|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 6, 2013 5:18:26 GMT -6
Pam what one of these is made in the USA? The bushmaster m-17 is no longer in production and was made in Australia as well. The HK hasn't been available since 1989 and to find one today you better have a deep wallet. The others shown I doubt most Americans can walk into a gun store and pick up. LOL.
Still waiting to see something from an American arms maker detailing the listing of a firearm they make and promote as an assault rifle. That the common man can go buy.
Like Remington, Ruger, S&W. La Rue ,Rock River or any other US maker of AR platform rifles using that term anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Sept 6, 2013 8:04:40 GMT -6
None of them made an AR variant rifle in the 70's or 80's, Rock River Arms didn't even exist then. But it's pretty clear the term 'assault rifle' was being used by the firearms industry back then when the mainstream shooting mags used the term on their mag covers and manufacturers like H&K used it in their advertisements. I remember the term used in gun shops as well. The first time I recall the media and the antis using the term was in a bill here in CA in 1985, and they didn't invent the term, as is clearly shown in firearms industry ads and magazines from years before. And they didn't invent the term either, nor did they coin the term 'tactical', but they did use it as a marketing tool BEFORE the term was used by the antis. None would use it now, and I think they'll regret using the term 'tactical' in the future. We'd probably have to credit the Germans with the origination of the term given the Sturmgewehr 44 translates to assault rifle of 1944.  Back in the 80's I had quite a few friends who were South African and Rhodesian expatriates, several of whom were veterans of the bush wars in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and of the South African Defense Force fighting the SWAPO and the Cubans in what is now Namibia. They all loved the H&K G3, and owned the civilian versions of them here, since the G3 was the issue weapon for their military. Very interesting stories when we were camped out hunting. Firearms marketing has changed over the years. Way back when.............. When a Remington 870 was for wholesome family activities, like bird hunting on Sundays.  To now, when everything must be 'tactical' so you'll be ready for the zombie apocalypse,  Why such denial that the term 'assault rifle' was used in marketing ? |
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 7, 2013 7:47:37 GMT -6
FWS you still have yet to produce anything that shows a US firearm maker calling an AR an assault rifle LOL.
Sure marketing changes no matter what products your looking at, it has to to keep sales of what's hot or to be hot going strong. I SE the words defense used and tatical because home protection and a closer bond with many in these times to firearms because of the legislation being tried to limited people's freedoms.
Shooing and firearms ownership has become main stream and that worries the crap out of the anti gun crowd. As more Americans own firearms the anti's clout and power drop off. So they are using a few periods in time as a way to fight back and get what they want.
Yet I haven't to hear an american gun maker themselves use the term assault rifle to promote or market any firearm to American consumers. You really think they are that dumb? LOL.
When I sold guns I had two co workers one was ex military and the other was on a swat team and if either heard anyone customer or salesmen. Use the term assault rifle to describe the AR you got an ear full of why that is not the proper term .
|
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Sept 7, 2013 11:46:06 GMT -6
You obviously haven't been around it long enough to have seen it. As the magazine articles/covers and advertisements of the pre-legislative ban attempts show.
And just how many US manufacturers were producing those type of firearms in the 70's and early 80's and marketing them to consumers ? Colt was about it with the AR 15.
Which was recent............... Long after the term 'assault rifle/weapon' became a political term, but had it not become a politically charged term you'd have used it in yours sales pitch. Just like using the term 'tactical', which implies combat.
It always was, and was much more common in the past than now per capita. As with hunting.
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 7, 2013 11:59:32 GMT -6
I would disagree with you. Years back guns where for hunting mainly, look at the guns built and one can see gun ownership was more for hunting than anything else. Now we see more guns built and specialized for shooting sports and home defense a than ever in our history. They market them to a much wider user group today than in the 50,60 or 70's. More woman own guns today than the past. More people using shooting ranges and entering shooting comps,of all kinds. You market to what the public seeks out!
I know of no gun maker here in the US that their attorneys would allow them to use the words of assault or killing machine to market any firearm period. That would be bad business.
More people have conceal carry permits now than anytime in our countries history fact! The gun legislation can take credit for much of that again a fact!
Agan you prefer to use ONE definition of the term tatical there are others that have nothing to do with war combat!
Again you make reference to what happened in the 70's and 80's but can not produce any US maker using the terms assault rifle LOL.
