justify owning an assault rifle to me, without using RW talking points.

[UpsideDownFlag]

pretty please. im running the reasons through my head, and none of them pass the Nugent-meter.

[derby378]

1. The Bush/Cheney Administration

I don't trust these people, and I suspect you don't either.

[Wild Bill]

2. Cause i want one.

Is that too right wing for you.

[Pachamama]

15. Why do you want one? What are you going to use it for?

Just wondering....most people would want something like that for a reason not just "cause"...

Ofcourse, me, being someone who believes in all articles of our Bill of rights and Constitution and is a long time gun owner myself and have been hunting with my family, shooting skeet for fun and marksmanship development is really curious, because I can't think of any good reasons to want one.

:eyes:

[Ducks In A Row]

22. the desire to own the gun is it's own reason

the rest is useless arguing and a time-waster.

[comradebillyboy]

39. i completly agree

i want one too and i gonna get one this week

[7th_Sephiroth]

119. becayse just maybe

i want to stab a deer with my bayonet and empty a 30 round magazine into its ass

[slackmaster]

3. Before I answer you'll have to clarify something please

What precisely do you mean by "assault rifle"?

If you can give a clear, unambiguous explanation of what YOU MEAN by the term I'll be happy to answer your question in detail.

I promise not to beat up on you for using non-standard terminology if that is what you are doing.

[UpsideDownFlag]

6. things like this, and others on that page- military style, hi power rifles

with hugeass clips.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as24f-e.htm

[slackmaster]

12. OK, you mean selective-fire military firearms.

As a gun collector it would be fun, interesting, and possibly profitable to have one or more real military assault rifles in my collection. They're also a lot of fun to shoot. I've shot several.

FYI you actually used the correct terminology as accepted by most people who are familiar with the subject.

FYI Roman numeral II, those are all strictly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. If I lived somewhere like Texas or Arizona buying an assault rifle would be a real possibility for me. But because I live in California there is little chance I could convince the Department of Justice that I have a "legitimate" (in their eyes) "need" for one.

One final note, er, not not meaning to be critical: Those aren't military-"style"; they're military.

[TX-RAT]

17. Texas or Arizona buying an assault rifle would be a real possibility for m

Why is that?

[comradebillyboy]

43. because in the southwest and rocky mtn west

state gun laws are not very restricitve so you only need to meet federal requirements. california and new york have much more restrictive state laws that make it very difficult to own certain kinds of guns.

[TX-RAT]

48. Thanks

[UpsideDownFlag]

20. i'll add streetsweepers and the like too...

you know, anything designed to kill and maim en masse.

[FeebMaster]

23. The streetsweeper is considered a destructive device.

It's regulated as heavily as a machine gun.

[ROC]

33. Unfortunately I don't know

when you write legislation, you must be specific. List of names , pictures and phrases like street sweepers are not useful. No we don't all know what they mean.

[slackmaster]

51. Personally I wouldn't be interested in a streetsweeper

AFAIK no military force has ever issued them The United States Marine Corps tested it and found it lacking in many respects.

A lot of the value that collectors see in firearms is their historical context. If I were to have just one M16 rifle I'd want it to be something with an interesting past, e.g. a historically correct Vietnam-era M16A1 (at least in configuration if not actual provenance of its chain of ownership).

you know, anything designed to kill and maim en masse.

All military weapons are designed to kill and/or maim. That has been the case throughout history. I'd be interested in a device often referred to as a Ballista, sort of a giant crossbow from Roman times that was designed to skewer a whole file of soldiers at a time. Imagine the psychological effect that would have on the adjacent file of men.

[Lefty48197]

66. Will you please mention this when they say the AR 15 is a "varmint" weapon

Because we all know neither of you is talking about killing or maiming ground squirrels, but one of the NRA talking points is to start talking about "varmint rifles" whenever anybody wants to talk about assault rifles, select-fire or other.

[slackmaster]

69. I'm talking about gun collecting, Dolomite hunts deer with an FAL

The subject of the thread was assault rifles, not AR-15s.

I don't own any assault rifles. I thought I made that clear.

Since you asked, I use my AR-15s for target shooting.

[UpsideDownFlag]

97. the AR15 isnt an assault rifle? what is it, then?

[slackmaster]

122. An AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle designed for civilian use

I'm trying to stick with the definition of "assault rifle" that you provided in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=79148&mesg_id=79155&page=

Have I misconstrued what you meant in that thread? When you wrote "things like this" I took it to refer to the manner in which the weapon operates and the purpose for which it was intended.

[slackmaster]

165. Crickets chirping

What happened to JibJab?

:shrug:

[library_max]

178. I don't know.

Maybe the generous and respectful reception that gun control advocates get in this forum was too much for him. At least he didn't get tombstoned, like so many drive-by RKBAers do.

[skippythwndrdog]

86. I use a .223 for varmints.

So it's not an AR15. It's a Mini 14 or I use an NEF single shot in .223. Whatever you shoot it out of, the .223 is a dandy varmint round.

[Ready4Change]

4. I enjoy firing guns with different characteristics.

I find it interesting to learn to accomodate their different qualities.

[rkc3]

5. The deer in my woods are starting to shoot back.

[Dolomite]

7. I hunt deer with my FAL.

I shoot competitively with my AR-15.
I enjoy plinking with my MAK-90.
Oh, and they're not too shabby in the home defense department either.

Would pointing out how few rifles are actually used in crimes in my home state be a RW point?

[Lefty48197]

68. Assault rifles are the weapons of choice of Homegrown terrorist groups

like the militia, the KKK, and the skinheads. Whenever a terrorist group begins to focus on a certain weapon, whether anthrax, AR15's, or ANFO bombs, it becomes extremely necessary for we Americans to heavily watch those that want to posess those weapons. We CAN'T allow the terrorists to harm us any more.

[Hef]

98. back up your assertion please

do you have any facts to support your idea, or is is just that, an "idea"? I understand where you're coming from but I think you're misguided. If you can support your assertion I'll be more open to accepting it.

[Dolomite]

127. Don't bother trying to back that up ... because you can't...

...but just for fun let's replace Assault Weapon with Pick-up Truck.

Pick-ups are also the choice of terrorists and spooky imaginary Michigan militia members because of their high capacity truck beds allowing them to carry a lot of God-knows-what to incredible distances.

Sure there might be a need for them in some rare circumstances, but which do think kills more people everyday in this country every day? Pick-ups or black rifles with pistol grips and detatchable magazines?

[Caution]

8. fun.

(I'm being facetious)

[Wickerman]

9. Since you are new here I thought you might want to know

that if you are going to post a thread on AWB you might as well define up front what an assault weapon is. Search through the archives (hint - look for Fat Slob definitions)to find one that seems to pass the exacting standards of the crew here. If you don't get that laid down immediately you will have an extremely lengthy and diverted thread that never gets to your premise.

peace

[FeebMaster]

18. We're clearly not talking about the AWB

since he asked about assault rifles and not assault weapons.

