Select-fire

[USAFNoDak]

Q. What is the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon?

A. An automatic weapon (machine gun) will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed (or until the ammunition magazine is emptied). A semi-automatic weapon will fire one round and instantly load the next round with each pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms fire as rapidly as you can depress your finger.

This means that a semi-automatic fires a little more slowly than an automatic, but not much more slowly. When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic.

Ownership of machine guns has been tightly controlled since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and their manufacture for the civilian market was halted in 1986. However, semi-automatic versions of those same guns are still being produced.


This looks to me to be an equating of semiautomatic "military-style" "assault-weapons" and machine guns. They talk about how tightly controlled machine guns are regulated and then argue that semi automatic versions are not.

This looks like the perfect example of where they use the acceptance of "bans" on machine guns to try and further a ban on semiautomatics, including some semiautomatic handguns. All they have to do is equate the dangers and then ask: "Why, if the US has tightly regulated and virtually banned machine guns, do we not ban semi automatic weapons as well, since they are almost as dangerous?".

That is exactly the original point I was making.

[USAFNoDak]

Glenn E. Meyer posted:

That's why we have efforts by folks like the NSSF to emphasize the 'sports' nature of the AR platform - although that has a danger in emphasizing guns as sporting tools - a position which is not a real civil right.

And we have equal efforts by the Brady Center and other like minded anti gun groups to educate the public on why firearms, such as the AR platform, are not suited for sporting use. Cripes, Jim Zumbo (sp?) got caught in the same lie, and he is one of our guys, or at least we thought he was.

I agree with you on the danger of us accepting "sporting purposes" as a sole reason to allow certain types of firearms for civilian possession while disallowing others. That has potential to hang us with our own ropes in the long run. Slippery slope and what not, old boy. (not directed at you, Glenn)

[USAFNoDak]

Tennessee Gentlemann apparently took issue with the website I used to show how Mayor Fenty of D.C. equates semiautomatic handguns with machine guns. I just pulled it from Google. I didn't research the website itself. I had read other pieces in the past that basically said the same thing so I ran with it.

But that's OK, if you want to shoot the messenger, maybe you'd be more willing to settle for the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...603988_pf.html

In a move that could rile supporters of yesterday's ruling, Nickles said the District will continue to enforce a separate decades-old D.C. ban on the possession of most clip-loaded semiautomatic handguns, which are popular with gun enthusiasts.

That regulation, which outlaws machine guns and was not part of the Supreme Court case, defines a machine gun in broad terms, encompassing semiautomatic weapons that can shoot, or be converted to shoot, more than 12 rounds without reloading, officials said. Nickles said that law remains on the books and will be enforced.

"You cannot go out today, if you have a handgun, and carry it around," Nickles said. "This is not open season with handguns. We are going to strictly regulate the registration of handguns. And there will be no authorization of automatics or semiautomatics."

Again, this doesn't explicity discuss the NFA, but it certainly is a part and parcel of using the ban on machine guns to push for further bans on guns which are not machine guns, by equating those guns to machine guns. See my previous post on how the Brady's have done exactly that.

Yes, they want to ban guns for the sake of banning guns. But they need to create the image of how dangerous those guns can be so they equate them to machine guns. They are relying on the fact, as you have agreed, that the general public has been "educated" on the dangers of machine guns and have accepted the ban on them. Heck, I'm guessing the majority of the public doesn't even realize that a civilian can own a machine gun if certain conditions are met. They believe ALL machine guns are illegal for civilians. The antis use this ignorance of the current laws to try and nudge acceptance of more bans by trying to make other types of guns appear to be just as dangerous as machine guns. Again, see my above post regarding the Brady Center. They are an excellent example of just such a tactic.

[USAFNoDak]

Zukiphile posted:

"Machine guns" are burdened with the stigma of near illegality. Fenty utilises the stigma in an effort to defend a ban on Heller's .45ACP by alleging the lack of meaningful difference between a "machine gun" and Heller's pistol. Thus the stigma of NFA status is spread to an ordinary pistol.

You have made the connection. Even if the law in D.C. is not a federal law, but a local one, it most likely was a follow on to the NFA34. They just went one step further and said, "NO MACHINE GUNS, PERIOD!", since the NFA and FOPA86 allow for possession under certain conditions.

All that being said, just look at how the Brady Center handles their argument for banning semiautomatic "assault weapons". They specifically refer to the NFA and FOPA.

[USAFNoDak]

When you look at the Brady Center's take on banning assault weapons, they try to point out just how close those assault weapons are to full auto military style weapons. Some gun owners say that FA is nothing like SA and thus it's OK to ban FA, but not SA. They argue with fellow gun owners about how folks like the Brady's don't try to use the NFA to further bans on semiautomatic firearms, rather than pointing out how the Brady's and like minded anti gun groups do indeed try to make the comparison on how alike, from a public danger standpoint, FA and SA are. In my opinion, that comparison has everything to do with how the NFA has been totally woven into the fabric of gun control acceptance by the American public. The anti-gunners are trying to leverage that acceptance by making other guns sound just as dangerous, so bans on those will also be accepted. The Brady's lay it out there for us to see, if we are paying attention.

[USAFNoDak]

One more example of anti gunners (34 members of the US House of Representatives, including Stark) using the NFA34 (Oh, the irony) to further the ban on semiautomatics.

http://a2dems.net/terms.htm

In fact, many people may not remember this, but long before Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) got her semi-auto ban signed into law in 1994, Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) introduced a bill in 1989 that would have outlawed possession of a semi-automatic firearm unless the owner had an NFA license - the same stringent requirement needed to own a full-automatic firearm in America today. And Stark's bill - which had support from 33 other Representatives of both major parties - also contained the new moniker. "Assault weapons are not traditional hunting weapons," Stark told Congress. "Assault weapons have no practical value to a civilized society."



Here's Pete Stark introducing his bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r101:H01MR9-116:

•Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 33 other Members from both parties, including 18 from California, I am introducing today a bill which treats semiautomatic assault weapons in exactly the same manner as current law for full automatic machineguns.

•Assault weapons are not traditional hunting weapons. Assault weapons have no practical value to a civilized society.

•If anyone can tell me why the AK-47, the Uzi, the MAC-10, the TEC-9 shouldn't be treated in the same way that full automatic machineguns, please come forward.

•Our pragmatic approach bans the future importation and domestic manufacture of a specific list of semiautomatic assault weapons, including the AK-47, the Uzi, the MAC-10, the TEC-9 and several other assault weapons recommended as the weapons of choice of drug dealers, violent criminals, and terrorists. Current ownership is grandfathered, with future purchasers required to go through the same steps as those for fully automatic machineguns: a background check and approval from local police, registration of the weapon, and payment of a $200 transfer tax.

•These assault weapons are found in the cities of Beirut, Tripoli, and Johannesburg. They shouldn't be the drug dealer's weapons of choice the cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, or even Des Moines, IA.

•Assault weapons are weapons of war; assault weapons are the weapons of drug dealers and violent criminals, they are the weapons of terrorists and psychopaths.

•Enough is enough. It is time to close the loophole in the law and stand by the side of law enforcement, before more psychos mow down the next schoolyard.

Note: Emboldening is mine.

Gee, it sure looks to me, on it's face, as though the NFA34 has indeed been used by anti gunners to further their agenda of banning even more firearms by equating semiautomatics to full autos with regard to public safety.

And look, Mr. Stark believes anyone who would own/possess an "assault weapon" is UNCIVILIZED. I feel so dirty now. NOT!

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

All that being said, just look at how the Brady Center handles their argument for banning semiautomatic "assault weapons". They specifically refer to the NFA and FOPA.

Do you have a source for that? I have not heard the Bradys say "Because of the NFA/FOPA we can ban other guns". Didn't they fight FOPA and try to use the Hughes Amendment to poison it?

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

When you look at the Brady Center's take on banning assault weapons, they try to point out just how close those assault weapons are to full auto military style weapons.

