Who ordered themselves a new assault weapon yet?

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I can't believe it is 1:02am and I haven't ordered myself an arsenal of assault weapons yet. Damn it. I feel so unsafe. I need to have enough weaponry to kill as many people as I can in as little time as possible. In theory of course. Maybe, just maybe, as long as the blessed republicans are in charge I can sue for my second ammendment right to keep and bear a thermo-nuclear device. That'll make me feel safe. If everyone had themselves a thermo-nuclear device, them criminals would think twice about ever setting foot in my neighborhood. And if they did, we'd blow their commie ass to kingdom come! YEE-HAA!!!

[Pumpy Tudors]

The hell?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Just ordered mine from AMAZON.COM , ordered under their super savers package and I should be getting it in a few days. Can't wait to bag a desert rabbit with it.

[stevew]

Man, i just applyed the bayonette to my deer rifle. Fuck shooting them this year, im gonna carve some doe up.

[Glengoyne]

Not in the spirit of this thread, but not many of those who post here would be able to tell the difference between the rifles that could have been purchased before and after the ban. That is how little difference this bill made.

[Franklinnoble]

Who ordered themselves a new copy of The Elements of Style yet?

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Well, since I believe nobody needs a gun which can shoot 30 clips per squeeze of the trigger, it really doesn't matter to me whether it's automatic, semiautomatic, or whatever.

Plus, it's not like nobody has ever turned a semi-auto weapon into a fully automatic one ever. :-)

[mattwakeman]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Not in the spirit of this thread, but not many of those who post here would be able to tell the difference between the rifles that could have been purchased before and after the ban. That is how little difference this bill made.

Sorry but is this supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?

[Joe]

I bought an AK

[Bee]

I already have most of the ones on the banned list (grandfathered in), but I might take a look and see if there's anything I want to add to my collection.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm just waiting for the inevitable price drop.

[Icy]

I won't ever underestand the USA goberments double moral and what is right or wrong for them. I guess they don't know it either.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by Icy

I won't ever underestand the USA goberments double moral and what is right or wrong for them. I guess they don't know it either.

The double standard is easy to understand. You get donations from the gun groups and they want you to allow them to sell any type of gun that they can. You vote to allow the sale of the guns, but you still don't want people bringing these guns to your political rallies, or anywhere near you in general...

[The Afoci]

Ban swearing. Then only criminals will swear and the children will be safe.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Who ordered themselves a new copy of The Elements of Style yet?

I've still got my old copy of Strunk and White. Why would I need a new one?

SI

[SackAttack]

For what it's worth, California's gun control laws are, and have been, more stringent than the federal regulations for some time now, so AFAIK, nothing's changed in the Golden State. Your mileage is gonna vary, obviously.

[CamEdwards]

Big John,

It's people like you who ensure that I will have a job for a long, long time. Keep up the good work!

[stevew]

Man, i cant wait till i can pick up an extra AK at Walmart. Going to all these gun shows and buying stuff out of trunks and soldier of fortune is starting to get annoying.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Again, I wouild say if you need a gun that shoots 25-50 rounds per squeeze just to protect yourself or go hunting...

...aim better!

[CamEdwards]

no offense, but I would say if you HAVE a gun that shoots 25-50 rounds per squeeze of the trigger, you're either breaking the law or one of the rare Americans with a permit to own one from the BATF.

For the last time: this ban had nothing to do with fully automatic firearms. It did not allow AK-47's and Uzi's back on the street, because they're seperately covered under a 1989 importation ban. It did not bring back the TEC-9, because the company that owned the TEC-9 is no longer in business.

It did not legalize higher caliber firearms. It did not legalize firearms with greater range or velocity. It did not even make large capacity magazines legal again, because those manufactured pre-ban were still legal.

There's been a ton of misinformation about what this law did and what effect it will have. Yes, I work for NRAnews.com, but I'm also well aware of the law and it's effects.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

no offense, but I would say if you HAVE a gun that shoots 25-50 rounds per squeeze of the trigger, you're either breaking the law or one of the rare Americans with a permit to own one from the BATF.

For the last time: this ban had nothing to do with fully automatic firearms. It did not allow AK-47's and Uzi's back on the street, because they're seperately covered under a 1989 importation ban. It did not bring back the TEC-9, because the company that owned the TEC-9 is no longer in business.

