Need to stop using the word weapon. What's more appropriate?

[45_auto]

I don't know about you, but I live within 75 miles of three coast guard bases, within 100 miles of Bangor sub station, within 125 miles of Ft. Lewis. I don't think there is a good comparison to be made for a small country halfway around the world, and a domestic situation

I agree, no comparison at all. It would be much easier for insurgents to operate within the US. The German experience with the Russian partisans in WW2 provided a good example. The first battle of Mogadishu (1993, Black Hawk Down) shows what happens when highly trained forces try to operate with minimum collateral damage to civilians and infrastructure.

The west coast is gearing up to stop China.

First I've heard of that. Any links?

In the end, the U.S. government has nothing to fear from private gun owners as long as the U.S. military is still following orders.

You don't think the US government fears private gun owners? Sounds like someone who wasn't around for the 1994 elections (right after the Assault Weapons Ban was passed). Check out the results of that election and see if you can figure out why no additional gun control measures have been passed at the national level since then.

 

[beatledog7]

In the end, the U.S. government has nothing to fear from private gun owners as long as the U.S. military is still following orders.

On the contrary, there are many more private owners of firearms with weapon potential than there are military members, and a lot of these civilians know exactly where to hide and exactly how to fend off a similarly armed military force. The US government has no stomach for the kind of backlash it would get from a decision to use "military only" weapons or disproportionate tactics on its citizenry, so we don't need to worry about enclaves of survivalists being smart bombed or taken out by a SEAL team. Furthermore, many military members simply will not follow the sort of order that has them killing or disarming civilian citizens.

There is no doubt that the Federal government sees the armed citizen as a major threat to its power, and that's the primary reason why it is trying to rob us of our firearms. Politicians from both parties generally have one thing in common: fear of losing power. That can come from losing an election or from being compelled to de-legislate: to give up power. Since the latter almost never happens, politicians' fear of losing the next election and thereby falling out of power is the key thing protecting our RKBA.

This links directly to why we are well served to downplay the weapons aspect of gun ownership while knowing internally that our guns can serve as weapons if need be. Why boast about our ability to fight tyranny to the ones most likely to try imposing it?

 

[Trent]

^^ hmm.
I don't know about you, but I live within 75 miles of three coast guard bases, within 100 miles of Bangor sub station, within 125 miles of Ft. Lewis. I don't think there is a good comparison to be made for a small country halfway around the world, and a domestic situation...the response on the ground would be much quicker, and much more concentrated, given that the entire U.S. military is already here in force, and we have the best transportation system in the world.
The west coast is gearing up to stop China. A domestic insurgency wouldn't be too big an issue.
This isn't an argument to restrict gun ownership, but lets be realistic. In the end, the U.S. government has nothing to fear from private gun owners as long as the U.S. military is still following orders. At what point the military stops following orders and what those orders would have to be for the military to stop following them...I don't feel that's a High Road discussion.

Really?

It took the combined efforts of every law enforcement agency on the east coast three weeks to find the beltway snipers, while they were actively engaging targets at the frequency of once every 2 days.

And they didn't even find them. It was a "supermarket refrigeration specialist" named Whitney Donahue who did.

You seem to think that insurgencies work a certain way. The problem with insurgencies is everyone looks the same, the bad guys simply have to drop their weapons (or stash them), take off their masks, and they blend in with the crowd.

The United States Military has not been able to defeat an insurgency since Vietnam. (Alas, the only reason the VC were crushed at one point, was because the North ordered them to throw their lives away during Tet.)

Anyway, not a topic for the High Road, but the record needed to be set straight here. Small arms (and ONLY small arms) have proven to be highly effective in irregular warfare over the last few centuries.

Like I said earlier, I can't envision this occurring in my lifetime, and hopefully the lifetimes of my children, and their children. But to say that personally owned weapons will never need to be called on for the greater good? That's foolish from any perspective.

 

[JustinJ]

Anyway, not a topic for the High Road, but the record needed to be set straight here. Small arms (and ONLY small arms) have proven to be highly effective in irregular warfare over the last few centuries.

That depends entirely on your definition of small arms. Without the aid of military weapons grade weapons to destroy armor and aircraft, no.

The United States Military has not been able to defeat an insurgency since Vietnam.

It also hasn't truly been defeated by one either in the sense that an at home war would require.

It took the combined efforts of every law enforcement agency on the east coast three weeks to find the beltway snipers, while they were actively engaging targets at the frequency of once every 2 days.

The US law enforcement is not set up in a manner to counter insurgent activity. That would fall to the military. Randomly shooting civilians and driving away does nothing to contribute to the defeat of a military. Especially a military that has body armor, armored vehicles and is even developing technology that can pinpoint the direction a shot came from.

This links directly to why we are well served to downplay the weapons aspect of gun ownership while knowing internally that our guns can serve as weapons if need be. Why boast about our ability to fight tyranny to the ones most likely to try imposing it?

We can call our guns "care bears" if we like. If they are a threat to government control, which i don't believe they are, playing word games is not going to deceive the government.

The US government has no stomach for the kind of backlash it would get from a decision to use "military only" weapons or disproportionate tactics on its citizenry,

Are you saying that in the event of an armed conflict in the US the military would make sure to "play fair"?

 

[Trent]

It also hasn't truly been defeated by one either in the sense that an at home war would require.

Right, it is generally a stalemate situation, a war of attrition. The goal of the insurgency is to make occupation of a certain area too painful; a task that can be accomplished with small arms. As long as there is a safe harbor (anonymity, friendly border, etc), weapons, and sufficient causa bellum for new recruits to join to replace losses, the insurgency cannot be properly defeated.

Armor, air power, command and control help secure and defend an area but do not guarantee a defense.

