Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A question for all you Assault Weapon Ban supporters

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:36 PM
Original message
A question for all you Assault Weapon Ban supporters
since you are weapons experts define what an assault weapon is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Alamuti Lotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. True "assault weapons" are already banned
Edited on Wed Nov-12-08 11:43 PM by Alamuti Lotus
machine guns, fully-automatic almost anything, grenade launchers, flame throwers (except for the keyboard variety, those are out in force), etc... a WASR10 Romanian semi-AK47 or Bushy (your typical "assault-style" or whatever) are nothing compared to these long-since banned items.

The interesting aspect of this argument is -- who tries to commit petty crimes with these things? I see news reports of crimes, all talking about handguns, handguns, handguns, handguns, etc..... these somehow get left out of the debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. That's exactly my point, I have asked the same question
countless times on DU and nobody seems to have any criteria other than they look scary. What I would call an assault weapon would be fully automatic and they have been banned for what about 80 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
96. You mean "true assault rifles are already banned".
Assault rifles and "assault weapons" are two different things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Testament Donating Member (129 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
139. Form 4, 200 dollar tax stamp, background check, fingerprints, photos..
Sheriff's signiture, maybe some more. All of those are legal to posses depending on state with the appropriate process followed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. An automatic military style weapon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Those are already banned unless you have a
special permit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Then I don't understand your problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:56 PM
Original message
You don't understand my problem? Just what guns are these
people going to outlaw with the AWB? They obviously don't have a clue about guns but they want to decide what guns we can own just because they think they look scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
23. Then perhaps you should spend your time educating them
instead of just constantly screaming that they're wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #23
146. oh, you weren't here before the election

They were all over the place wanting to educate the voters who stated that they supported the support for renewing the Assault Weapons Ban in the Democratic Party platform, because those poor ignorant voters didn't know what an "assault weapon" was, and if they did they wouldn't support renewing the ban.

Sound odd to you? Did to me, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Exactly - the style is more important than the function.
Might as well ad tail fins & paint flames on them for all the good it'll do "hunting" or "defending your home"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
117. Uh-oh, we might see those infamous gun coloring jobs, now (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. *bzzt* wrong
that's an assault rifle. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It's a nonsense political term designed to make a certain class of semiautomatic firearm that has certain cosmetic similarities to military assault rifles sound scarier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. The left wing of the anti-liberty brigade
knows nothing of guns which is repeatedly demonstrated by the stupid, illogical, and utterly ineffective legislation they throw out apparently to wedge otherwise Democratic/Democratic receptive voters away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
53. Really, people who are concerned with the quantity of weapons on the market
Edited on Thu Nov-13-08 01:17 AM by DainBramaged
are the "left-wing of the anti-liberty brigade" ?????? I never met a Progressive or Liberal, repeat, LIBERAL, who was against Liberty, but was against dealing death by cold steel and the people who make and sell the guns. Your comment is very very interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #53
118. Hmm, YOUR comment is very interesting...
First. you prop up a "Progressive or Liberal, repeat, LIBERAL, who was against Liberty," then cite your own meager experiences to paste-on an addendum: "against dealing death by cold steel and the people who make and sell the guns."

Hang around here, partner, and be edumacated.

BTW, one of the first pieces of legislation then-senator John F. Kennedy proposed for Massachusetts (long a state where "people make and sell guns") was a protectionist measure designed to aid domestic "cold steel."

Did you know Eleanor Roosevelt packed? Did you meet her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. fuck this splitting hairs bullshit.
what's got your knickers bunched?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. All this talk of an AWB after going all over the country and
telling people "We are not here to take your guns."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. If there's one issue that's dead as dead can be, it gun control.


The NRA made sure of that. Anyone that is worried about any politician wanting to take their guns is sporting nothing less than an irrational fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Now that Obama finally removed the language from his website.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. I have seen it argued in other threads buy gun grabbers
that it is still a priority in the Democratic platform. There is another thread here with several hundred posts with many DUers still advocating the AWB.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. It is still in the Democratic platform but Obama has removed it from change.gov.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Testament Donating Member (129 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #19
140. It's back up there. LINKs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #18
54. So we're gun grabbers now?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. Don't know are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. I occasionally grab my crotch when my panties are in a bunch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. Alrighty then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #6
119. Actually, it is a resonable concern. Here is another:
If folks think the gun-control issue is dead, I want to know this from them: "Do you support the reenactment of the assault weapons ban?"

The answer goes to the veracity of their respective beliefs/positions.

BTW, some 68 Congress critters have co-sponsored a new assault weapons ban, pending in committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raimius Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
141. It's not splitting hairs
Edited on Mon Nov-17-08 01:03 AM by raimius
It is the difference in arguing about firearms which have been regulated for 80years or firearms that are the most popular center-fire rifles in America. People are trying to ban the latter, while the former are rarely discussed in legislative circles.

Hm...that got placed very far away from the post I was responding to...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. Atomic Bombs Are Arms
Edited on Wed Nov-12-08 11:54 PM by MannyGoldstein
So I want to bear one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. I believe that would hurt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
14. So now that you have your answer . . .
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
15. There is no objective definition yet...
So by all means, perhaps its time to create one. I think the point is to limit weapons that can cause massive amounts of damage in small time periods (and have no utilitarian use that is not found in a less destructive firearm). A metric that measures rounds per minute, projectile speed, stopping power, armor piercing ability (with easily available munitions), etc, would be effective at classifying what weapons pose a public health risk beyond some arbitrary threshold.

Yes, cohesive and objective definition does not exist, but we all know what it is for. Therefore, rather than debate what is or isn't an "assault weapon", we should rather be debating what is a public health risk beyond a certain definable threshold (that is even backed up by crime statistics) and how we can create a clear metric to measure this. The absence of a firm and sensible definition should not invalidate the desire to promote sensible and sane gun control.

Using the entire "What's an 'assault rifle'" argument is a bit silly and disingenuous to the issue at hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. Rounds per minute, stopping power, etc?
A trained marksman with a bolt-action Lee-Enfield rifle can fire almost sixty rounds in a minute. And in terms of 'destructive', a pump-action or semiautomatic 10- 0r 12-gauge shotgun is far more destructive at short range than any rifle or handgun, yet no-one is talking about outlawing those. A little perspective would be a good thing here, especially as the ban on so-called 'assault weapons' affects weapons which are not often used in commission of crimes, and are mostly bought and used by hunters, sportsmen and collectors. So whom is the ban intended to protect, and from what is it intended to protect them? When one considers that many other semiautomatic rifles are available, in similar calibres, to those classified as 'assault weapons', and that fully-automatic weapons have been strictly regulated since 1934, the answer seems to be that it's not really protecting anyone from anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #21
36. Thats all so ridiculous
The point is that you can put a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle into the hands of the 'AVERAGE' American (who normally have little tactical experience with firearms) and in a minutes time, the damage may be terrible but incredibly limited. Compare that to a crazy kid with a M-16, and only video games to bolster his combat credentials.

Look, even a .22 can be dangerous in the right hands, in the right situation, etc. BUT, I am not looking at the worst case scenario (that would make kitchen knifes banned), or pretending this is the best-case Utopian scenario (where fully automatic 50 caliber machine guns would be legal).

You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere (or atom bombs would be legal to carry). So where do you draw it? How do you sensibly do it? Based on the aesthetics of the rifle and some arbitrary term of "assault rifle"? Or based on a threshold set with the aid of real life crime damage statistics and a sensible metric for classification?

Since you have to draw that line somewhere, identifying a hand held "weapon of mass destruction" wouldn't be a terrible idea. If you can pop off hundreds of rounds with great accuracy that have a high likelihood to kill targets (all with little to no training of the gunman), I think thats a good place to start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. An M-16 is a full-auto weapon, those are already banned under the 1934 National Firearms Act
if you're going to make an argument, try to make one with some relevance. There's no need to ban weapons that are already banned, now is there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #37
43. I mention it for the sake of discussion.
We know that there exist firearms that an untrained person can quickly deal an extraordinary amount of damage with in normal situations (I call this a public health risk). I am simply trying to propose an objective method to continuously identify them so we can have a sensible approach to this.

Being that something is already banned, it shows that you can draw a line in the sand on what is and isn't acceptable. Im not sure why someone would think such a line would be static, in an incredibly dynamic environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. Define sensible.
What may work in an urban environment like Chicago or Detroit or Washington DC or Los Angeles makes less sense in a rural area where hunting and target shooting are common and widespread. Are you proposing that any firearms legislation not take the urban;/rural divide on firearms ownership and utility into account? That doesn't seem especially sensible, yet it seems to be the stance of most of the more hysterical anti-gun crowd, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. You know, Im pretty reasonable...
And I understand the differences between urban and rural, and that different levels of gun control are needed.

The only thing I cant wrap my head around is that if the firearm is available in a rural area, it wouldn't take more than a 2 hour drive from and urban area to retrieve one. Im not exactly sure what the point is of controlling them at all if you aren't really controlling them. Also, I mean, how much firepower do you really need to take down a deer? How many round do you need to fire off a minute. Damn, in the hills I grew up in, it was normally one shot, one kill (or two if you are lucky enough to get it off).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #47
60. Why ban firearms that are used in less than 2% of crimes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. How devastating are the crimes that they are used in?
Your 2% statistic...does it figure in (for the total) revolvers used as props in stickups, and shotguns in pre-meditated single/double murders, etc...that small stuff? In other words, is it just a statistic, flouted about as if it means something? Yes, there are a ton of small time tiny gun crimes that use small/common guns because nothing more is needed for the situation. What can you do about this? Nothing.

Im talking about firearms that may, even in the small instances they are used, be very incredibly devastating even used by an untrained gunman. We need to make sure that weapons are not available such that in the small instances these weapons are used (those that meet some 'danger' threshold), the amount of casualties does not exceed those from the other 98% of the instances.

Im also sure such a statistic you are using is pre-calculated on the definition of "assault weapon" anyway, which really wasn't the gist of my original response in the first place (which talks about objectively redefining what it means in the first place based on a metric).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #62
80. No, he's being honest..
Rifles are used in about 3% of the murders happening annually, if you go by the FBI's statistics. Of that 3%, some of them are undoubtedly center-fire semi autos but there's no real breakdown available. They really don't figure into the murder problem in the nation that much at all. You're far more likely to be murdered by a handgun.

Here's a link to the latest data... http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

Rifles will include everything from a .22 to a .50BMG. What do you think the data is telling us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #62
99. More people have been murdered with shotguns than rifles in each of the last 5 years.
Here's the link. The statistics speak for themselves, there is absolutely no need to embellish on this topic. A 12 gauge pump shotgun with 00 buckshot has more firepower than an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine, with the plug removed it has far more firepower and is far easier to use by an untrained person.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_infor...

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #62
121. How devastating, by comparison, is a Remington 742 in .30-06?
You realize this old walnut & blue steel hunting rifle is semi-automatic, fires a far more powerful round than an AR-15, and has been used on deer for generations?

It makes no sense trying to ban a semi-auto carbine with significantly less power when an old Rem 742 is still out there. But if we follow the advice of some gun-controllers, they don't won't to "ban your hunting rifles." At least just now.

BTW, did you know that the AR-15s (semi-auto version of the highly regulated M-16) have already been configured and re-chambered for hunting rifles, using somewhat larger cartridges like the .260? The semi-auto carbines the Brady's get their undies in a twist over, are the face of the new hunting weapon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #62
136. All rifles combined account for 3% of murders. Non-rifles account for 97%. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #36
120. Never seen a kid (crazy or otherwise) with an M-16...
Since that arm is fully automatic, I have never seen ANY civilian with that weapon (though I know there are folks who go through the rigors of owning them).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-08 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #120
151. so banning guns works then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #151
153. Are you thinking that m16's are banned?
They are not banned at the federal level. You just need to jump through all the hoops and paperwork and taxes. Then afford the $20K gun (or whatever the current prices are) for the small number of registered automatics.
Assuming you are allowed to have the m16 at the state level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #21
70. Do you have any proof to support the contention
that trained marskman with a bolt action rifle can fire almost sixty rounds a minute. I have fired thousands of rifle rounds in competion over the years and never have seen that before. I use a bolt action 1903 springfield and even at the fastest I can operate a bolt and come close to hitting the target is about 5 seconds per round. That plus the fact that a Lee-Enfield like a Springfield only has a five shot magazine means that the marksman is going to have to stop shooting and reload the five shot magazine with a striper clip 12 times?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #70
103. It's called the "Mad Minute"
Edited on Fri Nov-14-08 10:03 AM by DonP
The SMLE has a 10 round magazine and the British Army, until the 1950's when they switched to semi autos, were taught the "Mad Minute" drill in their version of basic. (I dont know if they actually achieved that rate for all trainees, I think it was more of a goal than a standard)

They were to fire 60 rounds on a target at 100 yards from a prone position in one minute with their Enfield MkI or Mk 4 model. Somewhere on You Tube there is a video of an older film showing some young trainees doing the drill. There is a huge difference though in the action on the Enfields. It's like the bolt is running in light oil it's so smooth and so incredibly fast, compared to the Springfield or Mauser bolt action.

I know what you mean though. I shoot an '03 in high power competition ... and I'm a lefty, so getting even 10 aimed rounds off at 200 yards with the reload is a challenge. It took me three or four competitions before I was able to actually get all 10 rounds downrange before they called time.

It took me a while to get to know how to use that "Christmas Tree" sight but once you figure it out it's probably my most accurate rifle at anything over 200 yards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tisfortomi Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #103
147. Mad Minute
The goal of the "Mad Minute" was 15 rounds in one minute, not 60. Even this would involve at least one reload, given the 10-round capacity. Remember that the requirement was to hit a target at 200 yards with all those shots, not merely crank out the rounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #15
22. What's an assault weapon is silly, I am not the one that
is wanting to outlaw something I can't even define! You say projectile speed, a standard deer hunting rifle has the projectile speed of what you would want to outlaw! Stopping power same there. Armor piercing ability, I will give in on that one. Myself if I wanted to kill as many people as I could I would use a standard 12 ga. pump or semi-auto shotgun with buck shot both perfectly legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #22
39. I disagree
A standard deer hunting rifle is going to not meet that threshold because it would score low in rounds per minute. I said "metric", because it considers multiple aspects to come up with a sensible score. In the hands of the average untrained gunman, a deer hunting rifle would cause minimal damage in some time period, as compared with the damage a child in Somalia can cause with an AK-47.

Yes, if people were to break in my home, I would grab my short barrel tactical shotgun to dispose of them. After I get past the 8th round, Im going to be having a bit of trouble. Especially if they are any distance from me. On a rounds per minute and distance/accuracy scale, shotguns would fail badly (except perhaps a street sweeper and other similar models).

Metrics consider multiple criteria to come up with a score. I think it is important to note that we shouldn't be considering what a weapon would do in the hands of a highly trained killer, being that a butter knife is dangerous in that scenario. In a common every day situation with ordinary people, what firearms can bring massive amounts of damage in a short period of time (most of the time), and how do we measure that? This is about creating an objective method to draw that line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. You're obviously ignorant
a standard semi-auto hunting rifle fires as many rounds per minute as a semi-automatic 'asssault weapon' (NB: the term 'assault weapon' as used in US law applies to semiautomatic firearms and not to fully automatic weapons, which as I have already noted are tightly regulated under an earlier law).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. Oh good, then fucking ban them.
Because I have plenty of experience with bolt-action rifles that are entirely suitable for the purposes of hunting.

If you feel that such weapons that you mention are every bit as dangerous a semi-automatic "assault rifles", then by all means, you provide a valid argument to ban them as well. After all, we have plenty of alternatives that people hunt all the time with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. A semiautomatic weapon is not an assault rifle.
An assault rifle is a fully-automatic (or selectable full-auto and burst-fire) intermediate-calibre military arm. A 30.-06 deer rifle with clip reload is capable of just as much destruction and as rapid a rate of fire as any semi-auto so-called 'assault weapon'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. As I earlier mentioned, Im not considering the definition of "assault rifle"
Edited on Thu Nov-13-08 01:16 AM by Oregone
I don't give a damn what is or isn't considered. What I said is that ANY weapon that can be judged by some objective scale as "massively dangerous" (can deal large amounts of destruction in average hands in a short time span) above a threshold should perhaps be controlled. We already have drawn the line before, although we have use arbitrary means, and older laws that do not consider industry innovations.

In the mean time people sit around and quip about stupid terms like "assault rifles". Who gives a fuck?

The point is to protect the public from things like Atom bombs, 50 caliber machine guns, m-16, etc.....(and we slide that scale downwards, and stop...where?). We have to objectively define where the line is drawn, why it is drawn, and how to determine what weapons are above the threshold.

All these legacy laws and terms aren't helpful to approaching this problem effectively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C-Mac Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #51
55. I agree completely
That makes a lot of sense. I like that you're getting to the core of the issue, rather than getting caught up in the other business. People's dissatisfaction with how lines have been drawn so far is one thing. Establishing reasonable limits to keep the public safe is another. Treating them separately, at least when possible, makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #51
88. How many...
people are murdered in the U.S. every year by center-fire semi-automatic rifles with magazines holding more than ten rounds? You can even lump high-capacity carbines firing pistol calibers into your figures if it helps you any. Just for fun, let's leave .22's out of it. How many murders are we talking about annually?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iktomiwicasa Donating Member (942 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #45
132. Hello?
The Second Amendment isn't about preserving hunting rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #39
61. You realize of course that those tactical shotguns would be banned also.
Read HR 1022. So now your weapon of choice is one of those evil weapons. I'll guess you'll have to find a single shot rifle that doesn't over penetrate to defend your home.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. Show me where they would be...
Its a short barrel, modified pump action shotgun with the dowel removed. What criteria does it meet in there (in case you know). Wouldn't that ban all and every pump action shotgun? I think you are mistaken.

But if you are correct, that is over the top. Regardless, I never said I support HR 1022; I think we need to overhaul the entire definition of "assault weapon" to something objective before even being able to get anywhere on the matter in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #63
86. I thought it was a tactical semi-auto.
In which case it would be on several counts. My apologies for assuming.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #63
122. Well, let's try this:
A so-called "assault weapon" is really a semi-automatic carbine of moderate power which looks a lot like a military weapon (as have most all hunting rifles in their earlier existence). Do I wish to ban this class of weapon which the GOP-Brady Center & others seem bent on? No. Why? Because the semi-auto technology has been with us for over a hundred years, is the preferred technology for civilian gun owners, and because it does not constitute in an of itself a social problem requiring political policy action, especially at the national level.

There are too many semi-auto hunting rifles of greater power, match-grade AR 15s, and hunting rifles based on the AR (and other) platforms to rationally defend the proposition of banning semi-auto guns.

I really don't understand what is so difficult about this.

If I had come to deer hunting earlier in my life, I would choose an AR-15 platform with the "upper" chambered in a heavier round. When compared with my excellent Rem 700 bolt-action in .270, the AR-15 is ergonomically superior, almost as accurate, able to better endure dings and scratches, and it kicks less.

And manufacturers are producing more and more of these configurations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Farmall Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #39
71. Pure Ignorance
I possess an SKS rifle which the import was banned during the previous AWB. This gun is half-worthless. It's accuracy is literally hit and miss after 50 yards, it has to be loaded through the feed chamber (thus fast magazine changes do not exist) and the knockdown energy of the round is dismal. That, and it was also on the list due to the fact that it has a bayonet mounting lug on it. Why were bayonet mounts listed as banned items on the AWB other than cosmetics? How many bayonet assaults have occurred?


OTOH, I have a Remington semi automatic rifle chambered in 30-06 that was not one of those listed on the AWB, but is much, much more deadly with interchangeable clips, 300+ yard accuracy of 4" groups, and a round that is known for it's knockdown power. But, the steel is blued to a high gloss and the wood is varnished walnut, so it's not so dangerous, right?

I also possess a Ruger 10/22 semi auto .22 caliber that will put 10 rounds in a 3" circle at 200 yards in less than 30 seconds-another gun that wasn't included in the AWB, but is much more credible a threat than some cheap chinese POS gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #15
105. And their can't be
A shotgun can pump out 5 buckshot loads in 5 seconds, delivering up to 90 pellets the size of a .38 bullet into a concentrated area.

I've personally seen a guy with a lever-action rifle empty 10 rounds into a target in less than six seconds.


You average deer cartridge is three times as powerful as Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum and 8 times as powerful as your typical 9mm. And even soft-pointed hunting loads will turn patrol police vests into confetti.



The dividing line since 1934 has been between full-auto guns and everything else. Guns that fire one shot per pull of the trigger are guns that are discrete. Every shot is under the control of the shooter.

With a fully-automatic firearm the shots are no longer discrete. There is an arc of destruction, an indiscriminate spray of lead, much like an explosion produced random fragments of death whizzing around.


I have no problems with fully-automatic weapons being held to the same high standard as explosives and explosive devices such as grenades.


Anything past that is a completely arbitrary standard that would be useless as any kind of crime-control measure and frought with political abuse and grandstanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #15
107. Not true, it is defined.
Since Assault Rifle is a military term, we should use military nomenclature. An Assault Rifle is a select-fire weapon of intermediate caliber, between a sub machine gun and a battle rifle.

Assault weapon is apparently whatever Congress or other state legislatures want it to be, and none of them agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-12-08 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
16. Scary looking guns that function no differently that many common hunting rifles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tankman1989 Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
20. What anti-gun people think can't happen
I need a name for this poem.. Maybe "Death of a Great Nation"??

If you like this, PLEASE openly post it on other forums you frequent.
****************************************************************
First came the ban on automatic assault weapons,
I did not speak up,
Because I didn't need such a weapon.

Then came the ban on assault weapons and assault ammunition,
Again I remained silent,
For I had no quarrels with anyone;
I felt the Police were there to Serve and protect,
The government had a strong military in which I could trust.

Next came the ban on pistols and newly made rifles,
I kept my mouth shut,
As this made no difference because I already owned these.

Finally, martial law was declared because of an act of "terror;
A new constitution was forged, severely limiting rights of individuals;
Gone was the right to free speech, free press, the right to own property, the right to bear arms,
Gone were States rights and Habeas Corpus, the right to a speedy, just, fair trial
Gone were our beloved Republics, Commonwealths, States and our Democracy.

The time for action through words was gone,
It was time to stand and fight,
But it was too late,
We were helpless because we had no worthy guns with which to fight.

Only then, when the government took actions against The People,
Did I truly understand the reasoning for the Second Amendment;
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Encroachment upon one (gun or person) is an encroachment upon all!

Tankman1989
Copyright 2008 All rights reserved :D:
Please distribute freely

******************************************************

What is Homeland Defense?
It is the enemy of that nation saying: You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Isoroku Yamamoto WWII - Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy
______________________________________
-This is what happens when a society isn't allowed to own guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_... ">Tiananmen Square Massacre Tankman1989
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uberllama42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #20
137. lol wut?
If you honestly think you can stand up to the military-industrial complex with a few full-auto weapons, you are completely detached from reality. Are you going to keep anti-tank weapons in your basement? How about surface-to-air missile batteries?

Even if absolutely every weapon was legalized, no private arsenal could hope to stand up to a half-trillion-dollar-a-year military machine. Anything even approaching parity with the military would be an obvious threat to public safety.

If martial law were declared in the U.S., direct resistance with conventional military weapons would be completely futile and utterly suicidal. The scenario in your poem is a total fantasy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
24. i don't know every chemical that's banned either, does that mean they should be legal?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. The Second Amendment doesn't give you any
right to keep and bear chemicals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. the second amendment doesn't give you the right to own an assault weapon
sorry.

but why argue with me? i doubt this will be a priority in the next congress.

why not focus on the economy, healthcare, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmg257 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
77. You are correct - it doesn't give the right - it only secures it. But why argue?
Edited on Thu Nov-13-08 09:18 PM by jmg257
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
83. What?
The 2nd Amendment isn't talking about duck hunting. It's talking about an armed populace as a necessity for maintaining a free state. What kind of arms does that require? It calls for fighting arms of a type that is generally useful to your basic soldier in the field. An AR with a dozen or so thirty round magazines is about as good a choice as you'll likely find for a fighting arm for the lawful citizen.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #29
85. The First Amendment doesn't give you a right to blog either
What? That's a ridiculously anachronistic argument?

Well, gee!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #29
123. The constitution doesn't give you the right to use your computer...
but reasonable jurists have held that the device is a reasonable adjunct (like radio & T.V.) to the right of free speech and the press (a technical term itself). So, "sorry," your argument does not hold.

Do you know what an "assault weapon" is? Do you know what an "assault rifle" is? Do you know what a semi-auto hunting rifle like the Rem 742 is? Which one(s) do you wish to see outlawed and why?

Guns aren't the issue. Gun-control is.

We are on common ground when "focusing on the economy, healthcare, Iraq and Afghanistan," and when folks within our own party wish to divert us from these issues by pushing a gun-control bill at the national level, will you join with us to dissuade them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #27
33. Why the hell not? I should have the right to keep chemical weapons, should I not?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #33
124. Your argument has been picked over ad nausem for year.
Respectfully, please read the most recent threads in which this "issue" is dispensed with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #27
91. If you are going to be picky the 2nd ammendment was written when
flint and steel sparked your pan- and the concept of an AK47 would have been lunacy.

Are nuclear weapons not part of the "Arms" we employ to defend this country??

:shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #24
92. "Assault weapon" is the "dihydrogen monoxide" of guns. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
25. I do not support any Federal gun bans, but for the sake of precision...

...here are so called assault weapons listed by name and described by features (with a small joke inserted) from HR 1022.


`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Calico M-110;

`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

`(v) Uzi.

`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Armscor 30 BG;

`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

`(iii) Striker 12; or

`(iv) Streetsweeper.

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

`(i) a second pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

`(K) A conversion kit.

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

(b) Related Definitions- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) Barrel Shroud- The term `barrel shroud' means the thing that goes up.

`(37) Conversion Kit- The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

`(38) Detachable Magazine- The term `detachable magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm.

`(39) Fixed Magazine- The term `fixed magazine' means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm.

`(40) Folding or Telescoping Stock- The term `folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.

`(41) Forward Grip- The term `forward grip' means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.

`(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

`(43) Threaded Barrel- The term `threaded barrel' means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).'.


As someone else wrote, they are merely relatively modern ergonomic semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols that look scary to some people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. Wow! Only the government could come up with something
like that. Looks like OSHA or EPA regulations. My 1100 the way it is now couldn't hurt a fly. Now if I take it downstairs and saw the butt off the stock "walla" it's a dangerous assault weapon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. Wow, so you're against gun control...
OSHA, the EPA, and "the government" as well? Are you sure you're in the right place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #34
42. I deal with OSHA and EPA rules everyday at work
I am all for clean water and safety but at times the regulations are ridiculous. I'll give you an example a friend of mine owns an asphalt company, he bought a piece of ground to build a mechanics shop. The rules required him to make the shop handicap accessible and put in a $8000 sewage system even though none of his employees were handicapped and he wouldn't have customers at such a location. He ended up building one of those storage buildings. Here's an example from where I work, I pump water from the Ohio river and clean it up for use in our factory but even though it is much cleaner than the river we have to pay a $3500 fine for any water that is accidentally discharged to the river. We had to spend thousands of dollars for a sump to catch any water before it goes in to the river.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #42
50. Shocking! Appalling!
Fines for dumping into rivers? What is the world coming to? I'm sure we should just take the word of every factory owner that the water they're pumping back into the river is cleaner than what they took out, right? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #50
66. It is shocking and appalling, the EPA knows exactly where
any water that is discharged into the river comes from, they have a monitor on each effluent discharge in our plant that takes a sample every few minutes. The water I am talking about is taken out of the river, we reduce the turbidity levels where it is cleaner than the city water we drink. The only process we don't use is chlorination because it is not used for drinking. We have an overflow on the tank and if it overflows into the river we pay an automatic fine of $3500 plus so much for every gallon. That water is probably better than the water you drink every day because it is not chlorinated, chlorine is actually a pollutant you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #50
127. Did you read the post or are you into bureaucratic inflexibility? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #34
126. To push for gun control is to push the GOP agenda...
Know what the GOP agenda is? Defeating Democrats.

Don't you find it dreadful that the GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Center has so much sway within some Democratic Party "progressive" circles? In the terms of modern bureau-jive, that has to be a "win-win."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #31
40. Its an abomination.

It should have been laughed out of Congress, but instead it comes back in a new form every year or so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geomon666 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #31
65. Really? Your gun wouldn't hurt a fly? Well how about a human? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #25
125. 'b-36'. Wasn't that a bomber? Oh, wait, it still is (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
26. Im against all personal gun ownership - guess that makes me bad n/t
Edited on Thu Nov-13-08 12:19 AM by FreeState
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Farmall Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
74. Not bad, just ignorant of history
Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are all undefendable. If the gov't can strip the people of their last resort for redressing their complaints, they can strip any of the remaining rights at their will.


See, the 2nd was put in place so that if our goobermint ever becomes tyrannical, we can remove them via force if necessary. Without that option, we are no longer a democracy of, for and by the people, but a group of sheeple being led by a shephard who will slaughter those of his choosing at his will.

Recall that this was written by men who had just used their personal firearms to overthrow a tyrranical occupational government that refused to listen to their complaints.


There is no need to fear the law abiding gun owning citizen-criminals will always have guns, and they will always commit crimes with those guns, regardless of bans, legislation, or what the legislators say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #74
113. 
those who want to disarm us, forcing us to submit to violent criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #26
112. i find it ironic that someone would make a statement like that
and choose the name "freestate"


but hey...everyone is entitled to their opinion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #26
128. I know a lot of prohibitionists, but most aren't "bad"...
They just support bad -- and demonstrably counter-productive -- social policies.

It always amazes me when a "free" people are often the first to grab a bottle of Ol' Prohi off the shelf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
28. Here's how a country that's no longer plagued with mass shootings does it:
Edited on Thu Nov-13-08 12:23 AM by depakid
Granted it's a bit broader than the AWB:

The possession and use of firearms in Australia is governed by state laws which were partly aligned by the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (see below). Anyone wishing to buy, own, or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and be over the age of 18, although there are exceptions. In Queensland, unlicensed individuals may use firearms legally if the proper forms are filled out beforehand. Minors, with parental consent, can use, but not legally own, firearms under a minors' licence. Applicants for a firearms licence who wish to own a firearm must have a secure safe storage unit for their firearm/s. For category A, B and C firearms, this unit must either be bolted to the structure of a permanent building or have a weight over 150 kilograms. If the storage units is used for storing category D, H and R firearms, however, it must be bolted to a permanent building.

For every firearm, a purchaser must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit for each person has a mandatory 28 day delay before it is issued. In some states, such as Queensland, this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class, whilst in others, such as New South Wales, it is not. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a licence.

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states (eg QLD and NSW) allow an owner to store or borrow another owner's firearm of the same category; others (eg WA) do not.

Firearms categories

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:

* Category A: rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball guns.

* Category B: centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901.

* Category C: semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. (Restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and professional sporting shooters can own working Category C firearms)

* Category D: semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action/semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds (Category D Firearms are restricted to occupational shooters.)

* Category H: handguns including air pistols, deactivated handguns and firearms not exceeding 65 cm in total length. Target shooters can acquire handguns of .38" calibre or less.

(Participants in "approved" competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is not "approved" for the larger calibres, for unstated reasons. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols, and magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handgun collectors are exempt from the laws stated above.)


* Category R/E: restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, .50-calibre BMG weapons, etc. (Collectors in some states only, weapons must be comprehensively deactivated. Deactivated firearms are still subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as 'live' firearms in many states.)

Antique firearms can in some states be legally bought, owned (and, in some states, used) without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.

All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a license, so long as the firearm is registered.

Australia also has tight restrictions on air pistols and airsoft guns. Typically, airsoft guns are illegal for most purposes, although in some states exceptions have been made for Category A licence holders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
89. Doesn't sound very appealing to me.
Do they also limit what you can look at on the internet?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24645676...

Yeah, they're the "land of the free" alright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #28
115. They banned the internet too. 10K sites gone.. mindsets
are funny that way. Hope you have a good proxy or this site may be replaced with a happy little page that says you cant come here any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
30. Not a supporter but I know the answer. Semi automatic weapons that look scary.
But if kept in a legal fashion are no more dangerous than the ones that don't look as scary.

It's always been simple, punish criminal activity. If you want gun crime punished more, then punish criminals that use guns more. Because if someone shoots you with a shotgun, whether it had a handle or a butt on the other end doesn't really matter much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##
==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
35. Ooh, aren't you sassy?
"Since you are weapons experts" LOL, you go girl!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
38. Now do a post about Pit Bull haters
:rofl:

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #38
46. My brother has a pit bull and she is a sweet
heart, so don't don't hate all pit bulls because of a few bad ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #38
98. In North Florida I see a lot of well trained pit bulls...
With good training they are great dogs. The "rednecks" or "Florida Crackers" are skilled at training dogs. Most own firearms and are skilled at handling them too.

Well trained pit bulls and responsible gun owners are not all that dangerous unless you are somewhere you shouldn't be doing something you shouldn't be doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
49. Can it hold a clip of more than 7 or 8 rounds? Is it based on a military weapon?
does it have a longer range and is more accurate than a hand-held firearm? And was it or the weapon it was based on used in modern warfare? If a person broke into your house, which would you have near your bed, a good 9mm or .357, or and AK47 with a 30 round magazine? How about semi-auto magazine fed shotguns? Are they good for hunting say eagles? Why not a grenade launcher attached to your fully automatic HK USC with folding stock, maybe kill a whole herd of deer.


AM I close enough?

Now, my questions. Is an AK47 a good gun to hunt game with? How about an AR15? Any weapon by Uzi or HK? If you want to prove how good of a hunter you are, why not use a pistol or revolver, or bow?

These discussions always hurt my head, because those who want bigger and better guns always forget it only takes one bullet to kill someone, and assault based weaponry isn't good for duck hunting like a 12 gauge, but so so many claim it COULD be useful. (I don't know anyone who even eats duck).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #49
52. "I don't know who even eats duck"
The French. And strangely they are able to do so without owning a bunch of firearms. Fancy that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #52
130. I eat them. And I get them au-naturel with a shotgun using non-toxic shot (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #49
97. Some answers.
> Can it hold a clip of more than 7 or 8 rounds?
If it can hold 5, it can hold 10 or 20 or 30 since the rifle does not care how long the magazine is.

> Is it based on a military weapon?
Maybe. Of course, it is also possible that the military version is based on the civilian gun.

> Does it have a longer range and is more accurate than a hand-held firearm?
If by "hand-held firearm" you mean handgun, then of course it does since it is a rifle.

> And was it or the weapon it was based on used in modern warfare?
Hopefully. The ergonomics are nice. Ugly to look at, but nice to hold.

> If a person broke into your house, which would you have near your bed, a good 9mm or .357, or and AK47 with a 30 round magazine?
Personal preference, currently it is the 9mm as the AK47 is in the gun safe. The AR15 with a 20 or 30 round mag is a better indoor gun than the AK47 due to less penetration though walls if you miss your target.

> How about semi-auto magazine fed shotguns? Are they good for hunting say eagles?
Quite nice to shoot according to my coworker who has one. Just as good for hunting as any other type of shotgun since it is limited to the same number of rounds in the magazine as all other types of shotguns when hunting.

> Why not a grenade launcher attached to your fully automatic HK USC with folding stock, maybe kill a whole herd of deer.
Why would you try to hunt large game with handgun ammo? (Grenade launchers can only be mounted to rifles, submachine-guns are too small.) Grenade launchers are already regulated by fed law, as are the grenades.

> Is an AK47 a good gun to hunt game with?
Yes, it is, for game the size of white tail deer and smaller. It is about the same as a .30-30.

> How about an AR15?
Yes, it is, for game the size of coyotes and smaller.

> Any weapon by Uzi?
Not sure. If Uzi makes rifles then, yes.

> or HK?
Yes, although HK rifles tend to be rather heavy.

> If you want to prove how good of a hunter you are, why not use a pistol or revolver, or bow?
Most pistols and revolvers are not capable of clean kills.

> These discussions always hurt my head, because those who want bigger and better guns always forget it only takes one bullet to kill someone, and assault based weaponry isn't good for duck hunting like a 12 gauge, but so so many claim it COULD be useful. (I don't know anyone who even eats duck).
"Assault-based weaponry" is great for hunting, great for competition, great for self defense. You are missing out on the duck!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #49
129. Head-hurting almost always follows drinking a bottle of "Ol' Prohi":
I'll deal with your hunting questions: I don't know about an AK-47, but the AR-15 is becoming the new hunting weapon, esp. when chambered with somewhat larger rounds like the Rem .260. They are ergonomically superior to, as accurate as, and milder to shoot than a regular bolt-action deer rifle. (Actually, they are better fits, IMO, than using the Rem 742, a powerful semi-auto deer rifle.)

I don't know about the Uzi or HK -- in their semi-auto configuration, they would seem to be an self-defense weapons, though I choose a magnum revolver.

"Why not use a pistol or revolver, or bow?" Well, quite a few folks do use heavy caliber revolvers (few use pistols because semi-autos are not normally chambered for rounds heavy enough to kill North American big game). These include the .357 magnum, the .44 magnum, .454. Casull, and others. I choose not to hunt in this manner because of the ranges I encounter. Same for the bow. "Proof" of a good hunter is one who takes game with a minimum of suffering to the animal, recovers the animal and makes use of it in accordance with law.

Going "macho" and trying to prove you are a good hunter, be it with weapons you are not comfortable with, firing weapons at ranges too far, or shooting for the head instead of the larger heart/lung area, is the kind of thing rejected by most sportsmen and -women.

I admit that I am intrigued by hand-gun hunting because of the portability of the arm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #49
144. These discussions also hurt my head
seeing how people read the 2nd amendment and try to interpret it as protecting our right to hunt ducks, rather than own firearms for our own defense (against criminals and potentially against our own government).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
59. One last point
REAL MEN hunt with knives, they level the playing field. :think:

Our Native American brethren didn't know what guns were until the White man brought them to the Continent. They hunted for SURVIVAL with bow and arrow and knives of stone. And buffalo are some big-ass animals to hunt.

How come those who think guns are so important to hunting don't want to emulate the greatest hunters of our history?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #59
72. The native americans
often drove hundreds of buffalo over cliffs because the did not have the abililty to hunt them individually. Remember with the coming of the white man came the horse and the gun. Before then the native population hunted buffalo on foot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #59
81. What happened to all those Native Americans?
Did they retire and move to Miami? Where did they all go?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #81
100. They opened up casinos and sell cigarettes..
Seminoles Today

The opening of the first "smoke shop" (offering discount, tax free tobacco products) in 1977 gave the Seminoles a stable enterprise which continues, even today, to bring substantial revenue into Tribal coffers. The opening of the Tribe's first high-stake bingo hall in Hollywood, shortly after community activist James Billie's first election as Tribal Council Chairman, was a national first. The success of Seminole gaming against legal challenges opened the door for dozens of other American Indian tribes to follow suit. Today, gaming is, by far, the number one economic enterprise in all of Indian Country.

The years under James Billie's direction have seen the Seminole Tribe of Florida mature both politically and financially. The addition of two new reservations (Tampa and Immokalee) brought Seminole federal trust holdings in Florida to more than 90,000 acres. The opening of a new hotel (Sheraton Tampa East), entry into the lucrative citrus market, opening of the new Ahfachkee Indian School, development of the Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum and Kissimmee-Billie Swamp Safari tourist attraction and the expansion of the profitable smoke shops and gaming enterprises have brought the Seminoles closer to their stated goal of self-reliance. In 1992, The Tribe collected a settlement on the land claim it had filed in 1947.

http://www.seminoletribe.com/history/seminoles_today.sh...

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. - Bon Jovi's "Livin' on a Prayer" blares from the speakers, above the din of slot machines and poker chips and an onslaught of neon. There is a couple kissing in an outdoor cafe and a crowd watching football on 70 plasma-screen TVs. A steady stream filters into the Council Oak restaurant, where steaks sell for $40 and bottled water is set in wine chillers beside each table.

It is Monday at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino, and the Seminole tribe will reap millions tonight - not a single dime of which will go to the state of Florida.

This massive resort opened three years ago, and because it operates on tribal land, no compact from the state was needed and none of the tribe's estimated $1.3 billion in annual resort casino proceeds are paid to the state.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles... /

Good for the Indians!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #59
87. Ban Assault Bows Now!
*ducks*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #59
131. Oh, why stop there?
REAL MEN drive whole herds of buffalo off cliffs and let gravity do the killing. But kinda wasteful, doncha think?

Knives, spears, atlatls, even clubs are all technologies which tilted the playing field. Certainly, you would deny Indians horses (to get close to "big-ass animals") since the Spanish brought them into the New World. And you would prevent the routine slash & burn of some Native Americans who both farmed and created the artificial "edge" necessary to pump up deer concentrations, yet another tilt in the kilt.

I find it fascinating that when manhood comes into the discussion about hunting, those who despair of hunting (with guns or otherwise), and its unfairness to animals are so quick to handicap the hunter with weapons which are quite likely to end in even more slow deaths and mistreatment of the environment. Which is more important? Ecological preservation or getting your spurs in a "macho" discussion?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JonQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #59
145. And those real men
did they abstain from firearms after they had the choice? Seems to me like they didn't lack firearms because they wanted to be "real men" they did it because they didn't know how to make the things themselves. Then the moment gun powder based weapons became available immediately went over to those, and iron tools and horses, etc whenever they could.

I guess you're right, we could learn from them and immediately buy the most accurate, powerful and effective weapons we can possibly get our hands on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
64. The reality is an assault weapon is whatever federal law says it is.
Edited on Thu Nov-13-08 02:24 AM by TexasObserver
Any definition except the one under federal law is opinion, not fact.

Because for purposes of any discussion regarding assault weapons, it is the federal law definition that matters.

In reality, many "assault weapons" are weapons designed to be perceived as an assault weapon, in appearance but not in function.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
67. Can anyone here tell me what a "barrel shroud" is?
Lets ask one of the "experts"... shall we?


Carolyn McCarthy "explains" the "assault weapons" ban...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo


:eyes: :rofl:








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #67
101. What ever it is it is bad,and nasty and enables...
criminals and gangs to kill cops more efficiently just like the dreaded pistol grip and the bayonet lug.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #101
106. Got any data to prove your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #106
108. Oops, forgot to add the sarcasm tag. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. I should have know better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
68. For Me Anything That is Automatic/Semi-automatics should be Banned
Why... because with either weapon one person could kill many in a short period of time.

If you hope to offset the government's military force, you are living in lala land. I could understand such an argument back in the 1700-1800's but today? There is no need nor is it an infringement to regulate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #68
116. search "tatp" on youtube.. then ban the ingredients, oh wait
house hold shit used to blowup Israelis in pizza parlors and Britons on buses. Available in your local grocery market. Where there is a will there is a way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raimius Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #68
143. The ability to kill in a short time is a poor metric
I could easily kill dozens with my Subaru or a home-made bomb, but no one here is advocating the banning of scary looking cars or 20lb propane cylinders!
My AR-15 is for sporting purposes and currently locked in a bunker (no joke). Why do you want to ban it, again?

Let's look at this from a different perspective:

Cost/benefit of another AWB
Cost: several million dollars in law-enforcement, the criminalization of nonviolent citizens, the reduction of sport shooting and hunting (although many hunters would simply switch firearms), a reduction in the ability of the average citizen to make their own choices...(democratic control of congress...)
Benefit: Forcing criminals to commit a crime by using an illegal firearm or use a different firearm to commit the same violent crime. Overall crime reduction: zero
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
69. nwmhtt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
73. Q: What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic assault weapons?
Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features:

A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.
A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat.
A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed.
A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm.
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.
A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmg257 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Q. What is the difference between semi-auto assault weapons, and arms secured by the Constitution?
Edited on Thu Nov-13-08 08:20 PM by jmg257
Nothing, as the 1st is a subset of the 2nd.

"Sportsmen" or not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. Q: What have the courts said about the federal assault weapons ban?
A: The law has been challenged in court by the extremist gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), which fought against passage of the assault weapons ban in 1994 and continues to oppose it to this day. However, federal courts have rejected these legal challenges.

In October 2000, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge brought by notorious assault weapon manufacturer Navegar, Inc., after the case had been dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Circuit Court had rejected Navegar's arguments that the statute exceeded the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and constituted an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The NRA brought its own lawsuit against the statute in Michigan federal court, but was dismissed by the court for lack of standing to sue. Assault weapon maker Olympic Arms continued the suit, which was dismissed by a federal judge in March of 2000. The appeal, argued by an NRA attorney, was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in April of 2002.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, representing itself as well as several public health and law enforcement organizations, filed amicus curiae briefs in both cases supporting the statute.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmg257 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #79
90. A. "the USSC refused to hear a challenge." BUT, In US vs Miller, the USSC stated...
Edited on Thu Nov-13-08 09:57 PM by jmg257
"...
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of {the Militia} the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
...
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
...
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. "
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.ht...


Compare the USSC's description of what IS secured by the 2nd, to a military-style semi-auto weapon, which obviously has GREAT relationship to the preservation and efficiency of an effective militia and are in quite common use and could easily contribute to the common defense. Clearly those arms are protected...OUR freedom depends on it (a well regulated Militia being necessary for a free State, and the people being part of the Militia).


Interesting to also note that, according to this ruling, IF Miller had been carrying a BAR instead of a saw-off shotgun, the NFA sections regulating full-auto military weapons would have been ruled unconstitutional, as those weapons also clearly met the critieria the USSC layed out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmg257 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #79
94. A#2. In Heller vs DC, the USSC also added a few key points that would go against an AWB, &
...that could serve to back up their decision in Miller:

- that the operative clause of the Second Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny,
-that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
-that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).
...
Therefore, the District of Columbia's handgun ban is unconstitutional, as it "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #73
93. Allow me to respond to those points.
Edited on Thu Nov-13-08 10:24 PM by aikoaiko
I find the Bradycampaign to about as honest as the NRA. Both will lie, distort, and exaggerate to win their argument.

About hi-cap magazine: Sure, its true that hi-cap mags allow a shooter to shoot more than 10 rounds. But thats true for a good guy trying to defend himself as it is for a badguy. If you outlaw hi-cap mags, then only the bad guys have them. Police use hi-cap mags because their pistols and rifles (like the pistols and rifles own by civlians) were designed to use them and they are useful.

About folding/collapsible stocks: I like them for two reasons. An adjustable stock custom fits different shooters and it allows me to store it better in a car or trunk. Nothing nefarious.

Pistol grip on shotgun/rifle: Pistol grips on longguns make the firearms easier to handle for legitimate shoulder based aimed firing. Its just modern ergonomics. This firing from the hip thing is just weird. Its so weird because if a bad guy were firing on a crowd, he would likely miss more if he shot from the hip than shouldering the firearm and aiming.

About barrel shrouds: Ah, "things that go up". Seriously, I like having a barrel shroud to help me from getting burned if I accidently brush up along the barrel. Barrels get hot even after non-rapid shooting. Is it so wrong to want to not get burned?

About flash suppressors: They are helpful for nighttime self-defense shootings to limit the flash that could shrink your pupils when you need them wide open. But the Brady Campaign is correct that thye don't really help hunters much since most hunting happens from sunrise to sunset.

About sound suppressors: These actually do help hunters and all other shooters. A lot of shooters would still have their hearing if they had sound suppressors on their weapons. Shooting ranges could be more neighborhood friendly if they were used.

About bayonet mounts on barrels: Not only do they not serve much of a sporting purpose, but they are not even used in crime.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #93
133. Thanks for clearing up the GOP-Brady Center propaganda. Some more...
In Texas and other states, it is legal to hunt feral hogs at night on private land (the same goes for many varmints). Here, a flash suppressor is useful for those firing multiple rounds in infested areas. Further, various night-scopes are legal as well.

One thing the various game & wildlife agencies should do is follow the European example of REQUIRING silencers in the hunting field as this accessory is believed to minimize disruption (by reducing noise) to various species.

One of the stupendous myths promulgated by the GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Center is that components on semi-auto carbines enhance firing from the hip. This is absurd. These components are specifically designed to provide better control and accuracy when firing from the SHOULDER. Even old FBI films showing agents training with the hoary Thompson sub-machine gun reveal that the agents are all SHOULDER-FIRING the weapon.

But at least the Brady's share one thing with me: a like for Edward G. Robinson films.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #73
95. You've been had by the repubs at the Brady Campaign...
A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed.

Is THAT why high-end bolt-action target competition rifles have pistol grips?



For "spray firing from the hip"? Hmmm.

Pistol grips are more ergonomic for firing from the shoulder, based on human forearm anatomy; they are harder to shoot from hip level than traditional straight-stocked rifles. Try it yourself with a hammer.

A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

Umm, all rifles have forestocks to prevent you from burning your hands on the barrel. Those on "assault weapons" are no different in that regard than those on regular rifles--either wooden or plastic forends.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm.

BS on multiple counts. A flash suppressor is extremely useful on a defensive firearm; the purpose isn't to conceal the shooter, it is to keep the muzzle blast out of the shooter's line of sight. It is also helpful on a .223 target gun, as the muzzle flash can be annoying even in the daytime. I've fired a 16" barreled .223 with and without flash suppressors, and the latter is far more pleasant to shoot.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.

Ummm, the barrel is threaded to accomodate a muzzle brake or flash suppressor, not a "silencer."

Here's a semiautomatic "assault weapon" (a Browning) with a threaded muzzle...and a muzzle brake. Duh.



A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose.

...but may have collector interest. And as far as I am aware, the number of people murdered with mounted bayonets each year is zero.

A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

"Assault weapons" in hunting configuration have hunting-size magazines. "Assault weapons" in target or defensive configurations have target or defensive sized magazines, just like any other firearm.

And a final observation on the utter stupidity of the "assault weapon" fraud:





Same gun, different stocks. Changing the stock doesn't make a small-caliber, non-automatic civilian rifle more deadly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #95
110. And actually, silencers aren't illegal, just heavily regulated
Takes an application, $200, a background check, and local LEO sign-off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
75. Do you know how Loki kept his head?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uben Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
78. Any weapon pointed at me!
No doubt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. Exactly. Ban them all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-13-08 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
84. A gun that "looks scary"
I'm not an Assault Weapon Ban supporter, btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russ1943 Donating Member (405 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
102. An experts opinion
The term assault weapon wasnt created by those politicians or gun control organizations that wanted (and still want) to ban them.

An "expert" whose opinion actually carries some weight on this matter, certainly isn't a bunch of gun zealots posting on this or other gun boards but;

Joseph P. Tartaro

the Executive Editor of Gun Week Magazine and president of The Second Amendment Foundation, (a pioneer in defense of the right to keep and bear arms). A prominent leader of the right to bear arms movement, has acknowledged that the idea of calling semi-automatic versions of military small arms "'assault weapons" did not,

I repeat,

NOT

originate with either anti-gun activists, media or politicians. It was a marketing strategy by importers, manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate and market sales of selected "exotica"--firearms which did not have a traditional appearance. The fact that even some of the semi-automatic versions of the military-style firearms retained their bayonet lugs, extended pistol grips, "banana-clip" magazines, folding stocks and even threading for silencers and muzzle brakes has been used to erroneously define "assault weapons." But these design features were part of the Walter Mittyesque "romance" of what some like to call "ugly guns."

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm

Reading posts on this board you would think the Assualt Weapons Ban meant semi auto rifles only.
Seldom if ever is the fact that most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.

An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and
Gun Violence, 1994-2003
Report to the National Institute of Justice,
United States Department of Justice
(Executive Summary)
By
Christopher S. Koper
(Principal Investigator)
With
Daniel J. Woods and Jeffrey A. Roth
June 2004
Jerry Lee Center of Criminology
University of Pennsylvania
effect aw_exec2004.pdf

3814 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #102
104. Ah, that old (and long-debunked) canard...
Edited on Fri Nov-14-08 10:12 AM by benEzra
Did you see Tartaro's "citation" for that claim?

(10) See SHOTGUN NEWS and other firearms publications beginning in the early 1980s.

Shotgun News, at the time, was a tabloid-format weekly of mostly classified ads posted by individual gunsmiths/collectors or mom-and-pop businesses--and he can't even seem to cite an instance ("see half a decade's worth of WEEKLY classified ads, or maybe some other magazine, but trust me on this"). Maybe he recollected accurately, and maybe he didn't, but it looks like he pulled the "citation" out of his posterior, and if he's a lawyer you'd think he'd own a copy of the MLA Style Guide.

He wrote that article in 1995; Josh Sugarmann had already been popularizing the term in the gun-ban literature for nearly a decade by that point. Color me skeptical.

Another passage from his article contradicts much of what he implied in the other cite:

First, the term "assault weapon" is erroneously applied. Assault weapons are by military procurement definition "selective, fire (full auto continuous or burst fire plus autoloading) arms of sub caliber." Since fully automatic and selective firearms have been severely restricted, taxed and licensed--and owners screened by local and federal law enforcement--since 1934, real assault weapons have been strictly regulated by federal as well as state laws for sixty years. The firearms which are targeted by recent laws and current legislative proposals are mostly semi-automatic (requiring a single trigger pull for each shot) or, in the case of the Street-Sweeper type shotgun, functional revolvers. They are indistinguishable in operation from other semi-automatic firearms used for self-defense, pest and vermin control, sport hunting and recreational shooting since the turn of the century.

He flatly contradicts himself here, and also conflates the term "assault weapon" with "assault rifle" (Sturmgehwer); the definition he cites is the DOD definition of assault rifle. And the National Firearms Act restricts assault rifles, not "assault weapons."

It was Sugarmann's 1988 screed that popularized the term "assault weapon", though it is possible he lifted it from an obscure antecedent. I had personally never heard it until it was used by the proponents of a ban circa 1989. The fact remains though that in 2007, "assault weapon" is a term used to demonize popular civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, or firearms that exceed 6 or 10 rounds capacity, and not any sort of marketing term.

I also noticed this, which shows that he really doesn't know much about firearms at all (which belies your "expert" claim):

The ballistic data for the .30-06 and M1 carbine cartridges, the .45 ACP used in World War II and Korea, and the .308 (7.62 X 39) M-14 individual infantry arm used by some units in Vietnam are substantially more powerful than the 5.56mm (.223) U.S. small arms cartridge of the M16 or 5.45 X 39mm Soviet Russian cartridge fired in current AK47 military small arms and their semi-automatic civilian derivatives.

The M14 was 7.62x51mm/.308 Winchester (a full power rifle cartridge), NOT 7.62x39mm (.30 Russian Short, reduced-power rifle round used in the SKS, AK-47, civilian AKM derivatives, and the Ruger Mini Thirty).

The .45 ACP is a pistol cartridge, not a rifle cartridge, and is NOT more powerful than small-caliber rifles like .223/5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm.

5.45x39 is the AK-74 cartridge, NOT that of the AK-47.

In short, he apparently isn't terribly familiar with firearms, and appears to be talking out of his posterior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russ1943 Donating Member (405 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #104
114. Neither canard nor long debunked.

Your prolific and often irrelevant posts may have given you some inflated sense of importance here in the gungeon but your claim to have debunked a well known reputable expert on your side of the issue, dont mean shit to me or any thinking person. You dont provide any substance that the words of the author of Revolt in Cincinnati the frequently cited history of the reform movement that rocked the NRA, President of the 2nd Amendment Foundation, executive editor of Gun Week who appears frequently on national television and radio shows and whose editorials are widely published


isn't terribly familiar with firearms, and appears to be talking out of his posterior.



A nationally known author, writer and leader vs a guy who spews posts in the gungeon, tough decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #114
134. Sorry, not tough for me. I'll go with Ben Ezra on this one.
I think some visitors to the "gungeon" are just dying to see Ben Ezra debunked. But first, one must refute what he has said.

BTW, most editors (if you haven't noticed) routinely make public corrections in their publications. Some, like Jim Zumbo, make corrections on a cosmic scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #114
135. OK, show me, of the issues I raised, where I'm wrong and he's right...
Edited on Sat Nov-15-08 09:55 PM by benEzra
Does he, or does he not, quote ANY examples of the term "assault weapon" prior to 1988? No.

Does he, or does he not, conflate the term "assault weapon" with NFA Title 2/Class III restricted automatic weapons? He does.

Is the .45 ACP more, or less, powerful than .223 Remington and 7.62x39mm? He says less.

.45 ACP: 450 ft-lb
.223 Remington: 1200 ft-lb
7.62x39mm: 1500 ft-lb
.30-06 deer rifle: 2900 ft-lb

Tell me, is he right, or am I?

He says 5.45x39mm is used in current AK-47's. I say that's the AK-74 cartridge, and that he conflating the -47 with the -74.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74

The AK-74 is a 5.45 mm assault rifle developed in the early 1970s in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Kalashnikov.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

The AK-47 (contraction of Russian: Автомат Калашникова образца 1947 года; Avtomat Kalashnikova obraztsa 1947 goda; "Kalashnikov's automatic rifle model of year 1947") is a 7.62 mm assault rifle developed in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Kalashnikov in two versions: the fixed stock AK-47 and the AKS-47 (SSkladnoy priklad) variant equipped with an underfolding metal shoulder stock.

Is he right, or am I?

Mr. Tartaro is an excellent writer. By profession, I assume he's a lawyer, and he has done a lot of good for civil liberties. But he is not an expert on so-called "assault weapons" (or at least he did not in 1995, when the above was written); it appears his background is older-style firearms, not modern ones.

Again, you tell me---in the above, where is he right, and where am I wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-15-08 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #135
138. Oops, typo---he says .45 is more powerful than .223/7.62x39, I said it's not. It's not. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-17-08 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #138
142. russ1943 are you there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russ1943 Donating Member (405 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-08 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #135
148. You've debunked, nothing.
U posted; Does he, or does he not, quote ANY examples of the term "assault weapon" prior to 1988? No.

What does this question about a specific time frame, have to do with my post, his article or your claim? ?????
Answer; NOTHING You debunked nothing and provided no information that would indicate the claim hes made was in any way a canard.


U posted; Does he, or does he not, conflate the term "assault weapon" with NFA Title 2/Class III restricted automatic weapons? He does.
(You had previously posted ;)
He flatly contradicts himself here, and also conflates the term "assault weapon" with "assault rifle" (Sturmgehwer); the definition he cites is the DOD definition of assault rifle.

No he doesnt conflate assault weapon with either NFA Title 2/Class III restricted automatic weapons or assault rifle.

Joseph P. Tartaros Law Review Article I linked, has two major sections l & II.
Section II has alphabetized headings A thru P.
My post specifically was lifted from a completely different section, the lead paragraph headed B. Mortgaging Rights.
B. Mortgaging Rights The idea of calling semi-automatic versions of military small arms "'assault weapons" did not originate with either anti-gun activists, media or politicians. The term "assault weapon" was first corrupted by importers, manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of selected "exotica"--firearms which did not have a traditional appearance.<10> The fact that even some of the semi-automatic versions of the military-style firearms retained their bayonet lugs, extended pistol grips, "banana-clip" magazines, folding stocks and even threading for silencers and muzzle brakes has been used to erroneously define "assault weapons."<11> But these design features were part of the Walter Mittyesque "romance" of what some like to call "ugly guns." All of these features are merely cosmetic and there is little if any evidence that their inclusion on a gun has been essential to some specific criminal use."
(This was the entire point of my post)

From the 3rd paragraph under a different heading A. Factual Evidence, you have copied;
First, the term "assault weapon" is erroneously applied. Assault weapons are by military procurement definition "selective, fire (full auto continuous or burst fire plus autoloading) arms of sub caliber." Since fully automatic and selective firearms have been severely restricted, taxed and licensed--and owners screened by local and federal law enforcement--since 1934, real assault weapons have been strictly regulated by federal as well as state laws for sixty years.

Here, he has clearly referenced and in this paragraph continues to discuss further, the military procurement definition saying those are .real assault weapons have been strictly regulated by federal as well as state laws for sixty years

U posted; National Firearms Act restricts assault rifles, not "assault weapons."
I dont claim to know all the weaponry restricted or covered under the NFA but to say it restricts assault rifles, not assault weapons is at the very least lacking in clarity.
I can see ATF has a simple PowerPoint site with pictures, a publication prepared by the Firearms Technology Branch to help you in identifying weapons classified as firearms (including destructive devices) under Title 26. This may also be cited as the National Firearms Act. It clearly show items (such as pistols) that arent assault rifles. http://www.atf.gov/docs/Identification_of_Firearms_pt1....

An FAQ on the NFA states; (M1) The types of firearms that must be registered in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record are defined in the NFA and 27 CFR, Part 479. What are some examples? Some examples of the types of firearms that must be registered are: Machine guns; The frames or receivers of machine guns; Any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting weapons into machine guns; Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun; Any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person; Silencers and any part designed and intended for fabricating a silencer; Short-barreled rifles; Short-barreled shotguns; Destructive devices; and, "Any other weapon." http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m1


The terms assault rifle nor assault weapon even exists in their general information as to the types of firearms that must be registered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #148
149. Because...
U posted; Does he, or does he not, quote ANY examples of the term "assault weapon" prior to 1988? No.

What does this question about a specific time frame, have to do with my post, his article or your claim? ?????

Because it was in 1988 that Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center started a media blitz about "assault weapons" (as he termed them), intentionally conflating them with NFA Title 2/Class III restricted assault rifles in order to take advantage of public confusion over machineguns vs. non-automatic civilian guns.

If the term was not in widespread circulation prior to Sugarmann's screed, then Tartaro is incorrect.

No he doesnt conflate assault weapon with either NFA Title 2/Class III restricted automatic weapons or assault rifle.

U posted; National Firearms Act restricts assault rifles, not "assault weapons."

I dont claim to know all the weaponry restricted or covered under the NFA but to say it restricts assault rifles, not assault weapons is at the very least lacking in clarity.

It lacks clarity only if you forget what an "assault rifle" is. An assault rifle is a Title II "machinegun" under the NFA, by definition. An "assault weapon" is a Title I civilian gun, by definition.

Look again at Tartaro's own definition:

"Assault weapons are by military procurement definition 'selective, fire (full auto continuous or burst fire plus autoloading) arms of sub caliber.'"

ALL assault rifles are selective-fire, by definition, and as such all are "machineguns" as defined in the National Firearms Act.

NO "assault weapons" are selective-fire, by definition; they are non-automatic, NFA Title I civilian arms. They are neither Title II Machineguns, nor Title II Destructive Devices, nor Title II Any Other Weapons. They are Title I civilian guns.

Tartaro recognized that distinction very clearly, and then conflated the terms.

The terms assault rifle nor assault weapon even exists in their general information as to the types of firearms that must be registered.

That's because "assault rifle" is a historical and DoD definition, not a NFA legal designation. The NFA calls them "machineguns," which are indeed listed in the act. The only definitions of "assault weapon" that have ever been included in Federal law referred exclusively to Title I civilian weapons, and specifically excluded Title II firearms.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalis...

FYI, the pistols restricted as Title II under the NFA are Destructive Devices if over .50 caliber, Any Other Weapon if smoothbore, or Machineguns if selective-fire or easily converted to full auto. None of these are "assault weapons."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-08 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #149
150. benEzra, Like Heracles you never tire!
:thumbsup:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #150
152. At the moment, I feel more Thomas Hockenberry than Heracles...
Edited on Wed Nov-19-08 11:10 AM by benEzra


and am a little tired of shoveling against the BS tide. You'd think that after twenty years of this BS, the basics of Federal firearms law would be a little more widely understood. And the NFA has only been on the books for 74 years, so the MSM should notice it any day now... But we have made a great deal of progress since the early 1990's, and I am an optimist.

BTW, this is me, according to my wife... :rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-14-08 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
111. Obviously any mechanical item which discharges a projectile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jun 26th 2019, 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC