Swiss Balk At EU Concept Of Stripping ‘Assault Rifles’ From The People

[Purveyor]

Switzerland and the European Union are at odds over efforts by the EU to curb the neutral country’s treasured gun culture and citizen-soldier tradition.

While not an EU-member, Switzerland has entered into a series of treaties over the years to adopt various laws in conjunction with the organization in order to trade freely with in the European Single Market. At the same time, the Alpine country, which has been more or less neutral since splitting from the Holy Roman Empire in 1499, has maintained a tradition of national service in their military while keeping some of the loosest gun laws in Europe if not the world.

With over 3,000 shooting ranges, a vibrant gun culture that embraces marksmanship and fires some 75 million rounds per year in practice against a population of 8 million persons, and a firearms manufacturing tradition that created SIG and Oerlikon Contraves, Switzerland is comfortable with guns. In fact, it is estimated there are some 600,000 firearms capable of full-auto fire in civilian hands in the nation.

But the EU is in the midst of a crack down in the aftermath of terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels and elsewhere that has seen everything from museum pieces and replicas to black powder and airguns come under increased scrutiny.

Now, as reported by Reuters, EU proposals that could see Switzerland add mandatory psychological tests and club membership requirements to gun owners has some seeing red.

MORE...

http://www.guns.com/2016/09/01/swiss-balk-at-eu-concept-of-stripping-assault-rifles-from-the-people/

[HR]

Swiss Tell EU - Hands Off Veterans' Assault Rifles

By John Miller | ZURICH

Friction between Switzerland and the European Union over the bloc's plans to tighten gun control following a rise in militant attacks could turn into another serious snag in ties already tested by Swiss efforts to curb immigration.

The proposed directive, which applies to non-EU member Switzerland only because it is part of Europe's Schengen open border system, has raised hackles among the Swiss, who resent intervention from Brussels.

Christoph Blocher, a leading voice of the Swiss right and a eurosceptic, says Switzerland should consider abandoning Europe's Schengen system of passport-free travel if the Swiss people rejected the proposed measures in a referendum.

Drafted after militants killed scores in attacks in Paris last year, the EU plans on gun control aimed to curb online weapons sales and impose more restrictions on assault weapons.

But the initial proposal provoked an outcry in Switzerland because it meant a ban on the long Swiss tradition of ex-soldiers keeping their assault rifles.

MORE...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-swiss-eu-guns-idUKKCN1161KP

[beevul]

1. It looks as if gun control in foreign lands...

It looks as if gun control in foreign lands operates just like gun control, here in America:

"Ignore the problem individual and stick it to everyone who didn't do it."


Sad but true.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Gun-"control" is just another political project

The six stages of a project:

1. Enthusiasm,
2. Disillusionment,
3. Panic and hysteria,
4. Search for the guilty,
5. Punishment of the innocent, and
6. Praise and honor for the nonparticipants.

:where is the smiliey with its head in its ass:

[appal_jack]

7. Too-true a summary.

The EUrocrats grabbing for legal Swiss guns, when recent massacres have been committed by terrorists with smuggled guns and home made explosives shows that EU "gun control" is much more about control than about substantially addressing gun violence.

k&r,

-app

[jimmy the one]

10. praising or burying caesar?

dscntnt: Gun-"control" is just another political project
The six stages of a project: Enthusiasm, 2. Disillusionment, 3. Panic and hysteria,
4. Search for the guilty, 5. Punishment of the innocent, and 6. Praise and honor for the nonparticipants.

Confused. Did you come to praise the swiss model? or bury it?

The regulation of guns in Switzerland is categorised as restrictive
In Switzerland, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Switzerland are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, self-defence, and collection
An applicant for a firearm licence in Switzerland must pass a background check which considers mental health, criminal and domestic violence records
Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Switzerland stipulates93 that a gun licence should be denied or revoked
Permits for carrying in public are issued only restrictively.
n Switzerland, carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is allowed only with proof of genuine need and tangible danger, following mental health, criminal record and good character background checks, and after passing a police examination in firearm law and handgun safety
n Switzerland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, some automatic firearms converted into semi-automatic firearms, incendiary or armour-piercing ammunition, and 'expansive projectiles for handguns
In Switzerland, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence
n Switzerland, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence
n Switzerland, civilian possession of rifles and shotguns is regulated by law
In Switzerland, it is state policy119 to destroy surplus, collected and seized firearms rather than return them to the secondary arms market
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

dscntnt: :where is the smiliey with its head in its ass

It's all you, baby.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Where did you go to school and....

....what influenced you to minor in missing the point?

[beevul]

14. So its "restrictive" in Switzerland, but its still not enough for the EU.

That sound you just heard, was the sound whatever point you think you were making exploding into a million pieces.

[beergood]

46. you call that restrictive?

California has more restrictive laws. and our legislators are trying to pass more.

[jimmy the one]

49. california has stricter gun laws than switz - baloney

beergood, regarding restrictive swiss gun policy: you call that restrictive? California has more restrictive laws. and our legislators are trying to pass more.

I didn't, but I cited gunpolicy dot org which did call swiss gun policy restrictive, & they are internationally recognized as a premier gun policy website:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

You contend california has stricter gun laws than these which pertain to the swiss? the ones listed below are most all either more restrictive than california's, or about the same.
Then cite which california gun laws are indeed stricter, cause I think you're fullabaloney - only one I can think of for civilians might be magazine capacity:

The regulation of guns in Switzerland is categorised as restrictive
In Switzerland, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Switzerland are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, self-defence, and collection
An applicant for a firearm licence in Switzerland must pass a background check which considers mental health, criminal and domestic violence records
Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Switzerland stipulates that a gun licence should be denied or revoked
Permits for carrying in public are issued only restrictively.
n Switzerland, carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is allowed only with proof of genuine need and tangible danger, following mental health, criminal record and good character background checks, and after passing a police examination in firearm law and handgun safety
n Switzerland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, some automatic firearms converted into semi-automatic firearms, incendiary or armour-piercing ammunition, and 'expansive projectiles for handguns
In Switzerland, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence
Switzerland, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence
Switzerland, civilian possession of rifles and shotguns is regulated by law
In Switzerland, it is state policy to destroy surplus, collected and seized firearms rather than return them to the secondary arms market

[beergood]

62. i call baloney on your baloney

Last edited Mon Sep 19, 2016, 01:38 AM - Edit history (1)

"right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law " Ca constitution does not guarantee its citizens the right to keep and bear arms, the only reason they can't deny the right is because we are still part of the US.

"Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Switzerland are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, self-defence, and collection" self defence and collection is the main reason the majority of Californians own firearms.

"An applicant for a firearm licence in Switzerland must pass a background check which considers mental health, criminal and domestic violence records" so does CA.

"Permits for carrying in public are issued only restrictively.
n Switzerland, carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is allowed only with proof of genuine need and tangible danger, following mental health, criminal record and good character background checks, and after passing a police examination in firearm law and handgun safety " so does CA.

"private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence" Ca was the first state to ban assault weapons in 1989. that law is still in effect and was just made stricter on july 1st 2016.

the majority of our semi auto firearms require a bullet button to release the magazine. the bullet button was banned on july 1st 2016.

as of july 1st 2016 all residents of Ca must pass a background check to purchase ammo, we can not purchase ammo online, we must pay 50 dollars for the background check, and we are limited on the amount of ammo we can purchase in a year.

[jimmy the one]

68. swiss vs california gun policies

beergood first said: regarding restrictive swiss gun policy: you call that restrictive? California has more restrictive laws. and our legislators are trying to pass more.

Beergood defends his comparison of california with switzerland: " {swiss} right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law " Ca constitution does not guarantee its citizens the right to keep and bear arms, the only reason they can't deny the right is because we are still part of the US.

In other words californians have a right by law, albeit via the corrupt scalia heller amendment regarding 2ndA, to keep & bear arms, where the swiss do not.

beergood: "private {swiss} possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence"
Ca was the first state to ban assault weapons in 1989. that law is still in effect and was just made stricter on july 1st 2016.

OK, the swiss AW law is stricter than california's, it's 1 - 1.

n Switzerland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, some automatic firearms converted into semi-automatic firearms, incendiary or armour-piercing ammunition, and 'expansive projectiles for handguns

Own any armor piercing ammo, or expansive bullets beergood? know anybody who does?

beergood: as of july 1st 2016 all residents of Ca must pass a background check to purchase ammo, we can not purchase ammo online, we must pay 50 dollars for the background check, and we are limited on the amount of ammo we can purchase in a year.

The swiss rules appear to be stricter for ammo, and home guard members need keep their assault rifle ammo at the armory, not with the assault rifle they keep at their home.
... others appear to be pushes pretty much, so I don't see how california's laws are 'more restrictive', as you contend.

