An Uzi Up Your Liberal Nose -- Morford aims at absurd expiration

[Merlin]

Who cares if the assault-weapons ban is about to expire? The gun lobby can't wait to blow stuff away

- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Machine guns. Aren't they just the cutest things?

And isn't it just so sweet and fall-down uproarious how the NRA and all its knuckle-draggin' right-wing pals in the U.S. Senate are all cheering right this minute, as the much-loathed 10-year-old ban on assault weapons, the one outlawing Uzis and TEC-9 semiautomatics and AK-47s and all other way-cool manly guns that have no other purpose in this world than to annihilate crap at 200 rounds per minute, is about to expire?

Because, get this: The ban will not be renewed. It's true. Even if that commie liberal Feinstein somehow gets it passed in the Senate, the NRA lobby has promised to keep it from ever coming up for a vote in the House, and the law will just expire and they will all cheer and slather each other in gun-barrel polish and go off and shoot stuff, because that's the only thing that seems to give life any meaning.

Isn't that great? To hell with logic and to hell with your kids' safety and to hell with even trying to prevent moron gangbangers and terrorist wanna-bes and imbecilic white supremacists from easily getting their hands on a nice AK-47 that can mow down a schoolyard full of tots in 10 seconds flat. Instead: Down with liberal scum who would take away our God-given right to bear nasty ultraviolent weaponry that no one anywhere can justify the existence of. Go, NRA!

<more...>

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/06/30/notes063004.DTL&nl=fix

[joefree1]

1. Hey, here's my attempt at absurd expiration

[Immad2]

3. Great job joefree 1

and to the point!:thumbsup:

[TX-RAT]

2. Bet this gets warm before the days over.

[JayS]

31. Nah, no one is ever interested in this subject. *grin* :) n/t

n/t

[rkc3]

4. Don't terrorists use AK-47's in their assaults in Iraq?

You support the overturning of the assault weapons ban and you support terrorists - that would go a long way to renewing the ban.

[Merlin]

5. In Iraq and in America.

Assault weapons are weapons of war. Like bombs and tanks and missiles. Shall we allow all citizens to own those, too?

Any Democrat who opposes a continuation of the assault weapon ban is a complete idiot.

[Jack_DeLeon]

14. yes.

Assault Weapons are for the most part semiautomatic rifles that look mean.

I dont have a problem with civillians owning semiautomatic rifles.

[sendero]

24. And anyone who thinks....

... an assault weapons ban will work is a bigger idiot.

[Merlin]

32. Okay then let's legalize drugs, too.

If we're going to stop banning things because SOME people will get them anyhow, let's legalize drugs. Why not ICBMs? Hey! Why not Nukes? I mean it's possible a Nuke ban won't work either. So let's legalize them.

Man, that's logic!

[slackmaster]

33. I think we should legalize drugs too

I hold that opinion for the same libertarian reasons I oppose gun bans.

Hey! Why not Nukes?

Nuclear Straw Man a.k.a. McFeeb's Law violation. You lose the debate by default.

:dunce:

[JayS]

35. I'm not thrilled about legalization but I deplore gun violence...

...and you can't have both the War On Drugs and a low rate of violence. It don't work that way. I'll compromise by saying de-codify marijuana and make harder drugs available by prescription; that is a good enough start for a trial run. Once the drug dealers run out of cash we will reevaluate.

[Merlin]

46. Too bad you don't have a rational response.

"Nuclear Straw Man a.k.a. McFeeb's Law violation. You lose the debate by default"

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Why don't you just plain answer the godam question?

[FeebMaster]

47. Is bringing up a nuclear weapons strawman while

discussing federal firearms laws rational?

[Merlin]

49. It's a perfect parallel. Are you really that dense?

Somebody else suggested bioweapons. That's another good parallel.

How about land mines? Why not dynamite (other than as LICENSED for commercial use)? Or plastic explosives?

Couldn't everybody just be allowed to buy an iddy biddy fucking TANK!

ARE YOU NUTS?

Never mind. I already know the answer.

[FeebMaster]

53. It's always nice to see personal attacks from gun control supporters.

"It's a perfect parallel. Are you really that dense?
Somebody else suggested bioweapons. That's another good parallel."

But really, beyond personal attacks and WMD strawmen what else do they have?


"How about land mines? Why not dynamite (other than as LICENSED for commercial use)? Or plastic explosives?"

All WMDs are strawmen when discussing federal firearms laws. Conventional explosives are legitimately discussable since they are regulated under some of the same laws as firearms.

"Couldn't everybody just be allowed to buy an iddy biddy fucking TANK!"

Tanks aren't regulated by federal firearms laws and are essentially unregulated since they are basically bulldozers with armor. They are perfectly legal to own. A tank gun would be regulated as a destructive device since it has a bore larger than .50 caliber, but is also perfectly legal to own under federal law.


"ARE YOU NUTS?

Never mind. I already know the answer."

My insanity is limited to expecting gun control supporters to read the federal laws on the subject of guns before discussing and supporting them. They never fail to disappointed me in this area. Fortunately they more than make up for it with WMD strawmen, ad hominems, and lame attempts at guilt by association usually involving the NRA or the Republican party.

[slackmaster]

60. The tank itself is not regulated at all

Only the tank's gun, if it is so equipped.

It would be very difficult to equip a tank to be street legal in California, but a vehicle need not be street legal to be bought or sold.

[Merlin]

68. So do you object to the regulation of the tank's 50 cal?

I will ignore the rest of your diatribe since you--like all your fellow gun nuts--seem to love tangling semantics and claiming people like me just "don't understand."

I'm supposed to be charged with determining details like the difference between a modified semi-automatic and an automatic and an assault weapon? I'm supposed ot read the law? Sorry. I don't have that kind of time. I haven't read the law on armed robbery either, but I know it ought to be and is illegal.

Guilt by association? You bet! You are guilty by association. You made your own damn bed.

Idiotic? You? You bet. How else to describe a person who actually justifies the public being able to purchase, on a non-licensed bases, weapons of war.

Let me hear you try to draw a distinction between that tanks REGULATED 50 cal and an assault weapon. Oh, yeah, the 50 cal has bigger bullets. Big godam deal. The assault weapons kill pretty dead too. I used 'em both in Nam plenty of times.

[FeebMaster]

72. Diatribe. lol

"So do you object to the regulation of the tank's 50 cal? I will ignore the rest of your diatribe since you--like all your fellow gun nuts--seem to love tangling semantics and claiming people like me just "don't understand." "


Your post was mostly personal attacks. I wasn't aware that pointing that out was a diatribe. My personal thoughts on firearms laws aren't the issue here. We were discussing the AWB and it's lack of effect on machine guns then got sidetracked into this WMD strawman subthread like so many gun threads seem to. If you must know, I don't think there should be any gun laws. As far as I'm concerned, guns should be treated no differently than books.

"I'm supposed to be charged with determining details like the difference between a modified semi-automatic and an automatic and an assault weapon? I'm supposed ot read the law? Sorry. I don't have that kind of time. I haven't read the law on armed robbery either, but I know it ought to be and is illegal."

So you support a law you've never even read? Maybe you should run for Congress. It's not that long of a law, a few pages tops. I suggest you read it, especially since you clearly have no idea how the law defines assault weapon.

"Guilt by association? You bet! You are guilty by association. You made your own damn bed."

Who have I associated myself with? Never mind that guilt by association is a logical fallacy.

"Idiotic? You? You bet. How else to describe a person who actually justifies the public being able to purchase, on a non-licensed bases, weapons of war."

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly in this thread that the AWB has nothing to do with weapons of war and that no army in the world issues its troops weapons covered by the AWB. If you'd read the law you might understand that.

"Let me hear you try to draw a distinction between that tanks REGULATED 50 cal and an assault weapon. Oh, yeah, the 50 cal has bigger bullets. Big godam deal. The assault weapons kill pretty dead too. I used 'em both in Nam plenty of times."

Actually .50 caliber weapons aren't regulated any differently than .30 caliber weapons or .22 caliber weapons. It's weapons with a bore larger than .50 caliber that are regulated as destructive devices.

You certainly didn't use any weapon that is covered by the AWB in Vietnam. Maybe you should try reading the law so you'll know how it defines assault weapon.

[slackmaster]

102. Now I know you must be joking

I used 'em both in Nam plenty of times.

Yes, you were in Vietnam and I'm the King of France.

Sorry I wasted so much time on this ridiculous exchange.

[slackmaster]

58. Two personal attacks and no sign of reasonable debate

It's a shame you aren't willing to discuss this subject rationally.

BTW there is absolutely no law against a citizen buying a tank. They're not regulated at all. If you want to get some dynamite or plastic explosives you can, but you have to do the required paperwork.

[MrBenchley]

65. Reasonable debate, eh, slack?

"slackmaster
47. I will concede that now that I've read it I don't see anything at all wrong with the GOP's platform."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20403&mesg_id=20484&page=


"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 (#32): "The presence of a few idiots in Nazi uniforms need not spoil a family outing."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22105

[Merlin]

69. How's this for a reasonable debate:

YOU'RE WRONG!

YOU COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG.

Anybody who thinks it's just fine for the public to purchase weapons of war on an unlicensed basis is just plan idiotic. Period.

And that's a godam well reasoned argument.

[slackmaster]

70. Assault weapons are not weapons of war

No military force on Earth employs any of the so-called "assault weapons" as combat firearms.

You are misinformed.

[Merlin]

85. The hell they aren't.

You can pick, pick, pick those nits 'till you're blue in the face, but we don't have to buy your tortured, lying logic.

There is virtually no practical, consequential difference between an assault weapon and an AK or an M16. You know it. I know it. We all know it. So save yourself the trouble of trying to fool people.

[slackmaster]

87. Please go read the actual law

If you can name ONE case where ANY military force anywhere in the WORLD issues semiautomatic weapons to its troops as standard combat weapons I'll retract my claim.

There is virtually no practical, consequential difference between an assault weapon and an AK or an M16.

Yes there is. An M16 is capable of firing (depending on the version) either three round bursts or continuously with a single trigger pull.

A semiautomatic AR-15, which looks VERY SIMILAR to the M16, fires only one round per trigger pull. Some AR-15 rifles are assault weapons, others are not. The difference between assault weapons and non-assault weapons has to do with features like bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks.

So save yourself the trouble of trying to fool people.

Dag-nabbit Merlin we're all Democrats here. I'm trying to educate people. I have no intention of fooling anyone.

The real information is all there in the United States Code. Please browse or read http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html and THEN come back and tell me if I've presented any false information here. If I've made any errors I will own up to it. I expect the same of you.

[slackmaster]

57. McFeeb's law

It's a corollary to Godwin's Law: Anyone who says if it's OK to own an "assault weapon" we might as well let private citizens own nuclear weapons has gone beyond the bounds of reasonable debate and therefore lost by default. An "assault weapon" is just a semiautomatic gun. A nuclear bomb is an explosive device capable of destroying an entire city. Do you see the difference?

Nobody has seriously proposed private ownership of nuclear weapons. In fact, there is no law prohibiting an individual from owning one. I'm sure the required paperwork and licensing to ensure that you complied with federal regulations for safely storing and transporting the components would be a nightmare, but if you have the money and you really want one I encourage you to get one. I really don't care.

OTOH if you don't really want to own a nuke then your previous post was just silly hyperbole, wasn't it?

:nuke:

[Merlin]

71. This just proves how incompetent you are at logic.

It is perfectly acceptable to use the logical ambit known as Reductio ad Absurdum in any reasoned argument. That is all that I am doing.

If it strains your brain to deal with mini-nukes, or to grasp the fact that I'm taking your proposition to extremes ON PURPOSE to test its validity, then we'll discuss perhaps something lesser.

Let's talk C4 explosives. If it's ok to buy an assault weapon without a license, then why not C4? What's your answer? Don't have one, do you? Or maybe you think people SHOULD be able to buy C4 across the counter no questions asked. In which case, we have nothing more to discuss, because I must then conclude you are not at all a sane person.

One more thing, please stop with this crap about how an assault weapon is "just a semiautomatic gun." That is pure balderdash and you know it. An assault weapon, like an AK or an M16 is NOT just a semi-automatic. It is capable of firing in BURSTS. And that is the difference between an assault weapon and a typical semi-automatic. You gun nuts always try to play games with this. Please don't even bother. Most of us on this board are wise to that little ruse.

[FeebMaster]

73. The AWB, as you have been told many times now

has nothing to do with machine guns. Maybe you should try reading the law.

[slackmaster]

75. Apples and oranges fallacy and you have NO IDEA about the subject

Assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms, functionally no different from many other kinds of semiautomatic firearms that are not assault weapons.

C4 is a high explosive.

Apples, oranges.

I must then conclude you are not at all a sane person.

Argumentum ad hominem. Another logical fallacy.

One more thing, please stop with this crap about how an assault weapon is "just a semiautomatic gun." That is pure balderdash and you know it. An assault weapon, like an AK or an M16 is NOT just a semi-automatic.

You are showing your ignorance again.

AKs come in many versions, some semiautomatic, some selective fire or by definition "machineguns" under the law.

Some semiautomatic AK variants are assault weapons, others are not.

Please see http://www.ak-47.net/legal/preban.html

Pre-ban means it's an assault weapon. Post-ban means not an assault weapon. Pre-ban firearms look VERY SIMILAR to their post-ban counterparts and very similar to their automatic versions.

The M16 is a selective-fire weapon that is by definition a machinegun and NOT an assault weapon.

See http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/AR15-M16Parts for the many differences between the M16 and its semiautomatic cousin, the AR-15.

Some AR-15 rifles are assault weapons, others are not.

All assault weapons are semiautomatic. See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html for extensive factual information about what all of these legal terms mean. The terms "machinegun" and "semiautomatic assault weapon" (the proper legal term for what people call assault weapons) are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Don't take my "insane" word for it. Go read the code.

Please get back to me when you get a clue.

[Redneck Socialist]

91. Maybe this will help

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

Even the Brady Campaign in a rare moment of honesty gets the legal definition of assault weapons correct. Amazingly enough they even point out that fully automatic weapons were regulated back in 1934. "Ownership of machine guns has been tightly controlled since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and their manufacture for the civilian market was halted in 1986."

There is a lot of other silliness and misinformation on their site but they do provide a helpful outline of what the AWB does regulate.

You can also go here http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html for the full piece of legislation.

On Edit: Typo

[slackmaster]

94. Merlin, please indulge me in one small request

In the event you go to the sources that have been provided by several people and read the information there that proves that you have a deep misunderstanding about the assault weapon issue, and subsequently come to realize that you have been wrong all along in this discussion, I would appreciate a personal apology from you for calling me insane and accusing me of obfuscation.

Have a really nice holiday weekend.

:nuke:

[neverborn]

101. slack and Feeb, thank you.

Gun-control nuts make the left look horrible.

/hugs you both.

[sendero]

45. Drugs should be legal....

... but that's a different discussion.

Most people don't want nukes or ICBMS. Most people could not afford one if they did.

That is not the case with drugs and guns. People want them and they have them. Your dumbass laws are simply ignored to the extent possible.

And after programming computers for 20 years, my logic is fine thanks.

[Merlin]

48. Strange. Your logic is absurd.

"...not the case with drugs and guns. People want them and they have them. Your dumbass laws are simply ignored to the extent possible."

Your simple assed "logic" couldn't stand up in the corner. "People want them and they have them" is a sorry excuse for not criminalizing the sale of weapons of war.

PEOPLE do NOT have them. I don't have an assault weapon. Why? Because I wouldn't know where to get one. Get it? I'm sure if I really made an effort, I'd find one. But I'm aware that it is illegal to own one, so that's one reason the thought has never occurred to me to seek one. My case is typical of about 98% of the public.

You're talking about a fraction of the public who would get them via underground purchases. We don't make the fucking laws for those people only. We make them for everybody.

Society is NOT better off if people can routinely buy automatic weapons. If you can't figure that out on your own player piano, I'd sure hate to own any piece of software you've ever written.

Btw, I, too, have developed software for over 20 years.

[sendero]

55. I'll put my code...

... up against yours any day. :)

As for the regulatory debate whether you like it or not there is a gun culture out there and a drug culture as well. Adherents to either culture know where to get what they want, and they get it. This is not a news flash, if you don't know this what kind of cloistered world do you live in?

The "assault weapons ban" is a joke because there is no clear definition of what an "assault weapon" really is, and the one the gov't has come up with stikes many in the gun culture as being overly restrictive.

