Re: turn in your knives!

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 5/27/06, Alex Eckelberry <AlexE () sunbelt-software com> wrote:
> I think that brings up a point that infuriated many gun owners.  The
> so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" was inferred as a ban on "machine guns".
> In fact, an "assault weapon" is not even a machine gun.  It's a normal
> semi-automatic rifle that looks mean and ugly.

I believe, in proper name form, "Assault Weapon" actually refers to a
firearm developed by the Nazi's - though I could be wrong.


> Machine guns have been outlawed for over 70 years. (Semi-automatic
> rifles are not machine guns.  You have to pull the trigger each time to
> shoot a round).

Machine guns are not illegal. Due to the Second Amendment - and the
respect it was once paid, back in the day - machine guns were simply
taxed under the "Interstate Commerce" clause of the Constitution. You
have to pay for a 200 dollar  tax stamp - the process of getting the
tax stamp makes it virtually impossible though, and is administered by
the ATF. The ATF, btw, is administered by the Treasury Department
because they enforce "taxes" - under the loose laws they go by which
skirt (being nice) the Constitution.


> For example, the Ruger Mini 14 is a common "varmit" rifle on many
> ranches in the west, shooting a .223 round.  The AR-15 shoots exactly
> the same bullet, and also is a semi-automatic rifle (not a machine gun).
> However, because it looks like a military rifle, it was the subject of
> an "assault weapons" ban in California, and ultimately federally through
> the national ban.

But these guns were not banned - just a combination of certain
cosmetic parts were banned. Each part was given a point and if a gun
had too many "points" it was banned. For instance, a pistol grip and a
bayonet lug.

I own a couple ARs - all post-ban. Of course now you can buy any of
them, fresh off the assembly line.


> This points out how reactionary the debate can be.  There is a
> tremendous amount of confusion on the subject of guns (both for and
> against them), which is exacerbated by the fact that most people have
> had little or no contact with guns, and hence simply don't understand
> their mechanics.

I have to take issue with this as well. Many, if not most, of the
congressional AND private anti-gunners support their own right to own
a defensive weapon (or the right of the people they hire to do so).
More than a few of the anti-gun senators have concealed carry permit
in their home state, including those from states that only give such
permits to senators and rich people who contribute to the sheriff's
campaign! My only point being that the anti-gunners aren't unfamiliar
with guns, they are simply either stupid or evil in their intentions.
This is especially true of the Brady family.

> I think if the debate can be framed without slick PR tricks, and in the
> vein of common sense, it starts to become palatable to both sides, as
> opposed to reactionary.

I think you're completely wrong here and I think folks like Drsolly
prove it. There are several arguments for guns (rights, self-defense,
hunting, etc.) and only one against them (people can get killed) which
forces the anti-gunners to come up with irrational, unfounded
arguments.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.