Also, sorry for my last post. Forgot we were in IMHO - the last post was GDish.
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. 
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?
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.
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. 
Is this, in a sense, what you guys are up to?
The AWB doesn’t affect fully automatic weapons.
[quote]
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.
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”?
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?”
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.
Good for the kid. I never met a guy who broke his leg playing guitar. 
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
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.
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.)
Worthy of a anthropological study, perhaps?
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.
cool.
I read Ravenman’s post, and then read Crafter_Man’s response that . . .
.
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.
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.
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!
Well, okay, the REAL reason comes a lot closer to “there’s no reason NOT to have them.”
Shooting this over to Great Debates.
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