[Wickerman]

25. We've both spent enough time in the gungeon to know

that what you ask for and what you get are two different things:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=79148#79152

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=79148#79172

[FeebMaster]

28. Well, maybe people should

learn enough about guns and the law to ask what they mean. If the original poster in this thread meant to ask about assault weapons as defined by the AWB, he should have said assault weapons instead of assault rifle. I understand there is some confusion over the difference and some propaganda from the pro-control side exploiting this confusion, which is why I answered the question for either 'assault rifle' or 'assault weapon.' For all I know he really did mean assault rifle and is shocked that people will pay $10,000 for a rifle that costs $25 or less on streets of Iraq or Somalia.

[Wickerman]

40. Feeb, I think we are on the same side

I've asked multiple times for folks to post up front the definition of AW so that each and all can know they don't need to spend 20 minutes typing a post to educate, then spend another 20 minutes defending your original post while someone else tries to pick your definition apart.

Yep, some propoganda from the pro- gun control side and some obfuscation from the pro RKBA side.

[FeebMaster]

I'm not trying to argue with you.

I just want people to be clear. I really thought we had settled this with my poll up in GD that no one voted in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2000705

[Wickerman]

50. Agreed, we both want people to be clear

regretabbly, there will always be some propoganda from the pro- gun control side and some obfuscation from the pro RKBA side.

[slackmaster]

128. Dang, the system won't let me vote in that one

My donor status just changed this morning (see the star?) and it's treating me like someone who registered after the poll was posted.

I appreciate the attempt to keep definitions clear here. I thought we had a clear understanding in this thread but sad to say it's not holding up as well as I'd hoped.

[FeebMaster]

140. It's a month old

and long since archived. I really think I should have put a "I don't know." option in it.

[Lefty48197]

71. speaking of diversions...

Is it possible to post a pro gun control thread in the dungeon without the ubiquitous diversions? And yes, I know my question answers itself.

[FeebMaster]

73. What diversions? (nt)

[UpsideDownFlag]

19. okay, thanks.

it looks as if that has already started.

[UpsideDownFlag]

21. also, i didnt mean to be talking about the ban.

i just meant, simply, explain to me why you own a big nasty gun.

[Wickerman]

26. you don't have to mean to talk about the ban

that seems to have a life of its own.

:7

[UpsideDownFlag]

30. i'm noticing that.

oh well.

[swag]

10. I've got a teeny weenie teeny

(not really, just playing devil's advocate)

[thomas82]

59. I enjoy

collecting military Rifles. To tell the truth I shoot very few of them. My favorites are the AR15 and the AK47. When the AWB expires I will be getting a Saiga 12 which is a AK47 that fires 12 guage shotguns shells. It will be a bad day at the field (for the doves anyway). One day I will have a Barret 50 Cal mainly for the collectors value as I doubt I will be able to afford shooting it every day.
Tom

[Lefty48197]

75. Hunting doves with 12 gauge shotgun shells?

Isn't that overkill?

[skippythwndrdog]

91. Not in the least.

Evidently you're unaware of the actual ballistics of shotguns in general. Visit an ammo manufacturer site to learn a bit about loads and uses for shotguns.

When you can accurately define/describe 'shot string', you'll know better than to post a comment like the one referenced in this reply.

[amber dog democrat]

11. In my case there is no good reason.

I just happen to enjoy shooting on on a target range with a scope sight.
Also ... in the right place, with a high capacity mag, its fun to blast away at old objects, logs, what ever provided you have a good berm.

But justify ?

No way. Its a cheap thrill at the rifle range. I

I have a semi auto pistol too... East German Markarov - never used them for defense.

Except for one time.....

Years ago around midnight someone was tampering with the front door of my house.
I could see the door knob twisting - I guess the person was trying to see if it was locked. I went to the closet, fetched an UNLOADED mini 14, crept up to the door where this fool was still trying to test the lock, and very loudly pulled back the bolt and let it fly. It made a most satisfying clack-clack!!!! sound and the intruder promptly vanished. True storey.

[TX-RAT]

14. So, has your mother in-law, ever come back to visit.

[amber dog democrat]

52. she was already dead

- from a previous visit.

I actually chased someone out of my house at 3AM one summer night
Could not think of what to do beyond just run at him. The would be whatever
dropped his knife and closed two doors in front of me as i chased him. -



it was the condescending attitude and long wait for the police to arrive that convinced me I would be better off with a shotgun or pistol. I don't have a very high opinion of our local constabulary. Thankfully i have moved since then. Its safer here.

[comradebillyboy]

45. i have a makarov also

nice little east bloc knock off of a walther ppk

[amber dog democrat]

53. They're OK.

I like mine. Pretty affordable too. Not bad for a simple pistol.

[eightyferrettoes]

13. I don't have one and probably never will

but I would have to agree that our citizens ought to be able to defend themselves against, for instance, a corrupt government.

I don't know if that's too RW for some people's taste, though.

I just don't like to see people lose their freedoms in general. Maybe it's just a big fat streak of Libertarianism.... lol lol lol

[FeebMaster]

16. Under current laws I can't personally justify owning an

assault rifle. Too expensive. I'm too cheap to buy a semi-auto rifle I'm definitely not going to pay 10 times as much or more for full-auto.

Same goes for assault weapons, why pay the premium on a pre-ban assault weapon when you can get the same rifle without the bayonet lug or flash suppressor for a lot less? Buy the post-ban weapon, which by definition isn't an assault weapon, for a lot cheaper.

Now if you have the money and are willing to pay all the extra cost for the extra features, go for it, although I'd recommend waiting until the AWB sunset to buy an assault weapon. Technically they won't be assault weapons anymore since the definition dies with the law and the prices should immediately come down to post-ban weapon levels. No need to wait on buying an assault rifle, their prices aren't coming down any time soon. If anything, buy it now before the prices get any higher which they will continue to do since the supply has been frozen for almost 20 years.

[Fescue4u]

24. Im an American.

I don't need to justify it.

[MrBenchley]

38. Chimpy could hardly have said it better...

It's the national cliche...Americans are childish, anti-inteleectual, and trigger-happy....

[Fescue4u]

42. Its called Freedom

Someday, when you are all grown up, you'll understand.

[MrBenchley]

44. It's called belligerent truculence

Those of us who have grown up actually understand the difference between the social compact and childish cowboy fantasies....

[Fescue4u]

54. I have no need, nor desire to justify my civil rights.

If someone feels that that is beligerent, then so be it.

[MrBenchley]

57. Nor any actual civil right to an assault weapon....

No matter how furiously the gun lobby lies about the subject...

[thomas82]

61. So who would deside between truth and lies?

let me guess Sarah Brady? gimme a break.
Tom

[MrBenchley]

Gee, tom, it's pretty clear the gun lobby lies....

and the entire RKBA cause is one piece of shit after another.....

[Fescue4u]

70. Same can be said of the Gun Grabbers..

"and the entire Anti-RKBA cause is one piece of shit after another....."

[library_max]

72. Got an example in mind?

Or is this just tu quoque?

[Fescue4u]

148. There are many many examples

For instance the VPCs self admitted strategy of confusing machine guns with AWs

[library_max]

152. Quote? Source? Anything? /nt

[Fescue4u]

155. nah...

Examples are well documented and frankly I dont feel like playing along.

If you wish, you may google "Assault weapon ban, machine gun confusion josh sugarman"

[library_max]

157. So, nothing. Imagine my astonishment.

Just a casual hit-and-run accusation of lying, with nothing to back it up. But at least you didn't use any dirty words. That would have been harmful to civil discourse.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Fescue4u]

160. fine

I gave you the resources and I suspect you already know what Im referring to.

But really, its just another rat hole that Im not in the mood to go down right down.

But I suspect it'll be revisted again in another thread :)

[slackmaster]

163. Max, please don't pretend you haven't seen quotes like this before

For criminals, the weapons look intimidating, have increased firepower, and can be purchased under the same controls as a hunting rifle or shotgun: that is, virtually none....

What is this mysterious "increased firepower" the AWB enthusiasts keep referring to? Does an AR-15 have more "firepower" than a Ruger Mini-14? Both fire the same caliber. Both accept detachable magazines. But I guess criminals must be concerned with intimidating looks. No self-respecting criminal would be caught dead with something that looks like an ordinary sporting rifle. We must ban intimidating-looking weapons!

:eyes:

Assault firearms are semi-automatic (firing one bullet per trigger pull) and fully automatic (the weapon will keep on firing as long as the trigger is depressed) anti-personnel rifles, shotguns, and handguns that are designed primarily for military and law enforcement use. underlinging added for emphasis

If you read the whole page carefully you can see that it doesn't state that assault weapons are fully automatic, but the intent to blur the distinction here is obvious.

Many assault weapons are merely semi-automatic versions of military machine guns, making them easier to convert to fully automatic machine guns.

Easier to convert to fully automatic than what? A skateboard? Sure it is possible to convert them, but are they easy enough to convert to fully automatic that any Joe Blow criminal can do it with hand tools? Are they easy enough to convert that illegal machineguns made from semiautomatics present a significant public safety problem? Where are the statistics to support the implied claim?

Oh, never mind; demanding proof is a right-wing tactic. Sorry.

:dunce:

On edit - Forgot the URL. Here it is:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaintro.htm

[library_max]

166. I know this is going to fall on deaf ears, but

saying things you disagree with is not the same thing as lying.

On your first point, it is as plain as the nose on anybody's face that the "increased firepower" statement was in comparison to hunting rifles and shotguns. Even the partial sentence you quoted demonstrates that. Now, is the Ruger Mini-14 a hunting rifle or a shotgun? The Ruger Mini-14 homepage describes it as a tactical rifle, an assault rifle, and a fighting rifle, and offers training in "gunfighting" for owners of the Mini-14.

Your second point doesn't require rebuttal, as you yourself admit that there was no actual falsehood.

On your third point, it doesn't say "easy," it says "easier". As for by whose standards it is easy, or easier, that is a matter of opinion. It is not legitimate to call someone a liar because your opinion differs with theirs.

[slackmaster]

170. I'm sure this one will fall on deaf ears too

Where did I call anyone a liar?

Repeating information without verifying its validity is less of an intellectual sin than telling an outright lie. At least the Cinci Post had the decency to correct its ERROR. The CSGV, by not correcting the same error, is guilty of a LIE.

[MrBenchley]

172. Deaf ears....and what a mouth!

Slackmaster: 170. I'm sure this one will fall on deaf ears too….Where did I call anyone a liar?

Slackmaster: 171. The CSGV is guilty of committing a lie

[iverglas]

174. the Ruger Mini-14, just fyi, ...

... with several 30-round magazines, was the weapon with which Marc Lépine killed 14 women students, and wounded 13 other people, at the University of Montreal in 1989. In Canada, the peaceable constitutional monarchy.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-70-398/disasters_tragedies/montreal_massacre

Sure, he could have used that hunting knife he had with him.

Just for interest's sake: five years earlier, Denis Lortie had walked into the Quebec legislature and opened fire with a 9-mm Stirling submachine-gun. He killed 3 people and (him too) wounded 13 others, before being talked out by a security officer who voluntarily went unarmed into the room where he was shooting at people. Lépine's writings indicated that he admired Lortie.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=J1SEC627668
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/fourth_dimension/2002/may02/may08_fd_e.htm

Lortie was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, so he came by his weapon legally. But I'll bet that he also had access to hammers.

[slackmaster]

189. BTW - what is this "Ruger Mini-14 homepage" you refer to?

The manufacturer's Product Overview for that rifle says:

Ruger Mini-14 Centerfire Autoloading rifles provide reliable performance with the following features:

** Simple, rugged Garand-style breechbolt locking system, with a fixed-piston gas system and self-cleaning, moving gas cylinder.

** Chambered in the popular and proven 223 Rem. cartridge.

** Integral sling mounting studs.

http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=1805&return=Y

library_max wrote:

The Ruger Mini-14 homepage describes it as a tactical rifle, an assault rifle, and a fighting rifle, and offers training in "gunfighting" for owners of the Mini-14.

I wasn't aware that Sturm, Ruger & Co. offered any training of that kind. Would it be a "right-wing debate tactic" to ask you to substantiate your claim, library_max???

How about a link so we can all see where you got that information and decide for ourselves whether or not it represents the position of the manufacturer?

[library_max]

195. Did you even try Google?

Google "ruger mini-14". This is the very first page that comes up:

http://www.ulster.net/~jperz/mini14.htm

I never said that the page was affiliated with Sturm, Ruger & Co. I called it by the name it calls itself - The Ruger Mini-14 Page.

[slackmaster]

199. Just as I suspected

An individuals' Page O' Links.

Thanks for clearing THAT up, Max.

My Ruger Mini-14 is configured for small game hunting. It has a standard wooden stock and a rather large scope. No flash suppressor, no pistol grip, no folding stock, no bayonet mount, etc.

I never said that the page was affiliated with Sturm, Ruger & Co. I called it by the name it calls itself - The Ruger Mini-14 Page.

Anyone can call any Web site "The <foo> Page". The name doesn't give its content any credibility or automatically make the page a meaningful reference.

[slackmaster]

164. You want more?

Here's a snippet from an editorial from the Cincinnati Post that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence saw fit to republish in toto.

The semiautomatic weapons continue firing ammunition automatically once the user squeezes the trigger once and keeps it pressed down....

The really funny thing about this one is that the Post corrected the error in its Web edition within a few days. The CSGV has probably gotten thousands of emails and letters about it but hasn't retracted or corrected the error.

http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/cincipost5_7_04.cfm

I've got a collection of these, max. Don't pretend they don't exist. It's a classic Big Lie.

[library_max]

167. Let me get this straight.

The CSGV reprinted an article from the Cincinnati Post that contains an error. It wasn't CSGV's error, it was the Post's error. And it was an error, not a lie, as the Post's subsequent correction demonstrates.

So you are going to call the CSGV a liar for reprinting a story that had an error (not a lie) in it, from somebody else?

If you have a "collection" of these, you might try starting with the A material. Because this one is a fairly ridiculous stretch.

[slackmaster]

171. The CSGV is guilty of committing a lie

That doesn't necessarily make them liars, but it does suggest that they don't put a lot of value in accuracy.

[library_max]

173. What the heck does "committing a lie" mean?

It doesn't mean "telling a lie," because the CSGV didn't originate the offending passage, they just reprinted it.

And, again, the passage in question wasn't a lie, it was a mistake.

So when you or I cut-and-paste an article or part of a website or even the post of another DUer, and that text contains an error, we are guilty of "committing a lie"?

Good to know, good to know. :eyes:

Especially impressive as evidence that gun control groups lie as a general practice. I'd cut-and-paste Fescue's statement, but then I'd be "committing a lie," because Fescue was wrong.

[slackmaster]

175. They propagated a lie, and have been told about it

So they no longer have any excuse for leaving it on their site.

And, again, the passage in question wasn't a lie, it was a mistake.

Yes, I can accept that.

But the CSGV has been notified of the Cinci Post's error and has not corrected their repetition of it. That's less than honest.

[MrBenchley]

176. Perhaps they considered the source of "been told about it"

"That's less than honest"
You would be an expert in that, slack....

"slackmaster
38. It's the Big Lie strategy"
"slackmaster
58. Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE"
"slackmaster
65. If I may be so bold as to speak for the entire "RKBA crowd"
We aren't saying they are lying."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20875&mesg_id=20875

"Slackmaster: 170. I'm sure this one will fall on deaf ears too….Where did I call anyone a liar?
Slackmaster: 171. The CSGV is guilty of committing a lie"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=79148&mesg_id=79148

[library_max]

179. Do you think DU makes a lot of corrections in response to freepermail?

No? Then why would CSGV make corrections in response to RKBA mail?

[slackmaster]

186. What do you mean by "RKBA mail"?

And if RKBA mail contains factual information about an error the CSGV posted on their Web site, wouldn't the CSGV still be morally obligated to correct it?

And as a matter of fact, if an acknowledged Freeper sent Skinner a polite email correcting a factual error on the DU site I'd bet that Skinner wouldn't ignore it and leave the bad info on the site. I think Skinner has a lot more integrity than someone who would do that.

[MrSandman]

187. What do you think?

Did your Senator correct the factual innacuracies about the AWB?

[slackmaster]

188. No, my Senator ignores me all the time just like she ignores most people

That's why I've lost a lot of the respect I once had for Diane Feinstein - Not just on gun issues, people often complain that their letters to her are answered by robots.

I think she knows the North Hollywood shootout did not involve any firearms that were ever in the legal stream of commerce, but she can't let go of the propaganda value of the erroneous information she has on her Web site.

She's still an intelligent and capable person and a powerful member of the Senate who does a good job of upholding the interests of the people of California, but she does have an irrational emotional attachment, perhaps an obsession, with this particular issue.

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrSandman]

161. Which military uses semi-auto weapons?

If Congress and the President fail to act, weapons of war -- like AK-47s, Street Sweepers, and Tec-DC9s -- will once again be made in America, and potential criminals and terrorists who threaten our neighborhoods will once again be able to purchase them over-the-counter in local gun stores.
<>
North Hollywood Bank of America -- On February 28, 1997, Emil Dechebal Matasareanu and Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr. tried to rob a Bank of America branch office in North Hollywood, California. While trying to escape, the two robbers engaged in a shootout with police. Though vastly outnumbered, the two men C armed with AK-47s, thousands of rounds of ammunition, several other weapons and wearing body armor C held off law enforcement personnel for hours before being shot and killed by police. Police were outgunned by the perpetrators and had to obtain weapons of equal firepower from a local gun store.
<>
Based on this evidence, it is clear that the assault weapons ban needs to be reauthorized so that we can continue to keep these military-style weapons off the street.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/assault-weapons-ban-support.html

[turnkey]

162. The sad thing is...

that half-assed prohibitions such as the AWB will not stop the fringe element of our society from perpetrating such horrible things.
As has been said many times before, feel-good gun legislation only serves to tilt the playing field in favor of the criminal element, while subjugating the law abiding to their will.

[library_max]

168. Are you trying to tell me that the AK-47 was not originally manufactured

for military use?

[turnkey]

177. The semi-auto AK...

was produced for the civilian (US) market. It was never military hardware.

[library_max]

180. Oh, so it's an entirely different weapon.

No relation. No connection whatsoever. Just a happy coincidence that they're both called AK-47, eh?

[MrSandman]

182. Entirely different ...

The selective fire models are regulated by the NFA and may not be transferred to civilians after Reagan protected firearms owners.

[library_max]

196. But they are different versions of the same weapon, yes?

A combat weapon, originally designed for the military. So when Senator Feinstein says "military style," it's justified. If she said, "exactly like troops presently use in combat," that'd be untrue. But she didn't.

[MrSandman]

200. Real slow...

Military style weapons are selective fire or fully auto.

Civilian semi automatic weapons have receivers (which ATF defines as the firearm) which cannot be fired other than semi-automatic.

A civilian semi automatic weapon may look like a military style weapon, but that is all.

Several years ago(the 1970's), Ford put fiberglass Model A look-alike bodies on Pinto Chassis. Were the 1920's style cars or 1970's style cars that only looked like the 1920's style?

Answer that question and you will have your perspective on the difference between military style and military look-alike.

[library_max]

201. So what is the official legal definition of "military style weapons"?

And from where does the authority for that definition derive?

If you define it one way and Senator Feinstein defines it another way, that's a difference of opinion. You can't call someone a liar because her opinion differs from yours.

[MrSandman]

202. I can say it is innacurate to...

Portray the North Hollywood shootout as a harbinger if the AWB sunsets. Or to state that "streetsweepers" will be produced en masse. She did not say AK-47 variants so what would someone seeing anything about it for the first time think after AK-47 and North Hollywood shootout.

Once again, it is misleading. The statement about streetsweepers is a lie(they are NFA weapons).

[MrSandman]

181. No, that the semi auto variants...

Are not military style weapons.

[turnkey]

183. Comparison...

They would be comparable to the US military M-16 vs. the civilian AR-15. Primary difference is the mode of fire.
The civilian variants use authentic military kits except (and it's a BIG accept) the receiver. This has been permanently modified to fire only in the semi-automatic mode. They will also build civilian receivers from scratch, that never were designed for full auto fire.
There are quite a few battle rifles on the market today that have been altered in this way. The H&K G-3 and L1A1 to name a couple. They even build a semi-auto version of the PPSh-41...a famous Russian sub-machine gun.
For the collector with a taste for Cold War or WWII weapons history, these are great guns.
As a Vietnam vet, I personally wouldn't mind having a real honest to goodness full auto authentic Russian AK.

[MrSandman]

184. Any receiver which can fire auto...

Is a Macine Gun.

[library_max]

197. Really? What's the official legal definition of "military style weapon"?

Or are we once again trying to call someone a liar because her opinion differs from ours?

[MrBenchley]

101. Yeah, but fescue....

Look at the sort of liars that say that....starting with that idiotic term "gun grabbers"

[Fescue4u]

146. Just a term of affection

For those that hope to someday rid America of guns.

I can think of at least...oh, ONE person right now who fits that description.

[MrBenchley]

150. Like I said...just look....

[Fescue4u]

154. indeed.

[gatlingforme]

190. bui tthen I don't have a gun fetish...nor do I pimp for Republican legisla

Oh, that was a quote by mr.benchley on Aug. 15th 2004 at 11:56pm. on another thread at : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=78465&mesg_id=78465

I guess since you did not get deleted I can throw it back at you.

[library_max]

198. Sure. It doesn't make any sense here, but feel free to "throw it back."

[Lefty48197]

78. Her name is "Scary Brady" get it right, and you earn your pin "newbie".

.

[skippythwndrdog]

56. Self description?

Americans are childish, anti-inteleectual, and trigger-happy

Or do you live in New Jerzistan as a legal alien?

[MrBenchley]

58. Ah, those "pro gun democrats"

Wonder why they use Freeper slang so often?

[skippythwndrdog]

83. Is it?

I thought it accurately described the constrictions of 2A freedoms in NJ via wordplay.

[MrBenchley]

102. No, it's tedious freeper horseshit....

as usual....

[iverglas]

143. but I'm jealous

Won't someone say "Soviet Canuckistan" for me?

It makes me break out in guffaws every time I hear it. Funniest damned thing since Wayne and Shuster ...

[gatlingforme]

192. see my posts from today YOU talking about FREEPERS

[MrBenchley]

193. Why?

Why would hunting down your posts be worth the effort?

[gatlingforme]

191. NO see previous post by you: the whole gun fetish stuff and calling

me a pimp for the Republican party. Is that what you mean by "gun pro dems"?

[derby378]

27. The real problem arises...

...when folks in the government claim that Amendment II's "well-regulated militia" is something completely separate from "We the People." It's a sentiment that the hoi polloi should be left to their own devices, but also left unarmed - trusting that our armed forces, our police, and our intelligence agencies will always submit to the will of the people.

[MrBenchley]

32. Too too funny...

So in other words, when "folks in the government" don't swallow the NRA's big fat honking lie about the Second Amendment there's a problem?

[library_max]

34. Now by "folks in the government," do you mean the US courts?

Because that's what they've unanimously determined - that the Second Amendment refers to the militia as such, and not to the people generally.

[MrBenchley]

47. I think he means everybody

but the fuckwits in the Second Amendment Caucus and our crooked, incompetent, and racist attorney general....

[iverglas]

144. oh dear

"the hoi polloi"

A nice effort, but only 1/2 marks.

As I learned in my high school noontime ancient Greek classes, "hoi" means "the".

Thura, thurae, hey!

Other than that, not much to see here ...

[HawkerHurricane]

29. Not going to do it.

Not that I want a 'assault rifle'; it's just that any arguement used has probably been used or mentioned by the NRA; so any statement can be disregarded as 'right wing spin'.

[FeebMaster]

31. Hey, even if it hasn't

"Not that I want a 'assault rifle'; it's just that any arguement used has probably been used or mentioned by the NRA; so any statement can be disregarded as 'right wing spin'."

that's not going to stop anyone from making the accusation.

[HawkerHurricane]

55. I didn't say that.

I thought it, though.

[skippythwndrdog]

35. I like them and I can afford them. I also want them.

that's sufficient justification for owning any other piece of personal property. Why isn't it sufficient for owning an AW?

Of course, I'm referring to AW's as supposedly defined in the AWB of '94 - or my MP5 if you prefer; which is an AW..

[library_max]

36. So far, "Because I want one" and variations thereof

appears to be the only response.

[TX-RAT]

46. Heard the same thing from my daughter, when she was 9

I want, I want, I want. Just wasn't about guns, but just as nerve racking.

[slackmaster]

60. The same could be said of most discretionary purchases

What kind of justification would satisfy you, Max, or you, JibJab?

:shrug:

Talk about selectively ignoring input. Nobody has said word one about my IMO very reasonable contribution to this thread.

[Jack_DeLeon]

63. ROFL

Yeah.

Why are you buying a car. "Because I dont want to walk."

Why are you buying a computer. "I want to get on the internet."

Why are you eating. "Because I'm hungry."

[slackmaster]

74. If you really need something then it isn't discretionary

Lawn darts would be a discretionary purchase.

(Ducking, running for cover.)

[FeebMaster]

77. Oh I see how it is.

<grumble>Lousy jarts grabbers</grumble>

[library_max]

64. But most people don't talk about a "right" to make discretionary purchases

If you want a twinkie, buy a twinkie. But if the FDA bans them, are you going to start bellyaching about your "right" to a twinkie?

Regarding your input, I believe you said that they were fun and that you enjoy collecting guns. I think it's reasonable to put that into the general rubric of "because I want to."

[slackmaster]

67. Were you hoping for some kind of Second Amendment gobbledy-gook?

If so I'm sorry to disappoint you. Remember, "RW" talking points are against the ground rules of this thread (in addition to the fact that I've never invoked one in this context).

If you want a twinkie, buy a twinkie. But if the FDA bans them, are you going to start bellyaching about your "right" to a twinkie?

I haven't seen any proposal in this thread or in Congress to ban assault rifles. It seems the National Firearms Act is considered to be an adequate system of controls by most of us, and that is my position.

Regarding your input, I believe you said that they were fun and that you enjoy collecting guns. I think it's reasonable to put that into the general rubric of "because I want to."

Yes, as is the case with most discretionary purchases that most people make.

[library_max]

76. Fine with me.

As long as we're in agreement that the right to own any given kind of firearm is legally and morally equivalent to the right to buy a twinkie.

[Jack_DeLeon]

89. but the right to buy and eat a twinkie...

isnt protected in the bill of rights.

[library_max]

90. Neither is the RKBA, unless you're in an armed state militia.

See US v. Miller and every Second Amendment decision since.

[Hef]

100. Oh, come awwwwwwwwn

You're going to cite the 9th Circuit Court? You'd be better off citing a more credible court, like Judge Judy or maybe Wapner. Get real.

And BTW, the "armed state militia" is made up of every able-bodied citizen. You and me included. I'm armed, are you? It's you obligation to be. The National Guard is a standing federal army, so they aren't it.

[UpsideDownFlag]

103. ahem, attacking the 9th circuit court...?

[Hef]

110. yes

The 9th Circus is the laughing stock of the judicial world. Their judgements are insane. Go visit your local court system and ask the magistrate.

What kind of decisions get handed out by the other Circuit Courts?

[library_max]

104. US vs. Miller was the US Supreme Court.

And every Second Amendment case since then has restricted RKBA to the context of the armed militia, which is by the way dead, dead, dead (it wasn't so dead in 1939 when Miller was decided). Every single standing Second Amendment case has ruled in favor of the gun control measure and against the gun owner. Every single one.

[Hef]

106. yeah, and?

WE ARE THE "ARMED MILITIA"!!! WE, the citizens. NOT the National Guard. WE have the RKBA, because it is not only a right, it is an obligation to protect our way of life from foreign enemies and tyranny.

Court rulings don't make it any less of my right (or yours).

[library_max]

109. But Hef, you can't just make up the law.

It isn't so just because you say so. Every standing US court decision on this aspect of the Second Amendment disagrees with you.

[Hef]

112. I didn't make up the law.

The law IS the 2nd Amendment. A few citations of federal case law (especially the 9th Circuit) won't convince me to agree with unconstitutional gun conrol legislation.

I'm waiting for something better than a Miller case reference.

[library_max]

114. The courts interpret the law. You don't.

Or, to put it another way, their interpretations have the force of law. Yours don't. Like it or lump it, that's the way it is. The Second Amendment means what the courts say it means.

[Hef]

115. No, you're partly wrong.

Court interpretations do have the force of law, you're right. But the 2nd Amendment means what it says, literally. Just as every other amendment does, literally.

The phrase "..shall not be infringed upon.." is key. Gun control, despite all it's efforts, cannot overcome that part of the 2nd Amendment. Whether the courts choose to ignore it is up to them, but it doesn't nullify my right.

I will exercise my rights, all of them, as I choose. I use good judgement and courtesy while I do so. And if the courts don't agree with my ESTABLISHED right, I will get arrested and go to court. And there I will challenge the law.

I may not win, but I will not lay down and accept a violation of my rights simply because the court says I have to.

[library_max]

116. Well goody for you. None of that changes the law one iota.

Whether you are willing to abide by it or not, the law means what the courts say it means. You can make up all the rights you want. You can set yourself up as the ultimate legal authority if you want. None of that matters a flyspeck in the actual world of legal reality.

From The Devil's Dictionary, by Ambrose Bierce:

So wide his erudition's mighty span,
He knew Creation's origin and plan
And only came by accident to grief –
He thought, poor man, 'twas right to be a thief.

[Hef]

117. mmm hmmm

Well, when enough people have had their fill of their rights getting trampled, there will be a series of events. You might recognize the series.

1) We vote unfavorable politicians out of office.

2) We get vocal about our disapproval of policy to get a response.

3) We start a war.

Sound familiar?

We're talking about the 2nd Amendment, but what about the 4th? How would you feel about police forcing entry into your home to search for guns used in a nearby shootout, without an explanation? How would you feel if Grandma got yanked out of bed at 3AM and made to stand in the street while your home was ransacked by cops?

Would you be so willing to abide by the law then?

[library_max]

118. There's no we. There's just a you.

You're prepared to pledge your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor to your misinterpretation of the Second Amendment (or so you say). And, while there are others like you, it's not a significant number - certainly not enough to dictate the law to the rest of us. And bogey-tales about the Fourth Amendment and what-if have nothing to do with it either.

[Hef]

120. Not what if

You haven't heard about the incident in Oshkosh, WI a few weeks back, eh?

I didn't make it up. It was all over the news. Another fine example of our civil rights being trampled.

And by "we" I meant "we, America, as a society". Not you, me, my neighbor, my cousin, and some Joe Schmoe from work. A few guys with weapons does not make a revolution.

And I'm not prepared to die for my beliefs. I'd rather make the other guy die for his. I like life a whole lot and want to continue living it.

[library_max]

121. Yet, strangely enough, the courts continue to interpret the law.

And you don't.

And I'm sure the US government trembles at the thought of your - what - hunting rifle? Against missiles, tanks, and planes? Lotsa luck, buddy.

[skippythwndrdog]

92. Sure it is!

I have a right to the pursuit of happiness. Twinkies make me happy.

[library_max]

94. So, that's one RKBAer for equivalence between guns and twinkies. /nt

[FeebMaster]

95. Better make that two. (nt)

[slackmaster]

129. Actually there are three of us

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=79148&mesg_id=79315

[comradebillyboy]

37. real "assault rifles" are illegal unless you

have a federal firearms licence (you are a licensed gun dealer) real assault rifles can be fired in a fully automatic mode. the subjects of the assault weapons ban are military style rifles such as kalishnikovs or ar-15 s that can only operate in the semi automatic mode. they look like military weapons, but really are not. a high power hunting rifle is more deadly than an ak-47, or ar-15 that cannot fire in full auto mode.

the ar-15 (i am getting one this week) is excellent for competitive shooting, or as a varmint rifle. the .223 caliber round is not suitable for larger game. since it uses military ammunition, its quite cheap to shoot also, compared to other hunting or match rifles.

the assault rifle ban is a joke. for my ar-15, for example, to be legal it can't have a flash supressor or a bayonet lug. these items do not make the gun more dangerous, they are just cosmetic requirements. so the ban only requires that a semi automatic rifle look a little less like its military counterpart. its form over substance

[FeebMaster]

41. That's incorrect.

Owning machine guns doesn't require a federal firearms license, it requires filling out the proper forms and paying the $200 tax. You only need a license if you want to be a gun dealer.

[comradebillyboy]

49. i stand corrected

nt

[Jack_DeLeon]

62. My opinion on this...

I personally wish I could own an assault rifle, it would be fun to shoot full auto every now and then.

I havent been convicted of any felonies, so I'm sure I could pass the background check, and the $200 tax isnt that bad.

That being said I am not a rich person I cant afford the several thousand dollars for a machine gun. I think its wrong that owning machine guns is defacto limited to rich and to the criminal (sometimes the two arent mutual exclusive).

Now on the topic of assault weapons, well after September 14th there wont be such a thing. They will go back to being semi-auto rifles. I see nothing wrong with law abiding citizens owning rifles. I dont own one right now just because I cant afford it, but I someday plan to buy a good rifle.

I personally would own a rifle for target shooting. Its fun to shoot things. Most of the times rifles arent really good defensive weapons, so I probably wouldnt use it in that regard, that is what I have my .45 cal pistol for.

I seriously doubt we will have a new civil war/revolution in my life time. However in the future Hispanics will become the majority in this nation, and if some skinhead crackers gets it in thier mind that they needs to do something about it I would feel better knowing that my family is armed to deal with some threats.

