Dim-O-Craps STILL hate the Second Amendment! [Archive]

03_SHOOTER

12-21-2008, 10:58 AM

Get ready, because THEY'RE AT IT AGAIN!!

HR 1022 IH (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022)

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1022

To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 13, 2007

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Paragraphs (30) and (31) of section 921(a), subsections (v) and (w) and Appendix A of section 922, and the last 2 sentences of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

(b) Reinstatement of Provisions Partially Repealed- Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:

(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (r), (v), or (w) of section 922;'; and

(2) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:

(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or'.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:

(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

(ii) AR-10;

(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

(iv) AR70;

(v) Calico Liberty;

(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

(xi) M1 Carbine;

(xii) Saiga;

(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

(xv) SLG 95;

(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

(xvii) Steyr AUG;

(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

(xix) Tavor;

(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

(i) Calico M-110;

(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

(v) Uzi.

(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

(i) Armscor 30 BG;

(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

(iii) Striker 12; or

(iv) Streetsweeper.

(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a threaded barrel;

(iii) a pistol grip;

(iv) a forward grip; or

(v) a barrel shroud.

(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

(i) a second pistol grip;

(ii) a threaded barrel;

(iii) a barrel shroud; or

(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a pistol grip;

(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

(K) A conversion kit.

(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

(b) Related Definitions- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

(36) Barrel Shroud- The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.

(37) Conversion Kit- The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

(38) Detachable Magazine- The term `detachable magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm.

(39) Fixed Magazine- The term `fixed magazine' means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm.

(40) Folding or Telescoping Stock- The term `folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a firearm.

(41) Forward Grip- The term `forward grip' means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.

(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

(43) Threaded Barrel- The term `threaded barrel' means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).'.

SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.

Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)'; and

(2) by adding after and below the end the following:

(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.

Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `(3)' and all that follows through the 1st sentence and inserting the following:

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that--

(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action;

(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

(C) is an antique firearm.'.

SEC. 6. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE TRANSFER OF LAWFULLY POSSESSED SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through--

(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or

(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).

(6) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain, in a timely manner, a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime under Federal or State law, and the nature and circumstances of the crime involved, including the outcome of relevant criminal investigations and proceedings. The Attorney General shall annually submit the record to the Congress and make the record available to the general public.'.

--Continued Below--

03_SHOOTER

12-21-2008, 11:03 AM

SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon With Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the following:

(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

(b) Certification Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(A) in paragraph (3)--

(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (B); and

(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); and

(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.

SEC. 8. UNLAWFUL WEAPONS TRANSFERS TO JUVENILES.

Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)--

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'; and

(2) in paragraph (2)--

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

SEC. 9. BAN ON IMPORTATION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) In General- Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)' and inserting `(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B)';

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking `(2) Paragraph (1)' and inserting `(B) Subparagraph (A)'; and

(3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:

(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 921(a)(31)(A) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994'.

And THESE are the slugs that are supporting this clear violation of the Second Amendment (please note that there's not a single Republican on the list). Are any of YOUR mis-representatives on this list?

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY]

Cosponsors [as of 2008-11-06]
Rep. Edward Markey [D-MA]
Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA]
Rep. Bradley Miller [D-NC]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. John Tierney [D-MA]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY]
Rep. William Delahunt [D-MA]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Del. Eleanor Norton [D-DC]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL]
Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D-PA]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA]
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D-CO]
Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA]
Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D-CA]
Rep. James Langevin [D-RI]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA]
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D-NY]
Rep. Kendrick Meek [D-FL]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D-MN]
Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]
Rep. Steven Rothman [D-NJ]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D-NY]
Rep. Joe Sestak [D-PA]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]
Rep. Martin Meehan [D-MA]
Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D-IL]
Rep. William Clay [D-MO]
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D-HI]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D-MD]
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D-MA]
Rep. Albio Sires [D-NJ]
Rep. David Price [D-NC]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA]
Rep. Michael Honda [D-CA]
Rep. Robert Brady [D-PA]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR]
Rep. Albert Wynn [D-MD]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI]
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. John Olver [D-MA]
Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA]
Rep. William Pascrell [D-NJ]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D-PA]

Call them, e-mail them, write them, do whatever you have to do to let them know that you do NOT in any way support this ABORTION, and that if they continue to support it, that they will NOT be getting your vote next time around.

SlightlyCatholic

12-21-2008, 02:26 PM

Is there a good reason why we need assault weapons in society?

fjer

12-21-2008, 02:27 PM

Well this is part of Obama's policy:
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Source:
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Of course, the rest of that paragraph is pretty ridiculous too, apparently he wants to make all guns childproof...

fjer

12-21-2008, 02:36 PM

Is there a good reason why we need assault weapons in society?

The Constitution? A better question is, why should we ban them? The main effect of this ban (at least the original, it looks like they're expanding this one) was to ban guns that looked "scary."

SlightlyCatholic

12-21-2008, 02:38 PM

fjer

12-21-2008, 02:46 PM

Automatic weapons have been banned since, IIRC, the 1930's. This ban applies to semiautomatic weapons.

SlightlyCatholic

12-21-2008, 02:54 PM

Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification. I know in my state Conceal To Carry permits are as elusive as the magical purple elephant and most get denied. Then again, I live in the true blue Northeast. Again, just out of curiosity, is there a real need to have an assault rifle to protect one's home? What's wrong with a sidearm? Perhaps one of the members familiar with firearms here could answer that.

03_SHOOTER

12-21-2008, 04:33 PM

Is there a good reason why we need assault weapons in society?

Yes, the Second Amendment, Title 10 Section 311 and Title 32 Section 313 of the United States Code, as well as the decision in US v Miller (1939).

2nd Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Overview of Title 10 Section 311 and Title 32 Section 313
Every able bodied male, between the ages of 17 and 45, to age 64 if he has served in the United States military, as well as every able bodied female between the ages of 17 and 45 who has served in the United States military is a member of the Unorganized Militia of the United States, and as such is subject to recall to Active Duty by POTUS as outlined in Title 10 USC.

US v Miller
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

Therefore, any weapon that IS part of "the ordinary military equipment or that it's use could contribute to the common defense." IS protected by the Second Amendment, to include what the left likes to call "assault weapons", or as most of us simply call them M-16's, AR-15's, AK-47's, AK-74's, M-60's, M-240's, M-249's, M-203's, M-1 60mm mortars, or any of the other weapons that are on that list that are part of the "ordinary military equipment", or "could contribute to the common defense". IMNSHO, as far as I'm concerned, if you want, and can afford it, you should have unfettered, and unrestricted access to own and operated an M-1A2 Abrams tank, an F-15 fighter, or even a fully armed B-52H Bomber.

Let us not forget that when General Gage ordered his troops to march on Lexington and Concord, he ordered his troops to "seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever." The ordinary citizens of Lexington and Concord had privately owned artillery! It is the duty of every American to own a weapon suitable to military service and to know how to use it. Don't forget that SCOTUS has ruled, repeatedly, that it is not the duty of the Police to protect you, therefore it is your responsibility to protect yourself, your family, your neighbors, your community, your State, and your nation, against foreign invaders, or even your own government should it become despotic, and if you are not properly armed, exactly how do you propose to do that?

03_SHOOTER

12-21-2008, 04:37 PM

Automatic weapons have been banned since, IIRC, the 1930's. This ban applies to semiautomatic weapons.

fjer, while I understand that this is a common misconception, it is a misconception nonetheless. It is still perfectly legal to own and shoot fully automatic weapons, artillery pieces, and even tanks in the United States, but where the problem comes in is the extremely restrictive and un-constitutional 'laws' and regulations that have been imposed on us to do so 'legally'.

4f7wTMnWbqQ

03_SHOOTER

12-21-2008, 04:41 PM

I understand that the Constitution guarantees a right to them. What I'm asking is why someone would feel the need to own one. Why have an AK-47 in your home? I just don't see the need for it. I favor home defense weapons but something like an automatic rifle is a bit much for protecting your home.

The Second Amendment isn't about "home defense" or even hunting ST, it's about defending the country, and the Constitution against our own government if necessary. Recall that when the Revolutionary War was fought, it was fought against King George III, who was the leader of the legal government.

SlightlyCatholic

12-21-2008, 05:14 PM

03_SHOOTER

12-21-2008, 06:28 PM

One thing I don't understand is why you can own a weapon but if you fire it on your own property the police can cite you for a noise complaint. I guess the only thing you're allowed to do during "normal times" is clean it and lock it up.

I don't know about a "noise complaint", but I do know that here if you discharge a firearm within 100' of an occupied dwelling, or towards any dwelling, except in cases of self defense, you will be charged with the equivalent of "reckless endangerment".

Now where I live, out in the country, a lot of my neighbors (who have the room, which sadly, I do not) regularly set up and shoot in their own back yards. It sounds like your problem, and no disrespect intended, is that you live in the city, and have "city" mentality.

txb&b

12-21-2008, 10:30 PM

The proposal is an abomination, but this really caught my eye:

(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

The way this is worded, it sounds like they're also trying to make inroads into taking away all semi-automatic weapons, including those designed for hunting.

SGM

12-21-2008, 10:50 PM

In the long run, one thing leads to another. If they get this, then what do they attack next? Their final goal is to get rid of all fire arm period. They just need a foot hold!!

03_SHOOTER

12-21-2008, 11:26 PM

The proposal is an abomination, but this really caught my eye:

The way this is worded, it sounds like they're also trying to make inroads into taking away all semi-automatic weapons, including those designed for hunting.

That's exactly what they're wanting to do txb&b, which is why the moment PEBO won, every gun store immediately ran out or anything and everything worth having.

HairyEyeball

12-22-2008, 02:30 AM

That abomination is only the half of it: There are also proposals to tax ammunition and reloading components at rates up to 1000% (you read that right - one thousand percent), and that idiotic proposal to laser engrave a serial number on every round, and make non-serialized ammunition illegal is gaining 'serious' consideration at the federal level (as if anything that absurd merits 'serious' anything). Perhaps that's why $500 'black rifles' are selling for $1200, $600 Garands are fetching four figures, and one company alone moved over 18 tons - almost 40,000 lbs. of ammunition in one 3-day gun show in Phoenix and three and a half times that much in Vegas: 7 semi-trailers pulled in full and left empty. A 20-round box of repackaged CMP .30-06 that was marked up to $8 on 05DEC was a 'bargain' at 'only' $20 on the 13th, and unavailable by the 20th.

There's hardly a round of .45acp, .40, 9mm, .223, .30-06 or .308 to be found in southern Arizona. People who've never handled a firearm are buying 3 and 4 at a time, CCW instructors can't keep up with the demand for new classes, and obsolete firearms are coming out of vaults and popping up at gunsmiths for 'rejuvenation' and gun shows for obscene prices. Half the dealers in town have B.O.'s photo prominently featured as 'employee of the month' - the last time manufacturers got this far behind demand, we had just entered WW II.

Woody

12-22-2008, 01:18 PM

CAPSmith

12-22-2008, 01:30 PM

No civilian needs any of those weapons. Better choices for home defence or hunting.

It isn't about home defense or hunting - it's about protecting "The People" from an abusive government. Disarming the populace and limiting them to antique pistols and muzzle loaders makes it a whole lot easier to bend them to your will. If they have equal armament, the chances of a successful government take over become slimmer.

Thats not the point is there any proof that Americans will be safer if these weapons are restricted? Only people who will obey the rules are the law abiding .Who aren't a problem anyway.

Bingo. Of all the statistics I've seen, the places where firearms were criminalized had the worst crime rates, including "gun related crimes" such as armed robberies, murder, etc.

When the SCOTUS knocked down DC's no handgun law, the chief of police in Chicago was screaming bloody murder that they can't do that because they have an crime epidemic in their city. If guns were prohibited, how is it that they have a crime epidemic? Oh, that's right, law abiding citizens didn't have guns - making them easy targets.

YMMV.

JohnP

12-22-2008, 01:41 PM

Woody

12-22-2008, 01:49 PM

03_SHOOTER

12-22-2008, 01:51 PM

HairyEyeball

12-22-2008, 01:51 PM

No civilian needs any of those weapons .Better choices for home defence or hunting .Thats not the point is there any proof that Americans will be safer if these weapons are restricted? Only people who will obey the rules are the law abiding .Who aren't a problem anyway.

Timmy, me boy, you've been a subject of Her Majesty too long: It was civilians armed with personal firearms - equal or superior to those of your lobsterbacks - that tossed her ancestor out. Pull up a copy of our Bill of Rights (03Shooter has been kind enough to provide a link in the 'Politics' section) and read Amendment II: There is no mention of 'need' - or of deer or duck hunting, or self defense. "The shot heard 'round the world" was fired when the army of the duly constituted government, acting on the orders of that legitimate government, attempted to confiscate the privately owned firearms, ammunition, and cannon - the era's 'weapons of mass destruction' - from its loyal subjects.

The fact that a descendant of the 'Empire on which the sun never sets' dared not rise up at the thought of a government again disarming and subjugate its subjects, which his own has, is proof that once-vaunted and feared English blood had thinned to water. The fact that such possesses the audacity, from his servitude, to drag a (reasonably) free nation down to the same miserable level, to turn it into another vast 'designated victim zone', invites only contempt for the nation which blessed us with its values, and foreswore them.

AN ARMED MAN IS A CITIZEN; A DISARMED MAN, A SUBJECT

HairyEyeball

12-22-2008, 02:04 PM

JohnP

12-22-2008, 02:09 PM

03_SHOOTER

12-22-2008, 02:56 PM

I personally don't think the idea that weapon ownership gurantees freedom yugoslavia and Iraq both had lots of weapons in indvduials hands .
Yet they had oppresive governments which ended in anarchy .
And nowadays the myth that a militia could stand against a professional Armed force is laughable .Last time that got tried I think was fallujah and who won that one ?

Tim, we're a nation of some 300 million, and our combined military is just over 1 million including AD, Reserves, and National Guard. Just how many Veterans do you think we have in America? Try 24.5 Million. Are you under the impression that once someone leaves the military that they suddenly forget their weapons and tactics training? Do you think that they suddenly forget the fact that they are the ones that taught to ones who are now in charge of the "professional military" what they know? Do you seriously think that with a 20 to 1 superiority in numbers and experience that our Unorganized Militia couldn't do some serious damage to, if not defeat, ANY "professional military"?

Why do you think we have Posse Comitatus? To protect the citizenry? Don't be ridiculous. We have Posse Comitatus to protect our MILITARY from our citizenry, because the govt knows that if push were to ever come to shove, that our citizenry can not only kick the crap out of our military, they'd probably enjoy doing so, and they really don't want to see that happen (too much money involved).

Woody

12-22-2008, 05:09 PM

Bosia/Hersgovnia and Serbia to name recent incidents.

Who do you think trained the armed militia? You under estimate the power of large groups rising against a government.

A small, poorly trained but well motivated guerrilla force can defeat a large, well trained but poorly motivated army.

Ask the Soviets in Afganistan.

Small guerrilla forced backed with hi tech weapons from the west .The idea that small arms alone would defeat a modern military unit is laughable .Even during your war of independence the militia was not the deciding factor .20:1 is a great number but no air support or artillery or armour or even logistics things aren't as simple .Thats without deciding what % would actually fight the government

Woody

12-22-2008, 05:35 PM

I cannot comment on your intelligence, but your knowledge of history is as abysmal as the lens through which you view that of which you are ignorant is narrow. Comparing what is essentially an armed mob to the 'well-regulated militia' you fail to comprehend is as absurd as the Captain of the Titanic insisting his lookouts be legally blind.

The after action reports of fallujah describe the enemy their tactics and motivation and equipment.They were not simple an armed mob .They were
beaten and not simply by superior firepower .I simply cant see how even a well trained unit with small arms could stand against a modern military unit.
The anti gun argument goes because some criminal might use these
guns in a crime .Or somebody may go postal we cant allow you to have one.
Which seems ridicolous.

JohnP

12-22-2008, 06:19 PM

Small guerrilla forced backed with hi tech weapons from the west .The idea that small arms alone would defeat a modern military unit is laughable .Even during your war of independence the militia was not the deciding factor .20:1 is a great number but no air support or artillery or armour or even logistics things aren't as simple .Thats without deciding what % would actually fight the government

The Serbians were outnumbered 6:1 and went up against tanks with small arms and won.

The Afghanis were taking on tanks by building "tiger traps" then pouring diesel on to the engine housing before the "assistance" provided by the Western nation was very little as compared with the exception of monies (not even a tenth of the amount we gave to the other 3rd world countries fighting communism) and stinger missiles.

Mountains, jungles, dense forest leave the kink in the armor and security provided by the air. Ask our current brethren in the mountains in Afghanistan about how often they can control an entire district. Passify; leave; return to passify again will also not win wars.

This is an open invitation for you to visit my part of this little country. I will introduce you to people you've only read about. These people are the heart and soul of our great United States. They will give you the shirts off their backs and take food out of their own kitchens and share it with a complete stranger. I witnessed again this last friday.

I have employees who are dyed in the wool survivalist, but will stand and salute the flag when it passes by. They have no problem with arguing the Constitution with anyone, and, By God, knocking someone down who infringes upon their rights. It's this same attitude and belief that will cause them to stand against all enemies, foriegn and domestic.

HairyEyeball

12-22-2008, 07:07 PM

You still don't get it, Tim: As far back as the early XII Century, before England had a dream of conquering an empire, every peasant was required by decree of the King to possess such arms as accorded his station, and be proficient in their use. We won our independence - and defended it - with privately owned arms, including cannon, the 'crew-served weapons of mass destruction' of the day; with privately owned armed ships - the frigates, cruisers and battleships of the era. Our own government was kept (somewhat) in check for decades by the fact that 'we the People' were 'the militia', stronger numerically and equipped at least equally with any professional army it could raise.

While the argument you cite is ridiculous (reference 'SpellCheck'), the unfortunate fact is that in a society that fears its government, that has been indoctrinated into submission, that has come to depend for its bread and circuses on the benificence of that government, its idiocy is unquestioned. A free man does not beg permission to bear arms, and a reasonably intelligent cretin would understand as much - but then, even a reasonably intelligent cretin would also understand that by electing such as the Screecher of the House and the Bloat from Boston to misrepresent them, by extorting the productive to provide for the parasitic, by forfeiting the means and tools to resist enslavement, he seals his own doom.

There is not a creature on earth born without the means of defending itself - the very concept of voluntarily depriving itself of it would be insanity of the highest (or lowest) degree, those with 'weapons' band together instinctively for defense: How then is the concept of a human voluntarily surrendering his only defense against predation - on two legs, four legs, or the thousand legs of government - anything but the rankest stupidity?

Read Machiavelli, read Beccaria, read Grotius, read Montesquieu, read Rousseau, read your own English Declaration of Rights. Read the 1181 Assize of Arms, the 1285 Statute of Winchester, read the Act of Henry VIII - all mandate the people be armed, and they were mere subjects, not citizens.

Those illicit 'laws' disarming the once-proud subjects of the Empire, from Greenwich to the Antipodes may have been met with humble submission (and all too late horror and regret); our 'hired help' was somewhat more devious, beginning by taxing the right out of existence (NFA 34), but we - at least some of us - have long memories and are 'made of sterner stuff'. Perhaps the 'news' has not percolated across the pond, but sales of arms and ammunition here have increased by half in November, and are increasing yet this month - and many of those arms are the same (or will be, with the application of basic hand tools) as those possessed by the standing Army - whether or not such be turned against us.

SlightlyCatholic

12-22-2008, 07:59 PM

While the argument you cite is ridiculous (reference 'SpellCheck'),

Now, now...Kiwi is also not from the United States and she gets a pass for improper spelling and grammar. Let's be consistent here.

Would you mind citing your evidence for those of us not "in the know" regarding your sources and where you found your information to back your arguments?

HairyEyeball

12-22-2008, 08:45 PM

Your recollection is faulty.

Among evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible...t is not reasonable to suppose [I]that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed, or that any unarmed man will remain safe among armed servants.

A prince, therefore, who would reign in security, ought to select only such men for his infantry as will cheerfully serve him in war when it is necessary, and be as glad to return home when it is over. This will always be the case with those who have other occupations and employments by which to live.

Such a prince, he explained, would found his state on good laws and good arms. And as there cannot be good laws where there are not good arms, and where there are good arms there must be good laws, I will not now discuss the laws, but will speak of the arms (emphasis added).

Rousseau did not directly address the 'armed citizen' as such, but echoed Machiavelli when referencing the fact that citizens - as opposed to a professional warrior class - trained in the use of arms were 'the army':

[A]ll the victories of the early Romans, like those of Alexander, had been won by brave citizens who were ready, at need, to give their blood in the service of their country, but would never sell it.

They bore their own arms into battle - the arms they kept and practiced with until Veii, when 'mercenaries' - a professional, hired army - supplanted them, and figuratively held their swords to the throats of a disarmed populace.

You might also reference Aristotle, Livy and Ovid, all of whom wrote on the clear connection between men being armed and being free - their own masters - and being disarmed, and slaves.

SlightlyCatholic

12-22-2008, 08:48 PM

I ended up editing my post because I took the time to look up the literary citations and found that very evidence. Your forthrightness in providing that information for myself and the board is appreciated.

03_SHOOTER

12-22-2008, 08:57 PM

Would you mind citing your evidence for those of us not "in the know" regarding your sources and where you found your information to back your arguments?

S.T., mayhaps if you were to take the sparse information HE provided, and done a simple web search you would have found it for yourself.

The Assize of Arms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms) of 1181 is one of the earliest mandates that the citizenry be armed and to train in the use of those arms.

The Assize of Arms of 1252 likewise mandated that the citizenry be armed with bows and arrows, as well as specifying who was to be armed with what other arms.

The Archery Law of 1363 mandated that nearly everyone assemble and practice archery on Sundays and Holidays, and forbade, on pain of death, any and all sport that distracted from training with weapons of war.

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 also makes it clear "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

As I pointed out previously, General Gage's orders to his troops were as follows;
"Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever."

Remember, Google is your friend.

SlightlyCatholic

12-22-2008, 09:07 PM

S.T., mayhaps if you were to take the sparse information HE provided, and done a simple web search you would have found it for yourself.

Remember, Google is your friend.

I am of the belief that a truly credible argument consists of both an opinion and proper evidence to transform that opinion into fact. I have always been taught that an opinion without evidence is simply rambling and has no value in academic debate. I also see it as the poster's responsibility to provide evidence and not the rest of the board's responsibility to fish it out and put the pieces together ourselves. While some of you may know each other personally, that represents a small percentage of the board. The rest of us must evaluate each other not based on experiences or firsthand knowledge but rather by assertions and supporting evidence.

Hairy's post, while informative and probably correct, cannot be substantiated unless the membership here is explicitly given the evidence he bases his claims upon. Rousseau, Aristotle, et al have written several philosophical works. I have no way of ever finding the evidence the poster is using unless it is provided to me, Google or no Google.

I think we've been over this before in another thread, so I won't write a dissertation. All I'm saying is that it would be nice for all of us to cite specific evidence (especially when speaking about matters of history and politics) when making assertions about particular works of literature, dates, or historical events.

HairyEyeball

12-22-2008, 09:15 PM

Appreciate the acknowledgement. There are times I forget there is a difference between the education we received 'in my day' (and in this country) and what has been 'the norm' since. While I may be somewhat opinionated, for those matters in which I claim to speak with some authority, I understand my obligation to accuracy. I also wish my personal library was as extensive as my research warrants, but that's the beauty of the internet (and the accessability of the UA Law Library doesn't hurt).

And Kiwi doesn't 'get a pass' as much as she does it intentionally...and her posts tend to deal with subjects of somewhat lesser gravity.

Murray B

12-22-2008, 09:57 PM

...if you were to take the sparse information HE provided, and done a simple web search you would have found it for yourself.

Remember, Google is your friend.

Sorry to disagree O3_shooter but most stuff on the web contains errors and some is just plain fiction. It takes considerable knowledge and experience to know what is correct. How will the young fellows know which stuff is right?

As to the "assault" gun ban the main problem here seems to be sloppy reasoning on the part of the D.O.D. The only assault rifle ever made was the magnum SMG called the MP44. It was the first and last one ever made and no one anywhere in the world has made one since. Now, THEY (whoever they are) are trying to say that any autoloader with a cartridge size between the 45 ACP and a 30-06 is an assault rifle. The new definition even includes things like the Federov and the M-14.

It is time for all of you to admit that the military uses no assault weapons of any kind and never has.

P.S. Surely, changing the definition of "assault" is no more difficult than changing the definition of "marriage" which has already been done.

SlightlyCatholic

12-22-2008, 10:39 PM

Murray, to follow up on your point, I found a very interesting article. I've posted the conclusion to it, since I feel it's the most conducive to what you're saying.

There's no point in going into detail from this point on. After the US military adopted the M-16 with its .223 round, it was only a matter of time before other countries followed suit. During the seventies NATO went over to the smaller caliber, with European companies producing a considerable range of weapons that could be considered assault rifles. The Soviets meanwhile had been studying the concept of the small-bore, high-velocity load, and in the late seventies introduced a new rifle, basically an adaptation of the AK-47 in 5.45mm. caliber; this saw extensive use in Afghanistan - as did its parent the AK-47, in the hands of the other side.

Today there are quite a number of rifles in existence which could justly be classified as assault rifles; I couldn't name them all and there's no point in trying to do so. In fact the basic assault-rifle template has become pretty much the default style for military rifles, so that the term has become meaningless for military purposes; most modern battle rifles issued by major powers could be considered as assault rifles without stretching the term too badly.

So what, then, is an assault rifle?

We've seen that the assault rifle originated in Nazi Germany during World War II, and that the term itself originated with Adolf Hitler - who was merely indulging in his usual wishful thinking; the StG-44 saw very little "assault" use, because by late '44 the German army was entirely on the defensive and not doing very well at it, but still it's not a bad term; the assault rifle is indeed well adapted to mobile offensive warfare.

We've seen that the rifle Hitler was talking about had certain characteristics which have been shared by its descendants up to the present day:

(1) A cartridge of smaller dimensions than the standard rifle cartridges used in World Wars I and II, and somewhat less power;
(2) The capability to be fired full-automatic, that is like a machine gun;

(3) An in-line stock design and pistol grip, with gas cylinder usually above rather than below the barrel, so that the recoil will come straight back toward the firer's shoulder and thus make the weapon more controllable in full-automatic fire; and

(4) A large-capacity detachable magazine, 20 or 30 rounds or more.

Let's compare these to the criteria set forth in the US Assault Weapons Ban bill recently in the news, as well as in other Federal legislation:

(1) A semi-automatic rifle. Wrong. Full-automatic capability is a sine qua non of the true assault rifle. But since full-auto weapons were already illegal or virtually so - allowed only with prohibitively complicated and expensive licensing procedures - under Federal regulations going back to before World War II, an accurate definition would have made the whole business redundant. And we couldn't have that, could we?

(2) Detachable magazine. This is an absolute requirement under the terms of the Assault Weapons Ban: no detachable magazine, then it isn't considered an assault weapon. Correctly so; this is indeed a characteristic of the true assault rifle.

(3) Any two of the following:

Pistol grip type stock. Correct in a sense but irrelevant; the purpose of this type of stock is to make the assault rifle easier to control in full-automatic fire. In a semi-auto it has no effect one way or another; it is purely a matter of appearance and personal taste.

Bayonet mount, Totally irrelevant; most military rifles for centuries have taken bayonets, and at the same time some legitimate assault rifles don't.

Flash hider, grenade launcher, and/or threaded barrel. Equally irrelevant; these are features of military rifles, but not particularly the "assault" type - in fact the original assault rifle, the StG-44, didn't have a grenade launcher in its first versions, or a flash hider either. (It is claimed that a threaded barrel makes it possible to fit a silencer. In fact, for technical reasons, a rifle of this type cannot be effectively silenced.)

It will be seen that the SKS, so frequently referred to by the activists and the media as an "assault rifle," is no such thing, either by the correct military definition or that of the Assault Weapons Ban.

It will also be seen that the official definition of "assault rifle" has very little to do with the true meaning of the term - or indeed with anything to do with the effectiveness of a weapon, or its potential use in violent crime (how many drive-by bayonetings have you heard of?) - and is more concerned with cosmetic issues. Basically an "assault rifle," as the term is used by political activists and careless journalists, is any rifle that looks scary.

The activists would be far closer to the target if they would speak of "military-style rifles." That is really what they mean; and it would have the advantage, from their viewpoint, of taking in several non-assault-type weapons that they also would like to ban, such as the SKS and the M-1 carbine.

But "assault" sounds so much more menacing. So much more powerful and dangerous.

The man who coined the term "assault rifle" also said, "What matters is not what is true, but what is believed."

And they know very well how that works.

Link: http://www.sff.net/people/sanders/ar.html

03_SHOOTER

12-22-2008, 10:44 PM

Sorry to disagree O3_shooter but most stuff on the web contains errors and some is just plain fiction. It takes considerable knowledge and experience to know what is correct. How will the young fellows know which stuff is right?

The same way Hairy and I learned it Murray, by doing a LOT of reading.

As to the "assault" gun ban the main problem here seems to be sloppy reasoning on the part of the D.O.D. The only assault rifle ever made was the magnum SMG called the MP44. It was the first and last one ever made and no one anywhere in the world has made one since. Now, THEY (whoever they are) are trying to say that any autoloader with a cartridge size between the 45 ACP and a 30-06 is an assault rifle. The new definition even includes things like the Federov and the M-14.

It is time for all of you to admit that the military uses no assault weapons of any kind and never has.

P.S. Surely, changing the definition of "assault" is no more difficult than changing the definition of "marriage" which has already been done.

While the Sturmgewehr 44 may have been the first weapon to carry the name "assault rifle", the fact remains that any rifle that is used in the assault phase of a military operation is an "assault rifle".

What this does not do however is address the fact that the Second Amendment is quite clear, and makes no exceptions for "arms" that SanFranNan or any of the other gun grabbers 'don't like', or the fact that private ownership of these weapons is no different than the Founding Fathers owning a Brown Bess Musket, or a Pennsylvania Rifle, which were the "assault rifles" of the day. They're not the least bit interested in "gun control", they're interested in people control, just like every other despotic dictator has done throughout history, and they know that in order for them to be able to exercise their totalitarian Fascist control over We The People, the first thing they have to do is disarm us so that we cannot easily or effectively resist their tyranny.

HairyEyeball

12-23-2008, 12:05 AM

First, Murray, you'll have to watch your language: The article Tim excerpted references - and fairly well defines - an 'assault rifle'; the term 'assault weapon' is absurd on its face, as meaningless as 'Saturday night special'. 'Assault' is a behavior, not an object: If I hit you with a brick or a Louisville Slugger, by definition, they become 'assault weapons'.

Additionally, caliber is irrelevant, appearance is primary: A standard Ruger 10-22 was, in original form, (barely) 'acceptable' under wet willie's 'ugly gun ban' - but remove the wood stock, place it in a black plastic stock molded from that original, and it was an 'assault weapon' - in .22 rimfire caliber. Under that same lunacy, a standard broomstick, when an empty 20-round magazine, flash supressor, and pistol grip was duct taped to it, let alone a bayonet lug (gotta do something about that rash of drive-by bayonetings), was equally a full-fledged 'assault weapon'.

The term is smoke and mirrors, intended to mislead the gullible, just as the term 'gun control' as commonly misused has little to do with guns, as 03 pointed out, and everything to do with control: True 'gun control' is placing all of your rounds in one ragged hole.

And 'marriage' - as in the rite of marriage - is a religious term; the only connection (or 'hook' to regulate it) the government has is through the 'civil' aspect, primarily as a means of revenue, control, and registration.

As to the wealth of 'information overload' available online, again, 03 'hit the high points': The more you agglomerate, the easier it becomes to distinguish between fact and fiction, authority and opinion. In discussions on the Constitution, the 'source documents' are readily available - not only the document itself, but the voluminous writings of its framers. Classicly educated in the European tradition as they were, the logical conclusion would be that they drew on many of the references I cited, expounding on them in their own writings, and integrating their finest ideas into their own philosophy. That conclusion would be correct.

As the fictional Sherlock Holmes observed, when the impossible is discounted, all that is left, no matter how unlikely, is the probable. From that perspective, given the background of the Framers, their intent - and that of the gun-grabbers - should be obvious, and anything that contradicts it should be greeted with skepticism.

Murray B

12-23-2008, 12:18 AM

Murray, to follow up on your point, I found a very interesting article. I've posted the conclusion to it, since I feel it's the most conducive to what you're saying.

Actually ST the piece is not really conducive to what I am saying. Without resorting to yet more opinion let us now get down to case dimensions. Before the 1911 Browning there was a standard sidearm in US service the Colt SAA (if memory serves). It used the .45 Long Colt and that case was about 32.6 mm long. This is effectively the same length as the 8mm X 33 Kurz. Now can you provide the body diameters of these cartridge cases?

The same way Hairy and I learned it Murray, by doing a LOT of reading.

Between the two of you I imagine there is over a century of experience. This allows you to filter out the crap. No matter how much a twenty-something reads they will not be able to understand the material in the same way. To really learn they need to get it from people with experience, not computers. I ought to know because I am a ‘computer guy’ by trade.

While the Sturmgewehr 44 may have been the first weapon to carry the name "assault rifle", the fact remains that any rifle that is used in the assault phase of a military operation is an "assault rifle".

Yes, I know that the DoD has copied Hitler. Can you provide the DoD definition of an “assault rifle” and/or “assault weapon”?

What this does not do however is address the fact that the Second Amendment...

You are preaching to the choir with that one. I am a Canadian gun owner and about $1500 worth of my property, that has been legally registered for 30 years, has now made the prohibited list. The law says that my government can take this property without paying compensation.

Several years ago many Canadians tried to reason with THEM but it achieved nothing. They are “tyrants” as you say, so why help by defining the weapons that are to be banned? Much better for the DoD to admit their error, correct it, and let the government re-write the laws.

Maybe I am wrong but I am trying to think of something that will work better than the things we tried before.

SlightlyCatholic

12-23-2008, 12:22 AM

Actually ST the piece is not really conducive to what I am saying. Without resorting to yet more opinion let us now get down to case dimensions. Before the 1911 Browning there was a standard sidearm in US service the Colt SAA (if memory serves). It used the .45 Long Colt and that case was about 32.6 mm long. This is effectively the same length as the 8mm X 33 Kurz. Now can you provide the body diameters of these cartridge cases?

Well, my apologies for giving contradictory support. I tried to contribute but I think I'll bow out of this discussion as it appears I'm way out of my league. I know very little about firearms and ammunition.

Murray B

12-23-2008, 12:45 AM

Well, my apologies...

No need to apologize because you have contributed something valuable. The article does mis-characterize the round as do most sources these day but that is not your fault. It also shows that the "assault" term has become far too broad.

HairyEyeball

12-23-2008, 12:53 AM

Tim, it's not about arms and ammunition, it's about the Law, about the Constitution and the nation founded on it, about certain inalienable rights man was endowed with by his Creator.

Unfortunately, Canada doesn't have an equivalent to our Second Amendment (not that it's been all that effective here with one), and 'morality' is a poor short-term weapon against government...but even there, Murray makes a telling point:

I am a Canadian gun owner and about $1500 worth of my property...legally registered for 30 years...my government can take this property without paying compensation.

The law says they can, but as yet, they haven't attempted to. Perhaps they realize that should they make the attempt, enough would resist to demonstrate the fallaciousness of the law, and perhaps topple the government that enacted and kept it.

03_SHOOTER

12-23-2008, 01:53 AM

Between the two of you I imagine there is over a century of experience. This allows you to filter out the crap. No matter how much a twenty-something reads they will not be able to understand the material in the same way. To really learn they need to get it from people with experience, not computers. I ought to know because I am a ‘computer guy’ by trade.

Good point, to an extent, but like HE, I hold out hope that those of the younger generation will, considering the relative ease of finding information today, avail themselves of it without constantly resorting to asking others.

Yes, I know that the DoD has copied Hitler. Can you provide the DoD definition of an “assault rifle” and/or “assault weapon”?

While I was unable to find an "on-line" copy of it, I have seen references to an Army Intel document from 1970 that defines an "assault rifle", and in fact it wasn't at all uncommon during my service days to refer to our M-16's as "assault rifles", in preference to the term "battle rifle" that the M-1's and M-14's were known by.

You are preaching to the choir with that one. I am a Canadian gun owner and about $1500 worth of my property, that has been legally registered for 30 years, has now made the prohibited list. The law says that my government can take this property without paying compensation.

Sounds like it's time for guys like you to take your weapons and come south, and we can send all of our pansies up north. :)

Several years ago many Canadians tried to reason with THEM but it achieved nothing. They are “tyrants” as you say, so why help by defining the weapons that are to be banned? Much better for the DoD to admit their error, correct it, and let the government re-write the laws.

Maybe I am wrong but I am trying to think of something that will work better than the things we tried before.

I'm not 'helping' them define anything, they've had a nasty habit of re-writing the English dictionary to suit their own agendas since before I was a glimmer in my fathers eye. Also, I don't believe that the DoD has any part in this (although I could be wrong), as it's our Dim-O-Crap mis-representatives in both houses of Congress who are trying to revisit the previous "black gun ban" of the 90's.

The one advantage that we have, that you didn't, is the fact that our Right to "...keep and bear arms..." is written into our Constitution, and has been for over 200 years, and so long as it is, we've at least got a 'fighting chance' before they do something completely stupid, and if they do, then we'll have all of the legal justification in the world for seeing if they really do have the courage of their convictions, and are willing to pay for the opportunity to disarm us with their lives.

Murray B

12-23-2008, 03:30 AM

... about certain inalienable rights man was endowed with by his Creator.

Well said. This is a kind of anti-tyranny, I think.

The law says they can, but as yet, they haven't attempted to.

About 20% of the time the more conservative party is in power as is the case right now. Since we have more than two parties it is possible for a government to be in the minority as is also the current case. One of the opposition parties made the anti-gun law and built the billion-dollar gun registry. They were defeated before they could collect the first of the prohibited weapons. The current government has been unable to eliminate the registry possibly because they are in the minority.

Recently, the opposition parties got together and announced that they have no confidence in the next government budget even though it has not been written yet. They have also asked that the Governor General transfer power to the largest opposition party instead of having an election, which is what would normally happen. If the power is transferred without a vote and some provinces do not recognize the new government then there is bound to be trouble. We will know next month.

For me, it is not so much about the guns but about the rights we are losing and the ones that will be lost next. If they were going to seize snowmobiles I would be just as upset, even though I don’t own one.

These sort of events makes what you fellows are posting absolutely vital to the future of your nation in particular and democracy in general. Please keep it up since the threat is absolutely real but at the same time almost invisible to most people.

Murray B

12-23-2008, 06:08 AM

Good point, to an extent, but like HE, I hold out hope that those of the younger generation will, considering the relative ease of finding information today, avail themselves of it without constantly resorting to asking others.

Yes, they should do their homework but no matter how much they study the theory they will still need your guidance to make sense of it all.

While I was unable to find an "on-line" copy of it, I have seen references to an Army Intel document from 1970 that defines an "assault rifle", and in fact it wasn't at all uncommon during my service days to refer to our M-16's as "assault rifles", in preference to the term "battle rifle" that the M-1's and M-14's were known by.

Actually, I have never found "assault rifle" or similar in any version of the DoD dictionary and I expect that it is an unappproved term. Some Vietnam veterans that I know of had other nicknames for the M-16 that were less flattering than "assault rifle". These terms are not in common use so I won't repeat them. What shocks me is how the term "assault rifle" is now used almost universally by active service personnel. The M-16 is better described as a light battle rifle especially considering the 3 rd burst mode.

From what I can see some historian screws up on the history of the MP44 and then the whole thing just snowballed into nonsense.

Even if the project that became the MP44 had once concieved of using an intermdiate cartridge there is no doubt that the production model used a large pistol cartridge.

Here are the dimensions from Steve in Montana <http://stevespages.com>

.45 Colt - 32.64mm long X 12.19mm around straight
8mm Kurz - 33.0mm long X 11.95mm tapering to 11.28 at the shoulder.

The MP44 designers correctly classify the weapon as a machine pistol and do not lie to the Nazi party about the characterstics. The Colt 45 is one of the most famous handguns in the world and the Nazis must have known about it.

The MP44 is really a SMG based on a magnum pistol cartridge. It is really too lightweight to be controllable with that cartridge on full auto. At least no where near the accuracy of a Thompson. If it were semi-auto [I'm not sure if it had this mode or not] then battle rifles and light battle rifles are better because they weigh less and have much greater range.

Given that no one that I am aware of ever used a magnum SMG again I expect that it was something that looked good on paper but worked poorly in practice.

Sounds like it's time for guys like you to take your weapons and come south, and we can send all of our pansies up north. :)

Thanks for the invite but the last thing the U.S.A. needs right now is more immigrants. Nope, I'm going to stay right here and see if there is anything I can do to help fix the darn thing.

I'm not 'helping' them define anything, they've had a nasty habit of re-writing the English dictionary to suit their own agendas since before I was a glimmer in my fathers eye.

I apologise for saying that you helped them. The problems do go back a long way but I do not understand the glimmer reference. Weren't you left by a stork in the cabbage patch like I was? At least, that was what they told me.

Also, I don't believe that the DoD has any part in this (although I could be wrong)

No, I expect that you are right but it is essential to understand what is causing the problem before it can be fixed. Clearly, someone with knowledge of firearms is helping them.

...as it's our Dim-O-Crap mis-representatives in both houses of Congress who are trying to revisit the previous "black gun ban" of the 90's.

Well, I am neither Democrat nor Republican as weren't my parents and grandparents before me. Nevertheless, your statement is very funny.

The one advantage that we have, that you didn't, is the fact that our Right to "...keep and bear arms..." is written into our Constitution, and has been for over 200 years, and so long as it is, we've at least got a 'fighting chance' before they do something completely stupid, and if they do, then we'll have all of the legal justification in the world for seeing if they really do have the courage of their convictions, and are willing to pay for the opportunity to disarm us with their lives.

Your Constitution is a great constitution and I would like to something like it for Canada but it seems that not everyone in your country is trying very hard to comprehend it. There was even, as I understand it, at least one President that believed it made him king.

daves military display

12-23-2008, 08:19 AM

I own 3 weapons on that list, they have never hurt anyone unless their sneaking out of the safe while I'm not home. They are for stress relief, about the only vice I have. People say "you don't need anything like that for protection", a handgun will do" Their logic applies to cars also, your corvette will do 140+ why have it, you can't drive that fast around here. My home defense weapon is a GP100 357 mag , simple, no mag, no jam and gets the point across.
They asked an officer why he carried a 45, he said because they don't make a 46

03_SHOOTER

12-23-2008, 11:08 AM

Yes, they should do their homework but no matter how much they study the theory they will still need your guidance to make sense of it all.

We do try.

Actually, I have never found "assault rifle" or similar in any version of the DoD dictionary and I expect that it is an unappproved term.

As I said, I've seen several references to "US Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70, November 1970" being referenced to in the book "Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide - Eurasian Communist Countries" by Harold E. Johnson. It was prepared for the U.S. Army Foreign Science and Technology Center of the Army Material Command. Later editions were prepared for the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The quote is on page 67 of this edition in section III, part A, paragraph 68a, and reads: "Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges." The paragraph concludes: "Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters." SOURCE (http://www.gunfax.com/gf0903.txt)

Now, I want to make it clear that while I have found this reference, I have not been able to independently verify this, as I have not found an actual copy of "US Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70", nor do I physically possess the afore referenced book, but as I said previously, our instructors were referencing the M-16 as an "assault rifle" as opposed to a "battle rifle" in the early 80's, which gives me reason to give the aforementioned reference at least tentative credence.

Thanks for the invite but the last thing the U.S.A. needs right now is more immigrants. Nope, I'm going to stay right here and see if there is anything I can do to help fix the darn thing.

My pleasure, and I appreciate and respect the fact that you would wish to stay and fix your country if you can, but if things get too stupid and you need to "get out of dodge", just know that you're always welcome here.

Your Constitution is a great constitution and I would like to something like it for Canada but it seems that not everyone in your country is trying very hard to comprehend it. There was even, as I understand it, at least one President that believed it made him king.

Murry B, if you'd like to, feel free to use our Constitution, as not too many people here are, and even our elected mis-representatives seem bent on ignoring it at every opportunity.

JohnP

12-23-2008, 01:32 PM

An assault rifle is a selective fire (automatic and semi-automatic) rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and SVT-40. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle, and the Steyr AUG.

Semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and civilian versions of the AK-47 are not assault rifles, as they are not selective fire. Nor do belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines meet the definition of an assault rifle.

Wikepedia

Definition of assault weapon per the Assault weapon ban:

Note: there are differing definitions of 'assault weapon' that are listed at Assault weapon. This page refers to the usage in the United States under the previous and proposed assault weapon bans.
The term "assault weapon" in the context of civilian rifles has been attributed to gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann. Assault weapon refers to semi-automatic firearms (that is, firearms that, when fired, automatically extract the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber, ready to fire again and not fire automatically like a machine gun) that were developed from earlier fully-automatic weapons. By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine
The earlier term assault rifle, refers to rifles that are select-fire (that is, rifles that are capable of either semi-automatic or fully-automatic fire), firing intermediate-power rounds (such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, or 7.62 x 39 mm), which along with fully automatic pistols, provided the pre-cursor for the term "assault weapon." In contrast, the term assault weapon as used in civilian and U.S. legal usage refers to a semi-automatic weapon with certain features, as listed above. The ban did not cover "assault rifles" but merely the new category of "assault weapons" which did not include automatic weapons of any type.

An unpublished 2004 study commissioned by the United States Department of Justice found that assault weapons were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban, about 2 percent according to most studies and no more than 8 percent. Large capacity magazines that are also covered by the ban, however, are used in crime much more often than AWs and accounted for 14% to 26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban. Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined by this study.

JohnP

12-23-2008, 01:36 PM

Other interesting reading:

Assault Weapons Ban 2008 bill
H.R. 6257 was introduced by Mark Kirk [R IL-10] on June 12, 2008 and seeks to re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban for a period of ten years, as well as to expand the list of banned weapons. The bill was also referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on 7/28/08. It has four co-sponsors (as of November 5, 2008) supporting it:

Rep Castle, Michael N. - [R DE-1] - 6/12/2008
Rep Ferguson, Mike - [R NJ-7] - 6/12/2008
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana - [R FL-18] - 6/18/2008
Rep Shays, Christopher - [R CT-4] - 6/12/2008

[edit] Urban policy agenda of President-elect Obama
Shortly after the November 4, 2008 election, Change.gov, the website of the office of President-elect Barack Obama, listed a detailed agenda for the forthcoming administration. This includes "making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent

03_SHOOTER

12-23-2008, 05:16 PM

HairyEyeball

12-23-2008, 06:03 PM

A perfect example of the fatuousness of relying on wackypedia: The term 'assault weapon' is meaningless (see my earlier harangue). As to the 'minimum set of features', any of them may be duct taped to a walking stick, making it an 'assault weapon under this 'definition'. Conversely, even a primitive cane - a stout tree limb trimmed to size, with no further embellishment - becomes an 'assault weapon' only when an if one utilizes it as a vehicle for initiating an 'assault' - but not as a defensive weapon to repel one.

When you allow the opposition to dictate the terms of the discussion, you have already lost: Words have meanings, and redefining them to suit a political agenda ('gay' still means lighthearted and cheerful) is neither more nor less than Orwell warned against with his 'Ministry of Truth'; blindly adopting the perverted 'meaning' assigned a word by someone with an agenda is the mark of Lenin's 'useful idiots'.

And yes, someone probably will take umbrage at the use of 'gay' and 'perverted' in the same sentence - underscoring the point.

The theory behind the 'assault rifle' concept is that it is capable of accurate, sustained fire by an advancing infantryman, and uses ammunition light enough in weight so that sufficient amounts can be carried while also possessing greater range and accuracy than a handgun. The theory was examined during WW I with the "Pedersen Device" for the 1903A3 Springfield and again during WW II with the Carbine, M-1A with selector switch, and found impractical - which goes a long way to explain both the genesis of the Mattel toy in the 1960s, and the 'spray-and-pray' mentality that it engendered...and the subsequent downplaying of marksmanship anywhere but on the qualification range.

HairyEyeball

12-23-2008, 06:11 PM

What's even more interesting (but nor surprising) is when you research the records of the sponsor and co-sponors of HR. 6257 and discover that they're not only RINO's (Republicans In Name Only), but are actually ideologically Democrat. Makes you wonder if the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan isn't gone forever.

And now, from the Deparment of Redundancy Department: By definition, 'RINO' means 'liberal'. When a politician chooses a party affiliation, the choice is generally made on how well it 'plays' in his district. A prime example would be the classic 'How many legs has a camel if you call its tail a leg?' The answer is still four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one, and calling a leftist a 'Republican' doesn't make him one (end rant).

By the same token, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Goldwater and Reagan is far from dead, merely covered with a mildly toxic, useless fungus grown from complacency and 'big-tent-itis'. It is alive and well, albeit in isolated strongholds, and has just begun flexing its muscles for 2010.

Murray B

12-24-2008, 04:07 AM

As I said, I've seen several references to "US Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70, November 1970" being referenced to in the book "Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide - Eurasian Communist Countries" by Harold E. Johnson. It was prepared for the U.S. Army Foreign Science and Technology Center of the Army Material Command. Later editions were prepared for the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The quote is on page 67 of this edition in section III, part A, paragraph 68a, and reads: "Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges." The paragraph concludes: "Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters." SOURCE (http://www.gunfax.com/gf0903.txt)

Now, I want to make it clear that while I have found this reference, I have not been able to independently verify this, as I have not found an actual copy of "US Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70", nor do I physically possess the afore referenced book, but as I said previously, our instructors were referencing the M-16 as an "assault rifle" as opposed to a "battle rifle" in the early 80's, which gives me reason to give the aforementioned reference at least tentative credence.

Thanks 03_shooter, the information is gold and I would not have found it in a million years. Wonder what they mean by "effective" since I doubt that Sgt. K's little 7.62 X 39 is going to deliver accurate full automatic fire to 300 meters. Even Stoner's little 5.56 it too light for the round to be accurate at that range. I understand that little FN belt-fed can but it has got to weigh 18 pounds or so.

...just know that you're always welcome here.

Over the years I have travelled to the Pacific Northwest many times and was always treated well. The worst problem I ever had was in Bellingham WA when I was seven or eight years old. We went into a department store and I was given a dollar to buy a toy. I found a little red Dinky Toy race car for 99 cents and took the car and my dollar to the till. The lady told me that a dollar wasn't enough and I knew for sure that a dollar was more than 99 cents. She just wanted the car for herself because it was the only red one, or so I thought. There was no way I was going to leave without my car and that clerk wasn't going to accept 99 cents. It became a Mexican standoff and we just stood there glaring at each other. Finally, a kind lady shopper came by and started laughing. She said, "he doesn't understand the tax. He must be from Alberta." Then the kind lady paid the five cents or whatever the ransom was and I finally had my little red car. Since that fateful day I have absolutely hated taxes.

Sorry, but that is about the worst thing about the U.S.A. that I can remember.

...feel free to use our Constitution, as not too many people here are, and even our elected mis-representatives seem bent on ignoring it at every opportunity.

If it were up to me then I would call for a conference to use your Constitution as a pattern but adding some "or else" clauses to reduce the "ignoring" problem.

Murray B

12-24-2008, 05:45 AM

An assault rifle is a...

Since the discussion is about the soundness of current definitions the definition you quote can not be used to validate itself. Why do you think the definition you quote is correct?

I will give some reasons why I believe it is not correct.

The first production "assault rifle" is the German MP44. It must belong to the class because it is the class prototype. The U.S.S. Spruance is automatically a Spruance class destroyer, if you see what I mean.

It is a machine pistol as the MP indicates because the cartridge is no larger than the .45 long Colt which was used in the standard U.S. sidarm before the 1911 Browning made by Colt. The cartridge is not intermediate because it is a large pistol cartridge. The MP44 is about 11 pounds and so is the Thompson. Colonel Thompson made it heavy so that it would be controllable when firing fully automatically. The MP44 SMG is also heavy for this reason but it is unlikely that it was easily controlled. The higher energy cartridge really demands a much heavier weapon to be as stable as the Thompson.

It is really just another overated German weapon from WWII. Better than a 1898 Mauser but that does not say much since that weapon belongs in the first war and not the second.

Pretty much all the other "assault rifles" are not that close to an MP44. The AK-47 is about 9 1/2 pounds which is lighter than the MP44 and the 7.62 X 39 is an intermediate cartridge with more energy than the 8mm Kurz.

An unpublished 2004 study commissioned by the United States Department of Justice found that assault weapons were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban, about 2 percent according to most studies and no more than 8 percent. Large capacity magazines that are also covered by the ban, however, are used in crime much more often than AWs and accounted for 14% to 26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban. Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined by this study.

What is the point of quoting a study by one branch of your government to evaluate the effectiveness of another. It is a waste of taxpayers money. Unless something totally strange is going on the government will always give the government straight "A"s.

03_SHOOTER

12-24-2008, 06:58 AM

Thanks 03_shooter, the information is gold and I would not have found it in a million years. Wonder what they mean by "effective" since I doubt that Sgt. K's little 7.62 X 39 is going to deliver accurate full automatic fire to 300 meters. Even Stoner's little 5.56 it too light for the round to be accurate at that range. I understand that little FN belt-fed can but it has got to weigh 18 pounds or so.

While I could be wrong, it is my understanding that since they chose to use the word "effective" in lieu of "accurate", that they are saying that the rounds fired will be effective against a human target at 300 yards.

...Since that fateful day I have absolutely hated taxes.

Sorry, but that is about the worst thing about the U.S.A. that I can remember.

Murray B, if taxes are the worst thing that you can come up with to say about America, you've got a better appreciation/understanding of American than more than half of our population!

If it were up to me then I would call for a conference to use your Constitution as a pattern but adding some "or else" clauses to reduce the "ignoring" problem.

Remember that when our Constitution was written, the language that the FF's very carefully selected was understood to be "or else", but over the passage of time, their words have been subverted to mean only what the politicians in all 3 branches want them to mean. One of my favorite examples of this is the concept of "legal standing" where the government decides whom they will allow to "petition for redress of grievance", thereby effectively nullifying some rather important aspects of our Constitution.

It's not good enough that a lot of people recognize the very simple truth that the verbiage of the Second Amendment renders every firearms law in America unconstitutional on it's face, in order to take the government to court and compel them to comply with the Constitution, I would have to demonstrate that I have been directly effected by their unconstitutional law, which usually means that I would have had to violate their unconstitutional law, and been found guilty of violating it before they would permit me to challenge the constitutionality of it, and even then, they have the deck stacked so effectively against We The People that they can even decide not to hear my appeal at all because after all, if I've violated the law, I'm a "criminal", and everyone knows that "criminals" only file frivolous lawsuits! Frankly, they're rapidly approaching the same level of despotism that caused the FF's to take their .75 caliber Brown Bess Muskets, shove 'em in King George III's face and telling him to SOD OFF!!!

HairyEyeball

12-24-2008, 09:04 AM

Murray, if enough of your countrymen think that way, and believe our Constitution is worth having, feel free to use it. We haven't in years.

Just to hit some of the 'low points', Article I (which, despite Joe Biden's abysmal ignorance, deals with the legislature) Section 8 clearly enumerates 17 specific and one general duty of said legislature. The final paragraph of that Section clearly begins: "To make all laws..." Nowhere is there a clause or caveat allowing them to sluff that mandate off on unelected bureaucracies, accountable to no one: No 'law' emanating from the likes of OSHA, BATFEIEIO, or any of the myriad alphabet soup agency is valid or enforceable except by force or the threat of force, and any such is also illicit - as the government employing any such force is 'the servant rising against the master'. Our elected representatives - our 'hired help' - have effectively revolted, and we have not put down that uprising.

That same Article provides for a bicameral legislature: The 'People's House', elected by the masses, and the Senate, intended to give each individual State equal representation, regardless of its population or wealth. In an early act of socialist subversion, that distinction was engineered out under false pretenses with the XVII Amendment, giving us two 'People's Houses', one serving longer terms and neither representing anything but their own interests.

The intent - and the origin of our two-party system - was to balance the 'strong central government' faction and the 'individual sovereign States united' faction; the Bill of Rights containing declaratory and restrictive clauses guaranteeing individual liberty a condition of ratification. That intent has been perverted, subverted, undermined, ignored, and more honored in the breach than the observance.

Feel free to take it - perhaps you can do a better job.

JohnP

12-24-2008, 11:43 AM

Since the discussion is about the soundness of current definitions the definition you quote can not be used to validate itself. Why do you think the definition you quote is correct?

I will give some reasons why I believe it is not correct.

The first production "assault rifle" is the German MP44. It must belong to the class because it is the class prototype. The U.S.S. Spruance is automatically a Spruance class destroyer, if you see what I mean.

It is a machine pistol as the MP indicates because the cartridge is no larger than the .45 long Colt which was used in the standard U.S. sidarm before the 1911 Browning made by Colt. The cartridge is not intermediate because it is a large pistol cartridge. The MP44 is about 11 pounds and so is the Thompson. Colonel Thompson made it heavy so that it would be controllable when firing fully automatically. The MP44 SMG is also heavy for this reason but it is unlikely that it was easily controlled. The higher energy cartridge really demands a much heavier weapon to be as stable as the Thompson.

It is really just another overated German weapon from WWII. Better than a 1898 Mauser but that does not say much since that weapon belongs in the first war and not the second.

Pretty much all the other "assault rifles" are not that close to an MP44. The AK-47 is about 9 1/2 pounds which is lighter than the MP44 and the 7.62 X 39 is an intermediate cartridge with more energy than the 8mm Kurz.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound". Sturmgewehr was coined by Adolf Hitler[1] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder;
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles for commercial or political reasons.

The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges".

From Gunpedia

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr meaning "Storm Rifle", (Storm used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound"). Sturmgewehr was coined by Adolf Hitler to describe the MP44, the firearm generally considered the first practical widely-used assault rifle. The newly renamed Sturmgewehr 44 or StG44 is the effective progenitor of the concept. It gradually became the common term for the sub-family of similar firearms. The term has also been used retroactively with earlier weapons possessing various similar traits. The term signals a shift in battlefield doctrine to intermediate-power rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-74. Earlier infantry rifles categorized as Battle Rifle's generally fired larger cartridges. Examples of Battle Rifle's are the SIG SG510, H&K G3, and FN FAL.

History

1900s–1930s: Pre-Sturmgewehr Light automatic rifles
These automatic firearms tended to use used pre-existing rifle cartridges, kinetic energy ranged between 3,000–5,000 J (2,200–3,700 foot-pounds), velocites of 750–900 m/s (2,460–2,950 ft/s) and bullets of 9 to 13 g (139–200 grains).

The first true automatic rifle was the Italian-made Cei-Rigotti, which was developed in the 1890s and finished around 1900; it never entered military service, however. The first service automatic rifle was the Russian Fedorov Avtomat of 1916, chambered for the Japanese Arisaka 6.5 x 50 mm rifle cartridge, which was only used in small numbers due to supply problems.

The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was a World War I-era weapon that used a full-power round. It was an automatic rifle by today's definition, and designed for single accurate shots and suppressive automatic fire. The weight of roughly 15 pounds (7 kg) meant that it was rather cumbersome for closer quarters. Later developments added heavier barrels and bipods that lent it to being used more like today's light machine gun or squad automatic weapon, though it did help establish the doctrine of use for light selective fire rifles. The BAR was produced in large numbers, widely adopted, and served into the 1960s with the U.S. military and other nations. While it was chambered for 30-06 and therefore did not use an intermediate cartridge, it was an intermediate weapon between the newly adopted submachine guns and heavier machine guns such as the Lewis Gun. The similar French Chauchat of WWI was also produced in large numbers (250,000), but suffered from significant flaws and was quickly discarded.

During WWI, submachine guns also entered service such as the Villar Perosa, the Beretta Model 1918 and the MP18. These weapons fired cartridges derived from pistol chamberings — 9 mm Glisenti and 9 mm Bergmann. The 9 mm Bergman was based on the 9 mm Parabellum, with reduced charge to reduce recoil in the MP18. The developers of the Thompson submachine gun (also developed during the 1910s) originally intended to use rifle-powered rounds. However, a mechanical system that could handle their power was not found and the .45 ACP cartridge was chosen instead. These firearms are considered part of the submachine gun class, but were an important step in the development of assault rifles.

Any other questions about my opinions?

JohnP

12-24-2008, 11:53 AM

What is the point of quoting a study by one branch of your government to evaluate the effectiveness of another. It is a waste of taxpayers money. Unless something totally strange is going on the government will always give the government straight "A"s.

Relationships between crime, violence, and gun ownership

There is an open debate regarding the relationship between gun control, and violence and other crimes. The numbers of lives saved or lost by gun ownership is debated by criminologists. Research difficulties include the difficulty of accounting accurately for confrontations in which no shots are fired, and jurisdictional differences in the definition of "crime".

Frequent talk show guest, columnist and think tank founder John Longenecker argues that the nation's founders' Original Intent continues to align with the interests of the nation. Longenecker sees the Founding Fathers' defeat of the abuse of due process when the process of overthrowing British rule as a crucial aspect of freedom, without which the nation will perish. Longenecker adds that the Founders did not write the Constitution for citizens as much as to impose limits on government - a subject they knew only too well. Regarding the Second Amendment, the Founders did not fear nor imagine weapons of the future, but foresaw and forbade abuses of due process in the future, and wrote that the Citizen is the supreme authority to protect the new nation against abuses for all time. The Second Amendment embodies this by backing that ultimate citizen authority with force. Longenecker emphasizes that Crime is often used as an excuse to disarm that ultimate authority - the people - for the unhampered growth of cottage industries and other anti-crime policy. Finally, Longenecker shows how claims of no change in right-to-carry states are untrue: For the FBI's report of 10,177 gunshot deaths in 2006, there were 2.5 million crimes de-escalated by armed citizens, who believed they had sufficient control of the situation that they did not have to fire their weapon. "Clearly," Longenecker says, "What the people don't see tells the story 2.5 million times a year. Armed citizens play their role in crime control and they do it in due process."

Some writers, such as John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, say they have discovered a positive correlation between gun control legislation and crimes in which criminals victimize law-abiding citizens. Lott asserts that criminals ignore gun control laws and are effectively deterred only by armed intended victims just as higher penalties deter crime. His work involved comparison and analysis from data collected from all the counties in the United States. Lott's study has been criticized for not adequately controlling for other factors, including other state laws also enacted, such as Florida's laws requiring background checks and waiting period for handgun buyers.[65] with similar findings by Jens Ludwig. Since concealed-carry permits are only given to adults, John J. Donohue suggests that analysis should focus on the relationship with adult and not juvenile gun incident rates. He finds a small, positive effect of concealed-carry laws on adult homicide rates, but states the effect is not statistically significant. NAS suggests that new analytical approaches and datasets at the county or local level are needed to evaluate adequately the impact of right-to-carry laws.

Another researcher, Dr. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, estimated that approximately 2.5 million people used their gun in self-defense or to prevent crime each year, often by merely displaying a weapon. The incidents that Kleck studied generally did not involve the firing of the gun and he estimates that as many as 1.9 million of those instances involved a handgun. Kleck's research has been challenged by scholars such as David Hemenway who argue that these estimates of crimes prevented by gun ownership are too high. Indeed, Hemenway argues, according to Kleck's study (which is based on gun owners' self-reporting), hundreds of thousands of murder attempts are thwarted every year by gun owners, which would mean that the vast majority of murder attempts are in fact prevented by self-defense gun use. The National Rifle Association regularly reprints locally-published stories of ordinary citizens whose lives were saved by their guns.

A study supported by the NRA found that homicide rates as a whole, especially homicides as a result of firearms use, are not always significantly lower in many other developed countries. This is apparent in the UK and Japan, which have very strict gun control laws, while Israel, Canada, and Switzerland at the same time have low homicide rates and high rates of gun distribution. Although Dr Kleck has stated, "...cross-national comparisons do not provide a sound basis for assessing the impact of gun ownership levels on crime rates." This is in contrast to an independent study published in the [International Journal of Epidimiology], which found that for the year of 1998:

During the one-year study period (1998), 88 649 firearm deaths were reported. Overall firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in high-income (HI) and upper middle-income (UMI) countries in the Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17), or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5. Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US, but most firearm deaths are suicides (71%) in HI countries and homicides (72%) in UMI countries.

In a New England Journal of Medicine article, Kellermann found that people who keep a gun at home increase their risk of homicide. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck disagrees with the journal authors' interpretation of the evidence and he argues that there is no evidence that the guns involved in the home homicides studied by Kellermann, et al. were kept in the victim's home. Similarly, Dave Kopel, writing in National Review, criticized Kellermann's study. Researchers John Lott, Gary Kleck and many others still dispute Kellermann's work. Kleck agrees only with Kellermann's finding that contrary to widespread perception, the overall frequency of homicide in the home by an invading stranger is much less than that of domestic violence. Kellerman's work has also being severely criticized because he ignores factors such as guns being used to protect property, save lives, and deter crime without killing the criminal—which, Kleck and others argue, accounts for the large majority of defensive gun uses. Kellermann responded to similar criticisms of the data behind his study in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine. Finally, another argument cited by academics researching gun violence points to the positive correlation between guns in the home and an already violent neighborhood. These points assert that Doctor Kellerman's causal story is in fact backwards and that violent neighborhoods cause homeowners to purchase guns and it is the neighborhood that determines the probability of homicide, not the presence of a gun. Lott's results suggest that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms, deters crime because potential criminals do not know who may or may not be carrying a firearm. The possibility of getting shot by an armed victim is a substantial deterrent to crime and prevents not only petty crime but physical confrontation as well from criminals. Lott's data comes from the FBI's massive crime statistics from all 3,054 US counties. Other scholars, such as Gary Kleck, support Lott's findings but take a slightly different tack; while criticizing Lott's theories as (paradoxically) overemphasizing the threat to the average American from armed crime, and therefore the need for armed defense, Kleck's work speaks towards similar support for firearm rights by showing that the number of Americans who report incidents where their guns averted a threat vastly outnumber those who report being the victim of a firearm-related crime. Others have pointed out that the beneficial effects of firearms, not only in self-protection, deterring crime, and protecting property but also in preserving freedom, have not been properly studied by public health researchers.

In his book Private Guns, Public Health, David Hemenway makes the argument in favor of gun control and he provides evidence for the more guns, more gun violence and suicide hypothesis. Rather than compare America to countries with radically different cultures and historical experiences, he focuses on Canada, New Zealand and Australia and concludes that the case for gun control is a strong one based on the relationship he finds between lower crime rates and gun control.

Firearms are also the most common method of suicide, accounting for 53.7% of all suicides committed in the United States in 2003.

A 2003 CDC study determined "The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes." They go on to state "(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)" after reviewing 54 studies and over one hundred years of history.

Any other questions on sources?

-BuLL-

12-24-2008, 01:05 PM

I actually had to give a speech on this topic for Oral Comm. Found out some pretty interesting facts. In D.C.(during their handgun ban) between 1976 and 1991, the homicide rate rose 200%. By contrast, Florida adopted a right to carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, the homicide rate dropped 36%.

SlightlyCatholic

12-24-2008, 02:35 PM

Bull, that's interesting information. Where did you get your facts from?

03_SHOOTER

12-24-2008, 06:19 PM

Bull, that's interesting information. Where did you get your facts from?

I don't know for certain where Bull got his intel on the subject, but I find the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/) to be a very authoritative source.

HairyEyeball

12-24-2008, 06:28 PM

The problem with so many conflicting 'studies' is that so few are unbiased and peer-reviewed. Dr. Lott undertook his original study with the intent of proving exactly the opposite of what he found. Fortunately, he had the integrity to report what he found, not what he expected. Too many either twist or 'cherry pick' facts to conform to their prejudices, and - with the same gullibility as 'if I saw it on TV/read it in the paper it must be true' - the masses accept.

Precisely what degree of logic is required to ascertain that 'criminals', by definition, do not obey laws, while 'honest citizens' do? Does it not logically follow that such 'disarmament laws' only effect those 'honest citizens' - or 'victims'? Would any of you enter a battle armed only with a knife and good intentions when the enemy possesses automatic weapons?

Even 'lower animals' learn from experience: Anyone can research Pavlov and his experiments with dogs, or see that lab rats (the four-footed variety) increase their speed through mazes with repetition...yet in school after school, shopping mall after shopping mall, designated victim zone after designated victim zone, disarmed citizens are shot by criminals and crazies who are, apparently, immune to the mystic voodoo power of a 'no guns' sign.

Look also at the origin of the statistics: How many 'children' (which includes those up to age 24) included in 'shooting statistics' are members of a specific ethnic group with a specific 'culture' (clue: 'It takes a village to raise them')? How many are committed members of street and drug gangs, and how many of those shootings are 'turf wars' over who gets to sell drugs on what corner, at what school? How many are actually legitimately shot by police during the commission of a violent felony? Yet all the 'crime statistics' quoted - or invented - only report 'shot' (whether or not such shooting was deserved, or benefitted society).

It is in the interest of the 'gun grabbers' to not only commission these 'studies', not only to fail to differentiate the 'statistics', but to persecute inanimate objects and leave violent criminals free to prey, because every incident of armed criminal violence is overreported as 'gun violence', while over 90% of 'defensive display' thwarting criminal action, violent or not, is ignored and unreported - with no casualties, no actual crime committed, it's not 'news', there's nothing to 'report' - and it weakens the arguments for the Second Amendment.

03_SHOOTER

12-24-2008, 06:58 PM

To expound further;

in 1976, the population of Florida was 8,694,038 (http://www.floridacharts.com/charts/OLAPReport.aspx?datatype=pop&rotate=no&export=0&Report=freq&Row=1&Col=2&age=99&race=99&eth=99&Year=1976-&sex=99&counties=All%20County-&ageFrom=0&ageTo=99), and the total number of homicides was 903 (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/RunHomStatebyState.cfm) with 66.7% of them having been committed with a firearm, which give us a per capita result of 1 in 14,434, or .0069%.

In 1987, the population of Florida was 11,997,600 (http://www.floridacharts.com/charts/OLAPReport.aspx?datatype=pop&rotate=no&export=0&Report=freq&Row=1&Col=2&age=99&race=99&eth=99&Year=1987-&sex=99&counties=All%20County-&ageFrom=0&ageTo=99), and the total number of homicides was 1,371 with 60.8% of them having been committed with a firearm, which gives us a per capita result of 1 in 14,440, or .0069%, a net change of ZERO.

In 1996, the population of Florida was 14,701,293 (http://www.floridacharts.com/charts/OLAPReport.aspx?datatype=pop&rotate=no&export=0&Report=freq&Row=1&Col=2&age=99&race=99&eth=99&Year=1996-&sex=99&counties=All%20County-&ageFrom=0&ageTo=99), and the total number of homicides was 1,077, with 62% of them having been committed with a firearm, which gives us a per capita result of 1 in 22,016, or .0045% which is a 52.5% per capita decrease in firearms related homicides from 1987 to 1996.

-BuLL-

12-24-2008, 07:38 PM

Some of the sites are:
www.infoplease.com
www.guncite.com
Most of the facts I found were from simple Google and Yahoo searches.
Another interesting fact is that there are 700,000 doctors in the U.S with 125,000 accidental deaths per year. There are 80,000,000 gun owners in the U.S. with only 1200 accidental deaths per year. That means doctors are 9000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Not every one is a gun owner, but every one has atleast one doctor.

Murray B

12-26-2008, 04:40 AM

Murray B, if taxes are the worst thing that you can come up with to say about America, you've got a better appreciation/understanding of American than more than half of our population!

The events actually happened but I am not really angry at that teller because she was just doing her job. All I really do is discard versions of history that disagree with known facts. Never did believe that America invented war, and slavery, and forced women to have the babies. Also noted that the U.S. had a monopoly of nuclear weapons at the end of WWII and could deliver them to most places with an aircraft called the AJ Savage from carriers. [this is off the top of my head but that is the gist of it.] Any tyrant would have used that monopoly to maximum effect.

Frankly, they're rapidly approaching the same level of despotism that caused the FF's to take their .75 caliber Brown Bess Muskets, shove 'em in King George III's face and telling him to SOD OFF!!!

Yes, a storm is approaching, and I do not mean the weather. It will be difficult. but you are not alone because a large percentage of humanity believes in the representative democracy that the U.S.A. promotes. The "experiment" should not be allowed to fail.

Murray B

12-26-2008, 05:23 AM

Murray, if enough of your countrymen think that way, and believe our Constitution is worth having, feel free to use it. We haven't in years.

This ship you call the USS America it called the HMCS Canada here but it is really the same ship. If your end sinks then our's must follow. Right now stabilization of the USS America is more imortant than constitutional reform in Canada.

Perhaps my Province, Alberta, can help. We have a 1.2 trillion barrel oil reserve in the northern part of the province and we have always traded with our friends (more family then friends, really) in America.

We are all in this together.

Murray B

12-26-2008, 05:35 AM

[QUOTE=JohnP;9262]From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia/QUOTE]

I'm sorry JohnP but I have not made myself clear. Since I am a 'computer guy' I can often do searches from the servers with meta crawlers (a thousand Googles at a thousand times the speed.) This stuff does not interest me much. What is really important is what you know from experience. That is the real treasure.

03_SHOOTER

12-26-2008, 10:59 AM

Yes, a storm is approaching, and I do not mean the weather. It will be difficult. but you are not alone because a large percentage of humanity believes in the representative democracy that the U.S.A. promotes. The "experiment" should not be allowed to fail.

I have no intention of "allowing" the experiment to fail, but at the same time, I have no problem at all with eliminating those who have "tinkered" with the experiment with the deliberate intention of making it fail, in order to usher in their Communist/Socialist agenda. The only question that is before us now is; has the experiment been contaminated to the point where we must discard the current incarnation and begin again, or can it in fact be repaired and allowed to continue on from here without corrupting the end result?

SlightlyCatholic

12-26-2008, 01:59 PM

03_SHOOTER

12-26-2008, 03:33 PM

To empty my gas can into the conflagration...

http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21713339/packing_heat.htm?pageid=23000&seek=66.759

The video is about an ongoing story of a soccor mom in Lebanon, PA who got her firearms permit taken away for bringing a gun to a soccer game. She's now suing the sherrif's department. Watch and enjoy!

Thanks for reminding us Tim. I originally (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showthread.php?t=745) posted the story back in November, but apparantly it, like many others, was overshadowed by other pressing issues.

Murray B

12-29-2008, 03:10 AM

I have no intention of "allowing" the experiment to fail, but at the same time, I have no problem at all with eliminating those who have "tinkered" with the experiment with the deliberate intention of making it fail, in order to usher in their Communist/Socialist agenda. The only question that is before us now is; has the experiment been contaminated to the point where we must discard the current incarnation and begin again, or can it in fact be repaired and allowed to continue on from here without corrupting the end result?
Normally we do not use the word “socialist” too much in Canada. It has many meanings but here it generally means that a government owns the means of production. This definition includes Communists but also the U.S. government for much of the twentieth century. American socialism appears to start with the Republican Theodore Roosevelt just after the turn of the century. Republican President Hoover is socialist for sure because of all those socialist dams.

TR spoke of ostensibles and invisibles. There is no reason to assume that the families of Nazi invisibles have not retained power up to the present day. Therefore, it may be a Communist or Nazi agenda that we are looking at. Both are about transferring wealth from citizens to the government but their methods differ substantially. Communists change the basis of the law to eliminate private property rights with one revolutionary change. This is most easily done in very poor countries. Nazis, on the other hand, run a giant “Ponzi scheme” where they rob their current victims to increase their power and pay off current supporters. Their current supporters always include future victims. The process is gradual and far easier to implement since future victims do not appear to see the obvious. Countries with a large and well-fed middle-class are more vulnerable to Nazism than Communism.

Communists are very good at hijacking revolutions so I would go with the repair option if at all possible. This repair, however, must eliminate the Nazi “Ponzi” schemes to reduce the possibility of a hot nukewar with the Russians. What is most needed right now is more Americanism in America.