Assault Weapon Education Please?

[masterrig 1]

I understand.


Chuck

[dks13827 3]

Years ago Diane Feinstein and her staff got a gun catalog, and with lots of ooh's and aah's, decided on which evil looking rifles would be deemed 'assault rifles', and which would not. That is my recollection of it.

She recently proposed that the Feds first give permission for people to own handguns and some semi automatic rifles.

Keep in mind that semi auto shotguns and deer rifles are quite common.

[pchapman 279]

Quote

Note that most of the definition is comprised of items like a folding stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor, a barrel shroud, etc. These are all cosmetic features, that have nothing at all to do with how dangerous the firearm is. They just scare the gun-o-phobes, and that's good enough reason for a ban to them.

I guess all those kind of detail rules don't have so much to do with practical utility in committing crimes, but that it isn't necessary for hunting.

If a gun looks like something people might hunt deer with, it's OK. If it looks military, then it is glorifying violence. The device is designed for killing people and has no other purpose. People who want to own such devices are looked on with suspicion.

Efficient devices for the killing of people are to be reserved for military and law enforcement. Such a device is seen as totally unnecessary for any practical use in civilian hands.

The combination of dangerous + unnecessary = ripe for being banned.

(This argument does leave out the self defense side of things, but even then, I suppose the trend is more to buy a hand gun than an AR-15.)

I'm not arguing how things should be; just saying the way I think things are perceived.

[mnealtx 0]

That's probably a fair summation of how they're viewed.

The part that is so ludicrous to gun owners is that almost any of those A-OK deer rifles can do more damage than those Evil Black Rifles.

The other part is the old (but so very, very true) saw that "The Second Amendment isn't about hunting."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

That's probably a fair summation of how they're viewed.

The part that is so ludicrous to gun owners is that almost any of those A-OK deer rifles can do more damage than those Evil Black Rifles.

The other part is the old (but so very, very true) saw that "The Second Amendment isn't about hunting."

The Remington 700 rifle that Charles Whitman used to kill 17 and wound 31 was sold as a deer hunting rifle.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Years ago Diane Feinstein and her staff got a gun catalog, and with lots of ooh's and aah's, decided on which evil looking rifles would be deemed 'assault rifles', and which would not. That is my recollection of it..

Help me out here. I have no idea (nor any opinion or presumption) re: whether that did or did not actually occur. So out of curiosity I just Googled (" (dianne or diane) feinstein" + "gun catalog"). The few dozen references I found to that were all blog posts on various gun-owners' forums. But I didn't find any first-hand accounts, or citations from objective, authoritative sources, etc.

So: Can you please point me to any links or sources that show convincingly that this actually happened that way, and is not just a rumor that has been re-repeated down the line? Thanks in advance.

[Dewhast 0]

Who knows the main difference between these two weapons?

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

That's probably a fair summation of how they're viewed.

The part that is so ludicrous to gun owners is that almost any of those A-OK deer rifles can do more damage than those Evil Black Rifles.

The other part is the old (but so very, very true) saw that "The Second Amendment isn't about hunting."

The Remington 700 rifle that Charles Whitman used to kill 17 and wound 31 was sold as a deer hunting rifle.

I own a Remington model 721, .30-06 with a 3x9 scope. I've had more offers for that gun. That same series, it it's early days had a sfaety problem. When a round was loaded into the chamber, it would fire. A Montana family was deer hunting one day. The mom loaded a round into the chamber of her Remington 700, the rifle fired accidentally killing her son. A lawsuit resulted. Remington made a weak attempt at resolving the problem.
Carlos Hathcock, U.S. Marine GS, Sniper, had 93 confirmed kills, used a Winchester Model-70, .30-06.
Also a deer hunting rifle.


Chuck

[devildog 0]

#2 is a scary assault weapon because it has a flash light attached

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Dewhast 0]

True that does make it scary but not the answer I am looking for.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Who knows the main difference between these two weapons?

Ooh, ooh! I know! The rear iron sight on #1 looks like a ducky.

[Dewhast 0]

Haha, I guess it does. The answer has more to do with classification.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Check out this scsry looking gun.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Who knows the main difference between these two weapons?

Assuming the cal. is the same
One is a rifle and one is a pistol

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Dewhast 0]

I'll have to assume that they are both 223 as I just did a Google Image search but you are exactly right. The first image is a short barreled rifle while the other is a pistol. The short barreled rifle is illegal. The pistol is legal. Gun laws are brilliant.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'll have to assume that they are both 223 as I just did a Google Image search but you are exactly right. The first image is a short barreled rifle while the other is a pistol. The short barreled rifle is illegal. The pistol is legal. Gun laws are brilliant.

Ya

Here is Iowa silencers or suppesors are illegal
In many other states they are not

That does not make much sense either

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[winsor 236]

Quote

Who knows the main difference between these two weapons?

The one with the buttstock is NFA.

[brenthutch 444]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

Barrel shroud

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

Barrel shroud

Ah, yes...the 'shoulder thing that goes up' according to Brady-endorsed Carolyn McCarthy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

A folding stock might make the weapon more concealable and/or portable.

Yes, but with it folded it is no better than a pistol. Worse actually.

Quote

A pistol grip might make the weapon easier to wield, especially for a relatively untrained operator.

Nonsense. The M14 didn't have a pistol grip.

Quote

Same goes for a barrel shroud

Nope, a barrel shroud just covers the barrel (in most cases to make the barrel longer, or help dissipate heat). It does not even act like a flash compensator.