The gun magazines try to sell more magazines and use terms far more loosely for more mag sales, yet they aren't the ones making the firearms.............
I just wish I could buy a wing-master with high gloss walnut for 79.95 today LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Sept 7, 2013 12:20:41 GMT -6
You could try, but the shooting sports have been around for a long time. Now................ But that was obviously not always the case was it, as per H&K's ad. The US population is now over 300,000,000 and there didn't used to be such a thing as a permit to carry a firearm, concealed or not. So you think there are other definitions ?  And are a component of the firearms industry............... Why shouldn't I ? The threat of lawsuits barely existed then, nothing like it does now. So yeah, what flew back then, and before then, doesn't fly now. And that's pretty common with most issues isn't it. Particularly with the terms used.................. |
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 7, 2013 13:12:00 GMT -6
Your dancing LOL. You claimed that US firearms manufactures used the term assault rifle yet you have given no,proof of such? magazines aren't manufactures of firearms they are independent of such.........
We clarified what AR stood for had nothing to,do with assault rifle. HK did not make those guns in the US.
Many states until the last 10 or so years didn't allow such to carry a concealed weapon without consent of law enforcement if they said NO you had little recourse in many states. I know of people making 50,000 plus doing conceal carry classes today. There for a period of almost 2 years many where booked solid for months in advance.
As a matter of fact their is more than one definition of tatical LOL.
tac·ti·cal [tak-ti-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to tactics, especially military or naval tactics.
2.
characterized by skillful tactics or adroit maneuvering or procedure: tactical movements.
3.
of or pertaining to a maneuver or plan of action designed as an expedient toward gaining a desired end or temporary advantage.
4.
expedient; calculated.
5.
prudent; politic.
Relevant Questions
What Is Tactical Plannin...
How To Wear A Tactical S...
How To Be Tactical
How To Sling A Tactical ...
Origin:
1560–70; tactic + -al1
Related forms
tac·ti·cal·ly, adverb
non·tac·ti·cal, adjective
non·tac·ti·cal·ly, adverb
un·tac·ti·cal, adjective
un·tac·ti·cal·ly, adverb
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.
Cite This Source | Link To tactical
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 7, 2013 14:13:41 GMT -6
I mean really could you see Sig Sauer, Remington, Ruger etc coming out with an ad stating our latest and greatest assault rifle yet, a real killing machine LOL? Their attorneys would be pulling their hair out LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by doyleflory on Sept 7, 2013 14:33:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Sept 7, 2013 14:51:48 GMT -6
Actually that was your claim, here's mine, And showed proof of that, Pam provided it as well,  From which you tried to 'dance' away from as usual................. Not when describing firearms.................. Pre-legislative ban use of the term sure. After that, not so much. But I already pointed that out didn't I.  Are they not implying that with a term like 'tactical' ? Regardless of how you want to sugar coat it.......... |
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 7, 2013 14:52:34 GMT -6
Well first off you got that inform Beck so your gong to be discounted on that LOL. Secondly oh these guys are the good guys you know the ones that back this admin will stick up for and say this action is really needed by the US LOL. Yeh we have no problem in giving these people our firearms, yet we don't want legal,Americans to be able to own such as that would be far worse LOL. I mean why should legal Amercian citizens be able to own a fore arm with a 22" barrel and have the capacity of holding 20 or 30 rds of ammo in a semi auto,platform? We all know they only have one purpose and that is to shoot,up,people lol. They have no place in hunting prairie dogs, coyotes, or other varmints and you surely wouldn't need one for sport shooting like 3 gun comps! Oh no we need to keep,these for our friends in Syria to use ............
I admit I guess I have been being silly calling this a double standard by this admin..................... LOL, LOL..............
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 7, 2013 15:00:47 GMT -6
Dancing,dancing,dancing FWS. YOu did state that US firearms makers did such not me. I wanted proof you or Pam gave me either a foreign maker or a magazine which neither fits US firearm manufacture or gun maker LOL. You pointed out nothing but remembering such US makers using the term assault rifle, yet neither have shown any proof from the 70's or now of a US maker doing such! LOL.
What Pam showed was many firearms that most Americans couldn't get their hands on except a few. None made by US makers I believe..............
Pre ban or not it opens up liability so it doesn't matter. You see makers here have a different standard than do those in other countries and the naming of such.
