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

[jgoose71 0]

Right now I am over seas and have found an awesome Pre 1956 Harvester International built M1 Garand 30-06 in pristine condition and a 1941 Lee Enfield No4 Mk1* British .303 bolt action also in pristine condition.

Both of these, along with being awesome collectors items, are also some of the best calibers for hunting ever made. Why am I having such a hard time getting them back to the states? They have bayonet lugs, which now puts them firmly in the "Military Weapon" category.

According to the ATF, the defining features (as well documented in this forum) are Pistol Grips, Barrel Length of less than 16", Threaded barrel to accept flash suppressors or silencers, large capacity magazines, collapsible or folding stocks, and bayonet lugs.

Directly from the ATF web site:

Quote

A bayonet has distinct military purposes. First, it has a psychological affect on the enemy. Second, it enables soldiers to fight in close quarters with a knife attached to their rifles. We know of no traditional sporting application for a bayonet.
- Senator Dodd

The above statement is the justification for banning the importation of the rifles I want. So that is how a Democrat thinks. If you don't need it, ban it.

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 last American to actually lead a bayonet charge was during the Korean war. As far as crimes committed with fixed bayonets? Not a fucking one. If someone actually finds a crime in the US by a person with a fixed bayonet, please post it in this thread.

I just didn't think that we would start to ban stuff on a perceived threat rather than an actual threat...

So in true liberal form, let's start listing things that we have no use for so we can ban them. I'm starting with pressure cookers........

End rant

"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

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.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[RonD1120 62]

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.

They can be purchased through CMP.

http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/m1garand.htm

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[quade 4]

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.

For instance, I can't find where any crimes have been committed in the US with stinger missiles. That doesn't mean they should be openly available to the general public to buy.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,589]

I'm thinking that the default for actions and stuff in the US should be "yes" until it's proven to be too problematic." The other default is "no, until you can prove it's safe." And I'm thinking that the base tenet of the Constitution should have us erring on the side of "yes."

I might not always agree with that, especially when it comes to public safety stuff, but it seems consistent with the way the country was originally defined.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[quade 4]

See post above yours.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,589]

It wasn't finished when I posted. I would tend to agree with that, just as I would tend to agree that no individual should have a stockpile of ricin on their property.

But I think that the boundaries need to be thought about and discussed, and not assumed.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[dmcoco84 5]

See post above yours... for stupidity.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

I'm thinking that the default for actions and stuff in the US should be "yes" until it's proven to be too problematic." The other default is "no, until you can prove it's safe." And I'm thinking that the base tenet of the Constitution should have us erring on the side of "yes."

Agreed.

[wmw999 2,589]

No, it's a point to bring up in the discussion, which people will think about.

I happen to agree that a Stinger is a little dangerous. In part, because we have no way to know if someone who owns one is crazy, or has thoughts to harm others.

And their potential for doing so goes way up with something like a Stinger.

As long as we're unwilling as a country to invest in mental health and education, and as long as our response to misdeeds from some people will be to make their life a living hell, it's going to remain a very valid discussion. Paul and I may have different points, but discussing them is good. As opposed to lambasting and pontificating.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 2]

dmcoco84

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? If so, are you like a 13th degree blackbelt super ninja or something? Or how many of your own teeth have you left on barroom floors?

Your chronically abusive tough-guy act on here is getting pretty fucking old. Nobody's impressed.

I suppose you think I can just take my opinion and go fuck myself. Well, right back atcha.

[champu 1]

I think it's a bit silly to go above and beyond the NFA or any similar laws that are on the books at the time (such as the 1994 Federal AWB) when evaluating a firearm for import restrictions. If you wouldn't violate local, state, or federal laws by possessing it, why would you not be allowed to import it? (Note: neither the M1 Garand nor No4 Mk1* qualify as "assault weapons" under, for example, California law because the Garand has a fixed magazine and the No4 is bolt-action)

For further reading, here is the text of the 1989 memo that forms the basis of this import decision. Also, I don't know the exact history of all the information that went into all the various AWBs out there, but I think we can safely guess this document factored in, as it significantly predates them.

As I read it, I'm reading a very dismissive attitude. A few examples...

Quote

"With respect to possible sporting uses of this feature, the folding stock makes it easier to carry the firearm when hiking or backpacking. However, its predominant advantage is for military purposes, and it is normally not found on the traditional sporting rifle."

"Those flash suppressors which also serve to dampen “muzzle climb” have a limited benefit in sporting uses by allowing the shooter to reacquire the target for a second shot. However, the barrel of a sporting rifle can be modified by “magna-porting” to achieve the same result."

"In evaluating these firearms, we believe that all rifles which are fairly typed as semiautomatic assault rifles should be treated the same. Therefore, the fact that there may be some evidence that a particular rifle of this type is used or recommended for sporting purposes should not control its importability. Rather, all findings as to suitability of these rifles as a whole should govern each rifle within this type."

"The recommendations of editors were contradictory. One editor pointed out that what made the
assault rifle successful as a military weapon made the semiautomatic version totally unfit for any
other use. On the other hand, another editor stated that semiautomatic rifles had certain advantages
over conventional sporting rifles especially for the physically disabled and left-handed shooters.
While this may be true, there appears to be no advantage to using a semiautomatic assault rifle as
opposed to a semiautomatic sporting rifle."

