Pitting the NRA

The BBQ Pit
241

My cynical guess is that many of the weapons on the list were popular enough that Democratic Congresspeople felt like they might have too much “common man” outrage and resistance if they didn’t exempt the most popular of the Devil guns. Another cynical part of me says that some makers (like Ruger) got their guns on the exempted list by making back-door deals at the time. For example, Ruger had a ban on selling any magazines over 10 rounds to non-law enforcement, and as the AWB steamroller was gearing up, Ruger also said they would cease all sales of the folding stock Mini-14 (and production of a future folding-stock Mini-30) except for law enforcement.

But that’s only my opinion, based on my following of Ruger news at the time (I used to own a lot of Ruger firearms, now I have only 5 or 6).

242

I used to agree with the first part but I’m not so sure anymore; I’m not against it but I don’t know if I’m for it. Car titles and licensing were basically there almost from the day cars were invented; at least from the time they became widely available. Given the number of firearms already out there, what would be the expense (in terms of both loss of freedom and loss of money) to going back and trying to title all of them?

Unreported stolen ------ I’m on your side 100%. Incorrectly secured I would need more information on definitions. I lost the key to one of my trigger locks once; it took me about 10 minutes to get it off and the damage to the firearm was basically cosmetic. I had a relative pass away without leaving any of us the number/combination to his Browning gun safe. That took a couple hours and a phone call. I am guessing but I would think your average criminal has access to about the same “technology base” and contacts that I do.

(Also, the untraceable weapons criminals use usually aren’t stolen ones. They are the ones imported specifically for criminal purposes. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be able to trace them back to the original owner to prosecute him/her.)

243

1973: “It was an AK47, a Chinese communist assault weapon used by the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War and similar to the M!6 used by the United States”

1970"The rifle is a Communist made AK47 assault weapon"

1964"This assault weapon is an Army gun with a handgun that detaches from the botton".

1976“Why would anyone want an M1-Enforcer? It’s an assault weapon, and meant for one thing, to shoot a person in the stomach. The AR-15 can be changed into a fully automatic weapon in five minutes”

Kiss my ass any time.

244

Random newspaper clippings are just that. The 1964 cite, talking about a Johnny 7 OMA (one man army) toy gun was especially good :dubious:

I wouldn’t call a toy manufacturer or a newspaper article (or 2 or 3) authoritative or the final word.

245

My thought would be that there would be a very long grace period, on the order of years, from inception of the bill until all already-owned arms had to be registered. This would help ease the financial burden from a cash flow standpoint. Fees would be constrained in the bill to be no more than the administrative cost of keeping records and operating licensing centers, I’d expect to see them at no more than the fees you’d see for cars–I’d expect $10-$30 per year per firearm at absolute most, firearm title transfer fees in the vicinity of $25, initial testing for a rifle/shotgun license in the vicinity of $30, and renewals on that in the vicinity of $30 every four years. Personally, I spend FAR more than $10-30 per weapon on ammunition in a year–one’s mileage may vary.

I was pondering a lower registration rate for collectors who own large numbers of guns that are fired infrequently or not at all, but I’m open to suggestions for specifics on that.

I would expect loss of freedom to be minimal, since the point of my as-yet imaginary lobbyist firm is that registration is a concession being offered to the gun control folks with the knowledge that using said registrations for harassment or confiscatory practices will result in us going full-on NRA-style to get your asses voted out. Additionally, one of the things I advocate in exchange for this concession is that a certain level of training (at cost) is offered by the military or national/state guard organizations at completion of which a civilian can be certified as something like a “trained militiaman” and permitted to purchase burst-fire/fully-automatic military rifle(s) and magazines with the understanding that training and security must be significant (I would expect things like “required biometric safe with a minimum penetration time measured in hours” and “required to permit surprise inspections no more than every six months by local law enforcement of your storage facilities” and “must renew license with refresher training every year”) and that said citizen is expected to muster in the (incredibly unlikely, grant) event of war on the home front. This entire last paragraph addresses what I consider to be the essential thrust of the 2nd amendment–the provision of a citizen militia with teeth both for national defense and as a safeguard against the (even more incredibly unlikely) event of an actual coup.

