General Discussion

Major Nikon

(36,925 posts)

155. That was the whole purpose of the law

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:21 AM

Jan 2013

There are two ways you can make an AR-15 type receiver design CA legal. You can either turn it into a deer rifle, or you can turn it into a non-detachable magazine style weapon that mimics the other features of the AR-15. Either way the rifle is not as lethal which serves the purposes of the law, and the legitimate purposes of those who want to own this type of weapon.

The other poster keeps wanting to claim a deer rifle is as lethal as an AR-15. It ain't. The AR-15 is designed to easily hold the weapon with one hand, release the magazine with one finger, and load a fresh magazine with the other hand. That's why pretty much every military in the world uses this design for their primary infantry rifle. You can't do that with a CA legal weapon.

The other poster keeps wanting to claim a CA legal deer rifle type design is just as lethal as an AR-15. It ain't. If it was, the military wouldn't have radically changed the design of the infantry rifle some 40 years ago.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

198 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Guess what, liberals? We will NEVER know enough about guns to be "qualified" to write gun laws! [View all] CTyankee Jan 2013 OP

I know I will be flamed Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #1

well, from what I am learning, since that time gun technology has rapidly advanced in a way that CTyankee Jan 2013 #4

Gun technology hasn't significantly changed in 60 years Recursion Jan 2013 #9

well, there you go. I am obviously not qualified...I must have gotten false information...hmmm CTyankee Jan 2013 #15

I wasn't trying to shut you up Recursion Jan 2013 #16

but from what I am reading in the liberal press, we ARE talking about "capabilities" this time. CTyankee Jan 2013 #26

What are you seeing discussed about capabilities? I've only seen the extended magazine ban... Recursion Jan 2013 #37

i believe new jersey has a 2002 law requiring new pistols to be smart guns Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #43

And all cars should get 1000 mpg and be able to levitate. JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #168

technology *is* already there. Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #170

I've seen mostly discussion around the extended magazine ban. My governor, Dan Malloy, was CTyankee Jan 2013 #64

I'm not sure if you read the AWB law Major Nikon Jan 2013 #118

Banning by name does not work. ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #123

Works in California Major Nikon Jan 2013 #124

How do you define "works"? ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #126

You can own an AR-15 that doesn't have a detachable magazine Major Nikon Jan 2013 #128

Did CA go to a one-feature ban? Recursion Jan 2013 #129

No Major Nikon Jan 2013 #130

Why the bullet button then? Recursion Jan 2013 #131

The work around creates something that is no longer an "assault weapon" Major Nikon Jan 2013 #134

So they did go to a one-feature ban Recursion Jan 2013 #136

Not exactly Major Nikon Jan 2013 #138

Right. Detachable magazine isn't a "feature" Recursion Jan 2013 #140

The point never was to restrict hunting rifles Major Nikon Jan 2013 #142

Huh? You can still buy semi-autos with detachable magazines Recursion Jan 2013 #143

Sure they're equally as deadly Major Nikon Jan 2013 #145

I'm confused Recursion Jan 2013 #146

Which is why I didn't mention fire rate Major Nikon Jan 2013 #148

I'm not talking about deer rifles Recursion Jan 2013 #151

Without the "tool" to remove the magazine, ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #135

Which would be a tool Major Nikon Jan 2013 #147

My point exactly. ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #133

And you wind up with something that is no longer an assault weapon Major Nikon Jan 2013 #137

Thus the problem with the law. ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #139

That's not all that changed Major Nikon Jan 2013 #144

I thought it was the Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #149

Same receiver Major Nikon Jan 2013 #150

So something that looks like an AR-15 can't be used for mass shootings Recursion Jan 2013 #152

I think it was made to not include any Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #154

That was the whole purpose of the law Major Nikon Jan 2013 #155

The grip change had nothing to do with reloading speed Recursion Jan 2013 #169

In this case.. TxRider Jan 2013 #153

I was speaking to the CA law and not the federal AWB Major Nikon Jan 2013 #156

Go over to my thread on this and you'll see jmowreader Jan 2013 #127

gun types Limey202 Jan 2013 #132

I agree. If one wants to really ban them then Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #157