The US law enforcement is not set up in a manner to counter insurgent activity. That would fall to the military. Randomly shooting civilians and driving away does nothing to contribute to the defeat of a military. Especially a military that has body armor, armored vehicles and is even developing technology that can pinpoint the direction a shot came from.

The military hasn't proven highly effective at countering insurgencies, either. They defend hard points, wait around until they are attacked, and then try to mount a response. They occasionally send out patrols, which may or may not be ambushed. They sometimes question people or perform searches and get lucky on finding materials. But rooting out the problem?

For a recent reference point;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korangal_Valley

We were hoping to build a road through there. Turned out to be too painful.

Are you saying that in the event of an armed conflict in the US the military would make sure to "play fair"?

This wasn't a response to my post; but I'm sure they would NOT play fair, they're not trained to play fair - they're trained to strike hard and blow stuff up. If the military took over protection duties from law enforcement, every shot or shell fired would fuel the causa belli and strengthen the opposition.

 

[JustinJ]

The military hasn't proven highly effective at countering insurgencies, either. They defend hard points, wait around until they are attacked, and then try to mount a response. They occasionally send out patrols, which may or may not be ambushed. They sometimes question people or perform searches and get lucky on finding materials. But rooting out the problem?

The big difference is our military was fighting overseas with a home to return to.

 

[Sam1911]

Wow, this is WAAAAY off the topic now. Anything else to say about the subject of the appropriateness of the word "weapon" in describing our ... well, our weapons?

 

[Trent]

Wow, this is WAAAAY off the topic now. Anything else to say about the subject of the appropriateness of the word "weapon" in describing our ... well, our weapons?

Sorry, Sam.

The meaning of something is in the eye of the beholder. No matter what YOU call something, someone else is going to call it what THEY feel like calling it, according to their world-view, perspective, and whim.

I call my 1973 Mustang an investment piece. Another might call it a hot rod. To another, a classic car. Yet another, "some fool's mid-life crisis." (All of which are true, to some degree).

Regardless of whether it is right, wrong, or somewhere in between, we have about as much luck of convincing someone a firearm isn't a weapon as we do of getting the liberal media to quit using the term Assault Weapon incorrectly. (Or, for Hawaii residents, I guess the new fad is "assault pistols...", whatever that means.)

Anyway, we've beat this horse to death. And then some.

 

[45crittergitter]

I disagree with the point of the OP.

 

[gamestalker]

Maybe " defensve impliment" ?

GS

 

[larryh1108]

No one here may wish to be told what to call their "collection". I believe the OP is trying to reverse the harm caused by the media in liberally using the term "assault weapon" to describe anything semi-automatic or automatic. The term assault weapon has been ingrained into the minds of the antis where they now fear guns and will vote to take away our rights because of the picture painted by the media. Right or wrong, stubborn or persuaded, if enough antis get the wrong picture, they will vote people into office who will take our rights away. I don't believe anyone here really cares what we wish to call them but the people who don't own them are the majority and we are the minority. If we could get a word or phrase to replace assault weapon that does not sound so menacing then we have taken a step forward, not backwards. No one is telling you what you have to call them but we are looking for suggestions as to what to call them in the public forum. It is a battle of words, no doubt. However, we are losing the word game because assault weapons are everywhere and can only be used for killing other people. That's how the media has painted them and that is what we have to overcome. Like it or not, it is something we need to deal with and figure out.

 

[Sam1911]

Like it or not, it is something we need to deal with and figure out.

And, as I and a few others believe, the tide of that battle is more substantially turned by re-establishing that WEAPONS belong in the hands of free citizens. Words once considered to be very negative have frequently been co-opted by those affected and adopted as symbols of pride. So it should be for the armed American citizen.

 

[Esoxchaser]

Need to stop using the word weapon. What's more appropriate?

Does "Projectile Propulsion Initiation System" sound innocuous enough for the PC crowd?

I agree with firearm.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Where I come from weapon is a legal definition of intent and use for offense or defense. If I refer to my firearm as a weapon, I had better be keeping it in my home or business for purposes of defense or carrying it outside my home with a permit for purposes of defense. If I am going target shooting, hunting, transport to or from a gunshop or gunsmith, to a collectors' meeting, etc. that is not carry with intent to use the firearm as a weapon.

 

[45_auto]

Miriam Webster Dictionary

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firearm

Definition of FIREARM

: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms

Examples of FIREARM

- revolvers, rifles, and other firearms

So what you're trying to say is that as long as you're not carrying your weapon with the intent to use it as a weapon, then it's not a weapon?

 

[larryh1108]

I'd say it is not a weapon until it is being used for offense or defense. Carrying it, it is a weapon. Sitting in a safe, unloaded, it is a firearm. Same with a baseball bat. Is it a weapon? It isn't until it is being used to attack or defend. Same with a knife. If I am cutting onions it is not a weapon. If I pick it up to stab a person or animal it is a weapon. The list goes on. Loaded, on a nightstand, weapon. Unloaded, in a range bag on the way to the range, not a weapon. Same gun, different intent.

 

[EddieNFL]

And, as I and a few others believe, the tide of that battle is more substantially turned by re-establishing that WEAPONS belong in the hands of free citizens.

Thank you. We Americans tend to decide a word is somehow offensive or scary and we want to "soften" the blow. When I was a kid and person might be mentally retarded. Someone decided the word retarded was offensive and it became mentally handicapped followed by mentally challenged. Now it's special needs. Ultimately, all mean the person is mentally retarded.

re·****·ed adjective, \ri-ˈtär-dəd\ slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress

 

[mortablunt]

I like saying things like моя винтока (moya vintovka- my rifle) or мой автомат (moj avtomat- my rifle).
By turning PC about firearms, that's starting the same slippery slope which turns into deciding what guns are and are not acceptable for civilians.