|
December 04, 2008
Assaulting Weapons
Why semi-automatic rifles are not assault rifles. About 11 minutes. Some shooting involved. H/T Instapundit Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 12.04.08 at 04:59 PM
Comments
Greetings: The Officer does a good job ofn the technology aspect of the problem, but he doesn't address the semantic aspect of the issue. The "assault" in "assault weapon" refers to an infantry assault, which is an attack on a defended or fortified military position. The automatic firing capability provides suppressive firepower to allow the soldiers to advance by pinning down their opposition. Having each infantryman armed with an assault weapon was a major additional capability compared to the previously common semi-automatic individual infantry weapon. The semantic trickery results from the more common use of the word "assault" which is a descriptor for the criminal act of threatening another individual. This subliminal understanding, in my opinion, adds an additional quantum of malice to the weapons and the issue. Regrettably, it is rarely addressed. Thus, when the "banners" and the media insist on calling semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons", whether through ignorance or intant, they gain from not only the deceptive technology confusion, but also the criminal/legal undercurrent. In following on to the "Donna B" comment above, my favorite the how the media doesn't understand the difference between machine guns and assault weapons (sub-machine guns.) 11B40 · December 5, 2008 06:58 PM 11B40, you see a similar effect regarding the term "sniper." Any rifle capable of precision long range fire, or just one with a scope and bipod, is a "sniper rifle." Again, the confusion arises by conflating a military scout sniper and his role with some clown climbing a clock tower, or even the two idiotic goons in DC who "sniped" from a mind boggling range of about fifty yards. Regardless, the banners have already tipped their hand by agitating for controls on "sniper" rifles. Steve Skubinna · December 6, 2008 09:51 PM That's a good point, 11B40. The term is much clearer in the original German. There'd be no confusion if the real thing were consistently referred to as a Sturmgewehr. I regularly suggest the same approach to those who feel the nation needs a strong Leader. comatus · December 7, 2008 08:57 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
December 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2008
November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Privatizing Big Brother?
Arresting The Drug War It Was 67 Years Ago Today More unenforceable edicts and orders? First We Kill All The Drug Users Antidualnationalism Is Your DVD Illegal? Bamboozled Up with crime? The Ford Plant The UAW Won't Allow In America
Links
Site Credits
|
|
My husband and I almost always laugh at news reporters when they talk about guns -- they're all assault rifles. Except the one especially stupid reporter that used the term "assault pistol" one day. My husband was laughing so hard, I got worried he'd choke.