Goodbye assault weapons ban!

[Cluricaun]

So it looks as if the assault weapons ban is going to expire next Monday. I'm certainly looking forward to it. In my opinion it was poorly worded and mainly outlawed cosmetic features.
My brother in Iraq needs a high capacity replacement clip for his Army purchased after-market M92 clip since it causes the gun to jam, and I need high capacity clips for my USP .45 and my Glock 9mm. Anyone else looking forward to making a few purchases on Monday?

[Jinx]

When did the ban start? Does it go back to the "The Brady Bill"? If so, too bad the new regs didn't roll into effect on the day Reagan died to attempt to remind this country of its conscience. Also, along these lines, I must ask...just how much munitions does it take to go deer hunting, anyhow? ...M.R. tricky critters, ain't they? ;) - Jinx

[Crafter_Man]

It's a completely useless law. I'm glad to see it go.

I love assault weapons... M14/M1A, FAL, AR-10, H&K 91, AR-15, SKS, AK-47. I love 'em all, though I must admit I have a particular fondness for full-size main battle rifles (7.62 x 51 / .308). I currently have a metric FAL (http://www.falfiles.com/images/stg58logo.jpg). It's a "post ban," which means it has a muzzle brake instead of a flashhider. After this Monday I'll be allowed to install a flashider, but the damn brake was welded to the barrel. I don't think I can get it off without screwing up the barrel threads. :(

I'm also in the process of building another FAL using a new Imbel receiver and new Imbel barrel. (It's for my son. He's only 15 months old. Of course, by the time he's old enough to shoot, the rifle will probably be banned. :mad: ) Anyway, this rifle will have a threaded barrel and flash hider. :)

I just pray the Nazis in congress won't pass another AWB. :mad: Not that I would ever give up my rifles. I'll just have to be more discrete... ;)

[Johnny L.A.]

Does this mean that pistol grips will be re-allowed on autoloaders? What about the bayonette lug? (To be fair, have there been any fixed-bayonette attacks since the law went into effect?)

[mangeorge]

Also to be fair, didn't the gun lobby force so many changes to the bill that it became
Snipped from the OP;
poorly worded and mainly outlawed cosmetic features
So brags a card-carrying NRA member friend of mine.
AANAA-GN (I Am Not An Anti-Gun Nut).

[mangeorge]

That [i]should say;
Ah Ahm Naught Ahn Ahnti-Guhn Nuht.
;)

[Marley23]

Thank goodness this country will finally be safe from the criminals who took over from the defenseless citizenry after this ban went into effect.

What?

[Johnny L.A.]

I was asking seriously, BTW.

[BF]

To answer your question Johnny, yes. This thread in GD (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275265) lists some of the provisions that will go away.

[Johnny L.A.]

Thanks for the link, BF.

I used to have an FN-LAR (civilian version of the FAL). I sold it when I moved to L.A. in 1986 so that I could get the "downpayment" on my apartment. Why not? I could always replace it later. I didn't buy an AR-180 (I like it because it's so butt-ugly), an HK-90-something (civilian version of the MP-5), or an Uzi Carbine because I could always add them to my collection when I had more money, right? :smack:

I'd still like to get those rifles, even though I haven't been shooting in years. I've no worries about a socio-economic collapse, and none of my guns are for self-defense. They're just interesting machines. I've recently discovered that there is a rifle range near me, so I may have to do my part to help the economy by shooting up some expensive ammo. Or maybe I'll wait for a friend to visit. She says she likes to shoot. Of course, that will be around Christmastime; so it will be pretty darned cold for shooting. Might have to find a warmer activity. :D

[aruvqan]

Does this mean that pistol grips will be re-allowed on autoloaders? What about the bayonette lug? (To be fair, have there been any fixed-bayonette attacks since the law went into effect?)


:dubious:
Were there any bayonette charges before the law ws enacted?
:confused:

you can have hubbys AK when they pry it out of *my* hands [damn that thing is fun to play with :D

[Ravenman]

.... and I need high capacity clips for my USP .45 and my Glock 9mm. Honest question for you: why do you say that you "need" high capacity clips?

"Want" I can understand, but "need?"

[Crafter_Man]

Honest question for you: why do you say that you "need" high capacity clips?

"Want" I can understand, but "need?"I need a main battle rifle (e.g. FAL). I consider it a necessary tool for protecting my liberty. I also need 20-round magazines. They increase my rifle's firepower and handiness, thus making it a more effective tool.

[muldoonthief]

Does this mean that pistol grips will be re-allowed on autoloaders? What about the bayonette lug? (To be fair, have there been any fixed-bayonette attacks since the law went into effect?)

You should check your state laws as well. IIRC, only California enacted a ban that included pistol grips - the 94 assault weapons ban allowed pistol grips as long as it didn't include any of the other listed features - bayo lug, flash hider, collapsible stock, and I forget the last.

I know that here in Massachusetts, the expiration of the federal ban is meaningless, since the state enacted a permanent version of the federal ban 6 years ago. The only advantage is that pre-bans should drop in price, since they'll be a glut on the market in the rest of the country.

[MaxTheVool]

I need a main battle rifle (e.g. FAL). I consider it a necessary tool for protecting my liberty.

I have to ask, and I ask out of genuine curiousity, how is a main battle rifle going to help you defend your liberty? And against whom?

(The way I see it, if the US government, along with the military, decides it wants to take away your liberty, nothing short of a carrier battle group is going to help you. And I'm not sure who else you'd be worrying about...)

[Crafter_Man]

I have to ask, and I ask out of genuine curiousity, how is a main battle rifle going to help you defend your liberty? And against whom?

(The way I see it, if the US government, along with the military, decides it wants to take away your liberty, nothing short of a carrier battle group is going to help you. And I'm not sure who else you'd be worrying about...)A battle rifle is the best tool to have when engaged in "conflict." And if I find myself in armed conflict, I want the best tool. History has also shown that groups of civilian riflemen can successfully defeat a conventional army using techniques of guerilla warfare. Will it work in our case? I don’t know. And it doesn’t really matter; I figure being dead is better than being a slave.

[SenorBeef]

Also to be fair, didn't the gun lobby force so many changes to the bill that it became
Snipped from the OP "poorly worded and mainly outlawed cosmetic features "


So brags a card-carrying NRA member friend of mine.
AANAA-GN (I Am Not An Anti-Gun Nut).

That's true. It isn't because changes were made, but rather, because the term "assault weapon" is an absolutely meaningless term. Assault weapon means "Something that looks scary to the legislator who is trying to ban it". The guns the ban affected are functionally similar to any common semi-auto hunting rifle. The difference? "Assault weapons" looked scarier, even if they functioned the same.

So how do you ban guns that look scarier? Well, you place a ban on cosmetic features. That's what the AWB was. Apparently a gun with a bayonet lug and pistol grip is vastly more dangerous than one without those features.

[mangeorge]

That's true. It isn't because changes were made, but rather, because the term "assault weapon" is an absolutely meaningless term. Assault weapon means "Something that looks scary to the legislator who is trying to ban it". The guns the ban affected are functionally similar to any common semi-auto hunting rifle. The difference? "Assault weapons" looked scarier, even if they functioned the same.

So how do you ban guns that look scarier? Well, you place a ban on cosmetic features. That's what the AWB was. Apparently a gun with a bayonet lug and pistol grip is vastly more dangerous than one without those features.
Yeah, that's what Mike said.
My own take was that one side wanted wet noodles, and the other side wanted tactical nuke. ;) We wind up somewhere between really sharp pointy sticks and full-auto 20mm.
Ain't democracy great!

[SenorBeef]

I think it's an example of the irrationality of the most vocal of anti-gun advocates out there. They want to hinder gun ownership so much that they'll consider it a victory if they pass irrational, ineffective laws that do nothing but ban scary looking things. It also goes to show they'll take whatever they can push through in terms of legislation - rather than whatever "common sense" mantra they go by.

[duffer]

Apparently a gun with a bayonet lug and pistol grip is vastly more dangerous than one without those features.

While this has to be the dumbest add-on to the AWB, I was thrilled to find out it was in there. It showed how meaningless the ban was and almost guaranteed it wouldn't survive a re-vote.

I think I'll break out the Jimmy Buffet CD and listen to "Come Monday" again. ;)

[SenorBeef]

Also, sorry for my last post. Forgot we were in IMHO - the last post was GDish.

[mangeorge]

While this has to be the dumbest add-on to the AWB, I was thrilled to find out it was in there. It showed how meaningless the ban was and almost guaranteed it wouldn't survive a re-vote.

I think I'll break out the Jimmy Buffet CD and listen to "Come Monday" again. ;)
That statement (Senor Beef's and many other's) didn't thrill only duffer. The "scary thing" sentiment was pretty much forced on the anti's by the dogged insistance that they define "assault weapon". Anything even close to sensible, such as "convertible to full auto" etc, was roundly shouted down, leaving them with the silly sounding "cosmetic details". It worked.
Now ol' Crafter_Man can keep me free from slavery. ;)

[duffer]

One more question I have with the lifting of the ban. Will rifles be legal to sell as full-auto? Or, the 3-shot auto? Or are we still stuck with a single-shot semi-auto to stay legal?

[SenorBeef]

That statement (Senor Beef's and many other's) didn't thrill only duffer. The "scary thing" sentiment was pretty much forced on the anti's by the dogged insistance that they define "assault weapon". Anything even close to sensible, such as "convertible to full auto" etc, was roundly shouted down, leaving them with the silly sounding "cosmetic details". It worked.
Now ol' Crafter_Man can keep me free from slavery. ;)

This is because there are no standards by which "assault weapons" can be distinguished other than cosmetic and immaterial things. Any semi-automatic can be converted into a fully automatic weapon. The crippled semi-auto military derivative weapons don't have some button you can push somewhere making it an evil child killing machine.

[mangeorge]

Hasn't full auto been mostly banned for a long, long time?
This reminds me of when I was a kid. My mom would yell at us for having the TV too loud. "Turn it down, or I'll turn it off". So one of us would go and (oops) turn it even louder, apologize, and turn it down to a little louder that it was in the first place. A net gain for us, and she never really caught on. :cool:
Is this, in a sense, what you guys are up to?

[SenorBeef]

One more question I have with the lifting of the ban. Will rifles be legal to sell as full-auto? Or, the 3-shot auto? Or are we still stuck with a single-shot semi-auto to stay legal?

The AWB doesn't affect fully automatic weapons.

[Johnny L.A.]

[quote=duffer]One more question I have with the lifting of the ban. Will rifles be legal to sell as full-auto? Or, the 3-shot auto? Or are we still stuck with a single-shot semi-auto to stay legal?
The AWB doesn't affect fully automatic weapons.
To elaborate: By definition, an "assault rifle" has automatic capability. That is, an "assalt rifle" is a machine gun that can be switched to an autoloader (one shot per pull of the trigger), or an autoloader that can be switched to a machine gun. The switch is made, litterally, with a switch.

"Assault weapon" is pretty much a term made up by the anti-gun crowd. This is an autoloader (i.e., semi-automatic or "one shot per pull of the trigger") that has cosmetic features that differentiate it from other autoloaders that are functionally identical. For example, a Ruger Mini-14 is a .223 caliber, gas-operated, magazine-fed semiautomatic rifle. A Colt AR-15 Sporter (discontinued years ago) and its clones is also a .223 caliber, gas-operated, magazine-fed semiautomatic rifle; except that it has a pistol grip, bayonette lug, and flash supressor. These "extra" features do have functions. The pistol grip reduces felt recoil. The bayonette lug allows you to attach a bayonette (which has never been a crime problem). The flash supressor reduces the big ball of fire that comes out of the end, and also reduces the amount of dirt kicked up (some of which is drawn into the muzzle) when firing from a prone position. But they're basically cosmetic.

"Full-auto machine guns" have been banned for the better part of a century, and are not affected by the AWB.

[mangeorge]

It's a completely useless law. I'm glad to see it go.

I love assault weapons... M14/M1A, FAL, AR-10, H&K 91, AR-15, SKS, AK-47. I love 'em all, though I must admit I have a particular fondness for full-size main battle rifles (7.62 x 51 / .308). I currently have a metric FAL (http://www.falfiles.com/images/stg58logo.jpg). It's a "post ban," which means it has a muzzle brake instead of a flashhider. After this Monday I'll be allowed to install a flashider, but the damn brake was welded to the barrel. I don't think I can get it off without screwing up the barrel threads. :(

I'm also in the process of building another FAL using a new Imbel receiver and new Imbel barrel. (It's for my son. He's only 15 months old. Of course, by the time he's old enough to shoot, the rifle will probably be banned. :mad: ) Anyway, this rifle will have a threaded barrel and flash hider. :)

I just pray the Nazis in congress won't pass another AWB. :mad: Not that I would ever give up my rifles. I'll just have to be more discrete... ;)
You interest me, Crafter_Man, you and your higher than unusual interest in things gun. I am ambivalent about firearms. I have a honest, non-judgemental question for you, if you wish to answer. Please take no offense at my prying.
How do you think you will react if your son, at age 9 or so, says to you "Dad, I really don't want to shoot anymore. Guns bore me"?

[silenus]

How do you think you will react if your son, at age 9 or so, says to you "Dad, I really don't want to shoot anymore. Guns bore me"?

If it were my kid, the response would be "That's ok, son. Just means more for Daddy. By the way, can I have that Uzi I got you for your 7th birthday?"

:D

[mangeorge]

If it were my kid, the response would be "That's ok, son. Just means more for Daddy. By the way, can I have that Uzi I got you for your 7th birthday?"

:D
Sure, dad. I'll trade you for that dusty old Strat in your closet.
A friend is an avid dirt bike racer. Competes and everything. A couple years ago his son, 11 now, told his dad that what he really wanted to do was play guitar. Ol' pops was devastated, but got the kid a guitar. He (the son) still practices like 20 or more hours a week, and is getting to be pretty good. My friend is truly proud, but I think there's still a small "what if" going on. He's a good guy. He still races.

[AskNott]

Good for the kid. I never met a guy who broke his leg playing guitar. :p

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

[quote]

"Full-auto machine guns" have been banned for the better part of a century, and are not affected by the AWB.


Huh--you sure? I thought a US citizen could own/possess them provided s/he had a permit. I'm talking everything, including .50 machine guns.

[Johnny L.A.]

Kind of a nitpick, eh Carnac? FWIW, I'm a native Californian and they're banned there. In some other states, they're just restricted. In order to own a machine gun you need to apply for a permit and pay a $200 transfer tax. Then you undergo a background investigation, which I gather is similar to getting a Secret clearance. I've heard it takes months. In addition you have to live in a state where they're permitted. There may be other restrictions, but I don't know what they are.

My point was that so-called "assault weapons" are not capable of automatic fire.

On a tangent: I've heard that people have made machine guns out of lever-action Winchester carbines. True, or not? (I can see how it could work; but I don't know if it's been done.)

[Crafter_Man]

You interest me, Crafter_Man, you and your higher than unusual interest in things gun.Worthy of a anthropological study, perhaps? ;)

How do you think you will react if your son, at age 9 or so, says to you "Dad, I really don't want to shoot anymore. Guns bore me"?I would be disappointed, and hope he would "come around" in a few years. But I'm not the kind of parent who would force his children to do anything. If he (for example) wanted to play guitar instead, I'd support him.

[mangeorge]

:cool: cool.

[Tripler]

Honest question for you: why do you say that you "need" high capacity clips?

"Want" I can understand, but "need?"

I read Ravenman's post, and then read Crafter_Man's response that . . .

I need a main battle rifle (e.g. FAL). I consider it a necessary tool for protecting my liberty. I also need 20-round magazines. They increase my rifle's firepower and handiness, thus making it a more effective tool.

Given the two of them, I was torn between the "want" and the "need".

But then again I read his second response and I got to thinking. He's got a point, and for me it's kind of weird. If I'm in a conflict, whether it be with a Montana grizzly bear or an Iraqi insurgent with an RPG, I want the best tool I can carry--and aside from his comments, I consider a firearm just that: an inanimate tool used to express the intent of the individual behind the trigger (my wording, quote me on that).

So how does the AWB affect me? I can now go hiking and camping in the woods with a couple of extra .40SW or .45ACP rounds in the magazine as a want versus a need as per Ravenman, and can now put the same nifty flash suppressor (which works darned well at keeping my barrel down from recoil) on my AR-15, as per Crafter_man. But by God, I'll stand by both of them defending them from slavery or any threat from any government any day.

Here's what strikes me as ignorant about this particular law though: Yes, I understand the dynamics of importation, shipment to FFLs in different states (how do you think I got my Kimber .45s last week?), and other issues. But I truly believe that this sort of legislation is best left to the states themselves: I don't see the need for semiautomatic shotguns in a heavily populated New Jersey, but with a good argument to counter my initial instincts, I could see myself understanding the allowance of those same shotguns in say, grizzly-friendly Alaska.

I say, let the states decide what they want. The citizens will then decide their support thereafter.

Tripler
A long signature: I have a side benefit of getting around the military's "General Order #1". It says 'No private firearms!!'. It doesn't say I can take all my personally owned M-16/AR-15 30-round magazines and accessories. I wouldn't want to take anything less than everything into a firefight.

[SenorBeef]

Huh--you sure? I thought a US citizen could own/possess them provided s/he had a permit. I'm talking everything, including .50 machine guns.

Their manufacture and importation is banned. You can still own ones that were made or imported before the ban, but due to limited supply, their prices are far far beyond their actual sales value.

You see, for about 55 years, 0 crimes were commited by legally owned fully automatic firearms by private citizens. And that was just too much - they had to be banned.

[SPOOFE]

I have to ask, and I ask out of genuine curiousity, how is a main battle rifle going to help you defend your liberty? And against whom?
You wanna know the truth? Well, all of us 'Pubbie gun nuts elected Bush back in 2000 simply because we know he's gonna try to declare himself dictator. After 200 years of sayin' it, we finally want some ACTION!

:D

Well, okay, the REAL reason comes a lot closer to "there's no reason NOT to have them."

[Czarcasm]

Shooting this over to Great Debates.

[Declan]

Huh--you sure? I thought a US citizen could own/possess them provided s/he had a permit. I'm talking everything, including .50 machine guns.

I think its a class 3 dealers permit , to buy , possess and sell fully automatic weaponry , like squad support weapons like the M-60 , or a browning 50 calibre machine gun and the like.

Declan

[Sevastopol]

Pshaw.

Madness.

[Mr. Coffee Nerves]

Just out of curiosity, what do the gun collectors who have posted in this thread actually use their guns for?

[duffer]

Honest question for you: why do you say that you "need" high capacity clips?

"Want" I can understand, but "need?"

Can't believe I missed this one. It's not about wanting or needing, it's convenience.

Do you have any idea what a pain in the ass it is to have to reload 10 round clips when you're competing for multi-round target contests? I have a few friends that like to compete on my land for the best score out of 50 shots (using 10 targets offset).

Give us a 50 round clip and we'll have no excuse for a lower score because of having to change mags. Not everyone with a large capacity mag wants to kill people. Though that's what it sounds like you're suggesting. In that nice guy, I was just saying, kind of tone.

[duffer]

Just out of curiosity, what do the gun collectors who have posted in this thread actually use their guns for?

Me? Hunting, target shooting, making damn sure nobody will break in my house or carjack me without some retribution. And the pure, unadulterated joy of firing a gun.

And they feel good to hold. And they sound great when you operate the action. And you get a certain feeling of satisfaction when you field dress it. And they smell good when freshly oiled.....


Um, what?

[Bryan Ekers]

Pshaw.

Madness.

I'll just take a wild guess and assume you're expressing contempt for the gun-owning and -collecting enthusiasm expressed in this thread.

Got any evidence anyone in this thread has used their weapons to commit crimes, or negligently allowed children to get ahold of them? Can you define what "madness" is being expressed here?

[duffer]

There is no reasoning with the hatred us gun owners have to deal with. Hell, why do you think this thread is still going?

[Johnny L.A.]

Just out of curiosity, what do the gun collectors who have posted in this thread actually use their guns for?
Nothing, really. As I said before, I think they're interesting machines. When I do take them out, it's for target shooting. I have no interest in hunting, nor am I likely to need them for self defense. I like my black powder guns because of the way they function; so with the autoloaders. I like black powder because they're a chore to load. I like big magazines on the autoloaders because it's a chore to reload every five rounds. Why do I like loading one and not the other? Because that's the way it is. (Incidentally, I prefer 20-rd. mags over 30-rd. mags.)

For me, it's like collecting stamps. What do stamp collectors actually use their stamps for? Same thing. To appreciate. People collect different things. Why? Because they like them. Some people have painted plates or Beanie Babies strewn all over their houses. I keep my collection out of sight, and pull out a piece when the thought occurs to me that I want to look at something, or to check one out of historical interest.

[Johnny L.A.]

This reminds me of when I was a kid. My mom would yell at us for having the TV too loud. "Turn it down, or I'll turn it off". So one of us would go and (oops) turn it even louder, apologize, and turn it down to a little louder that it was in the first place. A net gain for us, and she never really caught on. :cool:
Is this, in a sense, what you guys are up to?
There are some people who want to ban firearms outright. This seems to be the tactic they use.

They ban "assault weapons" because "nobody needs one. Then they'll ban "Saturday Night Specials" because criminals use them. Then to make sure no new machine guns are available. And they reduce the number of rounds that can be carried in a magazine. And so on. They know they can't just ban all guns all at once, so they chip away at them. It's a net gain for them every time they get a law passed. Now, there are some "anti-gun" people who think that some guns are okay to own. Maybe they'd be happy if they were all gone, but they're not going to try to outlaw all of them. Still, there are the "radicals"...

So does anyone "need" a semiautomatic rifle with a large magazine? Actually, AR-15s are considered excellent varmint guns, and were advertised as such. (Not into killing animals myself, but I can understand how a rancher might want to get rid of prairie dogs.) Obviously, people who shoot in sporting events that require them, do need them. As has been pointed out, loading magazines slows down the action when people are "plinking" or target shooting in non-competitive activities.

What's a "Saturday Night Special"? I've heard them called "cheap guns", on the theory that a criminal will buy the cheapest gun he can to commit his crimes. Or maybe "low-lifes" will buy one because those people naturally want to carry a firearm in case they get into a bar fight. :rolleyes: But it was pointed out that people have the right to defend themselves -- at least in their own homes -- and that people likely to live in high-crime areas often can't afford an expensive gun. By banning "SNS"s, they were being deprived of their right to defend themselves effectively. So the emphasis went from "cheap guns" to "cheaply made guns". I remember hearing something about the melting point of the metal, or something like that. But then, what does the quality of manufacture have to do with the price of tea in China? So they went after the safety issue. An SNS then, is a gun that is unsafe. Imagine my surprise when I looked for a Walther PPK/S in California. The PPK/S is a well-made pistol that has an excellent record over about seven decades. But it failed the "drop test". (i.e., it could discharge when dropped.) I guess this made them SNSs, and they were banned from California until they were redesigned to pass the "drop test". In short, it would appear that the anti-gun people were trying to ban a "class" of guns without knowing what they were.