Quote

A bayonet lug (with appropriate accessory) might allow the weapon to retain some lethality

Can you name one case of a criminal using a bayonet?

Quote

A flash suppressor might allow a shooter to avoid being easily spotted, to his tactical advantage.

Not really, a flash suppressor can help with muzzle rise but really does not 'suppress' the report or flash. That is the definition of a suppressor (legal term silencer). And those are regulated by the NFA of 1934.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I'm a liberal. I enjoy building and shooting AR-15s. I mostly call them ARs or rifles.

Good, then you recognize that owning a firearm is a civil liberty issue.

If blacks were well armed after the civil war... Fewer of them would have been lynched.

The pink pistols have it right (gay gun rights organization) when they say: "Armed gays don't get bashed."

Fact is that the 2nd was to protect the little guy from the bigger guy no matter what reason.

[DaVinci 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0&list=FL-zHE7n4iIQfFFPlwFODLEw&index=12&feature=plpp_video

Be sure to watch around the 5 min mark.

And watch the 6 min mark.

However, he is not actually correct about the full auto not being allowed to citizens in most States. It just takes a lot of paperwork

[Andy9o8 2]

Understand that my post was narrowly tailored not as advocacy, but just to demonstrate that the "mere cosmetics" argument is a weak one; thus gun rights advocates would be better served using stronger arguments.

That being said, your responses are not very strong advocacy, either. You need to tighten-up your argument. For example:

Quote

Quote

A folding stock might make the weapon more concealable and/or portable.

Yes, but with it folded it is no better than a pistol. Worse actually.

Irrelevant. It still allows one to bring greater firepower than a "mere pistol" to the scene of engagement and keep it undetected by others until you want to engage. It needs to be unconcealed for only a moment to allow you to unfold the stock and begin to engage. That's a tactical advantage over having to carry your weapon exposed to observation.

Quote

Quote

A pistol grip might make the weapon easier to wield, especially for a relatively untrained operator.

Nonsense. The M14 didn't have a pistol grip.

And the M14, just like the M1 and the Mauser-class bolt-action rifles, are harder to wield, especially for a person with little training, than the subsequent generation(s) of pistol grip-equipped weapons are - not just due to weight, size and less-powerful rounds, but partially due to the enhanced dexterity afforded by a pistol grip.

Quote

Quote

Same goes for a barrel shroud

Nope, a barrel shroud just covers the barrel (in most cases to make the barrel longer, or help dissipate heat). It does not even act like a flash compensator.

A barrel shroud certainly aids the operator in wielding the weapon, for it protects his forward hand from burning, thus allowing him to stabilize the weapon farther forward than he might with a more exposed barrel.

Quote

Quote

A bayonet lug (with appropriate accessory) might allow the weapon to retain some lethality

Can you name one case of a criminal using a bayonet?

Completely irrelevant, and does not address the specific point asserted. "Show me where that's already happened" is one of the weakest forms of argument; that's Debate Class 101 stuff.

Quote

Quote

A flash suppressor might allow a shooter to avoid being easily spotted, to his tactical advantage.

Not really, a flash suppressor can help with muzzle rise but really does not 'suppress' the report or flash. That is the definition of a suppressor (legal term silencer). And those are regulated by the NFA of 1934.

I defer to the experts, of course. But should it be that a particular currently-legal flash suppressor does in fact suppress muzzle flash, that could indeed assist the operator avoid giving away his position.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Irrelevant. It still allows one to bring greater firepower than a "mere pistol" to the scene of engagement and keep it undetected by others until you want to engage. It needs to be unconcealed for only a moment to allow you to unfold the stock and begin to engage. That's a tactical advantage over having to carry your weapon exposed to observation.

Irrelevant. The fact is that even folded or collapsed it is next to impossible to conceal a rifle.

And the lack of data to back up your position is proof.

Quote

And the M14, just like the M1 and the Mauser-class bolt-action rifles, are harder to wield, especially for a person with little training, than the subsequent generation(s) of pistol grip-equipped weapons are - not just due to weight, size and less-powerful rounds, but partially due to the enhanced dexterity afforded by a pistol grip

FALSE. The M14 is harder to control, but due to the size of the round, not the pistol grip.

I have shot an AR with a pistol grip and with a thumb hole stock.... There was no difference.

Quote

A barrel shroud certainly aids the operator in wielding the weapon, for it protects his forward hand from burning, thus allowing him to stabilize the weapon farther forward than he might with a more exposed barrel.

False again. A barrel shroud is going to burn your hand as well.

Ever shot a full auto weapon? Ever shot a full auto weapon with a barrel shroud? I have.

Quote

Completely irrelevant, and does not address the specific point asserted. "Show me where that's already happened" is one of the weakest forms of argument; that's Debate Class 101 stuff.

Showing proof of your claim is not 'irrelevant'. Otherwise you might as well claim that pixies are going to kill you in your sleep.

Quote

I defer to the experts, of course. But should it be that a particular currently-legal flash suppressor does in fact suppress muzzle flash, that could indeed assist the operator avoid giving away his position.

Nonsense. In fact, most flash suppressors direct the flash FORWARD to protect the shooter from noise and debris.

Being that I own several weapons with both suppressors (NFA) and the so called 'flash suppressors' you are talking about... The fact I was military. The fact that I compete in shooting sports. And the fact I have an FFL.... I think I am qualified to state that your version of a flash suppressor is not very good at suppressing anything because it does not have baffles.

[Andy9o8 2]

You know, I'm trying to help tighten up the argument and improve the presentation, while you're so locked into the mentality of "defend the perimeter" that that's all you see. Whatever.