Quit bringing up some magazine that has no legal issues to contend with when calling a firearm what they choose. Your not gong to sue gun digest for a gun made or marketing of such, your going to sue the maker Pre ban or post.
You stated Tactical only had one definition, it has more and if I state I made a tactical move in chess what does that have to do with a gun or military action? LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Sept 7, 2013 15:02:14 GMT -6
Last we discussed it you didn't own anything built on an AR platform (Savage doesn't make one). Most likely not any US made small arms, like M4's, they'd get captured AK's from previous conflicts since those would be the most common, which BTW, the semi auto versions were marketed in the US as the AK-47 Assault Rifle by the importers. Remember them well.................. |
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Sept 7, 2013 15:13:32 GMT -6
No, you made that statement, I said firearms industry. And that would include the periodicals that are the advertising arm of the industry, and it would include importers and foreign manufacturers, as well as retailers, gun show sellers, and so on. Sure it does. Since they didn't view it as a legal liability then, which it is now. Not much different from the time when a boss would pat his secretary on the ass and have no fear of legal reprisal from doing so. Try that now and see what happens to you. Why ? You're trying desperately to deny that the industry used that term, which they did, before it became politically charged. |
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 7, 2013 17:31:22 GMT -6
TC I didn't see any place that you only wanted the "assault rifle" from 70 on. You stated that they never advertised them as assault weapons. That is incorrect. The term WAS used. Do they use it today? No, it's no longer policially correct, and it scares people.
If you don't understand the difference between using weapons made to kill the enemy during a war and using them for hunting, or shooting up a school building during peace, oh well. You don't "need" an assault rifle to hunt anything, or protect your home from intruders.
Cheers,
Pam
|
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Sept 7, 2013 19:29:46 GMT -6
You know what the correct response was to our pointing this out ?
It would be, "They should not have used that term".
But, it's not the first time, nor was it the last time, where the antis pick up a term or anything else from gun owners, hunters, shooters, trappers, fishermen and a whole host of others and exploited it.
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 7, 2013 20:31:07 GMT -6
PM that is your opinion Ns yours to have. While I don't own a platform rifle such as an AR I have shot them plenty and they have functional uses when hunting or for shooting sports. Not once did I think to go into. Shoot um up with them not at all. To me and many other civil Americans and legal gun owners we see them as a semi automatic rifle not as an assault weapon. Again a term used by others. I didn't count the rounds fired , I shot p dogs and a couple coyotes and target shot with them. Some are very accreted in fact far more so than many of the older types that didn't have the barrel quaility or machining done on today's semiautomatic AR rifles. There is more to them a shoot and spray weapon.
I' m a bolt guy due to excellent accuracy and less recoil. But if I had a bolt rifle with a double stack magazine that could hold 15-20 rds what difference would it make really?
FWS the words are semantics really you wrote this: A term which was brought into use in the US by the firearms industry as a marketing tool.........
I don't call shooting magazines part of the firearms industry,my you might? I wanted to know what US firearms maker has used such term, none could be provided from anytime past or present. Magazines and importers. I wouldn't own an am 47 for nothing pure junk most of them. As are many war used across seas older rifles. People buy them because many are cheap .
|
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 7, 2013 22:15:48 GMT -6
"I wanted to know what US firearms maker has used such term, none could be provided from anytime past or present. " Again:  It was plate right ON the gun stock. |
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Sept 7, 2013 22:34:31 GMT -6
You don't "need" an assault rifle to hunt anything, or protect your home from intruders. Cheers, Pam Why should a man that wants to own an assault rifle have to "need" one? |
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 8, 2013 6:42:01 GMT -6
Pam why such a close up? Where is the rest of the gun? Remington holding now owns Bushmaster rifles. The guy that did own it sold it. If that is truly the case no wonder he sold it. He iwas making a firearm and giving it the wrong verbage. AR is a rifle designed to take parts from one and switch it to another and not miss a beat. They are also designed with very few moving parts for reliability. They can also have 10 round mags or larger and most sold in gun shops today are all semi autos. You need a special permit to own fully automatic weapons.
Besides with Obama's latest executive order ak's and the such will no be legal to be sold in the US. Slick move for sure on his part. What about due process and working within side of our constitution instead of loop holes.
|
|
