To put it in context, time wise, it was last introduced before the Heller case had been decided. This is from the ill informed Carolyn “The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up” McCarthy who introduced HR 1022
IANAL, so I would appreciate a better interpretation. Looking at it with a fresh set of eyes, perhaps it only applies to rifles and shotguns. The part I bolded however certainly seems to be more far reaching than that.
Ummm…Yog, he might live near the Mexican border. They’re turning into warzones.
Hey, I agree that the law as written is a mess. I’ll even raise that and say I think it’s a deliberate attempt to rip as many guns as possible from the hands of their owners, and that it is painted as seeming to refer only to AK 47s to deceive people into thinking it’s more reasonable than it is, to gain supporters who wonder what you need a machine gun for and don’t realise or internalize that the bill targets more than machine guns.
Okay. What’s the difference? Does it effect wether the right to own one category of weapon should be defended more ardently than another?
Yes, I know. So what? That doesn’t mean that they can’t both be denied (or permitted) to a similar degree, anymore than the legal nature of six-shooters implies that shotguns should be banned.
And your second sentence is funny when combined with the first, because the bazooka fires only a single round per trigger pull but I hope we can agree that a bazooka is more dangerous weapon than a machine gun. 
As for comparing single-shot vs. automatic guns, I’d think that it’s not magic, but rather the increased amount of lead being delivered, that would make it more dangerous (possibly coupled with a lesser amount of control due to recoil, but I’m pulling that out of my butt; I don’t actually know about that). Aren’t automatic weapons more lethal than single shot?
Oh, come on. Point a fully automatic weapon at a person. Pull the trigger. Some damage has been done, yes? Of course the things are destructive devices. What do you think guns are used for, holding papers down in high winds?
Neither side of the discussion is improved by ridiculous hyperbole.
Does this apply to all military arms? Bazookas? Tanks? Nukes?
This argument I find very uncompelling, as it hasn’t been adjusted to account for the relative number of fully automatic (why do you keep capitalizing that?) weapons in circulation, as opposed to the number of other weapons. Just because there are more dog attacks than cougar attacks per year, doesn’t mean dogs are more dangerous to have around than cougars, after all.
They got you too. The bill does not target machine guns.
So. If a firearm is suitable for a sporting event, that doesn’t necessarily mean its suitable for sporting purposes.
That’s just brilliant. In other words. They could ban pretty much any gun they want to under this legislation.
They shoot faster, but they also empty faster and are very difficult to control. On the whole I would say they are about the same.
Destructive Device is a term that the Feds use to classify certain weapons such as grenades, landmines, bazooka rockets, rocket propelled grenades, c4, etc. Bullet spewing rifles are not considered destructive devices by the feds. FYI
Well, there are thousands and thousands on the registry and only 2 have been used in the commission of a crime. Since one of them was owned by a police dept. i bet it wasn’t even on the list. I bet there have been more cougar attacks since 1934 than crimes committed with a full auto gun. 
The whole “sporting purposes” clause that started with the GCA '68 are complete bullshit through and through. Any law that contains a provision based around it is automatically bad.
It works somewhat because a huge number of the dicks that are NRA members say “just don’t take my duck gun” and sell everyone else up the river. Classic divide and conquer stuff.
That’s the way I read it. :rolleyes:
This isn’t atypical of gun control proposals. If they thought they could sneak “oh and by the way all guns are banned” into the “Don’t Worry, We’re Only Banning Bazookas Act”, they would.
There were “Cop Killer Bullet” bans which were actually attempts to ban EVERY RIFLE available. And then when the NRA spent political clout to oppose the ban, they got “the EXTREMIST NRA wants to defend COP KILLER BULLETS!”
I didn’t say it did; I said it was being sold as doing so. And isn’t it?
That’s informative but irrelevent to the way he or I was using the term.
Thousands and thousands, huh? So how many other guns are out there? I still think that collecting all the necessary data to make the correct calculation drastically weakens this line of argument.
Which is not to say this isn’t necessary a solution in search of a problem, even if the law had been written to simply restrict automatic weapons unstead of being the weasley mess it is. But that doesn’t excuse the use of flimsy arguments to oppose it.
begbert2 - You didn’t say that? Well then you sure did phrase this strange.
[bolding mine].
Just saying. Since bazookas and C4 invariably make their way into this argument, now the DD term is too. It means something besides what you were using it as and it directly applied to the difference between a Bazooka and a machine gun.
Lets make it simple. There are about 80 million guns in private hands. Per the DOJ in 1994 there were some 85000 requests to the ATF to track weapons that had been seized in the commission of a crime. That works out to about one tenth of a percent of all guns privately held.
If the NFA registry holds a million guns, and 2 were used in crimes, in 60 years that equals .0002% of the guns.
I’m not sure which arguments were flimsy. Can you please elaborate. I’m not being sarcastic, this thread is just getting big and specifics are getting harder to find. Thanks.
You’re getting your numbers mixed up - about 80 million gun owners in the US, around 250 million guns.
Thanks, one can only keep so many number straight…
85,000 / 250,000,000 = .03%
Are you under the impression that I am a supporter of this bill? I’ve already criticized it in no uncertain terms, including the statement you’ve been quoting. So, as I’m not a supporter of the bill, clearly I didn’t fall for the ruse.
Asserting that automatic weapons only have been used in two crimes while casually not mentioning that only a small fraction of the guns in circulation are automatic weapons is a rhetorical argument that artificially stresses the safety of such weapons by failing to credit their basic rarity for the rarity of their use. To me, that’s a weak argument. (Actually based on the numbers it sounds like a better argument could be made that their limited numbers is all that has made their use in crimes rare, and thus, that restricting them further would make them safer.)
And there was that passing comment one needs an automatic weapon to drive off a hapless burglar, as if a 12-gauge shotgun isn’t enough of a persuader.
There may be others, but those were recent.
:shrug: Whatever. Read your quote again. It clearly reads like you think/thought that the bill would ban machine guns.
Clear as mud, my friend. :shrug:
Did you miss the part where I think Fully Automatic Weapons should be unbanned?
Function.
No, both should be as ardently defended. However, I’m not in a position to stop the '86 amendment from going through…
No. There’s a reason Military issued M16’s are no longer Fully Automatic, they’re 3 shot burst.
And that’s your personal bias saying all guns are destructive devices. The same argument could be made for Cars.
My guns only shoot at paper. Period.
I’m still waiting for that proof.
I haven’t used one yet.
What happened to not using ridiculous a hyperbole?
Let me rephrase: Prove to me why my rights should be infringed, in the light of the negligible amount of deaths attributed to weapons with selective fire capabilities.
There have been more polar bear attacks, in the continental united states…
You did say it did.
And no, it it isn’t.
Actually, it’s exactly how I used the term. The fact you didn’t understand it that way, does not mean it’s not how I used it.
You obviously don’t understand the argument… you seem to be repeating yourself…
It’s not restricting fully automatic weapons at all, not simply, not complexly, not in any manner.
They were registered in 1934, the registry stayed open and IIRC there are 125,000+ selective fire, NFA registered firearms still on the books. This number has dwindled from 135-140,000, because of standard breakages… again, IIRC.
Find that for me, please.
I believe you’ll find the term used is “Assault Weapon,” which is a Semi-Automatic shotgun (and the best home defense weapon, imo) under the current bill.