuates that misunderstanding, and is intended to. Philosophers seek the truth. Why are you defending a use of language that intentionally obscures the truth? I don’t get it.
And you’re citing the PRESIDENT’S terminology??? Stipulated: he uses words more sloppily than anyone within memory.
You are making an everybody does it rationalization. OK, the legislation was clumsily drafted. So that becomes the standard now?
Fact: semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons. You used the wrong rule. This isn’t the duck rule. This is Lincoln’s dog leg rule. “How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
Ditto what Jack said!
Jack, if you’re going to use tautologies like “…you can’t say its a difference that doesn’t matter since it does matter,” there’s not much that can be said.
You are confusing two issues by calling them “right” and “wrong.” One has to do with real technical distinctions, which are undoubtedly true and as you and others have stated.
The other is about the common usage of a phrase –”assault weapons” – which as a matter of fact is very widely used. That is also true.
Both are accurate. It’s not a question of one’s right and the other’s wrong, they’re different things. You are trying to conflate them.
Lincoln’s dog/leg fable only works if everyone agrees on the difference between a tail and a leg. That’s true for dogs – we all agree. It’s not true for the phrase “assault weapons,” where the vast majority of people use it casually the way the representative did.
Seriously Charles?!
Didn’t they teach you that when you start off with a false premise you can’t say what is false is true just because some believe it to be true. Using your logic if some can be persuaded that the dogs tail is a leg then it’s appropriate to call the tail a leg.
Logic and philosophy fail.
“Logic and philosophy fail.”
Sigh…yes, apparently they do.
I don’t think the primary ethics failure is the initial mis-use of the term…since people generally get what he was saying. Yes, he was wrong, and that is incompetence…but that is tiny incompetence.
The bigger ethics failure here, which seems to be the hang up, is even though his error was minor, he was corrected.
Then chose to double down on the error, which simultaneously is an ethics breach of its own AND increases the ethics breach of the first error because it shows he *knew* the term to be errant and doesn’t care.
See, before he refused to correct himself, we could forgive a slip of the tongue. When he doubled down, we can only assume he meant deceit in his first comment and did not merely misspeak…
Charles! They use it because they don’t know what the word really means! People mix up statue and statute, ensure and assure, infer and imply. Tat doesn’t mean that the words mean the same thing just because most people misuse them! Jeeez…
It’s a mute point, Jack.
Exactly.
that was funny, OB
Mute point for moot point… and your use implied that it does not matter to those who misuse it
Brevity is the soul of wit… +5
Not only that, but don’t miss that Charles keeps using the term assault weapon – a term which is functionally meaningless. The term misused by Lieu was Assault Rifle; a term with a very specific meaning.
I see that others have made this point as well – I had not read beyond here when I commented.
“In philosophy, there’s a concept of “a distinction without a difference.” It’s used to refer to call something nitpicking by arguing issues not relevant to the larger issue at hand.”
I see. Well…. If that’s true, then when I say “assault weapon” you should know exactly what I meant, right? Because we’re talking about national gun policy, and that discussion is important, and we should all approach the conversation knowing full well what everyone taking part in that conversation means, right? And the difference between the commonly parlanced definition of “assalt rifle” and the actual definition of “assault rifle” is a distinction without difference, right?
And so you should be able to provide a working definition of what an “assault weapon” or an “assault rifle” is, right?
Because the problem with people who barely know the shootey end of guns from the grippey end attempting to redefine technical terms to suit their political narrative is that *they* don’t even know what the hell they’re talking about. Even if you could actually provide a working definition of “assault weapon” what’s the chance that it would even match the definition of someone on the control side of the discussion?
Charles writes: ”This is a case where for the vast majority of the population, in common conversation, the “duck rule” applies: If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and swims like a duck – call it a duck.””
But there you have the ‘real issue’: it is that the common people are not really concerned for precise use of language and also that they will often use and resort to certain, common, rhetorical terms.
The issue is that ‘assault weapon’ is a rhetorical term. The man who used it and says he will continue to use it despite being corrected, is really saying that he wishes to continue to use a hot, charged, rhetorical term. Why? Because hot rhetorical terms are effective.
I personally think the focus on the distinction between the terms applied to this particular weapon and those like it is a waste of time. The AR-15 is a great weapon for a war, for civil conflict, and for home defense, and if it ever came to that, for armed patrols in the neighborhood.
In the event of a civil conflict it would be best if the militia were all using the same weapon. That way, with a comrade fallen, they could use the parts on his weapon on their own rifle. And from what I have read and seen on YouTube the AR-15 is common, dependable and (civil) war-ready.
___________
Now, for those of you with flint locks: I appreciate holding to tradition, that in its way is glorious and noble, but let’s face the facts: it is not going to be that useful when the lefty-government thugs surround the house or, as I pointed out to Zoltar, when the NSA drones are circling overhead, barking commands saying ‘Ceace Movement, Cease Movement! You will be Annihilated! Cease Movement Now!’
It is just a romantic ideal to think that your great great great grandfather’s weapon is going to be of any use.
I think you’re missing a key point, Charles. It’s not that he called the AR-15 an “assault weapon”. It’s that he called it an “assault rifle”, which is a term with a very specific definition that the AR-15 doesn’t meet. He didn’t say, “I’m going to keep calling the AR-15 an assault weapon.”, which would be a somewhat defensible statement for the reasons you outline. He said “I’m going to keep using ‘assault weapon’ and ‘assault rifle’ interchangeably”, even though they have two different definitions, and after that was pointed out to him.
It’s the equivalent of saying “I don’t care. I’m going to keep calling SUVs pickup trucks” even after someone points out that SUVs are lacking a critical feature that defines pickup trucks.
The young man, Sam, who was a part of the group that met with the President said he did not understand how he, an eighteen year old, could legally purchase a weapon of war. He also said he read where a 20 year old gun went into a store, bought an AR, using an expired id. I have to wonder where he heard the gun used was a weapon of war and where he read the latter.
Who knows where he heard it was used as a weapon of war, but if he were curious and wanted to look it up, he would probably run across this pretty quickly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15
The ArmaLite AR-15 is a selective fire rifle, which means that if an 18 year old kid went into a gun shop and bought one, then both he and the store owner are guilty of a crime.
“Selective fire” weapons have the built in option of being either semi or fully automatic and fully automatic weapons have been effectively banned in America for thirty years. Sure, if you had such a weapon before the legislation hit, you were grandfathered in on the weapons you owned, but an 18 year old cannot be grandfathered in on 30 year old legislation, and new sales are absolutely banned.
But don’t let facts get in your way.
Technically not true as the select fire guns are controlled under the NFA which requires a tax stamp to transfer the gun. However, the supply of these guns is so low that the last sale I saw of a select fire Colt made rifle concluded in excess of $30,000.00. They can be had for less depending upon condition, but they are very expensive.
You are effectively correct though given the rarity of these items.
“I have to wonder where he heard the gun used was a weapon of war and where he read the latter.”
This story:
https://thetab.com/us/2016/06/14/i-was-able-to-buy-an-ar-15-in-five-minutes-19833
Which was recently recirculated by Chris Cuomo (I think).
Make of that ad hoc “sting” operation what you will.
I mean…. We’re all aware that was fake news, right? He wasn’t able to buy a gun, he was able to hold some in the store.
He said that when the clerk at the desk offered him the paperwork, he declined and walked away…. If he’d have filled out the paperwork, he would may been rejected, and one way or the other, he wasn’t walking out of that store on that day with the gun. This is only slightly less embarrassing than the story about the journalist last year who tried the same thing, except he was rejected because his CRC came back with an instance of spousal abuse.
*may have been
Yep, it shows the nefarious nature of the media… fake news was promoted by the MSM and now everyone is crowing about Sam’s confrontation of the President…relying entirely on fake news endorsed by Cuomo…
I think we should all take a step back and be mutually embarrassed for/by Gov. Rauner.
In Australia…
Category D
All self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns that have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, semi-automatic rimfire rifles over 10 rounds, are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers.
Category R/E
Restricted weapons include military weapons such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers and anti-tank guns.
The AuSteyr assault rifle in use by the Australian Army is the same as the standard Steyr, but with additional rails for laser spotlight, flashlight, or grenade launcher, and deletes the full auto capability as being of too limited effectiveness to justify the additional wear and tear and ammunition expenditure. There is a setting for 3 Rd bursts. For when auto fire is needed, the 5.56mm Minimi and 7.62mm Maximi automatic weapons are used. The Minimi is arguably an assault rifle under Jack’s definition, despite using a box magazine, bipod, and heavy barrel designed for continuous automatic fire, as it can be fired in a single shot mode.
A nose by any other name would smell, and whether you call something a battle rifle, Avtomat, assault rifle or whatever, whether it looks military like an AKM, science fictiony like an AuSteyr, or civilian like a Ruger Mini-14, if it fires a 5.56/.223 round that was designed purely for killing humans, and is capable of 30 aimed shots per minute, is light enough for children to use and small enough to put in a suitcase, it’s the same animal. Distinctions without differences.
Some history
Armalite produced the AR-10 and AR-15 assault rifles* specifically and solely for military use. The AR-15 required a new military round, the Remington .223 (M198 5.56mm in US service, different from the SS109 NATO 5.56mm in minor ways. You can shoot a NATO round with a weapon chambered for a Remington .223 with some minor loss of accuracy, but it’s dangerous to shoot an M198 round from a NATO rifle as it exceeds max safe chamber pressure)
Armalite went under, and Colt bought the IP, producing the Colt Armalite AR-15. Colt then produced a civilianised version and marketed it as the Colt AR-15™ . This is the only weapon that is properly referred to as an AR-15, the SIG-Sauer .223 used in Los Angeles, and the Smith and Wesson .223 used in Florida, are not AR-15s, they just use exactly the same mechanism as the Colt AR-15™ and have many interchangeable parts with it and its military siblings. Including the original AR-15 assault rifle.
* – arguably the only assault rifles ever produced were the MP44 and Fg42 Sturmgeweher (“assault rifle” in German). The AK-47 is an Avtomat, not an Assault rifle, though Avtomat is customarily translated as that. Even though the Avtomat Federov, the first in the line used a 6.5mm Arisaka round, much smaller than the .30-06, 7.62, 7.95, and .303 full sized rounds, though standard for the underpowered Japanese rifles of WW2. Intermediate ? A matter of opinion. If so, the AF-15 was the first Russian assault rifle, rather than the better known AK-47, and Avtomat translates well as Assault Rifle. If not, it doesn’t. Except in common parlance, as the English language evolves.
“You can shoot a NATO round with a weapon chambered for a Remington .223 with some minor loss of accuracy, but it’s dangerous to shoot an M198 round from a NATO rifle as it exceeds max safe chamber pressure.”
Maybe reverse that…
No maybe about it, you’re right, I’m wrong. Thanks for the correction.
My take of this exchange of tweets is as follows.
Congress Member Lieu tweeted,
“How quaint that some folks are more concerned about kids speaking respectfully than the fact that 17 kids were slaughtered with an assault rifle.”
My interpretation of the above tweet is that Lieu, finds it quaint that some people suggest that the kids either speak respectful or don’t speak at all.
However, in the above tweet he made the mistake of writing ‘assault rifle’ Several people corrected the Congressman, and explained that his terminology referred to banned, military automatic weapons, not the semi-automatic AR-15. Wrote co-founder of “the Federalist,” Sean Davis,
“You said “assault rifle” … Words mean things. If you don’t know which words mean which things, don’t use those words”
If the tweet was mend as a neutral tweet pointing out some technicality regarding the usage of language it would have been better to tweet something like,
Congress Member Lieu, you used the term ‘assault rifle’, this is not the correct label for the weapon used. The AR-15 is defined as a semi-automatic weapon.
But the way Davis formulated his tweet it could easily be interpreted as, ‘by using the wrong words you disqualified yourself for this conversation. STFU’.
Now, how quaint it would be for Lieu that after he tweeted “How quaint that some folks are more concerned about kids speaking respectfully than the fact that 17 kids were slaughtered with an assault rifle.” that some folks are more concerned about him using the term ‘assault rifle’ than the fact that 17 kids were slaughtered with a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle, aka (by the common people) as an assault rifle.
What would anybody expect Lieu to respond at Davis’ tweet? Something like,
My dear fellow Americans. In my previous tweet I used the term ‘assault rifle’ Boy was I wrong. Anybody with a tiny bit of knowledge of assault weapons knows that the AR-15 is of course a semi-automatic weapon. Thanks mr. Davis, co-founder of “the Federalist, for pointing this out. I stand corrected.
