Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Men armed with rifles walk through Portland to 'educate'

Men armed with rifles walk through Portland to 'educate' (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
I'm not a gun owner and am in favour of strict gun control, but I do agree that multi-round magazines are a potential life saver in self defence situations. A bear could do significant damage to you in the time it takes to fumble around picking up the round you just dropped in the snow, for example.
Why does the same not apply for making magazines intentionally harder to use (by forcing more frequent changes)?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Why does the same not apply for making magazines intentionally harder to use (by forcing more frequent changes)?
Well I think it does apply, to a point. I'd say its just about finding a sweet spot where a gun owner has as many rounds available as are reasonably necessary, yet few enough that it might save lives if the the weapon were to be used on offense. 10 rounds seem like a good number to me, but its obviously up for debate.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
Well I think it does apply, to a point. I'd say its just about finding a sweet spot where a gun owner has as many rounds available as are reasonably necessary, yet few enough that it might save lives if the the weapon were to be used on offense. 10 rounds seem like a good number to me, but its obviously up for debate.
I would agree with this.

I can think of no legitimate reason why someone would need a 30-round magazine for example. If you need more than 10 rounds for self-defense, you're probably f***ed anyway and having 30 rounds wouldn't help you. It's also important to remember that, generally speaking, 30-round magazine are used in rifles which are only useful for defending one's home (i.e., you're not going to carry around a rifle with you on a daily basis as a self-defense weapon).

Can anyone provide any legitimate, rationale argument for why someone needs a 30-round magazine?
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2013, 09:36 PM
 
For conducting a military operation.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 04:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
For conducting a military operation.
Militia training.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 04:08 AM
 
I'd consider that a military operation, assuming it's done right.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 04:19 AM
 
Are militias even relevant today? Maybe the problem is with the word... What does a militia mean to you, exactly? I don't mean dictionary definition, I mean when people refer to a militia what do they usually mean?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 04:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'd consider that a military operation, assuming it's done right.
We're working to organize ours more professionally and implementing a chain of command, UDC, proper oath of service, and updating our by-laws.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 04:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
We're working to organize ours more professionally and implementing a chain of command, UDC, proper oath of service, and updating our by-laws.

Why on Earth do you have a militia?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 04:39 AM
 
Because it's necessary to the security and well-being of a free state. We're working with the state to become an auxiliary to the TN State Guard, providing organized assistance to civil authorities in disaster relief, humanitarian causes, and defense.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 04:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Because it's necessary to the security and well-being of a free state. We're working with the state to become an auxiliary to the TN State Guard, providing organized assistance to civil authorities in disaster relief, humanitarian causes, and defense.

I never thought of a militia providing disaster relief, is that really the word you'd use? Kudos to your working towards providing a group that assists in these situations though!

As far as the security and well-being of the state, given the presence of military and state and local police isn't this redundant? I'm not sure how I'd feel with some group providing these services, whatever they are, without proper training either. Who is training you guys, and what sort of legal authorization do you have to supplement the military and police?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 05:09 AM
 
I'm not in a militia, but many of them act as (and train to be) auxiliary first responders.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 05:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not in a militia, but many of them act as (and train to be) auxiliary first responders.

So, more Red Crossey type people than armed defenders?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 06:16 AM
 
Both.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 06:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I never thought of a militia providing disaster relief, is that really the word you'd use? Kudos to your working towards providing a group that assists in these situations though!

