HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why not just make assault...

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:00 AM

 

Why not just make assault weapons NFA?

Everybody that wants tighter control on assault weapons always proposes an all out ban on them.

Why not just have them put under Class 3 like full autos, short barrel shotguns/rifles, and silencers are? To buy that stuff you need to submit special paperwork and wait about 3-6 months for the FBI to conduct a very complex background check. Then if you get approved the gun is registered solely to you. That law has been in effect since 1934 and in all those years only two legal full autos have been used in a crime.

Clearly the NFA seems to work. Why not move assault weapons under there? It would be a ton easier to get passed and you could even get gun owners on board by offering to update the system. (E.g. instead of a 3-6 month background check and fee of $200 on every item you buy, make it a one time license which is renewed every so often.)

Seems it would work and be a good compromise??

21 replies, 1607 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why not just make assault weapons NFA? (Original post)
justanidea Dec 2012 OP
justanidea Dec 2012 #1
COLGATE4 Dec 2012 #2
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #7
former-republican Dec 2012 #8
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #11
former-republican Dec 2012 #14
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #16
former-republican Dec 2012 #17
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #18
former-republican Dec 2012 #19
COLGATE4 Dec 2012 #9
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #13
MineralMan Dec 2012 #15
COLGATE4 Dec 2012 #20
baldguy Dec 2012 #21
X_Digger Dec 2012 #3
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #4
former-republican Dec 2012 #5
shintao Dec 2012 #6
spanone Dec 2012 #10
slackmaster Dec 2012 #12

Response to justanidea (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:48 AM

1. shameless bump

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:57 AM

2. Probably because there is no such thing

as an "assault weapon". The term is merely sloppy shorthand to describe certain cosmetic features of a semi-automatic rifle which can fire multiple rounds simply by pulling the trigger each time until the ammunition reservior is exhausted. In other words a semi-auto deer rifle is the same mechanically as a street legal AR-15 (i.e. no full auto capability). If you ban one, you ban them all. Impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:40 AM

7. Well, technically you are wrong.

There is such a thing as a assault riffle.and the name derives from the Sturmweber 44.

A little history helps. That toy had to modes of operation, semi, like the m1 and full auto.

Semi auto riffles currently have an ROF on the low end of auto.

And quite frankly I don't care if it looks like a snazzy 1920s riffle, an Ak, or a supper duper future gun... To me the definition should be based on potential ROF. (See an M1 is limited by it's capacity) and it's firing mechanism.

You want a bushmaster? Given the receiver can accept extended mags and has a fairly high potential ROF, sorry...now let's make a deal, the max size for any magazine is ten rounds, hunting legal, and somehow we make them able to accept just that magazine, or single shot...and you can look as macho as you want.

Serious, we need to update these laws not on looks, but on what they are capable off.

Oh and forward grips are alright in the hands of the military.

I know I expect to hear a lot of idiocy, but shit goes with the territory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:44 AM

8. We had the ban on mags for 10 years

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:28 AM

11. And we should go back to those bans at the federal level

Part of the problem is that the NRA managed to loosen laws almost everywhere. There is a direct correlation with less gun violence and gun control laws. Well, these now have to be federal. The hodgepodge also is part of the problem. That bushmaster is a perfect example. It was illegal in the state used, but perfectly legal across state lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:44 AM

14. The Bushmaster used where?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:03 PM

16. The shooting yesterday. There was a bushmaster

In the car that belonged to his mother. It was legally bough, across state lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:12 PM

17. She owned it in CT it was legal

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:16 PM

18. Not according to multiple news sources

According to multiple sources she bought it across state lines.

Look it happens regularly and we need national laws superseding all these state laws, and at least as tough as California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:29 PM

19. I'm okay with common sense gun laws but don't believe the multiple news sources

 

AR15's are perfectly legal in CT and every gun store sells them.
The only thing illegal is a flash suppressor on the barrel and a bayonet lug.
They sell them with muzzle brakes on the barrels.

That's the only difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:12 AM

9. I think you misunderstood the point I was

trying to make (and yes, I am familiar with the German Sturmweber and its development). I believe that one of the only practical ways available to us to at least slow down this rate of carnage is limiting the availability of over sized magazines designed only to spew out a fast rate of fire at humans. But utilizing the term "assault weapon" won't get us anywhere, as the old ban on assault weapons proved. It's way too easy to point out that, in terms of mechanics, the 'assault rife' and your standard 30.06 are essentially identical. This is one of the arguments the NRA has successfully used to prevent any meaningful legislation against these.If we're going to be successful in finding some reasonable limitations to help prevent more mass shootings it has to be based on clear distinctions from sporting rifles.

In other words, let's frame the issue in a way that's acceptable to the voters and not buy into the sloppy language of "assault weapons". And that's why I answered the question as I did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:31 AM

13. I am just being technically correct

And I hope this is tipping point and forces the NRA out of politics and back to safety classes.

For the record the NRA leadership has been batshit crazy. Their own members want background checks and reasonable persons ill agree to magazine size limits. This has to be federal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:50 AM

15. Your example isn't a good one.

My deer rifle is a .30-06 sporterized Springfield. It is a bolt-action rifle. It is not semi-auto, nor does it have a removable magazine. It might as well be a single-shot for all the times I've ever fired more than one round from it at a deer. Most .30-06 hunting rifles fit that same description.

High-capacity magazines are, indeed, one way to restrict the firepower and rate of fire capabilities of civilian firearms. It's one thing that should be examined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:04 PM

20. You're right. I was thinking Garand when I mentioned

30.06, not a Springfield. The point I was trying to make is that the M-1 Garand is also, by definition an "assault rifle" by virtue of the fact that it's semi-auto. I agree that limiting high capacity magazines and attacking the problem by ROF is a good start in getting a handle on this unacceptable problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:10 PM

21. "There's no such thing as an assault weapon" is an NRA lie.

Such blatant RW propaganda has no place on DU. And it's in poor taste as well, when there's still 27 bodies bleeding out in CT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:57 AM

3. Assuming you use the same 1994 definition, you'd get the same result..

Guns with pinned stocks and flash hiders, or weird thumbhole stocks.

All these are California-legal guns- technically *not* "assault weapons":

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:29 AM

4. Assault rifles already are

If this administration actually tries to do something it will be hard fought and most likely a loser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:31 AM

5. You know the back ground check is the same as applying for a handgun permit

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:37 AM

6. Idea or you

 

How about we restore the 2nd Amendment, arm all US citizens, and secure schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:14 AM

10. why not just do the fuck away with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:30 AM

12. Interesting idea. I'll just point out that the present NFA registry is a mess.

 

The processes for getting tax stamps, processing transfers, etc. are Byzantine. Lots of manual work, mostly paper records.

It would have to be beefed up in order to handle tens of millions of weapons instead of a few hundred thousand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread