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? 
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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?
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?
Yes.
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 over at Arfcom, but it’s ‘used’.
But if you had a FAL… 
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ban has ended.
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
: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:
…without a single quote or cite or reference of any “police chief” warning such. Let alone making any sort of factual or statistical analysis…
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.
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?
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.
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!
They’ve changed it now:
It looks like it has a flash hider and a >10rd magazine, so at least it’s correct now.
Hmm… You have to have a detachable mag and TWO more features of an “assault weapon”. The flash hider alone wouldn’t do it.
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.
It happened in Miami.
But why didn’t their “assault weapons” ban prevent it?
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…