As far as the security and well-being of the state, given the presence of military and state and local police isn't this redundant? I'm not sure how I'd feel with some group providing these services, whatever they are, without proper training either. Who is training you guys, and what sort of legal authorization do you have to supplement the military and police?
We're predominantly former and active military (national guard), but others have been formally trained in law enforcement and first response (rescue squad, EMTs, and fire fighters). There are set proficiency and fitness requirements, and professional training is provided. Authorization is granted by the state constitution, and our lawful Commander-In-Chief is the state governor.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 11:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
But what IS an "Assault Rifle"??? Just because it looks 'scarey' to the ignorant?
So, why don't soldiers go into combat with hunting rifles?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I said "Mossberg 715T. Many people around here use them for squirrel." (period), and then also mentioned the SA .308 as a separate entry, but didn't specify a model because there are a s**t ton of variants. You asked what could be "confused with an assault weapon", and either the Mossberg 715T and any .308 SA, with black paint, a flash suppressor, and pistol grip could be "confused with an assault weapon".
So, because some non-assault rifles could be confused with assault rifles, there shouldn't be an assault rifle ban?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Militia training.
Then why try to pretend that anyone might use an assault rifle for hunting?
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 11:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
There are set proficiency and fitness requirements, and professional training is provided. Authorization is granted by the state constitution, and our lawful Commander-In-Chief is the state governor.
In other words, you're in a club that calls itself a militia.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Then why try to pretend that anyone might use an assault rifle for hunting?
Because some people do use "assault rifles" for hunting.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
So, because some non-assault rifles could be confused with assault rifles, there shouldn't be an assault rifle ban?
According to the descriptions given, and the DNC talking points, there are great deal more "assault rifles" than just about anyone imagined.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
So, why don't soldiers go into combat with hunting rifles?
"Assault rifle" is a style, not a specification. It's like an SUV style, or a sportscar style. The original jeep or hummer form factor did/does have off-road use, that doesn't mean that the majority of people who own that style have the ability to use it for off-road use. The enormous spoiler on a porsche or a modded civic did/does have a track use, that doesn't mean that the majority of people who own that style of car use it for track purposes.

The "assault rifle" style is made to look like military gear, that is precisely the point. It looks cool because it looks like military. That doesn't mean any gun made to look like that style technically has any functional overlap with the military weapon that it's emulating, any more than a camry with a spoiler can go as fast as a race car, or an SUV can actually handle going off-road. It's all looks. That's where the problems come in, if looks are the root cause of the problem. If a spree shooter gets amped up by the looks of the gun, then in order to stop it we have to ban the looks. If gun-o-phobes get especially terrorized by the looks of what weapon was used in a terrorist attack (like a spree shooter is), then banning the looks is going to be the only way to address that problem.

But banning "looks" is very difficult, and made even more difficult when people can't even recognize that "looks" are what makes it the thing they're afraid of (assault weapon) and the actual capability of the weapon is not related to it. Don't forget that more handguns have been used in spree shootings than rifles.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 05:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
So, why don't soldiers go into combat with hunting rifles?
They used to.

The range at which people engage in combat is much closer than it used to be. This caused a few changes in doctrine.

First off, a smaller bullet was chosen. The old style was a .308, they knocked that down to a .223 (7.62mm and 5.56mm respectively). In Korea (for example) you wanted a .308 because you were shooting at someone a half-mile away. By the time Vietnam rolled around, you were shooting at someone only 20 feet away. All that extra power was wasted.

It wasn't just power either, it was weight. A soldier can carry twice the amount of .223 vs. .308.

Lastly, once soldiers could carry more ammo, and had a round which didn't knock you on your ass shooting it, it became feasible to let individual soldiers have selective fire (i.e. full-auto).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 05:17 PM
 
Also, it should be noted, a person is easier to kill than a moose, and in war it's considered better to wound rather than kill (a wounded soldier needs other solders to carry them off, soldiers carrying are soldiers not shooting at you).
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 05:51 PM
 
"Gun Appreciation Day"
'Gun Appreciation Day' marred by accidental shootings - The Week
The Raleigh News & Observer reports that three people were shot when a loaded shotgun accidentally discharged at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that one man was left wounded after an accidental shooting at the Medina Gun Show in Medina, Ohio.

The Indianapolis Star reports a man was injured as he was leaving the 1500 Gun & Knife Show at the Indiana State Fairgrounds when his gun accidentally discharged.