If a criminal who wants to commit a crime wants such a weapon, it is easy for him to get. Many of the distinguishing features between a legal and non-legal firearm are small, and any amateur gunsmith can work around them. These STUPID BANS DO NOT AFFECT CRIMINALS ONE FUCKING BIT. They only affect those who respect the law. Such respect lessens every time one of these misguided laws are passed.

Since you are so effing sure that gov't regulation is the answer to all of societies' problems, why don't you explain why the "drug war" has accomplished almost NOTHING, a FACT which if you bother to dispute will render your credibility sorely lacking.

[Merlin]

77. The drug war is absurd. But that does not mean all weapons should be legal

It is not ipso facto. Sorry.

The reason the drug war is absurd is because there is a perfectly rational, effective way to solve the drug problem, once one recognizes that the drug "problem" is not that people are taking them, but that their illegality has made them available only illegally. The drug war solution is to legalize drugs BUT to regulate their dispensation, ala pharmacies, with doctor prescriptions, or (in PA for example) like the state store distribution of alchohol.

Similarly, the solution for assault weapons is to license them, just as we license large bore weapons and explosives.

But you guys won't hear of that, will you? Oh, no. That's just too much government for you.

You don't give a rat's ass about the common good. You care only about the individual. You think because you are rational (so you claim), that everybody is rational.

If you think that only "criminals" commit crimes you're nuts. "Criminals"--in the sense that you refer to them when you say "These STUPID BANS DO NOT AFFECT CRIMINALS ONE FUCKING BIT" are people who have committed crimes BEFORE and are intent--in advance--upon committing crimes again. But people who are not "criminals"--in that sense--commit crimes every day (thereby becoming criminals). THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THESE "STUPID BANS" WOULD AFFECT!!! HELLO? Did you ever once think of that?

Every minute of the day some asshole comes home drunk and pissed off and ready to explode. A pistol or rifle is bad enough. But an AK and a neighborhood full of kids or a restaurant full of patrons and you've got MAJOR LEAGE FUCKING CATASTROPHE. YOU DIG?

[JayS]

56. I assume you are no longer talking about the assault weapons...

...ban as you are talking about automatic weapons. You mentioned how one would purchase a fully automatic weapon on the black market. One good place to start is with your local drug dealer. It is doubtful that he/she will have it in stock but it can be ordered or you will be referred to a different dealer. You'd have better luck and less expense getting a pre- or post-ban "assault rifle" though, even though it is semi-automatic. It doesn't take much these days to get all sorts of contraband.

[Merlin]

80. Here we go with more of this godam lingo designed to obfuscate.

Oh Jesus, is it a semi-automatic or an automatic or an assault weapon??? Oh, good God, we've got to --- just GOT TO -- get it just exactly right or some fucking gun nut will claim we just don't understand.

GIVE ME A GODAM BREAK! We're talking about guns that fire bursts of bullets. HELLO. That's an assault weapon. And that's also an automatic weapon. Who do you think you're fooling?

[slackmaster]

81. Anything that fires "bursts of bullets" is a machinegun

Assault weapons are semiautomatic by definition.

See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html

We're talking straight to you here Merlin. No obfuscation intended.

[Merlin]

86. Talking straight? Balderdash!

Assault weapons fire multiple rounds with a single squeeze, using large clips. That produces the same effect as an automatic weapon.

[slackmaster]

88. Go read the actual law

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html

[JayS]

92. You are an EXCELLENT example of...

...why all three branches of government are now controlled by the Republicans. Happy?

[slackmaster]

64. You are badly misinformed

So-called "assault weapons" were grandfathered under the 1994 act that banned manufacture and sale of new ones for other than government or law enforcement use. All of the AWs that existed as of September 13, 1994 can be legally sold as used firearms with no federal restrictions. Please learn something about the subject before you try to debate it.

... I wouldn't know where to get one....

Try a gun store.

But I'm aware that it is illegal to own one....

Wrong. They are legal to own.

My case is typical of about 98% of the public.

A sad commentary on the state of the public, with that many being ignorant of the facts.

Society is NOT better off if people can routinely buy automatic weapons.

Assault weapons are semiautomatic, not automatic. If you want an automatic weapon that's a bit more of a hassle but if you really want one you can probably get one legally.

[Merlin]

82. You just really enjoy "baffling with bullshit"

Let's see here, you are violently opposed to a continuation of the "Assault Weapons Ban"

But then you want me to believe assault weapons aren't REALLY banned because old ones can be resold, though new ones cannot be.

And then, by insinuation, I should support dropping the ban because the old ones can still be sold.

You are really off your rocker, aren't you.

Then we go back to your favorite game of linguistic obfuscation:
"Assault weapons are semiautomatic, not automatic"
Please, spare me the bullshit. What we are talking about are weapons that fire bullets in bursts. I don't care what you want to call them. I don't want them sold unless they are licensed to people who need them for some lawful, rational, realistic purpose (other than "collectiing")! PERIOD.

[FeebMaster]

84. You should come post down in the dungeon.

You'd fit right in.

[slackmaster]

89. Go read the actual text of the United States Code

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html

You are really off your rocker, aren't you.

That may be true. I really don't know. But I know you are misinformed about this subject.

[MrBenchley]

78. Some people want to exterminate gays and blacks too...

the notion that we ought to have armed junkies because "some people want to" is absurdist in the extreme...

[Jack_DeLeon]

51. I support the legalization of drugs.

Using drugs shouldnt be a crime.

We can still try people for commiting crimes while under the influence.

Legalizing drugs does not mean that people will get away with doing stupid shit while on them.

[Merlin]

83. This isn't about drugs. It's about assault weapons. You dig? n/t

.

[Jack_DeLeon]

100. Then why did you bring up the issue

of drugs?

[Lorien]

42. Amen

Hell, why stop at assault weapons? Why not allow Joe sixpack to own mini nukes and bio weapons too? After all, I'm sure the terra'ists are trying to get their hands on 'em first! Giving 70% of our taxes to the military ain't enough; let's form our own militias to protect 'Merica! :eyes:

[lightbulb]

67. speaking of joe sixpack...

In response to another poster's sarcastic claim that we should "legalize drugs", I have one word:

Prohibition

When the very popular drug called ethanol (aka drinking alcohol) was made illegal in the 1920s, unrelenting public demand for the drug let to a surge in lawless black market distribution cartels and an associated increase violent crime.

So what's worse, a certain portion of society abusing the drug when it's legal, or the same portion of society abusing the drug while criminals are killing each other along with innocents over its distribution when it's illegal?

[MrBenchley]

61. Amen to that...

Plus it's a win-win situation...since this unelected drunk lied to America in 200 promising to renew it...and now he's reneging on that promise to pander to the farthest right wing nutcases.

[slackmaster]

23. Terrorists in Iraq use fully automatic real military AKs, not semiautos

The AW ban only covers semiautomatics, and plenty of semiautomatic versions of the Kalashnikov rifle have been available throughout the last 10 years.

http://www.ak-47.net/legal/preban.html

The AW ban didn't take any firearm patterns off the market.

[Redneck Socialist]

6. Relax Morford

The AWB has nothing to do with machine guns. Fully automatic weapons will still be heavily regulated. The expiration of the AWB is much ado about nothing. Good riddance to bad legislation.

[Taverner]

37. I agree...besides this gun issue

Is yet one more issue the Repugs use to divide the left.

We're a country with guns - we should just deal with it. Teach safety and promote gun locks rather than trying to ban them.

[JayS]

40. Yup, and please pass this on to Senator Kerry. :) n/t

n/t

[JayS]

7. Is Mark Morford an undercover Republican or just an idiot?

I am so sick of journalists that claim to be any flavor of Democrat writing this kind of crap. Would it kill them to at least do a little research first? They make us sound like a Party of idiots.

Because to the NRA, the rule is absolute: No gun law is a good gun law...

Maybe Mark could sober up and take a glance at the goings on in the Senate and the House over the last decade or so and see just what gun laws he loves that were written, promoted, and proposed by the NRA...but that would take a little research.

[Jack_DeLeon]

8. but the assault weapon ban doesnt ban machine guns.

eom

[denverbill]

10. No, that was done in the 1920's.

What that law didn't ban, however, was military weapons with enormous clips that could easily be converted from semi-automatic to fully automatic. The AWB took care of that little loophole.

[JayS]

11. Let me guess....The Brady Bunch is where this little gem of...

...knowledge comes from.

[denverbill]

13. Which 'gem' are you talking about?

Are you denying that the AWB prohibits large clips or that semiautomatic weapons can be easily converted into automatic weapons?

If the latter, then here's one source.
http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.html

[JayS]

18. Pretty much all of it. The law did ban some high capacity...

...magazines, which you can still buy as dealers stocked up before the ban. A military weapon is select fire; the AWB does not deal with this at all. If a weapon can be converted to full-auto it is considered full-auto by the ATF; however, some older pre-1986 weapons can be converted...but you would not want to do this. And yes, if you can go through all the legal hoops you can own a machine gun, AWB or no AWB.





If you are considering buying an auto sear to convert your AR15 to a full automatic firearm, there is only one option - the registered & transferable DIAS. While it may be tempting to buy a pre-81 to save thousands over the registered sear, the risks are considerable. Possession of an unregistered machine gun (a pre-81 DIAS and an AR15 rifle...or possibly even just a so called “pre-81” DIAS) is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and up to a $10,000 fine, and permanent loss of your right to ever own a gun or vote again. Numerous rumors have circulated that some of the people selling the pre-81 sears are actually BATF operations. Buyer beware.

[Romulus]

36. from your own website:

(I guess some people never bothered to take a look, or don't understand the issue, kind of like conservatives talking about global warming)

http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.html

"The Drop In Auto Sear (DIAS) is a device that is adds an auto sear to an otherwise semi-automatic AR-15 so that when used with M-16 fire control parts including an M-16 carrier produces full auto fire."

A "carrier" being the bolt carrier, which is literally the "heart" of the firearm.



Top: Normal AR-15 Carrier
Middle: Colt "SP1" style Carrier
Bottom: M-16 Carrier



The website goes on and on about things like the m-16 fire control parts, the need to "time" the firearm action, and other topics. . . .

Soooo . . . you need a hell of a lot more than just this advertised part to "convert" this to a full-auto firearm.

Kind of like how one would need more than a cheesy spolier to turn a Mitsubishi Lancer into a NASCAR competitor. :eyes:

[slackmaster]

39. Romulus, you know damn well

That to convert a Lancer into a NASCAR racer all you have to do is put in an upgraded computer chip and paint flames on the side.

:argh:

http://www.laughatrice.com/



(Sorry if that isn't exactly a Lancer, but check out the laughatrice site anyway.)

[Jack_DeLeon]

12. incorrect

Most of the weapons that were "banned" by the AWB were never used in the military.

Also prior to the AWB it was already illegal to convert semi-autos to full-autos without the right paperwork.

[denverbill]

16. OK. So the AR15 is RADICALLY different from the M16 isn't it?

Just because the AR15 wasn't used by the military doesn't mean it isn't almost identical in form and function to the M16, and can be easily converted into fully automatic.


Also prior to the AWB it was already illegal to convert semi-autos to full-autos without the right paperwork.

I guess since it was illegal, nobody did it, right? Sorry, but the sort of people who want fully automatic weapons probably don't bother with paperwork.

[Jack_DeLeon]

17. not what I was talking about.

I said "most" of the weapons banned by the AWB arent used in the military. The AR15 isnt the only weapon banned.

I guess since it was illegal, nobody did it, right? Sorry, but the sort of people who want fully automatic weapons probably don't bother with paperwork.

So what exactly are you arguing for then?

If passing a law that requires machine guns to be registered and whatnot doesnt stop crime, then what makes you think a law that bans "bayonet lugs, flash supressors, collapsable stocks" will do it.

[slackmaster]

22. None of the weapons covered by the AWB are used by any military

Anywhere in the world. They're all semiautomatic.

[denverbill]

25. It's a helluva lot easier to walk into a gun store and buy an AR15

if it's legal, than it is to find someone on the black market, who hopefully is not an undercover cop, who is willing to sell you one. Supplies are limited. Instead of 1,000,000 potential fully-automatic weapons, you may have 10,000.

I'm curious what your argument is.

I say AR15's and many similar semi-automatic weapons are easily converted into fully automatic, and thus should be banned up front, knowing full well that a few rotten apples are going to break the law, manage to get their hands on old AR15's, and own fully automatic weapons.

You seem to be saying that converting AR15's into full auto is easy, but since it requires paperwork, only a few bad apples will do it.

Personally, I'd rather restrict the bad apples access to AR15's in the first place. And if that means a million good apples can't own one either, it's fine by me.

[slackmaster]

26. The AW ban DID NOT take AR-15 type rifles off the market

...Supplies are limited.

No, they are not. Dozens of manufacturers make them. In most states you can walk into a gun store, lay down some money, get your background checked, and walk out with one in a matter of minutes.

In fact the number of makes and models available right now with the ban still in effect is far higher than it was before the ban.

[denverbill]

28. So then what exactly is so awful about the AWB?

If it didn't ban the sale of AR15's or lookalikes, or make them any more difficult to turn into fully automatic weapons, why are NRA types so pissed about it? It's starting to sound like instead of letting AWB die, we ought to create a new AWB with even stricter provisions.

[slackmaster]

29. It's bad law because it serves no good purpose

The public's safety is not enhanced by keeping me from putting a bayonet lug on my AR-15. Because there is no overriding societal interest in preventing me from doing so, the law is inherently bad because it restricts peoples' choices.

It's starting to sound like instead of letting AWB die, we ought to create a new AWB with even stricter provisions.

I respect your right to hold that opinion. I disagree with you, and as a fellow Democrat I advise you that IMO advocating such a position would be bad for the party. If there isn't enough support in Congress to renew the present flaky, pointless ban there surely isn't enough to get a stricter one enacted.

My advice for the Democratic Party is to simply drop the issue. That might swing enough voters in our favor to take back the White House. Maybe not, but it is surely the case that if we let the ban go away and don't push for a new one right now, NOBODY is going to vote Republican instead of Democratic because of it.

Advocates of the ban like my Senator Feinstein are running on ego and emotion, not reason.

BTW I am not an "NRA type".

[Jack_DeLeon]

52. So what is your point then?

If the AWB is so craptacular at not stopping crime then why do people want to keep it around?

I'm against the AWB because I would like the option of putting a pistol grip, bayonet lug, and flash suppressor on my rifle without it being a federal crime.

[JayS]

19. Sadly, people that are willing to break some serious laws...

...can already get a fully functional, fully automatic weapon. You have to have the cash of a drug dealer to get one though, and a drug dealer's connections.

[slackmaster]

21. There's no difference between a pre-ban and a post-ban AR-15

In terms of converting it from semiautomatic to fully automatic. Expiration of the ban WILL NOT make that conversion any easier.

Here's a link to an article that shows the differences between the semiautomatic AR-15 rifle and its selective-fire cousin, the military M16. The fire-control components of the AR-15 - Selector lever, disconnector, hammer, bolt carrier, etc. - are intentionally designed to fire only semiautomatically. Note that in most cases you would have to add metal to change the AR-15 version of a part to the M16 version.

Simply replacing those parts with their M16 counterparts is not sufficient to make the gun fire more than one round per trigger pull. Installing a standard M16 automatic sear requires a permanent modification to the lower receiver, at a minimum drilling a hole with great precision. Once you've done that there is no way to un-drill the hole without it being detectable. You will have turned an expensive rifle into a legal hot potato that can never be used or transferred or even kept without risking serious jail time.

http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/AR15-M16Parts /

This is typical of the level of difficulty you'd encounter in trying to convert most semiautomatic firearms to fully automatic. As I noted previously, the conversion argument is a red herring in this discussion because the AW ban did nothing to make an illegal conversion more difficult.

All modern semiautomatic firearms that are legal for sale in the USA have been intentionally designed to make a full-auto conversion diffidult.

[GregW]

9. Sigh ...

As stated above (and will be countless times below this as the thread grows) ... the AWB has nothing, repeat nothing with banning automatic weapons.

Period.

[Guaranteed]

15. Who the hell cares?

We're going to use our political capital on the stupid AWB??

But why stand up against the PBA ban, right? Or more tax cuts for the ultra-rich?

For Christ's sake, we're on the wrong side of this issue, anyway. Let's get our priorities straight.

[sendero]

27. Amen...

... brother. This is a wedge issue we could neutralize in a second, if people would just stop and think instead of just reacting.

The AWB is a joke. You cannot stop people from getting any weapon they want, only make it a bit more difficult and risky.

Restrictive gun laws will have the same success as drug laws, which is to say "no success at all".

Dems, accept this simple fact - this (gun) issue loses us a lot of votes and any gains we get are only symbolic. Lets save our stand for things that really matter: reproductive rights, economic justice, needless wars, you know - the important stuff.

[JayS]

41. Feinstein and the rest of the Fab Four sure do care. The local...

...radio news here keeps playing some current quotes from Feinstein about the AWB renewal. I don't know if the sound has been modified or she really does sound like nails on a chalkboard. I think you can even hear "Vote Bush" playing over and over in the background.


http://feinstein.senate.gov/photogallery/special-events/photo-gallery-special-events-040302-df-kennedy-schumer-kerry-awb-vote.htm

[slackmaster]

20. Mark Morford is misinformed about the "assault weapons" ban

Please allow me to inject a little reality into this discussion:

1. The AW ban has nothing to do with machine guns i.e. fully automatic weapons. Those have been heavily regulated since 1934, and the few legally owned ones in this country have been used in crimes only a couple of times (literally twice) since then. Expiration of the federal "assault weapons" ban WILL NOT make automatic weapons any easier to acquire, either legally or illegally.

2. The AW ban DID NO STOP THE SALE of semiautomatic Uzis, AK variants, etc. Gun makers were able to comply with the ban by removing some superficial features like folding stocks and bayonet lugs, or by creating new versions of firearms that have plain (i.e. non-threaded) muzzles.

Here's some real information on pre-ban vs. post-ban semiautomatic AK clones:

http://www.ak-47.net/legal/preban.html

And some information on building a legal post-ban Uzi:

http://www.danddsales.com/firearms.htm

These ban-compliant a.k.a. "post-ban" versions have exactly the same operating mechanisms as the banned ones. When the ban expires you'll be able to buy an AK with a bayonet lug or an Uzi with a filding stock once again. Otherwise the weapons will be exactly the same as ones that have been available (in most states) since the day the ban took effect.

I hope that clears up any misunderstandings about availability of legal semiautomatic Uzis and AKs under the assault weapons "ban".

[MrBenchley]

62. Sure thing, slack...

nobody knows anything about assault weapons...except those who cream their jeans everytime they desire one...

[FeebMaster]

66. So you're claiming that the AWB bans machine guns? (nt)

[Cicero]

30. Who the **** IS this moron???

I get sick to damn death of these types. Jesus H. Christ in a chariot-driven sidecar! :wtf:

I don't know where to begin. I literally don't know where to begin with all the spew this guy is putting forth. I'm afraid if I click the link, by the time I get to the end of the full article I'll be screaming incoherently at my monitor and trying to strangle my network cable.

:nuke: :grr:

...

Alright, I went ahead and read all of it. Typical gun-grabbing mentality (or lack thereof).

I'm sorry. I'm going to stop now, otherwise I'll start pulling a Cheney. But I'm going to send him an email later in the day, which is something I almost never do. I'll have calmed down enough to be civil, which is more than I can say for him.

Later,

[JayS]

38. I was going to warn you not to click on the link......n/t

n/t

[w4rma]

34. This isn't very well-researched, imho.

It is my understanding that the AWB does NOT ban a single automatic weapon, as the ones that are banned were *already* banned in previous weapons bans.

It is also my opinion that the AWB is very poorly written. I almost wonder if it was poorly written intentionally to rile folks up.

Let the idiotic law go, imho. The second amendment is there to keep this aspect of power in the hands of regular people so that if our government was overthrown by tyrants and our republic destroyed, we would have the means to deal with them appropriately. I don't expect that our nation will ever have to resort to this, but the threat of being able to resort to this is extremely important, imho.

[bobbyboucher]

43. Is there a ban on grenade launchers? If so, let's get rid of it.

"A grenade launcher in every house" I say. "And an Abrams in every garage."

[slackmaster]

44. 40 mm grenade launcher is a Destructive Device

$200 federal transfer tax just like a machinegun.

But you can buy a 37 mm launcher. That's exempt because they're used as distress signals.

[Merlin]

50. Gun nuts: please tell me why we all can't buy dynamite?

We have licensing provisions for dynamite, and permit its sale for commercial purposes only.

I defend a person's right to own a simple weapon for safety sake and/or for hunting. I have argued against overly stringent gun laws on this site.

But the idiotic notion that weapons of war should be available to anybody--hustled like any other commodity in our consumer culture--is simply ridiculous.

What the hell planet are you people from?

Buy the way, I guarantee you I'm supported by 90% of the public in wanting an ASSAULT WEAPON BAN.

[Jack_DeLeon]

54. "Weapons of War"

Which war are you talking about?

Are you saying that we cant own axes, knives, swords, and machetes because they were used for warfare at one time or another?

Or are you refering to modern day weapons of war?

If you are refering to modern day weapons of war. Then it has nothing to do with the AWB, because modern day assault rifles are machine guns which are not restricted by the AWB but by earlier gun laws.

Buy the way, I guarantee you I'm supported by 90% of the public in wanting an ASSAULT WEAPON BAN.

Prove it?

I seriously doubt 90% of the public support the AWB, and of the people that support it I bet there is a good chunk that only do so because they think it bans machine guns.

Additionally, when the war in Iraq started the majority of the public supported it as well, did that make it right?

PS: Ding 100 posts.

[slackmaster]

59. You CAN buy dynamite

We have licensing provisions for dynamite, and permit its sale for commercial purposes only.

You can buy dynamite for personal use as well.

See http://www.atf.gov/ for all the information you need.

But the idiotic notion that weapons of war should be available to anybody...

So-called "assault weapons" are not weapons of war. No military force on Earth uses any of them.

What the hell planet are you people from?

Evidently a planet where emotional, personal attacks are sometimes used as a substitute for reasoned debate.

Buy the way, I guarantee you I'm supported by 90% of the public in wanting an ASSAULT WEAPON BAN.

Let's see a source for that, and include evidence that the people who support the ban actually understand the issue. I've found that most people don't have a clue or have been duped by years of false information.

[MrBenchley]

63. You should wander down to the gungeon sometime

and see the sort of things our "pro gun democrats" peddle from morning until night...

[hansolsen]

79. I'm a "gun nut", a liberal Democrat, a Kerry supporter, and a citizen

Please see my post number 74 below.

[hansolsen]

74. Morford and Feinstein costing Dems 10 million votes for nothing

Let me add to the discussion by trying to further clarify which guns are which and how lethal and dangerous they are:

1. Fully automatic sub-machine guns (military issue AK47) Huge clip, very rapid fire, and great for close range warfare when somebody is shooting back at you. Can empty a 30 bullet clip in 2 seconds. Drawback -- very inaccurate and hard to use effectively. These are not covered by the AW ban, but by other much older laws.

2. So called Assualt Weapon (the one being banned by the AW ban) These are semi-automatic weapons that look dangerous because they look like military issue, but are not. Can empty a 30 bullet clip in about 5 seconds. Good for short range, but not very accurate when firing fast. The toal number of assualt weapons purchased was never very large compared to hunting rifles, but has probably gone up since the ban.

Note: theoretically can be converted to full automatic -- but this is very problematic and almost never happens -- this conversion issue is a nit on a knats ass.

3. Semi-aoutomatic hunting rifles. About a third of all hunting rifles now in use are semi-automatics. They are just as dangerous as the guns in category 2. They are essentially the same gun except for cosmetic features. They usually come with 5 shot clips but there is no reason a larger clip cannot be used in these guns. They can also be converted to full automatic, but never (rarely) are.

There are probably 50 million semi-automatic rifles in the hands of sportsmen and hunters. If you try to take them away, they will kill you. Dead. On the spot. Every time. Now.

4. Semi-automatic shotguns used for water fowl hunting, upland game, etc. Probably half of all shotguns sold are semi-automatics or pumps, which are almost as fast. A semi-automatic 12 guage shotgun loaded with double "O" buckshot, is probably the single most lethal shortrange weapon ever invented.

There are probably about 100 million semi-aoutmatic or pump shotguns in the hands of sportsmen and hunters. If you try to take them away, they will kill you, and they will do it without losing any sleep over the matter, because they believe in the U.S. constitution, and that our rights really are important.

The Feinstein, bleeding heart liberal assault weapons ban hasn't kept a single person from getting any semi-automatic weapon they wanted, and has resulted in 10s of millions of former Democrats to vote Republican. That is not a good trade off.

It is the single dumbest policy we have followed in my 60 years of watching Democratic politics.

So say I.

[MrBenchley]

76. The hell they are!

70% of voters want an assault weapons ban...and the sort of people who don't want it are the same people who hate blacks, jews, gays and uppity women.

Take look at any of the gun nut forums and all you'll see is the most vicious and dishonest dittohead rubbish on EVERY issue. Most of the assault weapons gang will vote Democrat about the time Strom thurmond rejoins the party...

[OpSomBlood]

90. Will you ever document this magical 70% you keep referring to?

And provide evidence that those 70% have a crystal-clear understanding that the AWB has NOTHING to do with machine guns?

Of course you won't.

[Trashman]

96. Can you back up that statement

MrBenchley?

I don't hate blacks, jews, gays and uppity women.

I still feel it is a stupid and useless law.

Would you please make a list of all the beliefs we should have? I would hate to ever disagree with anyone here. Heaven forbid that we would ever think differently on some issues. :)

[hansolsen]

99. Benchley off on a bender

Sir, don't be confused by the fact that some poll shows that people don't like assault weapons and are okay with having them banned. The bigger issue is overall gun control, and who cares about it.

I personally don't give a damn about the gun nuts on the gun forums -- they are the fringe.

But I do care about the traditional democratic base, including union members who hunt and fish, own ATVs and snowmobiles, enjoy the outdoors, are natural envirnmentalists, and would normally support John Kerry.

We know that in the last election about 40% of the people I just decribed voted for George Bush. One of the main reasons for this shift in alegiance is that they believe gun control legislation:

a. Doesn't work.

b. Is a pain in the ass.

c. Is a long term threat to our democracy.

d. Proves that certain "liberals" are dumber than a box of rocks

e. Gets people to thinking that if we are this dumb on guns, we very well might not know anything about other issues either.

[GoneOffShore]

93. We license cars, why not guns?

Explain it to me like I'm a four year old.
If our society is willing to regulate motor vehicles, for the greater good of everyone, why should we not TRY to keep devices which are inherently more dangerous out of the hands of children, lunatics and the obviously incompetent?
Is this irrational love of guns perhaps related to a lack of tinfoil?

[slackmaster]

95. OK, here goes

You don't need a license to buy or own a car, only to drive one on public roads and highways. To do so you also need to register your car with a state department of motor vehicles; to pay a fee that is used to offset the cost of maintaining roads, providing police services, etc.

Your vehicle registration and driver licence from your home state entitle you to operate your car on public roads and highways in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

If you want to implement a system by which a person can optionally register a gun and obtain an optional license to carry the gun in public in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, that would be fine with me.

[ShaneGR]

97. I'm amazed at all the peeps who thought the writer is right-wing

Seriously, like they couldn't fathom the idea of sarcasm in writing.

[slackmaster]

98. Call me dense, call me stupid, call me naive

But I really don't have a clue what you mean. Are you saying Mr. Morford was just kidding?

:shrug:

[FeebMaster]

103. kick

This is the greatest AWB thread ever. Maybe the best gun thread ever.