Curiosity question. Why are rocket launchers labeled as "destructive devices" by

[Ferrets are Cool]

National Firearms Act, but AR-15's are not?
Does it come down to legislation?
My entire point is that, yes, you can purchase a rocket launcher (if you can find someone to sell it to you) but it requires a tax stamp and an extensive background check. Why are semi-auto weapons of mass destruction not, at a minimum, under the same requirements? That last question is probably rhetorical.

[exboyfil]

1. Also automatic weapons

Which are a closerr analogy. I have never heard an adequate explanation by 2A supporters of why semi-automatics have very few restrictions, but automatic weapons are tightly regulated.

Of course I think both sides are a bit afraid to put it to the test because the 2A radicals would probably conclude that it was fine to also sell automatic weapons with few regulations if push came to shove. It is kind of an uneasy standoff.

I suspect, if gun companies felt they had the bought votes to make it financial viable (the semi-automatic market is completely saturated), then they would call their legislative minions about allowing the wholesale marketing of automatic weapons. Anything to keep the stock up.

[NutmegYankee]

3. I think it was because there were already a lot of civilian models of semi-auto handguns at the time

And most of them didn't have much more capacity than a double action revolver at the time, also a widely owned type of firearm. At the time of the original NFA, the modern concept of an assault rifle had yet to be developed.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

2. Actually the launcher itself isn't illegal to own, it's the rocket itself without the steps to

buy one, the launcher is nothing more then a hollow tube, if I wanted to, I could go into just about any surplus store and buy a LAWS launch tube, it's nothing more than a hollow fiberglass tube.

As far as the AR? Yes, it comes down to legislation, so there we are.

[Walleye]

4. I remember those pistols were always called automatics

As opposed to a revolver. When did they become semi-automatics. Seems like quite a weasel to me

[MarineCombatEngineer]

5. The reason they were initially called automatics is because they automatically

reloaded themselves, but the firearm only fired one round per trigger pull, unlike a true automatic weapon, which, IMO, is ridiculous, but that's what we have right now.

[sop]

6. The all-or-nothing NRA has been chipping away at firearms restrictions for years.

If current trends continue, it will only be a matter of time before more previously banned items will be legal and widely available.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

7. If this upcoming SCOTUS case establishes strict scrutiny as the review standard, or worse...

text, history, and tradition, then I guarantee they will go after the '86 machine gun registry closure at minimum, if not the NFA itself.

[Chainfire]

8. The firearms industry would be in hog heaven if they were allowed to start making new

machine guns for civilian use. They would sell them faster than they could be made.

As it is today, the industry stays up nights trying to reinvent or remarket the same gun every year to make it different enough to be attractive to people. If they can't make a product more lethal, which really sells, they make it look more lethal.

[sop]

10. Most existing AR-15s will be modified with M-16 fire control parts when it becomes legal to do so.

There are already videos on Youtube showing how to modify existing AR-15 lower receivers with readily available M-16 select fire parts, converting semi-auto weapons into full-auto.

[exboyfil]

11. Is the conversion as good as a mass produced

And marketed automatic weapon though. As other posters have said, that is the next mountain of green to chase.

[sop]

12. From what I've read, AR-15s can be modified with the select fire parts with little effort, and be

made to function like real military-issue firearms. The parts and modification are illegal right now, unless one has the necessary paperwork.

[Chainfire]

9. Your question is certainly valid.

However, if it was up to the right wingers in Congress, they would turn over the administration of the BATFE to the NRA. They may use some logic like, "The NRA has been promoting "firearm safety" for over 100 years...."

In order to effect any meaningful firearms reform, we will have to outvote the right, big time. Until we have a new Congress and a new SC, nothing will change for the better. If the repeated massacre of children is not enough to influence the right, I don't know what would.

We are like my poor dog. Multiple times, every day, she makes a dedicated attempt to catch a squirrel. The rodents always find a tree long before she gets there. She never stops trying, but she always comes up short. The squirrels always win.

[Ferrets are Cool]

13. " If the repeated massacre of children is not enough to influence the right"

It is not.

[Chainfire]

14. So, the implied question is, "What would?"

I don't have a clue, to me killing children is as bad as it gets.

What we should be asking Republicans, any time we get the chance is, "How many children must be massacred before you would be willing to make some sacrifices?" "These were some parent's babies, would you be willing to sacrifice your child for your unrestricted right to own an AR, or just other people's?"

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

15. Rocket launcher manufacturers dont have powerful lobby representing them? nt