Gun Hub Forums banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,182 Posts
Let me write the rules and I can win any game. Let me define the terms and I can win any debate. The libs have known this for years, and scored heavily with (among others) "Saturday Night special," "assault weapon," and "pro-choice." In the early days of the AW debate we were able to fight back a little by calling them "militia weapons" and then Tim McVey came along and screwed THAT term up the way Hitler ruined Charlie Chaplin mustaches for everyone.

Ah, but the libs got it handed back to them on "partial birth" abortion. What sort of human being could possibly be in favor of "partial birth" abortion?

I always liked Mas Ayoob's term for guns: "Emergency safety rescue equipment." Sounds positively irresponsible NOT to own some, doesn't it?

From now on I shall refer to my AWs as "liberty rifles."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
Sometimes we're our own enemy. I drove by a gun store today with a sign advising "Buy your assault rifle now, before the next ban."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,365 Posts
I don't think we used the word Assault Rifle until after the Anti-Gunners started using it.
We picked up "High Capacity Magazines" from them.
:x
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
When your as passionate about something as alot of us are some times you can get over zelous...if we're not carefull we could be our own worst enemy!
I eoulda had to stop and ask the store owner what the heck was he thinking... :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,812 Posts
The term "assault rifle" is (we all agree) inaccurate. The term is, by definition, perjorative. I prefer the term "Homeland Defense Rifle". I wish I could take credit for the coinage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,807 Posts
"Assault weapons... 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."

--Josh Sugarmann: "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America"
(Washington D.C. Education Fund to End Handgun Violence and New
Right Watch) September 1988, p. 26)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,758 Posts
An Assault Rifle -- first coined by Adolf Hitler-- has been clearly defined as a rifle that shoots an intermediate size cartridge, has selective fire capability and loads from a removable magazine.

An "Assault Weapon" on the other hand can be defined as any weapon that can be used in an assault. Such as a gun, a knife, a car, a baseball bat or even a rapier witt... In some cases.

Ed
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,758 Posts
Re: Ummmmm…

DeanSpeir said:
Ed said:
An Assault Rifle -- first coined by Adolf Hitler
Is that verifiable?
No more or less then you can verify the Strasbourg Tests but I will document at least one source anyway.

"The Story of The Gun" by Sir Ian V. Hogg page 132 paragraph 2.

See Strumgewehr/Assault Rifle.

Ed
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,935 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Ed said:
No more or less then you can verify the Strasbourg Tests…
Hey, hey, hey! I realize that you're still smarting about those freakin' goats, but we have two separate and distinct issues here. Let us not confuse them.

You made a statement, and I asked for supporting documentation… firearms folk are a bit too fond of ascribing to Hitler (The Myth of Nazi Gun Control and Footnotes to The True Face of Gun Control) that which had nothing to do with Hitler. You have provided exactly that which I requested… thank you.

As for Strasbourg, my statements remain:
  1. I have never seen their validity successfully discredited… anywhere.[/*:3nfuhs1h]
  2. It took me but a brief time to learn that not only could they have taken place, where they probably took place, and that there exists a not-so-secret basis for the origins of such a test protocol.[/*:3nfuhs1h]
  3. Whether you believe they happened, or didn't happen, the abstract is what it is, and nothing more… a summary of a report observing the laboratory-contained reactions of 611 lung-shot Alpine goats.[/*:3nfuhs1h]
Now, Ed, what are you suggesting that I need to defend or verify?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,758 Posts
DeanSpeir said:
Ed said:
No more or less then you can verify the Strasbourg Tests…
Hey, hey, hey! I realize that you're still smarting about those freakin' goats, but we have two separate and distinct issues here. Let us not confuse them.
I'm ot smarting over the goats, what's there to smart about? Actually I had never heard of the goat tests before last week.

My point is in verification, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? What constitutes valid verification?

I heard in on rec.guns?

I read it in a book by a famous gunwriter?

I made a phone call and got some info but I can't tell you who, what, when or where?

I saw it on the History channel?

That's my point. I understand you can't always reveal sources and that us outsiders have to judge by history and record who we believe on face value and who we don't (you will note that I put a lot more credence on opinions I receive from TGZ and AMBACK then I do from other sources, that's why I ask so many questions here and rarely ask questions on other fourms but am more likely just to comment. (but I digress)

DeanSpeir said:
You made a statement, and I asked for supporting documentation… firearms folk are a bit too fond of ascribing to Hitler (The Myth of Nazi Gun Control and Footnotes to The True Face of Gun Control) that which had nothing to do with Hitler.
I couldn't agree with you more! One of my own pet peeves. We can't charge "the other side" with lies and exaggerations if we do the same. We must be circumspect in our cause.

That's why I can't get into to many arguments debates on most gun fourms because They expect that If I am a gun rights advocate then of course I buy into the whole right-wing conservative, white, Christian, anti-abortion package, etc. If I differ on any item, then I become a "whining Liberal" and my opinion is worthless! (check out the supposed discussion on the 1911Forum about Leatherman endorsing Kerry and you will see a perfect example.)

DeanSpeir said:
You have provided exactly that which I requested… thank you.
Yes and I list a couple more books and a couple History Channel shows BUT, in all honesty each referrence comes back to Ian Hogg. SO just how valid is that? (I have a lot of respect for Ian Hogg and put more weight in his opinions and assertions just as I do yours and Charlies, etal at TGZ and AMBACK)

DeanSpeir said:
As for Strasbourg, my statements remain:
  1. I have never seen their validity successfully discredited… anywhere.[/*:3vr2duc4]


  1. Right which nethier proves or disproves.

    DeanSpeir said:
    [*]It took me but a brief time to learn that not only could they have taken place, where they probably took place, and that there exists a not-so-secret basis for the origins of such a test protocol.[/*:3vr2duc4]

    [*]Whether you believe they happened, or didn't happen, the abstract is what it is, and nothing more… a summary of a report observing the laboratory-contained reactions of 611 lung-shot Alpine goats.[/*:3vr2duc4]
DeanSpeir said:
Now, Ed, what are you suggesting that I need to defend or verify?
I guess my point is I can't prove or disprove somethings any more than you can.

Ed
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,935 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Ed said:
I made a phone call and got some info but I can't tell you who, what, when or where?
I suspect that this is your interpretation of what I said about The Strasbourg Tests.

If so, you omitted the part about "I satisfied myself."

At no time did I rush in with a cry of "Stop the presses, re-plate the front page… we have news!"

In order to have done anything like that, I would have had to have…
  • …a great deal more than what I developed.[/*:2pm89s4m]
  • …given up two sources who didn't particularly want to be given up.[/*:2pm89s4m]
On top of which is the point I continue to return to… WTF cares? "Strasbourg" continues to be no more and perhaps no less than what it has ever purported to be, a study of the effects of various handgun projectiles in goats who have been lung-shot, not withstanding any assertions by Marshal, Sanow, Libourel, Fackler, Mulroy and, O yes, Dodson.

My career as anything does not hinge in any sense on anything to do with Strasbourg… so I have nothing to verify or validate in that regard.

(In the interests of posterity or whatever eventuality, two other people know what I know about Strasbourg, just in case I get hit with blue ice or the Bulgars with stainless steel molars driving a black Mercedes sedan catch up with me.)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
Hitler is credited in most popular works as the source of the designation Sturmgewehr. The official redesignation from MP44 to StG44 occured in December 1944. Of course, the Maschinenpistole (MP) designation was itself a temporary ruse to trick Hitler as to the true nature of what was previously designated the Maschinenkarabiner (MKb).
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,758 Posts
Daniel Watters said:
Hitler is credited in most popular works as the source of the designation Sturmgewehr. The official redesignation from MP44 to StG44 occured in December 1944. Of course, the Maschinenpistole (MP) designation was itself a temporary ruse to trick Hitler as to the true nature of what was previously designated the Maschinenkarabiner (MKb).
That's the way I always heard it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Dean,
FWIW, I heard the same thing that SpecialED heard...Was on one of the "Tales of the Gun" episodes on the History Chanell...am purty sure that the episode was "German small arms of WWII"...


I am,
DaveslowontheuptakeB.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
I saw it on the History channel?
They occasionally get a howler themselves. My favorite was the "Real CON Air" episode regarding the federal prisoner transfer planes/"airline". While showing a close-up of a specific inmate's profile, the narrator ominously intoned that the abberrant violent tendencies of some of the miscreants included being willing to "kill Leos", like the astrological sign. Silly law-enforcement printouts ARE ALL TO OFTEN STILL IN ALL CAPS, SO THE REFERENCE ON THE PAGE/MONITOR (can't remember which) DIDN'T LOOK LIKE AN ACRONYM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

So, who's more dangerous--a violent felon willing to kill LEOs, or one who likes to kill Leos??? :?:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,758 Posts
Ahh, the Zodiac killler :wink:

Yes, I love the History channel but you have to take it with a grain of salt. (Critical thinking skills as the regulars here are wont to say) They often have shows that contradict each other.

And they can't seem to get enough of the UFO/Philadelphia Experiment/Conspiracy stuff either.

Ed
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,935 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
It all comes down to channels desperate for what is now known as "content," Ed. They care less about "editorial consistency" (actually a concept totally unknown to most cable channel programmers) then about filling otherwise "dead air."

I once wrote for a publishing group… no names, please… that frequently had articles with diametrically opposed POV or information in the same freakin' issue, and not presented as any sort of Point/Counterpoint deal. I finally brought this up with the Editor, a hard-working-under-impossible-conditions fellow, and he tried to defend a particularly egregious example of this by stating that he liked to give readers different points of view to consider.

I was in his doghouse (a frequent occurrence with that group) because I blurted back something to the effect that the reason people picked up the damned gunzines was to be told by people more knowledgeable and experienced than anyone who would rely on a gunzine for meaningful information… I think it was the first of my li'l "critical-thinking skills" rants, because how was the "noob" expected to sort out the polar differences between the themes of Mas Ayoob and Bradley J. Steiner, for example.

Actually, his personal view of gunzines was/is that they are the Saga, Argosy and True "men's adventure magazines" of today, and I think he's onto something!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Conspiricy?? how about the thing that the History Chanell does every year about Kennedy?? I mean GRRRR a WHOLE WEEK OF IT??? UGH!!!!

Real Con Air?? I prefer the one with Nic Cage in it... :D
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top