It did not legalize higher caliber firearms. It did not legalize firearms with greater range or velocity. It did not even make large capacity magazines legal again, because those manufactured pre-ban were still legal.

There's been a ton of misinformation about what this law did and what effect it will have. Yes, I work for NRAnews.com, but I'm also well aware of the law and it's effects.

Wow, he just pwned Jesse the Ewok bad.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

There's been a ton of misinformation about what this law did and what effect it will have. Yes, I work for NRAnews.com, but I'm also well aware of the law and it's effects.

Exactly.

From what I've read, what the expiration of this bill that has everybody up in arms means is the you can now put a bayonette or a flash dampener on the end of the same gun that was legal last week. There may be more to it than that, but I don't think it's much.

[Craptacular]

Will this affect my ability to purchase Sheryl Crow albums?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Craptacular

Will this affect my ability to purchase Sheryl Crow albums?

If I see one more gosh darn moron buy her CDs than I'm gittin' my gun.

SI

[Fritz]

oh no, now the rampage of criminal bayonetting will begin with the death toll no doubt quadrupling due the flash suppresor advantage of guns that "look dangerous. (assault weapons)"

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Fritz

oh no, now the rampage of criminal bayonetting will begin with the death toll no doubt quadrupling due the flash suppresor advantage of guns that "look dangerous. (assault weapons)"

Here is my question, is it really that hard to make a law that makes "illegal" semi-automatic versions of assult rifles (or at least put them a special class thatrequires a greater license), or is this just another way the gun lobby keeps any gun control law weak?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Here is my question, is it really that hard to make a law that makes "illegal" semi-automatic versions of assult rifles (or at least put them a special class thatrequires a greater license), or is this just another way the gun lobby keeps any gun control law weak?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just having a hard time understanding your question. You're asking if there's an easy way to ban all semi-automatic versions of assault rifles?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Yes, I work for NRAnews.com, but I'm also well aware of the law and it's effects.

Oh, come on Cam. Analyzing the "effects" of any law is, as I am sure you know, a completely subjective task. Any statement of said effects is going to be colored by your opinions going in. To claim such effects as "fact" is ludicrous. Any statements you make about the "effects" of gun control laws are biased by definition.

Not that I am criticizing you for that. Quite the opposite, you know your facts, present clear, logical arguments, and tend to remain civil about a topic that often inflames passions and gets people lobbing nonsensical insults. This is especially admirable considering we can infer this is a topic you are passionate about.

Still, knowing when a law was passed, and knowing the crime statistics and gun use/sales in the time period following does NOT prove a causal relationship between the law and those facts. You believe (in fact, are probably certain) that one causes the other - but that is at least in part because you went in wanting to believe so - the aforementioned subjectivity.

The net result of all this is that you do not indeed KNOW the effects of any law.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Here is my question, is it really that hard to make a law that makes "illegal" semi-automatic versions of assult rifles (or at least put them a special class thatrequires a greater license), or is this just another way the gun lobby keeps any gun control law weak?

I am not seeing the problem with "assault weapons." All the features identified in the now expired law had more visual impact than anything else.

The ONE feature of a weapon, rate of fire, that might be meaningful was only address in a sideways fashion through magazine limitations. But since many magazines are of the detachable box variety, it does not matter [edit: well, matter much]. Even a bolt action rifle with an internal magazine can be fast to reload.

The "problem" is that firearms are designed to be efficient. So you have a machine that is very good at what it is desinged to do (in this case push a projecile).

Unless you are prepared to ban all guns or semi automatic weapons or magazines I don't know that you will see a meaningful impact. [edit: by impact, I am not predicting either a positive or negative impact. Just something that will move the statistics]

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just having a hard time understanding your question. You're asking if there's an easy way to ban all semi-automatic versions of assault rifles?

Basically, yes.

[CamEdwards]

okay. the answer to your question is no. There really is no easy way to ban all semi-automatic versions of assault rifles.

I'll give you the long version later tonight, but be prepared to fall asleep reading it.

[Glengoyne]

I'm not sure how one would do that(ban all semi-automatic versions of assault rifles). What is the difference between a semi-automatic assault rifle, and a semi-automatic rifle? Is there no difference? Is the difference just cosmetic? Are all semi-automatic rifles bad? What makes a rifle an assault rifle? Is semi-automatic the problem? If that is the problem, then what about semi-automatic handguns? If Semi-automatic Handguns are a problem, then why wouldn't revolvers pose the same problem. Would magazine size make a difference?