In order to purchase ammunition the {swiss} buyer must follow the same legal rules that apply to buying guns. The buyer can only buy munition for guns that he/she legally owns and must provide the following to seller
.. valid official identification or passport (and must be older than 18 and who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems..
residence address
criminal record copy not older than 3 months
weapon acquisition permit not older than 2 years, or a weapon carrying permit not older than 5 years

For each transfer of a{Swiss} weapon or an essential weapon component without weapons acquisition permit, a written contract must be concluded. Each Party shall keep them at least ten years. The contract must include the following information
Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who sells the weapon or essential weapon component
Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who purchases the weapon or an essential weapon component
Kind of weapon, manufacturer or producer, label, caliber, weapon number, and date and place of transfer;
Type and number of official identification of the person who acquires the weapon or the essential weapon component
and an indication of the processing of personal data in connection with the contract in accordance with the privacy policy of the Federation or the cantons, if firearms are transmitted.
This information must be sent within 30 days to the cantonal weapon registration bureau, where the weapon holders are registered

You a registered gun owner in california, beergood?

To carry a {Swiss} loaded firearm in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a gun carrying permit, which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security

Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:
The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
The transport needs to be as direct as possible and needs a valid purpose:
For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
To an army warehouse and back,
To show the gun to a friend or a possible buyer
To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, e.g. gun shows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland

[beergood]

105. thank you

for educating me. i will do more study and get back to you.

my experience in purchasing firearms in CA, i had to take a test on the laws of owning/carrying/securing a firearm in your home. pass a BG check, that includes my criminal history as well as my mental history. pay a fee for the test and BG check. i am limited in the type of firearms/ammo i can purchase. i can not carry my firearm without approval from my elected officials. when going to the range i must keep ammo and firearm separate. i can not keep a loaded firearm in my house, i am required to keep them locked up separately. registration is questionable, does it violate the 2nd?

[beergood]

108. am i wrong?

is this CA law? which is more restrictive swiss or CA law?

[beergood]

63. whats the problem jimmy?

i called your bluff, why no response?

[Travis_0004]

4. What problems?

None of the terrorist are getting weapons from Switzerland, and Switzerland has a very low murder rate

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Then accessibility is not the culprit despite what we're constantly told.

[JonathanRackham]

2. Are those actual "assault weapons"?

With proper education, training and experience why not? Maybe America should be investing in the same instead of living in denial. The bulk of our problems here are associated with ignorance.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. "Maybe America should be investing in the same"

I believe a Swiss model of national defense would lead to less adventurism.

[jimmy the one]

9. swiss investments

nuc uni: Maybe America should be investing in the same ... I believe a Swiss model of national defense would lead to less adventurism

Wonders never cease. You may have finally said something sensible, gunwise:

The regulation of guns in Switzerland is categorised as restrictive
In Switzerland, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Switzerland are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, self-defence, and collection
An applicant for a firearm licence in Switzerland must pass a background check which considers mental health, criminal and domestic violence records
Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Switzerland stipulates93 that a gun licence should be denied or revoked
Permits for carrying in public are issued only restrictively.
n Switzerland, carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is allowed only with proof of genuine need and tangible danger, following mental health, criminal record and good character background checks, and after passing a police examination in firearm law and handgun safety
n Switzerland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, some automatic firearms converted into semi-automatic firearms, incendiary or armour-piercing ammunition, and 'expansive projectiles for handguns
In Switzerland, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence
n Switzerland, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence
n Switzerland, civilian possession of rifles and shotguns is regulated by law
In Switzerland, it is state policy119 to destroy surplus, collected and seized firearms rather than return them to the secondary arms market
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

[beevul]

15. That poster said "swiss model of national defense"...

That poster said "swiss model of national defense", not "swiss model of private gun ownership".

Attributing to other posters, sentiments they did not author, isn't really clever james.

In fact, its downright disingenuous - but you knew that.

[jimmy the one]

51. the cavilling beeve

beevul: That poster said "swiss model of national defense", not "swiss model of private gun ownership".

Let me get your LMAO remark straight.
You contend that the swiss model of national defense, where their home guard members keep an assault rifle at home but are not allowed to keep ammunition for the rifle at home (kept at armory), is what nuc uni meant when she said it would lead to less adventurism (whatever that meant). Then 8 out of 9 members who leave the home guard relinquish back to the govt their assault rifle.
I guess criminals are gonna be so cowered by swiss home guard members having a bulletless assault rifle, rather than ordinary citizens in possession with BOTH firearms AND ammunition. LMAO at the beevul.

Attributing to other posters, sentiments they did not author, isn't really clever james. In fact, its downright disingenuous - but you knew that.

That's no rebuttal. That's cavilling.

[beevul]

52. The nattering james...

You contend that the swiss model of national defense, where their home guard members keep an assault rifle at home but are not allowed to keep ammunition for the rifle at home (kept at armory), is what nuc uni meant when she said it would lead to less adventurism (whatever that meant).

That might be the first time I've seen you be correct.

I notice you offer no rebuttal, and that NU isn't exactly breaking down the group gates to correct me.

[oneshooter]

13. Upon retirement all Swiss military have the option of

to purchase their issue weapon. Officers carry pistols and OR carry rifles. If they choose to keep their issue weapons then they are turned on to the armory to be permanently converted to semi-auto only.

[ManiacJoe]

55. Not "assault weapons", but real assault rifles.

As in, select fire rifles (machineguns).

[jimmy the one]

8. going off half cocked, are you?

Switzerland has one of the highest rates of private gun ownership in Europe, with nearly 48 percent of households owning a gun. In France, there are about 30 weapons per 100 people, while the figure in the Great Britain is far lower, at 6.7 guns per 100 civilians, according to the Australian-based think tank GunPolicy.org.

The above is false, regarding switzerland, unless it somehow surged. Most recent figures from the link cited by the article above (gunpolicy.org):
In Switzerland, the percentage of households with one or more guns is reported to be
2004/05: 28.6% .. 1999/2003: 35.7% .. 1995/98: 35.3% .. 1989: 32.8%

However, reuters backed into near correctness altho misleading, despite itself, since the comparison with France & UK were for firearms per capita (but not the personal gun ownership rate - not provided - which is a lot less than 46%):
The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in Switzerland is 45.71 firearms per 100 people

Eight of nine departing swiss soldiers choose to leave their assault rifle behind: In 2015, 11 percent of the 20,600 soldiers who left the Swiss Army opted to keep their assault rifles which upon departure are modified to fire single shots. The number of soldiers choosing to keep their weapons has been declining for several years.

Read more about gun utopia switzerland, quite a difference from what the 2nd amendment mythology portrays:

The regulation of guns in Switzerland is categorised as restrictive
In Switzerland, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Switzerland are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, self-defence, and collection
An applicant for a firearm licence in Switzerland must pass a background check which considers mental health, criminal and domestic violence records
Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Switzerland stipulates93 that a gun licence should be denied or revoked
Permits for carrying in public are issued only restrictively.
n Switzerland, carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is allowed only with proof of genuine need and tangible danger, following mental health, criminal record and good character background checks, and after passing a police examination in firearm law and handgun safety
n Switzerland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, some automatic firearms converted into semi-automatic firearms, incendiary or armour-piercing ammunition, and 'expansive projectiles for handguns
In Switzerland, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted under licence
n Switzerland, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence
n Switzerland, civilian possession of rifles and shotguns is regulated by law
In Switzerland, it is state policy119 to destroy surplus, collected and seized firearms rather than return them to the secondary arms market
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

Switzerland has approx 3 million guns per 7 million swiss, 3 guns per 7 peeps.
America has approx 320 million guns per 320 million americans, 1 per 1.
In other words, America has approx 320 million more guns than the Swiss - and the argument is that the swiss are saturated with guns?

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. "and the argument is that the swiss are saturated with guns?" No one has made that argument

James, it is clearly evident to all that you have somehow latched on the notion that
the word count of an argument is indicative of the strength of said argument
and you have yet to be disabused of it.

[beevul]

19. Thats known more properly as the 'iverglas wallotext gambit'.

At least hers weren't quite as painful on the eyes.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. I'd call it a variant of the 'Gish Gallop':

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debating tactic of simply drowning your opponent in a torrent of small, interlocking arguments intended to prevent your opponent from being able to rebut your conclusions in real time. The Gish Gallop is thus essentially a belt-fed cousin of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have an answer immediately available to every single argument presented in the gallop.

Although it takes a trivial amount of effort on the galloper's part to make each individual point before skipping on to the next (particularly if they cite from a pre-concocted list of gallop arguments), a refutation of the same gallop may likely take much longer and require significantly more effort (per the basic principle that it's always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again).

[jimmy the one]

50. icon confuses gish gallop with ordinary post

icon: I'd call it a variant of the 'Gish Gallop':
he Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debating tactic of simply drowning your opponent in a torrent of small, interlocking arguments intended to prevent your opponent from being able to rebut your conclusions in real time. The Gish Gallop is thus essentially a belt-fed cousin of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have an answer immediately available to every single argument presented in the gallop.

You evidently don't understand properly what a gish gallop is, since simply posting a list would qualify you and your gunbuddies quite regularly. Below is what your own link provides as an example of a gish gallop, and readers can compare my post listing about a dozen single sentence swiss gun rules, and see how friendly icon is again fabricating an asinine rebuttal, since there was no 'on the spot fallacy', as the swiss gun rules come from the swiss constitution (or equivalent):

Example of a GISH GALLOP: HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming
10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.
11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago
.....................
99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. You countered my allegation by posting a "wall-o-text" that has naught to do with the OP...

[Eleanors38]

12. 600,000 full-auto rifles in Switzerland is far more than the 2-300k in U.S. civilian hands.

It is clear that the Swiss consider these arms full-fledged MILITARY arms, suitable for its citizen army. Here, our arms just look like the real thing.

[flamin lib]

17. Please see #8. nt

[Eleanors38]

18. And?

[flamin lib]

20. And there aren't 600,000 assault weapons in Swiss hands.

They are in the armory at least all the bullets are. Without ammo they are paperweights. And IF the discharged soldier wants to keep his gun he can buy it AFTER it is converted to single fire.

AND you seem to have a hard time reading #8.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. re: "...AFTER it is converted to single fire."

Don't you mean "converted from full-auto to semi-auto"? Like every civilian AR in the US that some folks are still wasting time trying to ban???

[Eleanors38]

22. They aren't assault weapons. They are full-auto assault rifles.

On Edit:

The weapons may indeed be "Assault Weapons." But you know how it is with MSM: Assault weapons, machine guns, assault rifles, to the public they all seem the same. I made the mistake (possibly) of believing Reuters knew the difference.

[flamin lib]

23. I'm confused. I'm told that AR-15s aren't assault weapons because

assault weapons are full auto but the gun industry marketed the ARs as assault weapons for decades until the NRA got nervous and re-named them "popular sporting rifles" and then pointed out that the number of AR style rifles is relatively small. Popular but not many around?

Frankly I don't give a shit if all the ammo is locked up in an armory. Great glorified paper weights. Own all the guns ya' want just leave the bullets locked away.

But hey, what's the difference between the current M4 and an AR? M4 fires three rounds with one trigger pull and AR fires only one. Two rounds per pull. Unless it's equipped with a bumpfire stock assembly, then the AR fires everything in the magazine with one trigger pull. Yeah, technically the trigger re-sets between firing but it re-sets mid cycle so the effect is the same as full auto.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. Actual military rifles like the M-16 and M-4 are "assault rifles"

The AR has been called an "assault weapon".

[Eleanors38]

25. Well, ol'flame, we all get confused...

From the Ball of Confusion hizzelf:

"Assault weapons... the weapon's menacing looks, coupled with the public's CONFUSION over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chances of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Center, a gun-control organization.

My confusion is that I felt Reuters (in all its professionalism) had gotten over the grand deception, and was using correct terminology. Silly me. That's what you get for being reasonable.

[flamin lib]

30. You quote Josh, I quote the gun manufacturers.

The AR type weapons have been marketed as assault weapons. Kits for semi auto .22 lr rifles are marketed as 'assault weapon' conversions.

My confusion is that the very people who make and market this shit don't know what they are marketing.



But hey, what's the difference between the current M4 and an AR? M4 fires three rounds with one trigger pull and AR fires only one. Two rounds per pull. Unless it's equipped with a bumpfire stock assembly, then the AR fires everything in the magazine with one trigger pull. Yeah, technically the trigger re-sets between firing but it re-sets mid cycle so the effect is the same as full auto.

<iframe width="560" height="316" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Straw Man]

35. "Technically"?

Unless it's equipped with a bumpfire stock assembly, then the AR fires everything in the magazine with one trigger pull. Yeah, technically the trigger re-sets between firing but it re-sets mid cycle so the effect is the same as full auto.

So much misinformation in just a few sentences ...

Bump-fire doesn't change a semi-auto into a full-auto. The trigger still has to be pulled for each shot. It just enables you to hold your arm still while the rifle's recoil causes the trigger to push against your stationary finger. Nor does it change the reset point of the trigger, which would require mechanical modification to the trigger group. What does "re-sets mid cycle" even mean? When the trigger resets, that marks the end of one cycle and the beginning of the next.

Bump-fire stocks would be useless in any kind of combat situation because they don't work if you hold the rifle too tightly or too loosely. They're nothing but a gun-range gimmick, with no real-world application. That's probably why the ATF isn't really motivated to make them Class III.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. That was from the person that also proclaimed the following:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=11154

Uninformed?

I have a federal firearms license. I daresay that I know more about guns and the relationship between warfare and weapons development than most gun nuts here on DU.

If YOU don't understand the internal mechanisms of assault weapons I suggest that you are too ignorant of the topic to have this discussion.

[Duckhunter935]

53. Isn't he one of the hosts that

Are in the group that is supporting Republicans over two Democrats?

[DonP]

54. They edited their comments

I think we scared them, by pointing out they were encouraging people to vote gun control over party. Skinner would seriously frown on that.

Now it says; "vote for the best Democrat that supports gun control" and they are pretending they never said gun control over party.

[Duckhunter935]

56. Not surprised

But we know they posted that and it is the true feelings of the four that post in that group. It's huuuggge

[Eleanors38]

44. That "effect" is not recognized as "auto" by the ATF, the agency charged with gun regs.

Bump fire seems to be a gimmick in any case.