Machine guns? Try to get one. Banning new manufacture was meaningless in the war on crime. The only people it affected were the ones who jumped through all of the hoops to get them legally. But it makes the politicians look like they're "doing something" and are "tough on crime". To my knowledge, there haven't been any legally-owned machine guns used in a crime since the 1934 NFA. (There may have been one, but I don't remember. Still, that's a great record.) The machine guns used in the North Hollywood bank robbery were illegally obtained or illegally converted.

There was some talk about banning rifles that use the .50 BMG round. "Oh, no! Sniper rifle!" Again, none have been used in a crime to my knowledge. But if they could be banned, then it's a step closer to a "total ban".

I understand why people want to ban all guns, or certain types of guns, or whatever. But guns are not the problem. The problem is Society. We have a violent history, and our national policies do not give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. And success is a good way to reduce crime. When times are good, the crime rate goes down. When times are bad, the crime rate goes up.

So how do we fix the problem? I think it's a matter of education, mostly. Inner-city schools tend not to be as good as schools in areas where there is more money available. If the schools are not as good, then the education is probably not as good. Without a good education, people cannot get good jobs. Without good jobs, criminal activities such as drug dealing (a hazardous and often violent occupation) may seem more attractive.

But it's more than education. It's also a matter of culture. "If you lie down with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas." People are products of their environments. If you live where there are a lot of gangs, then you're more likely to join a gang than someone who doesn't live where there are a lot of gangs. If you grow up in an environment where there is a lot of unemployment and people hang around drinking all day, you're less likely to break out of that cycle. Now, I've mentioned "inner cities" and "gangs", but I don't want people to think that I'm pointing at minorities. There are people of all ethnicities who live in poverty. Poverty is the killer.

If we want to reduce crime, we can't put our energies into passing laws based on fear and cosmetic attributes. We need to fix Society. Passing laws is easy; fixing the problem is overwhelming. We need to make sure our children are well-educated. (And I'm all for the Swedish-style programs for higher education -- in spite of the monetary costs. It costs less for Society.) We need to make sure that people can make a decent living. We need people to have hope. If your family member is suffering because you can't afford medical insurance, if you're about to be evicted because your employer has found that it's cheaper to outsource your job to another country, if you're forced to take a low-paying dead-end job because you did not receive a good education, if you're living in a blighted area where you're likely to be a victim of crime, then hope may be hard to find.

It's very well to put criminals in prison; but we need to make an effort to rehabilitate them instead of just warehousing them. But more importantly, we have to stop them from committing crimes in the first place. We can't do this by banning this, or criminalizing that; we need to attack the problem at its root. And this is a very, very hard task. :(

[Ravenman]

Not everyone with a large capacity mag wants to kill people. Though that's what it sounds like you're suggesting. In that nice guy, I was just saying, kind of tone.Well, I completely understand sportsmen wanting larger capacity clips. I've done a little bit of shooting in the past, always enjoyed it, and, if I lived somewhere else than in a large city in which it is simply inconvenient to get out to a place where one can do recreational shooting, most likely I'd own a firearm of my own.

So, duffer, I completely understand your explaination, and it is very reasonable.

I am still mystified by those that hold the views of Crafter_Man, on the other hand. I just can't put myself in those boots and feel that the ownership of a firearm is as vital to liberty, as, say, I believe voting is. I am still downright bewildered as to the implication that owning a firearm with a limited capacity clip somehow is liberty lite. It is simply Greek to me. I hope it's evident that I not interested in a debate of such a view, but I was hoping that someone would walk me through the thinking... now that this thread is in GD, though, I'm sure folks will jump in with all sorts of attacks, so, eh.

But with full respect for where you're coming from, duffer, I do think there's kind of a blind spot for a number of gun enthusiasts, in which they kind of make a leap from "responsible, law abiding gun owners aren't a threat to society," which is of course 100% true, to using that statement to wash their hands of any involvement with what is quite obviously a societal problem, and that is crime and gun violence.

I don't mean that responsible gun owners are somehow complicit in or responsible for violence perpetrated by others, I'm simply saying that if there is a society-wide problem, no good is done by having some pretend that the problem does not exist. Specifically, I do recognize that all responsible gun owners can be trusted with a high-capacity clip, but I also believe that a criminal with a large capacity clip is a greater threat to a community. Those are not opposing views, as I'm sure you realize.

I hope you get the point I'm driving at.

[eno801]

Just out of curiosity, what do the gun collectors who have posted in this thread actually use their guns for?

well i am kinda like Johnny L.A. on this I just find guns interesting. I just use them for target shooting and sure they might come in handy for home defense, but mainly I collect them. Funny thing too, I just recently got into guns just last year as my friend introduced me to them. He showed me safe handling techniques, how to field strip and clean, etc. Before that I was kinda scared of guns, but he demystified them for me and now I own a few. I like collecting ones i find cool, or unique in some way. Like my spas-12 which looks scary ,but is just a shotgun and my calico m100p unique because of its helical magazine and looks http://www.glocktalk.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=2877355

As for machine guns like an mp5 or such. Pre-ban versions(meaning version made before the import ban)are legal, but you need at least $15000 to buy a legal one. plus jump thru a ton of legal hoops (like getting it signed off by a your local sherrif) and be prepared to wait about 7 months or so to actually get it. I don't know too many criminals willing to do that when they can probably get an illegal one for much less. To put in perspective the cost the mp5 would cost about $600 bucks if they were legal to import.http://spas12.com/spas/spas12h.jpg (http://)

[ExTank]

Mr. Coffee Nerves:

All of my firearms purchases were for a reason, even if it might only make sense to me (and other gun owners). Some were for aesthetic reasons, others for functionality, while still others for just plain old curiosity.

My Oly Arms AR-15 clone was the exception; I bought it just to say "fuck you" to Bill Clinton, Sarah Brady and the whole pack of anti-gun weasels in congress. Including the small fortune I shelled out for pre-ban 30 rd. mags. But it too is fun to shoot.

I have more guns than I could effectively shoot, including some I haven't fired in a very long time. That's because I'm very reluctant to sell my guns to anyone I don't personally know and implicitly trust. There aren't too many gun stores that will sell on consignment, and pawn shops aren't going to give me anything even close to 1/2 fair market value. Not to mention that I don't particularly trust pawn shops all that much, either.

The thing about guns that a lot of non-owners and anti-gun types just don't get is that they are seen by most gun owners as simply tools. No different philosophically from the wrenches, sockets and screwdrivers in their toolboxes.

"Why so many?" some ask (others cry incredulously). Because just like wrenches and screwdrivers, different guns have different purposes. I have 4 rifles. Two good for general hunting (dear and such), two good for repelling foreign invasions. Why two? One was on principle (see above), the other was on sale and just too good a deal to pass up on.

I have two shotguns; one for sport (SASS) shooting, one for assaulting crack houses. Am I going to assault a crack house anytime soon?

Dear me, no. But God is it fun to shot! Laser sighting, nice pump-action, BOOM-clacka-BOOM-clacka-BOOM-clacka-BOOM! and little pieces of target come floating gently back to Earth. Better than a box of chocolate; at least shooting it doesn't go straight to my waistline.

Of my handguns (6), two are old-fashioned single action "six guns" for sport (SASS) shooting. Three were for "self defense," purchased over the years as my tastes changed in what I wanted in a self defense gun. I still have three (instead of just one) because, as I indicated above, I'm very reluctant to part with a gun to someone else unless I know them personally to be someone I can trust with a gun.

The last is a collectible, ornately engraved and fairly valuable, that I picked up on the cheap (relatively speaking). I may keep it as a family keepsake, or I may wait to see if it appreciates significantly in value and resell it later. It is very nice to look at; it looks like it needs to be in a museum.

[MaxTheVool]

There is no reasoning with the hatred us gun owners have to deal with. Hell, why do you think this thread is still going?

Yeah, this thread has been a virtual flamefest full of (the shock! the horror!) politely phrased and curious questions!

(OK, plus some sarcasm like this post).





I have to ask, and I ask out of genuine curiousity, how is a main battle rifle going to help you defend your liberty? And against whom?

(The way I see it, if the US government, along with the military, decides it wants to take away your liberty, nothing short of a carrier battle group is going to help you. And I'm not sure who else you'd be worrying about...)


A battle rifle is the best tool to have when engaged in "conflict." And if I find myself in armed conflict, I want the best tool. History has also shown that groups of civilian riflemen can successfully defeat a conventional army using techniques of guerilla warfare. Will it work in our case? I don’t know. And it doesn’t really matter; I figure being dead is better than being a slave.


Fair enough, and if you want to own such weapons in a responsible fashion, more power to you. But... when, recently, has a group of civilian riflemen succesfully defeated a conventional army using techniques of guerilla warfare? Sure, the Viet Cong may have been outweaponed by the US, but they had a lot more than just automatic rifles...

[mangeorge]

I've asked this once before, but the answer got lost in the noise.
Much is made of the fact that most (or all) gun crime is committed with illegally obtained or illegal guns. How many of these guns become illegal because they are stolen from the legal owners?
And;
Does the gun itself become illegal once it's used in a crime? If a previously responsible gun owner goes nutso and kills her husband, was it a crime committed with an illegal firearm? You see where I'm going with this, right?

[eno801]

from what I have read yeah some of the illegal guns do come from being stolen from private gun owners, but the majority are just smuggled in like drugs or stolen from such places as military bases. and we all can see how good we are at stopping drugs from being smuggled in. well I think it is in illegal possesion until it is used in a crime then it becomes illegal and is destroyed after it is used as evidence or what have you. But if they say bust the guy at his house on an arrest warrant and find the gun the and provided it has not been used for a crime the legal owner has a chance of getting his firearm back. as for the guy going nuts well the gun was legal til he blew his wife away.

[Balle_M]

On a tangent: I've heard that people have made machine guns out of lever-action Winchester carbines. True, or not? (I can see how it could work; but I don't know if it's been done.)

John M. Browning (father of the beloved Colt M1911) converted a Winchester lever action to either full- or semi-auto. (Don't have my references handy right now)

[mangeorge]

John M. Browning (father of the beloved Colt M1911) converted a Winchester lever action to either full- or semi-auto. (Don't have my references handy right now)
I do remember that you could affix a trip device on the lever of a Red Ryder BB gun that would cause it to fire when you closed the lever.
I have no idea what to call that, except silly. You couls put somebody's eye out.
:D

[SenorBeef]

Yeah, this thread has been a virtual flamefest full of (the shock! the horror!) politely phrased and curious questions!

(OK, plus some sarcasm like this post).





Fair enough, and if you want to own such weapons in a responsible fashion, more power to you. But... when, recently, has a group of civilian riflemen succesfully defeated a conventional army using techniques of guerilla warfare? Sure, the Viet Cong may have been outweaponed by the US, but they had a lot more than just automatic rifles...

Note: I am not implying that we are in danger of the same thing, but to give some perspective:

Imagine half of the Jews in Germany during the holocaust were armed and willing to defend their freedom. Do you still think, with SS soldiers dying left and right, it could have been carried out?

[catsix]

Johnny L.A. said:
(To be fair, have there been any fixed-bayonette attacks since the law went into effect?)

I doubt you'd be able to find a cite of one that didn't occur in a military engagement in the last century.

Carnac the Magnificent said:
Huh--you sure? I thought a US citizen could own/possess them provided s/he had a permit. I'm talking everything, including .50 machine guns.

Provided you jump through the appropriate hoops and live in a state where such things are legal, acquire the 200$ federal tax stamp, get the signature of John Q. Sheriff, submit fingerprints to local, state and federal law enforcement, and pass the FBI background check, you can then shell out upwards of 10,000$ for your very own submachine gun.

That is, if you can find one for sale.

Declan said:
I think its a class 3 dealers permit , to buy , possess and sell fully automatic weaponry , like squad support weapons like the M-60 , or a browning 50 calibre machine gun and the like.

It's a 200$ stamp attached to the purchase of a fully automatic firearm for personal ownership, and it applies to one firearm and one firearm only. If you want another, you pay the tax again. Being a Class III dealer requires a lot more finances.

Mr. Coffee Nerves said:
Just out of curiosity, what do the gun collectors who have posted in this thread actually use their guns for?

I shoot my semi-automatic AK-47 at the range. I find it fun.

Johnny L.A. said:
Then they'll ban "Saturday Night Specials" because criminals use them.

Banning all 'inexpensive' handguns just means poor people are discriminated against when it comes to self defense.

To my knowledge, there haven't been any legally-owned machine guns used in a crime since the 1934 NFA.

There was one. And that one was a cop who shot his informant.

eno801 said:
As for machine guns like an mp5 or such.

Minor nitpick. The H&K MP5 is a submachine gun, as it utilizes the 9mm x 19 round, which is a handgun caliber.

[Tripler]

Add another one to the "gun collectors" pile:

Why do I collect firearms? Primarily, simpy because I can.

Secondly, most of them I purchased for the appreciation of the machine, for the actual enjoyment of shooting competitively or just "plinking", home defense, and even an element of just having something reliable in my pack or on my hip when I go camping in 'bear country'.

Another side benefit I own what I own (and I'm thinking of my two AR-15s in this instance) is that, for the sake of arguement, say I get deployed to somewhere not-so-nice, like downtown Baghdad. I am so damn familiar with the AR-15/M-16 system, that should something jam or something not seem "right" when I pull the trigger, it's instinctive that I can correct it instantly--which would prove rather helpful in a full out firefight. Admittedly, that I have a little more confidence in myself that I can at least shoot back a little better, and have better weapons handling skills after practicing on my own for a few years. Practice makes perfect. :)

So, I have my guns because I appreciate them, enjoy them, and doggone it, I may have to use them someday. And admittedly, there is a measure of defiance in me that when a "treehugging, peaceloving hippie" government begins to outlaw my guns, I'll firmly flip them a finger and tell them to take it from me when I hit my grave.

Including the small fortune I shelled out for pre-ban 30 rd. mags.

Dude, I bought six surplus mags for $20. What are you paying? :D

Tripler
I have guns because I can have them.

[eno801]

what i don't understand about gun control and laws such as this any gun can kill you just as dead regardless of how it looks. and gun control is meaningless to criminals and just makes stuff more expensive for collectors and shooters who are law abiding. an example in high school my best friend was dating a vietnamese girl and her brother was in a gang . one evening at a party we were listening to the stereo in his car and he popped the trunk and inside were about 15-20 glocks a couple of ak-47 or kalashnikovs and 3 uzis all for sale...cheap! the glocks $35, $125 for the kalashnikovs and uzis :eek: i am pretty certain those were not legal at all or maybe they gave out class III licenses to 19 year olds just for asking.and you sure did not need to pass a background to obtain them. i don't know where he got them ,but according to the girl that is what he did, hence his brand new infiniti. my best friend kept dating her for a while i just stopped hanging around him til he broke up with her. back to my drug analogy cocaine and pot are illegal ,but i could probably go downtown on saturday night and score some if i was so inclined, not that i would mind you. same with guns make them illegal and yeah they might be a little more expensive for the criminals, but at least they can still get them.

[Tripler]

I'm going to add one more thing:

I was talking with a buddy today, and he mentioned the expiration of the "Assault Weapons Ban", and asked me what I thought about it (he, knowing I have "assault weapons") you note the quotations?.

As I explained to him, I'm a positive believer that the term "assault weapon" was a term picked up by the media as a demonizing term to apply to scary looking weapons, and it has no concrete definition or meaning, except to those that need a label to apply to a particular firearm. "Shotgun", "rifle", "pistol", "revolver", all have definitive meanings, but I'm rather offended by the term "assault weapon". Just because I have a rifle that looks like a military weapon doesn't mean it is, or it will be used as such. Any weapon used in an assault (ranging the spectrum from simple assault and battery with a baseball bat through robbing a bank in North Hollywood with fully automatic rifles) becomes an "assault weapon", but by nature, it is not inherent in the make or model of a particular firearm.

After the term came into use, the legislatures of different states picked up on the particular term and began banning certain models of firearms because they were "assault weapons". They based legislature on a flimsy catch phrase, with such a broad meaning as to be without a solid scope or definition. And that, my friends, is bad government.

But those are my two cents . . . Bring your pocket change. I'll happily listen.

[ExTank]

In the same vein as Tripler...

I wonder when "tax-a-chussetts" is going to get around to banning these (http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-Machete_regulation.html) assault weapons.

Tripler:

Dude, I bought six surplus mags for $20. What are you paying? :D

Six? Six 30-rd mags? For $20?!

Uhm...could you shoot me the UTM to your dealer? I gotta go assault mine for ripping me off (clacka-BOOM!)

[mangeorge]

I thought the term "assault weapon" was first used by the Israelis to describe the uzi when they put it on the market. I've tried to find an etimology for the term, but no luck.

[Tripler]

Uhm...could you shoot me the UTM to your dealer? I gotta go assault mine for ripping me off (clacka-BOOM!)

Garage sales my good man, garage sales!!

I have found deals upon deals upon deals from people who didn't know what they had, and I bought 'em cheap. Then, I turned 'em around and sold 'em to good friends and colleagues I knew would use them for $10 a pop.

No magic location at all. I bought a handful in North Dakota, Arizona, and Montana. :D

Tripler
I'll keep my eyes open for you. Shoot me an e-mail.

[Johnny L.A.]

I thought the term "assault weapon" was first used by the Israelis to describe the uzi when they put it on the market. I've tried to find an etimology for the term, but no luck.
A real Uzi is a submachine gun. Civilian Uzis in the U.S. were semiautomatic carbines.

"Uzi" is a term that's bandied about a lot by people who know nothing about them. (Not saying that's you, mangeorge; just people in general.) That, and "AK-47". People use those as generic terms. It's like calling all light aircraft "Piper Cubs" (or, more likely, "pipercubs") or "Cessnas".

Personally, I think the furor over "assault weapons" stems from Miami Vice. I don't remember any bad press about them until that TV show depicted them as the "weapon of choice" of drug dealers.
I'm rather offended by the term "assault weapon".
I'm rather offended by the term "weapon". IMO, a firearm is not a weapon unless it is used, or intended by the individual possessing it, as a weapon. My firearms are just "firearms"; not "weapons".

[ExTank]

I was watching FOX news tonight, and I'm shown a poster of Osama with an AK-47. The caption is something like "The terrorists of 9/11 can't wait for 9/13."

I says to meself, "Something like this can only come from one place!" So's I type in the letters and wal-lah! (http://www.bradycampaign.org/) Thar she blows!

In the same newscast, I hear about John Kerry (or his campaign, which I hardly distinguish one from the other) accusing George Bush and/or his campaign of selling FEAR to get votes.

This from a man who gets an F from the NRA, but an A+ from Sarah Brady? And never met a gun control law he was willing to vote "NO" on?

[capacitor]

Toting an Uzi gets you death.

Want the government to really respect your freedom to bear arms? Do what the North Korans did: Get a nuke.

[mangeorge]

Thus spake Johnny L.A;
A real Uzi is a submachine gun. Civilian Uzis in the U.S. were semiautomatic carbines.
Yes, it's the military submachine gun I'm referring to. It was quite the deal at the time (still is, I guess), and many militaries (and wannabees) lusted for them. I seem to remember seeing them put forth as the "Ultimate Assault Weapon", or something like that. The US bought a passle, I'm sure. The secret service, for example.
Miami Vice. What a show. Broke some new ground, soundtrack wise.

[ExTank]

mangeorge: the Uzi was developed by Usiel Gal, and manufactured by Israeli Military Industries. You might also be interested to know that the "K" in AK-47 stands for Kalishnikov (Mikhail), its inventor.

Tripler: now ya tell me. Sheesh! :dubious: If I bought another magazine, I'd have to break down and buy a bigger gun safe.

I currently have enough loaded magazines to keep the local PD at bay for several hours :eek:. I don't really feel the need for any more.

[mangeorge]

Ok gents, ok! :eek: ;)
I'm just trying to remember for sure where I first heard the term "assault weapon". Maybe it was "assault rifle", but that wouldn't be technically correct, would it? The actual gun dates way back to the 50's, and I'm pretty sure I heard the term before there was a large anti-gun movement.
Bullshit, my friends, is bullshit. Unless it's cowshit. Or steershit.

[Johnny L.A.]

You might also be interested to know that the "K" in AK-47 stands for Kalishnikov (Mikhail), its inventor.
More trivia: The AK-47 was superceded by a modernized version featuring a stamped receiver that was cheaper to make and lighter to carry. The AKM was the Avtomat Kalashnikova Modernizerovanyi. (At least, as nearly as I can spell it.)

The "AR" rifles (AR-10, AR-15, AR-18, e.g.) were created by Eugene Stoner. I thought it amusing that the SDMB had posters named Kalashnikov and Eugene Stoner. :)

[mangeorge]

I just can't find the origin of "assault weapon", so I asked (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5254059).
Why do I get so hung-up on things like this?
I haven't got laid in months.

[SenorBeef]

There was one. And that one was a cop who shot his informant.


I don't consider that as relevant. The cop used a machine gun he had signed out through his department (IIRC), which isn't affected by the machine gun ban. Cops can still do that. So it's not a case of private/civilian machine gun ownership.

[SenorBeef]

More trivia: The AK-47 was superceded by a modernized version featuring a stamped receiver that was cheaper to make and lighter to carry. The AKM was the Avtomat Kalashnikova Modernizerovanyi. (At least, as nearly as I can spell it.)


To add to trivia: It hasn't been use much by the eastern bloc for 20-25 years. They use the AK-74.

[SenorBeef]

I just can't find the origin of "assault weapon", so I asked (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5254059).
Why do I get so hung-up on things like this?
I haven't got laid in months.

For clarity's sake, an "assault rifle" is a real military term with a universally accepted definition. "Assault weapons" do not include assault rifles - but they're meant to sound like they do.

[mangeorge]

More trivia then;
One or two Marines coveted the AK-47 in Vietnam. At least early on.

[Una Persson]

I'll bet some legislators are pretty unhappy they went ahead and allowed the amendment of the sunset clause to be added to the bill to get the general support it needed to send the whole thing on through...ah, that crazy Congress of 1993-94. Maybe sunset clauses are a good thing for some other laws as well, so the People (meaning used loosely, it's actually the Congress) can see if there is enough effectiveness and/or support for renewing the legislation after they've tried it out for a while.

Kerry's not getting a single vote trying to demonize Bush (somehow) for not forcing the issue of renewal, nor is he losing Bush a single vote. Gun control is an issue so dramatically polarized that I doubt his harping over it will do anything whatsoever other than make him sound, well, rather shrill and silly, from what I heard on NPR this night.

[Padeye]

One more question I have with the lifting of the ban. Will rifles be legal to sell as full-auto? Or, the 3-shot auto? Or are we still stuck with a single-shot semi-auto to stay legal?

Any weapon that fires more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger is legally defined as a machine gun and as has been earlier noted is irrelevant to the AWB.

FWIW new machine guns have been effectively banned since 1986 when the so-called gun owner's protection act forbade the registration of any new machine guns for civilian ownership. You can still own a machine gun if you jump through all the legal hoops but only one that was already registered before that date. This has really only served to dramatically inflate the price of registered machine guns so even cheap bullet hoses like the MAC are well over $2,000.

Also FWIW there is organized machine gun competition in Phoenix. Rio Salado holds a submachinegun match four times a year and we get 35-40 shooters. I shoot a friend's H&K MP5k-PDW since he's busy with his Sten, Uzi and Carl Gustav.

[Tripler]

I just can't find the origin of "assault weapon", so I asked (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5254059).
Why do I get so hung-up on things like this?
I haven't got laid in months.

Even in your thread, there's a lot of people that mention that the term "assault weapon" has no definite meaning, but was bandied about by the anti-gunners. I knew it was first introduced to the lexicon back around WWII.

I don't think there is a definite origin. Kinda like the term "cool". Like, "mangeorge, yer pretty cool. . ." We all know what it means, but define it specifically. :D

Tripler
But that's not to detract from the truth. Yer definitely cool.

[MaxTheVool]

Imagine half of the Jews in Germany during the holocaust were armed and willing to defend their freedom. Do you still think, with SS soldiers dying left and right, it could have been carried out?

An interesting question. Does anyone know what the gun control laws were like in Germany in the early 1930's, out of curiosity?

In any case, for me (and this is an issue that I don't have a fully formed opinion on) that side of things definitely weighs in pro-gun. As in, if the only thing guns could ever be used for would be to repel nazis, then heck yeah, we should all have guns. The question is whether the benefit to society of that potential repelling (and, of course, even when the Jews did have guns, it only slowed the nazis down, it didn't stop them (see Warsaw)) balances out the detriment to society of having that number of extra guns floating around.

And of course this thread has only focussed on banning vs. non-banning, which (imho) pretty clearly violates the 2nd amendment, as opposed to the far more interesting issues of registration, background checks, etc.

[eno801]

to reiterate on the "assault weapon" moniker. most people hear that and uzi and ak-47 bandied about and think the worst. kind of like should we ban dihydrogen oxide its toxic, corrosive, etc. ...... it's water. penn and teller on their show bullshit were at some rally and had this girl asking for signatures to get dihydrogen oxide banned and i believe every single person signed. most people don't know what is classified as an "assault weapon" under the ban. they imagine fully automatic uzi with short muzzles etc. of course they are gonna say no. just today in the paper they said since uzis qualify as handguns and texas is a concealed handguns state people will be able to carry these concealed at "goverment buildings, parks and other public spaces" painting a picture of people carrying uzis to the park where your children play. :rolleyes: yeah that is real practical. also in today's paper kerry is going on about "In the al-Qaida manual on terror, they were telling people to go out and buy assault weapons,to come to America and buy assault weapons" :rolleyes: man between bush and kerry i honestly don't know who to vote for. aren't there any democrats that are not heavily against gun control? :(

[Mops]

... Imagine half of the Jews in Germany during the holocaust were armed and willing to defend their freedom. Do you still think, with SS soldiers dying left and right, it could have been carried out?

An interesting question. Does anyone know what the gun control laws were like in Germany in the early 1930's, out of curiosity?


My take on that as someone who learned about that period at school, by books and the crop of series about Weimar Republic/Third Reich history in the serious German press:

1. It seems that firearms figured prominently in the political street battles of the 1920s. To try and cut down on political violence the government tightened licensing regulations somewhat, but that was undercut even in the Weimar Republic by widespread far-right sympathies in the ranks of administrators and judges.

2. After Hitler's being appointed Chancellor there was a short debate within both Communists and Social Democrats about whether to start an insurrection. Both decided that fighting police and army was not only hopeless but would put themselves squarely in the wrong and the Nazis in the right as seen by a populace that was weary of political violence and would not have countenanced a revolt against a government that ostensibly had come to power constitutionally. For the Communists, of course, directives from Moscow said that the democratic Left was the more important enemy. (The Nazis then proceeded to dismember the constitutional order, of course). Within months (Feb-May 1933) any organizations that might have been rallying points for an organized insurrection had been effectively shut down. In all accounts of this period that I read the availability or otherwise of firearms did not figure prominently in considerations.

3. It is perhaps telling that the "if only the Jews were armed" argument comes up only in the context of discussions on US firearms policy debates. It does not figure in the accounts of persecuted Jews that I read (outside the specific wartime context of organized uprisings and partisan resistance, that is).
Neither does it figure in historians' accounts.

The reason for this is, I think, that the use or threat of use of firearms by an individual is only a workable mode of defence against the most extreme modes of offence because for the other (lesser) modes of offence armed resistance makes you a dangerous, armed criminal in the view of all third parties, and they'll at least go along with the offender killing you or even help him.

Now the Jews of Germany, and most of the Jews of the occupied territories (except for the victims of Einsatzgruppen-type massacres), did not go from full citizens to murder victims in one step. Rather, their status was nibbled away over years, in bureaucratic acts to which, seen on their own, armed resistance would have been seen as grossly disproportionate, i.e. not self-defence, by any third party (German general population, international community, etc.).

If a Jew used a gun in response to

- SA posts before his store enforcing a boycott (shoot or threaten the unarmed SA men?)
- being dismissed from the civil service (hold up the salary office that does not pay anymore? force one's way to your old desk?)
- not being allowed to marry non-Jews (threaten the registry office clerk?)
- not being allowed to practice law (force one's way into court at gunpoint?)
- being the subject of vitriolic propaganda (shoot the journalists?)
- having one's driving license taken away (shoot the traffic cop?)
- being required to wear a distinguishing mark in public (shoot the cop who only enforces a bureaucratic reg that is no direct threat to life and limb? Even in modern democracies resisting an illegal arrest is illegal.)
- having one's rental contract cancelled and being required to move to special Jewish-only houses (threaten the movers? or forcing the following renters at gunpoint to stay out?)
- being required to leave that special house at an announced time, ostensibly for resettlement in the East (shoot at people who ostensibly only supervise a public-order and housing-rationing measure?)

he or she would have been shot down with everyone else's approval. That would have been seen by contemporaries and later generations as legitimate because armed resistance has only ever a chance of being accepted as legitimate if it is
a) organized (i.e. an uprising rather than a crime)
or
b) in reponse to an immediate threat to life.

[Johnny L.A.]

So, does this mean that I can put a PSG-1 stock on my SAR-8? If so, then where can I get one? Also, what's involved in putting a PSG-1 barrel on the SAR-8? From what I can see, the barrel is just held in by a pin. With H&K PSG-1s going for over $10,000 (last time I looked), I'd really like to modify my existing rifle into a tack-driving target rifle.

I thought it was ironic that under the 1994 law I could not put a longer barrel without a flash supressor on my rifle, just because the parts are imported". (The SAR-8 is a licensed copy of the HK-91, made in Greece and finished in the U.S. I've heard that the bolt and barrel are made by H&K and sent to Greece.)

Also, are 5-round magazines readily available?

[Johnny L.A.]

Yipe! :eek:

I just found a new PSG-1 stock for sale from a dealer. Almost a thousand simoleons! :eek: :eek:

This is a piece of plastic with a metal bit for attaching it to the rifle. There's another piece of plastic that moves up and down so that the target shooter can comfortably position his head for proper viewing through the site. For a kilobuck? Insanity!

[Brutus]

Yipe! :eek:

I just found a new PSG-1 stock for sale from a dealer. Almost a thousand simoleons! :eek: :eek:

This is a piece of plastic with a metal bit for attaching it to the rifle. There's another piece of plastic that moves up and down so that the target shooter can comfortably position his head for proper viewing through the site. For a kilobuck? Insanity!

A honest-to-goodness HK stock?

[Johnny L.A.]

A honest-to-goodness HK stock?
Yes (http://www.floridagunworks.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=FG&Product_Code=1434&Category_Code=HKA+HK91G3+STOCKS).

[Brutus]

Yes (http://www.floridagunworks.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=FG&Product_Code=1434&Category_Code=HKA+HK91G3+STOCKS).

Harsh. Super-duper harsh. I thought my plans of buying a new full upper so I could have a gee-whiz bayonet lug was bad, but that's only 5 or 6 hundred bucks. A thousand dollar buttstock...who woulda thunk? There is this (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=47&t=222427) over at Arfcom, but it's 'used'.

But if you had a FAL... (http://weaponarts.com/metricstock.htm) ;)

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Honest question for you: why do you say that you "need" high capacity clips?

"Want" I can understand, but "need?"

I shouldn't have to demonstrate need, any more than you would have to demonstrate need while purchasing an SUV. Necessity is not the sole purpose for the existence of things.

I find it to be extremely enjoyable to shoot at the range. It's a skill that is not easily acquired or mastered, and since every weapon behaves differently I enjoy shooting every different type I can. Do I need to? Of course not. But I enjoy it, and that should be good enough for you.

[Johnny L.A.]

I saw that one, but I mis-read the join date as the posting date. Half a kilobuck is still rather dear though; especially when you consider the super-trick retractable stock (which I have no desire for) can be had for about $200.
But if you had a FAL... ;)
I did have a FAL. I sold it to get the move-in costs of my first apartment. I figured I could always replace it later...

You know, that stock looks a whole lot like the H&K stock.

[Brutus]

...You know, that stock looks a whole lot like the H&K stock.

The rumor is (or was) that the same guy is going to releasing a CETME/G3-clone version. But who know how long that will take, if it's going to happen at all.

[Berkut]

The ban has ended.

http://www.atf.gov/

[Una Persson]

CNN gets it wrong again. I mailed them yesterday about this and either they've refused to acknowledge my mail, or simply don't give a shit.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/12/gun.ban.ap/index.html

Gunsmith Justin Davis holds a Ruger mini-14 rifle, illegal to manufacture under the assault weapons ban.
:rolleyes:

That, simply, is either sloppy reporting or a lie. The Mini-14 was never banned under the act. This is not hard to fact-check either, as going to Ruger's website shows that they have had it in their catalog for some time.

Of course, the article seems fairly purposefully slanted anyhow, with too much focus on Feinstein and quotes such as:

While manufacturers look for a boom in business as people buy up previously banned weapons like AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s, police chiefs warn of an upsurge in crime.
...without a single quote or cite or reference of any "police chief" warning such. Let alone making any sort of factual or statistical analysis...

Loopholes allowed manufacturers to keep many weapons on the market simply by changing their names or altering some of their features or accessories. And because existing weapons and large ammo clips were protected by a "grandfather" provision, many pre-ban guns remained in use.
You see, any time a law has a provision in it that you don't like, you call it a "loophole" to make it sound like something fishy was going on. And be sure to put "grandfather" in quotes too...

There's going to be a bit of hysteria over this for about a week, then as time goes on and nothing really changes at all the issue will drop until some time, some where, some one uses a gun with an 11-round magazine or a pistol grip to shoot someone, and then we'll hear the cries of "the blood is on Bush's hands just the same as if he pulled the trigger himself!" from one of the Usual Suspects on here.

[Cluricaun]

Is anyone here close enough to a gun shop to run out sometime today and see if there are guns or accessories for sale today that were not on Saturday, or if the pricing has changed?

[ExTank]

I guess the "insult" of FAUX News really does apply. They just reported that the lapse of the AWB would put AK-47's, UZI's and TEC-9's back on the street.

Now I've checked several web-sites (news, political) and I'm seeing a certain similarity in the language of the reporting. To wit: AK-47, UZI and TEC-9.

Most stories have the AP tag on them, and it seems that Mr. Chuck Oxley, an AP Writer, is responsible for this drivel. What I don't get is why is no one other than the NRA (and friends) calling it for what it is on national TV?

Shrub is getting beat up over it, even though he said he supports it and would sign a renewal should Congress put it on his desk. It may interest folks to know that in the 2000 election, Shrub only got a "C" on his NRA report card.

Everywhere I tune in, radio and TV, all I hear is that AK-47's, UZI's and TEC-9's will be out there in the hands of criminals and terrorists should the AWB lapse.

At least MSNBC had a forum for leaving feedback right up front where you didn't have to go digging for it.

Sarah Brady has accused Bush of failing to lead Congress in renewing the AWB; she says he wants to keep his NRA votes without alienating the rest of the country and being seen as a paid stooge of the gun lobby.

I guess Sarah Brady has forgotten American Civics 101: we have our Legislative branch separate from our Executive branch for a reason. The FF didn't want the President and Congress getting too chummy with one another, and far be it for me to disagree with their proven wisdom.

cluricaun: Not really, but I think I know where I can find out. I'll post later if I have any results.

[Berkut]

I think it's hilarious that a lot of news stations (and the Brady Campaign website) are reporting that the ban hasn't ended yet, when it really ended at 12:01 this morning.

They are all trying to save something that's already gone!

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=588

[Berkut]

CNN gets it wrong again. I mailed them yesterday about this and either they've refused to acknowledge my mail, or simply don't give a shit.They've changed it now:
Gunsmith Justin Davis holds a Ruger mini-14 rifle with a configuration that makes it illegal to manufacture under the assault weapons ban.It looks like it has a flash hider and a >10rd magazine, so at least it's correct now.

[Berkut]

Hmm... You have to have a detachable mag and TWO more features of an "assault weapon". The flash hider alone wouldn't do it.

[eno801]

Everywhere I tune in, radio and TV, all I hear is that AK-47's, UZI's and TEC-9's will be out there in the hands of criminals and terrorists should the AWB lapse.

you forgot to mention how all police officers are totally against this also. and check this out.

Washington, DC ? The ban ends at midnight, but already there are signs of what may follow for America's police officers. In Dade County Sunday, a police officer was attacked by an AK-47-wielding assailant. She was shot at least twice, and her police cruiser was left in flames. The gunman reportedly fired some two dozen times.

that is from the brady campaign site. now i am assuming it happened in washington dc. from the tag line, a place where any type of gun whatsover is pretty much illegal already and this guy obviously had his AK before the ban. WTF? wasn't he pretty much breaking the law already ban or no ban? did he hear the ban was ending then decide to go on the rampage. i don't see the revelance to the ban ending. they just had to mention an AK.

[Berkut]

It happened in Miami.

But why didn't their "assault weapons" ban prevent it?

[Una Persson]

They've changed it now:
Wow, you have to wonder if my mail to them did it (I sent it right after the article was posted), or if they got a few others that tipped them off. Hmmm...

[ExTank]

The Associated Press article has changed, too. It's much more moderate in tone than before. FAUX, on the other hand, is still as partisan and wrong as it was earlier. Their commentary could be scripted by Sarah Brady.

[SenorBeef]

Is anyone here close enough to a gun shop to run out sometime today and see if there are guns or accessories for sale today that were not on Saturday, or if the pricing has changed?

Manufacture just became legal today, so it'll take a while for the supply to come in and be reflected in price changes.

[Padeye]

I attended a gun show in Phoenix over the weekend. I did see some prices drop on pre-ban magazines for Uzi and H&K 91/MP5. 40 and 50 round mags in the $20-25 range which is in some cases a 1/4 of what they had been. I guess the dealers figured that no one would buy them at inflated prices this close to the sunset date.

Some weapons, particularly handguns like the Walther P99, did not exist in '94 so there are no pre-ban high capacity magazines. There are already law enforcement magazines which will be legal for civilians and I expect the only change at the factory for those will be to stop stamping them.