[Lefty48197]

81. So who exactly is regulating full auto firearms?

I know that the NRA-ites INSIST that ONLY full-auto firearms are true assault weapons, in spite of the common use of the language, but if a few forms, and $200 measly dollars are all the federal government is doing to prevent full-auto firearm ownership, then why the hell are all the right wingers crying that their freedoms, liberties, rights, etc are being denied? How does the AWB infringe upon your rights, if you can go out and spend $200 and fill out a couple of forms, and VOILA! You can purchase a fully automatic rifle. It sounds if the lawsuit immune gun industry is the one actually restricting ownership, what with their thousands of dollars price tags and all, yet the NRA continually DEFENDS the gun manufacturing/retailing industries, when in fact, THEY are the ones restricting "freedom" in this country. Up is down, right is left, and good is bad.

[FeebMaster]

82. Actually

since Reagan banned the civilian production of machine guns in 1986 which effectively froze the supply of available machine guns, the prices of those machine guns has skyrocketed. The high cost of machine gun ownership has nothing to do with the gun industry.

[Jack_DeLeon]

88. The term assault weapon...

comes from the politicans who made up the law that is commonly refered to as the Assault Weapon Ban.

As for the why dont you go out and buy an assault rifle part, well that was explained already.

As I said, I can probably afford the $200 tax and pass the background check, I just cant afford the several thousand dollars needed to buy the actual gun.

[Hef]

93. let me correct you

The "common use of the language" is the erroneous labeling by Diane Feinstein to promote her anti-gun position. Until then, the term "assault rifle" was very specific. The term still applies, however abused by Feinstein it might be.

An assault rifle has the following features:

1) It uses an intermediate size rifle cartridge, like the 7.62x39 Russian round or 5.56mm NATO. These rounds provide a compromise between power and weight. With their smaller size and weight, an individual could have more shots (before running out of ammo) than if they carried an equal weight in 7.62mm NATO cartridges. Because a an assault rifle is typically used within a range of 400 meters or less, it does not require the firepower of a full-size rifle round.

2) It operates as a "select-fire" weapon. That means it is capable of "SAFE/SEMI/FULL-AUTO" fire. It may also be capable of burst fire (2 or 3 round bursts typical). Without the "select-fire" feature, it is NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE. No matter what Diane says.

3) It uses a detachable magazine. This allows the operator to switch between empty and full magazines in seconds, rather than having to manually load each round into an internal magazine. This could mean the difference between living or dying.

4) It has a grip design which puts the hand in a vertical (or near vertical) position. This is almost always achieved with a pistol grip. A thumbhole stock will achive this as well, though I have yet to see any assault rifle so equipped.


You're playing down the intensity of the NFA background check. Yes you fill out a few forms, and yes you pay a $200 tax, but it takes up to 6 months for the check to be complete. The government is extremely thorough with you. Not to mention that a full-auto weapon will cost a minimum of $2,000. A true assault rifle will cost anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000. And once you get one, you are subject to random ATF visits to check on you and your weapon.

[slackmaster]

123. I asked the thread author for a definition of "assault rifle"

JibJab provided one in reply #6.

Can't we stick to ONE definition here?

[goju]

65. Because....

its a family fuckn heirloom, just like most of my guns. The real question is, why would I want to give them up? To make some urban sewer dweller feel safer knowing that the crack head on the corner can only fire 10 rounds, but I cant fire any? No thanks!

They're not yours, you cant have them, and stop trying to take them.

Hows that for RW talking points?

Honestly though, I own 2 that are family heirlooms and I treat them the same way I treat my piano. They are my very valuable property, please dont touch. I plan on buying some future heirlooms for my boys, in a few weeks ;)

[OpSomBlood]

79. Nice catch-22 you've set up here.

We're supposed to justify owning an assault rifle without using right-wing talking points...but in your eyes every possible justification is a right-wing talking point.

[goju]

80. You noticed that too?

Of course, I havent seen anything from the constitutional controllers that isnt a catch 22. Either your with em, or your agin em!

[library_max]

84. Well, tell ya what.

Why don't you post a justification that isn't based on RW talking points in your opinion, and then we can debate the validity of the comparative opinions.

[OpSomBlood]

85. It has already been done ad nauseam.

We have listed lots of reasons (usually technical in nature) that an "assault weapon" would be desirable for private ownership. Now, I see we have gotten into the "assault weapon vs. rifle" semantical trap again, and to be honest I don't know what it is the original poster is referring to. Machine guns?

I fail to understand how "because I want one and I can afford it" is a "right-wing talking point." You can't apply that label to any other luxury item, can you?

[library_max]

87. I'll say to you what I said to slackmaster.

As long as you're willing to agree that there's no moral or legal difference between wanting and being able to afford this-or-that-kind of gun, and wanting and being able to afford a twinkie, we've got no quarrel.

[slackmaster]

124. Here's a challenge for you, max

Give us an example of a justification for owning ANYTHING that isn't necessary for a person to survive and to function in the present US economy, that can't be spun as "your justification boils down to 'because you want one'".

[library_max]

131. It's already been done for me.

On Jack DeLeon's typewriter thread (and I know you've seen it, you've posted there), the very first poster justified owning a non-electric typewriter. The point being that it can do something useful and valuable that can't be done any other way.

Hell, Hef on this thread justified owning an assault weapon, or at least made a valid, responsive answer to the question. Most of you guys are so friggin' paranoid about this issue that you can't even give a simple, honest answer to a simple, honest question.

[slackmaster]

136. No dice, max

If you need to type something and have no electricity, a manual typewriter becomes a need. If you have electricity and decide you want to not use it, the manual typewriter is a totally discretionary item. Typewriters use so little power I don't see using a manual one as any great contribution to stop destruction of the environment. It's a nit.

Hell, Hef on this thread justified owning an assault weapon, or at least made a valid, responsive answer to the question.

Hef gave some good reasons for using firearms that accept detachable magazines. Lots of firearms that aren't even assault weapons, much less assault rifles as defined by JibJab in reply #6, use detachable magazines.

[library_max]

142. Slack, there's a difference between argument and spin.

And you're smart enough to know it.

[turnkey]

134. How bout this one...

I live in the country...raise horses...and have a pretty good population of Meth cookers & dealers in the county.
My civilian AR-15 serves as property defense, Coyote dissuader, recreational target rifle (in military style matches), And will take a Whitetail for me in the Fall.
It is compact, light & impervious to the elements.
No Right Wing talking points!...Just general purpose common sense.

[library_max]

158. Just so I don't run afoul of the Gun Arcana Inquisition,

is your AR-15 an assault weapon or isn't it? And if it is, what features make it one?

[turnkey]

159. As per AWB definition...

It is considered a "Post-Ban" production lacking a collapsible stock, Flash Suppressor and the deadly bayonet Lug.
An Assault Weapon is a fully automatic gun by any logical and educated definition.
As has been stated before, the term "Assault Weapon" as defined by the AWB, is purely political designed to arouse confusion and fear among the uninformed (ie. Soccer Moms).

[Jack_DeLeon]

96. They have detachable magazines....

so I can preload ammo before hand and just switch magazines when it becomes necessary.

[library_max]

99. But what difference does that make?

What useful thing can you do with detachable magazines that you can't do without detachable magazines?

Or is it just a matter of convenience?

[Hef]

105. you asked..

I can fire more rounds before reloading.

If a magazine gets wet and/or dirty, I can switch to a fresh mag so as not to muck up my $1200 rifle. This could save my life by preventing a jammed gun.

I can switch between magazines loaded with different types of ammunition for different situations - FMJ's, HP's, hotter loads, etc.

I can switch between magazines of varying capacities for different situations. It might be fun to blast through a 75 round drum in my AK at the range, but it's not the best idea for a home protection situation. A 30 round box would be better suited to that application.

When a magazine has seen the end of it's useful service life, I can discard it and replace it with a new one.

I can replace my old magazines with newer technology as it becomes available.

I can share ammo with a buddy if our weapons are chambered the same and have mag interchangeability.

[library_max]

107. Hey, I think we have a winner!

And it only took 105 posts, compared to one post on the other thread!

An honest and responsive answer. Wow. What a concept!

[FeebMaster]

111. That's not fair.

I gave an honest and responsive answer 90 posts ago.

[slackmaster]

125. And I gave an honest and responsive answer in #12.

n/t

[library_max]

133. Already responded to it in #64. /nt

[Hef]

113. thank you

I prefer to keep debates civil, and use reason, logic, and facts to support my arguement. It's more interesting than name-calling and bashing.

[slackmaster]

126. What do you think you see in Hef's reply?

I see some benefits of detachable box magazines. I thought the thread was supposed to be about assault rifles as defined in reply #6.

Not all firearms that use detachable box magazines are assault rifles.

[library_max]

132. Okay, you can snarl at Hef about technicalities if you wanna.

He made a straightforward attempt to answer the question - to indicate some actual utility in the features restricted by the ban.

[slackmaster]

137. Technicalities????

Every point Hef made was about the benefits of detachable magazines.

The question was about assault rifles as defined in reply #6, which I answered in #12.

[MrBenchley]

108. Sure seems like there's no reason

anybody can come up with....other than that they're trigger happy....

[Remmah]

130. Who named them Assault Weapons anyway?

Why are they called assault weapons anyway? If I were in Florida, post hurricane and defending my property against looters would they not properly be called a Defense Weapon?

The letters "AR" originally stood for automatic (loading) rifle. (Technically they're semi-automatic. ) Not Assault Rifle. Someone perverted it to "Assault Rifle".

I HAVE NO NEED FOR AN ASSAULT RIFLE BUT NEED AN EFFICENT SELF LOADING HOME DEFENSE RIFLE.

[enfield collector]

135. I think it came from sturmgewehr(?) the original german

name for the StG43/44 which was the first sucessful assualt rifle.

[turnkey]

138. Yes! n/t

[FeebMaster]

141. Assault weapon was invented by

some whiny gun grabber because it kind of sounds like assault rifle. Whoever came up with the term certainly knew there would be confusion between the terms.

[turnkey]

147. Sturmgewehr: "Storm Rifle" - the first assault rifle. n/t

[slackmaster]

139. No, AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle

After the company, a spinoff of Fairchild IIRC, that developed it in the late 1950s.

The term "assault weapon" is a legal term that will (at least in the case of federal law) soon cease to exist.

[Liberal Classic]

145. I'll take a bite of this bait...

...but I wonder if the hook would be a lack of any parameters other than what you consider 'right wing talking points.'

I tend to approach this problem from the anti-prohibition or anti-drug-war point of view. I am under the impression that opposition to the so-called 'war on drugs' is generally not considered a right wing talking point. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in this regard. Alcohol, tobacco and other drugs can all be considered 'dangerous,' and not without 'social costs' themselves, like firearms. All of them have been banned or regulated at various times in the history of the U.S. with varying degrees of success. With the exception of the current WOD, the other prohibitions were abandoned in favor of regulation in one form or another.

The reason I do not prefer laws such as the 'assault weapon ban' to laws such as Brady, is that the AWB is simply a prohibition. I believe that outright prohibitions are problematic policies for the government to pursue, and that it is better to regulate the conduct of people. Brady as compared with the AWB is a close example to the point I'm trying to illustrate. Brady regulates people, in the form of an identity check, but is somewhat neutral to what the person in particular is buying. Even if a right delayed is a right denied, there is the attempt made in Brady to see that the citizen's right is not unduly abridged. The AWB on the other hand simply turned certain objects into contraband based on physical nomenclature.

I could go further into the relationship between a prohibition of drugs or alcohol and the general increase in crime and violence that goes with it. While tragic accidents with firearms do sometimes occur, the most pressing issue with regards to guns and violence I believe is the expansion of criminal gangs who use violence to enforce their drug-distribution territories. If we can persuade our elected leaders to change our prohibition policies into regulation policies, I believe it is safe to predict a reduction in violent crime similar to what happened after the repeal of alcohol prohibition. As I said above, I am under the impression that such a concept is not greatly controversial in 'left wing' circles. I understand that not everyone on DU believes in legalization, though, and am willing to acknowledge there are other points of view. Please note I am not a proponent of total legalization, merely regulation.

I am somewhat chagrined that "It's a free country" is now a right wing talking point. Somehow I think Jerry Garcia would disapprove. It is a free country, and that means that we can engage in risky and unpopular behavior. I believe in a free country people can (or not) have all kinds of risky sex, get drunk, drive a car with 500 horsepower, though not necessarily all at the same time. :)

[turnkey]

149. Strikes me as a "Libertarian" point of view!...I like it. n/t

[MrBenchley]

151. What a steaming pantload....

"I am somewhat chagrined that "It's a free country" is now a right wing talking point."
I'm convulsed with laughter with you trying to pretend that anybody but you has said it is....

[library_max]

153. But the kind of "risky behavior" you're talking about

is risky primarily to yourself. Availability of assault weapons is a danger primarily to people other than the owners of those weapons. So you're talking about criminals and people with self-control problems being "free" to have assault weapons right up until the moment they start killing people with them. It ain't the same.

[turnkey]

156. It's hard sometimes....

to seperate the wheat from the chaff. We have laws in place to try to control who gets and who doesn't, but we don't live in a sanitized country nor would I care to.

[FatSlob]

169. I don't need to justify it. I'm a free American.

See, isn't that easy?

[MrSandman]

185. Don't know what...

You want it for. I can't justify telling you you can't hve it.

[OpSomBlood]

203. Yeah, justify taking them away without using VPC/Brady talking points.

Please, prove beyond any doubt that my ownership of a semi-automatic rifle is inherently unsafe and therefore must be illegal.

And try not to use the term "spray firing from the hip" when you do so.

[Wickerman]

204. ooops, this one got past me - Locking

205 posts, shame on me - 200 is the magic number...