assault rifles

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Banned no, but plans to regulate the sale were proposed last year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ever hear of buying a little at a time?
Regulation, the next best thing to banning by Big G.
Trust me where there is a will there will always be a way.
Trains, planes and automobiles.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.

Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?

-spence

Functionally they are identical, that's why the "Assault Weapons Ban" was a farcical useless law that only banned cosmetic items.

Legally, only one of those semi-automatic rifles was deemed an "Assault Weapon" . . . Under the 1994 law the criteria was if a semi-automatic rifle was able to accept detachable magazines and had two or more of the following components:

A) Folding or telescoping stock
B) Pistol grip
C) Bayonet mount
D) Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
E) Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

The top photo is a non-assault weapon AR-15 (post-ban) with a detachable magazine and was legally offered for sale during the "Assault Weapons ban" because it WAS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON! One could also buy extended mags that were manufactured before Sept 13, 1994 for this rifle and be compliant with the "Assault Weapons Ban".

The bottom picture is a AR-15 that was considered an "Assault Weapon" between Sept 13, 1994 and Sept 13, 2004.

Now, federally, neither are.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Functionally they are identical, that's why the "Assault Weapons Ban" was a farcical useless law that only banned cosmetic items.

Legally, only one of those semi-automatic rifles was deemed an "Assault Weapon" . . . Under the 1994 law the criteria was if a semi-automatic rifle was able to accept detachable magazines and had two or more of the following components:

A) Folding or telescoping stock
B) Pistol grip
C) Bayonet mount
D) Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
E) Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

The top photo is a non-assault weapon AR-15 (post-ban) with a detachable magazine and was legally offered for sale during the "Assault Weapons ban" because it WAS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON! One could also buy extended mags that were manufactured before Sept 13, 1994 for this rifle and be compliant with the "Assault Weapons Ban".

The bottom picture is a AR-15 that was considered an "Assault Weapon" between Sept 13, 1994 and Sept 13, 2004.

Now, federally, neither are.

I think there is an echo in here. Well put!

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Conservatives are a fearing bunch. I don't mean to be condescending but it's been my observation in life that the serious conservatives I have met in my life had serious fear issues with things that they don't understand. They need to have control over their reality and to do so usually involves a rigid religious life, while disagreeing with and meddling with the lives of others that do not jive with theirs. Because of the fobias that conservatives have to battle on a daily basis, gun ownership, and more importantly, powerful guns help them sleep better at night. Generally, the less intelligent ones own more firepower. No homos or Muslims are gonna break into their house and get away with it ��

Ok that was a little condescending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe the ignoramous' that didn't make it out of the 8th grade fear everything he/she doesn't understand, but the conservatives have a lot in common with you and many others, that is, less rules(we have enough, less government intervention)

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

I see, so an armed Jewish ghetto would have beaten back the Nazi opposition? That doesn't seem very plausible, it would have just meant a few more dead Nazis.

-spence

But at least the jews would have died standing up!

[Nebe]

Yep.. What's that saying?? I'd rather die standing up than spend a lifetime on my knees?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raven]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Absolutely, there are many ways to kill if a terrorist chooses, for example
Timothy Mc Veigh. Should fertilizer be banned too?

when i was a driller in the rock quarry i was always impressed
with how small a nitrates charge was needed for the amount of
rock it moved.... on each shot....

so yes, it needs to be regulated enough that anyone buying large quantities better be a farmer....
with ready fields he's spreading them in... and NOT another Timothy

[justplugit]

My point being crazies and terrorists usually plan these attrocities way
ahead of time and can stock pile things as they go without detection.

I agree a strange or unknown person buying a large quanity in a farm store
should be reported,but there are so many ways to skin a cat that all the bans
and regulations in the world won't stop an evil person/persons bent on mass destruction.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

My point being crazies and terrorists usually plan these attrocities way
ahead of time and can stock pile things as they go without detection.

I agree a strange or unknown person buying a large quanity in a farm store
should be reported,but there are so many ways to skin a cat that all the bans
and regulations in the world won't stop an evil person/persons bent on mass destruction.

I agree with one thing Obama said (I paraphrase): "We cannot defend against and prevent every incident that may bring harm to the American People."

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I agree with one thing Obama said (I paraphrase): "We cannot defend against and prevent every incident that may bring harm to the American People."

Agree JD, however, as much as it's been beat to death, guns no matter what
the bans or regulations are, will always be in the hands of terrorists and criminals
to the detriment of law abiding citizens.
The very first thing you hear,mostly by the far left, after one of these tradgedys is, "guns need to be banned."
Well we have a Constitution that doesn't agree.

[Pete F.]

In the past 100 years 3207 people have been killed by terrorist attacks in the continental United States. More than 622,000 soldiers have been killed in Wars protecting our freedom in that same time. Are our rights that were fought for so hard and at such a price to be written off so casually?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Ever hear of buying a little at a time?

Like Steve McQueen with the sand in the pants?

-spence

[justplugit]

LOL Spence, good one.
He was in no hurry, I think he was in for life.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

LOL Spence, good one.
He was in no hurry, I think he was in for life.

Too bad he got shot in the end, but the motorcycle chase is a classic.

-spence

[The Dad Fisherman]

He didn't get shot in the end....it ends with him bouncing the ball against the wall of his cell

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.

Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?

-spence

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Since you say that "under the assault weapon ban they both were", then you tell us what two features in the above list are on the top-pictured gun. If you can't, then under the AWB, it is not an 'assault weapon' - plain and simple.

Are going to let us know why both those pictured rifles would be 'assault weapons' under the AWB or just gloss over it because yet another one of holier-than-thou remarks was inappropriate due to you being incorrect?

I'll give you a hint: having a magazine and a synthetic stock to make it black and scary looking doesn't actually make a rifle an assault weapon, as defined in the federal AWB.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Are going to let us know why both those pictured rifles would be 'assault weapons' under the AWB or just gloss over it because yet another one of holier-than-thou remarks was inappropriate due to you being incorrect?

I'll give you a hint: having a magazine and a synthetic stock to make it black and scary looking doesn't actually make a rifle an assault weapon, as defined in the federal AWB.

I didn't even look at the pictures

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

I didn't even look at the pictures

-spence

That's as close to a "JohnnyD, you were right" as I'll get... so I'll take it.

[Nebe]

What exactly is the definition of "assault rifle"??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Nebe

What exactly is the definition of "assault rifle"??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Depends on who is defining.
In WW1 it was a Springfield
In WW2 it was a M16
Since Vietnam it is an AR15 style, AR stands for assault rifle.
Many servicemen used similar types to their service rifles for hunting after they spent years carrying them.

[Nebe]

IMO, the ban should be on full automatic rifles. That makes sense. It should end there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Nebe

What exactly is the definition of "assault rifle"??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here you go. It's not perfect but pretty damn close...
It's an image but I'm going to post just the link to avoid having the huge image screw up the forum.

Common Misconceptions: Assault Rife, Assault Weapon

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Nebe

IMO, the ban should be on full automatic rifles. That makes sense. It should end there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are pretty much banned or at least tightly controlled.
In order to get a permit for a fully automatic firearm, you pay $250 there is an extensive background check by the FBI and a few other hoops and then you can buy one, Want two, do it all over again. And you get to pay yearly.
Now I would guess that a good gunsmith can make an auto out of a semi fairly easily, but the BATF don't fool around with people who don't play by the rules.
And probably on the worldwide illegal arms market you can buy a truckload of automatics if you know who to talk to.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They are pretty much banned or at least tightly controlled.
In order to get a permit for a fully automatic firearm, you pay $250 there is an extensive background check by the FBI and a few other hoops and then you can buy one, Want two, do it all over again. And you get to pay yearly.
Now I would guess that a good gunsmith can make an auto out of a semi fairly easily, but the BATF don't fool around with people who don't play by the rules.
And probably on the worldwide illegal arms market you can buy a truckload of automatics if you know who to talk to.

I believe it's $200 for the National Firearms Act tax stamp, and you can only but pre-ban (I think it's 1986) automatic weapons. This tax is only paid *once* per transfer. Also, they can only be purchased through a licensed SOT vendor and have to be sold back to a licensed vendor. There is no ability for the legal private sale of any automatic weapons.
National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

That's as close to a "JohnnyD, you were right" as I'll get... so I'll take it.

I was just joking.

My understand is that the ban wasn't on the current state of the weapon but if it could be modified to meet the conditions of the law. So taking off the flash suppressor and changing the stock wouldn't change an AR 15's legal status under the AWB.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

I was just joking.

My understand is that the ban wasn't on the current state of the weapon but if it could be modified to meet the conditions of the law. So taking off the flash suppressor and changing the stock wouldn't change an AR 15's legal status under the AWB.

-spence

Your understanding is incorrect. It is on the current components on the rifle. If you take the pistol grip off, a collapsible stock can be put on. Replace the threaded barrel with one that doesn't have threads and you can put a grenade launcher on.

Take a look at the image I posted at 12:38 for more details.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Your understanding is incorrect. It is on the current components on the rifle. If you take the pistol grip off, a collapsible stock can be put on. Replace the threaded barrel with one that doesn't have threads and you can put a grenade launcher on.

Take a look at the image I posted at 12:38 for more details.

Fair enough.

But for the sake of discussion, adding a flash suppressor or folding stock to a base AR 15 changes more than it's appearance, it change it's function.

There are plenty of things that while legal on their own are illegal when combined.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Fair enough.

But for the sake of discussion, adding a flash suppressor or folding stock to a base AR 15 changes more than it's appearance, it change it's function.

There are plenty of things that while legal on their own are illegal when combined.

-spence

Neither of them change the actual function of the firearm - pull trigger, a single round comes out the barrel, pull trigger again and another single round comes out. To quote one of your own comments "Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?"

Neither make a rifle deadlier. Also, having only a flash suppressor or only a folding stock was perfectly legal even under the AWB.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Neither make a rifle deadlier. Also, having only a flash suppressor or only a folding stock was perfectly legal even under the AWB.

Yes, but not both. And I'd certainly argue that they do make the rifle deadlier.

I'd agree that legislation on the basis of degrees is tricky and it may not be the best method. But there is purpose to said modifications beyond just the visual.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, but not both. And I'd certainly argue that they do make the rifle deadlier.

I'd agree that legislation on the basis of degrees is tricky and it may not be the best method. But there is purpose to said modifications beyond just the visual.

-spence

If you'd argue that they make the rifle deadlier, how so exactly?

You're right not both. My point is that if individually they aren't dangerous and scary enough to completely outlaw, what is the *measurable* difference that makes them cumulatively dangerous enough to outlaw when utilized at the same time. Especially when you consider that a grenade launcher is allowed as long as it's not combined with a bayonet lug.

The people that try to regulate these guns, for the most part, have no idea what they're talking about. They create laws based on fear and image as opposed to actual data-backed metrics. Hell, the FBI's own data says that in 2009 handguns are used 18 times as often as rifles. Expanded Homicide Data - Crime in the United States 2009