Oh, and my confusion was that many state laws require a federal dealer permit to own a machine gun. I must have been looking at California law at the time.
minty: your “assault rifle” definition is accurate inasmuch as it is very broad based description of several classes of weapons with what may seem minor technical differences.
To firearms manufacturers, military organizations (and yes, even aficionados such as myself and others), “God is in the details” of those “minor technical differences.”
And those differences do have a significant impact upon functionality. Which is why those of us in “the opposition” get the screaming heebie-jeebies when broad based terminology and legislation gets aimed at us.
In the example you cited, using the M-16 family of rifles (of which the AR-15 is a member), the main difference is really just one or perhap two parts: the firing sear and perhaps the recoil spring. The firing sear is the true difference between full- and semi-auto. The recoil spring may vary according to how much recoil the rifle is intended to absorb (need I point out that full-auto produces more recoil than one-shot-at-a-time semi auto?).
The average schlep who walks in and buys a semi-auto AR-15 will have no earthly idea of how to make it full-auto. Someone with military experience (especially a unit armorer) or a gunsmith would. I understand the concept, from my time in the military, but doubt that I could do so, even if I were so inclined.
I forget when exactly (late 80s/early 90s) the BATF ruled that the manufacture, sale or transfer of weapons that were easily convertible through mechanism to full-auto were illegal. Only NFA types could buy and sell amongst each other. But there was no recall or confiscation of those already on the market. Those who had them already who weren’t NFA types were stuck with them after a certain grace period. After that period expired, they were worthless on the open market. Not even an NFA tpye could buy them from an non-NFA type.
Is it now imossible to convert one of the new-style AR-15s, manufactured IAW the BATF specifications on convertability? I suppose not. But it is now a heckuva lot harder to do so. I doubt that even the average gunsmith could. Perhaps someone with some knowledge of metallurgy and mechancal engineering, and access to some metal working machinery could do so (you can’t even take one of the old-style sears out of a pre-BATF ruling AR-15 and fit it into and new-style, post-BATF ruling AR-15). Heaven help him if he gets caught. They take the house, the car, all financial assets, and send them to prison, along with anyone who could or should have reasonably known what he was up to. And when faced with 10 years of federal maximum security, people start singing.
Which is why further restriction upon “assault rifles” (a precise military term) and the more broadly based “assault weapons” (a more political term, and, as you have correctly pointed out, one that is more recognized in common usage) are so vexing to us gun owners who legally own and safely enjoy these weapons. Especially restriction which have little, if any impact upon functionality, such as bayonet lugs, flash suppressors (which is not, in any way, shape, or form a sound suppressor!), pistol-style grips, or wherever the magazine well happens to be placed.
Okay, “Magic Thundersticks” it is, per the apparent preference of ExTank. Like I said above, the precise term is irrelevant to the legal restriction. Draw the line based on physical characteristics and regulate accordingly is my point. Feel free to question which characteristics are relevant, but please do recognize that it is “reasonable gun control” to draw a line at some point.
**
Dictionary.com is simply wrong. It is not my arbitrary usage. I am using the department of defense’s definition, which every military in the world agrees with.
If dictionary.com defined assault rifle as “a scary looking gun”, it would be just as accurate, but you’d clearly not accept that definition.
If you want to refer to weapons which have military-type actions but not all of the functionality of their military counter-parts, I suggest you use “military style rifles” or something similar. Using the term “assault rifle” is just used to scare other gun grabbers. “Oh my god, they can own assault rifles!!!”. You’ve been corrected by people who know the subject, and it is dishonest to continue misusing the term.
**
Not true. US v. Miller, 1939, made it quite clear that weapons that were useful to a military were the ones that were most protected under the second amednment.
Want me to start another thread on it?
**
Do you really think a tyrant doing something that will anger much of the population isn’t affected at all by the knowledge that they’re as well armed as he is?
**
It would seem to me that any government that would so highly restrict weapon is ON the way to tyranny, and therefore, any government that is trying to make weapons hard to get or confiscate them only proves and increases the need of those guns against that tyranny.
What’s the difference between Germany and here? The Germans are evil baby killers? In 1900, Germany was a progressive democratic nation that lead the world in the sciences, arts, etc. I’m sure the “it would never happen here” thinking would be prevalent.
**
Aha. The United States will never become tyranical. Now, please give us the instruments you’ll use to protect against potential tyranny… we want them because we’re so non-tyranical. Thanks.
**
The idea is that the Republic would fail somehow. If we couldn’t change the system the way we’re supposed to. If the government stopped serving the people, and expected the people to serve the government.
Our system has many checks and balances to prevent this, but ultimately, these can all be eroded away in face of an apathetic populace. A populace, armed, and informed, however, is the final check on government power. This is the way it was intended. Without the ultimate check, the rest of them can be eroded.
**
Every year, the support for a complete disarming grows. I’d wager it’s because kids are growing up in an environment where the media and news constantly bombards them with the idea that ‘guns are bad, always’. Complete disarmanent isn’t a far-fetched idea. Hell, almost everyone in the country believes the second amendment is about hunting. Give it a few years, and people will call it “reasonable” to have everyone lock their guns up at the local police department and take them out only for their yearly hunting trips.
I already see the government exponentially expanding it’s power in every arena - they tax us for 50% of our money, they violate the fourth amendment with the war on drugs and new stuff like the PATRIOT act - they create new, unnecessary, expensive agencies all the time. And they want to restrict our right to be armed. I don’t see the government as going anywhere from here but worse, and given that distrust - which is quite common among Americans - I am supposed to surrender the final Constitution check to the government?
Out of curiosity, how do you quantify an ‘assault weapon’?
Like the current system, wherein my ‘assault weapons’ can’t have things like a bayonette lug? Pistol grip?
I guess the next time I have to make a drive-by bayonetting, I have to use my mauser. 
Gun control is so effective, that gun-related crime is on the rise in Great Britain. http://www.nandotimes.com/world/story/214603p-2072751c.html
Banning firearms is utterly pointless. By definition, only criminals would then have firearms, since any law abiding citizen (who is not a concern in the first place) would have turned theirs in.
The police CANNOT and SHOULD NOT protect us all of the time. I do not want an officer stationed at my front door. Or in my car. Or to accompany me on the way to the market. So long as the idiot anti-2nd Amendment zealots do not get their way, I will defend myself, thank you.
Having said that, I am all for taking the following two steps, one of which could, ironically, be termed gun-control:
- Increase the standards for purchasing a firearm. Rigorous written and practical exams should be given to aquire a ‘purchase permit’. I mean RIGOROUS. The purchaser should have to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of firearm safety and operation. Perhaps a mandatory series of instruction classes.
And once that ‘purchase permit’ is aquirred (perhaps renew it every few years?) then:
- Lift restrictions on everything but fully-automatic weapons (Even professionals find these difficult to employ effectively; Hence, the prevelance of 3-rd burst and single-only modes on modern military rifles).
If I want a bayonet, I have yet to hear a good explanation why I am not allowed to purhase a new rifle and not have one. If I want 30 round magazines, so be it. And so on. Kill the moronic weapons ban.
By raising the bar, one would eliminate a lot of the tard-buckets from buying firearms, but responsible shooters will no longer be harrassed by ignorant ‘gun-control’ legislation (remember, Britain banned them all…)
Now back to buying accessories for my CAR-15…
**
This sounds great until you realize that those in charge of deciding whether or not you have the privilege of self defense may very well be people that are interested in your disarmament.
If the requirements become so strenuous that only those who make generous politicial donations can pass (see California), then it’s effectively a gun ban anyway.
I, personally, disagree with the distinction against fully automatic weapons. They’re no more deadly than anything else. There’s not really any havoc you can wreak with a fully automatic weapon that you can’t with any other type.
So every major dictionary of the English language agrees with my usage of the term, but I am “dishonest” for daring to use it in the commonly accepted manner that differs from SenorBeef and an alleged (but uncited) definition from the Pentagon? Where the hell do you get off casting aspersions on my honesty?
They’re not, and he won’t be deterred in any significant manner.
That’s just begging the question. Where’s the proof? (Paging Mr. Godwin!)
Good question. What is the difference between Germany and here today? The German populace is effectively disarmed, but they are nowhere near moving towards your boogyman of an Evil Tyrranical Dictatorship. Yet, by your own words that I just quoted, Germany must be “is ON the way to tyranny” and . :rolleyes:, I say.
That is not even remotely accurate. Germany from 1879-1918 was officially “The German Empire,” and had barely been unified into a single country after centuries of petty princes squabbling amongst themselves for land and commerce. It was led by Otto von Bismarck, an authoritarian who persecuted Catholics and introduced the sort of exterminationist rhetoric into German politics that made Hitler seem like just another politician years later. He banned political parties he didn’t like, and he coddled the landed elite and military at the expense of allowing the government to grow and evolve. In short, Germany in 1900 was nowhere near “a progressive democratic nation.” Don’t even suggest that to be that case.
Cite, please.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
:gasp:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh my, that’s funny stuff. I don’t know what movies and television shows you’ve been watching, but that you could at all discern a message that “guns are bad, always” says mountains about your remarkable ability to ignore data that contradicts your own preconceptions.
**
The definition says basically ‘any semiauto military rifle’, does it not? Does the definition make any distinction between, say, a main battle rifle and an assault rifle? No. Do they have different designs and purposes? Yes. The definition is inaccurate.
“Assault weapon” is some ambiguous term that anti-gunners use to describe as the latest bad gun of the week - and this definition much more fits that term since it’s made up.
The definition they give does not accurately cover the term ‘assault rifle’ in any true sense, because an ‘assault rifle’ is not an ambiguous, flexible term, but a specific type of rifle used for a specific purpose.
I can’t find the DoD’s official definition right now, but from memory, it’s something like:
“A select fire weapon, of carbine length, firing an intermediate cartridge, designed to fill a roll between the submachine gun and rifle.”
This page has more information:
http://web4.integraonline.com/~bbroadside/Semantics_of_Firearms.html
If we want to be semantic and technical, under the dictionary.com definition, the m16 and the AK-47 aren’t assault rifles, because they are select fire.
Perhaps you should live up to some intellectual honesty and stop misusing the term.
**
Do you have experience as a dictator to make such a judgement?
**
A government that is interested in outlawing self defense is interested in becoming the only provider of security, and hence, looks to create dependency on itself. Depedency creates an environment friendly to tyranny.
**
Well, Germany does have a greater potential to fall under tyranny than we do here, but that doesn’t automatically mean they will. The German government has banned gun ownership (practically) for about 70 years now, as far as I know. When the gun ban DID take effect, it DID lead to tyranny. Their rights were simply not restored after they were freed from it.
And so there was never a tyranical step of the government disarming the populace - they were still disarmed from the last time the government became tyranical.
**
So be it. I don’t know that much about the history of that era, I was mostly basing that off things I’d read from other people.
**
:rolleyes:
You don’t believe the media sensationalizes homocides by gun, but ignores entirely defensive gun uses? I remember a while ago watching some sitcom where some lady was freaking out because her son got a toy gun from her grandpa - and she spent about 5 minutes on a rant about how “we’re too civilized to give guns to kids these days!”, etc.
When was the last time you saw guns portrayed in a positive light in any media or entertainment?
Er, role.
The definition is what it is. It might be imprecise for your tastes, but you can blame common usage for that. But since it upsets you so much, I’ll stick to “Magic Thundersticks” for the remainder of this thread. Everytime you see me use that term, just look under “assault rifle” in the dictionary, okay?
Wrong again. They are Magic Thundersticks precisely because they are “automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for military use with large capacity magazines.” They’re full or semi-auto, they’re clearly designed for military use (just ask every army in the world), and they have large-capacity magaiznes. Hence, they’re Magic Thundersticks.
Do you have any good examples that would demonstrate your boogyman has any real chance of appearing? Or are you just content to rest on your paranoid idea that it might happen, so we’d better be armed to the gills? Monkeys might fly out of my ass, too. But I’d be a damn fool to keep the pantry filled with Monkey Chow just in case.
Sez you. Now prove it. Demonstrate that this has happened to any stable democracy (i.e., at least one full generation with a democratic form of government) with due process of law and legal protection for matters of individual conscience.
Just so you’re clear, pre-WWII Germany doesn’t exactly qualify as “a stable democracy with due process of law and legal protection for matters of individual conscience.” The Weimar Republic lasted for 15 extremely turbulent years before Hitler took over. As DavidB points out in his Staff Report on the matter, the German people would most likely not have risen up against the Nazis, simply because the population was firmly behind the guy. By the time concentration camps turned into extermination camps and things really got bad for the German people, ca. 1942-45, there were plenty of guns floating around. Hell, by the end of the war, they were handing them out to every teenager and old man in Germany, in a suicidal attempt to stop the advancing Allies. Yet there was essentially no armed resistance to the Nazis. Why do you think there would have been in 1933?
Every time the bad guy gets shot. Happens quite a lot, you know.
**
The definition is very broad and covers many, many rifles that are not assault rifles.
Since you are proposing to use this definition as a criteria for weapons bans, it’s inaccuracy and overly broad definition is quite relevant.
**
You continue to use the term in a fit of intellectual dishonesty. The dictionary.com definition is faulty, and covers many rifles that are not assault rifles. Continuing the usage of this word tells me one thing:
Like most anti-rights advocates, you wish to exploit the public’s general confusion between true military assault rifles and ‘assault weapons’, whatever the politically incorrect firearm of the day is. Even though you’ve been corrected, you continue to use this definition to give people the impression that ‘assault weapon bans’ are really banning select-fire machine guns. This is an intellectually dishonest scare tactic, and I refuse to let it slide.
**
Incorrect. You’re the one that decides that exact definition is what the classification is, and if you want to get technical, the weapons are select-fire. To say that a weapon is semi-automatic means that it’s only mode of operation is semiautomatic. The garand and tokarev are such examples.
To say that a rifle is fully automatic means that it’s only mode of operation is fully automatic, such as the BAR.
Real assault rifles are not limited to either, being select fire, and since you insist on the technical accuracy of dictionary.com’s definition, then by your definition, the m-16 and ak-47 are not assault rifles.
Do we really need to play these stupid games so you can hang onto your intellectually dishonest scare tactics?
**
If I listed every tyranical government in written history, would you simply respond with: “That couldn’t happen HERE!, we’re different.”? It would save me the effort just to forego it if that’s the case.
**
What is it that you’re asking, exactly? That a democracy has used legal means to outlaw guns? Australia comes to mind as the most recent example.
**
I didn’t say they would. Resistance takes a will and a means… but they’d have the option. I forget exactly how we got off on that tangent and I need to sleep soon so I can grab 5 hours. I’ll reply more later in a more coherent state if you’d like.
Sorry. I meant to say ‘civilian gun use’, rather than general gun use. Obviously, the cop with the gun is the good guy…
Except I’m arguing with you, an aficionado of the ballistic arts, not the general public. So why would you attribute “scare tactics” to me in discussing this with you? Sheesh.
Oh, I get it. You’re claiming an M16 or an AK-47 isn’t a Magic Thunderstick because it is (at least in the versions issued to most militaries) fully automatic and semi-automatic, not fully automatic or semi-automatic. Thanks ever so much for splitting that hair. I’ll notify the dictionary editors immediately.
Pot : Kettle
Please, once again, I implore you to provide an example of your Evil Tyrranical Dictatorship boogyman that replaced “a stable democracy (i.e., at least one full generation with a democratic form of government) with due process of law and legal protection for matters of individual conscience.” Go on. Bet you can’t.
Guns, schmuns. I’m asking you to provide an example–any example–of a tyrranical form of government that replaced “a stable democracy (i.e., at least one full generation with a democratic form of government) with due process of law and legal protection for matters of individual conscience.” Come on, demonstrate that your boogyman exists.
So by your own admission, widespread individual ownership of firearms would have been useless at preventing Hitler’s rise to power. Care to identify any tyrants who would have been prevented from taking power if the citizens had been armed? Lenin is right out, since he was pretty popular and kicked the military butts of his opponents. Mao’s out the window too. Just offhand, I can’t think of any 20th century tryants who assumed power without the clear support of the populace. Can you think of any? And if not, why do you think America would be so different if it ever came to that?
Oh, and just to get back on OP, how is it that any of my “reasonable gun control” measures would eliminate the population’s ability to resist the Evil Tyrranical Dictatorship anyway? None of my proposals would lead to any significant reduction in gun ownership. Those scoped deer rifles you think are going to defeat the Red Army or the 101st Airborne are still right there in private hands, even under every proposal I’ve made in this thread.
The problem with making new laws (as opposed to enforcing the ones already on the books) is that only law abiding citizens will obey these laws. Do you think a criminal drug dealer would care if his piece was registered? If we’re going to make any new laws, let’s do one that has been proven to work…
Project Exile has worked very well in Richmond, VA, and I believe it would work even better if it was picked up elsewhere.
Universal registration backed by criminal penalties would allow the police and prosecutors to put that “criminal drug dealer” in jail, where he belongs. As things stand right now, the police would beforced to send him on his merry way, right along with that unregistered gun. Which outcome do you prefer?
As for Project Exile, I have no problem with that program. It’s a nice start, but only a start.
I’m not clear on what a registration scheme would do here that existing laws wouldn’t. There’s currently a federal law (the one used in exile, IIRC) making it a felony to use a firearm in the comission of a crime, and arguing that a drug dealer’s gun was used to help him deal drugs is a much more plausible argument than many that have been used successfully in prosecution in the past. If he’s ever been convicted of a felony before, then he’s also guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm under the 1968 GCA. He’s probably also guilty of illegally carrying a concealed weapon (if he’s not going to register it, he’s also not going to get a CCP), and in any event dealing drugs and carrying a gun subjects the gun to asset forfeiture laws.
While a lot of these laws aren’t typically enforced, I don’t see what would make a registry enforced while existing laws aren’t - NY has a handgun registry, but AFAIK gun charges against drug dealers are relatively rare.
Also, if said drug dealer is a felon (has been convicted before), then he couldn’t be prosecuted for failing to register the weapon. The supreme court has long since ruled that the 5th amendment protects a person prohibted from owning a firearm from prosecution for failing to register it.
So, where is the gap that a registration database would cover?
Heckler Koch manufactures and markets the following weapons as “military” or “law enforcement”
http://www.hecklerkoch-sa.com/pages/military/mp5frameset.html
The following Remington guns look like standard hunting rifles to me:
http://www.remington.com/firearms/firearmsfr.htm
I don’t pretend to know everything about weapons, so explain to me what makes the HK weapons better for military use than the Remington rifles.
At the very least, I would say that the large ammo magazines and automatic or bursting fire would make the HK33 more suitable for protracted combat. Even if you sell it as a semiautomatic (wink wink). The Remington rifle is pretty long and cumbersome. Ideal for shooting a big stupid deer.
I will concede that not all weapons are as obviously “military” as a SAW or an M-60. But weapons are designed, just like everything else. And designers build stuff with a particular purpose in mind.
I mentioned shooting through a bulletproof vest. This, by itself does not make a weapon “military” since, as you pointed out, most hunting rifles can also do this and most pistol-bullet firing submachineguns cant. There are other factors that do make them inherently more dangerous. Of the top of my head; the fact that they spray bullets everywhere very rapidly.
It is an opportunity for the people to change their government. You don’t like Bush or Clinton, vote for someone else next election. You don’t like the way the town councilman has a sewer pipe going through your yard, vote him out. Yes it is a slower process than armed militants storming the senate building, but it has basically worked for the past 200 years.
The original comment seemed to imply that our forefathers believed in armed rebellion in order to break away from England. Their decendants did not seem so opened to the idea of an armed rebellion when it was the South trying to break away from the North.
Sounds like the stuff of movies and third world nations to me. I’ll have to come back to this one later.
What is so clearly tyranical that I have a right to take arms against the government? Can I rebel if the government is making my neighbors “disappear”? What about if my taxes are too high? If I don’t like their environemntal policy? Or how about if I don’t feel like needing a license to drive?
On this I agree. I’m not against guns. I don’t happen to own one because I don’t feel a need, but I have no problem with other people owing them as long as they are safe and responsible.
What I am against is the idea that guns can’t be taken away from their owner if they are used improperly. I am against the idea that there is no such thing as too big a gun. Where that line is debatable, but “common sense” dictates that there are some guns that have no practical value for home defense or hunting (unless your home is in the MeKong delta, circa 1969 and you are hunting “Charlie”).
All of those situations assume that there is sufficient evidence of an independent crime. The “gap” registration fills there ensures that the bad guy with the unregistered firearm can be prosecuted regardless of the availability of proof of any other crime. Sorta like sending Capone to jail for tax invasion.
Not quite. The Court’s decision in Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85 (1968) expressly depended upon the fact that under the challenged statute, it was principally only those people who were not permitted to own firearms were required to register them. Id. at 96. Presumably, that means that a universal registration system, which affects all gun owners equally, would not violate the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Indeed, all sorts of generally-applicable government forms require citizens to disclose incriminatory information, without running afoul of the Fifth Amendment, e.g., customs decarations and income tax returns.
In an attempt to drag this a little bit back towards the OP:
minty: depending upon the definition of “more restrictions” or “enhanced control,” as a gun owner I want any gun control legislation to be as precisely worded as is humanly and legislatively possible. Think of it like this: would you, as a lawyer, want non-lgal professionals overhauling or otherwise tampering with the legal, administrative and ethical guidelines of the legal profession?
Because the more imprecise the wording of the legislation, the greater number of weapons (and categories of weapons) are going to be restricted, maybe even outright banned. Note that I truly believe that certain parties know this, and indeed count upon it.
I do not think it entirely unreasonable that gun owners, represented through member organizations like the NRA and others, as well as other experts of the ballistic and firearms fields, be consulted in the phrasing of any proposed legislation. This does not and will not grant gun rights advocate groups and organizations carte blanche to fill any proposed legislations with “loopholes,” as certain parties like to claim.
Indeed, it is my true belief that it is the very attempts to clarify the objectives and impacts of proposed legislations that typically reveals the ulterior motives of certain peoples and parties of the gun control movement(s).
As always, a definite need should be shown on the part of those proposing additional restrictions. Why is this weapon, or category of weapons, any worse than the others? What is the objective of any proposed legislation? How is it to be implemented? Are there unintended consequences?
You said something earlier (I’m not digging back for an exact quote) to the effect of, “If the price of [guns] goes up, then less people will be buying them. I have no problem with that.”
Without attempting to cast negative aspersion on your motives, this sounds suspiciously like, “No guns for the lower income classes.”
And yes, I do agree with you that some form of gun control is necessary; as always, where the line is drawn is the real toughie.
Considering that dearth of violent crimes committed with fully automatic weaponry, I see no real need to tighten regulations concerning them. IIRC, most violation of the regs./laws concerning full-auto weaponry are administrative violations.
Such as, not correctly dotting all the “i”'s or crossing all of the “t”'s, or keeping only two copies of a document instead of three, or not having serial numbers as clearly listed on documents as a random inspector would like. Or not having the proper documentation for weapons serial numbered “XXXXX” through “YYYYY,” excluding serial numbers “AAAAA” through “BBBBB.”
Especially when the regulatory agency frequently changes these “administrative procedures” and “regulations,” and does a mediocre job of informing the relevant parties.
In fact, a regulatory and legislative overhaul concerning full-auto weaponry (and maybe even all forms of firearms weaponry) is in order, IMO. Something along the lines of “states and lower levels if civil government cannot impose tighter restriction that the federal level,” and streamlining and clarifying federal regulations and procedures. Note that this is something of a “loosening” of current restrictions, but that it doesn’t substantially lower the “bar” for obtaining such weaponry, except in a certain few states and municipalities.
I would also like to see a shift of enforcement of firearms laws over to the FBI, away from the BATF. In spite of my fairly cordial (and admittedly limited) dealing with the BATF, it is a branch of the Treasury Dept., not a true law enforcement agency.
Which I readily admit is something of a reversal of my normal position concerning state’s rights to legislate and regulate as they see fit. I offer no excuse for my hypocrisy other than my subjective closeness to the firearms issues, and the byzantine legislative patchwork we currently have as a nation which inadvertantly criminalizes otherwise law abiding citizens with no criminal intent.
Just some quick, random thoughts. God, my post looks like a Jeff Cooper editorial.