Hmm, I was thinking for securing guns that I would require that rifles and shotguns should be at minimum stored with trigger locks (as their criminal use is minimal) and that handguns should probably be kept in a safe. I’m not really concerned about the theft of semi-automatic long arms, and as for safes, I’m pretty sure Joe Average Burglar doesn’t want to be spending any more than 10-15 minutes max in your house.

nods The goal isn’t so much to eliminate gun crime as to put a freakin’ huge deterrent on shenanigans with illegitimate/unrecorded transfers of firearms. Put simply, I think there’s a compelling and not-Constitutionally-denied interest in being able to know the owners of legal firearms.

246

Do explain. I cannot see any reason to give the .gov a list of everyone who owns what. You mentioned non harassment or confiscation. So exactly what is the point of recording my guns into a list that could more likely than not end up being public domain? Why else does the .gov need to have a list of who owns guns other than to persecute from it?

247

Damn those govt guys, next thing you know they’ll want lists of who can drive, what cars are registered, who is born, who owns what property, who is eligible to vote, draft-eligible men, what ideas are patented, who is enrolled in school, passport holders, and people licensed to fly. I mean why would they want a list of voters unless they wanted to “persecute from it”.

248

I’m so honored that you chose to be a fucking asshole to me too. Way to spread it around. Thanks for that, I can retire for the evening now.

249

Ignorant reporter that does not understand that the proper term is “assault rifle”. Does not apply to any weapons described in the AWB.

Same thing.

You understand that this is referring to a plastic toy, right? this thing?

Do I even have to say that this was not related to the stuff banned under the AWB? I don’t know with you, your reading comprehension is astoundingly bad.

Oh, what does this have to do with the weapons in the AWB again?

You could come up with a zillion examples of people stringing together the common words “assault” and “weapon” if you’d like. The first two examples you just listed ARE EXACTLY THE SORT OF LIE/MISINFORMATION that the lawmakers used. The reporters were ignorant that the proper term for the weapon they were describing was “assault rifle” - and so the AWB also likes to capitalize on the ignorance of the public between the difference between an “assault rifle”, an actual, definable class of weapons, and “assault weapon” - anything the user wants it to be.

You are arguing against a straw man. I did not say that no one has ever uttered the words “assault” and “weapon” at the same time, but that seems to be your argument. “Haha, I found somewhere that someone put those words together, even though it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and those guns had nothing to do with the AWB. You lose!”

You have now given examples of how various sources have called flamethrowers, shoulder-launched rockets, plastic toys, actual assault rifles, bolt action rifles, obstacle-breaching explosives, and revolvers “assault weapons” - and you think this actually supports your case. The very fact that you can come up with all these examples which are so divergent - and even then, you can’t come up with a single usage that ACTUALLY APPLIES TO “ASSAULT WEAPONS” as defined in federal law by the AWB, proves that the term is meaningless and whatever the user wants it to mean.

Step back and try to re-evaluate what you’re arguing, because you somehow think that bringing up more and more examples to support an incorrect line of argument is helping your case.

250

What’s interesting is that there are select-fire military versions of the Ruger Mini-14, although it’s not often mentioned for some reason.

251

Probably because they have been out of reach of the US public hands since 1986. Yet another piece of screw you, feel good legislation.

Lots of cops are ex-military. As such, they have training and experience with the AR15/M16 platforms. It makes sens that LE Agencies lean towards those rifles rather than the Mini 14 GB and other variants.

252

Wow, not only are you an idiot, you are a stubborn one as well. With a minimum of effort i found several instances of “assault weapon” being used to refer to things like an AK47. Your claim was that “assault weapon” was not used people other than AWB advocates to refer to what are also called “assault rifles” and that the term was created to scare people.

With just a little effort I have shown that is not true. There are more instances as well, but those archives charged to see the complete text and you are not worth it. It id fine to argue about whether the term “assault weapon” should be used for certain firearms, but it clearly was. I’m not sure how denying that advances your cause, as it shows that facts have no influence on your beliefs.

253

Never knew that. But then it would already be heavily regulated by the 1938 automatic weapons act (or whatever it was called).

Dan, give it up. You are the wrrrrrr wrong one here. SenorBeef has been very, very patient and articulate. If you are for more gun regulations, you are not doing your cause any favors. Your bull headed refusal to look at facts and bend definitions is one of the reasons that many gun owners don’t trust those that want more restrictions.