And gun shows accidents weren’t the only ones yesterday. There were many more:

UPI reports a Dallas man was arrested when a gun discharged in his pocket while he was shopping at Walmart, injuring two other people.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports a six year old girl shot herself in the face while handling with her father’s gun.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports a 14 year old boy accidentally shot and killed his 15-year old brother with his mother’s handgun.

A Google search pulls up dozens of similar stories.

Gun enthusiasts rightfully note that these were accidents and that many people are also killed in car accidents every single day.

That’s very true. But as Congress mulls news gun laws, perhaps lawmakers could weigh whether guns and their owners should at least be regulated to the same degree that we regulate cars and their drivers.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
We're predominantly former and active military (national guard), but others have been formally trained in law enforcement and first response (rescue squad, EMTs, and fire fighters). There are set proficiency and fitness requirements, and professional training is provided. Authorization is granted by the state constitution, and our lawful Commander-In-Chief is the state governor.
Got a web site?
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Got a web site?
Ooh, you did it now.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
"Assault rifle" is a style, not a specification.
That's essentially the case. You have folks deciding what's most lethal based on cosmetics; flat black, pistol grip, collapsible stock, over-sized handguards, and more modern appearance, it must be more dangerous. Right? After all, if you're a passenger, seeing a middle-eastern gentleman board your plane is more scary than than the typical Caucasian dude.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 07:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That's essentially the case. You have folks deciding what's most lethal based on cosmetics; flat black, pistol grip, collapsible stock, over-sized handguards, and more modern appearance, it must be more dangerous. Right? After all, if you're a passenger, seeing a middle-eastern gentleman board your plane is more scary than than the typical Caucasian dude.

What about bullet calibre, velocity, and extra features such as bayonet attachment, the ability to hold more rounds, etc.? Appearance alone might have an impact on triggering violent impulses too, I don't know.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 07:43 PM
 
With calibre and velocity, as has been said, ammo you'd use in an assault rifle is tinier and slower than what you use in a hunting rifle. Likewise, a hunter has to (in general) kill something which is hardier than a human, while in combat it is preferable to severely wound.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That's essentially the case. You have folks deciding what's most lethal based on cosmetics; flat black, pistol grip, collapsible stock, over-sized handguards, and more modern appearance, it must be more dangerous. Right? After all, if you're a passenger, seeing a middle-eastern gentleman board your plane is more scary than than the typical Caucasian dude.
No one has EVER said a firearm should be banned because it is flat black, has over-sized hand guards, and/or "a more modern appearance". Just because most assault rifles falling under the previous ban happen to be black does not make the color a criteria of the ban.

Again, here are the criteria from the last "assault weapon" ban:

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Note that none of the cosmetic features identified include color, hand guard size, and/or "appearance".

All of the above criteria are firstly FUNCTIONAL modifications that also happen to alter the appearance of the firearm.

It should also be noted that none of those functional modification are necessary or required for home defense use and/or hunting.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 08:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
With calibre and velocity, as has been said, ammo you'd use in an assault rifle is tinier and slower than what you use in a hunting rifle. Likewise, a hunter has to (in general) kill something which is hardier than a human, while in combat it is preferable to severely wound.
That's correct, rifles used for big game are typically more lethal than "assault weapons", shot for shot. If folks want to get their knickers in a knot over a rifle, it should be something like this:




Cobb MCR-300 (.30-06) & MCR-200 (7.62)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
No one has EVER said a firearm should be banned because it is flat black, has over-sized hand guards, and/or "a more modern appearance". Just because most assault rifles falling under the previous ban happen to be black does not make the color a criteria of the ban.

Again, here are the criteria from the last "assault weapon" ban:

Note that none of the cosmetic features identified include color, hand guard size, and/or "appearance".

All of the above criteria are firstly FUNCTIONAL modifications that also happen to alter the appearance of the firearm.

