The lefts are unwavering, the rights stand firm. But, being the troubleshooter that I am, I stumble upon things in both arguments, that make me wonder...
   I hear this statement all the time from pro-gun owners.

"...with certain cosmetic features that anti-gun people find particularly offensive looking, but that do not affect the function of the firearm. "  

I also commonly hear...

" ... They do not have any impact on the lethalness of the weapon at all. "

 Now, trying to have a logical and mature discussion (and trying to elicit the same response)... I have to ask.
   Are they talking about Flash Hiders? Playing devils advocate, isn't a flash hider supposed to have an affect on the function of the firearm as well as the lethalness of the firearm? I mean, if I were hiding in the bush, at dark, I would be able to pick off more charlies by not being blinded, and having less muzzle movement?  If they had no impact on the function of the firearm, why do people by them? because they are cool looking?
  What about collapsing stocks?  If I were a cop, would I not be able to manipulate inside of a building better, by collapsing my stock, rather than have a long, fixed on? Put 100 cops on an urban assault test range.  50 with collapsible and 50 with non collapsible.  Which side do you thing would fare better and why? isn't' it obvious?
  And magazines, if I were a crazed maniac, with 20 mags, would I not be able to load each one the night before going on my trip to 'postal land'?  I would be able to get out more rounds in a certain time frame, than by having to reload each time. I think that has an impact on lethalness.

  Now, before the assumptions target me as an infiltrator for the anti-gun people,  let me say that I am not. In fact, I plan to one day own a whole arsenal of weapons.  But MY excuse will be, "Yes, I know that they have an impact on the function of the weapon, that's why I have them. I want only the best! I SHOULD have a right to own this weapon, because if a crack head down the street decides to off me, I would want the advantage. There is no law that keeps him from getting his hands on any illegal firearm.  Hence, the laws are to help the criminals, and hinder law abiding citizen.  And if a boat load of Iraqi insurgents landed on my beach, I would want the equipment capable of being able to protect my family... to be able to hide in the bush and fire as many rounds as possible, and be as accurate as I could be in as short a time frame as possible. And lets face it, what do you think the possibility is, that you will need these items in the forest?  It's most likely going to be in an urban environment. That's were we spend 99% of our life.

  So, can someone clear the air for me, as to why people think that flash suppressors don't change the function of a rifle? or the collapsible stocks make any impact whatsoever?

    o.k... let the 'stuff' fly.

a bullet from a preban will kill you just as much as a bullet from a postban.

And on top of that the citizenry should be able to own ANY weapon that is used by the infantry soldier of the day.

Quoted: And on top of that the citizenry should be able to own ANY weapon that is used by the infantry soldier of the day.

THAT is the point.

I understand your questions are sincere, but ENTIRELY miss the point. Pro gunners  who argue this question from the "function of the weapon" viewpoint miss the point.

The POINT is the Founding Fathers NEVER wanted to make the citizenry have LESS rights than the military. THAT is how dictatorships are born.

An armed citizenry - armed with ALL the same SMALL arms as the military - is what prevents dictatorships.

The REAL reason we are happy to see the AWB go away is because it made the citizens a sub-class to the gov't. Think "big picture."

Next up - the 1934 and 1986 machine gun bans.

flashiders: well instead of having a 4ft long big-A fireball coming out of a 16in, the fs just cuts down on the flash; only suppressors can almost completely conceal the flash
you could pic off more charlies with more training and ammo....

fs does not affect the leathality of the bullet

collapseable stocks: pros: compactness; higher moblity in confined areas; cool looking
                                   cons: less stable; no cleaning kit

mags: you got just as much ammo with 10 10rder mags that 2 30rder mags; if you are intent on harming people, youll find a way

PS: people are the problem; people choose wether or not to harm other people; guns are just technology, non-living things without the ablity to make choices
make the right choices

They should be banned because they are scary!!  That is all....

Very good feedback.  But... again to be devils advocate...  
   Yes, a flash suppressor does suppress flash, so, in a way, does that not give a tactical advantage to someone that is set up 'exactly the same', next to you?
  And Magazine capacities, those '2 seconds' to change out a magazine? changing 8 10-round mags out, leaves hypothetically 14 seconds of 'down time', versus 2 seconds with 2 40-round mags. Quite a bit of difference in down time! This is what I see as 'weapon effectiveness'.

   Again, I'm not trying to instill any negative feelings, it's just that, if it were me, holding the banner for pro-guns, I would do everything I could to keep the anti-gun people free of any ammuntion toward me (no pun intended).  

I'm OHMR95B and I approved this message.




