How many people realize this:

[RoeBear]

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/columnists/ny-livit043694725mar04,0,3402304.column?coll=ny-li-columnists

"Pick up the Yellow Pages and go to "Guns." Call the first gun store you find. Ask what you'll need to purchase a semi-automatic military-style sniper rifle like the one used by John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo to kill 10 people during their 2002 Washington, D.C.-area murder spree.

"You have a driver's license?" said the man at the Long Island store I called yesterday to ask about buying the assault rifle known as the Bushmaster XM-15.

"Sure," I said, "but what else do I need to bring?"

I was thinking paperwork - perhaps to verify my clean criminal record, my relative sanity, the lack of any documented connections between myself and al-Qaida.

"Nothing else," said the man. "Just money."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A driver's license and money, that's it. What do you think?

[John BigBootay]

1. Not much--

What should I think?

[GOPBasher]

2. Wonderful.

The NRA at work. :mad:

[Kali]

3. I think

it sounds pretty scary in the context that you present it, however aren't those one more more requirement than you need to actually purchase another deadly machine? Say a car. What are the requirements for purchasing knives, axes, baseball bats? Fact is guns in and of themselves are just tools. The context of your presentation is biased. What if you asked "how can I acquire a tool to help me feed myself and my family?" or to protect them from some threat? Wouldn't you want to be able to do that without too much hassle?

[sadiesworld]

7. The requirements for buying and driving a car are much more extensive

than those for owning a gun, e.g., driver's test and license, liability insurance, traffic regulations, vision requirements, etc. The other comparisons are silly. I am unfamiliar with school battings and drive-by knifings. But you know all of this, right?!

[RoeBear]

10. You have to have...

...a driver's license to own/buy a car? I thought you only needed one to be able to drive it on public streets. Same with liability insurance.

[Kali]

14. don't need a license to buy

Just the money.

[Indiana Democrat]

22. Correct!

Yet another good way to shoot down the ol' "Guns versus Cars" flawed arguement.

[Kali]

16. oops

answered th wrong reply. For this one I just wrote about purchasing, not driving, nevertheless the point remains. How are the other comparisons silly? I HAVE heard of drive by battings, and school knifings. The point is weapons (tools) can be used in various ways, both positive and deadly. Perspective is important. also the comment about black market is relevant. Like the NRA folks keep saying: try enforcing the existing laws for a while before making a bunch of new ones that won't get enforced or worse, create all sorts of unintended consequences.

[slackmaster]

67. No, your point is shot down completely

Buying a gun is to buying a car as carrying a gun in public is to driving a car on public roads.

[Indiana Democrat]

21. You don't have a Constitutinal RIGHT to own a car.

I really don't like that flawed argument.

[iverglas]

41. there that one goes again

You don't have a Constitutinal RIGHT to own a car.

Yup, that just settles that, doesn't it? ... And yet any other time, the constitutional scholars will be telling us that you have the right to do anything you want, 'cause the constitution doesn't give rights, it just recognizes them ...

OF COURSE you have the constitutional right to own a car. Can you imagine what would happen if the US govt, or a state govt, tried to pass a law providing that only white people, or only women, or only people under 5 feet tall, could legally own cars???

Might somebody imagine that his/her constitutional rights were being violated? I kinda think so.

I'm sure we'll all remember that thing called

L I B E R T Y

It's one of those constitutional rights. It's the one you exercise when you eat pizza for breakfast, or cross the street to go shopping, or buy a bloody car.

Now here's the real difference between firearms and cars.

It just isn't that easy to tuck a car in your back pocket. You probably wouldn't have much luck putting a car in the trunk of your car. If you leave a car lying around your front porch where it can be stolen by anyone with fingers, somebody's probably going to notice. If you drive a car down the highway, somebody's likely going to see you. If you aim it at someone and try to run him/her down with it, not only is s/he going to have a decent chance of escaping injury because s/he can see you coming, but somebody else is likely to see you doing it. And if you accidentally run somebody down with it, ditto. It's hard to kill or injure someone with a car from 20 or 200 feet; you kinda have to make direct contact.

