The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 30, 2009, 02:12 PM   #51
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
This is a slight sidetrack
I just realized that myself. Hey Stilleto, if you still have questions, may I suggest starting another thread in the general discussion area. I will be happy to try to answer there.

Cheers
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old April 30, 2009, 02:28 PM   #52
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
She, she! And yes, I am glad you took the time to educate. Thank you.
Oops, my mistake. I should have paid more attention to your moniker. The hints of gender are flowing from it like bullets from an AR-15 (just to keep it gun related).

I hope my post helped. Because "assault weapons" is a political term, made up to fool people who are not well versed in firearms and firearms technology, it can become very confusing as to what an assault weapon is. Is it a handgun? It could be. Is it a rifle? Possibly. It all depends upon the cosmetic features which it has.

As a previous poster mentioned, most handguns use bullets and cases designed for handguns, such as 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 magnum, .38 special, .45 ACP (auto colt pistol, which is really semiautomatic). Most rifles use bullets and cases which were designed for rifles, such as .223, 30-30, 30-06, .270, .308, etc. There are exceptions however. You can get some rifles chambered for handgun cartridges and vice versa, again, as a previous poster pointed out.

When it comes to "assault weapons", don't focus on the caliber, until you get a little further down the line on your education.

The main things to remember are, they must be semiautomics, not machine guns. Machine guns are formally called "assault rifles", not "assault weapons". They must have detachable magazine. And they cannot have more than two other cosmetic features. A folding stock, a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a barrel shroud would be some examples of cosmetic features. They are called cosmetic features because they don't change the performance of the gun.

Here's a good example. A Colt AR-15 was labeled an assault weapon under the now expired ban. It shot the .223 round, is a semiautomatic, has a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a bayonet lug and can have a folding stock or collapsable stock but not necessarily. It can also have a fixed stock. But, it looks "evil" to anti gunners. It looks just like the M-16, which is a full auto capable firearm. The M-16 is an "assault rifle".

The Ruger Mini-14, is also a semiautomatic rifle which has a detachable magazine and uses the .223 round. So, it should be an "assault weapon", shouldn't it? Its functionally the same as the AR-15, but it "looks" different. It has a traditional looking stock, not the pistol grip and barrel shroud stock style of the AR-15. It doesn't have a bayonet lug. It doesn't have flash suppressor.

When the assault weapons ban was put in place, companies who made AR-15's removed some cosmetic features such as the flash suppressor and bayonet mount, and they were then legal to sell. Even though these companies followed the law to a "tee", they were then accused of exploiting a "loophole" in the law which allowed them to continue to sell "assault weapons".

Are you getting the idea how crazy this ban was? Are you getting the gist of the situtation that this is about banning more guns, not about making anyone safer or reducing crime? It's politics, pure and simple.

I hope this too helps to get you educated so that you can start to dismiss some of the people who push for an assault weapons ban. The very first thing to do is play "dumb" and ask them, "what, specifically, defines an assault weapon?". Watch them go into contortions trying to define the term accurately. For some of them it's like pornography. They can't describe it but they know it when they see it.

Some of the folks who came up with the list of which firearms were banned sat down with a book of pictures of various firearms and picked out the ones they thought should be banned because those firearms "looked" too military in nature. Dianne Feinstein was amongst those lugnuts who did that.

Isn't it great when we are passing federal legislation which infringes on law abiding gun owners rights because some Senators selected some EBR's (evil black rifles) from pictures, which looked too dangerous, and banned them for sale. Great! Just friggen great!

I just thought I might also add this. Some of the guns which were banned were banned by their name, such as AR-15. Thus, when Colt removed the flash suppressor and bayonet lug, they called it a HBAR-15 so that it was not banned due to its name alone. This is one of the "loopholes" the gun banners complained about, when it was their own stupidity which banned guns by name alone, rather than certain functions.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.

Last edited by USAFNoDak; April 30, 2009 at 02:37 PM. Reason: needed to add the last paragraph.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old April 30, 2009, 03:50 PM   #53
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
I greatly enjoyed USAFNoDak's post, but I'd like to add one more little example of absurdity.

One of the primary items banned was magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Not necessarily the firearms that used them... the magazines themselves. This essentially swept up a bunch of firearms into the ban that most average non-gun-owners wouldn't identify as an "assault weapon"- namely many semi-automatic pistols.

Here's where the absurdity comes in. Manfacturers were required to make magazines that couldn't possibly accept more than 10 rounds, but they didn't have to change the firearm itself. Hence, semi-auto pistol makers started making magazines with a couple of large bumps stamped into the sides to prevent the remaining 1-7 "evil" rounds from being able to fit. (These magazines are actually still made for states that extended the AWB by state law.) However, most of these pistols could still accept higher-capacity magazines made before the ban. Some of these pistols had been sold for decades with higher-capacity magazines, so they were readily available on the street. New high-cap magazines were also available to law enforcement personnel to replace those that they "lost".

So, were the pistols "assault weapons"... or not? This exercise in lawmaking accomplished... what, exactly?
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old April 30, 2009, 04:23 PM   #54
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
CarguyChris, that's an excellent point and I am embarrassed that I forgot about the goofy 10 round magazine ban which was encapsulated in the now expired AWB94. I've kicked myself in the rear, solidy, one time.

As you have pointed out, this was another confusing piece of the AWB94. I own a Browining Hi Power which is a 9mm and has a 13 round magazine. I have several magazines that I've purchased over the years. After the AWB, you could only buy 10 round magazines, although there were still 13 rounders available. The 13 rounders just went up in price is all. But the pistol itself still fired and worked the same, whether you had 13 rounds or 10 rounds. With 13 rounds my pistol is considered an "assault weapon". With 10 rounds it's not an "assault weapon", it's just an ordinary handgun, I guess.

See how silly this became. Plus, I could just carry three 10 round magazines instead of two 13 round magazines and actually have 4 extra rounds. It doesn't take much time to change a magazine. I can do it in less than 2 seconds and closer to 1 second.

Think about this from a criminal perspective. If I want to go shoot up a school, I probably know at least two things for sure. There will be no one armed at the school, or if there is, it may be only one security guard. I will target him first. Once he's down, I can shoot people like fish in a barrel. Oh sure, they'll call 911. But when the cops show up, they'll take their time setting up a perimeter while trying to figure out just what the heck is going on inside. Are there multiple shooters, bombs, etc.? Meanwhile, I can casually walk around shooting whomever I feel like, and change magazines when I need to. When I have one round of ammo left, I take myself out. So tell me, how does limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds really do anything as far as preventing crime?

Also, keep in mind that the sniper in Washington, D.C. had Bushmaster variant of the AR-15 which can hold magazines of 5, 10, 20, 30, or even 40 rounds. He never fired more than twice, IIRC. So a 10 round limit would have done nothing to change his MO.

It was all a bunch of political horse hockey and it died like it should have. There are folks who want it back, but they know the political winds aren't blowing in the right direction right now. That's because many of the american people are smart enough to learn the facts and can see what a worthless attempt at banning guns the AWB94 really was.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old April 30, 2009, 04:30 PM   #55
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Also, keep in mind that the sniper in Washington, D.C. had Bushmaster variant of the AR-15 . . . He never fired more than twice, IIRC.
Never thought of that, all we heard about was AR15!, AR15! He could have done as much damage with a good musket.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old April 30, 2009, 04:39 PM   #56
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
Never thought of that, all we heard about was AR15!, AR15! He could have done as much damage with a good musket.

You are right Maestro. It's all about marketing and spin when it comes to the anti gunners and their friends in the media. I think they wish and pray that criminals would use "assault weapons" so that they can write more exciting stories about it. Using the term "assault weapons" in a crime report sends a tingle up their legs. They think it will help them move the ball down the field in the game of gun bans.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old April 30, 2009, 05:25 PM   #57
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
There is a problem in using other causes of death in arguments. Now, students - here's the point.
Thanks Glenn. Good point to make and this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Why - they view the firearm as an instrument designed to do harm (yes, it's just a tool - sings the choir unconvincingly to the nongun world).
And that singing is inane. When I here those on our side trying to argue that a gun is no more dangerous than a baseball bat I just sadly shake my head. I really think we lose a lot of credibility in the public forum of ideas when we try those silly comparisons. Firearms are dangerous and they are designed to kill. We should acknowledge that up front and get to the real part of the debate, which is crime. Guns aren't evil but they aren't noble either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Simply saying they are not that dangerous, doctors kill more or it's the 2nd Amend. may not carry the debate.
But will make us look silly.

BTW, you had said earlier I think that an AR-15 did not have as much efficacy as other hunting rifles and I was wondering what you based that on. Just curious since the military uses them I figured they were pretty good at killing lots of people.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; April 30, 2009 at 11:29 PM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old April 30, 2009, 06:49 PM   #58
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
BTW, you had said earlier I think that an AR-15 did not have as much efficacy as other hunting rifles and I was wondering what you based that on. Just curious since the military uses them I figured they were pretty good at killing lots of people.
Of course all guns are potentially lethal. You may be referring to a comment of mine. I was merely pointing out that, contrary to popular belief, the 5.56 rounds fired by an M16/AR15 are not more powerful than many, if not most common hunting cartridges.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old April 30, 2009, 08:52 PM   #59
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
maestro pistolero,

No it was Glenn in post #11

Quote:
There is really no difference in efficacy between sporting appearance brown guns (like a Mini-14) and an AR. One might argue about mag capacity but Minis can have higher cap mags also.
He is right but I think the next AWB attempt will include the Mini-14 and will be pointed more at capability and not looks. I have heard Carolyn McCarthy say that as well.

Even though I would be opposed to a AWB I think the antis will have a good emotional point with banning them. However, 2009 is not 1994 and the EBR is much more widespread than before so that might make a difference. I hope.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old April 30, 2009, 09:20 PM   #60
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
Quote:
He is right but I think the next AWB attempt will include the Mini-14 and will be pointed more at capability and not looks. I have heard Carolyn McCarthy say that as well.
Then they will have to ban any semiautomatic rifle that takes a detachable magazine. That's all the mini-14 really is. It's a .223 rifle which accepts a detachable magazine. It has no other "cosmetic features" which would make it an assault weapon.

I agree with you that they will try to include the mini-14 to take away the arguement that banning AR-15's while not banning the mini-14 is pointless. But then they start trampling on the rights of the "sporting arms" gun owners. This could help to unify more gun owners.

I also think that they will eventually run up against some opposition at the USSC if they try to ban the mini-14, as it is no different from other semi automatic rifles out there. It has no flash suppressor, bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc. It's a common "sporting" rifle, at least in my opinion, whatever that's worth.

We will have to fight hard against a new assault weapons ban when they get ready to try and ram it through. They are biding their time for now, but they are also planning. The Mexican Drug cartel issue is just one piece of that plan. They will continue to lump any crime where a semiautomatic firearm is used into a call for a new assault weapons ban. The media will carry their water for them. They hope to eventually have the political winds blowing in the right direction to enable them to strike. I have no doubts as to if, but I don't know just when.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old April 30, 2009, 10:04 PM   #61
skydiver3346
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,222
Assault rifle debate?

First of all, I don't use the term "assault Rifle" anymore. It seems to have a negative effect when talking to folks that don't really understand our reasoning or desire to own and/or shoot them. They are not fully automatic as most of these dummies think.
Also, the reason there is so much debate and discussion about these type of guns can be blamed on liberals who are trying to get rid of them. This usually makes other folks go out and buy them, (if they think they will no longer be able to purchase these weapons). Same for ammo, etc.
It is my right to own a semi automatic rifle and sure as hell isn't anyone else's business if I do (in my opinion). I am a law abiding citizen and have never been arrested, etc. I just like to own different guns and my AR15 just happens to be one of my "new" favorites. I do believe that (as we speak) our present Congress is trying to get rid of these type of guns.
What's next after the elimination of semi automatic rifles? Automatic pistols?
skydiver3346 is offline  
Old April 30, 2009, 11:26 PM   #62
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
Then they will have to ban any semiautomatic rifle that takes a detachable magazine. That's all the mini-14 really is. It's a .223 rifle which accepts a detachable magazine.
Either that or ban the higher capacity magazines but I think that any rifle that can fire a whole lot (more than 10) rounds in a real fast (semi-automatic )fashion will be in danger. I think they can make a case with the public that nobody "needs" to have that type of firearm.

My hope is that since so many own them now that will be harder to do; that is to paint them as a "fringe" weapon.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old April 30, 2009, 11:31 PM   #63
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
I'm afraid that the lock comes now. We have strayed very far from the OP.

Anyone is more than welcome to discuss the legal steps towards another AWB, or the legal steps to thwart another AWB.

For now, this one is closed for going off topic.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08529 seconds with 9 queries