If I'm "qualified" to be killed by a bullet... caraher Jan 2013 #2

agreed Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #3

Best reply etherealtruth Jan 2013 #13

You certainly do. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #31

If the nutters have their way Cirque du So-What Jan 2013 #33

So let's stop going there Recursion Jan 2013 #35

Nanoseconds. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #54

But why voice something that would infringe on legitmate rights while failing to find real solutions Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #60

I am not hearing anybody "voicing something" that would infringe on legitimate rights. CTyankee Jan 2013 #65

Not following you. nt Deep13 Jan 2013 #108

+100000000000000000 treestar Jan 2013 #87

While I agree you have a right to be heard... Deep13 Jan 2013 #105

qualified Limey202 Jan 2013 #141

There's a lot more "if you don't know (insert arcane detail about guns) STFU" out there... caraher Jan 2013 #159

The trivial technical minutia of firearms design doesn't really matter. baldguy Jan 2013 #5

Rather like making shade-tree mechanics the experts on vehicle laws IDemo Jan 2013 #6

The issue, though, is when that opinion on speed limits leads one to suggest petronius Jan 2013 #45

^^^ This Recursion Jan 2013 #49

And ode to the experts....Only An Expert by Laurie Anderson Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #7

Those who know all about the technical specs of a gun often know very little about gun violence Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #8

I would only change your statement in one way etherealtruth Jan 2013 #18

Can't disagree with you there. Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #19

I would have to disagree Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #25

I do agree that we should be talking more about handgun regulation Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #40

"voluntary" weapons licensing? Yeah, that'll work fine... CTyankee Jan 2013 #66

Don't you think that new laws regarding background checks will have... Walk away Jan 2013 #78

Feinstein (and Sugarmann) caused this by writing a bad law Recursion Jan 2013 #10

well, we haven't really tried recently have we? I think we come better armed (sorry for the pun) CTyankee Jan 2013 #22

If we follow Feinstein's new AWB it's only going to get worse, I'm afraid Recursion Jan 2013 #27

The vast majority of firearms in circulation are semi-autos with detachable box magazines. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #38

As a practical matter, I'm skeptical of bans, but... Recursion Jan 2013 #39

Since their goal is to dramatically reduce firearms ownership... Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #50

Ya Know, Fella.... The Magistrate Jan 2013 #61

I wish I could rec your post!!! Robyn66 Jan 2013 #63

Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #177

Good! Now I want you to sit down and write exactly what you said to your Congressperson and CTyankee Jan 2013 #68

Yeah, Yeah, It's All The Democrats' Fault. And About Those "Technical Minutiae": Paladin Jan 2013 #67

The one that we are trying to ban is selling more Recursion Jan 2013 #73

No, I Have A Clear Understanding Of Which Guns Appeal The Most To Psychopaths. Paladin Jan 2013 #85

Does this need for expertise apply to abortion, Cerridwen Jan 2013 #11

Really? I complain about Republicans legislating from a position of ignorance all the time Recursion Jan 2013 #12

That was my point. Cerridwen Jan 2013 #17

Well, we're the ones who went there Recursion Jan 2013 #20

You know what? It's the dawn of a new day. Read the NYT piece. You will appreciate it. CTyankee Jan 2013 #23

Are you talking about "The Diversionary Tactics of the Gun Lobby"? Recursion Jan 2013 #28

Promptly respond to the article with your LTTE, saying exactly what you said here. Perhaps the CTyankee Jan 2013 #69

Of course they know. They just bet their readers don't Recursion Jan 2013 #74

Better The NYT Use Of Terms Than Ted Nugent's (nt) Paladin Jan 2013 #88

So, can a rifle be an assault weapon? CTyankee Jan 2013 #97

Yes. But "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are mutually exclusive Recursion Jan 2013 #104

If we truly characterize any weapon as "assault" then it would logically follow that we would CTyankee Jan 2013 #109

Sure, or just take "assault" out of the whole thing. Recursion Jan 2013 #111

I would characterize it as a "weapon capable of assaulting people in high numbers and rapidly." CTyankee Jan 2013 #162

Then your argument is with the party leadership Cerridwen Jan 2013 #24

It definitely is Recursion Jan 2013 #29

What do I think the AWB does? Cerridwen Jan 2013 #32

yep. spanone Jan 2013 #21

I think it does and here is why Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #158

The asshole Republicans in Ohio took away law enforcement's ability to maintain safety in the cities Kolesar Jan 2013 #14

Some of us have been victims from guns. Is it not enough to qualify them? Mass Jan 2013 #30

I wouldn't say that, but being knowledgeable really does help. aikoaiko Jan 2013 #34

I am sure you have written to both Rep. McCarthy and Mayor Bloomberg, haven't you? CTyankee Jan 2013 #70

As it turns out most her contact form won't accept my comments because I don't live in her district aikoaiko Jan 2013 #71

Then write to your own congressperson pointing out what you feel is a mistake. I don't see that CTyankee Jan 2013 #72

You're giving way too much benefit of the doubt here. Sugarmann *said he was being dishonest* Recursion Jan 2013 #75

I'd appreciate any link you can provide...thanks... CTyankee Jan 2013 #76

Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, his 1998 book Recursion Jan 2013 #77

I don't see anything in that quote other than the fact that he obviously wants to impose CTyankee Jan 2013 #83

Full auto has been *ridigly* controlled for 80 years Recursion Jan 2013 #84

but you are ascribing a bit more gloss to his statement than I find in his words. CTyankee Jan 2013 #90

Presumably because they're used in mass shootings Recursion Jan 2013 #91

Were those his words "complete civilian disarmament"?* CTyankee Jan 2013 #92

Gun laws in the 50s were much more lax Recursion Jan 2013 #125

And yet we have our Newtowns and VA Techs, etc and Austrailia doesn't. CTyankee Jan 2013 #165

Compared to overall gun violence, bluntly, yes Recursion Jan 2013 #166

I would agree since my family experienced handgun violence. But in thisi instance, a man CTyankee Jan 2013 #167

Know-nothingism is a dead end. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #36

Who is proposing confiscation? ellisonz Jan 2013 #42

Presumably the people behind these AWBs Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #44

So you're admitting that part of your post is complete fabrication? ellisonz Jan 2013 #47

No. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #51

Really? ellisonz Jan 2013 #53

Senator Feinstein, the Brady Campaign, and VPC have all criticized grandfather clauses. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #57

Links? ellisonz Jan 2013 #62

Why not? Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #80

That's not definitely: "to turn in firearms rendered illegal by legislative fiat" ellisonz Jan 2013 #81

Any qualifying firearm not registered is rendered illegal. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #82

So register your gun - but even you can't say for sure... ellisonz Jan 2013 #89

Nothing regjoe Jan 2013 #175

"Wartime memorabilia from both Axis and Allied powers fills the entire shop." ellisonz Jan 2013 #41

There's a description of what the AWB actually does towards the end of this article Recursion Jan 2013 #46

Republicans are always writing laws that attempt to govern women's reproductive rights... left coaster Jan 2013 #48

Umm... you just made his point, actually Recursion Jan 2013 #52

also the people at gun shows don't seem to know enough either ThomThom Jan 2013 #55

We have as much expertise on our side as they do. gulliver Jan 2013 #56

Are men qualified to write women's reproductive health legislation? HooptieWagon Jan 2013 #58

They are unless you believe such topics are beyond the scope of reason Major Nikon Jan 2013 #121

The ON-GOING AGENDA is to "brand" Democrats as ignorant. Recall the "Obama voters in least-educated WinkyDink Jan 2013 #59

Just like men are qualified Politicalboi Jan 2013 #79

That they can kill people treestar Jan 2013 #86

I think a tipping point is pretty damned close. The kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #93

The majority of Americans also have no idea what that means Recursion Jan 2013 #94

Hey, you've given me a great talking point for my rep. Rosa deLauro! "differently shaped grips." CTyankee Jan 2013 #96

Please go for it Recursion Jan 2013 #107

"this" meaning the old AWB? CTyankee Jan 2013 #110

Right, or the new one as it's currently being shopped Recursion Jan 2013 #114

Why don't you ask her if you can testify at upcoming Congressional hearings? CTyankee Jan 2013 #161

Because "dude with good ideas" is not a qualification Recursion Jan 2013 #163

Well, then make suggestions to chairs of committees where the bills will be considered. CTyankee Jan 2013 #164

it's better to understand the intent of a law than the mechanics of how guns fire samsingh Jan 2013 #95

I think you're right; supporters' ignorance of the law is the problem Recursion Jan 2013 #120

and qualified is that guy who went to JC penney with the gun JI7 Jan 2013 #98

I'm guessing (I really don't know) that he is an exhibitionist of the gun variety... CTyankee Jan 2013 #100

McChyrstal and WEs Clark would not be qualified ? JI7 Jan 2013 #99

well, of course not! they don't agree with the NRA! CTyankee Jan 2013 #101

Maybe, maybe not. ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #102

well, we don't know that for sure, do we? CTyankee Jan 2013 #106

Hence, the "maybe, maybe not" ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #113

what kind of jobs would the nature of it make people qualified ? JI7 Jan 2013 #112

If you want to limit the qualifications to jobs, ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #115

It's not about knowing guns, it's about reading the bill Recursion Jan 2013 #116

It would surprise me if they had read the bill Recursion Jan 2013 #117

Well, perhaps if the NRA would give us some real information... Deep13 Jan 2013 #103

The internet is a wonderful thing. rrneck Jan 2013 #119

As I have said before, we will having hearings on this legislation where experts will testify and CTyankee Jan 2013 #160

"As a people in a constitutional democracy..." rrneck Jan 2013 #171

If the opponents oppose just for the sake of their ideology, not based on actual problems in the CTyankee Jan 2013 #172

Mag capacity limits are an exercise in futility. rrneck Jan 2013 #173

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying... CTyankee Jan 2013 #174

Sorry about that. Sometimes I hate my phone. rrneck Jan 2013 #178

All right, then how do we limit the capability of these to inflict so much death and destruction? CTyankee Jan 2013 #179

Crafting the legislation is easy. Getting it passed and making it work is the problem. rrneck Jan 2013 #180

Some of your suggestons sound fine. But I don't agree with you that making a gun less capable CTyankee Jan 2013 #181

The point is rrneck Jan 2013 #182

We have to get with the 21st century in this country. The fact is that other countries DO "get CTyankee Jan 2013 #183

The same world wars that shaped Europe's attitude toward violence rrneck Jan 2013 #184

Interesting that you bring up booze. I have seen the comparison with laws against drunk CTyankee Jan 2013 #185

Nobody has ever rrneck Jan 2013 #186

your final paragraph brought to mind something that was said by George Wallace: CTyankee Jan 2013 #187

Be careful what you wish for. rrneck Jan 2013 #188

"guns are just as useful for self defense as offense." CTyankee Jan 2013 #189

Well okay... rrneck Jan 2013 #190

I still can't understand why she would deliberately pass something totally ineffective, tho. CTyankee Jan 2013 #191

When it comes to vote harvesting rrneck Jan 2013 #192

A distopic picture of the U.S. but I'm afraid you are right. If we can't do any better than this CTyankee Jan 2013 #193

Aw, it's not so bad. rrneck Jan 2013 #194

You know what, rrneck, it ain't that great, even if we have some meeting points... CTyankee Jan 2013 #195

It's not liberals who don't understand guns... Bay Boy Jan 2013 #122

It's not a question of IQ bongbong Jan 2013 #176

If the perceived problem you are trying to solve with your ban on assault weapons... krispos42 Jan 2013 #196

Ban? Well not only or not really. Let's just do something along the lines of what Australia CTyankee Jan 2013 #197

Even though there's plenty of liberals who have guns..... AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #198