Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Even BATF Says ‘Assault Weapons’ is a Fake Term

  1. #1
    Team GunsNet Gold 07/2012 / Super Moderator Gunreference1's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    AZ USA
    Posts
    5,745

    Post Even BATF Says ‘Assault Weapons’ is a Fake Term

    After today, it's all historical.

  2. #2
    Forum Administrator Schuetzenman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    East of Atlanta GA
    Posts
    14,982
    Southern Poverty Law came up with the term to demonize them during Clinton's Presidency. They also came up with an anti-Sniper rifle paper to try and get any rifle that is more accurate than 2" at 100 yards banned. The real goal of all these groups is total disarmament of Americans.

  3. #3
    Senior Member tank_monkey's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Schuetzenman View Post
    Southern Poverty Law came up with the term to demonize them during Clinton's Presidency. They also came up with an anti-Sniper rifle paper to try and get any rifle that is more accurate than 2" at 100 yards banned. The real goal of all these groups is total disarmament of Americans.
    Actually 'some' members of the gun industry themselves came up with it in the 1980s as a marketing tool. Ian Hogg, a noted firearms author, actually released a coffee table book in 1988 titled "Assault Weapons" in which he outlined the (then) increasing popularity of civilian firearms with LEO/Military design origins, or 100% commercial models that was heavily influenced to reflect the 'military looking' design to attract sales.

    I have that book and it was sold in 1988. Four years BEFORE Clinton's term.

    Sadly, some guy's attempt to 'make everything sexy' to sell more guns bit us in the ass. ALL educated gun owners 'knew' the term was a generic term for something that 'looked' sexy and evil and black, but we all KNEW it meant nothing. But the Media and politicians were SO DAMNED IGNORANT about firearms technology that they railed for banning them, and then we had things like the 1989 California ban which had to come up with stupid cosmetic design elements that had nothing to do with function because they realized that LOOKS was the only thing that differentiated these from 'so called sporting/hunting' semiautomatic firearms.

    I loved how the federal ban outlawed 'heat shrouds', as if that does anything to make the gun more evil or Banning fucking BAYONET lugs, as if that does anything. The entire idiocy of outlawing cosmetic features came from the moment the DEMOCRATS realized that they had NO functioning definition of a so called 'assault weapon' that would attack the firearms that they deemed scary, so they went purely for cosmetics. Of course, the industry always made a 'work around' because the bans were just that stupid.

    We're going into now 40 years of the MEDIA and the DEMOCRATS railing against something that technically doesn't exist and they keep on doing it.

  4. #4
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    10,140
    Don't forget that democrat... I mean republican president complaining about "evil looking weapons" as if the looks of a firearm could turn an honest person into a baby killer. Thank you George Bush the First for the MAK-90.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •