PDA

View Full Version : Assault weapons ban lifted...good thing?


Endor5
October 28, 2004, 07:21 PM
I'm a college student and attend a school in a very liberal area of Ohio. I've had countless arguments with various gun-haters (especially since the CCW past earlier this year) and I've almost always gotten them to consent to at least some of my pro-gun views. That is until the assault weapons ban was lifted. I just cannot seem to convince anyone of the average citizen's need to own an uzi or, in general, the benefit to making assault weapons legal and more readily available to all. The criminals will have them anyway( i say), but increased numbers are sure to fall to the wrong hands (say my gun-fearing friends). This inability to convert is admitedly due to my limited knowledge of law enforcement problems relating to the increases ofthese types of weapons. I need some feedback from officers (active or retired) or from anyone with knowledge regarding law enforcement and assault weapons. Please help!! The fight for the 2nd must go on!

shaggy
October 29, 2004, 09:00 AM
The best defense is a good offense.

You, my friend, have fallen into the anti's trap of playing defense and trying to justify yourself and your "need". Don't. Make them defend their position instead. Why do you "need" an assault weapon? You don't, and you can admit you merely "want" one. There's many things we want but don't need. No one needs an SUV the size of a main battle tank, but soccer moms all over the country are driving them while blabbering on the cell phones they don't "need". No one "needs" a 36" TV, but we do like having them. Similarly, you don't "need" an assault weapon, but you'd like to have one. (And it should also be noted that you don't "need" the right to worship or speak as you please - many countries don't allow you these freedoms- but we as Americans like our Bill of Rights and our Constitution and the rights and freedooms enumerated therein.)

The Constitution enumerated certain rights; the right to keep & bear arms among them. Those rights can be restricted and regulated (and if you don't believe me, we can get into a lengthy discussion of legislation under the Commerce Clause and its Constitutionality as applied to a right enumerated in BoR). Currently though, the law of the land allows us to buy and sell them. So you "want" an assault rifle to exercise your God-given and Constitutionally recognized rights.

The usual counter of the anti is that the framers of the Constitution didn't have modern assault rifles in mind when they wrote the Constitution and didn't intend to protect such things. Maybe, but the Constitution is a living document and we apply the principles embodied therein to modern times. The internet, broadcast TV & radio, and the mass media were not in existence when the Constitution was written, but we do apply the principles of the First Amendment to modern things such as the internet. Ask them if they'd like the first Amendment's free speech protections to only apply to materials written on antique printing presses or things writen with a quill on parchment.

Then they will counter with the old cliche that someone may use it for something criminal. We already have laws regarding murder, assault, robbery, etc. Merely possessing a gun does not harm anyone. If someone were to use it in a criminal fashion they've crossed a line. If it gets stolen and used in a crime, the criminal has alrewady shown his disdain for the rule of law by stealing in the first place. Would you think he would care about laws proscribing his possession of an assault weapon if they were outlawed? Should we outlaw possession of certain common household chemicals because someone might use them to make an explosive device? Should we outlaw possession of gasoline outside a vehicle's gas tank because someone might use it to make a molotov cocktail?

Ask them to provide the number of federal criminal convictions under the 1994 Assault weapons ban that was suppossed to be so damn successful that it desperately needed to be renewed. (The fact is, assault weapons as defined under federal law are used only in about 3% of all gun crimes).

Ask them to define an assault weapon which they would ban, and then point to examples of commonly used hunting and sport rifles that use the same action which would also be banned. Blur the already vague lines between "assault weapons" and hunting rifles and make the anti's try to distinguish one from another and where the line between assault weapon and hunting rifles is. In 1994 Congress and the US Senate had a very difficult job of it (which is why the law was mostly unsuccessful); my guess is that your anti friends will to.

I could write more, but I think you can see where I'm going...

Johnny Guest
October 29, 2004, 11:14 AM
Endor5, I believe you came to a good place to seek information. Reading your initial post, I began mentally composing a reply, and was gratified to see that shaggy has already covered practically each point I would have made.

As to your question concerning the feelings of current or retired law enforcement officers - - I personally prefer the concept of Peace Officer - - That those entrusted with special responsibilities by their community are or should be Officers of the Public Peace. In recent years there has been a trend toward the militarization of civil police personnel, including municipal police, constables, sheriffs and deputies, state police, and other non-military persons with statutory power to enforce local and state laws and to make arrests. Non-military federal agents are, in my mind, a somewhat different matter . . . .

I feel I have standing to express my opinions on this topic having over 35 years service with municipal and county agencies, all in Texas. My response is filled with first person opinions and the pronoun “I,” but you asked - - -

I think the “danger” to peace officers posed by any particular class of firearms is highly overstated. “Assault” is a behavior more than a descriptor of type. Let’s use the term “Assault Rifle” properly, to refer to a selective fire or full automatic arm firing an intermediate-power cartridge. This is distinct from the submachine gun (mostly using pistol cartridges) and military battle rifles (using full power cartridges.) This type arm usually has certain cosmetic features: A pistol style gripping area for the strong hand and a “high capacity” magazine. As most of the type originated for military use, they can usually accept a bayonet.

Without regard to what the law should be, the “Assault Weapons Ban” had nothing to do with full automatic firearms. It merely addressed the visual features - - long magazines, pistol grips, bayonet lugs and so forth. Possession, sale, and manufacture of fully automatic firearms have been federally regulated since 1934. The AWB did NOT deal with machine guns at all, and the expiration of this law did not legalize a single machine gun. All it did was regulate those who wished to have a civilian-legal version of a military rifle - - For WHATEVER purpose.

As to use of full auto guns in commission of crimes, I make two observations. As possession of an unregistered machine gun is illegal, a criminal is liable for arrest merely for having one. The gangsta risks incarceration for simple possession, his choice. I worry far more about one of our deputies being taken under fire by someone with a bolt action hunting rifle than a full auto sound effects gun. The guy with a lever action or bolt action deer rifle probably realizes he must take aim. A single aimed round from a high powered rifle is far more dangerous than an indiscriminate spray of lower powered, short range pistol bullets. Or, forget high powered deer rifles - - a cool headed kid with a scoped .22 rabbit rifle can be a problem for an infantry squad! Give me a thug with a sloppily converted AK or Uzi any day of the week. IF his weapon works, we’ll solve the problem while he’s fumbling around trying to reload after the sound effects are done.

The proper use of a full auto weapon requires a lot of practice, and preferably good training. Few criminals bother practicing with conventional firearms. Far fewer want to draw attention to themselves by firing off illegal full automatic guns.

As a hobbyist, I participate in occasional full auto shoots with a group of guys (and a couple of gals) that enjoy machine guns. You’d be hard put to find a more law-abiding group, or one more mindful of firearms safety. Just as with individuals who lawfully carry handguns, legal machine gun shooters in this area tend to be pillars of the community. These people are probably less danger to society than sports car enthusiasts, skate boarders, or dirt bike owners.

Must go now - - Good luck in your quest for knowledge.

Johnny

nbk2000
October 29, 2004, 11:15 AM
You're using the anti's terminology of 'assault weapon'.

No such beast exists outside of the armed forces and maybe some class 3's.

What you're referring to are semi-automatic rifles with features that make them more reliable in inclement weather and that need reloading less frequently.

Perfect for hunting! :) Whether the prey has four legs or two...:D

shaggy
October 29, 2004, 12:06 PM
FWIW, I do know there's a technical distinction between true selective fire assault rifles and what was defined under federal law as "semi-automatic assault weapons"; I own both types.

That said, I don't think you'll win what is inherently a debate on gun control, freedom, and Constitutional rights by bogging down in a technical discussion and semantics over whether an "assault rifle" is full automatic or semiautomatic. Both types are legal and available in the US, and your anti-gun friends are not going to say "Oh, its only semi-automatic not full automatic? Well that changes everything." Not going to happen. They know what an AK47 looks like and whether its semi or full, or whether you call it an AKM, AK47, AKS, or an RPK, its still just a big scary gun to them. You could call it a "semi-automatic ham sandwich" if you wish, but they'll still only see 'big scary gun' and ask why you need a "semi-automatic ham sandwich".

MeekAndMild
November 7, 2004, 07:41 PM
Endor, FWIW I bought an Uzi machine gun when Bill Clinton was president. I bought it over the internet and paid for it with a credit card...then waited 8 months for the government paperwork to clear for steps from the manufacturer to the FFL to me. But it WAS an internet purchase which happened in the midst of a Democratic regime and in the midst of the AWB!

An Uzi machine gun is as much the same as an Uzi carbine as a NASCAR race car is the same as your grandmother's Ford Taurus. It looks the same on the outside, but the inside is different, different sizes, different shapes, different parts. Sure you could make a race car from your granny's car but it would end up that all you'd have the same when you finished would be the outline of the vehicle in 3-d space.



Concerning your argument, I once had a similar argument with my barber, a guy I'll call Joe. I told him I'd give him a thousand dollars if he brought me one single news report of a citizen using a legal Uzi to commit a crime. He tried but never could, because the only one occurred a long time ago, 1983 if I recall correctly.

Uzis were popularized as being eeevvviiiilllll rifles in a very weird way. Either Emilio Estives or Charlie Sheen, I forget which one, appeared on the Johnny Carson show back in the late 70's or early 80's. (I forget the specific details, being an old f*rt, but I saw the show.) The kid spent about fifteen minutes talking about a drunken fight he'd had with his brother which involved death threats and either waving or shooting an Uzi at the other. Of course the press ignored the propaganda potential of spoiled children of Hollywood stars shooting at one another but they latched onto the idea that the Uzi was some sort of instrument of death from the bowels of Hell.

Indy_SIG
November 7, 2004, 08:56 PM
The best part of the so-called assault weapons ban being lifted for me is the availability of full-capacity magazines. Unfortunately, all the major players are waiting to see how long the ban is gone before they invest in producing a bunch of new ones.

progunner1957
November 12, 2004, 05:52 PM
The AW ban's death seems to have had not much of an effect on the availability of normal capacity AR-15 and M1A mags - prices and availability are about the same as they have always been.

The big difference seems to be in autopistol mags - I bought normal capacity mags for my Glock 21 (45ACP) used for $13 each from Lone Wolf as opposed to the $100-125 they cost before the ban died.

Stock up on pistol mags while you can - just in case! Who knows what ay come at us down the road.

Hkmp5sd
November 12, 2004, 06:26 PM
This is an "Assault Weapon" as defined by the '94 AW ban
http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/Images/bcwa3f16.jpg

This is NOT an "Assualt Weapon" as defined by the '94 AW ban
http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/Images/pcwa2x14m4my.jpg

The Assault Weapon ban was the equivalent of banning all cars painted Red because they look like they go faster than other cars of the same make.

MeekAndMild
November 14, 2004, 08:33 AM
That's a pretty scary black rifle. :eek:

Maybe if you got a pink stock for it?

jefnvk
November 14, 2004, 01:28 PM
Spoilers are on race cars, right? Therefore, they should not be put on Honda Civics, because that would make them a race car, and anyone with a race car is obviously going to race down streets filled with children. Therefore, we must ban all spoilers on Civics immediately, to save the children.

Thats about the logic that the AWB had.

Solidsheep
November 14, 2004, 02:17 PM
We have the same problem about the assault weapon, but in France there is no time limited ban.
If a text is published it's forever. :eek:

ProactiveReactionary
December 1, 2004, 07:53 AM
i did some looking around and i was amazed at what was banned and WHY.

it LOOKS like a m-16 so thats the reason to ban it? it holds 30 round and not 15 so we should ban it?

this is basically feel good legislation. its the equivalent of turning on the light to scare away the monsters under your bed. it didnt really do anything at all.

i dont understand the point in taking a 15 round clip and reducing it to a 10 round clip. you just reload more often but ISNT going to keep a person from killing other people if they choose to. again, feel good legislation.

the people this "ban" effected the most was law abiding citizens. it didnt do squat to reduce crime and didnt do squat to keep firearms out of criminals hands.

doesnt matter if its a .22 or an ak-47, its still in the wrong hands if held by a criminal.

Gothiq
December 6, 2004, 11:51 PM
well the awb feature that was DESPERATELY needed and now we are horribly vulnerable to is.. the BAYNOET LUG omg!!! i cant believe they are going to allow bayonet lugs again!!! do you people realize that being bayoneted would REALLY HURT? who cares if the only illegal bayonetings recoded in the last 150 years can be traced to govt troops who are exempt from weapons bans anyway! geez just tha thought of horde of gangbangers driving by at high speed whilst bayoneting innocent people scares the dickens out of me!


"A study in sarcasm"

SIG-Fan
December 7, 2004, 06:44 PM
can one of u guys tell me, why anyone should get a fully automatic gun? these typ of guns aren't for any pursose then killing (people).
u can't shoot precisely in FA (so no need for sports)
u just might harm your buddies while going hunting with a FA gun, a good hunter needs just one or two shots. period.
defense with FA sucks, cause u probably kill many inocent people near you with bullets missing their target.
plinging/fun shooting - ok but that's already it.
i don't think the authors of the constitution wantet anyone to have the right to bring many others in danger (eg. by shooting around you while hoping to hit a direct thread). as most of u probably know, in the constitution the text says arms not guns, therefore do u think anyone should get a nuclear bomb for homedefense, since its some kind of arm, as well?

-SIG-fan

Kordyte
December 7, 2004, 07:58 PM
All of you guys are completely right... Why the heck is it that the people who don't know guns and criminals are the ones who try control them? I saw this quote on the TFL forum in somebody's signature:

from MAFIA INFORMANT SAMMY "THE BULL" GRAVANO
Quote:
"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have
nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the
trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."

All of that is simple logic, its all true.

shaggy
December 7, 2004, 09:33 PM
can one of u guys tell me, why anyone should get a fully automatic gun? these typ of guns aren't for any pursose then killing (people).
u can't shoot precisely in FA (so no need for sports)
u just might harm your buddies while going hunting with a FA gun, a good hunter needs just one or two shots. period.
defense with FA sucks, cause u probably kill many inocent people near you with bullets missing their target.
plinging/fun shooting - ok but that's already it.
i don't think the authors of the constitution wantet anyone to have the right to bring many others in danger (eg. by shooting around you while hoping to hit a direct thread). as most of u probably know, in the constitution the text says arms not guns, therefore do u think anyone should get a nuclear bomb for homedefense, since its some kind of arm, as well?


Whats that cliche about engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man? :rolleyes:

Sig-Fan, as the owner of quite a few machineguns, let me address your points one by one.

why anyone should get a fully automatic gun? these typ of guns aren't for any pursose then killing (people).

This is bull****, plain and simple. There are over 100,000 transferable machineguns registered to civilian owners in the US and since the enactment of the National Firearms Act under which MGs are regulated in 1934, there have only been one or two incidents in which a legally owned machinegun has been used in a crime. If their only purpose is killing, they are either poorly designed as they're doing a very poor job at it, or machinegun owners are far more law abiding than most people.

Conversely, pistols, shotguns, and rifles not regulated under the NFA are responsible for most of the 30,000 deaths each year. Perhaps you would prefer all rifles, pistols, and shotguns to be reclassified and regulated under the NFA?

And while we're on the subject of intended purpose, did you know there are many competitive events throughout the US in which machineguns are used every year? NOt for killing, but for fun. Just like your beloved Sig pistol when you go to the range. Of course they can also be used for defense, but I'm not going to use a $14,000 HK machinegun to stop an intruded unless I have absolutely no other alternative. The cops are certainly not going to treat my prized $14,000 gun as nicely as I would.

BTW - how much did you pay for your pistol? The cheapest machinegun I own is about $3000; the most expensive about $40,000. Do I sound like the kind of guy who is going to buy a $40,000 gun to knock over the local Quickie mart for the chump change in the register?

Are you even aware of the process for obtaining an NFA weapon? I've submitted more copies of my fingerprints to the FBI than I can count...as well as pictures and all of my pertinant personal info.

u just might harm your buddies while going hunting with a FA gun, a good hunter needs just one or two shots. period.

Most states prohibit the use of full auto for hunting. Of course, like any gun, you should be sure of your backstop and surroundings before firing. How many hunting accidents are committed with machineguns every year? Compare that to those with just your average shotgun and hunting rifle.

defense with FA sucks, cause u probably kill many inocent people near you with bullets missing their target.

Practice my friend, practice. Just like using any handgun; you have to know the capabilities of the weapon and your own capabilities first. Of course, full auto is a bad choice for defense against a home intruder - would you like the cops seizing your $14,000 weapon until the investigation is complete? I'd much rather use a handgun or shotty I can afford to lose.

plinging/fun shooting - ok but that's already it.

Now you're getting it. Some people like yachts, some people like fancy cars. Some like fast guns.

i don't think the authors of the constitution wantet anyone to have the right to bring many others in danger (eg. by shooting around you while hoping to hit a direct thread)

The mere possession of a machinegun brings danger to no one. If I use it in a criminally reckless or negligent manner, than it may, but there are laws regarding use. You have no more right to use your Sig pistol in a criminal, reckless, or negligent manner than I have to use my M16. Of course, I'd just love to hear you present some facts to support your assertion the Founding Father felt differently.

as most of u probably know, in the constitution the text says arms not guns, therefore do u think anyone should get a nuclear bomb for homedefense, since its some kind of arm, as well?

Actually, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue in US v. Miller. According to Miller, any weapon of military utility is protected by the 2nd Amendment. However, its important to note that Miller is an old case and probably of dubious significance today.

alan
December 8, 2004, 01:19 AM
Endor5:

The people that you "cannot convince" are likely the same people who, in fact, haven't the proverbial clue about what an "assault weapon" in the ASSAULT RIFLE sense of the term actually is. I doubt that the facts of the matter, which they likely have never had any real contact wth, would make any real difference to such types.

By the way, the term "assault weapon" is meaningless, while the term Assault Rifle is a TECHNICAL TERM that has a quite specific definition, and meaning as with the following. Assault Rifle: Selective fire weapon, chambered for an intermediate power cartridge. A U.S. Military issue example of the above would have been the M-2 Carbine, of Korean War fame, a selective fire weapon, of rifle configuration, chambered for an intermediate power cartridge.

This goes back to when the 30-06 was the Service Rifle Cartridge, and the Service Pistol fired the 45 ACP. The M-1/M-2 Carbine round fell between the above mentioned re power and size, being that intermediate power cartridge.

Getting back to the people you cannot convince, one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make the creature drink.

In conclusion, you mentioned "need" in your post. I submit that "need" doesn't even begin to enter into things. For example, regarding the thousands of SUV's bring driven on the public roads, how many of the people who own these vehicles "need" them, as opposed to the number of people who, for one reason or another, simply "want" them?

SIG-Fan
December 8, 2004, 07:58 AM
hi shaggy,
of course there are less incidents with FA guns, cause there are less of these possed by civilians in comparison to shotguns, ect. thats also why there are probalby no accidents with FA guns while hunting, since its prohibited in most states to hunt with FA. but especially the hunting example was supposed to show, thats there no real porpuse of a FA gun in civilian hands.
i mean, u can use a sg for hunting, homedefense, plinging as well as for sports, but FA is just eventually for fun.
however, u can't be serious to tell me, that a proper defense w/o harming your environment with a FA is posible. just imagine, at the time when 2-3 bullets of a handgun are on there way a FA has already passed 30 rounds...i think 30 bullets flying around you its far more dangerous then 3. especially if you considder, that controlling a gun while using FA mode is far more difficult to the average! civilian than handling a semi-auto. therefore the chance of missing and harming others is far higher.

since im not quite familiar with american presedence (is that how u write it?)
cases therefore if no idea about miller vs. state. what was the result of the case?

greetings from germany... sig-fan

shaggy
December 8, 2004, 09:52 AM
Sig-Fan

You've obviously never had any experience with a full-auto weapon before if you think full-auto means necessarily spraying 30rds all over the place. My M16 is set up for auto, not a 3rd burst. Many submachineguns, however, have a 3rd burst limiter, so each pull of the trigger only yields 3 shots, not 30. Even on those weapons without a burst setting (like my M16's) it is quite easy to limit yourself to two or three rounds per pull of the trigger. Even with weapons with a relatively high rate of fire such as a MAC type submachinegun, you can easily limit yourself to 2-3 rounds per pull of the trigger. Its called trigger control; those of us who own and use these kinds of weapons learn it rather quickly. If your experience of automatic weapons is limited to what you see in the movies and on television you probably have little or no concept of it.

And if you think machineguns are particularly ill-suited for defense, why do many law enforcement agencies use them? Why does the military use them? I'm sure the folks carrying machineguns for diplomatic and nuclear security would be stunned to find out how inneffective their weapons are.

Is it possible to load up a machinegun and dump all 30rds in one pull of the trigger? Absolutely. But is just as possible for you to quickly pull the trigger on your pistol until its empty. Neither is particularly effective, and both can be just as dangerous if done irresponsibly or recklessly.

So tell me, how much experience have you had shooting machineguns?

Do you know what the average machinegun costs in the US? The people that can afford machineguns here in the US are very careful about them - they are very expensive and there is a far more extensive background check than for any other type of weapon. Do you have any idea what is involved in acquiring a full auto weapon?

Irishmtnmn2001
December 8, 2004, 08:58 PM
Let's face it..........99% of the idiots I arrested with guns were packing garbage! Cheap Raven .25 autos and off-brand .380's. Your average criminal buys junk.

The law was enacted by people who aren't gun owners.....trying to get the votes of other non-gun owners.

It is a great thing that the political climate during the election prevented the renewal of the ban.

Unfortunately, my high capacity Glock Mags and Pre-ban AR-15 Match aren't worth CRAP anymore. Oh well, a small price to pay for freedom!!! :)

alan
December 9, 2004, 01:35 AM
SIG-Fan:

I believe that your understanding of America, it's laws and traditions, as well as your understanding of automatic weapons is unfortunately sparse. Years ago, I worked in what was then West Germany for a while, Weisbadden, please pardon my possible misspelling, so I knew, or had learned something of Germany, at least at that time.

Regarding automatic weapons, in the 70 years since the enactment of the National firearms Act of 1934, there is no record of the illegal use of a legally owned machinegun in this country. American machine gun owners seem to be particularly law abiding types, possibly due to the expense, the time and the effort expended in legally acquiring examples of the genre.

I noticed that you had mentioned "Miller v. state". Actually it was Miller v U.S., heard in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. It dealt with the possession and transportation across state lines, of an unregistered "short barreled shotgun". Automatic weapons or machine guns weren't involved at all. In the original case, two gentlemen, Miller and Layton thought to have been operating an illegal whiskey still, were found in possession of a short barreled shotgun which had been transported across state lines. They were charged with violation of the 1934 Act. At District Court level, the case was dismissed, the trial judge having found the 1934 law unconstitutional. The federal government appealed to Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. The court ruled that a short barreled shotgun was not a "militia arm", therefore posession of such was not constitutionally protected. Strange to note, tis finding flew in the fact of historical fact, for short barreled shotguns had been issued by the military, to U.S. troops and had seen service in World War 1, as well as other military acctions between WW 1 and WW2. Such fact, if brought to the attention of the court might well have caused them to reject the governments case. Interestingly Miller neither appeared before the Court, nor was he represented by legal counsel before The Court. The court heard only from government attorneys, people who clearly would not bring to the courts attention, evidence that would weaken or possibly destroy the case they were presenting. Therefore, The Court lacked "offical legal notice" as to historical fact, and individual members of the court, men who had possibly had military service, chose not to consider what they themselves might have seen or personally experienced. The 1934 Act was upheld, though argument about what the court actually meant carries on to this day.

Respecting your reference to "spraying the countryside with bullets", while I myself am not a machine gun owner, I have fired light automatic weapons, including the MP-5, the Thompson Sub Machine Gun, and the U.S. M-16, selective fire service rifle, one of such is owned by a friend of mine. I fired it once, first with a "short magazine", 5 rounds, for familizarition, with selector set on semi-automatic. After that I fully loaded a 20 round magazine, put the selector on automatic and fired 5 bursts from one 20 round magazine, an average of 4 rounds per trigger press. The countryside was hardly sprayed with bullets.

Finally, one hears a great deal of comment to the effect that "nobody needs those things". Re this, I submit that "need" doesn't even come close to entering the equation. What is involved re automatic weapons is desire to own the things, the abilityand willingness to pay quite high prices, and the ability of the individual to obtain government clearance for the purchase of such arms.

Porsche automobiles are high performance vehicles, some models capable of attaining speeds in excess of 150 MPH, correct me if I'm wrong. How many people "need" to own such automobiles, racing drivers excepted, and they usually drive rather than own the cars. Anyone who can pay the price can buy one, no? "Need" is simply not a factor, same as is the case where the individual or individuals lawfully acquire machine guns. "Need" plays no role whatever, though wants or desired obviously do.

When next you find the odd moment, consider the foregoing. Meanwhile, seasons greetings to you and yours. By the way, one needs to remember that the laws and traditions in one country will differ from those of another country. This is not to say that one set is superior to the other, but rather to note that they are "different". Let others determine or argue as to which is "better", for the final decision there depends on how one spells "better".

SIG-Fan
December 9, 2004, 06:11 PM
hi allan and shaggy.

@shaggy
your arguments seem quite convincing, if you consider the barriers of a regular civilian in order to get one of these guns. (permission+high costs)
but what about an mac10 or m16 with FA. anyone could afford one of these things...
however, you are right, never shot a FA gun. things are handled different over here, if you are not in the army or a police officer or a collector you won't ever come close to one of these things. during the time i spent in maryland (2001-2002) i didn't get the opportunity to shoot any gun. as far as i know, theres a 10round restriction in MD, so there wouldn't have been any sense in FA guns, anyway...

@alan. i certainly think the german way of handling guns is the better one. not because the FA guns, but because of the regular semis, awailable to everyone. i mean think about it, if u considder there where 250 gun murders in 2000 while 11000 guns murders in us (refering to michael moore). ok, the us is three times as big as germany, but this still just would be 750 gun murders (therefore less than 10% of the us gun crimes...)
i mean, what's the big deal of a permission for guns like in germany? i think that's a good way and a good compromise between gun-owners and gun-haters...
...i allmost forgot it. i live 20 miles away from Wiesbaden. that the capital of the state where i live, named Hessen.

SIG-Fan
December 9, 2004, 06:14 PM
something to add:

i neither "need" a gun, i WANT to have one. therefore i never referred to the word "need" in any of my posts...

PMDW
December 10, 2004, 12:40 AM
but what about an mac10 or m16 with FA. anyone could afford one of these things...

Mac 10s are around $3,000 now. M16s go for around $11,000 and up.

That's 4,432 and 16,251 marks, respectively.

As for the murder rate, I'm willing to bet that at least 95% (assuming that number was for murders in which a firearm was used, and not the total U.S. murder rate) of those crimes were committed by people who purchased their firearms illegally, or stole them. Meaning more laws aren't going to stop them from purchasing more firearms illegally. All they do it disarm the people who legally purchase firearms (among other reasons) in order to protect them and their families against those who purchase them illegally for use in crimes. What good is it to have people have to get government permission to obtain a firearm, when the gang banger down the street doesn't have to, because he buys them illegally out of a guy's trunk, or steals them.

SIG-Fan
December 10, 2004, 05:49 AM
hi,
what makes a FA m4 carbine that expensive? a semi-auto m16 is about 800 bucks in us, as far as i know. well, at least in germany are m16 copies made in germany about 2000 euros...whats the big deal to change a semi into a full auto, so that it is worth 11000 bucks?

gunsmith1
December 10, 2004, 12:16 PM
Only that people are sadly willing to pay that!

Hkmp5sd
December 10, 2004, 12:23 PM
what makes a FA m4 carbine that expensive?
Because back in 1986, the government decided they would prohibit the registration of machineguns for civilian use. So there is now a fixed number of machineguns for the average person to purchase and with more and more people wanting them, price goes up.

One thing you seem to not see is that a criminal in the US can have ANY machinegun manufactured anywhere in the world if he desires one. Just like cocaine, if you want it, someone will supply it. The fact that few criminals do use fully automatic weapons should imply they are not the best thing in the world for killing people.

There was a time back in the early 1900s when the Generals running the army thought that a semi-automatic rifle was useless because the troops would waste too many bulllets.

alan
December 10, 2004, 04:45 PM
SIG-FAN:

1. I had mentioned YOUR reference to the Miller case. I had made reference to this "needs" as opposed to "wants" business.

2. Maryland is one of those limits on magazine capacity states. I do not know why they bother, other than to say that Maryland has some strange laws. I also believe that Maryland forbids the ownership of automatic weapons to private citizens. Not all states do. Pennsylvania, where I currently live, does not forbid such ownership, though federal clearance is still required. Then there is the question of cost. Resulting from ill advised federal legislation passed in 1986, the cost of transferable automatic weapons has increased sharply. This has been mentioned in a previous post, which you might have seen. Limits on magazine capacity are no longer a part of federal law, as the Assault Weapons Ban, an example of legislative foolishness, expired on 13 September 2004.

3. As to your question regarding "what is the big deal of a permission for guns ...", interesting question there. In my view, it becomes a question of principle and philosophy. Government is the servant, not the master of the people and the individual citizen. Some would have it that government is the master, an idea that I and many others disagree with. So, when an inherently individual right, that being the right of self defense, a right that must include the ability to possess and acquire such personal weapons as are suitable to ones defense of self and family, is reduced to a privilege for which government permission must be sought, essential rights are lost, for the government can, one day grant permission, while denying it the next day, or it can selectively grant or deny permission. In such case, the government has become the master, while the citizens are servants, or worse. I find this less than acceptable. "The German Way" might well work for you. That does not mean that it would work for others, nor does it mean that others would, given the option, choose as you have.

4. As to "compromising" with the gun haters, which you also asked about, consider this. When an individual or group(s) have repeatedly and publicly stated that it is their intention and ultimate goal to destroy rights, usage and traditions that you hold dear, such is the case with what you describe as the "gun haters" in the U.S., how could you possibly consider "compromise" with them? Additionally, when in the past, you had attempted to "compromise" with them it turned out to be a "one way street", for while they took whatever you offered, they always came back for more. Where is even the possibility of compromise, compromise being a situation where each side gives up something?

5. I have no idea as to the murder rate in Germany, so I will take your word for the number you mentioned. Regarding the output of Mr. Moore, given his demonstrated tendencies toward a certain looseness with the facts, I would not put to much faith in his output.

SIG-Fan
December 11, 2004, 07:59 AM
hi allan,
when i was in the us, i was reading occasionally some gunmagazines, where i found some companies offering tuning kits for semi-auto ar15 changing to full auto. the kits were just a few hundred bucks, not more. so why paying 11000 for an m16 when you can get a fully automatic ar15 for maybe 1000 bucks or so? ...
i just did a little resarch at google, the data provided by more seems to be quite reliable, just type "murder statistics USA" and you'll get the data...
the scary thing is, that a significant number of murders are commited by people going crazy...murder w/in the families (wife cheated on her husband), but also things like conflicts with neighbours, collegues, the boss are solved with guns...thats quite scary...just watch at google...

the reason, why i'm certainly convinced by the "german way" (silly word :rolleyes: ) is that your criminal reccord (i hope u know what i mean, i just dont know the proper word) is checked, you have to pass a test, where you have to prove that u know how to handle guns (eg. not pointing the muzzle at other, what to do when your gun jams, ect.). therefore, criminals cannot get a gun legally, accidents are reduced (no german hunter would nearly get any idea like putting a loaded gun on his dog back!). kids dont get guns, very important! its essentially like your permission for machineguns. i mean you dont seem to complain about that permission, so why should you complain for a semi-auto permission. i think, all of u guys here just want just reliable, non-criminal and matured people to own guns, don't you?!? Well, at least i wouldn't want any convicted criminal or some proven loony in my neighbourhood, having the legal permission to own guns!

-sig-fan

Hkmp5sd
December 11, 2004, 08:12 AM
criminals cannot get a gun legally
Criminals cannot get guns legally in the US either.

As murder is illegal, why should breaking a law on getting a gun worry them?

accidents are reduced
Accidents have been declining for decades. Laws don't prevent accidents, training does.

kids dont get guns
Kids don't get guns in the US either unless under adult supervision.

I acquired my first firearm when I was 12 years old and haven't killed anyone yet, either by accident or on purpose.

its essentially like your permission for machineguns. i mean you dont seem to complain about that permission, so why should you complain for a semi-auto permission.

We do complain. It is just not useful to complain about the machinegun laws at this time because of misinformation, ignorance and prejudice. We do not want any other "classes" of guns to fall under that ban. The recently deceased "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon" ban proves the uselessness of gun bans. It had ZERO effect on crime in this country.

All gun bans and restrictions violate our Constitution. Years of brainwashing are gradually removing that belief from the collective minds of Americans.

SIG-Fan
December 11, 2004, 01:43 PM
hi hk,

"Accidents have been declining for decades. Laws don't prevent accidents, training does."

as far as i know there are still many hunting accidents in the us. training doesnt help anything, as long as u dont know the basic rules about handling guns. i feel better, if i know that my neighbour at the shooting range has prooven in a test that he know how to handle them. i neither want anyone driving a car without drivin license near me.

in 1998 974 shooting accidents in the US
in 2004 32 shooting accidents in germany

NOW TELL ME THAT SOME TESTS ARE NOT NECESARY!!!

how can accidents happen? if someone without experience is able to buy a gun, without knowing how to use it! in germany, you can get a gun, but you have to proove first that you know how to handle guns. thats why there allmost no shooting accidents in germany.

do you even give a damn about anyone who died because some idiot shot him by accident, or why can't you just understand that a test (similar to the driving license test, but other questions, of course) will save lifes???

souces:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ihea/hea1998.html
http://www.abschaffung-der-jagd.de/gefahr_durch_Jagdunfaelle/256.html


"Kids don't get guns in the US either unless under adult supervision.

I acquired my first firearm when I was 12 years old and haven't killed anyone yet, either by accident or on purpose"

sure they do. think about columbine, they got their guns LEGALLY at shotshows, although they were teenagers. thats fact. period

its good to know that u didnt kill anyone. but not all teenagers have an easy time at highschool while being bullied and beeten up by others...some of these kids seek revenge...

"Criminals cannot get guns legally in the US either.
As murder is illegal, why should breaking a law on getting a gun worry them?"

what should them prevent of getting a gun legaly, if there aren't any restrictions and gun permissions...? what about loonies gettin a gun? they are not nesserarily convicted for a crime, but still i dont want any psycho to have a gun. :mad: :mad:

Hkmp5sd
December 11, 2004, 02:02 PM
think about columbine, they got their guns LEGALLY at shotshows, although they were teenagers. thats fact. period
They DID NOT get their guns legally. They were under age and talked some adults into purchasing the guns for them. The guns were purchased at a gun show but the adults STILL had the same paperwork to purchase the guns because they bought them from a licensed dealer. Those adults were arrested for providing the guns.

in 1998 974 shooting accidents in the US
in 2004 32 shooting accidents in germany

NOW TELL ME THAT SOME TESTS ARE NOT NECESARY!!!
And exactly how many hunters are there in the US vs. Germany? The comparison is invalid.

what should them prevent of getting a gun legaly, if there aren't any restrictions and gun permissions...? what about loonies gettin a gun? they are not nesserarily convicted for a crime, but still i dont want any psycho to have a gun.

Criminals, psychos, loonies, etc. DO NOT go into gun stores and buy firearms legally. Gun laws DO NOT prevent criminals from acquiring firearms. A new report from the government (Gun Violence: Justice Department Study Shows 79 Percent of Criminals Obtained Firearms From Illegal Sources (http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_5932.shtml)) confirms what we already know. If gun laws were effective in preventing crime, why does England have such a problem with gun crimes (Violent crime 'four times higher' than reported (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/14149500?source=Evening%20Standard)) when civilian ownership is completely illegal?

abelew
December 11, 2004, 02:36 PM
I dont mean to sound mean. But.........
I was in the USAF recently, and just seperatedunder honorable conditions. I carried various versions of all sorts of weapons that joe citizen cant get. Some I do not think should be allowed, but for the fact that there are no safe way to operate them (mk19 machine grenade launcher). Does that mean that they shouldn't be allowed, I do not believe that is MY call. Some people may have the means to operate it safely, and if they are willing to take the liability of such ownership, then they should. That said, operating a weapon such as you mention takes a LOT of practice, and isn't viable except for in a few situations. The military (of all organizations) stresses semi-auto fire for many reasons. Most importantly, most FA or 3 round burst weapons are only accurate (using 3 rd burst or FA) out to about 15 meters. They are expensive to obtain, and operate. Honestly I could take a $800 ar-15 with a 20 barrel, and cause more meyham than most averge citizens out there with a FA weapon. Why? Shot placement, extensive knowledge of said weapon. BUT, here is the kicker. I am an adult, that said, I am liable for any and all of my actions. I do not wish to go around hurting people, nor do I wish to be punished for it. I could take a piece of pine 2X4 and kill with it, but should that be a NFA weapon because I put a rusty nail through it?

With regard to criminals and guns.
Why would one in the crimial enterprize go through the trouble of getting (cough, fingerprinted, background checked, etc) if he/she knew that these things could be used to ID them later?) I think I would just pay some illegal imprter to get one. Any ammount of laws will not stop the illegal obtaining of weapons that are illegal. Look how much $ has been put into stopping drugs? I find such "blissninny" whining to be based more on one's skewed view of their role in our society. Just because YOU do not think its right, or needed, or whatever does not mean YOU have the RIGHT to say its wrong, etc for the next person. There are some universal truths, and they are simple, if you think about it. An INDIVIDUALS right to choose for themselves should not be limited unless it has an ADVERSE and NEGATIVE affect on others. Citing other's posts about legally obtained NFA weapons, one could actually say that they are actually affecting society less than the illegal glock 9mm that the drug dealer bought down the street. Does that mean that glock 9mm should be illegal just because someone committed a crime with one like it?

I can guarentee without fail, that more legal Sig handguns of the model, caliber, and even metal treatment type that you have, have been used in more crimes than all of the legally obtained machine guns in the united states combined. Quit whining, this is a philisophical debate that has no merit, as it is all about "possible this', "maybe that" that lacks actual histoical significance of any type.

With regard to limiting the rights of the law abiding because of criminal use of like products, I have this to say. Go into your garage, look at your car. The make, model and year. Do you particularly like your car? Has a car like it been used in a crime? I imagine a car of similar type has been used in a crime somewhere. Vehicle deaths account for many more deaths each year than do firearm deaths, accident or otherwise. Yet for some reason anyone is allowed to POSSESS one. This doesnt mean they are allowed to the privilage of driving it on government provided roads (they are allowed to operate on private property, without concern for age, ability, etc). Guns have been deamonized for some reason, and those that are not able to look at the argument subjectivly (without emotion, or agenda) start making conjecture, assumptions, and look at the capabilitys of such items. They do not look at the actual use, reason for ownership, etc. If I said that anyone that owns a gun is a murderer (seriously) you would probably get all bent out of shape, because you dont want your gun ownership affected.

Any firearm, regardless of type, length, semi-auto-bolt-single shot-lever action, etc is dangerous. You had to pass a backgound check to obtain your SIG, would you likely use that weapon is a premeditated crime? I do not think so, as it would be traced back to you in a heartbeat. Would you be more apt to (if you were planning a crime) obtain an unregistered, untraceable weapon for use 1 time, then dispose of it. This would be the smart method, IMHO. And you didnt have to do anything but wait a few days, and wait 10 min for the dealer to call the FBI and check you out. Think about this, if you had to fork over $10,000 for a weapon that you wanted, have to be fingerprinted, photographed, and subject yourself to search, and wait 8 months or more to get it, would you use that in a crime, when you can get 10 or more of same, not be fingerprinted, picture taken, consent to search, wait 8 months for the same price?

When any of our gun rights is affected, all gun owners are affected. Just because your particular weapon is not, does not mean that your rights have not been diminished. As a responsable gun owner, you should realize that law abiding citizens should not have to pay for the evil of criminals.

alan
December 12, 2004, 01:02 AM
Sig-Fan:

A couple of quick points, for it's growing late.

1. Re the conversion kits you mentioned, they are mostly JUNK and they do not work as claimed. Additionally, the conversion of any semi-automatic firearm to full automatic, without registration of the conversion, if a federal felony. A felony is a serious crime, this one punisable by 5 years in prison plus heavy fines.

2. More guns are owned by "civilians", that is private citizens in the U.S. than ever before, and the rate of accidental shootings, forget about what the screamers on television claim, is lower than ever before. This business of licensing and requirements for "training" is bunk, with "training" to easily becoming a license to steal, the trainors stealing from the trainees. As for licensing, in Germany, you need a license, government issued, in order to drive a car, just like here in the U.S. There are still auto carshes in both countries.

3. In the U.S. a single felony conviction serves to permanently eliminate the individuals right to own or use firearms of any kind. As to the "Loony" that you are concerned about, who is to tell who is "loony" as opposed to who isn't? They cannot do that here, can tbey do it in Germany? Unfortunately, our law makers find it easier to attack the law abiding citizenry with idiotic gun control laws, than to make proper criminal law. Proper criminal law would specify the death penalty upon conviction for criminal use of a firearm. Self defense or other justifiable shooting would not be criminal use.

4. As to my going along with the idea of needing government permission in order to own automatic weapon(s), I do not know how you managed, but you have completely misunderstood my position and thinking. By the way, this entire discussion arose out of a question concerning the "sunset" of a particularly dumb federal law, that being the "Assault Weapons Ban", which never in it's 10 year life "banned" a single assault weapon. Look up the meaning of the German word Sturmgewere, an then look at what our legislative idiocy said.

It seems that we have reached that point where we begin to repeat ourselves, so I will close here with best wishes for the holiday season to you and yours.

PMDW
December 12, 2004, 01:29 AM
5 years in prison plus heavy fines.

10 years.

...Sturmgewere...

Sturmgewehr. :)

alan
December 12, 2004, 12:02 PM
PMDW:

I had previously apoligized for my butchery, re the spelling of German words and place names. Apologies still appropriate, it seems, or might it be that my spell check program has problems too?

Thought that it was 5 years in the slammer, is it really 10? Either one is more than I would care to spend.

SIG-Fan
December 12, 2004, 12:23 PM
hi allan and hk,

@hk 300k hunters in germany. hunting in germany is quite different, here you can't just go out and hunt something, but you have first to pass a qualification that takes about one or two years and costs about 2k euros. after that, you are allowed to get somewhere a piece of forrest were you are responsible for. as hunter in germany you are responsible the whole part of the year for your part of the forrest, every weekend you have to check out if the forrest is fine, if the animals are not sick, count how many animals are on your area...

you said 79% of the gun crimes are commited with illegal guns. therefore are 21% commited with legal guns.
last year 98,7% were commited with illegal guns. therefore just .13% of the gun crimes were commited with legal guns...
that makes a difference of about 20% between germany and US...now figure out how many crimes could have been prevented considering that many of this incidents happen by people going mad (wife cheated on him), while carring a gun....

@abelew
i certainly dont have a problem with assaultrifles, since alan explained me about the high barriers in order to get them. i just think, that it would be good thing, if you had some barriers about obtaining (is this the right word?) regular semis...

