5 ms·

> (obscured by the upper receiver of the assault weapon) You mean the stock of the semi-automatic rifle which happens to be scary and black?

by jff 11y ago

seangrant 11y ago
Let's not forget these people had every intention to use those weapons against humans. This isn't some guns club hanging out.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  Arguably, they intended to use them to defend themselves if they were attacked. (By humans, yes.) They were not hunting people down and assaulting them. That being said, they were looking to defend themselves while illegally occupying a federal facility... but the particulars of that situation don't really reflect on the choice of weapon.
  - twothamendment 11y ago
    I prefer to call mine an anti-assault weapon. I don't have any need or plans to assault anyone, but I may have a need to defend against someone who'd like to assault me.
  - davidw 11y ago
    > They were not hunting people down and assaulting them. Not with the guns, and not physically, much. But they most certainly were threatening people, according to the FBI complaint against them: "The person with Ritzheimer told the woman he knows what kind of car she drives and he was going to follow her home and burn her house down, according to the complaint."
  - seangrant 11y ago
    You don't have to assault someone for your weapon to become an "assault weapon". A semi-auto pistol grip rifle is an assault weapon. Especially when the clear purpose of them having these weapons are to be used in combat. No it is not a defense to say that they are defending themselves. These people illegally encroached property that was not theirs.
  - rconti 11y ago
    Right. Carrying a firearm = self defense. Fine. Someone might attack you, you can defend yourself. Occupying land that is not yours = protest action. Fine. You'll probably get arrested or at least sent on your way, but fine. Occupying the land AND carrying a weapon to defend yourself isn't just like "oh man, if someone tries to rob me during my protest operation, I'll be able to defend myself!" No, it's tacitly admitting that people are going to come and arrest you, and you expect to put up a violent fight. Nobody's under any illusion that the police are going to march in there, put handcuffs on everyone, and walk out.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Arguably, they intended to use them to defend themselves if they were attacked. (By humans, yes.) They were not hunting people down and assaulting them. Then again they overtly sought to institute their own court system, and overtly sought to subject government officials to trial for various crimes by that court system, and issued threats for non-cooperation with that effort, so its not at all clear that the end game, were they not arrested before that escalated further, wasn't "hunting down people and assaulting them".
    - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
      That's a lot of speculation. And also immaterial to the point.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > That's a lot of speculation. The only speculation is that they would, if not constrained by intervening events, carry out their overt threats in support of their overt goals. That's not a lot of speculation at all.
nathanm412 11y ago
Assault weapon is colloquially defined as a firearm with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip. I've seen this definition in common use going back 30 years, whether or not it helps anyone's political ideals. A thorough discussion of the definition and it's history can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
- sithadmin 11y ago
  >Assault weapon is colloquially defined as a firearm with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip. Rifle. Not firearm. Otherwise every pistol that isn't a muzzle/breech loader or revolver is an 'assault weapon', which is makes the distinction even more functionally useless.
  - craigmcnamara 11y ago
    Isn't a handgun just a gun made to make assaulting another human easier?
    - hga 11y ago
      Not at all. They're akin to a first aid kit, not what you'd choose to have if you know you're going into combat, but something you can much more often have with you because of their compactness and much lighter weight. More than 10 million Americans have concealed carry licenses, with their numbers growing by more than a million a year, and we demonstrably aren't carrying them "to make assaulting another human easier", unless you'd modify that as "counter-assaulting". In the most dire situation they're a tool in a crisis to allow you to get to your long gun. More generally, "assault weapon" a long time ago meant things like track mounted artillery designed for offensive roles, and as noted by others was more recently coined and defined by US gun grabbers as a purely political term.
      - craigmcnamara 11y ago
        I see you didn't like my zinger. I have a pistol permit, but I don't see any need to carry a gun. It's just not something I worry about.

> (obscured by the upper receiver of the assault weapon) You mean the stock of the semi-automatic rifle which happens to be scary and black?

by jff 11y ago

> (obscured by the upper receiver of the assault weapon) You mean the stock of the semi-automatic rifle which happens to be scary and black?

seangrant 11y ago

Let's not forget these people had every intention to use those weapons against humans. This isn't some guns club hanging out.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
Arguably, they intended to use them to defend themselves if they were attacked. (By humans, yes.) They were not hunting people down and assaulting them. That being said, they were looking to defend themselves while illegally occupying a federal facility... but the particulars of that situation don't really reflect on the choice of weapon.
- twothamendment 11y ago
  I prefer to call mine an anti-assault weapon. I don't have any need or plans to assault anyone, but I may have a need to defend against someone who'd like to assault me.
- davidw 11y ago
  > They were not hunting people down and assaulting them. Not with the guns, and not physically, much. But they most certainly were threatening people, according to the FBI complaint against them: "The person with Ritzheimer told the woman he knows what kind of car she drives and he was going to follow her home and burn her house down, according to the complaint."
- seangrant 11y ago
  You don't have to assault someone for your weapon to become an "assault weapon". A semi-auto pistol grip rifle is an assault weapon. Especially when the clear purpose of them having these weapons are to be used in combat. No it is not a defense to say that they are defending themselves. These people illegally encroached property that was not theirs.
- rconti 11y ago
  Right. Carrying a firearm = self defense. Fine. Someone might attack you, you can defend yourself. Occupying land that is not yours = protest action. Fine. You'll probably get arrested or at least sent on your way, but fine. Occupying the land AND carrying a weapon to defend yourself isn't just like "oh man, if someone tries to rob me during my protest operation, I'll be able to defend myself!" No, it's tacitly admitting that people are going to come and arrest you, and you expect to put up a violent fight. Nobody's under any illusion that the police are going to march in there, put handcuffs on everyone, and walk out.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Arguably, they intended to use them to defend themselves if they were attacked. (By humans, yes.) They were not hunting people down and assaulting them. Then again they overtly sought to institute their own court system, and overtly sought to subject government officials to trial for various crimes by that court system, and issued threats for non-cooperation with that effort, so its not at all clear that the end game, were they not arrested before that escalated further, wasn't "hunting down people and assaulting them".
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    That's a lot of speculation. And also immaterial to the point.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > That's a lot of speculation. The only speculation is that they would, if not constrained by intervening events, carry out their overt threats in support of their overt goals. That's not a lot of speculation at all.

nathanm412 11y ago

Assault weapon is colloquially defined as a firearm with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip. I've seen this definition in common use going back 30 years, whether or not it helps anyone's political ideals. A thorough discussion of the definition and it's history can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

sithadmin 11y ago
>Assault weapon is colloquially defined as a firearm with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip. Rifle. Not firearm. Otherwise every pistol that isn't a muzzle/breech loader or revolver is an 'assault weapon', which is makes the distinction even more functionally useless.
- craigmcnamara 11y ago
  Isn't a handgun just a gun made to make assaulting another human easier?
  - hga 11y ago
    Not at all. They're akin to a first aid kit, not what you'd choose to have if you know you're going into combat, but something you can much more often have with you because of their compactness and much lighter weight. More than 10 million Americans have concealed carry licenses, with their numbers growing by more than a million a year, and we demonstrably aren't carrying them "to make assaulting another human easier", unless you'd modify that as "counter-assaulting". In the most dire situation they're a tool in a crisis to allow you to get to your long gun. More generally, "assault weapon" a long time ago meant things like track mounted artillery designed for offensive roles, and as noted by others was more recently coined and defined by US gun grabbers as a purely political term.
    - craigmcnamara 11y ago
      I see you didn't like my zinger. I have a pistol permit, but I don't see any need to carry a gun. It's just not something I worry about.