Congress Pushes Anti-gun Brady Law Expansion Bill

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by 7960

I'll never understand how a pistol grip, a second forward grip, a thumbhole stock, or a telescoping stock changes a gun from a rifle to an "assault weapon."

They're attacking the asthetics because they can not attack the firearm itself, because there is no provision to protect asthetics. It's not about "how".

[7960]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

They're attacking the asthetics because they can not attack the firearm itself, because there is no provision to protect asthetics. It's not about "how".

so they're saying "the 2nd amendment says we can't get rid of guns but it doesn't say we can't get rid of folding stocks, so we're going to ban anything with a folding stock"

bullshit... it's just an end-run around the 2nd amendment. They might as well say "it's legal to have a *gun* but it's illegal to have a *trigger*."

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by 7960

so they're saying "the 2nd amendment says we can't get rid of guns but it doesn't say we can't get rid of folding stocks, so we're going to ban anything with a folding stock"

Exactly.

bullshit... it's just an end-run around the 2nd amendment. They might as well say "it's legal to have a *gun* but it's illegal to have a *trigger*."

And you're right, these people are anti-firearm and will use any tactic they can to ban any firearm they can.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Look i said it would take many many years to get rid of most of them. I dont know how many times i can type it, but IT WOULD TAKE MANY YEARS TO AFFECTIVELY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ASSAULT RIFLES FROM PUBLIC CIRCULATION. Jesus tits.

nations all around the world ARE MAKING THEM TODAY and will make them in the future. It is not a limited product.

The bad guys took down one policeman and put dozens of other police and civilians at great risk with those weapons. A risk that would not have been as great if they were using hand guns or their daddys shotgun. The police had to go get AR15s because they were, sadly, outgunned.

bullshit. More cops are killed by pistols then anything else. Usually within a few feet. They could have easily done the job with pistols and it would have been better. They wouldnt have done a last man standing with pistols.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Cant read english ?

Who makes up the miltia ? Oh thats right, everyone between 16 and 45.

Now how would they ensure that the miltia had access to weapons and the training to fight ? the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

[Diamond Cross]

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment


Introduction
Erroneous interpretations of the words in the Second Amendment occur from both sides of the debate. The meaning of the words "militia," "well regulated," "the people," "to keep and bear," and "arms," are discussed.
The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Militia
The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Is today's National Guard the militia? It is a part of the well-regulated militia, and as mentioned in GunCite's, The Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment, it was not the intent of the framers to restrict the right to keep arms to only those serving active militia duty.
Once a member of a State Guard unit is ordered into active military service of the United States, that person is no longer under the command of, or serving, a State Guard unit (until they are relieved from federal service), but is now a member of the army. (See the Supreme Court case Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) for a brief but good explanation of the evolution of the National Guard statutes.)
For a definition of today's militia as defined in the United States Code, click here.
A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. (See Macnutt, Karen L., Militias, Women and Guns Magazine, March, 1995.) Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or under the command of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned," rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view. (See Reynolds, Glen Harlan, A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 [1995].)

Link:

Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

nations all around the world ARE MAKING THEM TODAY and will make them in the future. It is not a limited product. bullshit. More cops are killed by pistols then anything else. Usually within a few feet. They could have easily done the job with pistols and it would have been better. They wouldnt have done a last man standing with pistols.

Cant read english ?

Who makes up the miltia ? Oh thats right, everyone between 16 and 45.

Now how would they ensure that the miltia had access to weapons and the training to fight ? the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Yes, but if you prevent them from entering the country and round up the ones that are found or turned in, after a long period of time the availability to the public would be greatly reduced, greatly reducing the potential for a crime to be committed with one.

And no i can't read any english. I only understand bullshit which is why i tend to only reply to a lot of right wingers threads and posts.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Yes, but if you prevent them from entering the country

Because we have such great success stopping alcohol, people, drugs, guns, etc... from sneaking in ?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Because we have such great success stopping alcohol, people, drugs, guns, etc... from sneaking in ?

That is something that I am also very ademate about fixing... border security.

[JSmythe]

What's funny is that almost every gun can be made into an automatic with a little know-how. So just buy a legal AK, make it automatic (in the case of an AK74 it requires removing a part and grinding down a nub on the receiver)... go fux some bitches up.

The idea that banning guns makes them hard to find is BULL SHIT. Did it work for alcohol? No. Somebody above said they weren't banned for long enough or some other stupid shit like that. How long have illicit drugs been banned? Some for more than 100 years. I can still get you whatever type of drug you want if you come and visit me (ecsp. in a college town).

edit: Oh and lets not forget where certain illicit drugs are legal (mijn vaderland!) use among the population decreased! and the chance of users of marijuana moving on to harder drugs was lower!

[R-Type]

the 'war on guns' is just as stupid and unwinnable as the 'war on drugs.' People who want to kill will still kill even if every gun on the planet was destroyed. If the goal is to stop people from killing each other, society needs to be set up so that the reasons for them wishing to kill are minimized as much as possible. A weed infestation cannot be eradicated by simply cutting off the branches and saying 'whew they're gone now'.. The root system must be destroyed. However, that takes real work, and most politicians abhor it in favor of 'turn-key-make-me-look-good' approaches. Oh well, more tax dollars wasted.

[MKULTRA]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I agree... if we passed a law today it would not solve any gun problem tomorrow as you are suggesting. I am saying after 20 years of enforcing an assault weapon ban, where those which are found are destroyed, confiscated, or put into circulation with the military... then we may not find any or many on the street.

There is no ban on assault weapons, at least in my state.

Just like banning automatic weapons in the 30's. How many tommy guns and other automatic weapons do you see circulating the streets? Very, very few despite the ability to convert an assault weapon into an automatic one.

That doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because assault weapons are routinely being shipped into this country illegally. If we can't keep drugs out then no way we'll keep guns out.

There are bans on assault weapons, at the federal level. All we're doing right now is increasing crime by preventing ordinary citizens from defending themselves.

[phreak]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I can't explain why they feel anything with a pistol grip is considered an assault weapon. You can just change the stock on it and it would get rid of the pistol grip. The Mass law sounds stupid to me because it is so generalized.

Generally speaking, I would consider something that is designed for military and police use an assault weapon. The military and police choose these weapons because it gives them a tactical advantage when shooting people, not rabbits and deer. Some examples are AK47s, SKS, AR15/M16, M4, etc. A lot of them are already illegal in their "automatic" form.

semi-automatic rifle are not assault weapons.

[phreak]

Originally Posted by 7960

You still haven't defined "assault weapon."

Please, let me know how to identify one. Becuase as far as i can tell the only way to figure that out is to determine how a person *might* use it. If it "looks like" an assault weapon then it is one... is that how it's defined?

if it looks scary... it must be an assault weapon.

its funny how the phrase "assault weapon" is so misused. semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons. no matter what attachments you put on them, it will not make it an assault rifle. if its fully automatic... then you have yourself an assault weapon.

[phreak]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Automatic weapons were outlawed in the 1930s, they remain illegal unless you have a collector's license, which costs A LOT of money.

you have to possess a class 3 license (dealer & law enforcement) to buy and sell full auto weapons that are made after 1986.

i'd imagine it varies from state to state. but, in nh you can buy a full auto without a class 3 license as long as it was made before 1986. all you have to do is have a background check by the local pd. from what i've been told, it takes alittle longer (60 days or so) than a concealed weapons permit.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by phreak

semi-automatic rifle are not assault weapons.

I realize that. Assault weapons are unique from regular semi-auto rifles in their design. They are designed for fighting and shooting at other people. Sure these same features can carry over to shooting rabbits and beer cans, but their design was ultimately for combat. That is why the military chooses one of them over another rifle of the same caliber.

Personally I think if someone wants to own one of these weapons, they should join the military. They even let you legally shoot at other people with them. I hear it is quite exciting.

[7960]

Originally Posted by phreak

semi-automatic rifle are not assault weapons.

they are if they have a pistol grip, a forward grip, a folding stock, can accept a cartridge that holds more than (usually) 4 shells, a threaded end to accept a suppressor, a thumb hole in the stock.................

Originally Posted by phreak

if it looks scary... it must be an assault weapon.

its funny how the phrase "assault weapon" is so misused. semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons. no matter what attachments you put on them, it will not make it an assault rifle. if its fully automatic... then you have yourself an assault weapon.

you are not using the same definition as the people who want to ban assault weapons, because they DO consider a semi-auto rifle an assault weapon if it has those things listed above

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I realize that. Assault weapons are unique from regular semi-auto rifles in their design. They are designed for fighting and shooting at other people. Sure these same features can carry over to shooting rabbits and beer cans, but their design was ultimately for combat.

I don't know the exact specs on the M16 but the civilian version (semi-auto) is no more "designed for combat" than the 7mm rifle in my dad's basement. In fact the 7mm probably has a greater range and better accuracy. Since the civilian M16 is semi-auto and isn't as powerful or accurate, and it isn't doesn't shoot any faster than my dad's semi-auto 7mm.

Why can he have that but not an M16? What does the elusive "designed for combat" thing mean? In semi-auto form it's doesn't stand up to a rifle anyone can go buy in walmart.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 7960

I don't know the exact specs on the M16 but the civilian version (semi-auto) is no more "designed for combat" than the 7mm rifle in my dad's basement. In fact the 7mm probably has a greater range and better accuracy. Since the civilian M16 is semi-auto and isn't as powerful or accurate, and it isn't doesn't shoot any faster than my dad's semi-auto 7mm.

Why can he have that but not an M16? What does the elusive "designed for combat" thing mean? In semi-auto form it's doesn't stand up to a rifle anyone can go buy in walmart.

The M16 has a flash suppressor, bayonet lug and a three round burst. The burst makes it a no-no since it whenever more than one round is fired per release of the trigger it's classified as an auto.

In reality, banning a weapon because it has a flash suppressor, or a nut under the barrel is absolutely ridiculous to me.

These laws were made by people who use scare tactics of guns and invoke them into our media. These laws do absolutely no actual testing of the weapons to see which are more dangerous. No velocity tests, projectile damage reports, etc. 99% of all quantifiers are solely appearance based. The reality is the people making these laws don't care how dangerous a weapon is. It has nothing to do with public safety and absolutely everything to do with tricking the ignorant public.