Call Them "Regime Change Rifles"

[anygunanywhere]

They'll dress up your hunting rifle to look scary for the evening news then ban it with other black rifles. Hunters, claim your rights or lose.

http://www.examiner.com/article/call-th ... nge-rifles

That the fabricated term "assault weapon" has become the household expression for describing a semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifle is a triumph for the virulently anti-gun Violence Policy Center, which has for decades contributed to and exploited the public's lack of knowledge about these guns in order to demonize them, as they've openly acknowledged since 1988:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

Anygunanywhere

[JJVP]

No need to dress up your bolt action rifle. They'll just call them sniper rifles. Who needs a sniper rifle for anyway. They are design to kill.

[Excaliber]

I like "homeland defense rifles" myself.

It most certainly DOES matter what something is called.

He who defines the term directs the discussion.

[MoJo]

[The Annoyed Man]

I have been calling them "Militia Rifles" lately.......which is kind of the same thing as Excaliber's "Homeland Defense" rifles. Just yesterday, I was having my teeth cleaned and the hygenist asked about hunting with an AR....as in, why would anybody need to hunt with one. I told her that the very first time I ever went deer hunting, my partner took a doe with an AR15. But as we know, the RKBA isn't about hunting, or about self-defense, although the use of our firearms can certainly be applied to those things. No, the PRIMARY purpose of the 2nd Amendment is the preservation of a citizen militia, armed with whatever the standard military arms of the day are, for the purpose of defending the state from its enemies, whether they be foreign or domestic.

Leftists sneer at the use of the term "domestic enemies" (in no small part because a] it thwarts their ambitions, and b] it might thusly be said that they are the target of that term and should fear it), and even many conservatives who are comfortable talking about the existence of domestic enemies, become very uncomfortable talking about what to do with them—because that secondary thought necessarily includes the potential for violence, and their own innate patriotism gives them pause in that regard.

And it SHOULD give us pause. We should NEVER consider such things lightly. But we cannot have a discussion where we talk about the unique role of the AR15 (and by extension any other similar rifle like the AR10, AK47/74, or the M1A/M14, for instance) without considering the full implications of what that means. Whether you choose to call them "Militia Rifles" as I do, or "Homeland Defense Rifles" as Excaliber does, you ultimately are led to the question "defend from whom?" Why do you think that Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama hate them so much? It isn't because of the numbers used in crimes. They have access to the same statistics as we do, for crying out loud. Those FBI stats, which do not lie, come from a department of the Obama administration! And DiFi is the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for Pete's sake. She is NOT ignorant. No, these people dislike Militia Rifles because the very existence of such a thing threatens their stranglehold on national power. Here's one that most people, including RKBA advocates, don't even consider: DiFi is also chairperson of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control. (Thank God that Sen Chuck Grassley is the co-chair. Can anyone say "Fast & Furious?" I can't point to a specific connection between this committee chairmanship and her Intelligence chairmanship and her writing of the proposed AWB, but it it makes red flags go up, doesn't it?) This is serious stuff.

In any case, I prefer the term "Militia Rifle" exactly because A) it ties in to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and its specific wording; and B) it is a historical reference to the fact that we have a specific heritage that is worthy of preservation.

[anygunanywhere]

In any case, I prefer the term "Militia Rifle" exactly because A) it ties in to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and its specific wording; and B) it is a historical reference to the fact that we have a specific heritage that is worthy of preservation.

Thank you TAM! May I utilize that term?

Anygunanywhere

[varko]

In any case, I prefer the term "Militia Rifle" exactly because A) it ties in to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and its specific wording; and B) it is a historical reference to the fact that we have a specific heritage that is worthy of preservation.

Thank you TAM! May I utilize that term?

Anygunanywhere

I would like to second that request.

[The Annoyed Man]

In any case, I prefer the term "Militia Rifle" exactly because A) it ties in to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and its specific wording; and B) it is a historical reference to the fact that we have a specific heritage that is worthy of preservation.

Thank you TAM! May I utilize that term?

Anygunanywhere

I would like to second that request.

Of course you may.

[Excaliber]

I have been calling them "Militia Rifles" lately.......which is kind of the same thing as Excaliber's "Homeland Defense" rifles. Just yesterday, I was having my teeth cleaned and the hygenist asked about hunting with an AR....as in, why would anybody need to hunt with one. I told her that the very first time I ever went deer hunting, my partner took a doe with an AR15. But as we know, the RKBA isn't about hunting, or about self-defense, although the use of our firearms can certainly be applied to those things. No, the PRIMARY purpose of the 2nd Amendment is the preservation of a citizen militia, armed with whatever the standard military arms of the day are, for the purpose of defending the state from its enemies, whether they be foreign or domestic.

Leftists sneer at the use of the term "domestic enemies" (in no small part because a] it thwarts their ambitions, and b] it might thusly be said that they are the target of that term and should fear it), and even many conservatives who are comfortable talking about the existence of domestic enemies, become very uncomfortable talking about what to do with them—because that secondary thought necessarily includes the potential for violence, and their own innate patriotism gives them pause in that regard.

And it SHOULD give us pause. We should NEVER consider such things lightly. But we cannot have a discussion where we talk about the unique role of the AR15 (and by extension any other similar rifle like the AR10, AK47/74, or the M1A/M14, for instance) without considering the full implications of what that means. Whether you choose to call them "Militia Rifles" as I do, or "Homeland Defense Rifles" as Excaliber does, you ultimately are led to the question "defend from whom?" Why do you think that Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama hate them so much? It isn't because of the numbers used in crimes. They have access to the same statistics as we do, for crying out loud. Those FBI stats, which do not lie, come from a department of the Obama administration! And DiFi is the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for Pete's sake. She is NOT ignorant. No, these people dislike Militia Rifles because the very existence of such a thing threatens their stranglehold on national power. Here's one that most people, including RKBA advocates, don't even consider: DiFi is also chairperson of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control. (Thank God that Sen Chuck Grassley is the co-chair. Can anyone say "Fast & Furious?" I can't point to a specific connection between this committee chairmanship and her Intelligence chairmanship and her writing of the proposed AWB, but it it makes red flags go up, doesn't it?) This is serious stuff.

In any case, I prefer the term "Militia Rifle" exactly because A) it ties in to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and its specific wording; and B) it is a historical reference to the fact that we have a specific heritage that is worthy of preservation.

I like that term and the reasoning for it. I'll be using that going forward.

Too bad the NRA didn't start using this 20 years ago - we might not even be having the conversations we're having today.

[Purplehood]

Sorry, but I would not consider the use of the term "Militia Rifles" as beneficiary to the 2A cause.

It would then narrow the discussion to the need/requirement to be a member of the dreaded 'Militia' that is now a synonym for right-wing, crazy people with EBR's in the rainforest.

[kragluver]

This is an interesting and good discussion.

Something the gun grabbers won't admit is the 2nd amendment was not about "guns" - it was about the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS. "Shall not be infringed" meant ALL arms - including the most effective and deadly military arms of the day - in defense against the rise of a tyrannical government. That would have included smoothbore muskets, rifles, pistols, knives, swords, pikes, cannon, multi-barreled cannon and rifles, etc. The founders did not say all arms except... They intended the people to theoretically have the ability to be as strongly armed as any army. One might say that until 1934, that was theoretically possible!

When an "anti" states, "well, the Founders could not have possibly conceived of a rapid firing weapon like the AR-15", gently remind them that inventors around the world had already invented or were working on rapid fire rifles and cannon at the time the Bill of Rights was written: The Nock Gun - England, 1779, the Mitrailleuse - Belgium, 1851, the Girandoni air rifle (the Austrian army was actually armed with these) - 1779, and finally, Leonardo da Vinci's multi-barreled gun invented in the 1480s. I'm sure there are quite a few more I haven't thought of.

[anygunanywhere]

Sorry, but I would not consider the use of the term "Militia Rifles" as beneficiary to the 2A cause.

It would then narrow the discussion to the need/requirement to be a member of the dreaded 'Militia' that is now a synonym for right-wing, crazy people with EBR's in the rainforest.

Sorry. not seeing any negatives here.

Never have I ever seen where being sensitive to the antis has ever gained us anything.

Of course YMMV.

Anygunanywhere

[VMI77]

Here's an idea to go along with the term "militia rifles."

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd569.htm

The only solution is for states to pass a bill to reconstitute the constitutional militia and the people of each state demand their governor sign it into law. THAT will stop the tyrants in Washington, DC., once and for all. Yet, the NRA, GOA and gun groups all across this country ignore the only solution. Why? What is their problem? Yeah, the word militia has been demonized by hate groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, but that's not excuse to ignore the real solution. I understand groups need donations to stay afloat, but what good is a pro-Second Amendment organization if they chase more Band Aids instead of going after the cure?"

[stroo]

As was in the past, every man between 18 and 45 should be made part of the militia and be required to outfit themselves with a suitable weapon.

[Purplehood]

Here's an idea to go along with the term "militia rifles."

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd569.htm

The only solution is for states to pass a bill to reconstitute the constitutional militia and the people of each state demand their governor sign it into law. THAT will stop the tyrants in Washington, DC., once and for all. Yet, the NRA, GOA and gun groups all across this country ignore the only solution. Why? What is their problem? Yeah, the word militia has been demonized by hate groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, but that's not excuse to ignore the real solution. I understand groups need donations to stay afloat, but what good is a pro-Second Amendment organization if they chase more Band Aids instead of going after the cure?"

I read the entire link and found the guys vitriole disturbing and hard to read. Yes, I don't like gun-grabbers, Obama and bread-pudding...but I don't constantly harp on those things in every single sentence.
The reason I bothered to go through the link is that I was actually interested in his thoughts on why we absolutely had to form a Constitutional Militia since what we have been doing simply won't work.
Unfortunately the guy kept referring to someone else's work that he has not yet finished reading and therefore couldn't give us any reason to agree with him.

Oh well.