It should also be noted that none of those functional modification are necessary or required for home defense use and/or hunting.
and none make a damned bit of difference in how lethal the rifle is. Around here, we consider that cosmetic. Hence my comment about it being pointless feel-good legislation. Admit it, they're more scary-looking, and that's really what the average Joe and Jane are concerned with.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 08:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
It should also be noted that none of those functional modification are necessary or required for home defense use and/or hunting.
I'd say that's not entirely true with the pistol grip, but you are correct otherwise.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
and none make a damned bit of difference in how lethal the rifle is. Around here, we consider that cosmetic. Hence my comment about it being pointless feel-good legislation. Admit it, they're more scary-looking, and that's really what the average Joe and Jane are concerned with.
Firstly, a grenade launcher sure as hell does increase lethality.

And the other modification are certainly not just there for cosmetics. Those are FUNCTIONAL modifications, that's why they are used in the military. You really think the military/police have those modifications for cosmetics? Give me a break.

They may not increase "lethality" per se but they certainly increase the ease of use, carrying ability, etc.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 08:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'd say that's not entirely true with the pistol grip, but you are correct otherwise.
Maybe for home defense, not for hunting. THe vast majority of traditional hunting guns do not have pistol grips.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 08:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That's correct, rifles used for big game are typically more lethal than "assault weapons", shot for shot. If folks want to get their knickers in a knot over a rifle, it should be something like this:




Cobb MCR-300 (.30-06) & MCR-200 (7.62)
And "big" in this context can mean a deer.

Which are a ****ing menace BTW. No apex predators to stop them going through your windshield at 75 mph.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Maybe for home defense, not for hunting. THe vast majority of traditional hunting guns do not have pistol grips.
That's what I was thinking. The pistol grip is for tight spaces.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 08:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Firstly, a grenade launcher sure as hell does increase lethality.

And the other modification are certainly not just there for cosmetics. Those are FUNCTIONAL modifications, that's why they are used in the military. You really think the military/police have those modifications for cosmetics? Give me a break.

They may not increase "lethality" per se but they certainly increase the ease of use, carrying ability, etc.
Sorry, but the grenade launcher is not available to the public, in any shape or form, sadly enough. That's already covered by existing legislation. The rest are mods that help with carry over distance and ease of function for extended use. For the general public, and the typical mass-shooting nutter, it's cosmetic.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 08:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
And "big" in this context can mean a deer.

Which are a ****ing menace BTW. No apex predators to stop them going through your windshield at 75 mph.
A really nice old lady who lived up the road was killed by one coming through her windshield a couple months ago, their populations are completely out of hand. I don't particularly enjoy hunting, I'm not fond of killing anything, but I may have to make an exception for them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 09:57 PM
 
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2013, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
No one has EVER said a firearm should be banned because it is flat black
Actually the color was proposed for a gun ban, in this thread:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post4212687


Just because most assault rifles falling under the previous ban happen to be black does not make the color a criteria of the ban.
That's backwards. The previous ban and all other proposed bans are attempting to answer the question "look we all know an assault rifle when we see it, how do we codify that thing we all recognize." It's not like the list of criteria fell out of the sky and we had to figure out what weapons it applied to. The list was designed to target the weapons someone had in mind.


It should also be noted that none of those functional modification are necessary or required for home defense use and/or hunting.
Or crime, or terrorism. The objection to this dog and pony show isn't because it would be too effective, it's because it would be too ineffective.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2013, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Sorry, but the grenade launcher is not available to the public, in any shape or form, sadly enough. That's already covered by existing legislation.
Civilians can purchase grenade launchers for attachment to AR-15s. All you need is the proper paperwork and the $200 tax stamp. I'm surprised you didn't know this as someone who has said he owns lots of full auto weapons and clearly must be familiar with NFA.

In the United States, M203 grenade launchers are classified as "Destructive Devices" under the National Firearms Act subject to the NFA process. M203s are not that common in the civilian NFA market because each explosive 40 mm grenade is also subject to the NFA process and its subsequent $200 tax.
LMT M203 40mm grenade launcher

Rifles / Autoloading / Grenade Launchers / M79 / M203 / M320


Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The rest are mods that help with carry over distance and ease of function for extended use. For the general public, and the typical mass-shooting nutter, it's cosmetic.
You can keep parroting NRA propoganda all you want but these modifications are NOT purely cosmetic, whether they are for military use or the general public.