Yes they do but that points up what I said earlier about misinforming the public about the operation of the gun. Brady knows that most non-gun owning folk look at an M-16 which an AR-15 looks like and think machinegun because of what they have seen on movies. They look that same but operate differently

I think you still have not made your case (Pete Stark and a bill that went the way of HR25 notwithstanding) that the NFA gives antis reason to "ban" other weapons. For one the NFA does not "ban" machineguns but only regulates them. Even the bill Stark proposed didn't ban semi-autos.

I know you despise the 1934 NFA but it is not the raison d'être of all gun control efforts. I think the issue with assault weapons that the antis try to exploit is that they look a lot like military automatic weapons and the visceral fear most americans have of FA. I don't think most americans (even many who own guns)even know what the 1934 NFA is or even less likely the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the FOPA.

I think you are confusing the NFA which regulates the possession of FA which most of the public supports but really do not know much more than "machineguns are unnecessary and should be regulated heavily" with the intentional misrepresentation of other firearms (like the AR-15) as FA by the antis.

[zukiphile]

I think you are confusing the NFA which regulates the possession of FA which most of the public supports but really do not know much more than "machineguns are unnecessary and should be regulated heavily" with the intentional misrepresentation of other firearms (like the AR-15) as FA by the antis.

USAFNoDak does not appear to be confusing the two, but is noting that the near ban of some items is used as reasoning for near bans of other items.

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

Do you have a source for that? I have not heard the Bradys say "Because of the NFA/FOPA we can ban other guns". Didn't they fight FOPA and try to use the Hughes Amendment to poison it?

The source is the Brady Center website. I copied and pasted directly from there. You are trying to change the playing field. I don't believe that I stated that the Bradys' said "Because of the NFA/FOPA we can ban other guns". What I've been trying to say is that they do use the NFA/FOPA to try and justify other gun bans. That's plain as day from their website which I copied and pasted.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legisla...assaultweapons

Click on FAQ and scroll down to the difference between full auto and semiauto. That's where they give up the goods.

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

Yes they do but that points up what I said earlier about misinforming the public about the operation of the gun. Brady knows that most non-gun owning folk look at an M-16 which an AR-15 looks like and think machinegun because of what they have seen on movies. They look that same but operate differently

I think you still have not made your case (Pete Stark and a bill that went the way of HR25 notwithstanding) that the NFA gives antis reason to "ban" other weapons. For one the NFA does not "ban" machineguns but only regulates them. Even the bill Stark proposed didn't ban semi-autos.

They specifically refer to the fact that machine guns are highly regulated and after 1986 are banned for civilians, and that there is no such ban on semi auto assault weapons which they claim are almost as dangerous as machine guns. I don't know how it could be any more clear, unless you just don't want to see it or admit it. I rest my case and will let the readers judge who is right. I think I have Zukiphile on board.

Stark was not trying to strictly ban semi autos, but regulate them just as tightly as machine guns are. Thus, he was using the machine gun ban to further regulate semi autos. Machine guns weren't banned at first either by the NFA. They were later banned by the FOPA if they were made after 1986 or imported thereafter. That's a virtual ban if not an outright one. You don't think the antis would have used Starks bill as a stepping stone to tighten the regulation into a virtual ban, as was done with machine guns? I could certainly smell that rat coming down his hole.

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

I know you despise the 1934 NFA but it is not the raison d'être of all gun control efforts. I think the issue with assault weapons that the antis try to exploit is that they look a lot like military automatic weapons and the visceral fear most americans have of FA. I don't think most americans (even many who own guns)even know what the 1934 NFA is or even less likely the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the FOPA.

This is putting words in my mouth. I don't despise the NFA, but I do think it is a wrong headed piece of legislation which has not been of much value, if any. I also never said, or even implied, that the NFA is the raison d'être for all gun control efforts. It is, however, one angle the antis do employ at times, as I've shown.

The antis do specifically use the confusion over SA vs. FA. I've already agreed with that. They know the public is against machine guns and that the public is under the assumption (due to the NFA and their misunderstanding of what that law really means) that machine guns are no-no's because they are too dangerous. So, if they can convince the public that semiautos are just as dangerous, they are assuming the public will support bans, or very tight restrictions, which will eventually lead to bans, including virtual bans on semiautomatics. For you see, if the public is under the assumption that something is banned by federal law, most won't even bother to explore the possibilities of possessing such a thing. This helps the antis cause.

I think you are confusing the NFA which regulates the possession of FA which most of the public supports but really do not know much more than "machineguns are unnecessary and should be regulated heavily" with the intentional misrepresentation of other firearms (like the AR-15) as FA by the antis.

I'm not confusing anything. I stand by my claim that the antis use existing laws to pile on, and this includes the NFA. The Brady web site provides a very clear example of this with regards to semiautomatic "assault weapons".

[USAFNoDak]

Zukiphile:

USAFNoDak does not appear to be confusing the two, but is noting that the near ban of some items is used as reasoning for near bans of other items.

Good summation of my point, Zukiphile. I think it's pretty clear from the Brady's own website and the law which Pete Stark and 33 other anti gun house members tried to get passed. The fact that they weren't successful doesn't diminish the fact that they tried to equate semiautomatic "assault weapons" with machine guns in an attempt to further their gun control agenda. They specifically referred to the laws governing machine guns and how those same laws should apply to "assault weapons". As the green clad door man in OZ said, "It's as plain as the nose on my face!"

[maestro pistolero]

Hasn't the closing of the registration done exponentially more to practically restrict FA ownership than the NFA? A class 3 tax stamp is 200 bucks, but a FA M16 can be 20K due to scarcity.

[USAFNoDak]

Earlier I posted this:

The anti's believe the government can ban any sort of firearms they wish to.....

During another court case on firearms, didn't one of the federal government's own lawyers also make the claim that the federal government could ban any firearms it wanted to? I seem to recall that being the case. I can't recall the case however, or the situation. Maybe someone can help out there. I seem to recall the judge or judges reacting rather negatively to that statement.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

I don't believe that I stated that the Bradys' said "Because of the NFA/FOPA we can ban other guns". What I've been trying to say is that they do use the NFA/FOPA to try and justify other gun bans.

I think you contradicted yourself above.

In post 175 you said

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto.

then I said

Disagree. I don't think antis believe such. They wish to ban guns because they think they are dangerous to public safety.

Again, I do not believe the antis care about the operation of the firearm and their motivation for banning any and all guns is that they feel ALL guns are dangerous to public safety. In the sentences after your first quote you then jump to:

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

]Using this line of reasoning, the government can then ban handguns which are semi auto and can ban handguns which cost too little, as is the case with saturday night specials.

So now its not that they are FA or semi-auto but that they cost too little?

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

Thus, for me, I look at the ban on full auto (at least those made or imported after 1986) as being a tool that the anti's can use in their march to banning as many firearms as is politically possible.

This you haven't shown IMO. Regardless I think we can both agree that the antis want to ban guns.

I do not believe nor do I believe you have shown that just because FA is regulated and further limited by the Hughes Amendment that necessarily means other gun prohibitions will be easier to achieve or for them to use say the NFA as a tool to further restrict guns.

I believe they call that argument a "slippery slope fallacy". Here's a good read on that: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.htm and from a gun rights supporter!

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

they tried to equate semiautomatic "assault weapons" with machine guns in an attempt to further their gun control agenda.

And were they Saturday Night Specials too?

[USAFNoDak]

The anti's believe the government can ban any sort of firearms they wish to

Here's a great example from the Emerson vs the United States court case (5th Circuit Court)

http://www.claremont.org/projects/pa...53/default.asp

Any doubts about the current administration's views on the question were erased during the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court hearings last June in the case of Emerson v. United States. There, in a New Orleans federal courtroom, the following exchange took place between the administration's attorney, William B. Mateja, and one member of the three judge panel:



Judge William L. Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"
Assistant U.S. Attorney William B. Mateja: "Yes."

Judge Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mateja: "Exactly."




I believe this took place in June of 2000, during the Clinton Administration and with Gore running for Prez.

[USAFNoDak]

Quote:

I think you contradicted yourself above.

No. I never stated that the Bradys explicity said; "Because of the NFA/FOPA we can ban other guns". They have never come out and said that. However, as I showed from their website, they do use the NFA to try and justify a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons". No contradiction there.

In post 175 you said


Quote:

then I said


Quote:
Disagree. I don't think antis believe such. They wish to ban guns because they think they are dangerous to public safety.

Again, I do not believe the antis care about the operation of the firearm and their motivation for banning any and all guns is that they feel ALL guns are dangerous to public safety. In the sentences after your first quote you then jump to:


Quote:

So now its not that they are FA or semi-auto but that they cost too little?

I threw in the Saturday Night Specials merely to show how widespread their reasoning is to ban firearms. They are too dangerous. They are too cheap. They look scarey, etc. But, as I keep saying, the antis believe they can ban anything. It's just a matter of which particular reason they use at any one time. In some cases, they will rely on machine guns being banned because they are too dangerous, and then make other types of guns out to be just as dangerous, in hopes of pushing for a ban or at least very tight regulations which would amount to a virtual ban. I have repeatedly agreed with you that the antis want to ban guns because they feel all guns are too dangerous. But they can't rely on that alone, since they are also scared of the second amendment, especially after Heller. But, they figure they can sway public perception if they can equate the danger in one type of firearm which isn't banned or tightly regulated, to the danger in a firearm which is banned or tightly regulated. See The Brady's.

Quote:

This you haven't shown IMO. Regardless I think we can both agree that the antis want to ban guns.

I do not believe nor do I believe you have shown that just because FA is regulated and further limited by the Hughes Amendment that necessarily means other gun prohibitions will be easier to achieve or for them to use say the NFA as a tool to further restrict guns.

I believe they call that argument a "slippery slope fallacy". Here's a good read on that: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.htm and from a gun rights supporter!

I have shown how the Brady's have done exactly what you say they haven't done. You're bluffing with a pair of 7's?

Quote:

And were they Saturday Night Specials too?

Saturday Night; Sunday Night; whatever it takes.

[USAFNoDak]

From the Brady website:

This means that a semi-automatic fires a little more slowly than an automatic, but not much more slowly. When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic.

Ownership of machine guns has been tightly controlled since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and their manufacture for the civilian market was halted in 1986. However, semi-automatic versions of those same guns are still being produced.

What are the Brady's doing here, TG? How do you argue that they are not using the NFA and FOPA in an attempt to also ban or virtually ban semiautomatic "assault weapons"? It seems clear as a Minnesota spring-fed lake to me.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

What are the Brady's doing here, TG? How do you argue that they are not using the NFA and FOPA in an attempt to also ban or virtually ban semiautomatic "assault weapons"? It seems clear as a Minnesota spring-fed lake to me.

I think the NFA has nothing to do with what they are saying. They are trying to confuse people into thinking that "assault weapons" are machine guns because they fire "almost" as fast. The key element IMO in their appeal is that these guns are as dangerous as machineguns that the public will think of as miniguns or M2s etc.

OK, well I think we are talking past each other. I still say you are confusing the NFA law with the public's fear of FA, a fear they do not have of other weapons and why I believe the AWB was not renewed and probably won't be soon. I would take a look at that link I left about the slippery slope, I think you are falling into that trap.

BTW I never bluff

[zukiphile]

I would take a look at that link I left about the slippery slope, I think you are falling into that trap.

To note that an adversary ignores real distinctions when making an argument for a ban is not a slippery slope. It notes the employment of a slippery slope in some gun ban arguments.

I think the NFA has nothing to do with what they are saying. They are trying to confuse people into thinking that "assault weapons" are machine guns because they fire "almost" as fast. The key element IMO in their appeal is that these guns are as dangerous as machineguns that the public will think of as miniguns or M2s etc.

