Definition: Assault Weapon vs Assault Rifle

First, I’d like to thank those of you who are using the Amazon link on the right hand side to make your online purchases.  Every time you go there and buy something the blog gets a little piece of the action, so again, thank you for supporting SHTFBLog!

-Jarhead Survivor

——————————————

On to the post!

There was a lot of good conversation in the blog post I wrote about Gun Rights and Common Sense and one of the recurring questions seemed to be, “What is an assault weapon?”

Let’s explore that a little further shall we?

Here’s an article at infowars by Earl Griffin about what an assault rifle is.  In his opinion it’s not an assault weapon unless it “has a selector switch that can be turned to rapid fire or sometimes automatic fire.”

If you go to Wikipedia here’s what you’ll find about assault rifles, which pretty much stays true to what Earl says above.

Assault Rifle

An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between fully automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and adetachable magazine. It should be distinguished from the US legal term assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in terms of using an intermediate cartridge power that is between light machine guns firing full power cartridges, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a lower powered pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Fully automatic fire refers to an ability for a rifle to fire continuously until the magazine is empty and no rounds remain; “burst-capable” fire refers to an ability of a rifle to fire a small yet fixed multiple number of rounds with but one press of the trigger; in contrast, semi-automatic refers to an ability to fire but one round per press of a trigger. The presence of selective fire modes on assault rifles permits more efficient use of rounds to be fired for specific needs, versus having but a single mode of operation, such as fully automatic, thereby conserving ammunition while maximizing on-target accuracy and effectiveness.

Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47,[2] M16 rifle, QBZ-95, INSAS, Heckler & Koch G36, and Enfield SA80.

The assault rifle became the standard military rifle in the post-World War II era. The Soviet Union was the first nation in the post-war era to adopt an assault rifle, the AK-47, and other nations followed later. Combat experience during the World Wars had shown that most infantry combat took place at 200–300 meters (220–330 yards) distance and that the winner of any given firefight would most likely be the one with the highest rate of fire. The rifle cartridges of the day were therefore unnecessarily powerful, producing recoil and report in exchange for marginal benefit. The lower power of the intermediate cartridge meant that each soldier could fire more bullets faster and/or with less recoil and its lighter weight allowed more ammunition to be carried.

 

So what is an assault weapon?  Back to Wikipedia:

Assault Weapon

Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms, and is a term that has differing meanings and usages.

In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding stock, aflash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] Most assault weapons are rifles, but some are pistols or shotguns. The exact definition of the term in this context varies among each of the various jurisdictions that limit or prohibit assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession, and legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions. Governing and defining laws include the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban,[2] as well as state and local laws. Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term “assault weapon” should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate.[3][4][5][6][7]

The term “assault weapon” is sometimes conflated with the term “assault rifle“. An assault rifle is a military rifle that utilizes an intermediate-power cartridge, and that generally is capable of full-automatic fire, where multiple rounds are fired continuously when the trigger is pulled one time, or burst capable, where a burst of several rounds is fired when the trigger is pulled one time.[8] In the United States, full-automatic firearms are heavily restricted, and regulated by federal laws such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, as well as some state and local laws.

The term “assault weapon” is highly controversial. Critics assert that the term is a media invention,[9] or a term that is intended to cause confusion among the public by intentionally misleading the public to believe that assault weapons (as defined in legislation) are fully automatic firearms when they are not.[10]

———————————————-

Basically what it boils down to is that an assault weapon is going to be described however the politicians decide to word it.

It’s a moving target and it’s hard to nail down.  I’ve got to admit I wasn’t sure what it was either until I went looking.

Confusion

When I got out of the Corps back in the mid-80’s I was pretty good with my M-16 a2 assault rifle.  Then I went out into the civilian world and a friend handed me an AR-15 and I field stripped it down exactly the same way I did my M-16.

The only difference I could see is that it didn’t have the 3 round burst selector switch on it, which if you think about it is a pretty small difference.

To be fair I can understand why people who don’t shoot, own guns, or aren’t exposed to them lump these types of weapons all into one big – let’s call them assault guns for the sake of argument – assault gun category.  (In the military a gun is actually a howitzer, but allow me to temporarily change the meaning here.)  They don’t care if it’s fully automatic, capable of three round burst, or just goes bang every time you pull the trigger.  To them it’s an “assault gun”.

If it looks dangerous and fires bullets very fast it’s an “assault gun”.  That’s all they care about.

Thus, people tend to use the two interchangeably when in fact those of us that do shoot or own fire arms get upset because we know they’re different.  It’s like someone looking at a race car and saying, “That’s the same thing as my Toyota.”  On the surface they may share some similarities such as four tires, windshield, hood, etc, but underneath the motor, suspension, tires, etc, are very different.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this topic?

Questions?  Comments?

Sound off below!

-Jarhead Survivor

 

 

 

65 comments… add one

  • Ray February 1, 2013, 7:44 am

    Assault rifle is a term coined by Adolf Hitler in 1943 for the then MP 43 Machinen Pistol- He named it the Sturm Gawere (spell?)(assault rifle)-44. Assault Wepon was coined by Diane Finestine in the 1980s. It was ment to define any wepon of military utility in civilian hands. Her stated goal then,as now, is toatal civilian disarmerment. Its a madeup term like Cop Killer Bullet, for anything the left wishes to ban this week. From what I’v seen in the last few weeks this has pushed America to the brink of civil war,and I think this is exactly what the hard left wants. The military is runing intimidation “training” in every southern state. I think Ruby Ridge or Waco style raids will soon follow. The government means to take the guns ,all of them, and they mean to do it NOW. Martial law is the only way to do that. For that Obama needs open revolution. At that point he gets it all, UN troops, pemanant un-elected government , dictatorship-The whole communist Fun Park. Thats all “gun control” was ever about. Makeing that takeover as bloodless as possable.

    Reply
    • irishdutchuncle February 1, 2013, 10:50 am

      Yeh, except they won’t mind about all the bourgeoisie (middle class) who get killed. it will save resources that would otherwise be needed for their “re-education”.

      Reply
      • ThatguyinCA February 1, 2013, 3:35 pm

        Ray, I hope you’re never right. And I’m pretty confident you won’t ever be on this issue. Brink of civil war? Don’t worry the debt ceiling will be here soon enough to take everyone’s eyes off the gun legislation (which does have enough support to pass anyways).

        Reply
        • irishdutchuncle February 1, 2013, 10:50 pm

          yeh, but prepare for both.

          Reply
    • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 12:11 pm

      Adolf Hitler spoke English?

      Reply
      • JaegeRanger February 2, 2013, 2:09 pm

        I think he did have some command of the English language, but like all heads of state, he used a translator.

        Reply
    • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 12:13 pm

      I guess that was a literal translation.

      Adolf Hitler invented the assault rifle!

      Reply
      • Ray February 1, 2013, 3:25 pm

        No Mauser invented the rifle; Hitler just named it, he called it the Sturm (storm or assault) gewere(spell?) (rifle) 1944. The original name was;Machinen Pistol ( submachine gun or machine pistol) 1943. Russia didn’t field the AK 47 till 1948-1949

        Reply
        • ThatguyinCA February 1, 2013, 3:41 pm

          Ray is correct with his history however. The Sturmgewehr 44 (StG44) was the first modern type assault rifle. Say what they will, but the AK-47 was designed with the StG44 in mind. Hitler was just dumb enough to authorize the weapon for all his troops. The production of the StG44 was actually done without his knowledge until later when they showed it to him. He was a staunch proponent of the Mauser K98.

          Reply
  • j.r. guerra in s. tx. February 1, 2013, 8:07 am

    That was a good assessment of what each is, but even with that, the line is blurry. For me, that 3rd position full auto is the deciding factor – a bullet hose whose main objective is take lives of others who are attempting to do the same with YOU.

    I personally do not want to own such a gun, but to those who do – more power to you. As long as you commit no crimes, I have no problem with that.

    Just watch out where those bullets end up – full auto do tend to move muzzles about . :^)

    Reply
    • JaegeRanger February 2, 2013, 2:05 pm

      That is what ‘gun control’ is all about :)

      Reply
  • dvldog2531 February 1, 2013, 9:41 am

    Leatherneck,

    I just found this site within the last month…tons of great info here. This post is one of the best “educational” posts you have made in regards to the “circus” that is going on in Washington.
    I only hope some of these sleepy heads wake up.

    In closing…I will leave you with the unwritten “12th General
    Order…. “I will walk my post flank to flank and take no shit fro
    from any rank”
    y rank

    Reply
  • Ron February 1, 2013, 9:46 am

    C. J. Chivers wrote “The Gun” which is basically a history of the AK-47; but he points out repeatedly in the book that the “AK-47″ that is available to civilians in this country is a different gun than what the world knows as the AK-47, ours being strictly semi automatic. Nonetheless, the press, politicians and others in this country don’t distinguish between our type and what is used in ‘real wars’. They lump them all in under the same category.

    Reply
    • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 12:06 pm

      Yeah, we largely import the semi-auto rifles in a “sporting configuration” and then they’re re-manufactured in the U.S. so that they look more evil.

      The average 8 year-old kid in a mud hut in Liberia racking that full auto version for the price of two chickens, and so he’s better armed than anyone on this forum. That’s really what the U.N. gun control thing is about.

      Reply
  • Charles,,,, February 1, 2013, 9:51 am

    Regretfully I have to be PC, yall got the definition/name askew, when Janet N. ordered 7,000 black rifles in 2012 she called them PDW’s, personal defense weapons, so sayz the PC newz castrators…… Weapons are challenging, every time we pick one up we challenge ourselves, to know the safety, nomiclature, innuendo’s of each weapon, and they are different even if the difference is small, along with ammo, which some come out slower or faster, crooked and straight, fired and misfired, more punch/less punch, the challenge’s are endless and new each time we go out to shoot, it is a challenge “to know”, what will this specific weapon do or not do, our interest’s to find out for ourselves is a thrill, to test it’s limit’s and our own is a thrill, a discovery about the weapon and it’s ammo is a thrill, ever fire a shot and wow yourself thinking humph, I didn’t know that would happen. So the fascination is within, to know, to challenge, one on one, me and my weapon on a date of discovery, and safety is always formost in our minds…. one manz thought.

    Reply
  • irishdutchuncle February 1, 2013, 10:39 am

    Yeh, what Ray said, and what Charles,,,, said: PDW.

    thank you Jarhead for clearing up the nomenclature. I always thought that “assault rifle” was extrapolated from “AR”, short for “Armalite”.

    wow. 7000 PDW’s to an oppressive government agency plus 2000 “assault weapons” to Mexican drug criminals, at the same time they want to confiscate them from us…
    (there’s something wrong with this picture)

    Reply
  • Jason February 1, 2013, 11:41 am

    …………………………………………………………………………

    Quick comment about the Amazon link:

    There is no additional cost to you/me the consumer to use this blog’s gateway to Amazon. You do not need to enter anything in the keywords box, simply click on the “go” button, Amazon appears & you can do whatever you want normally.

    It is super easy, seamless & this one little entry vehicle shares the wealth from Amazon to the writers here who work very hard for us all for very little money.

    Reply
    • Jarhead Survivor February 1, 2013, 12:03 pm

      Thanks Jason!

      Reply
      • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 12:17 pm

        He’s a swell guy.

        CLICK IT!

        Hey, what happened to Ranger? Does he still write for this thing?

        Reply
        • Jason February 1, 2013, 12:29 pm

          At least I’m not a swelled guy like someone I know …. :-)

          Reply
          • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 12:34 pm

            You know a swelled guy? Like a big fat guy?

          • irishdutchuncle February 1, 2013, 1:15 pm

            hey, I’m a big fat guy too,
            and I resemble the implication.

          • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 1:20 pm

            Quit picking on Irish!

          • Jason February 1, 2013, 2:09 pm

            Yikes …..

            Irish is an easy target & not because of his svelteness :-D

            You on the other hand, the swelling was a brain thing for you.

            I kill me!

          • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 4:39 pm

            Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

            And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

            Ephesian s 4:31-4:32

          • Jason February 1, 2013, 9:14 pm

            I’m proud of you – you’re getting better.

            The book of Ephesians was a letter written by Paul to the >>Christians<< of the church in the city of Ephesus – how they were to act towards one another & strengthen one another as a Christian body.

            So, in other words, it was an internal memo :-)

            Ready to venture into the real circle of life? Haha

          • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 9:50 pm

            The question of whether the Bible is an important text in Western philosophy is entirely separate any discussion of whether it proves the existence of god.

            Just because I disallowed it as evidence in the one case, that doesn’t mean that I disregard it as literature, philosophy, sometimes even as a history. And I respect anyone who has made a serious study of it.

            Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

            1 Corinthians 4:5

          • Jason February 1, 2013, 10:43 pm

            Only you will be able to prove the existence of God for yourself, nobody else can unless you are open & willing to possibility – even then, the ball will always be in your court to decide what is true.

            Until then the Bible will be what it is to you – literature, quasi interesting, historical & altered over the thousands of years of its existence etc. Jesus may have been a great teaching rabbi & the idea that Jonah got swallowed by a fish is a funny story at best.

            Heck, the Dead Seas Scrolls could have been manufactured to look old. Maybe the reason Israel & the Jews were the most persecuted ethnic group in world history because of stupid bad luck. Who knows?

            You’ve got plenty of time to decide what you want to do & believe or stay on the same, current path & God bless you – truly, I really hope He does for you.

            However, when your time ends on this Earth – which it will, choice as we know it is eliminated by default. Then who knows, you may end up with Carl Sagan counting new galaxies or reincarnated into something wonderful here on Earth. Who’s to say?

            Everybody has a choice & God forces nobody to step into His camp. People may introductions here & there for you but the choice is solely yours & it is no skin off of the noses of those who gave you those introductions because there is no grading system.

            “But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

            Joshua 24:15

          • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 10:52 pm

            See, maybe you’re getting to be more open minded.

            I’m probably in agreement, more or less:

            Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

            Romans 14:1-14:4

          • Jason February 1, 2013, 11:44 pm

            It’s not that I am open minded, I just clearly understand choice & free will, which is a double edged sword. Anyway you slice it, only the individual can make the choice.

            If you believed in the whole God thing, part of the final program is being judged by Him after death. Only the individual is judged for his/her own choices. Mom, dad, siblings, cousins, neighbors, friends or country of origin is never factored into that judgement equation. It is only the sum total of 1.

            We can go all over the map talking about anything under the sun or in the Bible, trade chapter & verses or what-have-you but it makes little to no difference because in the final analysis, the only person that exists in the entire universe to decide anything is you.

            You don’t know much about me but I have always been a huge risk taker – be it athletics or business. I have made & lost fortunes, had horrible cycling accidents, nearly drowned several times surfing huge waves & so much more – I just went for it. What I am unwilling to do is to bet my entire eternity that God & the the Bible are wrong.

          • Yikes! February 2, 2013, 12:40 am

            But you’re willing to bet your eternity that everything else is wrong, and I’m not willing to do that. You said yourself that the test of intellect is the ability to hold more than one contradictory position in your mind at once. I didn’t disagree.

            There are so many different Christianities that I don’t know how you could choose the correct one. It makes sense that they are all perspectives on the same thing. By extension, so Hinduism, Islam, Taoism and theoretical physics must represent divergent perspectives on the same shared reality.

            The argument does matter. To say that it doesn’t is to say that there’s nothing worth learning from other people. I’m even willing to argue within the context of Christian theology to learn something, if that’s what it takes.

            Make no mistake; I have no interest in upsetting your theological applecart. I assume that it’s not a fragile one, and won’t fall to pieces with a few well placed questions.

            Most of the Christians I know would see the argument as an opportunity. They’re by and large a resilient crowd.

          • Jason February 2, 2013, 1:58 am

            “But you’re willing to bet your eternity that everything else is wrong” Yes absolutely, without reservation or shadow of doubt. It is not as if I have done more than a casual look at many other disciplines.

            “You said yourself that the test of intellect is the ability to hold more than one contradictory position in your mind at once” I quoted F. Scott Fitzgerald & agree with it wholeheartedly.

            “There are so many different Christianities that I don’t know how you could choose the correct one ….” It is a puzzle, isn’t it? If it were me in your shoes, I’d start at the Bible & work my way out.

            The only problem is you will have to assume the Bible is 100% correct not 99.9999%. If that is a problem, integrity demands that you must prove to yourself that it is in err with more than a casual look or speculative opinions.

            “Hinduism, Islam, Taoism and theoretical physics must represent divergent perspectives on the same shared reality.” Of course they do but what is their context? Don’t answer, look it up.

            “The argument does matter.” To you yes, it does matter because it is important to you. However, have you ever thought it through completely why it actually matters?

          • Yikes! February 2, 2013, 5:07 am

            The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
            —Hamlet 3:2

            You got an agnostic to look up Bible verses. Know a small victory when it bites you on the ass, man.

            Also, never ignore common ground. Argument is not confrontation, and persuading someone to your point of view always begins with seeing what you have in common. There is common ground here.

            Debating within the canon actually appeals to me. By all rights, I should be the underdog in that fight, but there’s nothing wrong with that.

            The argument matters because intellectual engagement with people on earth is healthy and stimulating. It makes you think more, and that is good. I’m speaking generally.

            I am aware of the contexts of all of those things, and of the context in which Christianity developed as an ideology. I don’t have to look them up.

            You said: “Yes absolutely, without reservation or shadow of doubt. It is not as if I have done more than a casual look at many other disciplines.” That sounds like a mistake to me. Do you really mean to say that you you didn’t investigate any other point of view before you ruled them all out, or have I misunderstood you?

            You also said that I should begin with the Bible if I want to… be Christian? Which Bible do you mean? I’ve been citing KJV because I have a copy on my shelf, but I’ve also been cross checking with other versions to increase my understanding of the context and interpretive breadth of each passage. It was no surprise to me that there is tremendous variation in the scripture even across the English language versions.

            The Koran is much more straightforward. God spoke Arabic in that case and he just dictated the whole damned thing so there’s just the one version. You’re expected to learn Arabic if you’re a good Muslim, of course, so as to avoid any corruption of the direct word of god through translation. They’re all in.

          • Jason February 2, 2013, 11:56 am

            Yes my friend, I am subject to making a mistake once every decade or so …. funny me.

            There was a time in my life where I read & studies stuff from (not in chronological order) Jehovah Witnesses, Mormonism, Taoism, Buddhism & more in search for meaning. For some odd reason, I could not settle a void I sensed about life.

            Before becoming a Christian if someone asked me what I thought of God, I’d say – she’s black …. boy did I love throwing people off with such controversial statements!

            Ok, here is something I would never tell anyone unless I had a very good relationship or level of comfort with them & I have never shared in a public forum – ever – because it sounds too damn weird. However, I feel it may be useful to you.

            To set a context – at the height of my non belief in God, that is to say – if you believed in him or her, that’s your thing but I believe the universe was much different. It could contain God or gods but you (collective noun) create your own reality.

            As I said a long time ago, I was involved in a think tank environment where we explored the limits of man & thinking. It was a pretty heavy group of powerful minds but not some hidden, weird sect wearing purple robes & giving all of our money to some leaders Rolls Royce fund. It was relatively mainstream.

            The story – it was 1979 & I was driving into Santa Monica on a beautiful spring day that mirrored the song by Randy Newman – I Love L.A. & boy did I ever. I am 25 years old.

            The radio is turned up, I am singing & life is absolutely perfect – it couldn’t be any better physically, mentally or emotionally – I loved my life. I lived 4 block from the ocean in a beautiful city where I had it made – life was perfect. As I am driving along in this, what I now call a transient state of mind, God spoke to me & only this one time.

            Picture the scene – loving life, music at a high volume, singing, smiling about to enter a very rich intellectually, stimulating environment in a beautiful city & we are the master creators of our universe(s). You’ve gotta get a clear image in your mind of that setting.

            Then a still, soft voice which emanated in the exact center of my head, pierced everything yet, transcended everything & said “if you are so happy then why are you so lonely.” I nearly crashed my car into the center divider on the Santa Monica Freeway.

            I pulled over wondering what in the hell was that???? I had no clue whatsoever what that was or where it came from. There one instant & gone the next. It made no sense either because I was thrilled with my life & certainly was not lonely. What a bunch of horse shit I thought …

            It became a defining moment. I did not stop what I was doing, God never spoke to me since or arrived in some weird shaped flower, burning bush or anything appearing in my dreams. Also, I had no insatiable urge to go to church in fact, it was quite the opposite. But the egg was now cracked, my perfect life had some inexplicable void. I did not keep processing that event, in fact I forgot about it for the most part probably chalking it up to a smog induced hallucination, but it did cause me to examine reality.

            I eventually left the group & started exploring other possibilities. Mind you, my thoughts of “Christianity” was the furtherest thing from my mind. They were a group in my opinion, of the most narrow minded & afraid people on the planet. They were called His sheep for that exact reason – stupid & blinding following to be sheared annually & eventually slaughtered. Worst of all, they had a constant, Stepford like plasticine smile – it made me vomit.

            One day in 1987 I stepped into a church led by a well know scholar nearly equal to Billy Graham. He wasn’t fire & brimstone, he spoke plainly without threats of burning in Hell. I understood very little because I had no real Bible knowledge but something seemed to ring true. I left the service immediately & made sure I got all of the ether out of my system.

            I came back the next week, by myself as usual & blended into the crowd so as not to get cornered by some raging fool. Again the sensation – clean, real & honest. It took a month before I actually felt “at home” with myself & this God thing. I eventually committed, crossed the line & into God’s camp. I still had many, many questions – some obvious & some that I need to resolve regarding my former beliefs.

            I asked the hard questions as an insider now & most all have been answered, the balance don’t really matter in the grander scope. What I found is the Bible went from a 3 dimensional document, book or text to one that is incredibly dynamic with more facets than I can count.

            I read the book of John, Revelation & others before & it was pretty flat & linear – it was like a black & white TV. Today, my experience of the Bible is well beyond Blue Ray, metaphorically speaking.

            Point being to all of this is there is definitely a huge difference between being a window shopper & being in the store & that experience is impossible to explain.

            As an observer I’d say there is a reason why you stay with this topic. Maybe you enjoy bantering or other things but honestly, I believe He is knocking on your heart.

            If you let Him all in with both feet, you can still ask every nagging question & in time the answers will be revealed but mostly not in the black & white check list we all seem to carry – no, His answers are far more interesting & His light removes all shadows.

            Fo 20 years I read & studied the New King James – I highlight & write in it as a text book. A year ago I switched to the NIV (New International Version) because the church I have attended since 1991, North Coast Church (dot com) uses that version. I used to be real anal regarding the differences of a single word but don’t care about it anymore, it is unimportant to me.

            Our church has our weekly messages online – check out Chris Brown, one of the teaching pastors – his style would probably fit your personality & he is very real.

            That’s it for this novel – off to Starbucks for my morning cup of Joe & to see some of the regulars.

          • Yikes! February 2, 2013, 1:17 pm

            That’s awesome!

            You got your empirical proof, and that’s why god exists. That’s all you had to say in the first place, because there’s just no arguing with it.

            These sound like honest answers.

            I see your point about getting caught up in wording, but I’m much more concerned with the differences in interpretation which can be substantial.

            You know what I’m talking about when I bring up problems of interpretation. They make the difference between the plastic sheep and the hellfire and brimstone guys. Romans 14:1-14:4 (below) seems to provide one answer to that, unless I’ve misinterpreted it.

            In any case, I’m glad you found a church that works for you. I’ll look them up and see what they have to say.

          • Jason February 2, 2013, 2:40 pm

            Trust me, at the time it happened, it was not empirical proof of anything but questionable sanity. Had I come out with that in the beginning of the conversation, I would have been viewed as (more of) a lunatic. These divine type interventions most always go beyond reason & rationale.

            As far as interpretations, I stopped sweating that a long time ago. The primary reason I used the NKJ was because I could not get past the thee & hath so I went to a more palatible version. It took me from 1991 (when I first started at North Coast) until last year to change to the NIV because I was hung up on having things being “correct”. I finally just let go because the spirit of God was present . Let me qualify spirit – it isn’t some magical air or cloud that is flaoting making everybody high & rolling around the ground or raising hands screaming in jibberish. It is a sense of leading.

            Anyway, check out Chris Brown, he is pretty engaging & entertaining & his heart really comes through the messages. The “your stories” are short clips that are very interesting.

          • Jason February 2, 2013, 11:47 pm

            Yikes – on the North Coast website, watch the message titled – “life as it was meant to be” by Chris Brown. I think you will find the message very interesting.

  • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 11:43 am

    Everyone in the gun debate should know that by now. Sometimes I forget that most people have been affected by the ban yet.

    “Assault weapon” is a matter of politics. What was a “sporting rifle” a month ago in New York is now an “assault weapon” because the term was entirely redefined by the SAFE Act.

    In fact, I think I have a Marlin .22LR that’s now an “assault weapon” because of the 10 round detachable mag (even the police can only have 7 rounds in their Glocks as of 4/15/13). I also have a single-shot, break-action, 12 gauge “bunny murderer.” They’re talking about implementing that term next.

    People use words to manipulate public sentiment. That’s how politics works. Gun owners in NY have fully embraced the “sportsman” label for the same purpose. If voters were rational we’d be talking about “semi-automatic rifles.” Those are the real target of the ban, it’s just that the anti gun guys don’t know a rifle from a [redacted].

    Really, it’s like the parable of the blind guys all trying to figure out what an elephant is. The pistol grip is the elephant’s [redacted]; the semi-auto is the [redacted] elephant. They want to ban elephants… then probably “bunny murderers.”

    Reply
  • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 11:59 am

    Hey, I was just browsing the Governor’s new page on assault weapons ( http://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms-faq ), and it turns out that Ruger Mini 14′s and BAR’s are A-OKAY in New York still!

    Now our wild-eyed killers will look like nerds when they go berserk.

    Reply
  • Ancient Woodsman February 1, 2013, 2:05 pm

    Sorry to nitpick, but is there some reason why the M4 in the photo has a magnifier – on backwards – and no optic sight to go with it?

    Just wondering if there’s a back story somewhere.

    Reply
    • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 4:40 pm

      Guy’s dyslexic.

      Reply
  • Roseman February 1, 2013, 3:33 pm

    We poor souls in CT are awaiting the outcome of the gun control hearings currently underway here. Since we are listed as the third or fourth strictest state re: gun control, one can only guess what mischief will be foisted upon us. I’m wondering if the powers to be will be searching house to house. Even the people in this nanny state will not put up with that.

    Reply
  • Mountain Rifleman February 1, 2013, 3:38 pm

    AR’s brass melts into buckles. Buckles keep things from coming loose.
    03′s, 03A3′s and M1′s were my rifles, still are.

    Reply
  • Spook45 February 1, 2013, 4:38 pm

    Thats alll BULLSHIT. ITs as simple as this, read the federalist papers and the corispondance between the founding fathers and to summerize Washington himself, we the people are supposed to have the same or close to the same level of arms as the military. POint being that if they(the military, govt. etc) got out of hand and went away from our Constitution(we re there people) WE THE PEOPLE with whom the most authority is vested in the Constitution, would have the arms and ability to throw the bums out and re-establish our republic. Dont let the propaganda and the symantics fool you. The 68 gun control act was unconstitutional, the one from the 30′s that took the machine guns etc is unconstitutional there is not one single pc of gun control legislation that holds water by the standards of the founding fathers. ITs time for a change and WE THE PEOPLE hv to change it. To quote from the constitution itslef, IT is your RT it is your DUTY TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVT AND FIND NEW GUARDS FOR YOUR FREEDOMS AND RTS.

    Reply
    • Jason February 2, 2013, 12:29 am

      You are right Spook. If we are supposed to be a democracy & a government for the people by the people, how do we protect ourselves from a government or a militia/policing force who gets out of control? There is no checks & balances without guns.

      We establish democratic governments to countries where gun control exists & you see how well that works ….

      Reply
      • JaegeRanger February 2, 2013, 1:45 pm

        Republic … we’re a Republic, not a democracy – a huge difference.

        Reply
        • T.R. February 2, 2013, 5:42 pm

          Perhaps thats the problem…….besides , we are 95% a democracy , we elect almost all our officials …EXSEPT for the president ..just sayin

          Reply
    • T.R. February 2, 2013, 5:40 pm

      Amen Spook45 !!!!!!!

      Reply
  • Pineslayer February 1, 2013, 4:47 pm

    Just to add to the debate, all guns are assault weapons. That is where this is all heading. Next will be baseball bats, which in my hands is a lethal weapon. Soon we all walk around in bubble wrap and GPS locators implanted in our skulls and the world will be a safer place. I feel a big group hug coming on :)

    I have a friend in CA who tells me that 30 rd AK mags are selling on the street for upwards of $100, anybody else hear this madness?

    Reply
    • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 7:57 pm

      On the street?

      Legal, pre-1994 ban mags were selling in NY for $25 to $35 before the panic started. They doubled in price within days after the CT incident. Since then, people have been selling them for up around $100 and trying to trade them for all kinds of absurd things… like five mags for an SUV.

      We’re all supposed to turn in our mags that take more than 7 rounds to the state police by April 15th. Somehow I suspect that the people dropping $100 apiece on them will be burying them in the backyard under their mayo jars of silver coins.

      Reply
  • Michael February 1, 2013, 6:33 pm

    Mini-14′s didn’t make it onto the NY or Feinstein’s ban list. Let’s call all semi-auto, center-fire rifles “Ranch Rifles”!

    Reply
    • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 8:10 pm

      Everyone knows that Mini 14′s aren’t dangerous.

      They’re just innocent deer rifles for old timey hunting. And they shoot .30-06 bullets, not .223 cop killer bullets, so they’re powerful enough for deers and elks but won’t hurt a person.

      Reply
  • Robert February 1, 2013, 8:12 pm

    The term “Assault Weapon” is a political term meant to scare people. If they were concerned about the reality/capabilities of the rifle, they’d ban the Mini-14 too, as it’s just as functional as any AR. Same cartridge.

    They really should be saying “scary looking rifles” and admit that’s what drives most people. Feinstein is after every single one. Unarmed peasants working for the government and all that.

    Reply
  • Jason February 1, 2013, 9:20 pm

    Did you hear about the guy who got peppered by an assault weapon?

    wah, wah, wah, waaaaahhh …..

    Reply
    • Yikes! February 1, 2013, 9:53 pm

      Ayuh.

      When’s spring turkey season?

      Reply
      • irishdutchuncle February 1, 2013, 10:53 pm

        in the spring.

        Reply
        • Jason February 2, 2013, 12:04 pm

          Nothing get by you Irish. :-)

          Reply
  • Charles,,,, February 2, 2013, 1:05 pm

    A more thoughtful question to ponder,,,, are the ammo mfg’s diss’n their customers while bending to those who wish to control them, or just awaiting to increase their supply and demand pricing? If I was a mfg. I’d want to flood the market with my product to let those who wish to control me know that I am not for sale…. what say ye?

    Reply
  • JaegeRanger February 2, 2013, 2:03 pm

    First off, nobody should ever quote the WIKI in firearms issues.

    Second, the “assault weapon” is a made-up term for scary looking weapons Feinstein and her stuff literally gleaned from gun books and magazines.

    A Marine would never call his rifle a ‘gun.’

    And, yes, it was Hitler himself that coined the term “assault rifle” (Sturmgewehr) for propaganda purposes – it sounded cool.

    It was herr Hugo Schmeisser that designed the first working machine pistol, which evolved into the Sturmgewehr StG.44.

    We ought not ever use the terms our enemies have been coined. Whoever creates the words lords over the dialogue.

    An “assault weapon” does not exist. If it does, 90% of our firearms are currently “assault weapons.”

    My Glock 19 is quite far cry from M16 or any other full-auto firearm.

    Bottom line, they are after all firearms – all of them.

    Reply
  • Ray February 2, 2013, 3:51 pm

    Guys ,It don’t matter what we call a rifle . What matters is ; we eather fight a civil war to keep em’ or turn them in to a group of devout communist/ statest scum. If we keep them we fight; beliveing anything else is a delutional fantisy. If you turn them in; your citizenship ,vote and freedom are gone forever. You spend the rest of your life as a slave. The goal of the enemy is to take every wepon ,then every bible. After that forced Abortion and euthinatsa. If we Give up our wepons ,we become the property of whoever keeps them, to be used and dicarded in any way they see fit. This isn’t in some far off future. This is right here in front of us, NOW. The only road passed “gun Control” leads to the gulag ,”re-education” and ovens. EVERY country that has banned wepons ,has felt “forced” to “deal with” those that owned them. The left won’t hear logic- they don’t care about truth, what we say we say to each other. The left dose not care what we say, long as its “yes master” .

    Reply
    • Ray February 2, 2013, 3:55 pm

      A note on the word salad at the end of above, My 5 year old was “helping”

      Reply
  • Mark February 5, 2013, 6:11 pm

    An “assault weapon” can be a piece of iron water pipe. That’s what one of my neighbors used on his ex-girlfriend. Now he’s doing six years.

    Reply
    • Jason February 5, 2013, 7:41 pm

      At least it was only attempted murder otherwise, he’d be in for 25 to life.

      Reply
  • Rusty February 6, 2013, 4:06 am

    I think once we start down the long road of Civil War and good ppl like us on this blog start dying a leader will step forward and lead us to victory. What a tragic shame that Obummer doesn’t realize we are not playing games and that we are going to prevail at all cost. We will not be deterred.

    Reply
    • Jason February 6, 2013, 9:18 am

      Blog audiences live in silly fantasies …..

      Once a few bullets whiz by you head, you will be deterred or the new hole in your head will deter others.

      Reply

Leave a Comment