Semantics: "Tactial Rifle" vs "Assault Rifle" --a New Demonization?
- Thread starter 230RN
- Start date
- Status
Prince Yamato
Member
Anti-jargon goes all the way back to "machine gun". You know what, sometimes the word just sticks. Whatever the word, they want it banned.
mmike87
Member
LOL - I usually assign the word "tactical" to anything that has lots and lots of pockets. Being black is good too, digital Vietnam Tiger Stripe Urban Tactiflage Camo is even better.
Stevie-Ray
Member
Excellent. Maybe then some of the people that I know, that think I'm crazy, will get off their duffs for a change and be the "activist" I am.
I don't care as long as they leave my hunting rifles alone!
Oh really!?
romma
Member
How about the "Overthrow A Corrupt Government Filled With Rotten Politicians Rifle"??
http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/90/909/90977/items/261686/SWHC_0907_IRPres.pdf
Smith & Wesson calls them tactical rifles.
I prefer the term "Homeland defense rifle."
Smith & Wesson calls them tactical rifles.
I prefer the term "Homeland defense rifle."
ROFL. Stay outta my closet!
Leif Runenritzer
Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2006
- Messages
- 232
An Ergonomic, Self-Loading Rifles and Sundries ban doesn't sound as exciting, does it.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
That's what the anti's don't want you to do. Because then people might realize they're just rifles, and it would be harder to make them sound Especially Scary.
FWIW, "tactical rifle" is a broader buzzword than "assault weapon," because it also includes black bolt-actions, pump-actions, and whatever else you want to throw in there.
From the Violence Policy Center, the group that popularized the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch:
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
GunTalk
Tom, over at GunTalk, ran a survey for "what to call a rifle" a few weeks back.
I offered up "General Purpose Rifle" (GPR), and someone else offered up "Utility Rifle."
As I recall, Utility Rifle came in first, and General Purpose Rifle came in second, with all other suggested names a distant third.
My rationale for General Purpose Rifle was along the lines of where the word "Jeep" came from. It was originally specified by the Army as a "General Purpose Vehicle" which was shortened to GPV, and it's a short hop from there to "jeep." The Jeep and its derivatives are very much General Purpose Vehicles.
More recently, though, with the advent of a plethora of brands in that category, a "generic" name was needed (you can't say "Chevy Jeep" cuz of trademark), so someone came up with Sport Utility Vehicle.
Now SUV is the generic term for every flavor of Jeep-alike.
It's hardly surprising that "Utility Rifle" is seen as a natural fit.
Only one company that I know of actually calls their rifle a Sport Utility rifle, and that's Kel-tec (their SU-16 series).
I'm comfortable with Utility Rifle.
It's easy, it's natural, it's honest.
And it isn't scary.
Tom, over at GunTalk, ran a survey for "what to call a rifle" a few weeks back.
I offered up "General Purpose Rifle" (GPR), and someone else offered up "Utility Rifle."
As I recall, Utility Rifle came in first, and General Purpose Rifle came in second, with all other suggested names a distant third.
My rationale for General Purpose Rifle was along the lines of where the word "Jeep" came from. It was originally specified by the Army as a "General Purpose Vehicle" which was shortened to GPV, and it's a short hop from there to "jeep." The Jeep and its derivatives are very much General Purpose Vehicles.
More recently, though, with the advent of a plethora of brands in that category, a "generic" name was needed (you can't say "Chevy Jeep" cuz of trademark), so someone came up with Sport Utility Vehicle.
Now SUV is the generic term for every flavor of Jeep-alike.
It's hardly surprising that "Utility Rifle" is seen as a natural fit.
Only one company that I know of actually calls their rifle a Sport Utility rifle, and that's Kel-tec (their SU-16 series).
I'm comfortable with Utility Rifle.
It's easy, it's natural, it's honest.
And it isn't scary.
Novus Collectus
Member
"Utility rifle", sounds perfect!
Nolo
Member
I prefer to call it by it's name. If it's an AK-47 (only full-auto, as the ones you and I are allowed to buy are not true AKs), call it an AK-47. If it's a Glock, call it a Glock (extra points for citing the model number), etc. I don't remember what shooting it was, but there was one where the guy used a Beretta CX4 Storm and they called it a "machine gun" (or "assault rifle", they referred to both names in the article). Not calling things by their proper name is just bad reporting.
We shouldn't worry about trying to convince people that the rifles politicians are trying to ban aren't really that scary. We should be trying to educate people that the whole intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent congress from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms that are militarily effective. The second ammendment is specifically about guns that are good for killing people in battle. How can we expect the general public to understand that, if we gun owners are always trying to hide that?
"Sport Utility Rifle"... I like that, heck I'm going to start useing it!
I like to Email the news channel when they make "stupid comments" and educate them, so they can correctly recognize the weapon and describe it to the american public more accurately.
I like to Email the news channel when they make "stupid comments" and educate them, so they can correctly recognize the weapon and describe it to the american public more accurately.
Elm Creek Smith
Member
I like "Scout Rifle." Now all I have to do is buy one.
ECS
ECS
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
I don't know any gun owners who are hiding that.
That is the number one reason I own weapons, and I don't make it a secret.
RockyMtnTactical,
I am glad to hear that. In my earlier post I quoted from your post #17 because I really agreed with what you said. I hope it didn't come across as trying to make an argument against what you had said.
Now I'll admit that I don't really believe that gun owners always try to hide the fact that the guns we own and want to own really are deadly, efficient, people killing instruments. That was a poor choice of words on my part. Especially considering the gun owners on this forum. But I'm surprised you don't know any that do try to hide that.
I believe there are a lot of gun owners that do not understand the true purpose of the second amendment to protect our right to own militarily effective weapons. I used to be one of them. Many are content with their shotgun, deer rifle, and .22 and are thrilled that the constitution protects them. But they wouldn't mind one bit if "assault weapons" were banned. Look at Jim Zumbo. They are out there, even in the NRA, and they just need to be educated.
Then there is the gun owner that tries to downplay the lethality of a gun in order to make it seem less worthwhile to ban it. Calling an AK or AR a "sport utility rifle" or "hunting rifle" may be accurate and less scary sounding, but that approach abandons the just claim to the protection of the 2nd Amendment and appeals to emotion for protection. It can also come across as though we are trying to pull one over on the antis (which, in my opinion is exactly what it is.) And the more they feel like we are trying to trick them, the more difficult it will be to educate them.
When an anti asks how can you possibly justify owning an AK-47 with a 30 round magazine? Are the deer really that dangerous? Some gun owners will attempt to explain that the AK-47 round is actually comparable to the popular 30-30, and it makes a great deer rifle. Other gun owners will say I can justify owning that rifle because by law I am a member of my state militia and if I ever need to go into battle I want to have as much firepower as possible. That is why the second amendment prevents you from infringing my right to own it. I think the first answer is hiding the true purpose of owning that rifle, and will only result in antis rolling their eyes in disbelief. The second answer is open and honest and may actually make sense to them.
woodybrighton
member
its journo speak they have found a new word sounds cool and evil 
lets face it most journos couldn't tell the difference between a revolver, and a pistol let anything complicated
in the army once convinced a BBC journalist that my sniper rifle could fire nuclear bullets
que major talking to from chain of command
not actually sure what a nuclear bullet is but sounded cool
lets face it most journos couldn't tell the difference between a revolver, and a pistol let anything complicated
in the army once convinced a BBC journalist that my sniper rifle could fire nuclear bullets
que major talking to from chain of command
not actually sure what a nuclear bullet is but sounded cool
alucard0822
Member
Depleted Uranium, would not be the first time Iv'e heard that. I am sure they would love to come up with this one "automatic assault pistol with nuclear targeting system, able to spray over a dozen of the same bullet favored by WWII Nazis"
(sig 226 with night sites)
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
The thing is, pointing out that
(1) a civilian AK is identical in every way to a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle, and
(2) the 2ndA isn't about hunting, and the vast majority of gun owners are nonhunters,
are not mutually exclusive. Point out both.
But making a little non-automatic 7.62x39mm carbine out to sound like some uber-powerful death weapon (as the anti's do) only plays into the anti's hands, IMO. THEY want to create the perception that non-automatic civilian rifles are just one step down from the Hiroshima bomb, and are fringe rather than mainstream, because in so doing, they can get people to react out of raw fear and prejudice.
Get someone past their irrational fears, and they may sit down and discuss the Second Amendment with you. But focusing *solely* on 2ndA arguments, and letting the lies of the anti's re: "assault weapons" go unchallenged, is less effective than it otherwise might be, IMHO.
Also, the lies the anti's have told on the "assault weapon" issue, .50 caliber hysteria, etc. make them IMHO the most vulnerable of anything they've done, because it is child's play to point out those lies.
benEzra,
That's true.
But your example brings up an interesting point. The strategy that has been used in the past of comparing an AK to the venerable American classic (read completely un-ban-able) Ruger Mini-30 deer rifle, has only been successful in landing the Ruger Mini Thirty on the list of "assault weapons" that should be banned. Check out H.R. 1022. It is right there, along with the Mini-14.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
And that is a positive development.
The whole point of the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, the .50 ban, "Saturday Night Special" bans, etc. is generally to try to carve out a small enough set of guns to (hopefully) keep most gun owners apathetic.
The anti's dramatically overreached with the AWB, and have continued to add to it until it now encompasses perhaps two or three times as many gun owners as there are hunters in America. That makes an AWB less likely, not more.
skeeter1
Member
My rifles happen to be leverguns, only because those are the ones I like best. I will, however, defend anyone who wants a "tactical" or "assault" rifle. They may not appeal to me to own, but the second ammendment doesn't say you can't have one.
Nolo
Member
How about this:
The criminals have been getting greater firepower in recent years, no? That's why cops have to have AR-15s in their patrol cars, right? Well, if cops, who work in groups, wear body armor and are tactically trained have to use an AR-15 to stop a criminal, why do I (who work alone, am not tactically trained, and don't have body armor) have to be stuck with a bolt-action rifle? If it's barely adequate protection for police officers, how is it "too powerful" for us normal citizens?
The criminals have been getting greater firepower in recent years, no? That's why cops have to have AR-15s in their patrol cars, right? Well, if cops, who work in groups, wear body armor and are tactically trained have to use an AR-15 to stop a criminal, why do I (who work alone, am not tactically trained, and don't have body armor) have to be stuck with a bolt-action rifle? If it's barely adequate protection for police officers, how is it "too powerful" for us normal citizens?
Hmm... that's an interesting point of view. I guess I had never really thought about it that way.
It's kind of like going all in. It could work out really well for you, but you might get surprised and be put out of the game entirely.
OP
OP
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
I'm with jlbraun: Civilian Defense Rifle. As far as I can see, it would take a lot of creativity on the part of the antis to make that connote anything negative.
Wouldn't have to "justify" it, and covers the .50,
Wouldn't have to "justify" it, and covers the .50,
- Status