Funny thing, how much easier it is to conceal a firearm. How much easier it is to sell, or give, or trade it to someone who maybe shouldn't have it and who can then conceal it until s/he needs it, than it is with a car. (Yup, you can give your car away without bothering to register the transfer, too ... but again, anybody taking the car out in public is likely going to be noticed.)

Has there been a lot of trouble with people illegally transferring their cars to criminals? With people deliberately using their cars to kill people? Over 10,000 homicides a year in the US by firearm; how many homicides by intentional car-running-down?

The use of cars can be regulated quite effectively by driver's licences, along with registration of the cars' ownership. There's no actual need for people to have a licence to purchase a car -- there's a damned low probability that people who are not licensed to operate a car are going to buy a car, take it out in public and operate it; idiots might, yes, but how many, and how much trouble do they cause?

There's a pretty high probability that people who are not licensed to operate a firearm are going to buy one if they have the opportunity, it seems to me -- if they don't have to show a licence to buy it. And take it out in public and operate it. And how would anyone know what s/he had done until s/he did something unpleasant with it?

Sophistry, sophistry, sophistry, in so many shapes and sizes.

How nice to see a gun thread in GD. Perhaps the title didn't make its content obvious.

.

[Columbia]

44. They don't have Hot Wheels in Canada?

"It just isn't that easy to tuck a car in your back pocket."

:)

"I'm sure we'll all remember that thing called

L I B E R T Y"

Funny, I wouldn't think you'd be the one to bring up liberty when you're an advocate of restrictions on liberty...

"Sophistry, sophistry, sophistry, in so many shapes and sizes."

Indeed...

So do you think we should have the same regulations for firearms as we do for cars?

On edit: Oh, by the way, in the US, driving is considered a privilege, not a right.

[iverglas]

45. and it keeps right on going

Oh, by the way, in the US, driving is considered a privilege, not a right.

That one. Just on and on, over and over, "driving is a privilege, not a right". Sez whoever's saying it at the time, with never nary an authoritative authority appealed to.

So ... it's okay for states to deny white people, or men, or short people driver's licences, right? They don't have a right to a driver's licence, after all. It's a privilege.

And people who are in danger of having their driver's licence suspended have no due process rights whatsoever, 'cause it's just a privilege.

Is it a privilege to cross the street, too? After all, there's nothin' in the US Constitution about crossing streets.

If I may muse a bit, I wonder why there might not be anything in the US Constitution about driving cars. Could it be ... because those founders and framers had never heard of the damned things?

Or could it be that, just as they would never have dreamed of calling it a "privilege" to be permitted to ride a horse to the next town, they'd roll over in their graves to hear someone call it a privilege to be permitted to drive a car to the next town? Imagine saying that someone did not have the right to go to work to earn a living, to buy groceries, to take his/her sick child to the emergency room ... surely they'd have evicted you from the Union if you'd said that!


Funny, I wouldn't think you'd be the one to bring up liberty when you're an advocate of restrictions on liberty...

What the hell sense was *that* supposed to make?

I advocate restrictions on the liberty you exercise when you cross the street, too. Cross at the lights, willya? And don't be shouting "fire" in no crowded theatre or shooting dinner on *my* property ...

... or travelling to Cuba. Amazing what restrictions on their liberty some people(s) will put up with, isn't it?

So do you think we should have the same regulations for firearms as we do for cars?

"So" -- you mean "in that way"? "to the degree or in the manner implied"? In what way did I imply that I think there should be the same regulations for firearms as there are for cars?

(Remember that I never say what I think *you* should have.)

Why not just ask "Do you think we should have the same regulations for firearms as we do for cars?" What's with this "so" (or "do you actually", or any of their cousins) all the time?

I don't know why you'd even ask the question, this time. I thought the answer was pretty damned obvious. Of course I don't. Not until the only guns in the world are 10 feet long and 4 feet high, or cars fit into one's back pocket. Duh.

.

[Columbia]

47. It sure does go on and on and on and on...

So ... it's okay for states to deny white people, or men, or short people driver's licences, right? They don't have a right to a driver's licence, after all. It's a privilege.

Those are covered under equal protection under the law as indicated under the 14th Amendment. That has nothing to do with rights.

And people who are in danger of having their driver's licence suspended have no due process rights whatsoever, 'cause it's just a privilege

Is it a privilege to cross the street, too? After all, there's nothin' in the US Constitution about crossing streets.

If I may muse a bit, I wonder why there might not be anything in the US Constitution about driving cars. Could it be ... because those founders and framers had never heard of the damned things?

Or could it be that, just as they would never have dreamed of calling it a "privilege" to be permitted to ride a horse to the next town, they'd roll over in their graves to hear someone call it a privilege to be permitted to drive a car to the next town? Imagine saying that someone did not have the right to go to work to earn a living, to buy groceries, to take his/her sick child to the emergency room ... surely they'd have evicted you from the Union if you'd said that!"

Is there a term for high density strawmans? The liberty to travel is not the same as the privilege to drive.

"So" -- you mean "in that way"? "to the degree or in the manner implied"? In what way did I imply that I think there should be the same regulations for firearms as there are for cars?

(Remember that I never say what I think *you* should have.)

Why not just ask "Do you think we should have the same regulations for firearms as we do for cars?" What's with this "so" (or "do you actually", or any of their cousins) all the time?

Geez, talk about overanalyzing over one word. It's just a question, don't read so much into it.

I don't know why you'd even ask the question, this time. I thought the answer was pretty damned obvious. Of course I don't. Not until the only guns in the world are 10 feet long and 4 feet high, or cars fit into one's back pocket. Duh.

If it was so obvious, why didn't you just say so?

It's funny that you so strongly defend driving as an unenumerated right, yet want to deny that the right exists to keep and bear arms even though it is so plainly secured under the 2nd Amendment.

On edit: By the way, I wouldn't recommend carrying in your back pocket. It'd hurt an awful lot when you sit down. Personally, I prefer an in the waistband holster situated around 4 o'clock.

[iverglas]

48. oh look, if it isn't the gun dungeon

Funny how I wasn't planning to be here, and how it's just the same as it always was.

It's funny that you so strongly defend driving as an unenumerated right, yet want to deny that the right exists to keep and bear arms even though it is so plainly secured under the 2nd Amendment.

Funny how the statement you make about me is so completely and unequivocally and obviously false in every way.

- I don't want to deny that "the right exists to keep and bear arms".

Kindly stop making false statements about what *I* want to do.

The fact that I MAY DISAGREE with you or anyone else about the existence of something as you characterize it, or the meaning of something that exists, DOES NOT MEAN that it exists as you characterize it or means what you say it means. How damned obvious is that?

If I deny that the earth is flat, does that mean it is? If I say that the earth is flat and you deny it, does that mean it is?

As far as I'm concerned, the "right to keep and bear arms" would "exist", in the US as everywhere else in the world, regardless of what your constitution said about it. Just as would the right to eat pizza for breakfast or cross the street to go shopping.

People have the RIGHT to do what they bloody want, in the EXERCISE of their LIBERTY, liberty being a right that is universally recognized as "inherent" in the individual (whatever the hell that might mean, that not being of concern to us).

The EXERCISE of RIGHTS may be LIMITED by the collectivity to which the individual belongs, where the collectivity has the appropriate JUSTIFICATION for doing so.

You may be limited in the exercise of your freedom to eat pizza for breakfast by requiring that you pay for the pizza you want to eat, if it belongs to someone else, on pain of punishment, because the collectivity regards the protection of private property from theft as a sufficiently important objective that it justifies prohibiting theft and punishing thieves by depriving them of liberty in some way. You may be limited in the exercise of your freedom to cross the street by requiring that you do it at the lights, if crossing mid-block is regarded by the collectivity as sufficiently contrary to its interest in protecting the safety to other users of the road to justify prohibiting jaywalking and punishing jaywalkers by depriving them of their liberty in some way.

You may even, despite that absolute prohibition in the US Constitution, be limited in the exercise of your freedom of speech. You may be prohibited from shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, from lying under oath, from making death threats, from selling military secrets, on pain of punishment.