254

If we’re giving the safes away, you got my donation; say something like the digital television conversion program? Otherwise your idea has that hint of racism (class-ism actually - race has nothing to do with it really) that already taints a lot of the handgun control laws. If you are rich enough, you have options – more working poor/lower class/inner city your only option may be to violate the law. Basically free safes for everyone keeps it fair.

Joe Average breaking in isn’t really looking for firearms; we’ve had cases around here lately where basic entry-level burglars have left guns behind in favor of laptops and the like; even to passing up unsecured firearms. So some of what we have in place concerning punishment is helping - as the current registrations and back-ground checks are helping. The crooks targeting gun owners and gun shops are a little more specialized criminal. The place I work doesn’t sell firearms but we were hit by this class of burglar ------- they bypassed an intense security system, spent roughly 4 hours inside, and cracked three safes well beyond what is affordable to the average person. A friend lost his gun collection the same way; the crooks were inside 3-8 hours and cracked a safe that makes the average Browning gunsafe look like a cigar box. Somewhere in the law will need to be a proviso to the effect of “take the steps we require and you are free from any criminal or civil prosecution”.

Steal a gun, do 5 years. Per gun. Trade your gun for crack? That sounds like 5 years too maybe (although I’ll like that one better once we reform drug laws). Caught in possession of a stolen firearm? One year per. Buy a stolen firearm and sell it to someone who commits a crime, you get the accessory rap as well as the original owner - in fact accessory raps for everyone that gun passed on its way to the crime. No pleas and no deals - here’s your cell and make yourself at home because you are going to be here a while.

I like most of your plan (although I still have my doubts on the title thing. Right now having an unregistered handgun registered carries an automatic amnesty and the cost is I believe under $10) ---------- but in addition I would want actual crime addressed in addition to shenanigans.

255

Hmmmm - why would someone think in terms of “persecute”? I may not agree with that word choice but I understand where its coming from.

With armed robberies, drive-by shootings, gang activity, drugs and things I honestly fear and have/could be a victim of, you find two components. One is sometimes a firearm and the other is often a car.

How about some laws that say “your car gets stolen and you don’t report it promptly you go to jail”. How about a law that says “No garage to secure your car from thieves? Guess you don’t get to own a car then!” Lend a car or rent a car to someone and have it used in a crime? You are automatically an accessory and there are no excuses accepted. Mind you, we already have excellent means to track vehicles ----- it would be easy. And if someone had to escape on foot they could be much less likely to take a shot at me.

But we don’t want to go there, do we? Car control? Let’s face it, it could be just as big a tool in fighting crime. But its easier to “persecute” the gun than prosecute the car.

256

I wonder how a bank robbery would go down…

Thugs armed with Johnny 7 OMA assault weapons (from the 1964 newspaper clipping), and using one of those pedal driven kiddy cars as the get away vehicle :smiley:

257

I was talking to a cousin about two years ago and came across the similar ignorance that DanBlather has.

We where talking one night and she insisted that all guns that had holes in the sides of the barrels be banned. She saw some weapon on TV with a barrel shroud.

“IT HAS HOLES IN THE SIDE OF THE BARREL” was her complaint. I’m not sure if she thought it was some sort of fragmentation gun or what.

I was dumb struck at first as my cousin is a very intelligent person. We share the same political leanings as well. The long and short is that she knows absolutely nothing about guns, but would like to outlaw guns with holes in the barrel.

This, my friends, is the idiocy reasonable gun owners face. That and people on this board like DanBlather.

I asked before Dan and will ask again. Do you think that revolvers and bolt action rifles are assault weapons?

258

I always picture more some guy with one of those “hikers specials” that breaks down into it’s own stock escaping on a Razor scooter --------- but that’s just me. :smiley:

259

“The Segway - the primary tool o’ the drug dealer.”

260

Again, straw argument. It was clear that I meant that they created a new and arbitrary class of weapons with the AWB. There is no history of the usage of the word “assault weapons” to refer to a particular class of weapons - and your exmaples, in which a huge range of weaponry is referred to … and notably not anything that would actually be considered an assault weapon by the AWB, shows that the term did not have any sort of accepted meaning for them to use.

I asked this earlier in the thread, and you avoided it. But maybe answering this question will make you get it. Because even though you keep saying “stubborn stubborn!!!” it’s actually you who is refusing to even try to understand what it is I’m saying to you, and I’ve done it in detail over and over.