Well, I don’t.
As Jack wrote, Lieu’s signature significance reply was,
“NO. I will keep saying assault rifle if I feel like it. I will not let you define what I can or cannot say. In any statute, the term assault weapon or assault rifle would be defined. But in ordinary conversation, I will use assault rifle interchangeably with assault weapon.”
My translation is,
Lieu is a politician, he is in a conversation with his constituency, he has a position on the matter of gun-control, he is not willing to have his conversation with his constituency defined by an opponent on this issue.
From Lieu’s position, the main point of his tweet is completely unchanged or effected by the difference between between ‘assault rifle’ and ‘semi-automatic rifle’.
My conclusion: Lieu’s tweets do NOT conclusive proof that he is a moron.
You may be right, that these two tweets are not conclusive proof that Ted Lieu is a moron. The rest of his Twitter feed and most of his other public statements, however, more than take up the slack in that area.
Heh.
Also: true.
You are of course correct. My thanks for correcting my error.
So… technically it’s not automatic fire, and the accuracy sucks. But not a lot worse than the version which is technically automatic.
The only real difference is that one requires more training and practice to accomplish, the other requires knowing what setting to set the safety to.
The was one of the reasons why these weapons were highly restricted in Australia.
This applies to any semi auto rifle, Sue. I can do the same thing with a pump action if the action will move that loosely and the recoil allowed to cycle the bolt.
Note that this is not useful even in a school hallway, if the targets are being selected or further than 30 feet away. There is NO aiming being done.
Automatic fire is intended to make the other side duck while the rest of your team maneuvers. (it also attracts the wrong kind of attention in combat, but that is not important to our discussion) It is not intended to stop an opponent, except by accident, as in ‘he stepped into a bullet.’
Now, two stage triggers that do not require full reset allow better aiming AND the same rate of fire… and I can Macgyver a rotational trigger pull to take advantage of that. Triggers can be adjusted (they are designed so) and this is not really something you can stop legislatively, minus a confiscation.
Meaning this is ultimately about banning guns.
In the late 1970s, I was a member of a group known as G.A.S.P (Group Against Smoking Pollution) that targeted one change and that was to ban smoking in supermarkets. The path we choose was to approach communities that we felt would be supportive and make it a public health issue. In many communities, the Board of Selectmen act as the BOH and we were successful.
The beginnings were strictly grassroots with a coalition of those impacted by smoking and those with a public health background. The evidence was overwhelming regarding smoking so that issue never was taken seriously. How successful were we? How successful were similar groups across the country? I do believe that question has been answered.
Our one measure was simple “foot in the door” legislation that continued to gain momentum decade after decade. Limiting smoking is now an accepted practice and this is exactly what will happen with guns. It is inevitable. And with guns and the accompanying emotional upheaval, the timeline will be greatly reduced.
The current groundswell will only grow, and the politicians will quickly – as they already have – see the opportunity to take advantage of public fervor. Legislation will be passed, and it will become increasingly restrictive to gun ownership. We have already seen lawsuits. What you are witnessing is a change in mindset that may even eventually impact the Second.
Rick M.
Do you understand that smoking is not a Constitutionally granted right?
Yes, Zoltar, you need a tin foil hat! And, yes Rick, you need a tin foil hat (Zoltar). Just had we view the position. The human response is to just think the other guy is crazy. Don’t take it seriously.
Look up the future soldier with that Google thingie. Not the soldiers who wish to be but the ones who will be the next generation of ground pounders.
I am a zealot and post as the one here on that specific issue. I will not join in any public displays such as the March on the 22nd. That will just be an anti-Trump and anti-Republican crusade.
Seems the way to go on this issue is exactly what I had stated in my post on GASP (anti-smoking) and that is the legislative process. There is a dynamic at play and it will gather traction. Job survival means a world to career politicians. Then there is the NRA.
Some picture the NRA as evil incarnate, but, surprisingly I do not. They are simply representing their membership to the best of their ability. I do not agree with them and certainly, oppose just about anything they come up with, but, like unions, they will represent their membership. That position certainly gets me some interesting feedback from progressives/liberals/democrats.
Now – since this thread has gone way off course I will add this to it. I posted Jack’s blog on the DA on his FB page. A few minutes later it was gone! Must be a computer glitch? I searched for it and just could not find it?