Bayonet Lugs on a Rifle: How a Democrat and Republican veiws them

[skiskyrock 0]

quade

***Garands have the bayonet lugs and Carbines don't, correct?

This is correct.

Depends on when it was issued. The bayonet lug was introduced late in the war (WWII) The bayonet lug is an easy retrofit, I don't think I've ever seen an m1 carbine without the lug.

[quade 4]

kawisixer01

It's like saying a jeep is "military" and should be banned because it has tow hooks and a winch for going through off road conditions and was once used by the military.

No. It's like saying a jeep is military because that was the original design intent and military jeeps from the WWII era still are.

If you, today, bought an up armored HMMWV, even if war surplus, it would still be a military vehicle.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

skiskyrock

******Garands have the bayonet lugs and Carbines don't, correct?

This is correct.
Depends on when it was issued. The bayonet lug was introduced late in the war (WWII) The bayonet lug is an easy retrofit, I don't think I've ever seen an m1 carbine without the lug.

You're right. I was speaking to the original design and not taking into account later models.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[devildog 0]

quade

Quote

I did a google search on how many people have been killed in the US with fixed bayonets and you know what I found? NOTHING!!!

The same can be said of any of a number of military weapons. Doesn't mean the public should have access to them.

Pretty sure they had bayonets when they drafted the 2nd amendment.

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

[quade 4]

devildog

***

Quote

I did a google search on how many people have been killed in the US with fixed bayonets and you know what I found? NOTHING!!!

The same can be said of any of a number of military weapons. Doesn't mean the public should have access to them.

Pretty sure they had bayonets when they drafted the 2nd amendment.

On military weapons certainly.

We get into that and why "bayonet lugs" were called out to begin with starting with Reagan era laws just a few more posts in.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[futuredivot 0]

I just appreciate that you've started a thread that brings the more entertainingly liberal posters back into active status. Aside from attacks on posters and sources they've been noticeably silent in the threads concerning Bengahzi, IRS abuse, or the new Associated Press controversy.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[jgoose71 0]

quade

I wasn't addressing the rifle, but the concept that just because no incident has been found in the US as a reason for something to be legal.

This statement right here is contrary to a free society. Wendy touched on it earlier, just like someone is innocent until proven guilty, we don't ban something just because their is no reason to have it.

Lets take a look at parachutes:

They were developed for military use. Do you "need" one now? Do you have any good reason for having it, other than you like to jump?

By your reasoning, they should be banned, so there are no more air assaults on elementary schools, which happen as often as bayonetings. Think of the children.

Lets take a look at some other items we could ban using that logic.

Whips, handcuffs, spurs, .... Oh crap, there goes my sex life....

While owning a parachute is a freedom, not a right, don't be so quick to give away other peoples freedoms unless you are willing to give away your own.

After all, there is nothing in the constitution that says your right to own a parachute shall not be infringed...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[quade 4]

jgoose71

***I wasn't addressing the rifle, but the concept that just because no incident has been found in the US as a reason for something to be legal.

This statement right here is contrary to a free society. Wendy touched on it earlier, just like someone is innocent until proven guilty, we don't ban something just because their is no reason to have it.

Some things are so dangerous, you ban them from public ownership before -anyone- has them.

That's not a matter of living in a free or tyrannical society, it's just common sense.

Now . . . exactly where that line is drawn? Well, that's up for debate.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

Did you, by any chance, read the memo I posted which discusses the ATF's review of import eligibility? There are specific restrictions on military surplus arms that were manufactured in the US, exported, and then re-imported; there's a particular paper trail needed. But that's not the reason for all the classification by feature we've been seeing.

[quade 4]

champu

Did you, by any chance, read the memo I posted which discusses the ATF's review of import eligibility? There are specific restrictions on military surplus arms that were manufactured in the US, exported, and then re-imported; there's a particular paper trail needed. But that's not the reason for all the classification by feature we've been seeing.

That may be their opinion now, but it certainly wasn't before Blue Sky and the legal wrangling that made it possible. I mean, ultimately, if you really want to know why the "bayonet lug" came into the legal language . . . well . . . ask Wayne. He was there! I know that doesn't get talked about a lot, but it's true.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jgoose71 0]

champu

Did you, by any chance, read the memo I posted which discusses the ATF's review of import eligibility? There are specific restrictions on military surplus arms that were manufactured in the US, exported, and then re-imported; there's a particular paper trail needed. But that's not the reason for all the classification by feature we've been seeing.

Right now I am trying to get these guns home by classifying them as curios and relics. There are provisions for that with the ATF. I may have to get the assistance of an FFL though...

How is all of this not an infringement on my right to bear arms but asking for some one to show an ID to vote is cause for the world to end?