@alan, before you start ingnoring this thread, please answer me, why these conversion kits are sold, if you commit a crime by installing it? noone would buy one of these things just to look at the gun parts.

i agree, thats enough words for this single toppic... :D

SIG-Fan
December 12, 2004, 12:36 PM
ahhh, sorry i forgot.

my idea of loony is someone, whose psychologist said that he is one. but seriously...loonies are people who tried to kill themselves, who have to different personalities (just like in fight club), people with paranoia...oh sorry, according to michael moore the majority of the us citizens have paranoia ;)

@abelew

"Just because YOU do not think its right, or needed, or whatever does not mean YOU have the RIGHT to say its wrong, etc for the next person."

yea of course, i think thats what you would call the right to say your opinion.i have also the right to say, that i want everyone to protect the ozone layer, even if some people would be affected.
do u have the right to say "i want everyone driving a car near me having a driving license." i'd say: " hack yea, dude, of course you have the right to, even if driving without license works quite well for others, you still have the right to complain!!!"

thanks to you all guys, i improved my english during the few last days by writing lots of posts and by exchanging opinions... :)

Hkmp5sd
December 12, 2004, 01:52 PM
i improved my english during the few last days by writing lots of posts and by exchanging opinions...
I'm still working on improving my English. :)

However, you missed one question. If gun laws work, and England has a 100% ban on civilian owned firearms, how come they have this problem with gun related crime? They have no gun stores, no guns shows and you can't break into someone's house and steal one because they aren't suppose to be there in the first place. The country is an island, so you can't just drive across the border and smuggle one back in the trunk of your car.

Based on the logic of gun bans, as the police arrest criminals and confiscate guns, the overall number of guns should decrease along with a decrease in the number of crimes committed with guns. But the result seems to be that by removing guns from those that do obey laws and who handed over their guns to the government is to make them an easier and safer target for those that by definition do not obey laws, criminals.

abelew
December 12, 2004, 02:44 PM
Ahh, did you not look up the crime stats for "assult rifles" in the US before you went off on semi-auto rifles? I do not think that semi-auto rifles are the problem, its illegally obtained handguns. Also, Germany and the US are 2 different countries. In the UNITED STATES, I would gladly take more crime for more civil liberty. There are tradeoffs for every decision, and I hope the US takes more steps to prosecute those that are violating the law, as opposed to taking the easier route and blaming an item for the crime of a person. What you said about Germany's hunting idea just makes me not ever want to leave the US because I value (legal) personal freedom too much.

I have noticed that in the US, people take too much time, energy, and pleasure trying to tell the next person what to do, how to think, where to do it, and why. If people spent that time on being constructive and minding their own stinking business, the world would be a better place. All of those soccer moms who drive huge SUV's have a larger impact on our world than all the gun owners combined, yet if I told them that they could not drive those behemouths, because I do not like the pollution that they create, they would buy a contract on my life. Everyone likes telling others what to do, but they hate it when the other people do the same to them. Does the gun control we have in place work? I believe that a background check is a good idea, because it keeps felons from buying from law abiding gun dealers. Do I think it is the solution, no. Do I believe that penalizing Joe Law Abiding citizen something because criminals do not abide by the law, ABSOLUTLY NOT!

Germany is not the United States!


Sigdo u have the right to say "i want everyone driving a car near me having a driving license." i'd say: " hack yea, dude, of course you have the right to, even if driving without license works quite well for others, you still have the right to complain!!!"

The reason that the government and you can requre people to possess a drivers liscense in order to operate a vehicle on public roads is.........The government provides the roads, and driving on public roads is a privliage. Gun ownership is not a privliage in the US, its a right . That said, anyone can operate a privatly owned vehicle on private property without any liscense at all. On my private property, I could require that all people pass a drug screen, breathalizer test, sign a waiver of liability, and have their photo taken, and that would be legal, because I have the right to deny entry/use of my property just like the government does with public roads.

alan
December 12, 2004, 11:54 PM
Sig-Fan wrote:

@abelew
i certainly dont have a problem with assaultrifles, since alan explained me about the high barriers in order to get them. i just think, that it would be good thing, if you had some barriers about obtaining (is this the right word?) regular semis...

@alan, before you start ingnoring this thread, please answer me, why these conversion kits are sold, if you commit a crime by installing it? noone would buy one of these things just to look at the gun parts.

I have no answer to your question concerning why these so-called "conversion kits" are sold other than the following. Someone thinks that they can make money selling them. At one time, I believe that the law has since been changed, selling these kits was legal, whether or not they actually worked. INSTALLING THE KIT INTO A FIREARM WASN'T, UNLESS THE CONVERSION WAS REGISTERED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, as mentioned earlier. There might also have been problems with STATE LAW, as I had mentioned earlier too. Other than this, some Americans do all manner of really stupid things, just as I'm certain do some Germans. Add in, while we are at it, the British, the French, the Dutch and whomever else you can think of. They all do some really stupid things, or at least some of them do.

Another of your questions dealt with restrictions on "regular semis", if I underestood it. As I mentioned earlier, generally speaking, conviction for a felony PERMANENTLY removes the individuals right to own, possess, purchase or use either firearms or ammunition. This is FEDERAL LAW, and is applicable in all 50 states.

Sig-Fan, you also wrote the following:

my idea of loony is someone, whose psychologist said that he is one. but seriously...loonies are people who tried to kill themselves, who have to different personalities (just like in fight club), people with paranoia...oh sorry, according to michael moore the majority of the us citizens have paranoia

On this, three observations:

1. I don't know about Germany, but in this country, neither psychologists nor phychiatrists can definitively tell who is "loony" before the fact, that is absent specific evidence, and observation, and even then the "experts" do not always agree. Also, in the U.S. people who have undergone involuntary commitment to a mental institute can be barred from the purchase of arms.

2. I did not know that Michael Moore had credintials in either psycology or psychiatry. I had thought that his field was the writing of books and film making.

3. Re his evaluation of the mental health of "the majority of Americans", given that I'm not really familiar with his work, did he include himself in that characterization of Americans, the one that claimed that "the majority of Americans have paranoia"? By the way, I think that the correct form of the phrase would be ARE PARANOID, or suffer from paranoia. This last is a minor point though, as English is not your native language.

Hkmp5sd
December 13, 2004, 04:41 AM
INSTALLING THE KIT INTO A FIREARM WASN'T, UNLESS THE CONVERSION WAS REGISTERED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Are they actually "conversion" kits or are they "parts" kits? It is perfectly legal for a person that owns a registered machinegun to order spare parts for that gun. It is perfectly legal for a person that does not own a gun that the "parts" will fit in to own the parts. However, it is a violation of federal law to merely possess the full auto parts and a firearm they will function in, regardless of whether or not they are ever installed in the firearm.

SIG-Fan
December 13, 2004, 04:57 AM
hi hk and allan,

@hk in germany you can buy a semi glock 17. as some of you know there the full auto glock 18, which differs from the glock 17 just by a different fireswitch/selector. you are allowed to own this switch and you are allowed to have a glock (if u have the permission for guns). but its not legal to intall the switch! but still people pay 300euros for this useless piece of metal...as u see, there are stupid germans as well ;)

@alan
MM reffered to the militia, when he talked about the americans suffering under paranoia (thanks for correcting me). in the movie you could see some guys and a soccer mom, handling with all kinds of firearms while trying to convince MM of the necessity of a militia in the us.

gunsmith1
December 13, 2004, 12:05 PM
In response to the larger number of firearms accidents in the USA, I do not believe that it is training or safety that is the difference. You have to figure in some other variables. As Germany is about the size of Texas there are understandably few options for hunting also the population density is high. In the US there are just a huge number more guns period. Then factor in that we use them for sport more than any other country in the world because we have more ranges, more hunting land, more forests. Germany probably has a lot less car crashes per capita also because the average german doesnt drive A suburban a pickup and one or two cars like many US families. We don't use mass transit just like we don't leave the firearms to our police here.

abelew
December 13, 2004, 03:02 PM
I noticed Sig completly stopped arguing the rights/privilage thingy :)

That said, I do not wish to be misunderstood here. The only way to compare Germany to the United States is to extrapolate the number of gun accident per person.

I did some basic math.

As far as I could tell (based on quick net search)
Germany had 82,424,609 people in 2004.
United States had 294,451,983 in 2004.

Now, as I understand it, if you divide the number of people by the number of gun accidents, you will find out who has a higher accident per person by looking at who has the lower number (because 1 accident per 10 people is more accident than 1 crime per 100)

Germany 1 gun accident per 2587419
US 1 gun accident per 302312

Now you may think that this is a higher rate of accident, and it is. But to get a truly accurate number, one would have to look up gun ownership per person in the united states, and germany and then compare those numbers. I imagine that the US accident rate would be on par or less than that of Germany. Just because the actual number is higher, does not mean that the accident per person per gun rate is higher also. True, more guns = more accidents. More people = more statistical diseases per person, more cars=more accidents per person. Quoting statistics can only bring you so far in an arguement such as this, because accident, crime, whatever stats can not show that Germany is not the United States based on their respective laws. Sure its easy for one to say "oh my god, the united states is a gun totin, hillbilly, crime pit." But in the end Sig, do you live in Germany or the United States. If you do not live, nor are a citizen of the United States, then what are you doing going around saying we are wrong. Maybe we just do things differently? Is that ok with you?

SIG-Fan
December 13, 2004, 03:53 PM
hi,
ok i'd say things are different, not worse neither better ;)

MeekAndMild
December 13, 2004, 07:57 PM
Abe, there is more to it than that. What is the rate of gun accidents in German-Americans living in America?

If you look at US gun related crimes and accidents you have to factor in the fact that a significant minority of US population is entirely different tempermentally from Germans. In my state there is one county which is about 60% German-American and they happen to be one of the wealthiest counties, with the lowest crime rate. On the other hand there is a county with 55% African-American and they are number one in gun related crime and accidents. Another county with 80+/ percent Scots-Irish has the highest suicide rate in the state.

alan
December 13, 2004, 08:16 PM
SIG-Fan wrote in his latest:

hi,
ok i'd say things are different, not worse neither better

From where I sit in all this, that sounds like the beginning of understanding.

Sig-Fan also offered:
MM reffered to the militia, when he talked about the americans suffering under paranoia (thanks for correcting me). in the movie you could see some guys and a soccer mom, handling with all kinds of firearms while trying to convince MM of the necessity of a militia in the us.

I believe that the thing should read, "suffering from paranoia", or "suffering paranoia", rather than "suffering under paronia". English, it has been noted, is often a difficult language for foreigners to grasp. Keep trying.

It is also often difficult to gain an understanding of other cultures. It often turns out that the effort is worth while though, especially if you desire to communicate with members of that "other" culture. By the way, that situation you depicted with the Glock 18, which I had heard of, the ownership of uninstalled selector switch, is somewhat similar to that business of "conversion kits" you wrote of earlier. Once again, I note that the laws in Germany and the laws in the U.S. are different.

