Quote of the day—Lyle

The term “assault weapon” is the fake term. “Assault rifle”, or Sturmgewehr, is the correct term for a light rifle or carbine firing an intermediate power cartridge (more powerful than a typical pistol but less powerful than a typical high powered rifle), having full automatic fire capability and feeding from a detachable magazine. The largely cosmetic feature of the pistol grip stock is a other, possibly defining trait, being the THE original Sturmgewehr (fielded by the National Socialist Workers’ Party) had a pistol grip stock.

The serious use of the term “assault weapon” pretty well defines a person as having little or no credibility in regard to firearms. Today’s socialists are pissed off at seeing anything that even resembles an assault rifle, I do herein posit, mainly because it’s THEIR weapon design and they don’t like seeing advocates of liberty carrying THEIR weapon.

Lyle
August 9, 2015
Comment to Quote of the day—Richard Heckler
[Interesting hypothesis. I’m quite amused by it. But of course it cannot be true. To a large extent it is self contradicting. Only someone with a fairly extensive knowledge of firearms would know that “assault rifles” were first fielded by the National Socialist Workers’ Party yet Lyle claims someone who uses the term “assault weapon” has “little or no credibility in regard to firearms”.

Still I would find it amusing to suggest to someone ranting against “assault weapons” that, “You’re just pissed off because assault weapons were originally invented for people of your political persuasion–the National Socialist Workers’ Party instead of people like me who advocate for liberty.”—Joe]

12 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Lyle

    • No, it’s a slightly abbreviated English translation of “national socialist german workers’ party” (NSDAP) which is the formal name of the Nazi party. It’s worth quoting because it points out that socialism and fascism are just two names for the same basic thing — totalitarianism. This of course is why Stalin liked Hitler, until he got double-crossed.

  1. “But of course it cannot be true. To a large extent it is self contradicting.”

    I acknowledge your reasoning there, but you cannot say “cannot”. You can point out that it is potentially self contradicting, but that possible self-contradiction must be seen in light of the self contradiction of Progressivism. To that I say that there are two distinct reasons why one may lack credibility. One is ignorance and the other is dishonesty. Let us explore.

    We must always keep in mind the Progressive hierarchy of perpetrators and duped, wherein each perpetrator is the dupe of a greater perpetrator, and each of the duped becomes thereby a perpetrator to the more readily duped.

    As I’ve pointed out before; anyone who claims to care about a subject, and does not perform due diligence in learning a few basic facts related to that subject, is being dishonest. Likewise, anyone who knows how to find information and decides not to do so, while advocating on the very subject, is being dishonest. Further, anyone who knows the truth of the term “assault rifle” verses “assault weapon” and pretends that the true definition doesn’t exist, is being dishonest.

    This concept applies to every issue, and in this particular case it would take only a few minutes for anyone who cared about the truth to find the it. The very term “assault rifle” (Sturmgewehr) comes directly from the Germans fighting on behalf the National Socialist Workers Party, and that is very easy to learn.

    So we have a major Buzz Term, used by millions of people including those in Congress. One would think that anyone with even a passing interest in its origin and meaning would already have learned it.

    Therefore it can be argued that anyone in political activism who misuses the term is being dishonest, and therefore it is not only entirely plausible, but likely, that someone would simultaneously misuse the terminology and know full well what it means. Such behavior, says I, is characteristic of (and it may not be too much to say that it defines) the Progressive movement. That there are lots of people who fall for it says only that the tactic is effective. That it so obviously irritates those among the advocates of liberty, thus throwing them off their game, is icing on the cake.

    A similar situation exist with regard to the Progressives and the Confederate flag, “extremism”, the “far right” and, well, just about everything. Do the top, Progressive perpetrators really not know that the National Socialist Workers Party were socialists? Do they really not know that Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson and the KKK were all good friends, that they inspired the National Socialists, and that they loved the Fascisti? So they really not know that carbon dioxide is a plant food, one of the basics of life, and not a pollutant? Do they really not know that Earth’s climate has been constantly changing all along? Do they really not know that their policies result in stagnation, degradation, encouragement of crime, and chaos?

    I tell you they know all these things, and that knowledge is part of their motivation. We can make fun of the ignorance or butt-stupidity of their lower dupes (to no avail) but we have to acknowledge the cleverness and effectiveness of their high ranking perpetrators.

    • Or, to put it another way:
      When someone is honestly mistaken, and you correct them, one of two things will happen: they will cease to be mistaken, or they will cease to be honest.

      I’m relatively new to the gun debate, but in researching the history, the arguments, the justifications for laws passed on both sides, I’ve noticed that there really are no new arguments. Everything the pro-control side says is fundamentally the same thing they’ve said for the past 80+ years. Everything the pro-rights side says is also pretty much the same as it has been.

      And all the credible fact-finding continues to support the pro-rights side.

      Therefore, the pro-control side could have claimed to be honestly mistaken … for the first few years. But they’ve been making the same falsity-based arguments — despite being corrected, repeatedly — this whole time. They’ve not ceased to be mistaken; they’ve ceased to be honest.

      And you can’t deal honestly with dishonest people.

      • Fact-finding notwithstanding, one does not set out to degrade and ultimately destroy the exercise of a basic human right out of compassion. In other words, they never were honestly mistaken. Q.E.D.

        Sure there were always dupes (well intentioned fools) but they don’t count as they’re not the impetus behind the movement. Even the dupes though, would seek and easily find the truth if they were interested in the truth. That truth being the ancient arguments for liberty and their leading to the formation of the U.S.

        Who cannot find THAT? Answer; one who does not care, or does care because he opposes it. Neither can claim compassion, for compassion is a love for the truth and for humanity and that means a love of liberty.

        Compassion and liberty then, go together. You cannot claim compassion unless you embrace liberty.

        The enemy we face is altogether different. It seeks fake love, which is seduction for power, and uses the appearances of compassion as a cloak while it ensnares it’s victims in servitude and fear.

        My wife’s aunt for example “loved” her son so much that she always took care of him, even doing his laundry until he up and died in his late 40s. He never did have a life. Now we have her cats, and they were so afraid of people, because she sheltered them so much, smothering them in sweet protection and dependency, that it took a week for them to come out of their cages while we were in the house (now they go outside and have adventures, get in fights, and do the other things that cats do, but it took weeks for them to start doing it).

        Same woman, same results with her son as with her cats. She went to church, participated in community events and baked cookies and showed all the other proper, outward appearances designed to garner other people’s approval, but It was all fake. Inside she’s a crouching spider and a tyrant. Now she’s going outwardly insane, which in a way is an improvement in that it’s less deceptive. That’s Progressivism in a nutshell.

        It’s hard to blame individuals. They don’t really understand what they do (which sounds like a contradiction to my original point) but there is a will there, that will is served, and it’s an evil will cleverly and carefully, painstakingly disguised as good. At some level I believe that many of them are crying out for someone, for God’s sake someone!, with real principles and real strength (i.e. real love) to set them straight. They get frustrated because no one comes forward to their rescue, then they get resentful, then they despise all humanity because they cannot find a single person with real love and strength. Just varying degrees of con men, gamesters, pleasure seekers, users, weaklings, cowards and hustlers. (Yeah I know – speak for myself)

        We let them down, so in a way we’re just as guilty (it takes two to make a rights violation – one perp and one willing to be a victim, unwilling to stand full and strong) but there are good signs. On the 2A front the recent “armed civil disobedience” events put on by pro 2a groups have been a good eye-opener, so maybe there is hope down the road for some of the Progressives. We have but to show them the way.

  2. If there is no such thing as an assault weapon, why does everyone (gunnies included) call it the AWB and not the ARB?

    • An assault weapon is any weapon that was used in the crime of assault. A rock could be an assault weapon, so of course there is such a thing as an assault weapon. It just isn’t a style of firearm.

      To address your question, as to why some of us gun owners use “AWB”; it’s easier than having to explain it every time for one thing, because that’s how it came to be known. I’m not condoning it. And anyway, don’t say “if” there’s no such thing, because you already know, because we’ve told you over and over.

      I can play that game too, and with more authority;

      If there is such a thing as a firearm design called an assault weapon, then give me it’s unambiguous definition and tell me how it differs in function or power, or any other material way, from any other firearm. We’ve been through all of this for over fifteen years, and so you know there is not clear definition, and so it comes down to outward appearances.

      And all of this is made immaterial by the second amendment which protects the keeping and bearing of private arms for militia and other purposes, but specifically militia purposes.

      So you have a term, posited as a technical term, void of any meaning outside of Progressive politics, used for the purpose of popularizing the wholesale violation of a constitutionally enumerated right, and here you are still pick, pick, picking away. That’s just sad.

      • Not sad, dangerous to liberty of everyone, including the people who do not hold it dear enough to defend it against the Leftist onslaught.

    • In addition to what Lyle said, I’ve noticed a certain “tongue-in-cheek”-ness associated with the use of the term “AWB” among gunnies.

      “Assault weapon” lacks a proper definition, and basically comes down to the inclusion of certain cosmetic features. This is well-understood.

      “AWB”, then, is not only a convenient term because it’s what the ban came to be known as, but also (almost) an inside joke among gunnies. It’s a reminder that “gun control” laws rarely make practical sense. It effectively means “ban on firearms that don’t look a certain way”, as if how a gun looks has anything at all to do with how it works.

      The same sense of humor gave us other terms, such as “EBR” (“Evil Black Rifle”), which describes a variety of non-traditional-looking firearms, but usually refers specifically to an AR-pattern rifle.

    • Because the law to which you’re referring didn’t ban assault rifles.

      But you knew that. You aren’t here for the hunting.

    • We refer to the law by the name its promotors have given it, so people can understand the reference. It’s for the same reason that people refer to the “affordable care act” even though it’s neither affordable nor caring. It’s a name, not a description.

    • We also have to put up with the inaccurate term of “gun violence” which is used solely for inflammatory purposes. It’s cowardly and evil to redirect attention to our means of self-defense based on the actions of criminals who are given a free pass with this attitude (like the gun some how made them do it).

      The tool used to kill or maim is irrelevant. Those crimes of unjustified violence is what we all want to reduce, whether done by fist, rock, bat, knife, automobile, firearm, or arson.

      The crucial thing to recognize is that there is a criminal person who is responsible for the act of violence and we do not get to blame the weapon and expect the object to respond with less violence. Wow!

Comments are closed.