"Confusion... can only increase the chances of public support for restrictions." I think we both know what Josh is up to.

[flamin lib]

66. I understand that. Contrary to a number of gunner's opinions of me I am not stupid.

The simpler bumpfire applications are almost impossible to use and keep the rifle on target requiring a delicate balance between forward force on the fore-grip and negligible movement of the trigger finger.

Some of the more sophisticated stock assemblies minimize those downsides and make the AR almost as effective as the M16A1. Note the 'almost'.

[Marengo]

70. Can you provide a link to the more sophisticated stock assemblies? I have no interest...

In "bump fire", so I'm not current with what's on the market.

[flamin lib]

71. Then go shopping. You really want advice from a

'confiscator', 'gun grabber' and 'prohibitionist'?

No, of course you don't. You only want to obfuscate.

[Marengo]

75. You were able to provide an example in post #67 without much difficulty I presume. I would think...

Posting a link to something you are familiar with is just as easy?

[flamin lib]

76. If I were to provide advice for someone who wants advice on bumpfire

accessories I recommend the most expensive but worthless POS I could find because if you need help from me you are apparently to uneducated to know the difference.

[Marengo]

78. I'm not asking for advice, rather for you to provide an example to back you claim that...

Bump fire stock of sufficient sophistication exist to modify thy performance of an AR-15 to make it almost as effective as an M16A1.

[flamin lib]

79. No, you are trying to hijack this sub thread and you should know by now

I'm not biting. Last time we did this you wound up calling me a liar. Wanna' do it again?

[Marengo]

81. Wouldn't the best method to avoid questions of veracity be to include proof?

[flamin lib]

83. It would if it didn't lead to another red herring which is a specialty here.mnt

[Marengo]

86. I am only asking for you to explain your understanding of a term you used in this thread.

It's in no way a "hijack".

[flamin lib]

87. I'm not going away mad, I'm just going away because you make a very tedious

exchange. I suggest you do the same. Just go away, declare yourself victor and celebrate among your yourself.

[Eleanors38]

73. Regarding stocks, grips and guards, great attempt has been made by controller/banners

to outlaw any adjustment as this is all supposed to aid in getting off more rounds accurately so as to (presumably) kill more people in mass shootings/gang shootings/insurrection/hiding, etc. That "improving" the practicality of "bump firing" is thrown into the mix does not surprise me all.

Outdoor Life's most recent issue evaluated 4 AR rifles costing -$1,000 and weighing less than 7 lbs. for their usefulness in hunting. Some models were penalized for having, variously, "military-type grips," "military sights," and other features having to do with traditional (military) features. I think it ironic that for all the talk about banning military-style "assault weapons," those features are seen as negative for using ARs as hunting-shooting sports weapons. I also noted that Ruger (and presumably others) makes a "compliant" version (meets all the hoop jumps of various state bans) as well as more ergonomic, adjustable versions. Same price, same availability.

I do not consider you stupid, about guns or anythig else. But you'll have to excuse me while I wash the blood off my cold dead hands.

[Marengo]

59. Could you explain what you mean by "resets mid cycle"?

[Straw Man]

61. That's what I'd like to know too.

Could you explain what you mean by "resets mid cycle"?

It's an oxymoron, IMO. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "reset" mark the end of the cycle?

[flamin lib]

65. If you don't know what that means you are unqualified to engage in this discussion. nt

[Marengo]

69. I'm asking for your definition. Can you provide one? Why did you avoid the question?

[flamin lib]

72. I'm not avoiding a question. Just pointing out that a certain level

of sophistication is required to engage in meaningful conversation.

[Marengo]

74. What causes you to believe I don't have that "level of sophistication". If your understanding...

Of the concept is sound enough, shouldn't you be able to explain it in terms anyone can comprehend?

[flamin lib]

77. Becaue you asked a really unsophisticated question.

Why would I waste my time with someone who can't tell the difference between design date and adoption date?

[Marengo]

80. It seems I can safely assume you don't understand the concept and simply don't know what...

You are speaking of since you can't provide any evidence to the contrary. If the question is so "unsophisticated", it should be a breeze to answer.

What design and adoption dates are you referring to?

[flamin lib]

82. You can assume anything you want. I really don't care to indulge you in meaningless banter. nt

[Marengo]

84. I should think you would want to prevent others from assuming the same as well.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

91. Judging by this exchange...

...that would qualify as a conclusion rather than an assumption.

[Marengo]

92. It really does appear that way, doesn't it?

[Marengo]

85. Can you expound on your comment on design and adoption dates? What can't I tell...

The difference between?

