Assault Weapons ban to expire.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5211.shtml

The assault weapons ban enacted in 94 is expiring Monday. I know that there are several people here who are NRA supporters (and an employee,) but there is a large difference between a handgun or hunting rifle and an AK-47.

In the times we live in I am actually shocked that anyone would consider allowing this ban to expire, let alone thinking that it is a good thing. Does anyone really think that young arab muslim men should be allowed to purchase uzi's? And please don't say that they wouldn't be allowed to, because we all know that the way society has gotten so politically correct we don't want to "discriminate" against them...

[sabotai]

Sweet. Gonna grab me an AK-47 on Tuesday and shoot me a rabbit!

[sterlingice]

Sweet. Gonna grab me an AK-47 on Tuesday and shoot me a rabbit!
Wabbit season?

SI

[Franklinnoble]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, or keeping your home safe from burglary. It's about keeping the people safe from tyrannical and oppressive government.

[The Afoci]

I want a tank!

[Tigercat]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, or keeping your home safe from burglary. It's about keeping the people safe from tyrannical and oppressive government.

There is a reason ammendment ends up being such BS these days. The biggest reason is, if the Government wants to fully oppress you, your purchase of a simple firearm can't stop em. Hell if the government REALLY wanted to stop you, they have plenty of missles, bombs, and superior firepower to stop you. (And hey, if we are to assume a government can go fully "evil" at any time, who is to say they wouldn't use their full aresenal?) Thats not to say that people shouldn't be allowed to have firearms, or the firearms that are discussed by the first post in this thread. Just to say, unless your average citizen is allowed to have a thermonuclear device, the intent of the ammendment can no longer be applied.

[Franklinnoble]

There is a reason ammendment ends up being such BS these days. The biggest reason is, if the Government wants to fully oppress you, your purchase of a simple firearm can't stop em. Hell if the government REALLY wanted to stop you, they have plenty of missles, bombs, and superior firepower to stop you. (And hey, if we are to assume a government can go fully "evil" at any time, who is to say they wouldn't use their full aresenal?) Thats not to say that people shouldn't be allowed to have firearms, or the firearms that are discussed by the first post in this thread. Just to say, unless your average citizen is allowed to have a thermonuculear device, the intent of the ammendment can no longer be applied.
You should tell the North Vietnamese that a small country full of determined men armed with automatic weapons had no business holding back the military onslaught of the United States and all their tanks, bombs, helicopters, missiles, etc.

No matter how modernized combat becomes, even in this day and age, wars are won and lost by the infantry. If you don't have men on the field of battle, you're not going to hold it.

Whether the threat is foreign or domestic, any hostile force in this country is not going to be successful if most of the men in America own M-16's.

[Tigercat]

You should tell the North Vietnamese that a small country full of determined men armed with automatic weapons had no business holding back the military onslaught of the United States and all their tanks, bombs, helicopters, missiles, etc.

No matter how modernized combat becomes, even in this day and age, wars are won and lost by the infantry. If you don't have men on the field of battle, you're not going to hold it.

Whether the threat is foreign or domestic, any hostile force in this country is not going to be successful if most of the men in America own M-16's.


Oh I have no doubt that any modern armed infantry can put up a damn good fight. But as Iraq has, and continues to show, in the long run all it can be is an annoyance to varying degrees. If this government truly wants to become "Evil" you're just screwed. If the government truly wants to traget you without regrets, you really can't stop them. So if thats the worst case scenario, why do we continue to follow ideals that worry about the worse case scenario that we really can't defend ourselves against anyway?

[BishopMVP]

You should tell the North Vietnamese that a small country full of determined men armed with automatic weapons had no business holding back the military onslaught of the United States and all their tanks, bombs, helicopters, missiles, etc.A) You forgot the mose important weapon for the NVA - the American media. They were getting their ass kicked militarily, even considering surrender after Tet until they saw how it was portrayed and switched from miltarily significant attacks to high-profile ones with little military value.
And the more relevant B) Automatic weapons are banned in the US. The "Assault Weapons Ban" only covers some semi-automatic weapons on vague, aesthetic rationales that have little effect on a gun's true firepower.