What you're saying is that the SAME gun in the hands of someone in the military has functional modifications that help with carry over distance and ease of function for extended use, but once he hands it to someone in the general public those functional modifications miraculously become purely cosmetic.

OK then.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2013, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Actually the color was proposed for a gun ban, in this thread:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post4212687
Not by anyone in the government with the power to draft a law is what I meant.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's backwards. The previous ban and all other proposed bans are attempting to answer the question "look we all know an assault rifle when we see it, how do we codify that thing we all recognize." It's not like the list of criteria fell out of the sky and we had to figure out what weapons it applied to. The list was designed to target the weapons someone had in mind.
Agree 100% with this. But "color" was not one of the things they used to codify that thing they all recognized was my point. Because such a criteria would clearly be easy to get around and does nothing to affect the performance of the weapon.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Or crime, or terrorism. The objection to this dog and pony show isn't because it would be too effective, it's because it would be too ineffective.
We have discussed why AR-15s are used in these mass murders. Is it intimidation? Is it ease of acquisition? Is it because they have foldable/collapsing stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, detachable 30-round magazines, etc.?
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2013, 09:39 AM
 
I gotta admit, the logic of banning a bayonet mount is lost on me.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2013, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Civilians can purchase grenade launchers for attachment to AR-15s. All you need is the proper paperwork and the $200 tax stamp. I'm surprised you didn't know this as someone who has said he owns lots of full auto weapons and clearly must be familiar with NFA.
Going by what you listed about assault rifles, it's not talking about grenade launchers, it's talking about rifle grenades. This is a grenade you stick in the muzzle, and then propel to the target by firing the rifle.

/nitpick
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2013, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Going by what you listed about assault rifles, it's not talking about grenade launchers, it's talking about rifle grenades. This is a grenade you stick in the muzzle, and then propel to the target by firing the rifle.

/nitpick
True, but that's because, as Shaddim pointed out, externally mounted grenade launchers are already regulated by the NFA.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2013, 09:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I gotta admit, the logic of banning a bayonet mount is lost on me.
Probably as a way of further trying to codify those things found on military assault weapons that they want to fall under the scope of the ban.

In other words, as Uncle notes, "look we all know an assault rifle when we see it, how do we codify that thing we all recognize."

Assault weapons such as the AR-15 have a certain combination of functional modifications/features that make them "assault weapons". These functional modifications/features are not found on the vast majority of rifles used for hunting - they are only (or primarily) found on assault weapons.

One of these modifications is a bayonet mount.

But you could have a bayonet mount if you want one, as long as you don't have any of the other modifications. Want a pistol grip? Fine. But you can't have any of the other modifications. Want a collapsable/foldable stock? Fine. But you can't have any of the other modifications. Etc., etc., etc.

See, it's not any SINGLE modification/feature that makes an assault weapon and assault weapon. It's having COMBINATIONS of such modifications/features present on a single weapon what makes it an "assault weapon". At least that's the "logic" used in the previous ban.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2013, 09:59 AM
 
I'm lost. Is anyone discussing overturning the ban?

Aren't people discussing making it only one of the features on the list make it fall under the ban?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2013, 10:00 AM
 
Take the M16A1.



As long as it was semi-auto and not full auto, if you take away the flash suppressor and bayonet mount, this would NOT fall under the previous assault weapon ban since it would only have ONE of the listed modifications (pistol grip).
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2013, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm lost. Is anyone discussing overturning the ban?

Aren't people discussing making it only one of the features on the list make it fall under the ban?
I'm lost. What do you mean "overturning the ban"? The previous "assault Weapon" ban already expired.

The government (Obama) is talking about instituting a NEW "assault weapon" ban. We have no idea what criteria such a new ban would use to define an "assault weapon". I'm speculating it would be similar to the previous one but I have no idea. If they use only one of the features on the old list I would have a HUGE problem with that.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:40 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2