[flamin lib]

88. Ah a convenient memory! nt

[Marengo]

89. Why do you refuse to answer the question?

[flamin lib]

94. Because you're not the boss of me. Nana boo boo. And it drives you nuts. nt

[Marengo]

90. I found the reference. Are these pre-WWi rifle you own Mosin Nagants? Am I correct in recalling...

That they are?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8169936

Why didn't you answer there?

[flamin lib]

93. because I was tired of seeing gunners soil the thread. Now, go away, I am.

[Marengo]

95. Are they, or are they not, Mosin Nagants? Do you want me to assume that they are?

[Marengo]

96. Yep, they are Mosins, I found your post. The design was adopted in 1891, not 1898 as you...

Claim in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8169936

Care to explain this basic error, Mr. expert?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172173321#post27

[flamin lib]

98. The Russian military put a call for a new infantry rifle sometime in the early/mid 1880s.

Mosin and Nagant were working on parallel designs. In 1888 the two were combined and accepted pending prototype and testing. The approved design then went out for manufacturing bids in 1891 as the Russians had no manufacturing to speak of at the time. The first production run was in the U.S. They were known as Dragoons. After WWI they were recalled to the armory and modified to repair muzzle damage from cleaning rods. Barrels were shortened 3" and sights changed from cubits to metrics. New cleaning kits were issued. The designation was changed to 9130 to indicate the modifications made in 1930. Later modifications included a carbine with bayonet for paratroopers and one without bayonet for tankers. The most highly sought after model is the sniper which was modified at the factory to include a 4x scope. Buyer beware as there are a lot of base 9130s out there with after market scopes.

I will not address you further as you are not worth my time. Not here, not in another thread and not via email. Good day sir.

[Marengo]

99. First production run of Mosin Nagant Model 1891 Three Line rifle was Chaterllerault, France 1892.

No Dragoon was ever manufactured in the USA. Dragoon (and Cossack) variants were manufactured only in Izhevsk and Tula, Russia.

I can go on, but there is little point.

[Marengo]

100. What are the model designations for the paratrooper and tanker variants?

[Marengo]

101. You also might want edit where you claim the first production run was of Dragoons in the USA...

That's just pure fantasy. If you would like to still be regarded as an expert, that is.

[Marengo]

97. Looks like your the one having the trouble understanding the difference. Designed in 1898...

And adopted in 1891. It's miraculous, or perhaps time travel was involved.

[Straw Man]

107. Let's approach this from another angle.

Could you explain what you mean by "resets mid cycle"?

If you don't know what that means you are unqualified to engage in this discussion.

Asking you what your assertion meant was a courtesy. Your response was to abuse that courtesy. Now let's reframe it as a statement.

A trigger cannot "reset mid cycle." The connector (or "disconnector," if you will) prevents the trigger from resetting until the bolt (or slide) has returned to battery -- in other words, until the end of the cycle. That is how a semi-auto firearm works.

If you have information to the contrary, please provide it.

[tortoise1956]

64. Do you have a link to "assault weapons conversion kits"?

You sure about that statement? I did a Google search, and absolutely nothing came up under the term "assault weapon conversion", or when I added "kit" or when I added ".22 lr".

[flamin lib]

67. They have cleverly been re-named to tactical kits.

Since the NRA discovered that after years of marketing the AR as an assault weapon it was getting a bad reputation among the general public they started a concentrated effort to re-badge the gun as a "popular sporting rifle". This is a totally and completely new and fictional kind of gun.

However, before that there was this:

[Straw Man]

103. Do tell.

Since the NRA discovered that after years of marketing the AR as an assault weapon it was getting a bad reputation among the general public they started a concentrated effort to re-badge the gun as a "popular sporting rifle". This is a totally and completely new and fictional kind of gun.

How long had they been "marketing the AR as an assault weapon" before 1963, when this ad appeared?



And why was the NRA doing Colt's marketing for them? Do they actually create advertising campaigns for manufacturers, or do they just run the ads for free in the American Rifleman?

[friendly_iconoclast]

104. Some things never seem to change. The standard of accuracy for antigun posts at DU is one of them

So much for self-proclaimed 'experts'...

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. Nice catch. Not only have we been served bullshit, it's *recycled* bullshit:

From the previous day:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211593#post3

I'm bookmarking this for future reference

There has never been any real doubt about the AR being an assault rifle. It has been marketed as such from the beginning. It was only after the general public began to recognize it for the threat it is that the NRA launched a major marketing campaign to change the name from Assault Weapon to Popular Sporting Rifle.