[Flasch186]

not surprisingly the reactions follow party lines. To me that proves the assault weapons ban was a good thing. Doesnt really help fight the war on terror when not only can a terrorist get a weapon through illegal means but now they can go up to their local Wal-Mart, couple that with the gun show loophole and youve done such a piss poor job of fighting the war on terror....and sprinkle in a dose of "we cant enforce the imigration laws as they are now" and youve got a recipe for disaster. Well done.

[Jon]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, or keeping your home safe from burglary. It's about keeping the people safe from tyrannical and oppressive government.

The Second Amendment has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean what you say it means. And, even if it does mean what some try to say it means, it doesn't apply to the states.

[JonInMiddleGA]

not surprisingly the reactions follow party lines.

Well, at least we manage to agree on something ;)

[albionmoonlight]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this really more of a symbolic moment than a moment of actual import.

Most gun-makers reacted to the ban by creating guns very similar to the ones banned, but that fit the letter of the law. Accordingly, the lifting of the ban won't really change much as a practical matter except to gun collectors and the like.

At least, that's what I've heard. Again, correct me if I am wrong.

In any event, I can thing of at least a dozen political issues off the top of my head about which I care more than this one.

[JPhillips]

Bishop: Bullshit. The American media made no difference in the war. And what about this possible surrender of the NVA? I've never heard of it. Everything I've read, admittingly most of it during the Nixon admin, has NV being very stubborn about peace negotiations. They were willing to keep fighting seemingly indefinately unless they got a peace that ensured their eventual total victory.

A lot of people want to pull Vietnam out of its historical context. The media and rotests didn't put the initial limiatations on the military. We were handcuffed first and foremost because we feared escalation with the Soviets or more likely the Chinese. Remember that in the fifties we invaded a communist country and ended up with a stalemate war with China. If we had invaded NV there was a good chance that we would again be fighting the Chinese.

The protests didn't have any effect until 1968 at the earliest. By that time our strategy was set and didn't chnage much until we started to withdraw. Maybe the protests helped with NVA morale, but it they didn't keep us from prosecuting the war. Geopolitical realities were the reason we didn't fully prosecute the war.

[miked]

Don't you people know it's my constitutional right to be able to acquire automatic and semi-automatic weapons. I believe this is exactly what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote about my right to bear arms. It's not about hunting, or defending my home...it's about some crafty interpretation of a 200+ yr old document. I want guns because it's my right!

Seriously, don't we have like 50 laws pertaining to assault weapons and stuff?

[gstelmack]

The fun part was that these "assault" weapons were used in a very tiny minority of violent crimes committed with guns, but they get all the press because they look so nasty. The assault weapons ban did not stop Colombine (committed with illegally-acquired weapons, gee control laws work real well) or the DC sniper shootings.

And, of course, the North Hollywood shootout was in '97, 3 years after the ban.

Gun control laws don't stop the crooks, only the law-abiding citizens...

[sachmo71]

The ban in it's current incarnation is pretty limited anyway. I don't know all of the restrictions on what guns are covered, but I believe one of them is a bayonet mounting. So, if you make a minor modification to the gun, you can see it.

If someone came with a bill calling for the blanket ban of all automatic weapons for personal sale and use, I would support that.

[rkmsuf]

Can I get a bazooka? I've always wanted a bazooka.

[sachmo71]

It doesn't have a bayonet mount, does it? Then you should be good to go.

[gstelmack]

If someone came with a bill calling for the blanket ban of all automatic weapons for personal sale and use, I would support that.
There already is one. You have to have a Class III Dealer's License (well, last time I checked, may be a different license now) to get an automatic weapon.

Semi-automatic weapons (one round per pull of the trigger) with large magazine capacities are the ones everybody flips over.

What about revolvers that fire nearly as fast but with a 5-8 round cylinder? A Colt .45 with a traditional 7 round magazine? What about a hunting shotgun with a 5-10 round magazine? Does the shotgun need to be pump, or can it be semi-auto?

What rate of fire is considered too much, and what magazine capacity is too much?