And it makes not the least frigging sense in the world -- even if that "RKBA" WERE an individual right -- that you could not be limited in the exercise of your right to possess firearms and tote them around. The collectivity has at least as much of a public safety interest in preventing death by firearms as it has in preventing death by movie stampede or death by vehicle swerving to miss jaywalker. The collectivity DOES prohibit or regulate behaviour that involves risk to others, and possessing and toting firearms is one such behaviour.

So the collectivity is just as entitled to place limits on the exercise of that particular right/freedom as it is to place limits on any other. And the very idea that your founders&framers would have thought otherwise, or intended what they said to mean otherwise, is simply too absurd to contemplate. As the NRA and all its buddies seem to agree. Since none them seem to want to challenge all the plainly "unconstitutional" limits on the right you assert that now exist.

The question is whether any particular limit is justified. Or ... were you saying that no limits whatsoever on anyone's possession and operation and transporting of firearms is permissible?

If not, all I see is someone trying to eat his cake and have it too.

.

[MrBenchley]

49. Third thread on this column so far

as the RKBA crowd desperately tries to spin it away.

Meanwhile, the truth: "So, to review just this much: A weak ban on assault weapons is passed in 1994, despite which assault weapons sales flourish. Bush says he will support the ban's extension, but doesn't seem to really mean it. Members of the Republican-controlled House and Senate keep the extension from coming up for a vote; in an election year, no one wants it on record that he or she voted for every American's right to shoot people's heads off from 500 yards.
As Marie Antoinette or someone similar once said, let them eat values. "

Tough week for the RKBA crowd...
--their beloved NRA got beaten like a rented mule by John Kerry and the Democrats,
--the country found out there are enough votes in the Senate to ban assault weapons and close the gun show loophole, and is likely to ask why these are not being done,
--and any pretense that the pro-gun side stood for "freedom" evaporated when the Republicans switched their votes from "yes" to "no" in lockstep when they got orders on their PDAs from the gun lobby.

[Columbia]

51. Of course it is

The EXERCISE of RIGHTS may be LIMITED by the collectivity to which the individual belongs, where the collectivity has the appropriate JUSTIFICATION for doing so.

Ahem... "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

But in a word, nope. This right is precisely for the protection of the individual as well as the collective. Have you read Federalist 46?

You may even, despite that absolute prohibition in the US Constitution, be limited in the exercise of your freedom of speech. You may be prohibited from shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, from lying under oath, from making death threats, from selling military secrets, on pain of punishment.

I love the "yell fire in the theater" analogy as it is quite apt. The reality is that you CAN yell fire in a crowded theater. There are no prior restraint regulations on this act. If there were, we'd be gagged each time we went to see a movie. You can be prosecuted, however, if the consequences of your actions do harm. For example, if you yell fire and there is no fire and a panic resulting in deaths occurs, you can be held accountable for your actions and be prosecuted for your act. However, if you yell fire and there is a fire and lives are saved, you obviously would not be prosecuted. Firearm regulations are akin to the earlier analogy of being gagged before entering the theater and are just as vile.

So the collectivity is just as entitled to place limits on the exercise of that particular right/freedom as it is to place limits on any other. And the very idea that your founders&framers would have thought otherwise, or intended what they said to mean otherwise, is simply too absurd to contemplate. As the NRA and all its buddies seem to agree. Since none them seem to want to challenge all the plainly "unconstitutional" limits on the right you assert that now exist.

They did think otherwise. If you examined the writings of the founders, you would agree. What do you think the entire Bill of Rights was written for?

As for constitutional interpretation, the 5th Circuit's US v. Emerson decision did in fact take the view that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms. Here's a snippet from it: "The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard."

The question is whether any particular limit is justified. Or ... were you saying that no limits whatsoever on anyone's possession and operation and transporting of firearms is permissible?

I entreat you to read the 2nd Amendment again. Here it is for you if you missed it the first time around: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

[beevul]

52. Quite right...

I agree with you that "You may even, despite that absolute prohibition in the US Constitution, be limited in the exercise of your freedom of speech."

"You may be prohibited from shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre"

The thing is, you may be prohibited from doing so, but not prevented.

That would be prior restraint.

Another poster pretty well covered that though.


"Funny how I wasn't planning to be here, and how it's just the same as it always was."

Actually, If you look back a week or 2 in the posts, it was pretty civil in J/PS. Draw your own conclusions as to why.

[iverglas]

53. pfft ... "civil"

You people managed to write posts that got deleted without even having anyone to argue with ... until you started arguing among yourselves ... what *was* that fist-nose business about, anyhow?


Generic answer.

The thread got moved to the dungeon. I didn't come looking for it.

Prior restraint shmior restraint. Punishment for an act is an infringement of liberty. Punishing someone for speech is an infringement of freedom of speech. God awmighty, what did you think freedom of speech meant? Punishing you for calling the president a shmuck in print wouldn't be a violation of freedom of speech?? Oh no, as long as you didn't have to obtain a licence to do it, it would be just fine if you got locked up for a few years for doing it ...

And what's the requirement for a broadcasting licence, or the law requiring the prior permission of a copyright holder (oh look, a "licence") to reproduce speech, if it isn't a "prior restraint" on speech? Ah, I'll betcha *some* prior restraints are okay, and some aren't ...

Hey, nobody needs permission to buy a firearm, even in Canada. Just go find somebody who wants to sell you one, and buy it. It will be illegal for you to own it if you don't do the paperwork, but nobody's "restraining" you from doing it for cripes' sake.

Yer specious little distinctions don't play. Prior restraint may be unacceptable in some situations, but it is NOT the only kind of infringement of a right, and when considering whether an infringement is justified, the manner in which the infringement is operated is, quite simply, a specious consideration.

.

[MrBenchley]

56. And for the record

despite the lies of the gun lobby, the second amendment does NOT confer any individual right to have guns.

[slackmaster]

65. I got MY degree in Constitutional Law from the back of a Cracker Jack box

And I say the Second Amendment protects a right that was understood to already exist at the time it was written.

[RoeBear]

68. You're being a Canadian..

...I wouldn't expect you to know much about U.S. history. But I should let you know that cars were quite heavily restricted in their purchase and usage during WWII.

[slackmaster]

66. I can tell you from personal experience that you are mistaken

In October 2002 I bought a used vehicle from a Nissan dealer in National City, California.

All I had to do was sign a stack of papers and write them a check.

At no time did anyone ask me for proof of insurance. They didn't even look at my driver's license.

The whole transaction took about 30 minutes. The dealer verified that my check was good through an online service. They handed me the keys and I drove off the lot.

[absyntheNsugar]

4. There is also a waiting period

For good reason.

[FeebMaster]

9. What waiting period? (nt)

...

[Jacobin]

5. They also call in a background check

Guess what?

If they were illegal, it would create a black market and it would be as hard as buying pot. (not very)

[RoeBear]

6. This story mentioned nothing...

...about a background check. Just a driver's license and money.
If background checks were also required that would make this reporter's story very misleading.

[toddzilla]

8. i believe..

background checks are for hanguns only..


which would make it OK to buy a shotgun, or rifle, and cut it down to a large-sized pistol dimension.


We really need to focus on society's mental state more so than gun "control" because guns have been so easy to get for so long that i seriously doubt any realistic measure taken now will result in very little results. I do believe that it needs to be monitored and current regs need to be enforced. It's a difficult issue, and similar to abortion where people get so emotional that they fail to think coherently. I'd love a world without guns, but that's not realistic on any level when there is so much money to be made from death and it's instruments.

[democratreformed]

30. Yes, a background check. That's what the DL is for.

At least that's the way it has been for the past several years in my state. When it first started (10 or so years ago?), the waiting period was long b/c the background check system was new and took a long time. Now, it only takes a few minutes. Using your info off your DL, your info is run through a computer system that checks your background and tells whether you are allowed to purchase the gun. I bought a shotgun for Christmas and that's the way it worked.

The story was misleading.

[iverglas]

42. misleading?

The story was about what someone needed to purchase a firearm.

What he needed was his driver's licence.

The information from the licence is used to perform the background check.

In what exact was was it misleading for him (or the person who spoke to, whose words he simply reported) to say that all he needed was a driver's licence?

.

[MrBenchley]

50. It's not misleading at all...

what horrifies the bullets for brains crowd is that people will realize how easily nutcases and criminals might get their hands on assault weapons if the GOP and the gun lobby have their way.

[iverglas]

54. hmm

I hadn't even thought about all the phoney driver's licences and such that circulated among my circle back in my undergrad, underaged, drinking days ... and I'll bet they look a lot better these days.

.

[MrBenchley]

57. In fact

voters do not want these weapons on the market...

[idadem]

58. Ban ALL semi-autos...

...so that the nutcases and criminals will never lay their hands on these killing machines.

[slackmaster]

64. Appeal to emotion

Do you have any rational reason to ban semiautos?

[slackmaster]

63. In addition to ID you need to bring some things inside of your head

Like a willingness to affirm under penalty of perjury that you are not a convicted felon, unlawful drug user, etc.

The article is terribly misleading.

[bobbyboucher]

11. I don't know about NY, but in CA, I bought

a rifle a couple of years back, and all you need is a DL, but then they run the background checks (at your cost) and then it's ten days before you get your gun. Mine was just your average, lever action rifle, not anything semi-auto. The DL is the beginning of your background check. You don't bring in any extra info, they take it from there.

Funny thing, after that, I found myself a member of the NRA. They started sending me welcome info, membership card, and their magazine started coming in the mail. Been a member ever since, never ever spent a dime and never asked to be a member, it just happened. Curious huh?

[RoeBear]

12. I've got to re-read the article...

...I'll be right back.

[RoeBear]

13. Ok, I'm back...

...if what you say it true, that a background check is done before a gun is handed over, then I have to conclude that the reporter is either very ignorant of the facts or is being deliberately misleading.

Further in the article is this: "The Bushmaster, a version of the military's standard AK-47 rifle, was the kind of gun they had in mind: highly accurate, extremely deadly from almost a half-mile away."

Isn't the Ak-47 a russian weapon?

[bobbyboucher]

15. I thought it was a version of the M-16.

I'm not sure, but I don't think it is like an AK

Check this:

http://www.championshooters.com/AR-15.htm

[rsdsharp]

18. This article is an abomination

I know I'm new here folks, but let me assure you I am to the left of FDR on most issues. I, do, however, own some guns, and the amount of disinformation in this article is astounding. Bear with me, this will take a while.

First, the US military standard issue weapon is the M-16. It fires a high velocity, medium powered round; 5.56 x 45mm. It is not a sniper rifle. Much higher powered, bolt action rifles are the choice of the sniper. The AK-47 WAS the standard issue Soviet weapon. It fires a lower velocity, slightly higher powered round; 7.62 x 39mm.

Both of these weapons, are by definition, assault weapons. That is, they are really the offspring of a marriage between a main battle rifle and a machine pistol, or sub machine gun. A main battle rifle, such as the M1, is a high powered rifle in a large caliber. For instance, the US M1 Garand fired a .30 caliber bullet weighing about 180 grains at about 2400 feet per second. It was accurate to about 800 yards in the hands of a skilled rifleman. It was semi-automatic (and most main battle rifles of the era were bolt action). It held 8 rounds (most held 5) and it weighed nearly 10 pounds.

A submachine gun, in contrast, was shorter, lighter, fully automatic, used a detachable box magazine that held 20-30 rounds, and fired a much less powerful pistol cartridge (usally 9mm or .45ACP) at a much slower speed. It was only really accurate to about 75-100 yards.

The assault weapon was shorter and lighter than the main battle rifle, used a detachable box magazine that held 20-30 rounds, and was fully automatic. The round it fired was a mid powered cartridge. The US design used a very small (.223 caliber 55 grain) bullet at a very high speed (about 3200fps). The Soviets went with a bigger, heavier bullet (.308 approx 150 gr) but with a reduced powder charge, moving at a slower speed than the main battle rifle. Both were originally designed to be accurate to about 300 yards. Both are far less powerful than the average bolt action deer rifle, and have far less range.

As to mid versus high power, remember high school physics. f=m x v. Which generates more power? at 180 grain .30 bullet moving at 2400fps (180 x 2400) or a 55 grain .223 caliber bullet moving at 3200fps (55 x 3200). That's why an assualt weapon is not "high powered."

NOW, this stuff about changing the bolt to make them legal is nonsense. The AWB passed in 1994 didn't outlaw assault weapons. Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. And it didn't outlaw semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. What it did do is ban two or more of a list of cosmetic options on weapons with detachable box magazines. (Things like flash suppressors, bayonet mounts, pistol grips, folding stocks, etc.) And THEN such weapons manufactured and/or imported prior to the date of the ban were still legal. If an AR-15 (the civilian version of the M-16) has a flash supressor and a pistol grip AND was manufactured after September 1994, its illegal. (But legal with either one of the two, OR if manufacured pre-ban.) In contrast I have a Yugoslavian SKS with a flash surpressor, bayonet, AND a grenade launcher. It's perfectly legal for two reasons. ONE, it was manufactured and imported BEFORE the ban, and TWO, it doesn't have a detachable magazine.

To buy the Bushmaster, you'll need money and a driver's license, alright. You'll also have to complete a form 4473 (Which the store will keep with a copy of your driver's license), and have a NICS background check performed. Depending on the state you live in, there may also be a waiting period.

The reporter either did no research, or is trying to deceive for some reason.

[FeebMaster]

19. Not to be nit picky,

but fully automatic weapons aren't illegal, they're just regulated.

[rsdsharp]

23. True

But you need a Class III license to sell them, and a license to possess. (Is it the same class III?) Without the license (which is pretty rare, but not impossible to get) they are illegal to own, except in a dewatted condition.

[FeebMaster]

25. No.

You need no license to own them.

[rsdsharp]

27. Well, yeah, you do.

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.
To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.
Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

[FeebMaster]

28. There's no license mentioned.

Just a long load of bullshit and insanely high taxes (for their day at least).


On edit: I'm not saying your post is bullshit just the requirements for buying NFA items.

[rsdsharp]

29. I think its a semantic distinction without a difference

I agree that the word "license" isn't explicitly mentioned. Hey, Bush never said "imminent," either. But this:

"It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department."

pretty much say the same thing. You have to fill out a load of paperwork, and get "special permission" to own a full auto weapon. I can't just go down to my friendly local (yeah, right) Class III dealer, drop four figures on the counter, and come out with an M-16, like I can with an AR-15.

[FeebMaster]

31. Ok then.

You have to get a separate license for every NFA item you own, only they don't actually give you a license.

It may just be semantics, but I consider it an important distinction. You have to fill out paper work and get a background check to buy that ar-15 too, although it might not take as long and it doesn't require fingerprints or passport photos. Do you consider that a license?

[rsdsharp]

34. No, but...

I have to get "special permisssion" to become a "registered owner," in order to buy full auto. You can't buy without the registration being on file. You can't sell to someone who isn't similarly on file. I do consider that a license.

BTW, who ever said you need a separate license for every NFA item you own? I certainly didn't

[FeebMaster]

35. You have to go through the same process

for every NFA item you buy, so if it's a license for one of them it's a license for all of them. The paperwork, the tax, the background checks have to be done for every transfer whether you own other NFA weapons or not and whether the gun or silencer has been through one persons hands or fifty.

[rsdsharp]

36. Can you give me a link

or cite to the US code. If true, I stand corrected.

[FeebMaster]

37. Here.

Here is the ATF faq on the NFA:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m

Here are some relevant sections:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m15

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m2

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m26

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m10

[rsdsharp]

39. Thank you

I learned something. Mike Dillon must live to fill out paperwork.

[FeebMaster]

40. No problem.

It's even crazier when you consider what a shotgun or silencer or even most machine guns cost back in 1934.

[newyawker99]

26. Hi rsdsharp!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[jimsteuben]

55. Outlawing "assault weapons"

"The AWB passed in 1994 didn't outlaw assault weapons."

Actually it did. It created a new category of weapons, and then banned them. The term "assault weapon" was unknown before 1985. It is not a technical term from the firearms lexicon but a propaganda term invented by gun-ganners. Like its cousin "gateway drug," it didn't exist until someone wanted to ban it. Its definition depends entirely on whatever Congress says is an "assault weapon." Also, different states have different definitions of "assault weapon," none of which agree with each other.

Don't confuse with the term "assault rifle," which has been part of the firearms lexicon since 1944 and has a specific technical meaning.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

59. There is a difference

A true M-16 bolt carrier is different than an AR-15 bolt carrier. Simply put, it has more metal and hence, more mass.

To have an M-16 bolt carrier in an AR-15 runs the risk of having the BATFE come down on you for using machine gun parts illegaly. Of course they would have to notice that you are using an M-16 bolt carrier now wouldn't they?

Same thing goes for your AR-15 having any single piece of the 5 or 6 pieces of a full auto fire control group. Break your trigger? Don't look for a good deal on a used M-16 trigger. That's one of the 5 or 6 pieces.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

61. Yes

The AK-47 (7.62x39mm) was the primary Soviet infantry weapon until the late 70's when it switched to the AK-74 (5.45x39mm) whose projectile was intended to mimic the US's M-16 projectile.

I believe the former Soviets are switching or have switched to AN-94's now. Both of the AK series weapons are still in use in the former Soviet Union.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as01-e.htm">AK-47

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as02-e.htm">AK-74

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as08-e.htm">AN-94

and just for comparison:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm">M-16

[JHB]

17. Go to the source

http://www.bushmaster.com/

Of course, they don't describe their rifles as semi-automatic military-style sniper rifle like the one used by John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo to kill 10 people during their 2002 Washington, D.C.-area murder spree, but then, they know enough not to confuse their guns with "military-style sniper rifles".

Ironically, some actual military sniper rifles look more like what we (and certainly Vitello) think of as "hunting rifles" than "military rifles":
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn44-e.htm

Although others look nothing like them:
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn61-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn54-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn01-e.htm

Vitello is usually a good reporter, but he's more than a little biased on this subject.

[Indiana Democrat]

20. I think it's a free country!

And if I want to buy a Bushmaster (I would scratch-out the name, of course), it's my Constitutional Right to do so.

Personally, I don't pick and chose which constitutional rights are good and which ones are bad...They just ARE!

And God Bless America and those who fought and died for said rights!!

[kher-heb]

24. cool !

I need to buy me one of those!

[Mountainman]

32. Everything else about you is in computer files

You still have to go through a background check and in some places proof that you have taken a gun handling course. A military DD214 qualifies you for having taken the course. There is also a waiting period.

[FeebMaster]

33. It may just be ignorance.

"Sure," I said, "but what else do I need to bring?"

After all, you don't have to bring the paperwork with you.

[Nlighten1]

38. Sounds great to me...

where is this gun shop?

[MrBenchley]

43. I think it's funny as hell

to watch the RKBA crowd desperately try to spin this column away.

[lymph]

46. Huh?

"..more thrust per squeeze?"

You shure this is about guns?

My "bushmaster" likes to thrust when I squeeze it.

[JOE T]

60. Yea I talked to Paul today

This guy is a idiot!! so I sent him this Email

Paul,
I have to start this email by saying If you are going to write an article you should research your info so you don't look like a idiot. Well first Bushmaster makes AR15 type rifles not AK47's. The rifle used was a Bushmaster 5.56MM rifle (copy of the AR15) not an AK. So let see so far you have made 2 mistakes hmmm.. I will continue.. to make the AR legal as per the AWB law the only thing that is changed is the removal of the flash hider, adding a fixed stock and a 10 Rd mag. The bolt is the same as it was before the ban-your third mistake. Well three strikes your outta here!! Well I see you have no idea as to the rifle the DC sniper used nor do you have a idea of the capabilities of a AK47 or have a clue about the AWB. Hell Paul use the internet!! you have a computer right? an AK47 only has an effective range of 200-300 meters (1/4 of a mile not 1/2 of a mile) Oh look Paul you made another mistake!! damn I missed that one. Well Paul I will not take up anymore of you time since from what I have just read you need much work as a writer, but with practice you might even come up with a accurate article that doesn't distort the facts to support the facts that you do not like Assault Weapons. And no I am not a writer I am a Paratrooper in the 82nd ABN Div doing my part to preserve freedom while you sit at home and write lies.

[Hammie]

62. The guy is an idiot

Dupe BTW. IBTL