Biden's Stasi Coming For Your Guns....

[Electric Skeptic]

Those hiding them now would likely continue to do so since they're already in violation of the law.

I should add, I can't remember the last time when one was used in the commission of a crime. The few times I've heard about it in recent years it turns out that the "machine gun" or "assault rifle"^[1] was semi-automatic.



1. "Assault weapon" is a B.S. term dreamed up by politicians to confuse the uninformed, more often based on cosmetics and not functionality.

I've heard the term 'assault weapon' before - I gather it's not an 'official' thing - what is it supposed to mean by those who use it?

You nodded at my description of automatic weapons - what do semi-automatics do that distinguishes them from normal "pull the trigger, fire once" weapons?

[CivilDiscourse]

I've heard the term 'assault weapon' before - I gather it's not an 'official' thing - what is it supposed to mean by those who use it?

You nodded at my description of automatic weapons - what do semi-automatics do that distinguishes them from normal "pull the trigger, fire once" weapons?

The difference between semi-automatic and others, is that semi-automatic uses the action of firing to eject the casing of the previous round, and chamber the new one. It fires once per pull of the trigger, but it's the ejection/loading that makes it semi-automatic. Compare that to a bolt-action rifle which requires you to manually eject and load the rifle with each shot.

[seer]

severe punishment for anyone carrying an unlicensed firearm, min 5 years.
anyone supplying an illegal weapon to be jailed for 20 years.

The fact is the leftists will not accept these two because they would fall largely on minorities.

[rogue06]

I've heard the term 'assault weapon' before - I gather it's not an 'official' thing - what is it supposed to mean by those who use it?

There is an actual definition for "assault rifle." It is the concocted term "assault weapon" that is extremely nebulous and varies radically from person to person.

The term "assault weapons" became popularized during the Clinton Administration which banned their sale and was used to describe firearms that merely look scary. That is right. It is not based upon functionality, lethalness, or ammo capacity but is based solely on cosmetics. IOW, If it looked deadly it got included.

Senator Feinstein (D-CA), the author of the bill, and her staff literally got a gun catalog and flipped through it picking out the firearms based solely on appearance not on how they functioned. So the manufacturers merely made a few simple cosmetic changes (like changing the color of the stock from black to brown or removing a bayonet lug^[1]) to the firearms so they wouldn't be included.

This was why gun control lobbies went "ballistic" (pun intended) when manufacturers simply slightly changed a firearm's appearance so it would no longer be classed as an "assault weapon."

For example, the staunchly anti-gun Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence groused, "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."

Even the liberal Salon magazine remarked after the assault weapon ban wasn't renewed that it really didn't matter because "This is a rare case where the NRA is right. It says the ban created an artificial distinction between assault weapons and other semi-automatic weapons, based almost entirely on cosmetic features."

Likewise the Los Angeles Times (again hardly a bastion of conservative thought and not a supporter of the Second Amendment) complained that the ban was a joke because it "focused on cosmetics" like flash suppressors and bayonet attachments.

The "Assault Weapon" ban actually included a pistol that can only hold a single round that after discharging you needed to break open the firearm from which you had to manually extract the casing (although a few of the newest models included an ejector), reload it and close the firearm before firing again. Yeah, a real "assault weapon" there

0000000000000a2.jpg
Scary-looking illegal version of the
single-shot Thompson Contender


0000000000000a2b.jpg
Completely legal version with absolutely
no functional difference whatsoever

thompson-center-contender-1.jpg

You nodded at my description of automatic weapons - what do semi-automatics do that distinguishes them from normal "pull the trigger, fire once" weapons?

Yeah I bolded that part of your post and planned on that being the extent of my post but then added onto it.


1. When was the last time you heard of someone being attacked by someone with a bayonet affixed to their firearm outside a war situation?

[Electric Skeptic]

The difference between semi-automatic and others, is that semi-automatic uses the action of firing to eject the casing of the previous round, and chamber the new one. It fires once per pull of the trigger, but it's the ejection/loading that makes it semi-automatic. Compare that to a bolt-action rifle which requires you to manually eject and load the rifle with each shot.

What about a six-chamber revolver? Like in the westerns? Can you tell how ignorant I am of these things?

[Electric Skeptic]

The fact is the leftists will not accept these two because they would fall largely on minorities.

I disagree. I feel the right will not accept them because any restriction on guns is anathema to them.

[Electric Skeptic]

There is an actual definition for "assault rifle." It is the concocted term "assault weapon" that is extremely nebulous and varies radically from person to person.

The term "assault weapons" became popularized during the Clinton Administration which banned their sale and was used to describe firearms that merely look scary. That is right. It is not based upon functionality, lethalness, or ammo capacity but is based solely on cosmetics. IOW, If it looked deadly it got included.

Senator Feinstein (D-CA), the author of the bill, and her staff literally got a gun catalog and flipped through it picking out the firearms based solely on appearance not on how they functioned. So the manufacturers merely made a few simple cosmetic changes (like changing the color of the stock from black to brown or removing a bayonet lug^[1]) to the firearms so they wouldn't be included.

This was why gun control lobbies went "ballistic" (pun intended) when manufacturers simply slightly changed a firearm's appearance so it would no longer be classed as an "assault weapon."

For example, the staunchly anti-gun Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence groused, "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."

Even the liberal Salon magazine remarked after the assault weapon ban wasn't renewed that it really didn't matter because "This is a rare case where the NRA is right. It says the ban created an artificial distinction between assault weapons and other semi-automatic weapons, based almost entirely on cosmetic features."

Likewise the Los Angeles Times (again hardly a bastion of conservative thought and not a supporter of the Second Amendment) complained that the ban was a joke because it "focused on cosmetics" like flash suppressors and bayonet attachments.

The "Assault Weapon" ban actually included a pistol that can only hold a single round that after discharging you needed to break open the firearm from which you had to manually extract the casing (although a few of the newest models included an ejector), reload it and close the firearm before firing again. Yeah, a real "assault weapon" there

0000000000000a2.jpg
Scary-looking illegal version of the
single-shot Thompson Contender


0000000000000a2b.jpg
Completely legal version with absolutely
no functional difference whatsoever

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21649[/ATTACH]

Thanks for all of that...live and learn. It does seem a pretty stupid way to go about it.

I do have to agree, though, that the illegal Thompson Contender looks far more scary than the legal version :)

1. When was the last time you heard of someone being attacked by someone with a bayonet affixed to their firearm outside a war situation?

Happened to me just last night!

[CivilDiscourse]

What about a six-chamber revolver? Like in the westerns? Can you tell how ignorant I am of these things?

Similar, but the revolver doesn't eject the round from the cylinder, it just rotates. (And honestly, I'm not a big gun guy either, so I'm not big on the technical definitions).

[seer]

I disagree. I feel the right will not accept them because any restriction on guns is anathema to them.

The fact is you will find the majority of illegal firearms in the inner-city.

[Littlejoe]

The only buyback of which I have any experience was the Australian one in the 1990's. That was very successful in that (from memory) over half a million firearms were turned in, but a big number of those were mandatory - Australia had outlawed various types of automatic weapon and for them the buyback was mandatory. I can't see that every flying here.

The Australia mandatory buyback did result in a lot of guns being turned in. And it's touted as being successful in reducing homicides but, it's actual effectiveness has long been debated as homicide rates were already falling all over the world, including Australia.

Here's a good and fair assessment of the program. From the article:

In the wake of the March 15 New Zealand shootings, advocates for new gun restrictions in New Zealand have pointed to Australia as "proof" that if national governments adopt gun restrictions like those of Australia's National Firearms Agreement, then homicides will go into steep decline.

"Exhibit A" is usually the fact that homicides have decreased in Australia since 1996 when the new legislation was adopted in Australia.

There are at least two problems with these claims. First, homicide rates have been in decline throughout western Europe, Canada, and the United States since the early 1990s. The fact that the same trend was followed in Australia is hardly evidence of a revolutionary achievement. Second, homicides were already so unusual in Australia, even before the 1996 legislation, that few lessons can be learned from slight movements either up or down in homicide rates

[Sparko]

Like I said, a mandatory one MIGHT be able to be justified as eminent domain. Only because the constitution allows for the taking of private property with just compensation for the public use/good. You might be able to convince the right set of judges that this interpretation will work. But, It would be a stretch.

that is for real property, like a piece of land, not objects like guns. IF we were at war and they needed the guns to arm the Army, THEN maybe, just maybe, they could justify taking the guns for the greater good/defense of the nation, but of course, such a thing wouldn't even be conceivable in modern times.

[Electric Skeptic]

The fact is you will find the majority of illegal firearms in the inner-city.

Which doesn't change anything I said.

[Electric Skeptic]

The Australia mandatory buyback did result in a lot of guns being turned in. And it's touted as being successful in reducing homicides but, it's actual effectiveness has long been debated as homicide rates were already falling all over the world, including Australia.

Here's a good and fair assessment of the program. From the article:

In the wake of the March 15 New Zealand shootings, advocates for new gun restrictions in New Zealand have pointed to Australia as "proof" that if national governments adopt gun restrictions like those of Australia's National Firearms Agreement, then homicides will go into steep decline.

"Exhibit A" is usually the fact that homicides have decreased in Australia since 1996 when the new legislation was adopted in Australia.

There are at least two problems with these claims. First, homicide rates have been in decline throughout western Europe, Canada, and the United States since the early 1990s. The fact that the same trend was followed in Australia is hardly evidence of a revolutionary achievement. Second, homicides were already so unusual in Australia, even before the 1996 legislation, that few lessons can be learned from slight movements either up or down in homicide rates

I can't really comment on the second point in the information you cite - I don't know much about Australia's murder rate. I know mass killings (or 'spree' killings) were very rare.

But the first point is a very good one, and it's often missed in all sorts of data and trends. Similar to (made up example) - since 2000, 30% more people who have a crash in a Chevy survive! We're so much safer! Yes, but in the last 20 years, improvements in safety technology in the industry mean that the same is true of virtually all cars.

[rogue06]

I can't really comment on the second point in the information you cite - I don't know much about Australia's murder rate. I know mass killings (or 'spree' killings) were very rare.

But the first point is a very good one, and it's often missed in all sorts of data and trends. Similar to (made up example) - since 2000, 30% more people who have a crash in a Chevy survive! We're so much safer! Yes, but in the last 20 years, improvements in safety technology in the industry mean that the same is true of virtually all cars.

Interestingly while the number of firearms in private hands has skyrocketed during the same period we saw a steep drop in gun-related homicides and violence in general.

Gun Control Stats I.jpg

[Electric Skeptic]

Interestingly while the number of firearms in private hands has skyrocketed during the same period we saw a steep drop in gun-related homicides and violence in general.

Gun Control Stats I.jpg

Is that just the US?