Selective constitutional enforcement? I guess I should expect no less from the current administration....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[quade 4]

Quote

How is all of this not an infringement on my right to bear arms...

Nobody is infringing your right to bear arms. They're enforcing import rules of military equipment.

You can buy guns in a gun store. Last time I went to one, even with the supposed shortages, there were still lots of guns available. There is no right to bring military equipment into the country; none.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Some things are so dangerous, you ban them from public ownership before -anyone- has them.

But we've already established that does not apply in this case.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

You can buy guns in a gun store. Last time I went to one, even with the supposed shortages, there were still lots of guns available. There is no right to bring military equipment into the country; none.

Condescending and ignorant BS like this... is yet another example; While he is also mimicking the ideas of "Nudge" from Cass Sunstein.

And if I were to beat down these statements like I have others Quade has made... he'll just go silent, till the next related thread, where he'll think up new twists on words to try to say the Federal government has the ability to do all the illegal crap they are doing.

The ATF should be shut down.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

We know of no traditional sporting application for a bayonet.
- Senator Dodd

Ridiculous.

[quade 4]

When you can show me there is a "right" to being military equipment into the country, then you'll have a point.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[dmcoco84 5]

quade

When you can show me there is a "right" to being military equipment into the country, then you'll have a point.

I'm surprised you didn't edit your post...


Its not a matter of a right; its a matter of Federal power... powers they don't have, like with so many other things the Federal government has gotten their hands into.

Your arguments are always political, instead of principled.

[quade 4]

Again, you have no "right" to import. None.

It doesn't infringe on the right to bear arms.

If you want to say that's a political point of view...whatever dude.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jgoose71 0]

quade

When you can show me there is a "right" to being military equipment into the country, then you'll have a point.

The flaw in your argument is that you are trying to say "these fire arms over here are for the military, these over here are for everyone else..."

A fire arm is a fire arm and the right to bear them shall not be infringed. The constitutions does not say "you have the right to bear arms except for these over here..."

When there is so much that has been converted from military to civilian use and civilian to military, to try to say that an item is for either one or the other because of it's original design is idiotic.

Parachute still a great example.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Stumpy 284]

jgoose71

The flaw in your argument is that you are trying to say "these fire arms over here are for the military, these over here are for everyone else..."

Which is exactly the situation now. Some (military) weapons are highly regulated. Thats not in question. The only question here is whether this particular situation falls on the right side of that line or not.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[dmcoco84 5]

quade

Again, you have no "right" to import. None.

It doesn't infringe on the right to bear arms.

If you want to say that's a political point of view...whatever dude.

In one ear... straight out the other.

May I recommend www.lumosity.com; get that brain of yours working.

[champu 1]

quade

***Did you, by any chance, read the memo I posted which discusses the ATF's review of import eligibility? There are specific restrictions on military surplus arms that were manufactured in the US, exported, and then re-imported; there's a particular paper trail needed. But that's not the reason for all the classification by feature we've been seeing.

That may be their opinion now, but it certainly wasn't before Blue Sky and the legal wrangling that made it possible. I mean, ultimately, if you really want to know why the "bayonet lug" came into the legal language . . . well . . . ask Wayne. He was there! I know that doesn't get talked about a lot, but it's true.

You should consider reading the Gun Control Act of 1968, Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 (or the "Dole Amendment" portion of it), and the ATF memo I posted from 1989 and not just Washington Post articles.

The "Curios and Relics" discussion is somewhat distinct from the "evil features" discussion.

[champu 1]

Andy9o8

***See post above yours... for stupidity.

Are you as much of a tough guy in real life as your Keyboard Kommando alter-ego is here on DZ.com?

I think the "Internet Tough Guy" meme has been around for longer, but I find the "Internet Smart Guy" meme more annoying to be honest.

[Andy9o8 2]

champu

******See post above yours... for stupidity.

Are you as much of a tough guy in real life as your Keyboard Kommando alter-ego is here on DZ.com?

I think the "Internet Tough Guy" meme has been around for longer, but I find the "Internet Smart Guy" meme more annoying to be honest.

I knew you'd say that before even you did.

[champu 1]

Andy9o8

*********See post above yours... for stupidity.

Are you as much of a tough guy in real life as your Keyboard Kommando alter-ego is here on DZ.com?

I think the "Internet Tough Guy" meme has been around for longer, but I find the "Internet Smart Guy" meme more annoying to be honest.

I knew you'd say that before even you did.

Quite possible. Most of my posts are the second draft of what I originally came up with to say and then if, when read back, I don't find them very useful I'll just delete it and move on to another thread. I've drafted and discarded at least as many posts as I've made on this site.