So, how do we feel about gun control now?

[Mythsaje]

I'll say right off the bat that I've never been a big proponent. Anything that restricts law-abiding citizens access to methods and equipment for self-defense I've always viewed with more than a little skepticism.

Of course, I've never really understood the RW fascination with the whole 'assault rifle' issue. Unless you're planning on holding off the ATF, DEA, or FBI, the commonly available handgun or hunting rifle should be sufficient.

And, the way things are going, it's not the RWers who need to be considering the possibility of holding off over-zealous government agents.

Anyone reconsidering their original position? For any reason?

[mitchum]

1. I have always been a proponet of a VERY well-armed Left

dead men do no mischief

[OrlandoGator]

2. I've been 100% pro-gun rights from the get-go.

n/t

[billbuckhead]

3. It should be reframed as gun regulation and gun responsiblity

The second amendment says "well regulated".

[Lindacooks]

6. I agree, but

the second amendment also says a 'well regulated militia', not a 'well regulated general populace'. And if you're willing to only own muskets, which were the only guns available when the second amendment was written, go ahead, own all you want to. There is NO reason for ANY citizen to own an AK-47, cop killer bullets, or automatic weapons.

[Mythsaje]

7. Unless

one is confronted with a fascist regime that holds all the cards.

[OrlandoGator]

10. The militia isn't the sole purpose of the right.

The "well-regulated militia" is given as the chief reason for the right to keep and bear arms, but not the only reason. It is not phrased as a qualifier...compare the grammar to that used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.

[Mythsaje]

13. I agree n/t

[Mattl12]

44. Militia?

The 2nd ammendment is about the armed citiczen being able to defend himself from tyranny, foreign or domestic.

[Mothrog2]

41. By that argument

online forums such as this one aren't protected by the First Amendment, after all, the only form of mass communication available at the time were the newspapers. Guess we better worry. The Bushies are coming to get us!

[benEzra]

48. "Cop killer bullets" are already banned,

and all automatic weapons (including actual AK-47's) are already very heavily restricted by Federal law, specifically the National Firearms Act of 1934.

As far as limiting the 2nd Amendment to muskets, would you like to apply that logic to the 1st Amendment? Last time I checked, broadcast media, the Internet, high-speed offset presses, and telephones weren't around in 1789 either. Maybe we should limit the 1stA to unamplified face-to-face speech and hand-cranked printing presses?

[JeffUAW]

61. When arguing a point, it is better to stay on center, rather than take it

to the other extreme. I've never seen a cop-killer bullet, and have never owned an automatic weapon, however, as a law abiding citizen, I do own many legal weapons that can do as much damage as the above, if used correctly.

[enfield collector]

54. no, it says "shall not be infringed".

[Lindacooks]

4. Nope, strongly pro gun control here.

The biggest argument for it is when gun lovers screech about 'let's enforce the laws already on the books', yet they fought those laws tooth and nail too. More gun control never hurt anybody. Lax gun control, however, kills thousands each year in this country.

[OrlandoGator]

5. The guns haven't changed much, but the attitudes have.

We weren't to a point where thousands died each year until fairly recently.

[Lindacooks]

15. What's 'fairly recently' to you?

Since JFK was assassinated 42 years ago, more Americans have died of gunshot wounds than all of the wars of the 20th century put together. Eight children die every day in this country from guns, whether murder, accident, or suicide.

http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000473.html

And yes, the guns have changed very much. Where in the 1960s could you buy assault rifles and cop killer bullets? Why is there a 'need' for people to own semi automatic guns with multiple assault weapons features? Having a gun does not make you more of a man. Having a gun is not going to protect you from crime; it makes it far more likely that a member of your family will die by it.

And I don't know why I'm wasting my breath.

[OrlandoGator]

23. In the 1920's you could buy a Tommy gun at any dime store.

And assault rifles are far less powerful than hunting rifles. I can't think of a time when armor-piercing ammunition was ever legal for civilians to own.

But seeing as how you were so quick to bring a gun owner's manliness into the argument, I'd tend to agree with your assessment about wasting breath.

[sierrajim]

37. And I don't know why I'm wasting my breath but I'll try

No guns have NOT changed much in the way they work for 100+ years, in the 1960's you could buy any weapon you wished as you can today but they are much more expensive, their is NO SUCH THING AS A COP KILLER BULLET, as to multiple assault weapon features I really haven't heard of any drive by bayoneting's lately have you? So you think having a weapon won't help you when someone attacks you? Well the guy that came at me was very surprised and decided another local would be a lot healthier.

[Mothrog2]

40. The guns have changed? Oh brother

The AK-47, as indicated in the designation, was designed in 1947. It's hardly new. Then of course,there's the Uzi, which was designed in 1948. The most recent design that falls under the "assault weapons" classification that I can think of is the AR-15, which was designed in 1959. During the 60s as today, the M1A Garand was a pretty popular gun, as well, though it doesn't end up on the gun control nuts' lists, despite being the American infantry soldier's primary weapon in WWII. We'll not even get in to the Thompson submachine gun, which until 1934 you could walk in to a hardware store and order with no background check and without so much as presenting identification.

As far as "cop killer" bullets, if the definition of cop killer bullets is a bullet then can penetrate a cop's vest, just about every centerfire rifle cartridge qualifies as do some handgun bullets. The .30-06 without question will penetrate just about any vest out there, save Class IV vests that almost no one uses. The .30-06 was developed in 1906 and was, in the 1960s, and still is today one of the most popular cartridges in America.

As far as a homeowner being more likely to die from his own gun, I'm sure you're citing the long-discredited "study" that was conducted by Dr. Kellerman. That lovely study only counted incidents where the predator was killed as someone having defended their family. In reality, in only 1 in 1000 defensive gun uses does the perpetrator end up dead. Good old Kellermen also included suicides with family members with a household gun on the other side of the coin. In reality, according to a Department of Justice study, guns are used defensively by American citizens 1.5 million times a year, and by some standards their estimate was conservative.

Since you don't cite a source as to your child-death statistic, I can't refute it, but a lot of the "children" killed per year by guns in statistics happen to be over the age of 18.

And by the way, I don't have to show a need to exercise a Constitutional right.

[benEzra]

49. No, the guns have NOT changed...

the M1 carbine was available in the 1940's, the AR-15 in 1961. I'm not sure what you mean by "cop killer bullets," but since police body armor was not invented until the 1970's, ALL bullets were "cop-killer bullets."

And why are you so bent on banning rifles because of how the stock is shaped or what the muzzle looks like? You are aware that actual military infantry rifles (real "assault rifles," not lookalikes) are already heavily restricted by Federal law, yes?

>"Having a gun does not make you more of a man."

Good thing, since about a third of women (including my wife) are gun owners...and I don't personally know any gun owners of the male persuasion that think owning a gun makes you "more of a man," either. (Actually, the only people I've ever heard express this sentiment are people who hate guns, in an assumption that of course we gun owners couldn't possibly have any rational reason for liking them...)

>"Having a gun is not going to protect you from crime; it makes it far more likely that a member of your family will die by it."

Ah, the thoroughly discredited Kellerman "study" (Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home," New Engl J Med 1986 (314:1557-60). The methodology Kellerman et al used could also be used to "prove" that aspirin cause headaches, that lipitor causes high blood pressure, and that water causes thirst...and contrary to media popularizations of his studies, Kellerman did not find ANY incidents in which the homeowner's gun was used against her/him, IIRC...

If you're interested, check out Kates et al, "Guns and Public Health," 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994) for an overview of the disconnect between the conclusions of criminologists and those of gun-404 doctors pretending to be criminologists...I'm not sure how much weight you'd ascribe to a criminologist writing in the Journal of Criminology on, say, the etiology of malaria...

[Java]

113. I'm confused ....

What exactly is a Cop Killer Bullet?

[Mattl12]

46. More Gun control, I have to disagree.

The main laws on the books right now are the 34 NFA. This controls select fire guns and Short barreled rifles as well as AOW which regulates modification of the previous two. And Suppressors as well.
acquisition of any of these is a pain to say the least and you go through several background checks and must attain the signature of the Chief Law Enforcement officer of your county, if they won't sign it is purely politics.

Then their is the 68 GCA their are parts of this that are very useful mainly prohibiting convicted felons from owning guns for an extended period of time after release. The real meet of this act is the "Sporting Purpose" clauses in short this is the distinction of "hunting gun" or "not a hunting gun" Pointless really I have a Semi-Auto AK or AR but I cannot have A FAMAS, Galil, or Sig 550. These are rifles that shoot the same ammo have like features and functions and can be used as hunting rifles.

Then their is the 86 MG manufacturing ban. In short all transferable/legal to own MGs attainable by civilians must be manufactured before 1986. Their are well over 250,000 MGs on the civilian market that can be transferred. All MGs are registered through the ATF and to date only one legally owned MG has been used in the commission of a crime, it was a murder committed by a Georgia police officer.

The other two big ones are Executive Orders that can be removed by a sitting President at any time, Bush has not and will not.

The fundamental reason gun control does not work is obvious, CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAWS. With GC you only make more victims.

Moreover if the Democratic party would drop the GC platform they would take more southern states easily.

[jody]

50. Dems have dropped the GC platform but left it somewhat muddled.

It now says, "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

[benEzra]

51. The problem is that "assault weapon"

is pretty much a catchall term for modern-looking nonhunting-style firearms, as well as any firearm holding more than 10 rounds. Which means a HUGE swath of civilian firearms, from ordinary self-loading handguns (e.g., Smith & Wesson 5906) to rifles with ergonomic stocks.

Since 80% of gun owners don't hunt--and of those that do hunt, many also own nonhunting guns--limiting gun ownership to hunting-style guns only is pretty much guaranteed to piss off a very high percentage of gun-owning voters...

[jody]

53. I agree. n/t

[JeffUAW]

62. So do Cars, Big Macs and Cigarettes. Lets take them away as well!

[liberalnurse]

8. I really dislike the NRA.....

since they have an umbilical cord to the GOP. I do embrace the right to bear arms, legal concealed weapons and dislike assault weapons on the gun rack display at home. I guess you have to take the good with the bad and hope for the best.

[ret5hd]

19. the nra's umbilical cord to the GOP has a taproot to the KKK

but like you, i embrace the right to bear arms.

[donbcivil]

45. KKK how?

Please provide some proof to back up this slur.

You do know that Charlton Heston was in the civil rights movement in the 60s...

[OrlandoGator]

22. Tore up my NRA membership five years ago.

They are less about gun rights and more about scaring Republicans about gun rights going away.

[Union Thug]

78. Agreed. Gun Owner, NRA DESPISER

Having had the misfortune of seeing the attacks waged by the NRA against Kerry in the last election, I don't know how ANY democrat or liberal could support those clowns.

[Mattl12]

47. Assault weapons?

Assault weapon by its definition is A "SELECT FIRE" weapon capable of full-auto or burst fire. Almost all of those are in the hands of rich, law abiding, gun collectors as the price for a transferable MG is considerable. I assure you you have zero threat from a legally owned MG.

[slackmaster]

52. Not correct

Assault weapons were by definition semiautomatic.

[lenidog]

65. That is a rather intresting concept

since the first assault rifles ever designed the MP-43 and its later model the STG-44 were fully automatic weapons. FYI STG is the acronym for Sturmgewehr or storm rifle or as it ended up being called by the Allies after WWII the assault rifle.

[davepc]

66. Weapon/Rifle and semantic games...

Assault Rifle != Assault Weapon.

Since the StG-44 and all its contemporaries and followers were automatic weapons they already came under the jurisdiction of the 1934 National Firearms Act.

But our fine legislative bodies didn't want to ban or restrict weapons that we're already regulated under a law that had been on the books since the depression.

They wanted to ban or restrict weapons that *looked* like the ones already restricted by the 1934 law.

They needed a catchy word to describe these guns (see: zip gun, pocket rocket, Saturday night special, junk gun, hand cannon etc etc).

Since "Assault Rifle" already described automatic or select fire weapons, that was off the table, but Assault Weapons...well...gun/weapon...whats the difference!

So the prohibitionists play a cute little word game.

[slackmaster]

106. Notice that I wrote "assault weapons were" not "are" semiautomatic

The term "semiautomatic assault weapon" was a legal definition within Section 922, Title 18 of the United States Code. Since the portions of the Code that define assault weapons and penalties associated with them have expired, from a federal perspective there is no longer any such thing as an assault weapon.

Several states have their own definitions of assault weapon, each a bit different from all others. When an individual uses the term I like to quiz them to see if they have a clear idea of what they are talking about, and what that idea represents.

[AX10]

70. See my post on minimal gun control

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=107059&mesg_id=109125

I too dispise DAS NRA. They are not only a concubine of the GOP, but they are also a racist organization.

[cynatnite]

9. Fully support gun control

I think guns should be treated just like cars. Registered, owners have to be licensed and insured.

We own a gun, btw.

[Mythsaje]

12. I actually

have no problem with that.

However, I do have a question...if what you have to fear is the agencies working for the regulatory bodies, isn't it a bit dangerous to simply hand them the information?

[OrlandoGator]

14. I'm in favor of state licensing but not registration.

You don't want the theoretical tyrannical government you're arming yourself against to know what you have and where you are, do you?

[cynatnite]

16. aren't our cars registered?

we have to have them insured and we have to be licensed to operate them. Vehicles can also be considered lethal weapons.

The government's always had this information in regards to our cars. No one seems to have a problem with that. I know people that own 2,3 and 4 cars. I have no doubt that there are plenty out there who own more than that. But you never hear them screaming about the government having that sort of information.

I've thought about this and I've mentioned it before. I keep waiting for someone to tell me why this isn't reasonable.

I'm not saying it will happen...it's just what I think ought to happen.

[Mythsaje]

18. How likely do you think

it is that the government would ever get to the point that it would send people around to confiscate your cars if they don't like your politics?

[cynatnite]

32. Like I said...cars can be considered lethal weapons

I've never considered that confiscating guns for political opinion was a logical argument.

But, we do live in different and questionable times...I see your point.

[OrlandoGator]

21. Cars don't present much of a threat to a tyrant.

Organized citizens with guns sure do.

[billbuckhead]

36. Iraqis have found car bombs more effective than rifles

[Massacure]

57. Note the word Bombs.

[Massacure]

56. Because you don't go to war against your government with cars.

You got to war against oppressive governments with guns.

[Township75]

64. We should treat guns more like cars...

there is no background check when you purchase a car, so if we want to treat guns like cars, lets remove background checks.


same goes for waiting periods.

same goes to the number of cars you can buy a month, so I guess you should be able to purchase as many guns as you want in one month.

you can pretty much drive a car anywhere once licensed, so the equivalent for gun ownership is a CCW, and once a gun owner gets a CCW, they should be able to carry anywhere.

Also, states are required to recognize other states' licences, so other states should be required to recognize other CCWs.

but you can drive your car around on your own property without a license, so I guess you should be able to own and use a gun on your own property without a license too.

And lets not forget, you can pretty much buy a car capable of any speed you want, and "trick it out", so you should be able to buy any caliber gun you want (no .50 cal bans), probably should be able to buy full auto too, and then "trick out" the gun with spinners and other stuff.

Finally, you can buy a car at any age, so shouldn't that apply to guns as well?

All of that will treat guns like cars

[liberalnurse]

26. Exactly!

I'll leave it at that.....

[davepc]

43. What other rights do you think people should be registered and insured

before being allowed to exercise them?

[NightRainFalls]

55. wow,

I read your post and almost laughed my eyes out thinking about my child hood. When I was ten I use to jump in my old jeep, drive down the back forty to the swimming hole, and then drive down the neighbors access road to fish for trout in a local stream. No license, no registration, no insurance. I still don't need any of those things.

What kind of sick twisted world do you live in? In my world, you don't need any sort of permit or registration to own or operate a car. You only need these things if you go on government owned and maintained roads.

That sounds like a good way to look at guns. If you aren't going to a government building (read school, courthouse, etc.) you shouldn't need anything to buy and use a gun.

Dave

[TyObe]

63. Think of all the problems you could fix by licensing

Why not require a license to reproduce. Or a license to vote. We could eliminate poverty, crime and provide healthcare to everyone within 20 years.

Ty

[Indy Lurker]

74. Really?

Cars and drivers only have to be registerd, licensed and insured if they are used in public.

If you buy a car to use on a race track, or farm, you don't need insurance, a license, or vehicle registration.

Is that how you feel about guns?

[Java]

114. Interesting...suppose Guns were treated just like Cars...

Then that would mean..that ANY 16 Year Old could buy ANY Gun No Matter How Powerful (think caliber size), or How Fast (think Machine Guns..) and carry it with them on public property..any time of the day or night, cross state lines, go onto Federal Property, etc.

It would also mean that it would be perfectly legal to be an Unlicensed Gun Owner and have No insurance provided that the gun is kept on Private Property.

It would also mean that anyone UNDER the age of 16 could posess a firearm as long as it remains on private property...

It would mean that anyone could buy or sell a gun (no Federal Firearms License Required)...

It would mean that No Background Checks would be necessary...

No Waiting Periods...

No One Gun a Month (or one car a month!)

It would mean that a person with a felony record could own a gun...

etc.

Methinks this is a Bad Idea...

[jwirr]

11. My daughter who is married to a hunter,

smiled at her husband and said "we are keeping our guns - with the crazy bushie around we may need them". I am sure she was referring to hunting but she and I also knew that this craziness could reach a level where we need to protect ourselves and those we love from the type of action the eugenics movement fostered once in this country.

[nittygritty]

17. they can have my guns

when they pry 'em....etc, etc...

guns don't kill people, people kill people...

[ret5hd]

20. ain't those hands cold and stiff yet, charlton?

[seabeyond]

24. i dont like guns, and stand up for a person right to own guns n/t

[OrlandoGator]

25. I feel the same way about Backstreet Boys CD's.

:evilgrin:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

27. I would like to own...

An MP5S and and Remington 7mm-03 with a scope. A nice Berretta USP as a sidearm. Or a Star. With well-loaded clips and belts. And a FiE-SPAS Combat Shotgun.

But I don't.

Oh well.

[wuushew]

28. It would be useful to know who is buying 50 caliber rifles

A recent 60 minutes segment indicated that they were present at Waco, putting several holes in lighter armored vehicles used by law enforcement.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

30. I have always

been pro-gun. Glad I was. I think now we will need them.

[NEDem]

29. I've done a full 180 on gun control

Before November I was in favor, I am now totally against it.

I think someone who many here would call a "gun nut" summed it up best when he said that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect the minority in this country.

[Xela]

42. 'Nother 180 degrees here...

I'm in Texas,

Years ago I had decided by reading very little and one-sided literature that Texas would become a shooting gallery as soon as CCW laws were passed.

A couple of years went by, was taught how to be better informed, and now I oppose any further gun-control. I even think we should scale back some 1968 gun laws.

Xela

[Lexingtonian]

31. No.

The barbarian solution for any problem is: ratchet up the barbarity.

When They really come after you, you are not going to be able to outgun them.

[OnionPatch]

34. No but

I'll sure as hell take a few of them out with me.

It would actually be a lot harder for a totalitarian govt. to control the people if they were well-armed. Not to say we would win, but...

[HALO141]

108. The military has enough trouble

trying to contain the Iraqi insurgency. Do you really think they would fare any better against a better-armed, better-educated American populous covering several times the land mass? If such hostilities were to erupt, the economic cost would be devastating. Where would the government get the money to maintain and supply its military after the tax receipts have dwindled due to massive unemployment and the dearth of economic development? And in the face of such economic upheaval, there would also be the impossible task of simply trying to maintain order.

<shrug> Maybe they could, but I seriously doubt it.








(edited for typo)

[OnionPatch]

33. An armed America...

...is a polite America.

Sorry, I always liked that saying.

Truth is I always agreed with the right about the guns. It's the one place where I'm not a die-hard liberal. But maybe we should stop equating liberal with gun-control anyway, it seems so many people here are pro-gun and I am assuming the people here are true lefties. The left of the left?

I'm all for tons of safety measures to make sure people's kids don't end up shooting themselves, but other than that, I always thought we should have plenty of defense in case "they" ever want to start rounding us up or something. I used to have people laugh at that reason, but no more.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

35. Here here

I am on the same page. So how about tasers and stun guns? What's the general opinion on owning one of those little bad boys?

[BiggJawn]

38. I still believe in using both hands if you need to.

I think it's just LOVELY that the RW's Ditto-monkey Summer Soldiers all think we're all afraid of firearms...

Boy, are THEY ever gonna be surprised!

[Mothrog2]

39. They have you believing that

so-called "assault weapons" are magic death machines, even though assault weapons have no feature, save a few cosmetic things like pistol grips, which any other semi-auto rifle doesn't have. They're no more deadly. They do nothing different. They're even, quite frankly, anemic in comparison to most hunting rifles. The 7.62x39, the round the AK-47 fires, has half the muzzle energy of the .308 winchester, a popular hunting round.

Once the aunties get those banned, just what will be next? I'm sure handguns will follow shortly thereafter. If you look at the stats, the gun far and away used in crime is the handgun after all. And hey, you don't need those to hunt, right? And hell, while we're at it, we may as well rid the world of semi-autos, right? After all, we all know that any skilled hunter should take down a deer with one shot. No need for those quick follow up shots. But wait, now we have all these hi-powered sniper rifles that can kill from a mile away. I guess we better get rid of all the .308 and .30-06 deer rifles. Bottom line, where the hell do you stop once you get that ball rolling? The Second Amendment was not made for hunting. It was not made for protecting one's family. It was made to be a doomsday clause to protect citizens from the tyranny of a government that's grown too powerful and corrupt. The very purpose of the second amendment was to allow citizens the capability to hold off the ATF, the FBI, and the DEA.

[iverglas]

58. finally, someone gets it right

Once the aunties get those banned ...

That's me! An auntie! In fact, I leave tomorrow to visit my nieces and nephew.

Of course, I'm also pro firearms control ...

[the nameless one]

59. Gun control

Gun laws should be minimal; many of the laws currently on the books need to be revisited and reworked to allow the law abiding citizen the ability to carry/ possess firearms.

RW attraction to firearms? It is a fact that the American citizen has always owned weapons equivalent to those issued to its military.This is nothing new. This has continued into the modern era when the transition away from traditional wood and steel weapons to the current generation of weapons which some people have been trying to demonize because they hold over a certain number of rounds, or have a particular look that has been deemed as "un-PC".The fact is that such weapons are fairly durable, unlike many hunting arms, the ammo is reasonably priced,and the rifle can fill many roles, from hunting to self defense to plinking,. Thats why they are so popular.

[AX10]

60. I believe in the most MINIMAL regulations for gun ownership.

My position on gun ownership is unquestionably to the right, but not inline with the NRA. :argh:

The NRA is an extremist organization.

Also, "a well armed-left in America is a good idea".

[Java]

67. The purpose

You see, having a population that is armed with common military small arms such as M16's or HK G36's represents another obstacle to a Government that becomes tyrannical.

Widespread Firearms ownership also becomes problematical to an occupying foreign Army. Imagine trying to occupy switzerland. The entire country is nothing but a big arsenal. Military Guns are in practically every house.

[iverglas]

68. well hey

You see, having a population that is armed with common military small arms such as M16's or HK G36's represents another obstacle to a Government that becomes tyrannical.

If the solution to crime is just to kill the criminals out of hand, privately ... then who needs a government in the first place??

It's just gonna become tyrannical, given its druthers, so why not get rid of it asap, before it gives any more criminals due process or some other stupid thing?

[JMCC2218]

72. common sense

so I guess you don't think the jews should have resisted hitler right? Because we all know that there is never a time when resistance might be necessary. Oh wait, the Jewish people could not resist hitler BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL.


Holy crap, lets learn from history and do a little reading before we try to go and tell other people what they are going to do and have in their own home huh.

[iverglas]

73. well hey!

So nice to meet you too! I've been needing someone to teach me a little history. And help me out with that "reading" stuff. Will you be the person for the job?? It may take a while ... will you be sticking around for the duration?

so I guess you don't think the jews should have resisted hitler right?

So I guess you don't have the slightest regard for the truth, right?

Just askin', y'know ...

Oh wait, the Jewish people could not resist hitler BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL.

... but the evidence does seem to be tilting the balance in a particular direction ...

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

76. hmmm

have fun trying to take my guns

I gather that if someone were to try to take your guns it might not be a pleasant experience?

Since I can't think of the least reason why I would do that -- and since you have no reason to make this false insinuation that I would do that -- did you have a reason for making that veiled threat?

[AX10]

69. My restrictions on guns are few....

-Ban on Assault Weapons
-Ban on Hollow Shell "Cop Killer" Bullets
-Backrounds Checks
-License to carry concealed weapon

These are very reasonable restrictions.

[JMCC2218]

71. common sense

wow, so now I have to take the compensator (flash suppressor)and bayonet lug off of my rifle. Holy crap, everyone around me is going to be so much safer now that I don't have that compensator and bayonet lug.

[benEzra]

77. Some misunderstandings here?

"My restrictions on guns are few...."

-Ban on Assault Weapons
-Ban on Hollow Shell "Cop Killer" Bullets
-Backrounds Checks
-License to carry concealed weapon

These are very reasonable restrictions.

I sense some possible misunderstandings here.

"Hollow Shell 'Cop Killer' Bullets." "Cop-killer bullets" are NON-hollowpoint, nonexpanding bullets made of very hard materials like steel or bronze. They were originally developed to allow police revolvers to more reliably penetrate automobile doors and such, but were banned by Federal law in 1986 over fears that they might fall into criminal hands, because theoretically some sharply pointed bullets could allow a handgun to penetrate a bullet-resistant vest that would otherwise stop rounds of that caliber. So that's already law.

Hollowpoint bullets (is that what you mean?) have never, to my knowledge, been dubbed "cop-killer" bullets, and in fact nearly every police agency in the country (and most legally armed civilians) use them for safety and liability reasons, e.g. less risk of overpenetration, less risk of ricochet, and more kinetic energy transferred to the assailant instead of whatever is behind him.

Background checks. Already current Federal law. To purchase any firearm from a gun dealer, you have to undergo an NCIS background check; in most states, this is conducted at the point of sale. You also fill out a BATFE Form 4473 that allows the firearm to be traced if it is used in a crime. Some states (like NC, where I live) also require a special permit to purchase a handgun. Some states also require background checks for private sales of any gun, some for just handguns (e.g., NC), and so on.

License required to carry concealed weapon. Already current law in all but two states, Vermont and Alaska. (In both of these states, a permit is not required for a person with a clean background to carry a gun for lawful purposes.)

"Assault weapons." I saved this one for last because the whole term is a bait-and-switch. Automatic weapons, actual AK-47's and Uzi's, and so on were and are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, not the 1994 "assault weapons ban" that (thankfully) expired in 2004. The primary effect of the AWB was to dramatically raise the price of replacement magazines for full-size handguns, like the one your local police officer carries on her hip. Rifle magazines for the most popular rifles were not significantly affected.

The AWB did NOT restrict the manufacture, sale, or possession of modern-looking civilian firearms like AR-15's, it just decreed that they could not be marketed under any of 19 scary names, and could not have more than two of a list of features that Dianne Feinstein and the anti-gun lobby don't like (such as a rifle stock with the grip shaped a certain way). So between 1994 and 2004, civilian AR-15 type rifles had to be sold with fake flash suppressors instead of real ones, and civilian AK-47 lookalikes could have pin-on muzzle brakes but not screw-on brakes, and so on.

IMO, the AWB was a pretty ridiculous piece of legislation that intentionally played to the general public's lack of knowledge of firearms and Federal firearms law. For a bit more of this gun owner's perspective on that law and its political cost, see this thread. I'm working on a post to explain exactly what the AWB affected and what it didn't, but have a lot on my plate at the moment regarding life...hope to get around to finishing it soon...

[Swamp Fox]

79. My son collects assault weapons against my wishes

This was something I once wrote and immediately was told, to turn over my weapons ( Guns), denounce my citizenship and get the F out of this country.

Swamp Fox
U.S. Army Draftee

Nowhere to run !
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=1&mesg_id=2130

Insight of a Bull's-Eye
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=1&mesg_id=2129


No Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Violence Policy Center
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/secondfs.htm

[benEzra]

80. It's a free country...

but if I may as, why do you feel that owning this rifle is OK...



...but owning this rifle is not?



They are IDENTICAL.

BTW, neither gun above was affected by the AWB, in terms of magazine capacity or otherwise. Here's what the guns most affected by the AWB looked like:

[Swamp Fox]

81. Yes, it is a free country

Yes, it is a free country , and one certainly shouldn't ever take those freedoms for granite .

Now , to answer your question. I make it a point never to speak of authority in regard to firearms I either have not been professionally trained with , or in my immediate possession ( home). For the record, I have approximately three dozen different firearms in my collection , for the most part hunting rifles , one of which is a Sako 280 and a shotgun Remington model 1100 semi automatic. Plus , a fairly decent collection of handguns , like the S&W model 686 357 Magnum. There are lots of assault weapons I'm not familiar with, so therefore I don't have a position one way or another . I do however take a strong stand against assault weapons like AK-47 and AR-15 which is nothing more than an M16 for several reasons., one of which is the availability of armor piercing ammunition. Another , is because these two weapons are easily converted to fully automatic. Now , no different then a lot of other folks with military background , I'm not a self-proclaimed expert in regards with an M16, the military said I am.



Swamp Fox
U.S. Army Draftee

Nowhere to run !
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=1&mesg_id=2130

Insight of a Bull's-Eye
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=1&mesg_id=2129


No Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Violence Policy Center
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/secondfs.htm

[benEzra]

82. Actually, 5.56mm AP is restricted to military/LEO only by Federal law...

I do however take a strong stand against assault weapons like AK-47 and AR-15 which is nothing more than an M16 for several reasons., one of which is the availability of armor piercing ammunition.

Actually, the AR-15 is quite a bit less than the M16. The M16 is an automatic weapon; the AR-15 is essentially just a really cool looking alternative to a Ruger mini-14, another self-loading civilian carbine that fires the same ammunition at the same rate and uses similar magazines.

FWIW, 5.56mm/.223 Remington armor-piercing ammunition is NOT available to civilians. It was banned by a BATFE administrative decision in early 1994, which extended the 1986 Federal ban on armor-piercing handgun ammunition to also cover .223/5.56mm, 7.62x39mm, and .308/7.62x51mm. So those are ironically the only three rifle calibers in which armor-piercing ammunition is not legal. As far as I know, the only caliber in which you can actually get actual milsurp AP (black tip) is WW2-era .30-06 M2, though I've seen pulled bullets loaded into other cases like (I think) .303 British and 7.62x54. But you can't get it in 5.56mm, 7.62x39mm, or 7.62x51mm because it's banned in those calibers.

IMO, those three calibers are the only ones that matter as far as risks of civilian AP go. All centerfire rifles, with or without AP, will go through NIJ Level II or IIIA body armor as if it's not there, not to mention car bodies and such (and of course many hunting rifles will penetrate engine blocks). NIJ Level IV is rated to stop anything up through .30-06, AP or not. NIJ Level III is rated to stop up to 7.62x51/.308 non-AP, so IMHO .308 AP would be the only one to worry about.

Note--contrary to what some gun-show hucksters say, M855 (green tip) 5.56mm/.223 ball (62-grain bullet) is not AP and actually has less penetration under ~150 meters than standard M193 ball (the older 55-grain round).

Another , is because these two weapons are easily converted to fully automatic. Now , no different then a lot of other folks with military background , I'm not a self-proclaimed expert in regards with an M16, the military said I am.

Actually, they are NOT easily converted to full-auto--at least no more easily than any other civilian self-loader. Under the National Firearms Act, any firearm the BATFE deems to be easily convertible to full-auto is automatically restricted as a machine gun under the NFA, even if not actually converted to full-auto. (That's why all self-loading firearms that fire from an open bolt are restricted as Title 2 firearms under the National Firearms Act, because such firearms could be easily converted by filing the sear.)

So the short version is, if civilian AR-15's and AK lookalikes were easy to convert to full-auto, they would be restricted under the National Firearms Act. But they aren't, and they're not.

[Swamp Fox]

83. The Colt manufactured version

of AR 15 is virtually the same weapon as an M16. Now, I'm not sure what manufacturer supplies the military version, but it very well could be Colt and the fact is these weapons easily converted to fully automatic . As to armor piercing ammunition ban , that very well could be the case. However , like everything else, I'm sure it's available on the black market .
http://www.glowingtubes.com/p/AR15.htm

Swamp Fox
U.S. Army Draftee

Nowhere to run !
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=1&mesg_id=2130

Insight of a Bull's-Eye
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=1&mesg_id=2129


No Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Violence Policy Center
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/secondfs.htm

[MrSandman]

84. An "easily converted receiver"...

Is a machine gun accorfing to BATF(E)

[benEzra]

85. Different receivers are used on the M16 and AR-15...

the uppers are interchangeable (I think) but the receivers are designed to be incompatible. Colt, Bushmaster, DPMS, and others have all made parts for M16's (and for many years Colt made the complete rifles, though I think FN has the current contract), but the receivers cannot be the same per Federal law. All M16 receivers are restricted as Title 2 firearms by the BATFE; all AR-15 receivers are Title 1, just like any other civilian firearm. And again, if AR's were easy to make full-auto, they'd be Title 2 firearms as well. But they are no easier to convert than other civilian-only firearms, hence they are Title 1.

It's the same as with the Springfield M1A and the military M14. Very similar looking, some parts interchangeable (barrels, stocks), but completely different receivers--the M1A a civilian receiver, the M14 a full-auto-capable receiver.

Same for the M1 carbine vs. the M2, the Ruger mini-14 vs. the law-enforcement Ruger AC556, the Glock 17 handgun vs. the Glock 18 machine pistol, the Beretta 92 pistol vs. the Beretta 93R, or even the old Mauser model 1896 pistol vs. the full-auto version. All very similar-looking firearms built on different receivers, one civilian and one military.

[Swamp Fox]

86. but the fact is

Maybe so, but the fact is , the civilian version regardless of manufacture is easily converted to fully automatic. Now , for someone to acknowledge they know it's been done , would be in itself a crime for not reporting this to the proper authorities , so one needs to be careful as to what they say here.

Swamp Fox
U.S. Army Draftee

Nowhere to run !
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=1&mesg_id=2130

Insight of a Bull's-Eye
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=1&mesg_id=2129


No Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Violence Policy Center
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/secondfs.htm

[benEzra]

90. You must be using a different definition of "easily converted"

than the BATFE uses. Or are you supposing that you are somehow starting with illegal NFA Class III restricted conversion parts already in hand, and modifying the receiver to accept them? But since said parts would have to be stolen from the military or a law enforcement agency, or one of their suppliers, that's hardly a convincing argument that they are "easily converted."

Given the right parts (a Pederson device), you can very quickly convert a bolt-action M1903 Springfield .30-06 to an automatic weapon, too (it was done in WWI, and considered for widespread issue for trench warfare). That doesn't mean that absent the (very tightly controlled) parts, that an M1903 is easy to convert to full-auto. John Moses Browning once converted a lever-action rifle to full-auto using basically a spoon, a connecting rod, a file, a couple of pins, and a drill (spoon with .30 caliber hole in it was placed over the muzzle on a pivot to catch the propellant gases and cycle the action), but that doesn't mean a Winchester M1894 is easy to convert.

[jody]

101. "Same for the M1 carbine vs. the M2". I've seen a M1 carbine converted

to select fire by changing several parts including the stock. The M1 receiver was not modified and I assume that such conversions are still possible. Conversion would take perhaps 10 minutes or less.

I believe that if anyone has an M1 carbine and the necessary parts, then ATF presumes that is a Title 2 firearm.

[MrSandman]

102. Did the BATF(E) not ...

Reclassify those receivers as Title 2, ala the open-bolt mechanism?

[jody]

105. The M1 carbine is not an open-bolt action. n/t

[MrSandman]

110. But were semi's...

Which used the same receiver as the selective-fire counterparts not reclassified as were the open bolt semi's?

[jody]

111. The M1 carbine is not classified by BATF as an automatic firearm and

can be purchased as any other firearm. I don't remember any time where BATF classified them as automatic however if anyone has both an M1 carbine and the parts to convert it to an M2, then that combined possession qualifies as an automatic firearm.

You pose an interesting question and perhaps other participants in this forum can comment on your statement "But were semi's {e.g. M1 carbine} . . .Which used the same receiver as the selective-fire counterparts not reclassified as were the open bolt semi's?"

[benEzra]

103. My bad on the M1/M2...

I thought they used different receivers like the AR-15/M16 do. Hmmm, that means an M1 carbine is theoretically easier to convert than an AR, assuming you somehow obtain the (tightly controlled) conversion parts.

[jody]

104. The parts for conversion are scarce but available. n/t

[benEzra]

107. They'd be Title 2, yes? (n/t)

[jody]

112. ATF says a part or parts are Title 2.

You are correct the parts are controlled, I haven't looked at that point in decades.

ATF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

QUOTE
Any combination of parts designed and intended for use in
converting weapons into machineguns;
Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for
converting a weapon into a machinegun;
Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled
if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a
person;
UNQUOTE

[HALO141]

109. Not really

"the uppers are interchangeable (I think) but the receivers are designed to be incompatible. Colt, Bushmaster, DPMS, and others have all made parts for M16's (and for many years Colt made the complete rifles, though I think FN has the current contract), but the receivers cannot be the same per Federal law. All M16 receivers are restricted as Title 2 firearms by the BATFE; all AR-15 receivers are Title 1, just like any other civilian firearm. And again, if AR's were easy to make full-auto, they'd be Title 2 firearms as well. But they are no easier to convert than other civilian-only firearms, hence they are Title 1."

Uppers of all M-16 and AR-15 rifles are interchangable except that the hinge pin on Colt rifles is larger than other manufacturers' pins. A conversion pin can be purchased to fit a Colt upper to a different make lower or viseversa.

As a machined piece of metal, the M-16 lower is the same as the AR-15 lower. (Note: The rifle was first designated AR-15 by the American Air Force which was the first American military branch to purchase the rifle. Since the Army's adoption of the system, and subsequent designation as M-16, AR-15 has come to be known as the civilian, semi-auto version. But the Air Force was most assuradly a select fire weapon.) Anyway, the differences between the full auto and the semi-auto are in the fire control group within the receiver. The parts in question are (if I remember correctly) the hammer, sear, selector and bolt carrier. In most of these, metal must be added (as opposed to removed) and machined to the proper dimensions in order to make the weapon full auto.

The reason full auto lowers are regulated is that they are the only part of the gun that is serial numbered and sold as a full-auto firearm. The fire control group is just a parts kit and most of the items are too small to serial anyway. You can have all the full auto parts you want but you better have a licensed lower to put them in if you're to remain legal.

Note: Bushmaster, for instance, offers a fire control parts kit specifically for the Colt rifles so there may, indeed, be some differences in the geometry of those parts specific to that manufacturer. But the differences have nothing to do with semi/full auto capability.

[slackmaster]

87. How big of a problem is AR-15s converted illegally to fully automatic?

... the fact is these weapons easily converted to fully automatic...

"Easily" is a relative term. I work on AR-15s and many other kinds of firearms. There is more than one way to make them fire automatically. IMO most people lack the technical skills to perform such a conversion, and those of us who could do it and understand the potential legal problems are highly motivated not to.

They've been available for more than 40 years. How often do you hear of an AR-15 that has been convered to fully automatic function and used in a crime? I've heard only of a handful of cases.

[Swamp Fox]

88. Nevertheless , more

have been converted than anyone will ever care to admit. But I am glad someone finally stepped up to the plate and admitted it is possible.

Swamp Fox
U.S. Army Draftee

Nowhere to run !
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=1&mesg_id=2130

Insight of a Bull's-Eye
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=1&mesg_id=2129


No Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Violence Policy Center
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/secondfs.htm

[MrSandman]

89. Possible, but oh so difficult, er easy er I can't say ...

Because of BATman.

:rofl:

[Wickerman]

91. It rarely ever gets done

yet the number of hits on goggle for AK47 full auto conversion (note, not exact keywords I used) are simply amazing. Page after page of folks selling instructions and pieces and parts. I got tired of looking after the first two pages of results, nary a bad hit. Must say, they all added a disclaimer that the info was for informational purposes only. I forget how they covered the bits and pieces, but they at least made a stab at trying to diminish any liability to themselves.

[MrSandman]

93. But was it as easy ...

changing a few easily-obtained parts.

It is tiresome to read assertion after assertion of the ease with no show of common occurence.

On edit: How many Paladin books are out there with IEDs which are sooo simple, but difficult to not blow yourself up. If someone can provide some sort of direction for these things, no matter how workable, they will find a niche in the psycho market.

[Wickerman]

94. I think some of the others are better qualified to discuss ease

my point is simply that there exists a market, hell, a regular cottage industry amongst all the law-abiding gun buyers who just want the AK-47 cuz it looks cool.

[MrSandman]

96. That is true...

I wouldn't want an AK or an AR. But I wouldn't deny someone else based on the fact it looks wrong.

[Swamp Fox]

97. I'm not in favor

of banning any firearms , be it assault weapons , 50 caliber sniper rifles or whatever. I am however supportive of any legislation that would require a special permit for the so-called assault weapons ,or any other rifle with semi automatic mechanics , including but not limited to the Remington hunting rifles.

Swamp Fox
U.S. Army Draftee

Nowhere to run !
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=1&mesg_id=2130

Insight of a Bull's-Eye
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=216&topic_id=1&mesg_id=2129


No Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Violence Policy Center
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/secondfs.htm

[Wickerman]

98. no, I wouldn't either

I am just wonderin' why there is a cottage industry to sell conversion kits and instructions when all the law-abiding gun owners want is a nasty looking gun.

[MrSandman]

99. Capitalism at its finest...

Not that it is new or unique.

I wonder too. I remember before the WWW seeing the adverts for "conversion kits" in mags. Back then, the receivers may have been compatible with the kits.

So many groups have the fringe which is attracted to nonsense:
Anarchist cookbook
Soldier of Fortune
PETA
ALF

[aikoaiko]

100. TEOTWAWKI

Some law abiding citizens want to know because someday the S might actually HTF where illegal conversions would be the least of people's worries.

As it stands now, there is nothing illegal with just knowing something like a DIY conversion.

Knowledge is power.

[benEzra]

92. It is "possible" for a moderately skilled machinist...

to build a submachinegun from scratch. That doesn't mean it's "easy."

The operative criterion that determines whether the BATFE classifies a gun as Title 1 (readily available to law-abiding civilians) or Title 2 (restricted to military or law enforcement only) under the National Firearms Act is not "possible to convert" but "easy to convert". The fact is, AR's are NOT easy to convert to full-auto, any more than Ruger mini-14's or Glock 17's or whatever. Guns that fire from an open bolt ARE easy to convert, which is why there are NO Title 1 (civilian-legal) firearms that fire from an open bolt, because the BATFE deems them easy to convert.

Wickerman, there are Internet hucksters out there selling "Raufoss" rounds for .223 Remington, too. Only it doesn't exist, since the smallest Raufoss rounds ever made were .50 caliber (and restricted to military use only). I've seen ordinary .223 M855 ball advertised as "armor piercing," as well.

Because civilian AK's use a different receiver than military AK-47's, AK-47 fire-control parts won't fit in a civilian AK receiver, so the BATFE doesn't consider them conversion parts and allows them to be sold freely (though they do now restrict the importation of AK-47 barrels, as of last week). I have a hunch that most of those hits are either selling AK-47 trigger groups, or would only be applicable to a skilled machinist with a machine shop (who could probably craft an AK receiver from scratch anyway if he had the plans).

Again, actual conversion kits are Title 2/Class III restricted as if they were machineguns, so anything anyone is selling openly is either a blatant Federal felony or it's not actually a conversion kit, IMO.

[slackmaster]

95. I can't recall ever seeing anyone deny that it's possible

Let me just add this:

Doing the conversion properly, by which I mean creating a result that works exactly the same as the M16, in which the moving parts interact in the way they were engineered by Eugene Stoner to do, would be quite difficult without the use of precision machine tools. A person with modest skills, a milling machine, tooling, and machinist's measuring tools could do it in an afternoon, but the process requires removing metal and cannot be reversed or concealed. Anything less amounts to a hack job and the resulting weapon may not operate as safely or reliably.

[Elminster]

115. Don't know about you guys and ladies.....

But the only Gun Control that I advocate is useing both hands!
Makes rifles, shot-guns and handguns easier to control (recoil wise).
An armed society is a polite society.
Take care all.

[iverglas]

116. er ... I think that's "guys and dolls".

[Paladin]

117. Of All The Stupid Sayings Of The RKBA Movement.....

..(and God knows, there are plenty of such statements from which to choose), certainly the stupidest, most inane and demonstrably untrue is that "an armed society is a polite society." Check your morning paper: you're living in an armed society, and it's not very fucking polite. Angry, violent, afraid and dangerous, but not polite.....

[iverglas]

118. yes, but, *Robert Heinlein* said it

and we all know what a good liberal / progressive / d/Democrat he was.

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom.
Don't ever count on having both at once.

You can have amusing science fiction, or you can have decency and reason. Sometimes you actually do get both at once.

Unfortunately, you can have Heinlein, or you can have amusing science fiction *and* decency and reason; you can't have all three at once. ;)