Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/25/2004 12:33:34 PM EST
Why is it only now in the past 15 years or so they suddenly start to be hellbent regulating AR-15s the same as M-16s?


CRC
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:34:43 PM EST
Rogue Senators with personal agendas.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:35:45 PM EST
The political and social elite are trying to further thier power.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:36:04 PM EST
Is an M-16 that much more deadly than an AR-15 that it requires fingerprints and a 200 dollar tax?

Even the anti gunners claim there is little difference in an M-16 and an AR.

CRC
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:37:13 PM EST
Exactly why they say both should be banned.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:41:43 PM EST
So does this help us overturn the machinegun ban?

Is 3 round burst really more deserving of a ban?

CRC
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:46:17 PM EST
Individual legislators are sometimes the driving force. I know one in CA, Jack Scott has a son that was killed by someone with a firearm. That's all it takes for some of them. They lash out seeking closure by blaming the weapon and ignoring the fault of individuals. People like to blame things and put blame on society rather than do the tough work of real justice.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:51:07 PM EST

Why did congress find automatics much more deserving of regulation than semi-autos?


Duh, because they are teh evil!!11
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:52:08 PM EST
Because they really do have more thrusts per squeeze.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:53:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:
Why is it only now in the past 15 years or so they suddenly start to be hellbent regulating AR-15s the same as M-16s?


CRC



AR15s are not regulating anywhere near the same way as M16s are. Be thankful for that and fight tooth and nail to prevent it from happening.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 12:55:41 PM EST
It's called "incrementalism". In 1934 (and 1986) it was machine guns. In 1994 it was scary looking semi-autos. The goal hasn't changed, only their success rate.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:07:09 PM EST
One of the original proposed definitions classed BOTH automatic and semi-automatic guns together as machine guns but the s-a reference was dropped.

Why?

CRC
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:13:49 PM EST
Divide and conquer. It's the oldest game in the book.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:15:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:
Why is it only now in the past 15 years or so they suddenly start to be hellbent regulating AR-15s the same as M-16s?


CRC

> 15 years? wtf. Try 70, since the 1934 NFA.

Do you really know little of national firearm-realted legislation, or do you simply live in an AR-centric universe?
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:16:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:
One of the original proposed definitions classed BOTH automatic and semi-automatic guns together as machine guns but the s-a reference was dropped.

Why?

CRC



Probably a compromise, which was made to facilitate the legislation's passing into law. Kinda like the 10 year exparation date on the '94 AWB.

It's just politics, dude. It doesn't have anything to do with philosophy. I think you are reading way too much into this.

It is about what they can do, and what they can't do. Back in '94, they just barely passed the AWB. If they didn't make it expire in 2004, it probably wouldn't have passed in the first place. Likewise, NFA '34 might not have passed if it was more restrictive.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:18:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Why is it only now in the past 15 years or so they suddenly start to be hellbent regulating AR-15s the same as M-16s?


CRC

> 15 years? wtf. Try 70, since the 1934 NFA.

Do you really know little of national firearm-realted legislation, or do you simply live in an AR-centric universe?



Lay off the guy. He is just asking a simple question.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:20:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2004 1:21:19 PM EST by CRC]
Mr. FREDERICK. I should not like, if there is to be legislation with respect to machine guns, to have machine guns capable of firing up to 12 shots exempted from the operations of this bill.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Frederick, under your proposed definition, would the Colt automatic pistol be a machine gun?

Mr. FREDERICK. No, sir. I do not think that in the eyes of any ballistic engineer it would be so regarded. I do not think it should be so regarded.

Mr. COCHRAN. Does not the Colt automatic pistol continue to shoot as long as you exert pressure upon the trigger?

Mr. FREDERICK. No, sir. It requires a separate pull of the trigger for every shot fired.

Mr. HILL. If the Colt automatic pistol could fire 12 times, would it be a machine gun under this definition in the bill?

Mr. FREDERICK. Under the definition as printed in the bill?

Mr. HILL. Yes.

Mr. FREDERICK. I do not know what the language means, "automatically or semiautomatically." The language is not, as I read it, and from my limited knowledge of firearms and ballistics - which has some scope, but I do not pretend to be a finished master in that; I am a lawyer, I am not a firearms manufacturer - I do not know what “automatically or semiautomatically" means. There are automatic features about the Colt pistol in the sense that when a shot is fired the action of the gas not only expels the bullet from one

end of the barrel, but it expels the empty shell from the other end, and it is so devised that upon the return of the carriage through a spring, it puts another shell in place of the old one. That is in a sense automatic, and that principle is found in machine guns. But that is not the distinguishing features of a machine gun."

Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:22:04 PM EST
Back when the 1934 NFA was being debated there was a debate on just what "machine gun" meant.

Read the text above.

CRC
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:22:18 PM EST
I have read that an early draft made all handguns NFA weapons.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:23:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2004 1:25:52 PM EST by Garand_Shooter]
Look at the technology that existed in 1934. You had bolt actions, very, very few semi auto rifles (I can only think of a couple) and a whole bunch of full autos (Thompsons, BAR's, 1919's) on the market.

So semi's really were not an issue as there were not many.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:24:32 PM EST
But some would have also been classified as "machine guns" too.

There was a debate on "automatically or semi-automatically" versus "automatically".

CRC
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:25:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Look at teh technology that existed in 1934. You had bolt actions, very, very few semi auto rifles (I can only think of a couple) and a whole bunch of full autos (Thompsons, BAR's, 1919's) on the market.

So semi's really were not an issue as there were not many.



Good point.

CRC
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:32:20 PM EST
. The definition of the term "machine gun" I think is wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory. A gun which fires automatically or semiautomatically less than 12 shots is not under this definition a machine gun. And yet, in my opinion, it is in fact a machine gun and should be so classified.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 1:52:52 PM EST
How long did it take the NFA to pass? Were there radical anti gunners like Schumer, Kerry, Fineswine, and Kennedy back then? If so who was the Fineswine of those days? What was the deal with the NFA? Was it extremely controversial like the AWB was?
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 2:05:57 PM EST
The NFA was proposed in response to crime in the 1920's and 30s.

The FBI did not want to be outgunned by the criminals.

It was amended to pass by excluding handguns and changing some of the other definitions.

CRC
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 2:14:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Look at the technology that existed in 1934. You had bolt actions, very, very few semi auto rifles (I can only think of a couple) and a whole bunch of full autos (Thompsons, BAR's, 1919's) on the market.

So semi's really were not an issue as there were not many.



This is the correct answer. There were very frew legitimate self loading rifles in powerful cals. There were plenty of pipsqueak blowback ones, but they are not really material. Up to then, the category was a failure, with the only real success being the French RSC 1917 & variants.

You can bet your ass that if such a category existed then, it would have been included.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 2:17:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Look at the technology that existed in 1934. You had bolt actions, very, very few semi auto rifles (I can only think of a couple) and a whole bunch of full autos (Thompsons, BAR's, 1919's) on the market.

So semi's really were not an issue as there were not many.



The 1911 was very popular on both sides of the law at that time. As were many smaller semiauto handguns. And the Browning Auto 5 shotgun was popular as well; I think they were the basis for Clyde Barrow's "whippits" (very short shotguns).

There were only several types of semiauto rifles at that time, and they were inferior to other action types in a number of respets. Nevertheless, there were common in law enforcement.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 2:37:56 PM EST
I have read that an early draft made all handguns NFA weapons.

Yes, that is true.

Also, the Attorney General was asked if they simply banned the guns, wouldn't that be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. He answered that yes, it would be. BUT, they could tax and regulate via the tax process. Thus, the "tax stamp" was in reality a fee and license. The "tax return" was in reality a gun registration.

With the end of Prohibition, they had a bunch of Treasury agents in need of something to do, and job skills not much good for anything else... so they turned their attention to firearms.

It is interesting that corporations were specifically allowed to gain access to machine guns, yet the $200 tax, in 1934 in the midst of the Great Depression, was insurmountable for most citizens. It was a virtual ban on individual ownership of those arms.

The corporation thing was so that coal and steel companies could obtain machine guns to mow down striking workers. That was labor relations in the 30's.

Odd, in 1986, with passage of the McClure-Volkmer "Firearm Owners Protection Act" and its machine gun ban, and later, the 1994 AWB, they apparently did not get the word (from 1934) that they could not ban firearms, only tax and regulate.

Thus the theory, without a tax, they have no jurisdiction over that type of firearm.
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 4:24:17 PM EST
Because they are as shallow as thier votes They have no idea other than SEALS or SOGS there is no reason to have even a burst! The quality AR/15 is the same as any M-16,just that one is more likekly to hit targets at Semi-auto than at FA!
The FA would be better agasinst multipul targets at close range! But even at Semi only the 15 would be a good rifle as a SHTF rifle!


The Gov really wants you to be a rennisance man ,but not have the same firepower!

So untill we let them know semi-autos are not full autos,they will keep spouting the FA assault lies!

So we need to remind them about the difference between semi-auto and full auto!

The Germans could tell them about the difference between the K-98 and the Garand!


On secound thought don't wise them up at all!! Just vote them to the curb!!!


Bob
Top Top