Emphasis added.

Since the NFA pertains to "machine guns", an argument for a near ban on items likened to a machine gun will have something to do with an existing framework that nearly bans "machine guns".

That point would only appear to be difficult to follow if one's position requires it to be difficult to follow.

[USAFNoDak]

I posted:

(From the Brady Center Website)This means that a semi-automatic fires a little more slowly than an automatic, but not much more slowly. When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic.

Ownership of machine guns has been tightly controlled since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and their manufacture for the civilian market was halted in 1986. However, semi-automatic versions of those same guns are still being produced.

What are the Brady's doing here, TG? How do you argue that they are not using the NFA and FOPA in an attempt to also ban or virtually ban semiautomatic "assault weapons"?


TG responded:

I think the NFA has nothing to do with what they are saying. They are trying to confuse people into thinking that "assault weapons" are machine guns because they fire "almost" as fast. The key element IMO in their appeal is that these guns are as dangerous as machineguns that the public will think of as miniguns or M2s etc.

The NFA has everything to do with what they are saying, which is why they specificially mention it in their statement. They are pointing out how they feel that SA "assault weapons" are ALMOST as dangerous as machine guns. They probably feel that they are. So what? But they could have just left it at that if that's the only point they were trying to make. But wait, there's more!

What the Brady's are implying in their statement is "Gee, we ban machine guns and have tightly regulated them since 1934 and have banned possession of new machine guns since 1986. Since semi automatic 'assault weapons' are almost as dangerous, why shouldn't we ban those as well?"

They specifically mention the NFA and allude to the Hughes ammendment of 1986. First they equate the danger of the two (FA and SA). In that, you are correct and I agree with you. But then, they make the jump to pointing out how machine guns are banned but SA "assault weapons" are not. This is trying to further their agenda to ban SA "assault weapons". They may not ever get it done, but that was never my point. They are attempting to use the ban on machine guns, coupled with them pointing out how SA "assault weapons" are almost as dangerous as machine guns in an attempt to convince the reader that SA "assault weapons" should be banned as well. It's very easy to figure that out just by reading what they say, and having some cursory knowledge of their agenda.

But, as you mentioned, you don't feel that's the case. So be it. I'm willing to bet that many others can see what the Brady's are up to and it includes equating the dangerous nature of SA "assault weapons" with machine guns, which are banned, in the hopes of convincing people to help push for a ban on SA "assault weapons" as well.

After yesterday's shooting in St. Louis, you can bet the Brady's will be back on the circuit pumping for a new "assault weapons" ban. Will they get it? It's doubtful at this time, but political winds can change. We've seen it before.

And let's not forget the bill that Pete Stark and 33 other members of the House of Rep. tried to get enacted which would treat SA "assault weapons" just as machine guns. But there's nothing to see there folks. Move along.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

USAFNoDak,

Just a final couple of questions.

If there were no Hughes Amendment and no NFA, but folk still had the fear of FA that they do today (and thus the same number of law abiding citizens possessed them) would the Bradys still try and ban semi-auto "assault rifles"? Would they be any more successful then than they have been?

I'll go out on a limb and say yes to question one and no to question two is what I believe. I think that takes out the NFA from your equation. Heck if there were no such thing as FA and thus no NFA they would still try to ban them (assault rifles)!

Sure they will bring up that FA is regulated just like they bring up that cars are regulated, dynamite etc. but the driving force to regulate guns is not because we have other regulations but that they (the antis) think they are dangerous.

Anyway, I think I have lost what your original point is. Are you saying that the NFA is causing other gun regulation and therefore bad? If you are then I refer you back to the slippery slope fallacy because that is what it appears to me you are saying. Here is a quote from Eugene's Volokh's "Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope" that I think pertain to what you are saying:

Political momentum: Once the government has passed this gun law it becomes easier to pass other gun laws, including laws like confiscation.

Follow my previous link to see why that is a fallacy.

I think we agree that the Bradys try to scare and misinform the public.

