How is it possible to counter people that have no conscience? I don’t have a problem with the basic right to gun possession but how do you explain this kind of abuse of so-called “Constitutional freedoms”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26borders.html?exprod=myyahoo
They didn’t even bother getting their terms right.
If they were assault rifles, they did not purchase them from FFL’s. If they were were Legal weapons, they were not Assault Rifles. Fucks sake, I don’t have a problem with a newspaper pushing an agenda, but at least do so factually. We’re all biased to a certain extent, but to do so in a manner not even consistent with reality is simply irresponsible propaganda.
In short; yes. it’s possible that counter-people have no conscience. However, why would you describe it them “so-called “Constitutional freedoms”.”
As presented, the perpitrators broke a half dozen or so laws. How do you counter those that think another law or two will put a stop to this?
Here’s a link that doesn’t require registration.
As to the content, I could nitpik the use of terms like assault rifles and military weapons, but that’s just the media displaying their ignorance and bias.
There is no defense for the sellers actions and his actions hurt all honest vendors and owners. He is as much a representative for gun ownership as Al Qaeda is for Muslims and the KKK are for Christianity.
How do I explain it? Everybody involved is a criminal, that’s how I explain it.
Ok. I’m not a gun guy, so maybe I just have it wrong, but the only mentions of “assault rifles” in the article (that I found in a very quick reading) were referring to AK-47’s and .50 caliber rifles.
Are those *not *assault rifles?
Assault is a behavior, not a kind of weapon. It’s just crypto-speak for “big scary rifle”. No one has really defined what is, or isn’t an assault rifle. Sometimes it’s features like bayonet lugs, or flash suppressors that get a firearm onto a forbidden list. It’s like pornography - “I know one when I see it”.
Definition of an assault rifle: a rifle designed for combat, with **selective fire **(capable of shooting either like a machine gun or one bullet at a time). None of those weapons sold were select fire or automatic. They were all semi-automatic.
Well, the .50 cal certainly isn’t one. You can’t “assault” with a bolt action BMG, which is the general configuration of this firearm.
The article states that he sold one of these guns, but doesn’t say who he sold it to. Considering the expense of this firearm, its general use in a highly specialized form of target shooting, and its general uselessness to criminals (not much call for snipers in the cartels, I’d bet) odds are very high that this $5000 to $10000 rifle was sold to a hobbyist.
Well. We’re just talking incredible nit-picks here. There was nothing unclear about the article.
Seriously, the gun-lobby (for lack of a better term) is upset because we all know what someone means when they say “assault weapon?”
I already know in re-reading I’m going to get jumped on for my comment, so let me clarify.
I’m talking about the constant nit-picks in terminology we always see in gun threads.
“It’s not a gun, it’s a sidearm.”
“It’s not a rifle, it’s a weapon.”
“It’s not a bullet, it’s a round.”
Etc. And of course, somewhere along the lines there will be a post a mile long full of details on feet-per-second, stopping power data, and the make up of shell casings.
My only point was, outside of whatever terminology was used, the article was pretty clear.
Jack, precision in terminology is important to the pro-gun side simply because poorly-defined and sloppily worded legislation is subject to misinterpretation, misuse, and outright abuse.
An Assault Rifle has a pretty specific definition amongst just about any military you might choose to name. They are not widely available to civilians. Some few models are available for exhorbitant prices and intense legal scrutiny in certain U.S. States. Since they fell under the National Firearm Act in 1934, no legally owned Assault Rifle has been used in violent crime.
An Assault Weapon has had vague and shifting legal definitions largely based upon cosmetic features, not any defineable, measurable performance criteria. They are not the preferred weapons of typical criminals (narcotics traffickers, organized crime/gangs, armed robbers) as they are too large to adequately conceal.
Now if you don’t care about the different performance characteristics and actual classifications of various types of firearms, that’s fine. Apparently, the author of the cited article feels much as you do.
But such disregard (if not outright deliberate ignorance) makes the cited article about as clear as the Mississippi River.
One minor note: The AK-47 that is a Assault Rifle and the AK-47 that is a single-shot semi-automatic rifle, cheap but inferior to many hunting rifles, look identical, and have the same name.
This is not helpful, but it is true.
That said, what we have here is a metric fuckload of criminals flagrantly breaking a number of laws. String 'em up.
Yup, criminals that will be caught and will be prosecuted under the already existing gun laws that we have. Laws do not prevent criminal behavior, the simply express a societies unwillingness to allow such behavior and guidelines for punishment.
Slight further pedantic nitpick; the AK has variants produced without license from Izhevsk Machine Tool Factory, however they are not well and truly Kalishnikov rifles, rather they are things like the ubitquitous SKS to the Chinese Type56 which is a more true version of the ‘assault rifle’ than the SKS which is a ‘sporter’ type plinker with a Kalishnikov Body.
**Jack Batty **asked about terminology, I suppose it’s most important, as **Ex-Tank **stated, to gun folks because the wrong things happen for the wrong reasons when the wrong terms are applied to the wrong things for political expediency.
It’s a bit like buying a corvette, let’s say, as opposed to a vehicle with a corvette body and a VW bug engine. Yes, they LOOK the same, they may even have the same ‘features’ but step on the gas and what you get is the same performance as the bug with the look and price of a corvette. They’re not the same, they shouldn’t be classified the same nor regulated as if they are. The VW engine puts out significantly less HP, using less gas it should not be subjected to the ‘gas guzzler’ tax because it has a corvette body, should it? Same goes with so-called assault weapons/rifles. These are no more or less dangerous than any hunting rifle, yet they get classified as such because they’re made to appear that way. It’s bad practice and causes more harm than good.
Further Nitpick: The SKS and Type 56 were not variants of the AK-47, but different designs that pre-dated the latter weapon by several years. The SKS was a semi-automatic rifle, without a removable magazine.
As a regular reader of the NY Times who is also a believer in the 2nd Amendment, I can testify that the Times routinely publishes b.s. like this. True, dishonest gun dealers are a real problem, and a source of many criminal weapons. But the Times routinely conflates all all types of weapons with “assault rifles,” a phrase that seems to appear in EVERY article on the subject. I read a story once that described pistol grips on rifles, bayonet lugs, and flash hiders as features that were banned because they “appeared useful to criminals.”
'Cause, ya know, a bullet from a gun with a bayonet lug is much more lethal than a bullet from a gun without. :rolleyes:
I won’t speak for Ex-Tank, but what bothers me about it is that complete firearm ignoramuses that call magazines “clips” and are scared of souped-up .22 plinkers have a vote when it comes to firearm-related issues. Some of these people might even think think that a .50 BMG round could be fired in an assault rifle. Listen, Jack, “.50 caliber rifle” virtually always means that the rifle fires .50 BMG - originally designed for the M2 Browning Machine Gun - and the lightest production rifle (AFAIK) using this caliber is the Ultralite 50 by Ligamec Corp., which probably weighs around 13 pounds without shown (and necessary) accessories. Assault rifles tend to weigh 7-9 pounds without extras, dude.
Educate yourself before you abopt a pro-grun control position and attempt to restrict others’ ability to own possessions that they cherish.
This is the configuration the 50 cal was in when I fired it.
It is not a lightweight weapon, even when you make it light.
When we have verifyable reports of “criminals” charging with bayonets fixed, I’ll support a ban on bayonet lugs.
Terminology is critical, because we’re talking about law. If we pass a law banning “assault weapons,” we need to define what that phrase means, so that people have an understanding of what is and is not prohibited. Your comment is a classic: “AK-47’s and .50 caliber rifles…Are those not assault rifles?”
No. Certainly not in the case of the .50 cal. Almost certainly not in the case of the AK-47. But if you think they are, you need to provide a clear definition of what you mean by the term. Is any big, scary gun an assault weapon? You dismiss this as “everyone knows” what we’re talking about, but that’s simply not true. Those who know very little about guns seem to think everyone knows; those who are well informed almost invariably see the problem with saying “everyone knows.”