By the way, the German language has pecularities of it's own, especialy TECHNICAL GERMAN, as with as I recall, the SINGLE WORD that described the engine in some Porshe automobiles. Please, once again, bear with me re my spelling of German words. The engine would be described, in English, as a double overhead cam, gasoline engine. In a German Auto magazine I once came upon, it came out as follows. Frieknockingwheelerinluftbenzinemeutur. It was all quite literal, but strange to both the eye and the ear, at least it was the first time. When one thought about it a little, it did make sense.

abelew
December 13, 2004, 09:04 PM
Thanks, someone finially said what I was trying to pass on, in a much more effective manner. :D

United states: 1
Germany: 0
:eek: :eek: :D

FirstFreedom
December 16, 2004, 02:07 PM
SigFan, I have a different approach to answering your questions.

The answer is YES, some lives would be saved if people in the U.S. if people had to pass safety tests before owning guns or hunting. YES, there are social costs associated with the fundamental, Constitutionally-explicit, RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS that we in the U.S. have. YES, YES, YES, you are RIGHT! So the question is, why then do we do it? Why do we accept social costs in order to have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms (which in turn prohibits a "prior restraint" on such a fundamental right - that would include any kind of safety test). Why on earth would we NOT allow for SOME slight restrictions to be placed, if it would result in saving lives? There's a very good answer to that, and to understand it, you have to look at the BIG HISTORICAL picture. The answer, in the end, is that in the long run, having a fundamental right to keep and bear firearms without government restrictions SAVES MORE LIVES THAN IT TAKES. It saves lives by preventing tyranny and oppression of dictators and tyrants who would ignore the Constitution and enslave or at least oppress its people and trample on fundamental human rights, as has happen so many times over and over and over again throughout history, notably in the late 30s and early 40s in Deutchland, and WILL HAPPEN again. The RBKA, if allowed to be infringed in the slightest, will continually be more and more and more infringed, due to the inevitable slippery slope idea, until there is NO right, and all guns are banned. Look at history, and you will come to realize that today, you are required to pass a test to own a gun there, but it's just a matter of time before certain guns and then all guns are banned - then guess what, you will then have NO right of self-defense, either against criminals, or against an oppressive tyrant or dictator. The "founding fathers" of this country, 1776-1791 time frame, in the wake of extreme oppression under the King's rule in ol' merry England, KNEW THIS - they had the foresight to KNOW that the people in a democracy (or democratic republic) would eventually infringe and ultimately take away the RKBA from themselves, under a majority rule system, because of knee-jerk fear reactions, making the country ripe for takever by a king (i.e. a dictator). Since the KNEW that the "sheeple", if you will, would eliminate their own RKBA, and since the KNEW that the RKBA was essential to the long-term survival of the democracy, they knew that they must put this protection into the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, which requires a 2/3rds Senate and 3/4ths state ratification to repeal or amend in any way - a "supermajority", not a simple majority. They were quite wise, as history has shown time and again, since then, that the legislatures are CONSTANTLY seeking to further erode, amend, and infringe the RKBA - it is only the people, groups like the NRA, and ultimately the 2nd amendment and the courts that have fought to preserve it (and ultimately would be the gun-owning citizens themselves, in the event that the worse case happens - that the constitution is ignored). Mark my words - 40 years from now, you won't be owning any Sig pistol in Germany, but we will in the US. It will happen quite incrementally - higher fees, this type gun banned, that type gun banned; eventually rimfires only, and then one day, no guns. Just give your kneejerk legislators time, and they will modify your ability to even own a gun completely out of existence. Bottom line, on a big-picture cost/benefit analysis, the long-term benefit of survival of democracy (and thus the averting of a bloody revolution) SAVES far more lives than the lack of prior restraints (such as safety tests) on the RKBA INFLICTS, in the long run, when you take the *inevitable* slippery slope into account. The right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is quite unique, in that it's the ONE fundamental right within the bill of rights, that if taken away, prevents the very ability to restore the right under the "doomsday" idea of the right to begin with. Since it's the one right that not only protects all others, but also if infringed, has lost its ability to restore itself and all others (speech, etc.), then it must be fought for steadfastly and vigilantly when infringed. It must also be preserved with force and violence immediately, if a disarmament is ever actually sought to be enforced by the gov't, because otherswise, the ability to mount a revolt with arms will itself be taken away, from successful disarmament enforcement (or at the very least disarmament severely hampers a revolt and takes much, much longer under more suffering to oust the tyrant, who have a strong tendencey to hold power when his (her?) people are disarmed). So, bottom line, the RKBA is about AVOIDING A BLOODY REVOLUTION and PRESERVING THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, and avoiding scenarios like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein from ever happening here. It's about saving lives in the long run, and avoiding suffering and human rights violation under a tyrannical and/or dictatorial regime. From a big-picture cost-benefit anaylsis, if you look at history, and tyrants' inevitable inclination AND ability to become dictators, it makes a lot of sense - a few lives lost here and there due to inadequate training or general availability of guns, is in fact, well worth not having tens of millions murdered by their own gov'ts, such as Stalin and Hitler did. The harsh reality is, a few dead people is a better thing than millions upon millions of dead people, along with the lost of freedom accompanied therewith, until a democracy is restored. THAT, my friends, is what the RKBA is about.

alan
December 16, 2004, 11:35 PM
FirstFreedon:

The following is a short excerpt from your interesting exposition.



Why on earth would we NOT allow for SOME slight restrictions to be placed, if it would result in saving lives?


Unfortunately, "we" have already accepted quite significant restrictions on RKBA, which was RECOGNIZED not created in or by The Constitution and It's first 10 amendments.

As to that business of "if it only saved one life", which I note has NOT fooled you, there has yet, so far as I'm aware, been a showing that it would save that often mentioned "one life".

FirstFreedom
December 20, 2004, 06:18 PM
Alan, you misunderstood entirely that portion of the post.

When I said


Why on earth would we NOT allow for SOME slight restrictions to be placed, if it would result in saving lives?

I was stating that as a hypothetical question which is or may be posed by the other side. Talking to myself. Playing devil's advocate. As in:

"Why on earth would we NOT allow for SOME slight restrictions to be placed, if it would result in saving lives, you might ask of me?"

Oh nevermind. I see that you understand that fact; that you're just pointing out that we've already gone down the road of significant restrictions ourselves. Yes, I know that of course, and excellent point. I was just keeping things simple for our foreign friend - and keeping a little bit theoretical/idealistic of how it SHOULD be, particularly in light of his undoubtedly skewed view of how the US of A is in its gun laws - I perceive Europeans to perceive us as basically wild west shootouts - no gun laws at all - nothing could be further from the truth of course, and most if not all of the 20,000 + federal, state, and local gun laws on the books are unconstitutionally violative of the 2A, but I was thinking hypothetically, in an ideal world, how the US WOULD BE, and hopefully WILL BE AGAIN someday, a TRUE beacon of the light of pretty much unfettered freedom vis a vis gun rights. I can be optimistic in light of the recent pendulum swinging back on gun issues it seems with things like CCW in 31 states - I attribute most of the pendulum swinging back in the US due to (1) the internet spreading truth about guns and gun rights, and (2) the overwhelming success of CCW laws, and the impeccable social science that shows that they save lives and reduce violent crimes across the board.

P.S. "Exposition" ===> Euphamism for "Rant" - I like it - thanks! :)

alan
December 21, 2004, 12:15 AM
FirstFreedom:

It was quite a while back, actually 1970, when I worked in Great Britain and as they described it, "on the continent" also, however despite all the follderol that one heard about British gun laws, they were "sticky" then and are MUCH worse now, it turned out that a couple of guys at the office, I was "visiting" Stone and Webster in London, were shooters, full bore, as they called it, what we would describe as High Power. They used to compete at Bisley, where believe it or not, the British found that the old .303 Lee Enfield rifles performed quite well at LONG RANGE. Actually I went out to Bisley one day, it wasn't far from London, and the people there at the British Rifle Association were kind enough to lend my a Lee Enfield rifle along with a couple of boxes of ammunition. Any unfired ammunition had to be turned in, fired cases too, as I was told. Anyhow, I shot at Bisley, who ducked every time.

Anyhow, during the course of conversation, the subject of silencers, mufflers as the Brits described them, came up. They all insisted that one could purchase one, through the mail, for less than $10 US, at the time in the UK, and were rather surprised when I described all the fuss and fury involved in obtaining a silencer here. One guy went so far as to politely inquire as to whether "you Americans had mufflers on your cars", and absolutely could not begin to understand why we did not take quite reasonable steps to control, spelled reduce, the noise of gun fire at shooting ranges.

Old story about the differences between Americans and British is that the two groups are separated by a common language. Might be true too. Anyhow, assuming that you have seen or heard about this lengthy DOJ opinion on The Individuals Right To Keep and Bear Arms, do you think that same might prove interesting to our German correspondent? No problem e-mailing a link.

SIG-Fan
December 22, 2004, 05:54 PM
hey fellas,
i just read freedoms posts. you've got some interesting points. also its hypothetical, i dont believe that guns could ever stop an established dictatorship. in iraq the civilian had guns, still saddam never got shot.
also hitler, he had no problem to establish himself in politics and in increasing his influence. this was possible not because of the few guns among the civilians, no. But because the people were really obsessed of him. in my oppinion, it was bull**** when after the war most of the germans said, they havent been nazis. of course the were!(statics show that he was extremly popular especially in 1936/37 after olymic games and while presenting the new VW) just a few were against the system, and even less dared to fight against the system. same thing in france, today many frenchis tell about their ancestors paricipating in the "resitance". also BS. just a few guys out of millions belonged to the resitance...
however the point of my post is, that guns wont help you to get rid of an diktator, because they are prepared to situations like assasinations (as far as i know saddam had about 5 or 6 doubles/twins, [argh you know what i mean, someone who looks similar to him], who replaced him during official things, so he could not get killed during official speeches ect). (just remember saddam, who could move in iraq several weeks without beeing discovered by the armed forces...)

@alan GB s-ucks, its just a bad place to go to. they hate us (germans), weather su..., food su..., girls are ugly, gun laws su.., ...damn, gb is just a bad place :D
but to be more serious, the newest changes in GB laws are really stupid. the brits aren't allowed to carry anything for selfdefense, not even knives or gas pistols...

what i else wantet to mention, today i shot a Desert Eagle in .44 and i think this gun really rules! i should get one next year, maybe a second hand specimen of a mark VII

abelew
December 22, 2004, 08:02 PM
GB can do what they want, so can the rest of the world. I do not own guns because I am afraid my gvt will come after me, I own guns for the pleasure of shooting, and preventing some skell from walking in my front door, wielding a piece of pipe he found in the ally, and threatening me and my wife. Same reason I own a large (read 80 lb) dog. It's not fear, I hve never been robbed, mugged, or assulted (im 6'3" 210 lb and in shape). I just believe that taking precautions before something happens is better than trying to stop it while its happening. Why do people keep spare tires in their cars? Germans may not RKBA, but I do, and I am going to use that right to the best of my ability, within the current law. It's not my place to denounce other countrie's policies, etc. It is my business if it is America, as it is My country (read: Democracy vs. Socialism). GB and America have different crime problems, and have thought up different solutions. I just won't ever live there.

alan
December 22, 2004, 11:59 PM
Sig-Fan:

Re GB, the weather did leave a lot to be desired, especially in winter, when it got quite cold, and central heating was uncommon. This goes back quite a few years. Whiskey was good, I like scotch, and I enjoyed English beer. Some of the German festival brews were quite good also, but generally I leaned toward the English beers.

Re the grls I saw, as I remember, they were no uglier than girls one saw in most places, some were quite pretty, some just passable, most fell between the extremes.

As for the British "hating" Germans, perhaps some do, hatred is uaually an acquired feeling, and some of the older Brits have the most definitely unpleasant recollections of Germany and things German.

When we first visited GB, we found resturant food, in many cases, left a lot to be desired. On later trips, we made 3 or so, it had seemed that resturant cooking had improved.

As to their gun laws, they do leave a lot to be desired, from my point of view, but then from what I've heard about German firearms law, I don't think much of them either. As has been noted earlier, different countries, different experiences, different history and different traditions.

By the way, yesterday, I sent to your e-mail address, a link to a lengthy legal opinion issued by the U.S. Dept. of Justice. The opinion made a quite strong presentation in support of THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, as recognized by our national constitution.

If it does not get to you, let me know and I will resend. If it does, and you have the time to read through it, let me know how it strikes you, that is to say, what you think of it.

As for the Desert Eagle in 44 Magnum, an interesting piece. I've handled a couple of them, and fired a few rounds. These pistols strike me as overly large and heavy, impractical for carry, though for handgun hunting and or specialized target shooting, I suppose that they would serve. I prefer the Government Model in 45 ACP, the Star Model 30m or the Browning Hi-Power, the latter two in 9mm Parabellum. I shoot all three in regular outdoor competition, during spring, summer and fall. As a personal defense weapon, I usually carry the 9mm Makerov, Russian made model. Not as nicely finished as some East German examples I've seen, but functionally, excellent. I've fired more than 8000 rounds through mine, mostly handloads, as well as some "factory loads", without failures of any sort, save for some Chinese made surplus ammunition that had been improperly manufactured, no flash holes in the cartridge case, and a couple of CCI brand cartridges, that had bad primers. That sort of thing is unusual, though it can happen.

Happy holidays.

SIG-Fan
December 23, 2004, 08:03 AM
hi alan,
i've been once in London, but just for changing the flight, when i went from washington to london, then from london to frankfurt. during the two hours it was raining... :rolleyes:

well,
the thing about the food, the politeness, ect. is mainly what i've heared by some friends who just went there this summer. for example they have been called nazis, ect. for no reason by other teenagers, i mean where is the point of this. one of my teachers told me, that he went to GB with his class two years ago, some of his students got beaten up. i dont think this happens here in germany with visitors. for myself and my friends we never complain about the brits or the americans, although they never speak any german while they stay in this country. same thing with us soldiers stationed here in darmstadt.

about the de:
no this gun isn't cerainly supposed for selfdefense, but its just a fun thing to shot with...espetially with a red dot sight (is that how you call it?) the german name would be Rot Punkt Visier.

abelew
December 23, 2004, 06:13 PM
America is definatly a unique place. People have prejudices, which is wrong, but within their rights.....and as dismayed as I am about some people's ignorance, I still have to say I support their right to be prejudiced, as long as thats as far as it goes (meaning they do not cause others harm/etc). If I say they are wrong, and the GVT should punish them for free speech, then I am wrong. Freedom means putting up with a few issues. I guarentee in China, not many people bad-mouth the GVT, but would you want to live there? There are trade-offs for everything, and I willingly trade some safty and criticism for my freedoms. This is my choice, and if any Americans do not like the freedoms that they are granted, they need to go be a citizen of some other country who will tell them what to eat, where to eat it, where to live, how much everyone makes, what to say, what not to say, where to work, etc.

On the language thing....The most prevalent language spoken in the world is English. It is very difficult to be fluent in both english and german. Also, everywhere in the United States 99% of people speak english. In Europe however, there are many different languages that one might have an interest in picking up, if they wish to travel. This may account for the language thing. I took german when I was in school, but had trouble pronouncing the hard syllables of some of the words. Neat language, I just do not have the head for forign language. I have always liked Germany, and I don't mean to insult you our your country. I become rather passionate about my rights, to a fault.

alan
December 24, 2004, 12:25 AM
Sig-Fan:

The red dot sights are called Aim Point sights in the U.S., I believe that is a trade or brand name, as similar sights might also come under dfferent names.

As for the problems your friends had, I'm almost 72 years of age, however it seems to me that teenagers often are pains in the ass. This might well be unfair to some teenagers, while it could well be overly kind to others.

As to racial and or national origin problems, one finds that all over. It is my understanding that from time to time, it comes up in Germany too, sometimes with Neo-Nazis, sometimes with other political extremists. Who knows, but that the world would be a lovely place, if one could only remove the people.

Regarding language, you are problably correct about Americans tending not to speak "foreign languages". For myself, I speak or at one time spoke a bit of French, some German and Spanish. I did not speak these languages at all well, however I could often make myself understood, more or less that is. I had enough language for "simple matters". Of course, America is a lot larger than many European nations, and rightly or wrongly, in most cases, our schools do not stress foreign languages. In Holland, I worked with some Englishmen, one of whom had a Dutch girlfriend, who worked in the travel agency business. She allowed that she was fluent in 5 or 6 languages, and that "she could find her way to the loo in two or three others". Of course, not all that many years ago, there were major riots over language in Belgium, where one part of the country was mostly Catholic and French speaking, while the other part was largely Protestant and Flemish speaking. They had to call out regular troops, the police could not handle it. Funny thing was that the king was called King of The Belgians, rather than The King of Belgium. Think about that for a moment.

For myself, I never could understand how or why the Europeans have riots over a ball game (soccor). Hardly seems worth the effort, but then soccor is not played much in the U.S. I was once told that the thing to do was to at least learn how to say please and thank you, in the language of the country you happened to be in. It usually didn't matter that your pronunciation might be terrible, for usually people would understand, and appreciate even small efforts on the part of visitors.

Wendi5000
December 24, 2004, 03:41 AM
The so-called "assualt weapons ban" didn't really do anything in the first place. It prevented weapons with certain cosmetic features from being manufactured or imported - but those in existence could still be legally sold, and the exact same firearms with different cosmetic features coudl still be legally manufactured and imported. So the fact that the "ban" has expired is really a rather irrellevant argument, IMHO. Of course, that is what the gun-haters like to do - go for the irrellevant, because heaven forbid they discuss anything logical. They know they couldn't defend their position if they tried.

Steve499
December 24, 2004, 12:43 PM
SIG-Fan, my great-great grandfather immigrated to the U.S. from Germany in 1857 for reasons that boiled down to a rejection , by him, of the political realities that existed in Germany at that time. He had family who stayed there because their tolerance for oppression , real or imagined, was greater. The entire citizenry of the U.S. ,with few exceptions, fits the profile of my ancestor. I'm not implying we have something genetic going on, but we have been raised by parents who instilled in us value for our personal freedoms to a degree that personal freedom IS America. When you were describing the process of hunting in Germany, the words "are allowed" kind of jumped off the screen at me. I'm sure I'm not the only one who rejects at the most basic level the concept of the government allowing us stuff. The people of America are the ones who allow the government it's privileges, not the other way around. The whole preceding discussion about what is reasonable regarding firearms regulation has to be looked at with that in mind. We are jealous with our freedoms and do not lightly give any of them up

3 weelin geezer
December 26, 2004, 10:57 AM
This is my choice, and if any Americans do not like the freedoms that they are granted, they need to go be a citizen of some other country who will tell them what to eat, where to eat it, where to live, how much everyone makes, what to say, what not to say, where to work, etc.

Say, abelew, you forgot to add something here. I don't know about everyone else but I hear that in China they also tell you how many kids you can have and when. If you have more they confiscate them. I sure wouldn't want anyone telling me when I can get some.

too many choices!?
January 15, 2005, 03:45 PM
Does anyone find the similarities between the '94 Clinton Gun Ban(aka Assault Weapons Ban) and the '86 legislation that banned new manufacture for the public, importation for the public('68?) and registration by the public odd? By the same logic that shot down(pun intended) :D the '94 ban, the '86 ban needs to go as well. Neither truly banned anything it only served to regulate the gun industry in a way congresses powers were never intended to be used. An attempt to legislate intent/mind state of the user. Both laws caused a making frenzy and then freeze of an entire industry in it's tracks with the stroke of a pen. When they(gov) began to regulate certain weapons in the '30s you only had to register them to be legal(Mg,short barreled rifles and shotguns,suppressors,etc),then in '86, no new registration of machine guns(sbrs and everything else were still able to be registered). The features that made assault weapons sooooooooooooo dangerous (bayonet lugs, flash reducers, retractable stocks, full capacity magazines) were so evil/offensive that you could not even register with the gov. to make one( like you could a sbr)after the hoops and red tape !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Basically the gov. believed that bayonet lugs, retracable stocks and full capacity magazines are as "suitable for crime" as machine guns and need to be off the civie market.......... :eek: :confused: :rolleyes: Really makes you wonder what they say behind our back if this is what they say to our face........Criminals shouldn't have these = so take it from the American public .......American public must be = to the criminals :(

Socrates
January 19, 2005, 12:53 AM
The best argument, besides the verbatim Second Amendment, is the gang invaision from Mexico. This is a very real threat to national security, and, the gangs in Mexico traffic in automatic weapons. Also, the 13's, and 14's, last time I checked, had nearly twice the members of law enforcement, over the 13 western states. Members easily illegally armed, as easily as they smuggle illegals into the US.

The LA riots, with the police and fire fighters pulling out, to save thier asses from sniper fire from the gangs, are a prime example of the potential problem.

In the Pacific Palisaides, the ultra-liberal, anti-gun folks, had security and barriers setup with any weapon they could find. Wonder if their position against auto weapons might change, given that experience?
s

Socrates
January 19, 2005, 12:58 AM
"Mac 10s are around $3,000 now. M16s go for around $11,000 and up. "

I've fired both. Mac tens I fired would only function reliably with hardball. Heavy weapons, high rate of fire, limited accuracy, but, you could equal a 2 bore with 32 rounds of 230 grain ball in a bit less then 2 seconds. NICE home protection weapons, or, possible anti large bear, or Alaska weapons.

M16's worked for me, since you could hold them close to on target, with full auto bursts, unlike the M14, which kicked my arse, backwards.

The prices are absurd. I sold for 350 the Mac 10, Mac 11, and a couple others, because they were Soooo bad accuracy wise, except in the house.

Besides, I would either be in jail, or prison owning them, with all these new fangled, illegal laws.

s




s

phylodog
January 21, 2005, 12:45 AM
Ask your friends if they've noticed an increase in crimes committed with the use of the weapons that had been banned before September 2004. Unless I have been walking around in a complete haze, I don't recall our country coming apart at the seams since that useless ban expired. The assault weapons ban does nothing more than make the sheep in our society sleep better at night because they mistakenly believe that if you make something illegal, it will go away. I have tried to explain the error in this way of thinking to many by asking them if banning drugs solved the problem of drug abuse in our society.
I am a Law Enforcement Officer and I have lost a friend and coworker as the result of an "assault weapon" falling into the hands of someone who intended to do harm with it. I still do not now, nor will I ever agree with this rediculous ban.
The bottom line is this, you can not eliminate the weapons that are already out there. If you ban them, 60% of the law abiding citizens will turn theirs in, the remaining 40% will make the transition from law abiding citizens to criminals because they refuse to turn theirs in and not one single criminal will turn his weapon in. As a result, crime will increase, substantially. If you need proof, compare the crime statistics in the state of Texas the year before and the year after (then) Governor George Bush allowed concealed carry in that state. Or you could ask someone from Britain or Australia who can no longer legally protect themselves from someone with criminal intent who might enter their home late at night.
Anyone who can not understand this is extremely naive and has no concept of reality, in my humble opinion of course.

Lowjack
February 3, 2005, 03:49 PM
If their only purpose is killing, they are either poorly designed as they're doing a very poor job at it, or machinegun owners are far more law abiding than most people.


The latter is the correct choice of these two statement options. Machinegun owners HAVE GOT TO BE far more law abiding. If not, they'll be denied.

abelew
March 4, 2005, 06:02 PM
The AWB only denied assult weapons to law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens don't go wontonly committing serious violations of the law. Those that go around doing those type of violations that involve assult weapons do not care about the AWB. You could make baseball bats illegal, and one of two things will happen. Criminals will start using a metal pipe, or get a bat from a dealer on the street, who would not have to register their baseball bat, like the law abiding citizen in the world of illegal base ball bats. The only people affected by this action would be the people who wanted to play baseball, not those that would use the bat for nefarious reasons.

alan
March 5, 2005, 01:58 AM
I take it that most if not all of the correspondents on this discussion know the difference between a true "assault rifle" and the so-called "assault rifle", or might that be the "assault style rifle", that was the neat little off the shoulder number that we used to see at Hattie's, or was it Bloomies?

Granted, the anti gun type might not, or they play as if they don't know the difference. Granted also that most "reporters" especially the "blow dried media personalities" likely don't, but then they probably wouldn't recognize an 88mm field piece if one were dropped on them.

I admit to being old, I'm also tired and I tend to get cranky when I need sleep, yet I still wonder as to why in blazes we keep falliong into the same old word traps, playing the same silly word games with the antis.

One day, I had an argument with the news director at WDUQ FM, in Pittsburgh, over media's technical sloppiness, especially when there was any connection with firearms. He claimed, re their misuse of the term "assault rifle", which he admitted was the case, that the term had "entered the vernacular". I flat told him that if that were the case, then it was strictly the fault of people such as himself. and asked whether or not the station had a "style book", news papers used to have them.

Anyhow, on the subject of improper language that was now "part of the vernacular" I querried him about the term ******, which at least at one tme, within my memory, was certainly "part of the vernacular". I did not involve myself with the social connotations of the term, whatever they might be, impolite, racist or what have you.

In any event he became quite annoyed at my mention of ******, and I could understand why, being the I had always thought him to be of "liberal persuasion", possibly even something of a "hand wringer". Beside, ****** is not a "nice" word.

At about this point, I politely inquired as to whether he saw a connection between his annoyance at my use or reference to a somewhat rude term, that rude or not, was certainly "part of the vernacular", in the context of his ongoing and knowing misuse of a TECHNICAL TERM, the meaning of which had been brought to his attention more than once. He sort of grunted.

So while the died in the wool antis likely won't listen, most people aren't such types, and given proper presentation, could be made to see and understand the rather large difference. More important, they might even come to realize that the other side had been lying to them all along. Semi-automatic rifles have been in common use since prior to World War 1, machineguns and or selective fire weapons came upon the scene later. Before there is any possibility of so fine an occurance taking place, we have to get it right, and to many amongst us do not.

I do not know why we keep falling into this semantic trap, but how about this. He that makes up the question, to a considerable extent, controls the answers obtained. Same with the frqaming of the debate, and the words used. Let's make them our words, not their words. It might be worth the effort, and it could make a hellish large difference.

To those who sat through the foregoing, thank you. I hope that it turns out to have been worth your time.

shaggy
March 5, 2005, 01:53 PM
I agree with you to a point - we have allowed the media, at least to some extent, to create and use terms which are both inaccurate and contain an inherent demonization of certain types of firearms. However, its important to note that in the 10 years the 1994 AWB was in effect, the term "semi-automatic assault weapon" was specifically defined in the US Code, thus making it a legal term. As "semi-automatic assault weapons" were defined as either rifles, pistols, or shotguns with certain specific features, I think many (and certainly myself) used the term "assault rifle" as a short form for the legal definition of a specifically defined "semi-automatic assault weapon" which was also a rifle.

While I dislike the factual sloppiness of the media with regard to the use of the term "assault rifle" (especially as one who owns true selective fire assault weapons) I think its important to understand that in the context of law and legislation the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" may be correctly used, even in reference to a semi-automatic firearm. Additionally, some states (NY for example) still have a state assault weapons ban in place which mirrors the now expired federal ban. In those states I feel the term is still accurate IF used in reference to a weapon which is defined under the state law.

alan
March 5, 2005, 08:22 PM
shaggy:

I grew up in NYC, and lived there for many years, Brooklyn, where I started, later Manhattan and Queens. I left in 1967 over that long gun registration of Mayor Lindsay's baloney. I've never looked back either, having lived on the road for many years, 20 some odd states and 3 foreign countries.

Frankly, and I may just be thickheaded, the "legal" term semi-automatic weapon appearing in The U.S. Code or on the ****house wall, pardon my crude language, is pure and simple the product of a political whorehouse, a low class whorehouse at that.

As for machine guns, I've fired a few now and then, actually submachine guns, I doubt that I would cross the street to do it again. This position does NOT knock the interests of others. I used to shoot 1000 yard competition, which is a rather odd way to spend an afternoon, I enjoyed it however. Best of luck to anyone interested in automatic weapons.

As for the term "assault rifle", it is a rater specific term, with particular mneaning. I never thought that anything more was needed, unless one were interested in muddying the waters, which unfortunately is seemingly the prime purpose of some "law makers".

Appreciate your input.

Best.

SIG-Fan
March 7, 2005, 02:02 PM
hey folks,
i'm still not quite sure about one issue:
why it is legal to sell FA-kits (for example in Gun magazines) if you are not allowed to install it into your semiautomatic gun. as mentioned erlier, in germany you can but the selective trigger for the Glock which could turn your semi G17 into a FA G18. But anyone how sells these triggers has to inform the customers, that you commit a crime by installing it into your G17. but in US gun magazines they mention nothing about the conversionkits commiting a crime by installing one in your semi-automatic rifle... i mean, getting into jail because of some issue that you didnt know because it wasnt told you by the gunsmith, would really suck.

-greetings from germany

SIG

SIG-Fan
March 7, 2005, 02:08 PM
ahhh...i forgot

since a while, i watch the news carefully and i got the impression that there hasn't ever been that many articles about people comiting massacres since the last year. i wonder, if its because the media doesn't like the legal gun owners or if somethings works wrong in our society..... or if its because the lately restricted german gun laws, that makes the people going mad :eek:


-sig

alan
March 8, 2005, 12:33 AM
hey folks,
i'm still not quite sure about one issue:
why it is legal to sell FA-kits (for example in Gun magazines) if you are not allowed to install it into your semiautomatic gun. as mentioned erlier, in germany you can but the selective trigger for the Glock which could turn your semi G17 into a FA G18. But anyone how sells these triggers has to inform the customers, that you commit a crime by installing it into your G17. but in US gun magazines they mention nothing about the conversionkits commiting a crime by installing one in your semi-automatic rifle... i mean, getting into jail because of some issue that you didnt know because it wasnt told you by the gunsmith, would really suck.

-greetings from germany

SIG

****

SIG-Fan:

Re the above, your latest post, to use a polite turn of phrase, both your information, comments on "FA Kits", I assume you refer to "conversion kits" so-called, and the magazines you mentioned, but did not name, are DATED, very dated, which in plain English means out of date, currently wrong.

Some years back, there were offered, in some U.S. gun magazines, so-called conversion kits for the AR-15 Rifle. Sale and purchase of these "parts kits" were, at the time, entirely legal. Actual installation of these parts in a rifle was quite illegal, unless the rifle so altered was registered as a machinegun, which was, to say the least, a complicated proceedure. In any case, the law has since been changed, and currently, the sale of such parts is illegal. If one were found in possession of such parts in the U.S. today, they would have a lot of explaining to do, and unless they could prove possession of the parts prior to 1986 I believe, they would be in considerable trouble, or certainly could so end up.

By the way, I remember some of these ads worded more of less as follows, WHY WALTZ WHEN YOU CAN ROCK AND ROLL? The text then went on to tout the alleged virtues of these "drop in kits" so called. Problem was that many, if not most of them, when "dropped in" didn't work at all well, if at all. I have no doubt that in Germany, just like here, one can find all manner of fast talking sales people, who come equipped with fancy stories. Problem is that they are often just that, fancy stories, rather than the facts of the matter.

Once again, re your accompanying post, same following, "ahhh...i forgot

since a while, i watch the news carefully and i got the impression that there hasn't ever been that many articles about people comiting massacres since the last year. i wonder, if its because the media doesn't like the legal gun owners or if somethings works wrong in our society..... or if its because the lately restricted german gun laws, that makes the people going mad", media here, television and most mass circulation newspapers are anti-gun. Aside from that,. they are, re technical matteres, bloody near worthless, especially given technical matrewrs involving anything that goes BANG.

*****

If you are making mention of the late and unlamented Assault Weapons Ban, which dies as of 13 or 14 Septembver 2004, that legislation was pure baloney from word 1, uttered on day 1 of it's misbegotten life. As to German law re firearms, or just about anything else for that matter, I plead ignorance, ignorance being the lack of knowledge.

How are you doing in college, or have you graduated?

SIG-Fan
March 11, 2005, 07:43 AM
hi alan,
unfortunatelly i'm not able of editing my last post. at least i didn't figure out what to do in order to deleate the last word....

well, what can i tell? finished highschool last June, then, in october, i started studying chemistry in Darmstadt. now i have semester break, but i can't really enjoy it, because i got to write 3 tests during this break and therefore i can't stop studying chemistry stuff. don't know if there are any chemists here, but i think chemistry is a tough subject.
but at least, theres still enough free-time to meet friends and to go shooting.
this weekend, there's the first qualification for the german championship in pistol-shooting. i wonder if i'll have a chance at all, since i never participated in any type of shooting challenge before. if i qualify for it, i'll tell you.

well, i'm thinking about coming over to the US maybe this summer, or at least in 2006.


-sig