• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

what does the term ASSAULT mean when applied to firearms

TurtleDude

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I reference Goshin's well written Sticky at the top of the Gun forum.

In the latter stages of WWII, German and Soviet Forces were locked in brutal street fighting in urban areas such as Stalingrad. Each side would set ambush points and would set machine guns and riflemen to engage advancing enemy soldiers. Now the traditional way of dealing with a hard point -when tanks were not available-( and in the bombed out, rubble strewn streets in the USSR-big tanks had hard time maneuvering), the usual way of taking it out was to "assault it" by hosing it down with a machine gun or two, while engineers closed the distance and then destroyed the hard point with short range weapons such as a flame thrower, a satchel charge or a bazooka.

However, the machine guns of the time-especially the Soviet Maxims, were heavy and often required several men to man and move them. Machine gunners had a hard time staying up with fast-moving infantry soldiers. But most infantry at the time were armed with bolt action rifles. Though a few had Sub Machine Guns (which were short range fully automatic firearms firing much weaker pistol cartridges) most had much slower firing rifles such as the Mauser 98 or the Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifles-that normally only held several rounds. Both sides tried creating rifles that could not only serve as the main infantry weapon, but also could be used for "assaulting" fixed positions and allowing several soldiers-firing higher capacity carbines, on full auto-to serve as the suppressive fire that allows the flame-thrower or satchel charge team to get close enough to wipe out the opposition.

And these new "assault rifles" fired a less powerful cartridge then the heavy recoiling 8mm (German), 303 (British) 30-06 (US) or 7.62x 54 (USSR) low capacity rifles most countries fielded. Trying to fire those heavy cartridges fully automatically in normal weight rifles was very difficult. However, the new weapon used a more powerful cartridge than the Sub machine Guns since it had to also function as a battle rifle, where soldiers would engage individual targets at ranges up to several hundred meters.

Thus, the term ASSAULT mean a military term of attacking an enemy's defended position and rifles useful for this action had to be able to fire automatically.


So why do anti gun advocates call weapons that are LACKING the FEATURE that makes an ASSAULT RIFLE useful for MILITARY ASSAULT? The only answer I can come up with is that they want the public to think that CRIMINAL ASSAULT is the purpose of these weapons, and several posts on this forum show that.
 
They've generally stopped using that term. Now that call them "weapons of war". As always, the selected term is chosen to elicit a specific emotional response. Those that want to ban them really don't care about the mechanics or the functional use of these weapons because their goal, as they have stated time and again, is to "do something".

They really don't even care if the ban has any appreciable effect on violent crime or homicide rates because, ultimately, the purpose is to set a precedent for future bans of other weapons.
 
Lutherf said:
They've generally stopped using that term. Now that call them "weapons of war". As always, the selected term is chosen to elicit a specific emotional response. Those that want to ban them really don't care about the mechanics or the functional use of these weapons because their goal, as they have stated time and again, is to "do something".

They really don't even care if the ban has any appreciable effect on violent crime or homicide rates because, ultimately, the purpose is to set a precedent for future bans of other weapons.
Click to expand...

True, but some of the leftwing gun banners are clearly claiming that the term assault means a criminal attack on a citizen


Atomic Kid said:
Oh for Christ's sake the lack of the select fire feature is completely meaningless in terms of civilian assaults. Semi auto only is more than sufficient to wreak a tremendous amount of havoc in a very short time. Just look how much damage this relatively inexperienced Dayton shooter was able to do in a matter of mere SECONDS!!! I'll tell you what is really dumb. Any semantics based argument.
Click to expand...
 
If they had a shred of decency or integrity, they would admit that they at least want to ban all detachable magazine-fed semiautomatic weapons. They either (1) believe this and are lying when they say they only want to ban "military style weapons of war," (2) are too stupid for anyone with a quarter of a brain to listen to them, or (3) don't believe any of it, and are just pandering to the stupid people who look up to them.
 
It's one of those words that have magical powers when it's used in discussions relating to guns. Ordinarily civilized people start foaming at the mouth.
 
Any bets on whether the gun control crowd will even post in this thread?
 
What does Jimmy Carter think ? :ind:
 
TurtleDude said:
I reference Goshin's well written Sticky at the top of the Gun forum.

In the latter stages of WWII, German and Soviet Forces were locked in brutal street fighting in urban areas such as Stalingrad. Each side would set ambush points and would set machine guns and riflemen to engage advancing enemy soldiers. Now the traditional way of dealing with a hard point -when tanks were not available-( and in the bombed out, rubble strewn streets in the USSR-big tanks had hard time maneuvering), the usual way of taking it out was to "assault it" by hosing it down with a machine gun or two, while engineers closed the distance and then destroyed the hard point with short range weapons such as a flame thrower, a satchel charge or a bazooka.

However, the machine guns of the time-especially the Soviet Maxims, were heavy and often required several men to man and move them. Machine gunners had a hard time staying up with fast-moving infantry soldiers. But most infantry at the time were armed with bolt action rifles. Though a few had Sub Machine Guns (which were short range fully automatic firearms firing much weaker pistol cartridges) most had much slower firing rifles such as the Mauser 98 or the Mosin-Nagant bolt action rifles-that normally only held several rounds. Both sides tried creating rifles that could not only serve as the main infantry weapon, but also could be used for "assaulting" fixed positions and allowing several soldiers-firing higher capacity carbines, on full auto-to serve as the suppressive fire that allows the flame-thrower or satchel charge team to get close enough to wipe out the opposition.

And these new "assault rifles" fired a less powerful cartridge then the heavy recoiling 8mm (German), 303 (British) 30-06 (US) or 7.62x 54 (USSR) low capacity rifles most countries fielded. Trying to fire those heavy cartridges fully automatically in normal weight rifles was very difficult. However, the new weapon used a more powerful cartridge than the Sub machine Guns since it had to also function as a battle rifle, where soldiers would engage individual targets at ranges up to several hundred meters.

Thus, the term ASSAULT mean a military term of attacking an enemy's defended position and rifles useful for this action had to be able to fire automatically.


So why do anti gun advocates call weapons that are LACKING the FEATURE that makes an ASSAULT RIFLE useful for MILITARY ASSAULT? The only answer I can come up with is that they want the public to think that CRIMINAL ASSAULT is the purpose of these weapons, and several posts on this forum show that.
Click to expand...

We can bicker about the details, but the Vegas shooter was able to fill or injure almost 600 people in a surprisingly short period of time. Forget assault. That’s a freaking weapon of mass destruction. You can tell us we should not base calls for gun control on “need”. But you can’t tell us that’s not assault.
 
Besides, I thought you believed that banning full auto weapons like those used in Stalingrad is unconstitutional. So why are you now acting like this distinction somehow matters to you?

If we could somehow convince you these ARE assault weapons based on whatever definition you want to use, would it make a difference?
 
Rexedgar said:
I’d like to hear the argument for this accessory being available to citizens.


View attachment 67261413
Click to expand...

Wonder how many times this has been used in Chicago for any of the many shootings that happen daily? Hint.... none most likely.
You could make this disappear and it would not change the violent crime problem we have in the United States!
Look at the FBI Crime stats (UCR) Rifles used in homicides 2012-298, 2013-285, 2014-258, 2015-258, 2016-378.
Homicides are somewhere around 10,000 to 15,000 depending on the year. Banning this is just a feel good we
must do something. But the something won't make us safer. Because a vile mad killer used this in the Ohio shooting
banning it won't stop crazy people from causing the carnage they will just improvise in what they use.
The 10 year assault weapon ban did not make us safer.....


Since the early 1990s, several states have passed restrictions on firearm magazines as a purported public safety measure. To date, the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear cases surrounding these “high-capacity” magazine bans.1 This has led to a fractured and unpredictable state of the law. These laws, as well as the “assault weapon” bans they tend to come packaged with, are abridgments of the natural right to self-defense. Moreover, they fail to provide sufficient benefit to justify their inherent costs.

There are three main problems with these bans. First, the term “high-capacity” is used by legislatures to describe standard, common equipment rather than magazines that stretch a weapon’s capacity beyond its intended design. Second, discussions of the issue are replete with fundamental misconceptions about firearm magazines and their place under the Second Amendment. In fact, some courts have held that magazines have no constitutional protection at all, contravening precedent indicating that the right to keep and bear arms protects all bearable arms in common use, including their magazines and ammunition, regardless of the arms in existence at the time of the Founding. Magazines are not mere accessories, but essential components of modern firearms.

Third, there is little evidence that high-capacity magazine restrictions have any positive effects on public safety. To support these laws, states point to horrific crimes involving large-capacity magazines. But the connection between the crime and the magazine is conjectural at best, while the prohibitions against such magazines have disrupted the lives of many otherwise law-abiding gun owners — and all without any evidence of improvements in public safety. In some courts, it seems that merely uttering the phrase “gun violence” suffices to justify any exercise of state power. These policies are ineffective, dangerous, and unconstitutional.

Losing Count: The Empty Case for “High-Capacity” Magazine Restrictions | Cato Institute
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Wonder how many times this has been used in Chicago for any of the many shootings that happen daily? Hint.... none most likely.
You could make this disappear and it would not change the violent crime problem we have in the United States!
Look at the FBI Crime stats (UCR) Rifles used in homicides 2012-298, 2013-285, 2014-258, 2015-258, 2016-378.
Homicides are somewhere around 10,000 to 15,000 depending on the year. Banning this is just a feel good we
must do something. But the something won't make us safer. Because a vile mad killer used this in the Ohio shooting
banning it won't stop crazy people from causing the carnage they will just improvise in what they use.
The 10 year assault weapon ban did not make us safer.....


Since the early 1990s, several states have passed restrictions on firearm magazines as a purported public safety measure. To date, the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear cases surrounding these “high-capacity” magazine bans.1 This has led to a fractured and unpredictable state of the law. These laws, as well as the “assault weapon” bans they tend to come packaged with, are abridgments of the natural right to self-defense. Moreover, they fail to provide sufficient benefit to justify their inherent costs.

There are three main problems with these bans. First, the term “high-capacity” is used by legislatures to describe standard, common equipment rather than magazines that stretch a weapon’s capacity beyond its intended design. Second, discussions of the issue are replete with fundamental misconceptions about firearm magazines and their place under the Second Amendment. In fact, some courts have held that magazines have no constitutional protection at all, contravening precedent indicating that the right to keep and bear arms protects all bearable arms in common use, including their magazines and ammunition, regardless of the arms in existence at the time of the Founding. Magazines are not mere accessories, but essential components of modern firearms.

Third, there is little evidence that high-capacity magazine restrictions have any positive effects on public safety. To support these laws, states point to horrific crimes involving large-capacity magazines. But the connection between the crime and the magazine is conjectural at best, while the prohibitions against such magazines have disrupted the lives of many otherwise law-abiding gun owners — and all without any evidence of improvements in public safety. In some courts, it seems that merely uttering the phrase “gun violence” suffices to justify any exercise of state power. These policies are ineffective, dangerous, and unconstitutional.

Losing Count: The Empty Case for “High-Capacity” Magazine Restrictions | Cato Institute
Click to expand...

I’m not seeing any rationale that answers my very direct question. All the rest of your word salad is just smoke screen.

Journey of a thousand miles begins with one step...
 
Rexedgar said:
I’d like to hear the argument for this accessory being available to citizens.


View attachment 67261413
Click to expand...

um well - I think it goes something like this:

one day there will come the day of Armageddon and the good christian God fearing people will rise up against the atheist communist heathens who run our government and the battle will take to the streets in a savage and bloody war for control of this nation. So the forces of rebellion will need to match the government with every weapon and this is among them.



I think that is their excuse and claim. It conveniently forgets the fact of airplanes and bombs and drones and missiles and tanks and all manner of firepower the government has that makes your little AR15 or AK47 and extended magazine look like a childs toy by comparison.

If the government goes to war against you they will squash your sorry puny ass like a bug on a windshield and all the right wing wet dreams about soldier and cops turning against the government will do you no good.
 
ataraxia said:
We can bicker about the details, but the Vegas shooter was able to fill or injure almost 600 people in a surprisingly short period of time. Forget assault. That’s a freaking weapon of mass destruction. You can tell us we should not base calls for gun control on “need”. But you can’t tell us that’s not assault.
Click to expand...


I think it is right to ban fully automatic weapons like the Vegas shooter used, and then to prosecute anyone who mass murders innocent with a machine gun after the ban is in place. I don't think those with gun phobias want to stop there, but they do want to start somewhere and then expand their bans to include all guns in the hands of civilians. Never mind that it would be totally impossible to eliminate all guns in the hands of civilians, especially criminal civilians.
 
Logician Man said:
What does Jimmy Carter think ? :ind:
Click to expand...

WWJC do? Too bad the old codger is just about the kick the bucket and leave hoards of followers in the lurch. But people can always turn to Jesus when all else fails.
 
Rexedgar said:
I’d like to hear the argument for this accessory being available to citizens.


View attachment 67261413
Click to expand...

Such an accessory may become a necessary part of home defense weaponry if midnight anti-fa assault mobs become too large and deadly violent. After all, Obama told them to bring a gun if they think their targets have knives.
 
marke said:
I think it is right to ban fully automatic weapons like the Vegas shooter used
Click to expand...

He was not using full auto weapons. They were all these same semiautomatic “assault” weapons being talked about now.

Besides, why wouldn’t banning full auto weapons be unconstitutional?

I don't think those with gun phobias want to stop there, but they do want to start somewhere and then expand their bans to include all guns in the hands of civilians. Never mind that it would be totally impossible to eliminate all guns in the hands of civilians, especially criminal civilians.
Click to expand...

Paranoia. Most of the regulations being asked for are the same ones being asked for by the majority of the membership of the NRA.

This “slippery slope” argument you bring up was created by the gun manufacturers in the NRA because these assault weapons are their biggest moneymakers.
 
Rexedgar said:
I’m not seeing any rationale that answers my very direct question. All the rest of your word salad is just smoke screen.

Journey of a thousand miles begins with one step...
Click to expand...

The same reason someone sticks a high performance intake on a car. Or an exhaust on a motorcycle.
 
ataraxia said:
He was not using full auto weapons. They were all semiautomatic “assault” weapons.



Paranoia. Most of the regulations being asked for are the same ones being asked for by the majority of the membership of the NRA.

This “slippery slope” argument you bring up was created by the gun manufacturers in the NRA because these assault weapons are their biggest moneymakers.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence makes no sense. A semi automatic assault weapon is an oxymoron.
 
ataraxia said:
Besides, I thought you believed that banning full auto weapons like those used in Stalingrad is unconstitutional. So why are you now acting like this distinction somehow matters to you?

If we could somehow convince you these ARE assault weapons based on whatever definition you want to use, would it make a difference?
Click to expand...

Try to use a little common sense. Nobody is arguing that Americans have a right to keep bazookas or battle-ready tanks in their backyards. Just pistols and rifles which Americans have had for decades without alarm until the modern leftist snowflakes started graduating from colleges packed with anti-American professors preaching socialism and civil disobedience, or joining churches which preach 'Goddamn America unless you are a black in charge.'
 
ataraxia said:
We can bicker about the details, but the Vegas shooter was able to fill or injure almost 600 people in a surprisingly short period of time. Forget assault. That’s a freaking weapon of mass destruction. You can tell us we should not base calls for gun control on “need”. But you can’t tell us that’s not assault.
Click to expand...


He had twelve weapons he had brought to his room over many hours.

and since less than one out of a million is used for "criminal assault" those who call them assault weapons are assaulting truth and common sense
 
marke said:
I think it is right to ban fully automatic weapons like the Vegas shooter used, and then to prosecute anyone who mass murders innocent with a machine gun after the ban is in place. I don't think those with gun phobias want to stop there, but they do want to start somewhere and then expand their bans to include all guns in the hands of civilians. Never mind that it would be totally impossible to eliminate all guns in the hands of civilians, especially criminal civilians.
Click to expand...

serious ignorance there. there were no fully automatic weapons used in vegas. No one has been killed with a legally owned fully automatic weapon in the hands of private US citizen in over 60 years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom