Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 19 issues

NAME THAT BOOM

Liberals Under Fire for 'Assault Weapon' Label

But the term originates with gun makers and marketers, liberals reveal

Next>

by Dain Fitzgerald

Staff Writer t +

Image: pookiesarchery.com

Gun control advocates have been drawing fire from conservatives lately for their allegedly misleading use of the term "assault weapon." They're supposedly using the term as propaganda to help ensure that guns that appear vaguely "military-like" are banned or more heavily regulated.

But does blame for the confusion surrounding just what does or does not deserve the "assault weapons" tag belong with gun fans themselves?

The Daily Kos reports on the little-known introduction of the moniker "assault weapon" by gun marketers in decades past to help sell firearms that weren't particularly popular with gun owners at the time.

"The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar," according to gun expert Philip Peterson. "The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun," which included both semiautomatic and fully automatic weapons.

Daily Kos contributor "Meteor Blades" eagerly puts this news in perspective:

Got that? The Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence didn't apply the term 'assault' to grab guns, the industry applied it to sell them. Good enough for the marketers, good enough for the gun-control advocates, one would think.

Via the Daily Kos.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

How would you define an assault weapon?

180 Comments (view in Forum)

  • artjeb
    !
    DARSBY any object that i can hold in my hand can be a assault weapon including my hand. assault can be defind as a action resulting in body harm by another person
  • DARSB
    !
    @artjeb True as far as it goes. How long would it take your hand to kill 12 people in a dark theatre or 26 people in an elementary school?

  • Load more replies >

  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    Assault weapon is a automatic rifle. The guns at issue are semi- automatics, thus they are not assault weapons. But if that article is factually correct it means the industry applied the term to semi-automatic weapons as a sales tool. If so its unfair to blame the gun control crowd for using the phrase, since it was gun manufactures and advertizers that popularized it.
  • ProCCW
    !
    @PoliticalSpice My understanding is the definition of assault weapon was defined or rather redefined in the first Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. Basically the federal government is responsible for the blurring the differences between fully and semi autos. Hence the beginning of the confusion.. The sales force jumped on the wagon and label the semis as assault weapons in their displays. I've seen cheezy 22lr's with accessories labeld as such in gun shops. To me I see a rad looking plinker. Others see a scary looking assault weapon. Anything for a sale.
  • Rocker
    !
    @ProCCW - On the farm here, I have a semi-auto AMT .22 stainless rifle. I like it because of the folding stock being compact. The mag is 25 round capacity. It also has a pistol grip on a composite frame and tough. Unfortunately, due to some of the definitions, that firearm could be considered an assault rifle. Why do I need so many rounds? I've lost 2 calves to wild dog/coyote mix packs. There were seven of them. Now there's only 2.

  • Load more replies >

  • ADudeCalledRay
    !
    I do not define them as such. The label is misleading and it was in fact coined by the VPC in an effort to confuse the difference between full auto and semi auto. The idea behind it was to scare the American public into believing that those semi autos were no different than full autos and thus support a ban on certain semi autos. The fact is that full auto has been so restricted for a long time that the public does not understand that and you know how people react when they do not understand something.
  • Zazziness
    !
    "How would you define an assault weapon?"
    I think a news outlet that intends to profit on dividing our nation and who therefore tries to frame every current event question in terms of "liberal" vs "conservative" is using language as an assault weapon. Oh, the damage is seldom fatal or immediate but it is insidious and destructive to civil discourse, problem solving and the long term well-being of our nation. Sort of a meme assault weapon, I'd say.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  •
    USailCapital
    !
    @PoliticalSpice Same with MSDNC... errr MSNBC. They are 180 in the opposite. Obviously you don't support the First Amendment. I personally don't care for FOX news, but right or wrong, you can not silence them. Unless of course you claim your position is to abolish the First.
  • Zazziness
    !
    @USailCapital I was actually referring to Politix because they are getting carried away with the "Liberals are cats, Conservatives are dogs" schtick.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    @USailCapital perhaps you do not understand that radio/bandwidth soectrum is not freely available. Not anyone can own a telivision station and in that sense it is different then freedom of press where you can print something, or the internet where unlimited numbers of people have access. The govt picks and chooses who are licensed to operate and run tv stations. There used to be a doctrine known as the fairness doctrine. I liked it. It was an fcc regulation that pertained to news broadcast to make sure reporting is, how shall i put this, lets just say... Fair and balanced. I think that should be brought back to cover news broadcast themselves, not necessarily the programing that makes up 90% of the content of fox and a lesser percentage of the content of msnbc.

    Thhere is also another basis, that os those licensed by fcc must operate in the public interest, violation of major laws, a felony conviction, that type of thing ca n result on loss of the broadcast license. Murdock could be denied a license to operate on the basis of the scandel unfolding in england if similar actions were taken here by fox, so there are a whole bunch of basis that ate outside the protection of the first amendment.

    If the first amendment applied i could buy some equipment and set up a tv station right mow, but if i did the govt would shut me down for operating without a license. So if they shut gox down, or decided to transfer the license to a left wing group, that would be fine with me, but it is not sonething I'm calling for, thought the idea of starting a petition is very tempting. If one goes online let me know, then i can decide if i'll sign it.

    But all that is really bedide the point. I made the comment to as a jibe, i don't like the politics of fox, but i don't really want them off the air, but here is the thing, last week people were calling for the firing and some even for imprisonment of a teacher who stompted on a flag, an act protected by the first amendment, i think you were on the opposite side of the issue then. And lest I leave you with the wrong impression i not an absolutest on the first. Canada and Germany both have laws against things like holocaust denial and hate speech, such laws donot end free and spirited debate. Free speech in the u.s. is not absolute either. Their are doctrines sich as the fighting words doctrine, catagories, such as commercial speech, obsenity, etc. that are outside the protections of the first amendment. So dont act as if its a free for all cause its not. Anyone who thinks the teacher who stomped that flag or a protester who burns a flag is not someone whose opinion about the first amendment matters to me.

  • Load more replies >

  • jessejaymes
    !
    the irony of this entire debate is that someone fairly familiar and competent with a shotgun can do more damage to more people more quickly than any semi auto gun. And shotguns are legal in almost every country in the world.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    @Food4thoughts He took his mother's guns. He shot each kid a minimum of 4 times. He knew how to pull a trigger. he did not know how to walk and shoot and load constantly thereby never being out of firepower. When you ban semi auto rifles they will use semi auto pistols (some of whom are larger caliber and more devastating at close range). When you ban semi auto handguns they will use a shotgun. And they will learn to walk and shoot and load. The lunatic was insane. Most are. But they are not stupid. they will learn to do the same with a shotgun.
  • Libertyiskey
    !
    @Food4thoughts That's true. I don't know your view on the assault weapon ban but say they do it and the next sandy hook the guy uses the shotgun, what then?

  • Load more replies >

  • jessejaymes
    !
    @stepped_in_it Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that video show automatic fire? I watched his trigger finger three times while he was firing at the beginning and it did not move. That's automatic fire.

  • Load more replies >

  • MadAmerican
    !
    An assult weapon to me could be anything used to intentionally hurt someone, but the industry had this term to make the weapon "manly" for those who wanted military style weapons.
  • Grubby
    !
    A fully automatic, large caliber (above .22) rifle used for combat, like the M-16 is an Assault Weapon. The Liberals try to identify them by looks. I can't wait to learn that they want to ban bb guns, paintball guns, and water guns that "look like" their definition of assault weapon, while leaving legal my Glock 9mm pistol with a 15 round clip. Such morons.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  •
    Grubby
    !
    @pezcore64 I read the article, I know who started with the label, but it is the moron Liberals who want to ban "Assault Weapons". The next question, which I raise, is how will they define Assault Weapons? I have never yet heard a good proposed definition. The current one that seems circulating is one or more Military features. That is strictly how something looks, and would not exempt bb guns and water guns. If they use caliber of bullet, then the hit almost every hunting rifle. Same for all semi-automatics, you hit a lot of traditional hunting rifles. I am still waiting for a rational definition.
  • Vance1
    !
    M60 is a belt-fed "machine gun" that fires the 7.62 mm NATO cartridges

    aka "A real and true" Assault Weapon
    anything less, is just a semi auto rifle!! end of story
  • Gunslinger01
    !
    In 1776 a flintlock was considered an assault weapon and for those of you who still don't understand that this is not about guns but getting control of our guns let me explain, a hammer can be used as an assault weapon
  • Buzzfriendly
    !
    I define anything as a weapon that a criminal uses to assault someone. From cotton balls to nukes if it is used to harm another person then isn't everything a assault weapon?
  • scotta
    !
    It is the weapon that snipers use to assault their targets. Also if you have a weapon with a pistol grip on it in new York city is an assault weapon. So buy all your AR15's with out the pistol grips. Attention all swat teams and officers in new York city you now can have only 7 shots in your weapons. You shotguns with the pistol grips are now ileagal in new York. May God be with our men in blue when the bad guys who will not have 7 shots in their weapons with pistol grips.
  • R Load more comments...