Assault weapons ban lifted...good thing?

[FirstFreedom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!?]

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) 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.......... 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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color], 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 [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color], 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, [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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


-sig

[alan]

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?