EDIT: After reading some more of your posts I think one of the differences we have is that you (and ironically the antis) do not think there is very much difference between FA and SA. I think there is a big difference and I think the public does too when informed properly and that is why up until now we have been able to beat back the AWBs to date when we are able to show the public the difference. That maybe coloring our arguments, just a guess.

[zukiphile]

If there were no Hughes Amendment and no NFA, but folk still had the fear of FA that they do today (and thus the same number of law abiding citizens possessed them) would the Bradys still try and ban semi-auto "assault rifles"?

Emphasis added.

The "and thus" suggests that a severely restricted market would result in as much lawful possession as a very open market. That isn't a reasonable premise.

Additionally, the issue presented is not what "the Bradys [would] still try" to do, but whether an existing near ban serves the rhetoric of other near bans.


While my personal interests do not rest in selective fire items, that the federal government takes such draconian measures against NFA items can only contribute to the sense that there is something wrong with owning them.

The portion of the NFA that I believe is more awful that the selective fire ban is the unnecessary licensing of sound suppressing systems. Guns are loud. Too loud, really. Loud enough to cause hearing loss over time. Yet the same states that will ticket you for not having a muffler on your automobile often have their own laws against having one on your firearm. Is hold ups with suppressed weapons a big problem? I can only guess that we would have laws requiring use of suppressors in populated areas if it weren't for the impediments to ownership that keep them rare.

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

If there were no Hughes Amendment and no NFA, but folk still had the fear of FA that they do today (and thus the same number of law abiding citizens possessed them) would the Bradys still try and ban semi-auto "assault rifles"? Would they be any more successful then than they have been?

Now we are straying into hypotheticals or what ifs. I choose not to go there. My point includes the fact that we do have an NFA and a Hughes Amendment, and those are used by some anti gun groups in attempts to strictly regulate, virtually ban, or completely ban other types of guns.

I'll go out on a limb and say yes to question one and no to question two is what I believe. I think that takes out the NFA from your equation. Heck if there were no such thing as FA and thus no NFA they would still try to ban them (assault rifles)!

If there was no FA and thus no NFA, yes, they would still try to ban semi autos and other types of guns. But that's not the case today. There are FA's, and there is an NFA. The antis, such as the Bradys, use that in their attempts to strictly regulate other types of guns. Their website demonstrates that, as I have shown.

Sure they will bring up that FA is regulated just like they bring up that cars are regulated, dynamite etc. but the driving force to regulate guns is not because we have other regulations but that they (the antis) think they are dangerous.

I don't recall how many times I've agreed with you that the Brady's want to regulate all guns because they believe they are all dangerous. But it's not politically possible for them to ban all guns at this time. They need more justification. So, as their website demonstrates, they point to machine guns and the NFA to help them justify banning SA "assault weapons by comparing, the dangers (falsely in my opinion) between FA and SA".

Anyway, I think I have lost what your original point is. Are you saying that the NFA is causing other gun regulation and therefore bad?

No, what I've been saying all along is that laws such as the NFA are dangerous to our civil rights because they can be used as tools by the anti's to further regulate other types of guns. The Brady's have been doing exactly that with the NFA and the Hughes amendment, in their attempt to ban SA "assault weapons", specifically.

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

After reading some more of your posts I think one of the differences we have is that you (and ironically the antis) do not think there is very much difference between FA and SA. I think there is a big difference and I think the public does too when informed properly and that is why up until now we have been able to beat back the AWBs to date when we are able to show the public the difference.

The only difference between an M16 and an AR15 is that the M16 can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger, the latest versions using 3 round burst to fire three rounds per trigger pull. Other than that, they are identical. They look the same, sound the same, and shoot the same bullet with the same cartridge. Now, if we get into mini guns and belt fed machine guns, there is a lot of difference because to the best of my knowledge, I don't know of any semi auto only belt fed machine guns nor any semi auto mini guns. So, I do note the differences between SA and FA, but with respect to SA "assault weapons" specifically, and their FA counterparts, there is not much difference other than multiple rounds per trigger pull vs. one round only per trigger pull.