Because only the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate traffic and commerce. The states are flatly forbidden to do that sort of thing.
E Sabbath, thanks for providing a couple of examples. The P90, at least as depicted on Call of Duty 4, is a badass weapon. The only problem is that you burn through the magazines pretty fast. I’m not sure why one would be needed by a civilian, though, nor what the semi-auto version would do that cannot be done by ones you still can get.
What I’m hearing, and have heard, is that the AWB is stupid because the weapons targeted on it are merely for cosmetic reasons. It’s stupid because they ban one weapon but allow another that is pretty much the same anyways.
So, I’m having a hard time understanding why it’s such a devastating blow to gun ownership. For instance, you can apparently still have a BAR, but not an AR-15. I’ll agree that it sounds, at least, like poorly thought out rationales (except that the only ones doing the characterization of the decisions here are all on one side of the argument), but if you can achieve essentially the same functionality, have your rights really been so terribly trampled over the past 30 years?
At some point, we can all agree that decisions have to be made to restrict the private ownership of weapons, right? I mean, my weaponized anthrax never hurt anyone! So it becomes a matter of debating the cutpoints, and for me it’s a no-brainer that there is no legitimate reason for a civilian to have a P90.
I don’t believe you can purchase a BAR these days except under fairly specific circumstances. IIRC that kind of gun was initially highly regulated in the 30’s and was all but banned in the 80’s…and you would need all kinds of special permits to buy or transfer one at this point.
However, there is a world of difference between a BAR and an AR-15. It’s not really a matter of small subtle differences…it’s a completely different weapon. So…they aren’t interchangeable.
Also, there is the worrying aspect of…if they are banning stuff simply by looks, how will they use this to ban something else in the future? What will the future criteria be to ban the next round of guns? Smell? Taste? Color? I know to non-gun folks it seems silly…I mean, if you can get some other .308 semi-auto rifle why are you concerned because you can’t get the one on list? Why the concern.
But again, try and think of it in terms of something you do know about or care about. Think about how you’d feel if someone arbitrarily banned some items while leaving others alone…but that you had a sneaking suspicion they REALLY wanted to ban all of them…eventually. Say someone ban’s one type of car (that you happen to like) but leaves others alone (that you don’t care for as much). They are both cars, right? So…what’s the problem? But then you ask yourself…well, if they are banning THIS car (that I like) based solely on what looks like arbitrary criteria what will they try and ban NEXT? And what will they base that next ban on?
-XT
You can buy a rifle Browining markets as the BAR. It’s a conventional semiautomatic sporting rifle and isn’t at all like the military BAR.
There is also an outfit in Ohio who will sell you a semiautomatic clone of the military BAR for about three or four grand. It’s assembled from a mix of surplus and new parts and can’t be converted to full auto. It’s also a heavy bugger.
The AR-15 is just such a wonderful rifle though. It’s the most versatile weapons platform in the world. It is totally modular, can be modified in all kinds of amazing ways with every accessory imaginable, and can even be easily converted to fire another caliber (including .22 for cheap practice.) It’s lightweight, it’s extremely ergonomical - it’s just a much BETTER RIFLE than a BAR.
AR-15s are used by hobbyists, not criminals. The real world is not HEAT.
HEAT again? There are other movies, you know.
Stop projecting…
But Heat was based on…no, wait, it wasn’t.
What AT is saying is that opinions on gun control based on fictional movies are worthless.
It is?? You mean that real life doesn’t work like those Die Hard movies???
-XT
Welcome to the party, pal.
This is obviously false.
From watching movies, I have learned that you can be hurled through a plate glass window and suffer nary a scratch, that cars invariably explode upon collisions and that if shot or stabbed in the upper torso, a fully grown man will die instantly and with no noise or mess at all.
Also, psycho killers seek out unchaste couples specifically.
That’s all well and good, but who ever said they derived their gun control stance from movies?
Anyone? Nope, didn’t think so. Nice try though.
Hmmm. Then it would seem that AT is just throwing up a strawman to knock down, wouldn’t it?
Too bad for him that this: North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia happened.
Seems like real life can be a bit like THE GREATEST MOVIE EVAR, HEAT!
From wiki:
“On the morning of 28 February 1997, after months of preparation, including extensive reconnoitering of their intended target—the Bank of America branch on Laurel Canyon Boulevard—Phillips and Matasareanu loaded five illegally modified fully automatic rifles: three Romanian AIM rifles (an AK-47 copy), a modified HK91 and an AR-15. They also possessed two 9 mm Beretta 92F pistols, a .38 caliber revolver, and approximately 3,300 rounds of ammunition in box and drum magazine…”
Can someone here give me the Straight Dope on modifying weapons like this? And is this the same AR-15 that Argent called “a wonderful rifle”? The same one he said “is use by hobbyists, not criminals”? Or was he just making shit up because it suited his purpose?
There are articulate, well reasoned pro-gun people here. Stop letting AT speak for you. He does you no favors.
The AWB prohibits weapons based on these criteria:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine
Can anyone here tell me why any of the modifications would be necessary in a hunting situation? Or are they all specifically designed to increase portability while minimizing footprint, increasing fire capacity, increasing rate of fire, and/or dampening noise/recoil?
Keep your hunting rifles. Keep your shotguns. But explain to me why any firearm which meets the above criteria should be allowed in our society. Not because you have to, or the onus is on you to prove anything to me, but because, if you really believe you should have access to these weapons, you should be able to articulate why in a way which does not boil down to either:
A: Cause I wanna
or
B: To kill people
And don’t everyone pile up to tell me why barrel shrouds should be allowed. That one is a bit too easy.
I’m not a fan of the artificially lengthened barrel of the PS90. (The civilian P90). It changes the characteristics of the weapon significantly, doubling it in length, and changing the center of mass. As it’s a bullpup design, the barrel runs the length of the gun normally. It was designed as a ‘second rank troop’ gun, for clerks and so on, creating a very simple and friendly weapon to shoot, while also being easy to carry… and handy in tight situations.
Besides the fact that it’s illegal to do? It depends on the type of bolt used (open or closed). Open bolt IIRC is not that hard to modify to full auto (besides being illegal) while closed is more difficult.
You will note however that, despite being possible to modify (some) semi-automatic weapons for full auto fire that the event you pointed too is remarkable because such events using fully automatic weapons are so rare. They almost NEVER happen (my guess is you could count the number of crimes or murders committed in the US by modified semi-autos or specifically designed fully automatic weapons on one hand…and still most likely have a finger or two left over at the end).
BTW, modifying a semi-automatic to full automatic is not only illegal but it can be dangerous. Just an FYI.
-XT
This is entirely true. The trick is not to pull back or flinch at all. Personal experience involving a skateboard inside the house.
I’m sorry, what’s wrong with killing people? You keep presupposing that killing people is wrong.
(I do not think violent revolution is likely in my lifetime, except perhaps as a local matter in very specific circumstances. I also do not think it likely that soldiers will be quartered in my house against my wishes.)
Thank you.
I don’t mean to insinuate that this happens all the time. But for the police involved here, that once was enough.
You… don’t know much about hunting, do you? Guns are bulky. Minimizing footprint is handy. So is increasing fire capacity, rate of fire, and dampening recoil. All of these are handy in hunting. Also, in sport. Put a couple hundred shells through a 12 gauge, and you will feel it. My good shotgun has no dampening at all. (Break action, and the shoulder pad is also 35 years old), and it will knock over people who are used to firing semi-automatics.
Does anyone think SuntanTigerTamer is pro-gun?
I’ve enjoyed reading your posts Sabbath, but this line of thought strikes me as so completely ridiculous that I am unwilling to debate it with you.
You and I could (possibly, over enough cups of coffee) come to a consensus regarding gun control laws. You will never be able to convince me that I have the right or responsibility to take another life, and I don’t want this thread to devolve into an argument regarding pacifism.
If you honestly are willing to admit that you own guns for the specific purpose of killing people, were you to deem it the right thing to do, then I can’t argue against that any more than I already have. It is not a citizens job to determine who should die, when. This is my belief, and you will never convince me otherwise.
Like I said, though, I have enjoyed your input here greatly.