[Marengo]

106. Link? You may have better luck asking him for an Indio (coin)

[gejohnston]

27. Yes, but they can buy ammo at the store

since there are likely semi autos and bolt actions of the same caliber for sale on the civilian market. Of course, they can buy all the government subsidized ammo they want at the range.

[flamin lib]

29. Yes, but if they have to go through that extra step

suicides go down. Without ammo it's just a glorified paper weight.

[gejohnston]

31. there is no empirical evidence to support the claim

you can still buy ammo at the store. Besides, the issue box of ammo was to be sealed until needed.

Outside of the ammo, Swiss gun laws are not that much different than Michigan thirty years ago.

[flamin lib]

32. I'm sorry, you're wrong. And I don't feel inclined go indulge in the mental masturbation

gunners feel the need for. Your are wrong. Period. End of statement. I will not respond to further idiocy on your part.

Good day sir.

[beevul]

33. So thats what a mind closing sounds like. N/T

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. It sounds like a bear trap snapping shut to include the anguished howls.

[DonP]

58. More like an empty can kicked down a gravel road

Erratic, noisy, inconsequential

[gejohnston]

34. IOW, argument by assertion

a logical fallacy. Here I was hoping for a post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[flamin lib]

39. No, I won't play your silly assed game. You don't get to assert that something that

is true is not. You cannot argue that the Earth is flat as if it is a valid argument.

Wyoming, where you call home, has the highest gun ownership rate of the states and the highest suicide rate as well.

You do not get to set the parameters of what is arguable.

You want to play dumbass games about fallacies, I want to save lives.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. "I want to save lives." Appeal to emotion aside, we are free to question the efficacy of your ideas

And that was, in fact, an argument by assertion.

Mere claims that an idea would actually work, however emphatically stated, won't cut it.

[beevul]

43. And you don't get to assert something is truth without substantiation and have it automatically...

You don't get to assert that something that is true is not.

And you don't get to assert something is truth without substantiation and have it automatically accepted - that's how it works in bansalot, but not here. Maybe you're confused as to what group you're posting in. How fortunate for you we do not block others for such simple mistakes, like you do in bansalot.

Wyoming, where you call home, has the highest gun ownership rate of the states and the highest suicide rate as well.

Wyomings suicide rate is a function of its low population, not a function of having a lot of suicides.

You do not get to set the parameters of what is arguable.

Neither do you. In fact, you don't get to set any parameters in this group, just to remind you.

You want to play dumbass games about fallacies, I want to save lives.

That's a lot of words to simply convey the message that you have not substantiated your assertions and refuse to.

[gejohnston]

102. post hoc ergo propter hoc

South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the world, yet they all but ban guns. Wyoming is almost all rural. Suicide rates are higher in rural areas pretty much everywhere in the world, even in South Korea and Australia. If USVI were a state, it would have the highest murder rate, and has gun laws similar to Hawaii, what's your point? No, you didn't make a valid point.

[beergood]

48. "mental masturbation"

whats wrong with masturbation? it relives stress. http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/5-reasons-you-should-masturbate-tonight

don't tell me your one of those bible thumpers that's against it?

[Duckhunter935]

57. Typical of those with closed minds

Not surprising you are now one of the hosts of one of the most closed groups on DU that is terrified of any true discussion. All you seem to have is insults, sad

[Straw Man]

36. Right.

Yes, but if they have to go through that extra step

suicides go down. Without ammo it's just a glorified paper weight.

So buying ammo is an "extra step" that makes "suicides go down"? Too bad we don't have to do that in America, where lifetime supplies of ammo are provided with every firearm purchase.

Sheesh ...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. You started out arguing about semi vs full auto, now it's suicides.

How many rounds per minute do you think a suicide requires?

[beergood]

47. "suicides go down"

there is no evidence of that. suicide is a mental heath issue. access to firearms has no affect on suicides. i know two people that killed themselves, one with rope the other with drugs. i own firearms and pointed a loaded one to my head. i am alive while the other two are dead. i sought help and received it, at a very expensive price. lets address the price/availability of healthcare. that is if you truly care about suicide.

[deathrind]

26. Too bad we do not have the same

Firearm controls the Swiss have.

[gejohnston]

28. some states do,

some states have stricter laws than Switzerland, or most of Europe in general. New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Hawaii come to mind. Oh, don't forget DC.
If were were to adopt a European country's gun laws, I would prefer the Czech Republic. Your ownership license is also your concealed carry license.

[benEzra]

45. Swiss, and Canadians, and many others, can own guns

that will land you in prison for years in NY or CA. For example, civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out.

A lot of commentators get hung up on the Swiss practice of sending restricted military automatic weapons home with their reservists, but forget that Switzerland has a thriving (and peaceful) civilian gun/shooting culture also, that is unrelated to military service.