I know that the car analogy is used a lot (cars kill more people than firearms, so why don't we ban them?) but I'll use a different one: what about alcohol? Alcohol directly leads to a large number of deaths each year (either through alcoholism and the associated health problems, involvement in car crashes or other accidents due to impaired judgement, or the use of firearms in emotional situations such as in the NC State incident) than firearms, but people aren't calling for a ban of it. Why? Because it's possible to use it responsibly. These guns are just plain fun to shoot, and people drink alcohol for fun. What's the difference?

[Warhammer]

I love the anti-gun lobby. If bad guys want to get assault rifles, they'll find a way to get them, assault rifle ban or no ban.

I do not want to own a gun, but let me tell you, places where everyone owns a gun, and a crook knows he will be shot on sight, makes for low crime rates.

[Radii]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this really more of a symbolic moment than a moment of actual import.

Most gun-makers reacted to the ban by creating guns very similar to the ones banned, but that fit the letter of the law. Accordingly, the lifting of the ban won't really change much as a practical matter except to gun collectors and the like.

At least, that's what I've heard. Again, correct me if I am wrong.


This is exactly my understanding as well. Political party lines aside, this was a law that sounded good in theory but in reality served absolutely zero purpose. NPR has been doing some interviews with people who were in favor of the weapons ban when it was first enacted, but who now don't care if it expires or not because it's worthless.

If done right, this would be a major issue for me, but, I'm not going to drag along with a political party to fight over this ban if it doesn't do anything.

[Radii]

I love the anti-gun lobby. If bad guys want to get assault rifles, they'll find a way to get them, assault rifle ban or no ban.

I have always hated that argument. Why not make crack legal, since people can get it anyway if they really want to?

[gi]

You should tell the North Vietnamese that a small country full of determined men armed with automatic weapons had no business holding back the military onslaught of the United States and all their tanks, bombs, helicopters, missiles, etc.

No matter how modernized combat becomes, even in this day and age, wars are won and lost by the infantry. If you don't have men on the field of battle, you're not going to hold it.

Whether the threat is foreign or domestic, any hostile force in this country is not going to be successful if most of the men in America own M-16's.

INFANTRY!!! FOLLOW ME!!!!

Ahhh...the days when I used to carry too much weight on my shoulders and walk endless miles...

[gstelmack]

I have always hated that argument. Why not make crack legal, since people can get it anyway if they really want to?
Is it possible to use crack "responsibly"? It is possible (and in fact easy) to use an assault rifle "responsibly" and have a ton of fun without hurting anyone at all. An assault rifle does not impair judgement, give you hallucinations, or any of the other things that drugs due to change your mental outlook.

[CamEdwards]

what the hell are you guys talking about? The AWB is about to expire??

I think I might have missed a big story. :)

[gi]

What is interesting is if you study firearm laws in other countries and the impact they have there. U.K. comes to mind. Though they do not have a 2nd amendment, which our Founding Fathers gave us the ability to change. If the country really wanted limits on firearms, then there is a constitutional process to make the necessary changes so that the 2nd amendment cannot be applied. If many feel the 2nd amendment needs to be more specific, then we can also change that. Otherwise let people have whatever they want and tax the hell out of the stuff you do not think they should have. That way you can still get any firearm you want, but it will cost you.

[sachmo71]

what the hell are you guys talking about? The AWB is about to expire??

I think I might have missed a big story. :)


Back to work, you!

[sachmo71]

I have always hated that argument. Why not make crack legal, since people can get it anyway if they really want to?


I think they should try it, at least as an experiment.

[Subby]

I used to be a fairly rabid anti-gun guy, but have changed my outlook over the years. Responsible gun ownership seems pretty reasonable to me - I choose not to own one, but see no reason why others should not.

Gun ownership should be looked at as a privilege, not a right, however.

Let's rabidly enforce existing gun laws and continue stressing gun safety and education and I think we have a fair compromise.

[albionmoonlight]

Let's rabidly enforce existing gun laws and continue stressing gun safety and education and I think we have a fair compromise.
*WARNING* You have been deemed too rational to participate in discussion on the Internet. Please present your modem to the nearest forum moderator for confiscation. You have 90 days to appeal this decision, which you may do either by calling someone with whom you disagree a Nazi or by basing all of your rebuttals during a seven (7) day period on nothing but the typos contained in the posts to which you are responding. That is all.

[sovereignstar]

Is it possible to use crack "responsibly"? It is possible (and in fact easy) to use an assault rifle "responsibly" and have a ton of fun without hurting anyone at all. An assault rifle does not impair judgement, give you hallucinations, or any of the other things that drugs due to change your mental outlook.
This is a scary argument if I've ever seen one. It's all in the beholder's eyes.

I've never used crack nor would I ever condone using it, but I believe I should have the right to drive 200 miles to my lake cabin and smoke some crack within the privacy of it.

Owning an assault rifle could definitely "change your mental outlook", especially if you own one.

gun = power = possible timebomb mentality

[gi]

Anything = power = possible time bomb mentality. If there wasn't a gun around, a person could drive a car into a mob of people. A firearm is not responsible for a time bomb mentality. You have that if you have a firearm or not. Just like we try to keep certain people away from certain jobs because of mental illness, proper screening, testing, and education is needed to allow someone the privilege of owning a firearm.

[sachmo71]

So what are the main PRATICAL advantages to allowing the public to own fully automatic weapons? This is the part I have a hard time understanding.

I understand semi-auto. They have a pratical use. I can't think of one for automatic assault weapons.

[sovereignstar]

Anything = power = possible time bomb mentality. If there wasn't a gun around, a person could drive a car into a mob of people. A firearm is not responsible for a time bomb mentality. You have that if you have a firearm or not. Just like we try to keep certain people away from certain jobs because of mental illness, proper screening, testing, and education is needed to allow someone the privilege of owning a firearm.
Very true. Just giving an example there.

[CamEdwards]

So what are the main PRATICAL advantages to allowing the public to own fully automatic weapons? This is the part I have a hard time understanding.

I understand semi-auto. They have a pratical use. I can't think of one for automatic assault weapons.

We're not talking about fully automatic weapons, or at least the ban doesn't include fully automatic weapons. I don't know if you're aware of that, and crap like last night's Nightline don't do anything to educate the public of that. They opened their show with footage of automatic weapons and said "on Monday, these weapons will become legal again."

[sachmo71]

We're not talking about fully automatic weapons, or at least the ban doesn't include fully automatic weapons. I don't know if you're aware of that, and crap like last night's Nightline don't do anything to educate the public of that. They opened their show with footage of automatic weapons and said "on Monday, these weapons will become legal again."


Yup, that was what I was thinking. So the ban is on semi-autos?

Educated myself. This bill can die, as far as I'm concerned.

[Warhammer]

Gee, let's ban buckknives then. Anything that looks big and nasty, let's ban it! I read somewhere that more people are killed with screwdrivers each year then guns!

A sword can give someone power, a hammer can give someone power, a paper weight can give someone power.

What is inherently wrong with an assault rifle? Is it the amount of bullets fired? Is it the weapon's range?

I have the 2 problems with gun laws:
1) With gun laws, the only people that do not get guns are the law abiding citizens.
2) Which guns do you ban? One of the most deadly guns is a .22. The round can penetrate the skull at close range (where most shooting happen) but cannot exit the skull, so the round rattles around the brain case.

[GrantDawg]

We're not talking about fully automatic weapons, or at least the ban doesn't include fully automatic weapons. I don't know if you're aware of that, and crap like last night's Nightline don't do anything to educate the public of that. They opened their show with footage of automatic weapons and said "on Monday, these weapons will become legal again."
How do you feel about easily convertable semi's? I think that was supposed to be the main target of this ban to begin with, though it got lost in the process. Would there be a way to restrict convertable semi's (like the AK-47 that used to be produced and needed like one screw to make it automatic) without the idiotic wording of the last ban?

[gi]

2) Which guns do you ban? One of the most deadly guns is a .22. The round can penetrate the skull at close range (where most shooting happen) but cannot exit the skull, so the round rattles around the brain case.


Please tell me you saw the Steve Martin movie, My Blue Heaven, where he discusses this...very funny scene. :)

[gstelmack]

Yup, that was what I was thinking. So the ban is on semi-autos?

Educated myself. This bill can die, as far as I'm concerned.
I pointed this out early in the thread. You have to jump through major hoops to legally own a fully automatic weapon. It can be done, but it's expensive and requires lots of licensing.

As others pointed out, it's semi-auto here.

[gstelmack]

This is a scary argument if I've ever seen one. It's all in the beholder's eyes.

I've never used crack nor would I ever condone using it, but I believe I should have the right to drive 200 miles to my lake cabin and smoke some crack within the privacy of it.

Owning an assault rifle could definitely "change your mental outlook", especially if you own one.

gun = power = possible timebomb mentality
Assuming I buy the bit about an assault rifle changing your outlook, there's a key word in there that makes all the difference in the world: "could". Pretty much every drug (crack and the hard stuff especially, alcohol and "light" stuff pretty much as well) "will" change your mental outlook, skew your view of the world, and make you do things you wouldn't normally.

As pointed out by gi, the gun is just a handy tool, not the cause of the violence. Drugs and alcohol often ARE the direct causes of violence.

[Flasch186]

The fun part was that these "assault" weapons were used in a very tiny minority of violent crimes committed with guns, but they get all the press because they look so nasty. The assault weapons ban did not stop Colombine (committed with illegally-acquired weapons, gee control laws work real well) or the DC sniper shootings.

And, of course, the North Hollywood shootout was in '97, 3 years after the ban.

Gun control laws don't stop the crooks, only the law-abiding citizens...

remember, now is the time to think ahead of the terrorists...i dont think that when they attack theyll use a glock.

[Flasch186]

This is exactly my understanding as well. Political party lines aside, this was a law that sounded good in theory but in reality served absolutely zero purpose. NPR has been doing some interviews with people who were in favor of the weapons ban when it was first enacted, but who now don't care if it expires or not because it's worthless.

If done right, this would be a major issue for me, but, I'm not going to drag along with a political party to fight over this ban if it doesn't do anything.


SO FIX IT!! eh, on second thought lets just give up, its easier anyways

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Well, time to get a 30 round mag and go Deer Hunting! :D

[rkmsuf]

How about a flamethrower. Can I get one of those? Would be mightly handy for quick BBQing.

[Subby]

In many of these case, I think it is safe to ask WWTND?

[gi]

I'll take space balls the FLAMETHROWER!!!! the kids love this one....

[rkmsuf]

My father hung me on a hook once.......once.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

what the hell are you guys talking about? The AWB is about to expire??

I think I might have missed a big story. :)

I didn't even know the Average White Band was touring!!!

Funny story. A neighbor of my mother's had quite a nice gun collection. He bragged about it, and how the government should just try to take away his guns/how he was ready if the govt. ever tried to take over/etc. Well, he fell asleep in bed smoking one day, woke up with the bed on fire and ran out to the street in his underwear. The Fire Dept. got there when the fire was still small enough to extinguish, but BAM. BAM. BAMBAM BAM BAMBAMBAM... The ammo started going off and the FD pulled back to a safe distance. The place burned to the ground, and he sat there crying about losing all his beautiful guns and why the FD wouldn't do more to save his stuff. (We all put together a collection of clothes so he's have something to wear.)

The good news was that his '73 Z28 was unharmed in the driveway!

[cartman]

There is little, if any difference between semi-automatic and automatic weapons. In fact, for most semis, it only takes about 10 minutes and some common garage tools (files, grinders, etc.) to make them full autos.

[gstelmack]

remember, now is the time to think ahead of the terrorists...i dont think that when they attack theyll use a glock.
You are correct. They used boxcutters.

[Flasch186]

You are correct. They used boxcutters.

dont be silly.....

[duckman]

I want a pony.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I want a pony.

I have a Shetland pony named Nikkie. Last summer Nikkie was involved in a bizarre electrolysis accident. All her hair was removed except for her tail. Now I rent her out to Hare Krishna family picnics.

[duckman]

I have a Shetland pony named Nikkie. Last summer Nikkie was involved in a bizarre electrolysis accident. All her hair was removed except for her tail. Now I rent her out to Hare Krishna family picnics.
LMAO!

[sterlingice]

*WARNING* You have been deemed too rational to participate in discussion on the Internet. Please present your modem to the nearest forum moderator for confiscation. You have 90 days to appeal this decision, which you may do either by calling someone with whom you disagree a Nazi or by basing all of your rebuttals during a seven (7) day period on nothing but the typos contained in the posts to which you are responding. That is all.
I, too, must concur with the SuperGay one from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

SI

[Glengoyne]

I used to be a fairly rabid anti-gun guy, but have changed my outlook over the years. Responsible gun ownership seems pretty reasonable to me - I choose not to own one, but see no reason why others should not.

Gun ownership should be looked at as a privilege, not a right, however.

Let's rabidly enforce existing gun laws and continue stressing gun safety and education and I think we have a fair compromise.
I'm pretty well in agreement with Subby here. I am a reformed gun-control advocate. I have come to the conclusion that because I had never been exposed to guns and gun ownership, I was biased against it.

On my first date with my wife, she told me that she owned a gun. I asked "Really, what kind?". I nearly blew wine out of my nose when she answered "a Glock 9mm". So now I have been exposed to gun ownership, and responsibility. My wife's family has a passion for firearms. They collect them. They shoot them. They store them away until they want to use them or share them with others again. They are infinitely responsible in their handling of the firearms. They respect them, and they teach others to respect them as well. They sometimes chafe under the gun control laws here in California, but they obey them. They are lawful gun owners.

After being exposed to this bunch of gun enthusiasts, I have come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with responsible gun ownership. I have also started to think that most gun control laws affect law abiding citizens much more than the criminals that would use the guns to commit crimes.

All that said, I think the Assault Rifle Ban was too general to be effective. In California we have tightened it up considerably, and as a result there are a number of target pistols, the type used in Olympic competition, that are now illegal in California. I don't have a problem with keeping automatic weapons heavilly restricted, but if there are going to be laws restricting semi-automatic weapons, they need to be crafted more carefully. Any new law needs to effectively restrict the targetted weapons, but not prevent the use of firearms most of the public would not ever consider unlawful.

[The Afoci]

What I find funny is how people will defend the freedom of speech and religion to extremes but completely let the right to bear arms to be fucked with. This would be like a swearing ban, what purpose does one person ever have to swear?

I got nothing.

[MrBug708]

Why does everyone act like this is a big deal? Do you think ban limits the weapons? If you want a Semi-Automatic, with enough cash you can have one. Besides, if you owned one before the ban went into place, you were allowed to have one.

[sachmo71]

While I do not support this bill, I have to take exception to the "you can't stop them anyway so why try" argument. Taking guns out of the hands of criminals is a noble and worthy cause. If someone can figure out a way to get the ball rolling on that, I would be behind it 100%. You have to start somewhere, right?

[CamEdwards]

While I do not support this bill, I have to take exception to the "you can't stop them anyway so why try" argument. Taking guns out of the hands of criminals is a noble and worthy cause. If someone can figure out a way to get the ball rolling on that, I would be behind it 100%. You have to start somewhere, right?

investigate Project Safe Neighborhoods. It's had a remarkable effect in reducing crime rates where it's been implemented.

[gstelmack]

While I do not support this bill, I have to take exception to the "you can't stop them anyway so why try" argument. Taking guns out of the hands of criminals is a noble and worthy cause. If someone can figure out a way to get the ball rolling on that, I would be behind it 100%. You have to start somewhere, right?
Taking guns out of criminal hands is a great cause. Doing so by taking guns out of responsible hands is not. And there are already a ton of laws making it illegal for a criminal (at least a convicted felon) to own a gun.

[sachmo71]

Thanks Cam and gstlemack!

However, the main point of my post was to say that I don't agree with MrBug's argument. :(

[stevew]

Am I the only one that is psyched about being able to put a bayonet mount back on my personal rifle?

[rkmsuf]

Am I the only one that is psyched about being able to put a bayonet mount back on my personal rifle?


I'm looking forward to mounting a cannon on my trunk.

[Glengoyne]

There is little, if any difference between semi-automatic and automatic weapons. In fact, for most semis, it only takes about 10 minutes and some common garage tools (files, grinders, etc.) to make them full autos.
As I understand it this is not the case. Semi-automatics include a huge number of handguns that can't be made fully automatic. There is a subset of semi-automatics, that what you describe does apply to.

[Buccaneer]

I, too, must concur with the SuperGay one from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

SI
Same here.