I think the "assault rifle ban" was very well named from a marketing perspective. Who in their right mind thinks assault rifles should be easilly accessable? I just don't think the law amounted to any real banning of the targeted weapons. Instead the magazine size restrictions seemed to be the biggest factor.

[Senator]

I am renting my assault weapon with an option to buy plan.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm not sure how one would do that(ban all semi-automatic versions of assault rifles). What is the difference between a semi-automatic assault rifle, and a semi-automatic rifle? Is there no difference? Is the difference just cosmetic? Are all semi-automatic rifles bad? What makes a rifle an assault rifle? Is semi-automatic the problem? If that is the problem, then what about semi-automatic handguns? If Semi-automatic Handguns are a problem, then why wouldn't revolvers pose the same problem. Would magazine size make a difference?

I think the "assault rifle ban" was very well named from a marketing perspective. Who in their right mind thinks assault rifles should be easilly accessable? I just don't think the law amounted to any real banning of the targeted weapons. Instead the magazine size restrictions seemed to be the biggest factor.

There are answers to those shotgunned questions (joke intended). Semi-automatic versions of assault rifles (M-16, AK-47, etc.) usually are easily modified to fully automatic, and are made to easily install 30+ round clips. Most other guns you mentioned are not easily changed. I saw a guy put a screw and spring in one of the highest selling Chinese made AK-47's and made it full automatic in about a minute. I don't think such guns are a great idea to readily available and cheaply bought (you could pick up one of those suckers back then, 15 years ago, for about $150). I knew several skin-heads that huge collections of these.

Do you think fully automatic guns should be legal? Machine guns? Flame-throwers? Grenade Launchers? RPG's? Thermo-Nuclear devices? No? Then there is some line somewhere.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

There are answers to those shotgunned questions (joke intended). Semi-automatic versions of assault rifles (M-16, AK-47, etc.) usually are easily modified to fully automatic, and are made to easily install 30+ round clips. Most other guns you mentioned are not easily changed. I saw a guy put a screw and spring in one of the highest selling Chinese made AK-47's and made it full automatic in about a minute. I don't think such guns are a great idea to readily available and cheaply bought (you could pick up one of those suckers back then, 15 years ago, for about $150). I knew several skin-heads that huge collections of these.

Do you think fully automatic guns should be legal? Machine guns? Flame-throwers? Grenade Launchers? RPG's? Thermo-Nuclear devices? No? Then there is some line somewhere.

I don't think the fully automatic weapons or flame-throwers and grenade launchers should be available. I guess my point is, it is apparently difficult to ban the semi-automatic versions of military assault rifles by differentiating them from their domestic counterparts. I believe this, because the last bill's efforts to do so were not terribly effective. I do see the common issue of the large volume clips these weapons accomodate. Does that mean you ban weapons that allow clips? Do you ban the clips themselves? A good number of target pistols and rifles allow for the insertion of clips , are they illegal just like the assault rifles?

I'm not trying to be difficult. Well I'm not just trying to be difficult. I am just trying to communicate that I don't think there is a good answer to this problem, at least not one I've heard to date. One thing I do know for certain, and that is the NRA will oppose any offer brought to the table.

[Fritz]

All (almost all?) semi automatic weapons are easily modified to full auto. In most cases it is as simple as changing or modifying the catching mechanism.

Changing a weapon to selective fire is another story.

Fully Automatic Weapons (Machine Guns) are legal in most states if you pay a federal tax. They are also a hoot to fire.

[The_herd]

Yep, a nail file can change your semi-automatic riffle into a fully-auto one.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by The_herd

Yep, a nail file can change your semi-automatic riffle into a fully-auto one.

So, I could take a semi-automatic .30-.06 and make an affective, useable fully automatic rifle out of it with a nail file? Or are you saying you can make it fire with one pull rapidily, but it would also put you on your butt and you're about as likely to hit something as Micheal Moore is to vote Rebuplican?

Why do you think certain weapons are refered to as Assault Weapons(and were long before the "ban")? It isn't just marketing. They were made to be affective at high fire rates, and handle the wear and tear that goes along with it. You could jury rig an RPG, too, but it is not going to be as affective and usefull as one created by weapons manufacturer.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Fritz

All (almost all?) semi automatic weapons are easily modified to full auto. In most cases it is as simple as changing or modifying the catching mechanism.

Changing a weapon to selective fire is another story.

Fully Automatic Weapons (Machine Guns) are legal in most states if you pay a federal tax. They are also a hoot to fire.

I have no problem with that. Why couldn't military class rifles fall into that same catagory?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I don't think the fully automatic weapons or flame-throwers and grenade launchers should be available. I guess my point is, it is apparently difficult to ban the semi-automatic versions of military assault rifles by differentiating them from their domestic counterparts. I believe this, because the last bill's efforts to do so were not terribly effective.

I agree that it was not. I'm wondering could it be? My guess is yes it could, but the gun lobby (sorry Cam) will make sure that it will never happen.

[The_herd]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

So, I could take a semi-automatic .30-.06 and make an affective, useable fully automatic rifle out of it with a nail file?

This is correct, in most cases. For example, the only difference between the M16A1 and the currently used M16A2 is the A2 is semi-automatic with a 3 round burst mode. To make it fully automatic, and pretty much identical to the A1, all you have to do is file away the catching mechanism.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by The_herd

This is correct, in most cases. For example, the only difference between the M16A1 and the currently used M16A2 is the A2 is semi-automatic with a 3 round burst mode. To make it fully automatic, and pretty much identical to the A1, all you have to do is file away the catching mechanism.

But that is not a .30-.06 hunting rifle.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

no offense, but I would say if you HAVE a gun that shoots 25-50 rounds per squeeze of the trigger, you're either breaking the law or one of the rare Americans with a permit to own one from the BATF.

For the last time: this ban had nothing to do with fully automatic firearms. It did not allow AK-47's and Uzi's back on the street, because they're seperately covered under a 1989 importation ban.

How come one of our local gun shops (Dragon's Arms) can sell (and be prominently displayed in today's paper) a rack of Chinese AK-47 with folded magazines and 100-round clips?

[The_herd]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

But that is not a .30-.06 hunting rifle.

That's why I said most cases.

Hunting riffles are not my specialty, so I won't touch them. Never fired a .30-.06. Fritz or someone else may be able to answer that. Fully automatic weapons are fired from a bi-pod because they would be impossible to fire otherwise. There would probably be an effective way to fire a modified .30-.06 if it were mounted properly. Jamming and barrell life are problems with assualt weapons, such as the M-60, so while it may not be designed for it, it would probably be able to handle it for a while. When taught to fire an M-60 you are taught to fire in 3-5 second bursts because of the problems with overheating and jamming.

I know the military switched to the A2 for ammo conservation. And the fact that fully automatic weapons are not as effective against small numbers.

While we're on the subject of riffles. Here's the replacement for the M16A2, for those interested.

hxxp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

How come one of our local gun shops (Dragon's Arms) can sell (and be prominently displayed in today's paper) a rack of Chinese AK-47 with folded magazines and 100-round clips?

Chances are they either weren't made in China, were pre-ban (pre-1989) rifles, or were post-ban domestically produced rifles with folded magazines but without the pre-requisite number of "bad features".

Grant,

The longer version of my earlier answer. If you're talking about banning semi-automatic versions of military rifles, that's what the AWB did or was supposed to do. Since it wasn't effective, Senator Lautenberg introduced a new bill that would have expanded the bill to include all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns based on military design. That's where you start banning firearms that are common to hunting, etc.

One point: if gunowners want less restrictions by the government, they need to police themselves. If someone's doing something illegally, gunowners can't ignore the situation. It only reflects badly on law abiding gunowners.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Chances are they either weren't made in China, were pre-ban (pre-1989) rifles, or were post-ban domestically produced rifles with folded magazines but without the pre-requisite number of "bad features".

Either way, I don't feel comfortable having these sold in a store.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Either way, I don't feel comfortable having these sold in a store.

Yeah, I'd feel better having them sold out of the back of a van or at a gun show or through any other means where there's no way at all to trace a weapon's point of origin.

[The Afoci]

I don't feel comfortable with people being able to say hateful thing that alter the minds of young children, yet there would never be a backing for a ban of hateful speech.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Either way, I don't feel comfortable having these sold in a store.

why?

what would make you feel better about them?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Yeah, I'd feel better having them sold out of the back of a van or at a gun show or through any other means where there's no way at all to trace a weapon's point of origin.

1. Why should the govt, law enforcement or otherwise, know whether you have a firearm or not?

2. There are being sold out of the back of a van, etc. and there always have been and always will be no way to prevent that.