Presumably, since the text specifically refers only to semi-automatic weapons, they’re referring to semi-automatic versions (or knockoffs) of the Uzi. There are some, I take it?
Just to add: While there are semiautomatic variants of the Uzi that were affected by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban it’s noteworthy that these weapons aren’t functionally much different from current entirely legal semiautomatic weapons, they just looked more menacing.
There was a semi-automatic carbine version for civilians. In addition to being semi-automatic, it also had a 16-inch barrel to comply with NFA 1934. There was a pistol version that had the standard short barrel of the automatic version, but lacked any stock 9which would have made it a ‘short-barreled rifle’ under NFA 1934.
The AWB was specifically aimed at the semi-automatic civilian version.
You’re thinking of the wrong model of UZI.
The Uzi carbine and the Uzi pistol are semi-auto versions and available to the U.S. civilian market. These are the ones mentioned in the AWB.
Correct me if I’m wrong. While the early semi-auto Uzis fired from an open bolt, weren’t newer ones redesigned with a closed bolt to make it more difficult to illegally convert them? Or am I thinking of the MAC-10?
Some may have been redesigned with a closed bolt.
Some may just have been designed with ‘stoppers’ to make it more difficult to convert them.
There was a Model A UZI which was restricted for import due to being readily convertible. Hence the Model B.
Everyone else has pretty well covered the Uzi. I’ll take a stab at the AK-47*. First, understand that it’s not a single design, but rather a huge family of variants. In its military versions, it’s most definitely an “assault rifle” in the technical sense, and a “machine gun” in the colloquial sense. It’s capable of fully automatic or burst fire, again depending on the variants. Now, there are also variants that, by design are semi-automatic and intended for the civilian market. Converting a semi-automatic civilian version to fully-automatic pretty much requires completely replacing all of the components. The manufacture and transfer of the necessary components for conversion is treated essentially like the manufacture and transfer of a fully-automatic weapon.
So there are semi-automatic civilian AK-47s out there. Same goes for the AR-15, which is the civilian version of the M-16 family. Now, in practice, these semi-auto rifles aren’t very different from any other semi-auto rifles of comparable caliber, like the M1 Garand or the Mini 14, or any number of Winchester rifles. Just about every rifle used for hunting uses the same or similar “high-power” cartridges, and some are semi-auto as well. Thus, most of what defines an “assault weapon” is cosmetic.
- To be a bit pedantic, I should also include the AK-74, and other modern variants, which fire a higher-speed and lower-caliber cartridge.
To re. the OP:
An “assault weapon” is a firearm designed to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible.
By what measure of the word?
Or so promoters of Assault Weapon Bans would have you believe. Firearms which are actually designed to kill many people quickly are full-auto, and have been heavily regulated in the since the 1930’s, and only two such leagally owned firearms have been used in crimes since then, both by police officers.
As a note: One of them was a police officer killing his CI with a Police department owned gun, which is perfectly legal for them to have anyway.
Full Auto weapons are banned, and have been since 1986.
Not true. Quite a few people own them legally (after going through a bunch of paperwork, background check, etc.), and I know someone who owns a range that rents them to the public. The sale of ones made since 1986 to civilians is banned.
Like I said, Full auto weapons are banned.
250,000 or so that were grandfathered in pre-'86 don’t really dispute that fact, since they will, slowly but surely, disappear.
Sears will break, and since those are irreparable under the current set of laws, the numbers will diminish and they will eventually all disappear.
Either way, Grand fathering those in only counts as not violating the provisions of the constitution disallowing post de facto laws, while still effectively and actually banning the category of firearms.
Full auto weapons are defensive and supresive weapons - As far as the military is concerned.
They are designed to put down a suppressing fire over long distances while the ground troops advance. This is one of the reasons that the M-16 has gone from full auto to 3 shot bursts. I believe it’s now the M-4?
You are right that full auto have been heavily regulated.
Interestingly, it completely misses the fact the Luger (WWI/WWII German service pistol) has the ability to mound a 32-round “Snail Drum” magazine in it’s handle, and there is at least one variant which will also accept a shoulder stock.
As several people have said, these laws are generally aimed at “Scary Looking Black Guns”; they don’t necessarily have any logical or sensible rationale behind them.
The fact remains that it is possible for private people in (some parts of) the US to legally acquire automatic weapons, and as such they are not “banned”. Restricted, yes, but not banned. Saying that they’ll wear out eventually and then there won’t be any more isn’t “Banning” them. Right now, as of this second, automatic weapons aren’t banned in the US as a whole. Hard to get and expensive, but not banned. They will be “Banned” when the last one breaks and no-one can have any more because the Government won’t allow them to be repaired, but until then they’re simply heavily restricted.
M-4 is a close relative of the M-16. Call it the slighly younger brother. Basically it’s slightly smaller, has a collapsible stock, is modular in design (lots of stuff can be attached or detached as needed). I can’t remember, but I believe the M-4 Carbine retains the full-auto setting, which modern M-16s lack. Downsides include decreased accuracy and range (whether this is a problem would depend on where you are fighting, of course)
I’m pretty certain the M-16 is still widely used as a standard weapon. In any case, it’s what we were trained on when I went through Basic with the Air Force a few years back.
And yeah, throwing another voice out there for “Assault Weapons are regular guns that look scary and thus are eeeevil”. Somewhere there is an article comparing the AR-15 (Assault Weapon) to the Ruger Mini-14 (just a relatively innocent hunting rifle), and they had identical performance numbers, used the same ammo, same refire rate, same accuracy, just one looks scarier because it has a pistol grip and an external magazine (the Ruger Mini-14 is, IIRC, basically a miniturized version of the M-14, a rifle used by the US military for quite some time, but the important thing is that it doens’t LOOK as scary)
Can’t you attach a shoulder stock to basically anything? The security guards at a mall near my house carry Glocks with stocks.
No, most pistols can’t readily accept a shoulder stock without modification. I know Glock produce a stock designed for the Glock 18 machine-pistol, and the Mauser C96 and Browning High-Power were also produced with the ability to fit a shoulder stock, but it’s not generally a “standard” accessory on modern handguns.
Before I deployed I was issued a brand new M4. It is not auto. Semi and three round burst. I can say from personal recent experience the M4 is just as accurate as a M16 out to at least 300m. I don’t care about past that, I won’t be able to hit it without a scope anyway. I don’t have any numbers but the M4 seems to be rapidly replacing the M16 as the standard weapon. Its to the point where I notice someone with a M16 because it stands out as be so damn long. Almost all of the AF people I see that have rifles have M16s. Army and Marines, M4s.