Overall it reads to me as, "let's create as large a class of weapon as possible by including as many marginally objectable features as possible, agree to treat everything with a broad brush even it seems to be a reasonable exception, and then flat-out dismiss any arguments that contradict us."

Plus you have issues like this...

Quote

Thirty-nine importers were asked to submit this information and 19 responded

1,800 hunting guides were sent questionnaires and, of these, 706 responded

Which I think most people here recognize as a statistics no-no.

[dmcoco84 5]

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? If so, are you like a 13th degree blackbelt super ninja or something? Or how many of your own teeth have you left on barroom floors?

Your chronically abusive tough-guy act on here is getting pretty fucking old. Nobody's impressed.

I suppose you think I can just take my opinion and go fuck myself. Well, right back atcha.

Depends on what you mean by, "tough guy"...


As far as on this forum: I have repetitively and consistently spoken about why I use the tone and language I now use with Quade... as I'm tired of his stupid BS. "It's getting pretty fucking old."

If you look back at my first discussions with him, long ago, and their progression... you can clearly see why that is. And when you beat his stupid crap, intellectually, through "democratic debate", he just goes silent.

And in a previous thread, when I used the C word (which is not a personal attack)... he banned me.

Yeah...

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

For instance, I can't find where any crimes have been committed in the US with stinger missiles. That doesn't mean they should be openly available to the general public to buy.

The difference to this scenario is that (by any reasonable standard) Stinger missiles are neither legal to own nor commonly possessed by the general public. Rifles with bayonet lugs are. Therefore, we can use the history of crimes committed with them to tell if they are a problem in a way that we cannot with Stingers.


(Remember, the OP was talking about removing a restriction on importing them, not possessing them.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

I happen to agree that a Stinger is a little dangerous. In part, because we have no way to know if someone who owns one is crazy, or has thoughts to harm others.

You do realize that argument is already being made about semi-auto handguns and rifles...? And that Quade wants a federal panel of experts.

Quote

And their potential for doing so goes way up with something like a Stinger.

How does the weapon increase the potential of use?

Crazy people can make IEDs...

Quote

As long as we're unwilling as a country to invest in mental health and education

Mental Health - Agreed.

Education... Seriously?

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

1941 Lee Enfield No4 Mk1* British .303 bolt action

Legal in the Uk.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[quade 4]

However, bayonet lugs are a clear indication the weapon IS a military weapon and not one used for hunting.

Additionally, you might want to revisit why the rule againt import was put in place decades ago in the first place; guns "given" to a foreign country and then years later somebody trying to make a lucrative gun deal. One thing lead to another and when the original AWB came up, the bayonet lug thing got lumped in sort of like a lazy copy and paster, but the fact remains the bayonet lug does identify a military weapon and not one for hunting nor target practice.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Here's a recent article about that import deal I was talking about. This happened way back in the Reagan era.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-03/politics/39006228_1_wayne-lapierre-military-weapons-arms-dealer

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

However, bayonet lugs are a clear indication the weapon IS a military weapon and not one used for hunting.

The two points there would be a) So what? And b) the two are not mutually exclusive.

Quote

you might want to revisit why the rule againt import was put in place decades ago in the first place; guns "given" to a foreign country and then years later somebody trying to make a lucrative gun deal.

?

Ain't no law against making money

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 4]

Well, actually, before Vos the import of -any- military weapons were illegal. That was the entire point of defining what that meant.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

However, bayonet lugs are a clear indication the weapon IS a military weapon and not one used for hunting.

The 2nd has nothing to do with hunting.

[quade 4]

dmcoco84

Quote

However, bayonet lugs are a clear indication the weapon IS a military weapon and not one used for hunting.

The 2nd has nothing to do with hunting.

Never said it did. We were talking about definitions and how they come to be.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BillyVance 35]

To anyone in the know:

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

I used to own a M1 Carbine, and don't remember it having a bayonet lug. My best friend did have the garand though. This was back in the late 80's.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[quade 4]

BillyVance

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

This is correct.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kawisixer01 0]

Because a weapon may have been developed or later modified for the military doesn't mean it is strictly a military weapon. Often times features are built in for cost savings. Nearly every AR made today has a spot on the barrel where a grenade launcher can be mounted, yet nobody attaches grenade launchers to their AR, especially those like me who use their AR's for hunting. It is a feature inherent to the manufacture that keeps costs down because one set of tooling is used. Banning a firearm due to a "feature" is completely illogical and shows the ignorance of anyone who would write laws based on them. The very things that make a firearm "good" are traits that multiple users would want. Compactness and light weight are as important to the guy humping over peaks and valleys chasing deer as it is to the guy doing the same chasing Taliban. Accuracy, durability and lack of failure are is important to the guy hunting enemy in the jungle as they are to the guy sitting through the rain and sandy conditions in a Northern Wisconsin spring turkey hunt. Often the military adopts things that sportsmen have proven in the field long ago. 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.