Garandman nailed it. The Second Amendment is was STRICKLY setup so that the common people (the same "people" referred to in all the other Amendments) had the means to overthrow a tyrannical government. In its purest form, all Americans SHOULD own whatever weaponry they want to. That is why it says "....shall not be INFRINGED." Our Founding Fathers wanted the common man to be on equal footing with the established military in case of revolt against an unfair government. Is this really feasibile today? No, not really, our weapons have become too powerful. However, the spirit of the law should be upheld and the MOST dangerous weapons that the people can gain the knowledge how to use/afford should be legal, including MG's and DD's. Also, this provision acts as a overwhelming check and balance because ideally, the government should know that if they don't do their job for the true will of the people, the people will have the ways and means to rise up and kick their asses out of office.


RANT OFF. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

Ask John Kerry, at some point in time he'll let you know his position....and change it

mike_of_austin

Several fellas have already commented about the "evil" features, but here is another view:

Many (the vast majority I would guess) of the pre-ban weapons were made with the evil flash suppressor (which isn't very effective, as you've heard).  Unless you were buying a custom gun, they just came that way.  After the ban, some customers balked at buying a "naked looking barrel" that lacked the "evil" flash hider.  The firearm makers responded by putting on muzzle breaks that actually made the platform more stable for a follow-up shot.  If hitting what you want to hit (accuracy) is "more lethal", then, in effect, the post-bans became "more lethal".

Also, those folks that didn't mind the "naked looking barrel" were rewarded with a more accurate weapon, because there was nothing on the end of the barrel to cause unintended deflection of the shot.  Again, the post-bans became "more lethal".

Finally, having had a cosmetic ban put in place that didn't really impact the function of the firearm, people responded by buying many many more evil post-ban rifles, because they were suddenly "in".


Now, with many many more evil black rifles available today, and more accurate ones at that, any clear thinking individual will question the mantra of the left:  "Blood will flow in the streets of America if the AWB sunsets."  Why?  What has kept the blood from flowing the past decade?  Certainly not the AWB, which prevented NOTHING, and actually stimulated sales of more accurate weapons.


All of these things are the the unintended consequences of the Clinton Gun Ban.  And like most leftist legislation, the world would have been better off without it.

I recall that a manufacturer was developing a new compensator and it was asked if would act like a flash hider. So they asked the ATF and got the answer, "well, does it reduce the flash or not"?

They checked from down range with a light meter. Of course the flash amount was the same, just a different shape.

Bet ya the original flash hider still showed lots of light down range...

IMHO the libs will attack the issue from ANY angle they deem appropriate. Making sensical arguments are not in their agenda. If they even suspect that raising an issue (that is in reality no issue at all) if the middle of the roaders will buy it, makes sense to them. As in so many areas of our daily life that libs want to control, the words "moot issue" are foreign to them. For some strange reason they cannot seem to grasp the meaning, let alone learn that their rantings/attempts at controlling society in general will always be resisted by many.

Obfuscation is a tactic the libs have adopted many, many times and often they have no clue they are using it. I have yet to read/discuss an argument used by the anti-gunners that did not fit into the categories of either outright lies, nonsense or obfuscation.

Quoted: All of these things are the the unintended consequences of the Clinton Gun Ban.  And like most leftist legislation, the world would have been better off without it.

As Jim Quinn's first law goes: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.

Quoted: Quoted: And on top of that the citizenry should be able to own ANY weapon that is used by the infantry soldier of the day. THAT is the point. I understand your questions are sincere, but ENTIRELY miss the point. Pro gunners  who argue this question from the "function of the weapon" viewpoint miss the point. The POINT is the Founding Fathers NEVER wanted to make the citizenry have LESS rights than the military. THAT is how dictatorships are born. An armed citizenry - armed with ALL the same SMALL arms as the military - is what prevents dictatorships. The REAL reason we are happy to see the AWB go away is because it made the citizens a sub-class to the gov't. Think "big picture." Next up - the 1934 and 1986 machine gun bans.

+1

1) I have heard many time that the "flash hider" on an A2 isn't a flash hider at all.


2)  IMO it is not very intelligent to go around saying they are just cosmetic differences.  I have never understood why this is a good argument for the pro gun individual.  It reads like this:

It is like taking away what you thought was your kids favorite video game and have them stand up and say "haha I don't even like that game, these are the games I can't live without".  And you respond "Oh yeah, then I'll take those then".

The merits of flash hiders, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, magazines, lethality, etc. are just a smoke screen intended to conceal the real purpose of "common sense gun control".  
Bureaucrats don't care if gun control laws reduce crime or suicides or anything else.  
Bureaucrats don't care if people have more safety devices, chamber status indicators, smart guns, locks, seperate storage for guns and ammo.  
Bureaucrats only care about their jobs.  While people are arguing about details, the bureaucrats are whittling away at gun ownership, hunting, gun shows, gun ranges and everything else that scares them.  
The big picture is that they want to take away all the guns, all the time and will say and do anything to accomplish this goal.

Tag