MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

Semiautomatic for the People

News: In which a MoJo reporter goes to a gun show in search of some serious firepower.

July/August 2008 Issue


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


Listen to Gary Moskowitz interview Bruce Falconer.

In a warehouse on the outskirts of the rural Shenandoah Valley town of Fishersville, Virginia, it didn't take long to spot what I was looking for. There were plenty of guns lined up neatly on display tables, everything from Civil War-style muskets to handguns to hunting rifles, but I was in the market for something with a bit more firepower. At a table near the entrance, I found it: a Chinese-made mak-90 semiautomatic rifle, a variation of the Russian AK-47 designed to circumvent federal regulations on the import of assault weapons. "It's the same gun," the dealer told me. "They just eliminated the pistol grip, replaced it with a threaded thumb grip, and took off the flash suppressor." This particular model came with a five-round detachable clip, but the dealer assured me it would accept larger magazines, including a 75-round "ammunition drum." He was uncomfortable trading in handguns, he said, explaining that "there's too much controversy about them," but was willing to sell the mak-90 to anyone with a valid ID and $450.

The reemergence of imported assault rifles on the US market signals a dramatic shift in federal firearms policy. By 1998, four years after a federal ban on assault weapons took effect, gun manufacturers had easily managed to bypass the law by making small alterations to their weapons. To close the loophole, the Clinton administration prohibited the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from granting import permits for 58 types of assault weapons, adding to an import rule first put in place by George H.W. Bush. These included dozens of AK-47 variants and other high-powered semiautomatic rifles that could accept high-capacity magazines originally designed for military use.

But not only did the current Bush administration allow the 1994 assault weapons ban to lapse, it has also, through the atf, permitted gun manufacturers to game the import rules, effectively reopening American borders to foreign assault weapons. While the import ban remains nominally in force, gun importers are now able to easily skirt it by assembling the guns in the US. Describing the manufacturing process at Florida-based Century International Arms Incorporated, a leading importer of foreign assault weapons, an official in the atf's firearms import branch told me "they import the parts" and combine them with US-made materials specifically prohibited by the import ban. That way, technically speaking, the guns "are made in this country," he said. But according to Kristen Rand, the legislative director at the Violence Policy Center, a Washington-based gun control advocacy group, the atf is simply shirking its responsibility. "They've created this Alice in Wonderland world, where if you take it apart and put it back together then it's no longer an import, but the end result is the same," she says. "They just keep making this their own moving target."

Another loophole was created for the sks semiautomatic carbine, developed in 1945 for use by the Soviet army until it was replaced by the more rugged AK-47. The Bush administration reclassified the sks as a "curio," adding it to the atf's list of such weapons, most over 50 years old and considered collectors' items, that are automatically authorized for import. However, the atf reported in 2002 that the sks was "the rifle model most frequently encountered by law enforcement officers" and noted that the guns "are capable of penetrating the type of soft body armor typically worn by law enforcement officers." Since being added to the atf's curios list, the sks has become one of the cheapest assault rifles on the market—less expensive, at between $89 and $250, than most handguns.

Yet even as foreign-made assault weapons are pouring in, information about their importation and use in crime is no longer accessible. The atf maintains databases both of the firearms-import licenses it has granted and of the traces it has conducted on weapons recovered at crime scenes. But in 2003, at the urging of the National Rifle Association, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) attached a last-minute amendment to a spending bill, prohibiting the agency from publishing import and trace data. ("I wanted to make sure I was fulfilling the needs of my friends who are firearms dealers," Tiahrt told the Washington Post.) The nra's motivation, says Dr. Garen Wintemute, an ER physician and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis, was to prevent atf data from being used against the gun industry in court. "Cities and advocacy organizations were bringing litigation against gun manufacturers for irresponsible marketing and also, in some cases, against individual retailers," he says. "Complete trace data would have helped them in doing that."

In March, however, the Associated Press managed to obtain atf trace data for 2007, which showed a sharp increase in the number of trace requests for weapons, such as the AK-47 and sks, that fire 7.62-by-39-mm rounds—from just 1,140 traces in 1993, the year before the assault-weapons ban was enacted, to 8,547 last year. Already, since the ban's expiration in 2004, the atf has documented an 11 percent rise in the number of traces run on AK-47s and similar weapons—an increase that suggests more AKs are on the streets and are being used to commit crimes.

At the Fishersville gun show, crowd members seemed particularly drawn to the assault weapons on display—hefting them, staring down their barrels, sliding open their metal bolts with a satisfying action-movie click. In addition to the AKs, dealers displayed dozens of AR-15s, a semiautomatic variation of the US military's M-16, as well as a variety of World War II and Cold War-era surplus weapons. At one table, a little boy admired a .50-caliber sniper rifle, capable of downing a jumbo jet, while at another a man held a cheap Romanian AK knockoff to his shoulder. His T-shirt read "'Freedom At Any Cost.'—Randy Weaver, Ruby Ridge, Idaho." The only thing that prevented me from becoming the proud owner of a mak-90 was my Washington, DC, driver's license: The district has the nation's strictest gun rules. (At press time the law was under review by the Supreme Court.) But if I really wanted the mak-90, one dealer pointed out, all I had to do was move to Virginia.

There is, of course, a wide variety of assault weapons on the market. The expiration of the federal ban has essentially thrown the doors wide open—if the gun exists, you can buy it. But it's the AKs that pose the greatest threat, primarily due to their affordability. Police chiefs in cities across the country are involved in something of an arms race, says Scott Knight, chief of the Chaska, Minnesota, police department and chairman of the Firearms Committee at the International Association of Chiefs of Police. "When I started as a police officer, we had our sidearm, and we had a shotgun in the car. Then we moved from the shotgun to a 9 mm carbine or rifle. And actually, I'm just moving from that 9 mm to an AR-15. The reason is that the officer has been encountering a better-armed offender with alarming regularity...a better-armed, better-equipped, more-ready-to-shoot criminal than in the past."

Nowhere, perhaps, has this been more noticeable (and quantifiable) than in south Florida. Speaking at the National Violent Crime Summit, a gathering of law enforcement executives held in suburban Chicago last September, Miami police chief John Timoney described how AK-47s have become the weapon of choice among violent criminals in his city. "Two or three years ago, we had the lowest homicide rate since 1967 in Miami," he said. "Then the homicides skyrocketed with the availability of AK-47s. And it went from 3 percent of all homicides being committed with AKs, up to 9 percent two years ago, then 18 percent last year, and this year it is around 20 percent. And it's going up...We're being flooded with these AK-47s." Garry McCarthy of the Newark, New Jersey, police department agreed. "We've got a 30 percent reduction in shooting incidents this year, but only a 5 percent reduction in murder," he said. "So it is higher-caliber bullets. I hadn't seen an AK-47 in New York City going back 15 years...In Newark, in our first six or eight months, we recovered about 15 of them. [We have had] running gun battles through the streets."

And if law enforcement is noticing an uptick in AK-style rifles, it may soon confront a smaller, more easily concealable version: the AK pistol. According to Dr. Wintemute, police recently recovered one in Newark. "You can hide such a thing easily in your pant leg, and you can put the magazine somewhere else," he says. "You can be walking around the street with, in essence, a concealable rifle with hundreds of rounds of ammunition, ready to rock." Advertising its Romanian-manufactured AK handgun, Century International Arms Incorporated calls it "a real conversation starter."

Correction appended: A print version of this story incorrectly stated that fully automatic weapons in existence can not be purchased or sold. While these weapons can no longer be manufactured for civilian use under federal law, those registered before May 19, 1986, can still be obtained. The language in this piece has been changed to reflect the correct information. We regret the error.

Audio production by Peter Meredith.

Bruce Falconer is a reporter in Mother Jones Washington bureau.

Illustration: Joe Morse



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

How is complying with a law a "loophole"? Let's not forget the magic .50 caliber rifle that can stop locomotives and jumbo jets with a single bullet.
Posted by:DanJuly 14, 2008 5:56:07 PMRespond ^
What testing exactly demonstrates that .50 cal rifles (And not just any normal hunting rifle) can bring down a jumbo jet? Honestly, less Fear from the "Fearless" crowd would be nice.

Also, fully automatic rifles are not illegal under US law. How about some honesty too? Crime is almost unheardof amongst NFA Class III weapons, perhaps a clue to meaningful gun control. CCW permit holders likewise are rarely involved in violent crime.

To be sure we should restrict access to firearms by persons with criminal histories, mental illness that indicates violent or irresponsible conduct, and those with a violent history. We should not however infringe the rights of those who have no history of violence or irresponsibility to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd amendment. Even fully automatic ones if properly registered.

We must not abandon the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and a desire to buy a firearm, even a .50 cal rifle, is not evidence of guilt.
Posted by:nargJuly 14, 2008 8:36:42 PMRespond ^
I couldn't find any (yes, slightly) bitter gun owners in this article. I could only find bitter gun banners - and the author when he found he couldn't buy the MAK-90. Well, I'd be bitter too, if I had to live in DC.
Posted by:ChrisJuly 15, 2008 5:58:15 AMRespond ^
Typical PSH liberal BS, tainted, lies and fiction.
Posted by:Roy RodgersJuly 15, 2008 6:27:14 AMRespond ^
"..and noted that the guns "are capable of penetrating the type of soft body armor typically worn by law enforcement officers."

All centerfire rifle cartridges, some rimfire cartridges, and even muzzle loading rifles are capable of penetrating soft body armor - http://fateoflegions.blogspot.com/2 008/03/part-3-ballistic-vest-live-fire-test.html .

Already, since the ban's expiration in 2004, the atf has documented an 11 percent rise in the number of traces run on AK-47s and similar weapons—an increase that suggests more AKs are on the streets and are being used to commit crimes.

Just because a gun is traced does not mean that it was used in a crime - http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/CluelessBATFtracing.htm#ch1b .

There are plenty more holes in your story, but I thought I'd address these two.
Posted by:CToneJuly 15, 2008 7:16:25 AMRespond ^
Of course back in 94, when the so-called "assault weapons" ban was enacted the same claims were made - that AK-47's (and other "assault weapons" were the "choice of criminals".

This of course, despite the fact, that testimony before Congress, by the ATF, stated otherwise. (see also G Kleck, POINT BLANK, 1994).

In short, the gun-banners were LIEING! As they always do, because the facts aren't on their side.

Phooey! When will you gun-banners give up? You've lost at the SC in your claims that the 2nd doesn't protect an individual right. It's more obvious from the empirical evidence that guns, including those scary "black" rifles (or the AK-47's) aren't the problem.

Give it up for Gd's sake!
Posted by:scottJuly 15, 2008 9:13:39 AMRespond ^
The seller checked with a gun dealer and then refused your illeagal purchase.
As in you were breaking the law and the man caught you and sent silly boy home empty handed.
He should have had you arrested,Also at any sale I went to all sales had to be cleared though a dealer. Dealers charged $5 tp $10 to do the check for unlisenced dealers at the show. Your a bad reporter for trying to commit a crime and then pretending backgound checks dont happen at gun shows. I sell firearms and I am constantly bothered by LEO's and "reporters" Asking to buy illeagal things. Crimails dont buy their guns from stores or shows where honset poeple might report their crimes. 40% of stolen guns for sale are cop guns. I think the cops should explain that!
Posted by:hempydaveJuly 15, 2008 9:34:31 AMRespond ^
It's BATFE, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives,dummy. You can't even get that right! One of the worst info articles I have read.
Posted by:Bob PrintzJuly 15, 2008 10:09:07 AMRespond ^
The AK-47 round -- the 7.62-by-39-mm -- is about 33% LESS powerful than Grampa's Winchester lever-action .30-.30 deer rifle, which of course can also penetrate a policeman's vest. (Body-armor is a compromise between protection and comfort, and protection against bullets accelerating in a rifle's longer rifle barrel just isn't practical.) The lapse of the 1994 law cannot possibly be the cause of Miami's greater violence, as the same guns were _still_ availabile after 1994, just without the pistol grips, flash-suppressors, bayonet mounts, etc. (Any criminal willing to violate the law could install these after purchase using only a screwdrivers; doing so was no more against the law than murder or armed robbery.) A more likely explanation for the increase in violence is the growth in hyper-violent Central American gangs that arrived with all the other "undocumented workers."

Yes, manufacturing the receiver (frame) here and assembling it with imported parts gets around the import restrictions -- just as Toyota and Nissan do to avoid limits on imported automobiles. You could also make all the other parts here if you had to; it's just a matter of cost.

Yes, police were safer two generations ago, but not because powerful rifles were unavailable. (The biggest danger a cop can face is an ultra-accurate scoped bolt-action rifle like that used by the villain in "Dirty Harry". A cop can hardly protect himself against a sniper capable of making head-shots from 400 meeters away.) No, what protected cops in my childhood was the gentleman's agreement that any criminal arrested after killing a cop would be "shot while trying to escape." Federal Civil Rights oversight has eliminated that practice, so it's open-season on cops. There are far too many gangsters nowadays for the cops alone to kill; they're going to need you to help out.
Posted by:fsilberJuly 15, 2008 10:35:45 AMRespond ^
It seems to me that the author has an inherent fear of military-style weapons. This is not without reason--weapons should be fearsome. Weapons with extremely powerful rounds or high rates of fire are more fearsome yet. The question worth asking is whether or not that implies that law-abiding citizens should not own such weapons.

It's worth remembering that the founders of the United States of America won their freedom in part by the strength of privately owned firearms. Many of them were immigrants from England, wherein a common citizen could not bear arms--that right was reserved for the nobility. It's not hard to see why those early Americans wanted the ability to stand up and fight at need. Small arms fulfill that intent.

I don't think this implies that there should be no restrictions on private firearms at all--the Second Amendment does stipulate a "well-regulated militia." But it is clear that our founders intended to ensure that the government would not have a monopoly on armed force.
Posted by:ChristianJuly 15, 2008 11:44:01 AMRespond ^
Hey People,

I agree with most of people commenting here... This guy is a whack job, and i REALLY wished he would have been reported to the police.
ANd my deer rifle .30-06 with 180 gr. bullets will take down anyone at 500 yrds. People are scared fo the wrong things. THey should be scared of lieing, cheating, lib's, who would take our guns....!!

BIll
Posted by:BIll NighJuly 15, 2008 12:58:50 PMRespond ^
Wow, the lil liberal Gun Ban advocate is all upset that the 2nd Amendment was not overturned.

Too bad. We still have that right, and if you don't like it, move to Cuba or North Korea - two socialist worker's paradise kind of countries where the Eeeeeevil guns are banned!
Posted by:SKS OwnerJuly 15, 2008 3:10:45 PMRespond ^
When I clicked on a link to this site to read this article, and saw all the misinformation, I had to double check to make sure my browser wasn't hijacked to the brady site. Bruce just uses that site to do all his "research". Maybe when he does an article on Obama, he will use the KKK site.

So he saw a ".50-caliber sniper rifle, capable of downing a jumbo jet."

Maybe it can be done in theory, but can it really be done? Does he know of anyone actually having done this? Has he talked to any U.S. military sniper about this?
There are a lot of .50-caliber rifles in Afghanistan and Iraq, how many airplanes have been downed by them? ZERO.

Trace data is not available for the purpose of frivolous lawsuits? BOO
HOO. Just because a gun has been traced does not mean it was involved in a crime.


Miami police chief John Timoney described how AK-47s have become the weapon of choice among violent criminals in his city.

Is this from weapons taken from criminals permanently removed from the streets, or what a political appointee has to say to keep his job?

Can anyone actually get a real ak47?

Garry McCarthy of the Newark, New Jersey, police department agreed. [We have had] running gun battles through the streets."

If this was true, the liberal media would be all over this, yet they seem to be silent----

Looks like this "reporter" got into this magazine's stash.
Posted by:mikeJuly 15, 2008 3:48:31 PMRespond ^
Only small caveat in this instance is that the argument "until guilt is proven" means "after people get shot a lot with automatic weapons" ...
Posted by:JustinJuly 15, 2008 4:03:52 PMRespond ^
Assault Weapons: Evil Black Rifles (or perhaps not)

http://hubpages.com/hub/Assault-Wea pons-Evil-Black-Rifles-or-perhaps-not
Posted by:Jack BurtonJuly 15, 2008 5:34:22 PMRespond ^
Bruce! Bruce! Bruce!
How could you guys of all communists out there hate the AK47?

I mean your workers paradise created this weapon. Embrace it, Love it.

It is your heritage.
Posted by:DaveJuly 15, 2008 6:25:10 PMRespond ^
Christian wrote, "I don't think this implies that there should be no restrictions on private firearms at all--the Second Amendment does stipulate a 'well-regulated militia.'"

Read the Supreme Court's Heller v. DC opinion. The militia clause is held not to be a restriction on the "right to keep and bear" clause.

"Well-regulated" means "well-disciplined and trained." The idea was that it would be easier to muster an effective civil defense force, if as many people as possible owned arms (primarily, but not limited to firearms) and were familiar with their use in private life. As was well known throughout history: the Boss was the one with the guns. In the US, the citizen was to be the Boss, and so should not need to ask anybody's permission to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, people lost track of what "shall not be infringed" meant, and out of fear (and some, out of fear of the crowd, which they wished to control) enacted gun control measures that, over time ended up basically requiring people to ask permission of the government to exercise their "right," which the government was not to infringe. This inverted the constitutionally-intended power relationship. Now, it's not the citizens who are in control, but the so-called "public servants." That situation needs to be repaired. By affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms, unqualified by any requirement for militia service, the Heller decision took a decent step in the originally intended direction.

Now, expect to see a parade of court cases, designed to probe the limits of the meaning of the phrase, "shall not be infringed."
Posted by:James Anderson MerrittJuly 15, 2008 6:59:33 PMRespond ^
The reason manufacturers were able to make minor changes and continue to import "assault weapons" is due to the very definition--Basically any semiauto with a removable magazine, and more than one scary feature--The wrong handles, a flash suppressor to protect the shooter's vision (but not suppressing the flash from onlookers) bayonet mounts (when was the last time you heard of bayonet crime?) and grenade launchers (to launch grenades that are already illegal). None of these features are necessary for the gun to work, none increase lethality or criminal usefulness.

The SKS doesn't have a removable magazine, therefore has never been considered an assault weapon under federal law.

Every centerfire rifle cartridge is capable of penetrating soft body armor. The round fired by the SKS is less powerful than almost all other military rifles used between WW1 and the Vietnam war.

Information about gun crime use is still easily available to law enforcement--The Tihart amendment only prevents this information from being used for non law enforcement purposes, such as harassing firearms dealers and manufacturers.

Even a bird can bring down an aircraft under the wrong circumstances. A .50 is powerful, but not magical, and nothing about it makes it significantly more likely to bring down an aircraft than other rifles.
Posted by:sevesteenJuly 15, 2008 9:59:28 PMRespond ^
This article is terrible. It is an insult to truthful journalism. This coming from an American who does not own a gun.
Posted by:Living with no gunJuly 15, 2008 10:03:38 PMRespond ^
I hope that If Mother Jones has any integrity left, This reporter will not be writting future articles for them.
Posted by:living with no gunJuly 15, 2008 10:06:29 PMRespond ^
This article is a treasure of misinformation. The Russian SKS rifle that is older than 50 years old is a Curio and Relic by BATF definition. I bought one back in 1994 when Clinton was president. It was a Curio and Relic and back then you could even buy one in California and take it home without a background check. So don't say that Bush reclassified it as a Curion and Relic this is a red faced lie. It was already one fourteen years ago.
Posted by:STEVEJuly 15, 2008 11:54:16 PMRespond ^
Holy Mackerel. That is possibly the worst researched article I've ever seen. Mr. Falconer, a simple Wikipedia search would have illustrated that 99% of what you assert in your article is completly incorrect.
Posted by:jdbergerJuly 16, 2008 12:36:24 AMRespond ^
Actually, the truth is worse than Bruce describes. He COULD have bought that MAK-90 from a private seller had he shopped around a bit more. Private sellers have no legal duty whatsoever to check a buyer's driver license, much less run a background check on them. I've witnessed such private sales occur at Virginia gun shows, where the seller and buyer don't even so much as exchange names. Kudos to this particular seller, who checked with a licensed dealer and then reneged on the sale, but there was no legal duty to do so (and no accountability had he sold the gun without asking such questions). The system provides the most benefit to those who show little or no responsibility, allowing them to profit without having to account for diverting guns to criminals and traffickers when these guns later show up on crime scenes (that's if authorities can successfully trace the guns, remember that there is no paperwork for a private sale and no oversight by the government whatsoever on these sales).
Posted by:Freedom4AllJuly 16, 2008 6:13:52 AMRespond ^
My AK-47's have not been involved in any running "gun battles". Miami, huh? Imagine that. They have a social problem down there.
Posted by:WrongJuly 16, 2008 6:37:46 AMRespond ^
Miami's Police Chief is one of the most mistaken and incorrect people I have ever seen. He has been whining about "assault weapons" ever since the ban sunsetted. The funny thing is, the only thing the expiration of the ban did was allow us to throw bayonet lugs and threade muzzle brakes on them. Is he having a huge drive-by bayonetting problem in Miami, now? Those of us in the know, know that we were LEGALLY buring AK-47's, Uzi's, SKS's, etc. during the entire duration of Clinton's Presidency. The ban did nothing.
Posted by:Wrong AgainJuly 16, 2008 6:43:50 AMRespond ^
My local dealer is a very responsible dealer. You should run an article on him. He is profiling gun buyers, and not selling to certain looking individuals. He simply tells them that he will not sell to them, or he lies and tells them that their background checks were rejected. Most of these type of people do not even argue it, and they leave. Wonder why? Profiling works. We don't have a gun problem. we have a "social" problem.
Posted by:The TruthJuly 16, 2008 6:48:02 AMRespond ^
My .270 deer rifle has more power, higher accuracy, and is an all-around more deadly weapon than my MAK-90. This from personal experience, not from talking to government bureacrats.

By the way, I've never heard of a police chief that supports the individual right to bear arms. One police chief's opinion I read several years ago: "If private citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons, our officers won't know who's armed and who's not!" 'nuf said.
Posted by:Eric in CaliforniaJuly 16, 2008 8:36:41 AMRespond ^
I am a law-abiding citizen that believes in the second amendment right to self defence of my person and my home. Being a supporter of the NRA, let me conclude that "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".
Posted by:Keith JeanninJuly 16, 2008 8:46:31 AMRespond ^
This is just ridiculous. Thank you for wasting my time.
Posted by:Mother Jones is a wasteJuly 16, 2008 10:25:15 AMRespond ^
The NRA must have a payrolled list of 'commentors'. Any time a story about guns pops up on this site it takes 10 minutes for the comments page to refresh. There are many other issues that you can monday morning quarterback on that are of more vital importance that whether or not you can own a gun - which you can. All this 'Red Dawn' anticommunism talk is boring.
Posted by:RobertJuly 16, 2008 12:01:37 PMRespond ^
The commentators have pretty well neutralized your whole article.

Anything to say in your own defense before the judge pronounces you guilty of Yellow Journalism??
Posted by:Well Bruce..?July 16, 2008 12:15:59 PMRespond ^
"I am a law-abiding citizen that believes in the second amendment right to self defence of my person and my home." You need to read the 2nd Amendment again. Nowhere does it mention a right to defend your person or your home. Your misreading comes as no surprise, considering you ended your comment with a cliche that someone else recited to you. To paraphrase the great Lennie Briscoe, the last original thought you had you left swirling in the bowl.
Posted by:PowderJuly 16, 2008 12:22:11 PMRespond ^
What a load of "Bull....!"
Posted by:American PatriotJuly 16, 2008 12:25:58 PMRespond ^
Robert sez: The NRA must have a payrolled list of 'commentors'."

Do you have some arguments to refute their points, are you just here to say what you consider derogatory things about those who have shredded Bruce Falconer's contentions?

Robert sez: "There are many other issues that you can monday morning quarterback on that are of more vital importance that whether or not you can own a gun..."

Then why are you wasting precious time writing comments here, about the second point in the Nation's Bill of Rights, but to you, NON-vital issue?
Posted by:Robert SezJuly 16, 2008 12:28:24 PMRespond ^
FOUR documentaries I recommend:

1. "The After School Arms Club" - 47 min - Aug 7, 2006 Mark Thomas, watch as teens become functioning arms dealers online to protest moronic security & trade regulations.
- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1051967493712983252

2. "The Arms Fair": watch as Thomas masquerades as a "PR consultant" for Disaster Capitalist war criminals & they admit to warcrimes on video...
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A_B9lB8w5k

3. "Taking Liberties": how the Amerikan Korporate ReichWing is **bigger than just an Americka problem**... so get our there & participate in UNIVERSAL Human Rights struggles... in the Americas, EU & Pacific Rim...
- http://thiscanadian.typepad.com/thi s_canadian/2008/05/taking-libertie.html

4. "The DoomsDay Code": watch Tony Robinson investigate how Amerikan Evangelical DoomsDay 'missionaries' show up in post-Disaster Capitalist banana republics to capitalize on the war crimes & human rights abuses that fester when Amerikan-backed regimes have torn the entrails out of social networks & economic supports... in places like Uganda... where Khristian private mercenaries are hiring former child warriors who've seen nothing but true social collapse that truly resembles "Hell on Earth"
- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6439295521791525424

┄┄┄┄&# 9476;┄┄┄^ 76;┄┄┄┄^ 76;┄┄┄┄┄
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
┄┄
"... tolerance of intolerance is cowardice ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
┄┄
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
┄┄┄┄&# 9476;┄┄┄^ 76;┄┄┄┄^ 76;┄┄┄┄┄

Posted by:BlueBerry Pick'nJuly 16, 2008 12:29:05 PMRespond ^
Hey gun freaks, eat your guns. The rest of would be very happy to see you go.
Posted by:GUNFREAKSJuly 16, 2008 12:30:31 PMRespond ^
Hi, liberal gun-owner here. Just a couple of things:

A 50-cal rifle could take down a jet, under the right conditions. Then again, so could a couple of well-placed frozen chickens.

The larger fallacy that the anti-gun crowd continues to desperately cling to is the notion that if all the guns were taken away, there would be no more violence.

Regulating, restricting and banning firearms only ensures that those of us who go through the proper legal channels can't get them. It has no bearing whatsoever for the people who buy via the black market.

More people die each year as a result of drunk drivers than of gun-related incidents, yet I don't see anyone calling for a ban on beer

Rather than blaming the guns, why not take a close look at how so many illegal weapons are able to enter the country every year? How many thousands of shipping containers enter our ports every year without being inspected?
Posted by:MichaelJuly 16, 2008 12:33:17 PMRespond ^
And where do you think those illegal Ak 47's come from??... China! and did you know they have no tracable serial numbers. Why do you focus on one weapon ? the Ak 47 ? are you being fear pimps? So a cop gets shot, big deal goes with the job or as my instructor at the sheriffs academy once said " a dead cop is a good cop, they can get legislation passed and pay raises for us. But a cop that uses his weapon on a suspect and wounds rather then kills is bad news for us." So people have weapons, yes it sucks the illegall weapons and the crazies out there but why should law abiding citizens be punished? People start fires and fireman get killed in arson related fires... what no call to ban gasoline and matches? Quit being fear pimps the citizens have the right to be armed, I have a college degree working on my third degree, a Masters in Criminal Justice, and I am a Sheriff's Deputy. I accept the risks that go with the job.
Posted by:Karl MarxJuly 16, 2008 12:46:34 PMRespond ^
Gunfreaks writes: "Hey gun freaks, eat your guns. The rest of would be very happy to see you go."

Isn't this just the loving, caring, giving, reaching-out, understanding, "criminals are just misunderstood and underprivileged" Left that's so dear to our hearts?

Quite insightful there Gunfreaks. Insight into the anti-gun "mind", that is.
Posted by:The Peaceful LeftJuly 16, 2008 12:52:00 PMRespond ^
Liberals and Gun prohibitioners say that a gun is akin to a phallic symbol....

" The fear of a weapon is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.." Sigmound Freud

Makes you wonder about them doesn't it?
Posted by:Karl marxJuly 16, 2008 12:55:53 PMRespond ^
What's the big deal about buying prohibited assault rifles in DC?
When we are selling prohibited to civilian people armor pierced arms to the Mexican Drug dealers? Arms that are more advanced than the ones used for the Mexican army, sold just across the border from Mexico and made in the USA>
Posted by:Jaime DavilaJuly 16, 2008 1:05:14 PMRespond ^
It is so nice to see the creativity of American free enterprise at work in the marketplace, assuring our continued worldwide leadership in areas like murder, mayhem, drug dealing, and (of course) the individual's right to own an AK-47 and kill anyone s/he [pleases as efficiently as possible.

Vote Democratic in November: it might help to end some of the slaughter...
Posted by:Jon SpanglerJuly 16, 2008 1:23:46 PMRespond ^
''But not only did the current Bush administration allow the 1994 assault weapons ban to lapse'' Uhmmm... doesn't Congress make and renew laws, not the Executive branch?


"sks....are capable of penetrating the type of soft body armor typically worn by law enforcement officers." Uhmmm... aren't all centerfire rifles capable of penetrating soft body armor?? What is you biased point?


"Cities and advocacy organizations were bringing litigation against gun manufacturers for irresponsible marketing and also, in some cases, against individual retailers," Uhmmm...since when is a retailer responsible for what a customer does illegally. Is Chevy responsible for hit and runs?


"Already, since the ban's expiration in 2004, the atf has documented an 11 percent rise in the number of traces run on AK-47s and similar weapons—an increase that SUGGESTS more AKs are on the streets and are being used to commit crimes." Uhmm...since when is an ATF trace directly tied to a crime? The only one suggesting anything is you!

"At one table, a little boy admired a .50-caliber sniper rifle, capable of downing a jumbo jet" Uhmm..where has this actually occurred?? Perhaps you shouldn't repeat unsubstianted facts.
Posted by:J.M. BrowningJuly 16, 2008 1:28:10 PMRespond ^
Mother,

It appears that there is much controversey over this authors article and his professionalism and his research methods. I suggest you take a close look at him and his methods.
Posted by:Jim DavisJuly 16, 2008 1:32:57 PMRespond ^
Typical gun-banner write-up. If you came from DC to VA to attempt to buy a gun, then you committed one or more felonies. Please turn yourself in, or I, a VA resident, may file charges against you myself. I will certainly be sure that the authorities get a copy of your write-up. Maybe they will want to charge your employer with conspiracy, too.
Posted by:TedJuly 16, 2008 1:53:58 PMRespond ^
I fail to see how a concealed firearm can be considered to be a deterrent; if you are truly scared of your fellow man, then wear the firearm in the open on your hip; an "open carry" firearm is a deterrent, a "concealed carry" firearm is the sign of the assassin
Posted by:Tom in central IllinoisJuly 16, 2008 2:31:19 PMRespond ^
["...American free enterprise at work in the marketplace, assuring our continued worldwide leadership in areas like murder, mayhem, drug dealing, and (of course) the individual's right to own an AK-47 and kill anyone s/he [pleases as efficiently as possible."]

Where to start...? From the top I guess.

["America..., assuring our continued worldwide leadership in ... murder, mayhem..."]
Not even close. Not in the Top ten, not in the top twenty, not in the top thirty..., hell, we can't even make the top FORTY, if you trust Wikipedia. If not, choose your own site (nationmaster.com is good) and research "homicide rates by country", or "murder rates by country". You might be interested in contrasting the "gun control" laws in countries like Jamaica or Mexico that have much higher rates along with much stricter "gun control". Jamaica particularly, which is #3 (with a bullet) on most lists, and has a total prohibition on private gun ownership, with laws so strict you can get "life" for the possession of a single round of .22 rimfire ammunition.

["...our continued worldwide leadership in ......drug dealing..."]
You've got to be kidding! Why even Bother to bring up Columbia or Afghanistan if you truly believe your own ridiculous contention?

["American free enterprise at work in the marketplace, assuring ... the individual's right to own an AK-47 and kill anyone s/he pleases..."]
Sorry, I don't find this "right" outlined anywhere in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or in any one of 50 State Constitutions. Matter of fact, (and correct me if I'm wrong) I believe that's actually ILLEGAL in all 50 States.

What else have you got?
Anything that isn't patently false?
Posted by:I LOVE Hyperbole!July 16, 2008 2:32:54 PMRespond ^
Perhaps your publication should stick to protecting our rights, rather than bitching about them.
Posted by:DottieJuly 16, 2008 2:46:11 PMRespond ^
["I fail to see how a concealed firearm can be considered to be a deterrent.."]
Ask a criminal, who simply can't tell if that 'victim' he's scouting is carrying a 9mm or .357, or not, in a 'shall-issue' State.

["...a "concealed carry" firearm is the sign of the assassin"]

Right.
Over 1.2 million assassins in Florida alone. Scores of millions of assassins in the 46 States that issue permits for concealed carry, or the 2 that require none...

BTW: What would you say our assassination statistics look like?
Posted by:I LOVE Hyperbole!July 16, 2008 2:49:57 PMRespond ^
"an "open carry" firearm is a deterrent"

Too bad that's a crime there in central Illinois, 'eh Tom?

Women who have been raped & beaten within an inch of their lives, who have w Well Founded Fear of their "fellow man" would be criminals if they do what you propose.
Posted by:Sorry About IllinoisJuly 16, 2008 3:01:44 PMRespond ^
Yee Haw! I love a gun show! Yes! We, The People can purchase a firearm matching or exceeding those owned by the police and military. Yes, it is necessary that We, The People be able to do so if this country is to remain free. It's really simple: allowing the government to disarm us is the same as selling ourselves into slavery. Nothing matters if you are defenseless. And no, I have no plan to take on a SWAT team, but I currently do not trust the federal government to insure my freedom. At some point We, The People are going to have to draw the line on what power we allow the government, and We must be able to do so from a position of strength, not grovelling. That is exactly what the second amendment is about, because the founders new that it was only a matter of time before someone like Bush would come along and attempt to become a dictator-we really are not far from a dictatorship right now-and that We, The People would need those guns. Our federal government is intrinsically corrupt- essentially evil. We want to be defenseless against that?
Posted by:Brian D.July 16, 2008 4:28:01 PMRespond ^
People in power, everyday are being caught in sting operations across the country. Perhaps as the constitution states, the militia's are arming themselves.
Posted by:Tom KatJuly 16, 2008 4:45:46 PMRespond ^
Ted observes: "Typical gun-banner write-up."

I don't know Ted. Most gun-grabber articles require a bit more effort to perforate than this one.

I think a college freshman would have to do better than this in order to pass English Comp I, even if the prof was to the left of Noam Chomsky.
Posted by:Who's Constitution IS It?July 16, 2008 5:36:20 PMRespond ^
I bet 90% of these 2nd amendment constitutional scholars would be hard pressed to name even one of the other amendments. Whenever an article like this appears the gun nut lobbyists regurgitate the same tired rhetoric. (and quickly, too) How many of these "first responders" have even heard of Mother Jones? The rest of the world must think Americans are lunatics.
Posted by:BrycelloJuly 16, 2008 6:07:22 PMRespond ^
Brycello, this is America!

You have a RIGHT to be Wrong, as you are.

I know..., I know..., "Constitutional Scholars" on the left believe if it isn't SPECIFICALLY described in a Constitutional amendment (and sometimes even if it IS) then it is not a right Americans can claim (unless it's abortion).
But you know what...? The Framers weren't just blowing smoke with the statement: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
And THAT, my friend, covers YOUR Right to pose Wrong "bets" or opinions on internet message boards!
Posted by:Who's Constitution IS It?July 16, 2008 6:16:53 PMRespond ^
And anyway, Brycello, do you have anything in the way of refutation of the posts of those who believe the 2nd Amendment means what it says, or are you just here to attack the commentators Personally?
Posted by:Who's Constitution IS It?July 16, 2008 6:19:51 PMRespond ^
I enjoy reading and re-reading your article about ease of purchase of firearms as well as all of the articles in MoJo. However, being an astute political observer, you must aim your comments at the wonderful Alfred E. Neuman in the White House. Not only has he diligently worked to dismantle the U.S. Bill of Rights, he has performed another two faced maneuver and promoted the ease of sale of firearms per your article. Don't be upset with the ease of said purchases. Be upset with the Great White Leader who talks out of both sides of his mouth and then makes himself the beneficiary of "Executive Privilege." While the firearms debate is an important one, I feel quite strongly that your expertise and emotions will be better spent on continued monitoring and reporting of the lies and illegal activities of all of the Bush Administration and that includes every person in government service that hangs on his every word.
Keep up the good work that has made MoJo the great, informative zine that it is.
Ted Scott
tscott@washoe.k12.nv.us
Posted by:Ted Scott, Reno, NVJuly 16, 2008 6:48:16 PMRespond ^
Tom in Central Illinois: "I fail to see how a concealed firearm can be considered to be a deterrent; if you are truly scared of your fellow man, then wear the firearm in the open on your hip..."

If you are truly scared of your fellow man, then try not to let your fellow man be armed. I, in contrast, trust my fellow man; that's why I want him to be armed and to help the cops kill muggers. (The cops certainly aren't getting the job done.)

The deterrent from concealed firearms comes from when a would-be robber or rapist hears about another robber or rapist getting shot by his intended victim.

There are some people in Virginia and Utah who are trying to make open carry once again socially acceptable, so I guess that is something you could support.
Posted by:fsilberJuly 16, 2008 6:57:38 PMRespond ^
Ted Scott, Reno NV offers the following "facts" regarding George Dubya Bush:
["Not only has he diligently worked to dismantle the U.S. Bill of Rights..."]
Why yes Ted, he has.
Among his assaults on the B.O.R. is filing an amicus brief in the Heller case, calling on the S.C. to overturn the lower court's decision which threw out D.C.'s handgun ban, and he thereby supported government's ability to ignore the 2nd Amendment.

["... he has performed another two faced maneuver and promoted the ease of sale of firearms per your article."]
Actually, No Ted, he has not, to my knowledge done a single thing during his 7 years in office to make it easier for honest citizens to purchase & own firearms.
If you know of something he's done to ease restrictions on firearms sales, I'd be interested to have you tell me about it.
Most of the gun owners I know will tell you that the best thing Bush has done for gun owners was to do nothing at all.., prior to his attempt to stab them in the back with his "Heller" brief.
Posted by:Senator Phillip BusterJuly 16, 2008 7:15:07 PMRespond ^
This article is typical of leftist thinking. It seems the libs want to bend way over backwards to afford every benefit of doubt to the illegal alien invader and every career criminal by quoting every Constitutional amendment that guarantees individual rights in this great country . . . but oh what complete disregard they have for the most important individual right the people have to maintain their liberty. The Second Amendment wasn't written to guarantee the people's right to bear sporting or hunting arms. It was written to guarantee the right for people to be armed with military arms. If someone abuses that right and commits a crime, lock 'em up and throw away the key . . . how hard is that to figure out?
Posted by:NormanJuly 16, 2008 7:29:19 PMRespond ^
This typical ignorance in anti-gun 'reporting' is stunning. They sound like the crudest KKK props. What's worse, they're proud of their ignorance.
The flat earth syndrome trying to rush us all over some imaginary cliff.
Posted by:Carlos NelsonJuly 16, 2008 7:41:55 PMRespond ^
Just about Everything about this article is either incorrect or deceitful!

Even the ARTWORK!

SKS rifles haven't sold for $89 for 15 years or more, otherwise I'd own more than 2 of 'em!

Check out the online auction site gunbroker.com.
They're going for $250 MINIMUM!

As an added bonus, gunbroker.com will give you a whole new subject to misinform people about!
Posted by:Ignorance Is BlissJuly 16, 2008 7:54:37 PMRespond ^
It cannot be exported, but check out life in London, UK. The cops do not carry guns ! Somehow this gave me a sense of security, looking at police there and seeing that they weren't carrying any guns. I liked it so much I stayed. It's more civilized, but it's no paradise over here - now there is a wave of young men knifing each other on the streets of London. It's just less likely for me to get in the middle of a knife fight than in the middle of crossfire.
Nevertheless, when I enter the good 'ole USA, gimme back my bullets. We need to continously re-learn how to solve our problems like real Americans - with violence and force and breast-beating.
Posted by:Bob RenwellJuly 17, 2008 1:07:30 AMRespond ^
Your article isn't even fear mongering at its finest. It's just a collection of sensationalism and lies.
"and other High Power Rifles"? The 7.62x39 round fired by the MAK90 is not a High Power cartridge.
"capable of downing a jumbo jet"? check your facts again... that's an urban myth.
Firearms (including your dreaded MAK90) prevent far more tragedies every year than they can possibly create.
Posted by:AntonioJuly 17, 2008 2:39:56 AMRespond ^
Basic english people, I feel safe knowing that people who can't write their own language have guns.
Posted by:spell checkJuly 17, 2008 3:39:00 AMRespond ^
Through all the slurs, and hateful misrepresentatins by commenters who appear to oppose firearms ownership, I'm still waiting for intellectually honest critiques of the rights to self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms to support that right, including daily carry of firearms. What I'm hearing is fear, and an unwillingness to face the debate seriously.
Posted by:froJuly 17, 2008 4:29:46 AMRespond ^
"Ready to rock?"

That's not what it's called. Maybe ready to kill, at least ready to be violent. So let's call it what it is, and leave the rocking to the musician's.

And it isn't guns that create violence, it's people. So maybe in the meantime, we need a regulation that puts the price of ammo closer to Chris Rock's suggestion: $5G a bullet.

But the drooling gun nuts, who number less than stamp collectors and coin collectors in this country, will scream about their Constitutional right. Maybe they should be required to serve in the military, on the front lines first. Or. lacking that courage, make it a requirement to serve in a hospital ER room in a gun heavy zone for several weekend nights helping restore the damage guns do. I doubt they could do even that.

America will eventually wake up and realize that gun rights lobbyists are a minority, and respond with stricter regulations until we learn to not be so violent. At least we can hope.
Posted by:RobJuly 17, 2008 5:46:24 AMRespond ^
More of the same old story. It gets headlines and sells. I am more concerned with the paramilitary law enforcement in this country. Percentage wise, deaths by firearms pales in comparison to heart disease, cancer, automobile accidents, and of course alcohol and prescription drugs. If we are going to pick a cause, lets start with something of real substance instead of headline grabbing hogwash.
Posted by:BobJuly 17, 2008 6:04:37 AMRespond ^
Its hard to believe some people still defend semi-automatic ownership. It doesn't matter if this article is good or not. Semi-automatics were designed to kill people and we all agree killing people is bad. I would be weary of someone who collected electric chairs even if he wasn't planning on killing anyone. That guy would be pshycho to me anyways and he would still seem a thousand time safer than a pshycho who collects killing machines like handguns. However, the average American would think a guy collecting guns is normal. I just don't get it
Posted by:No Guns!July 17, 2008 7:39:27 AMRespond ^
Bob Printz is quite right. Although its acronym remains unchanged, the full and proper name for the ATF is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The story has been updated to reflect that.
Posted by:Bruce FalconerJuly 17, 2008 7:58:48 AMRespond ^
ROB -YOU ARE NORMAL ANTIGUN PERSON AND THIS MEANS YOU ARE FULL OF SH@T.AMMO PRICES WILL NOT DETER CRIMNALS FROM GETTING BULLETS AND YOUR THINKING IS TO MAKER SURE THE LAWFUL OWNER OF WEAPON HAS A HARD TIME TO GET AMMO.SO WHY DON'T YOU CRAWL BACK UNDER THAT ROCK YOU WERE IN.
Posted by:BREAKOUT 45July 17, 2008 9:02:18 AMRespond ^
Well, there we go with gun supporters being "right wing" and ban supporters being "left wing". Where the hell do I belong. I'm socially liberal with a hard line position on both personal and governmental fiscal responsibility (both desperately lacking lately). I will shoot whenever I get a chance and for many reasons support the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms. I'm probably incorrect in saying our constitutional guarantee of this right is unique in the world, but I can't think of another country. Am I allowed to support all of the freedoms afforded by the constitution or does that make me to rational to be an American? It's a good thing there's no restriction against voicing inane opinions. I love this country! (Even as its policy makers piss me off to no end.)
Posted by:MI JohnJuly 17, 2008 9:04:18 AMRespond ^
NO GUN - WHERE IS IT THAT SAYS ALL SEMI AUTO RIFLES ARE JUST FOR KILLING.I WOULD LIKE TO READ THAT,THERE ARE ALOTS OF SEMI AUTO RIFLES OUT THERE AND THEY ARE NOT OUT THERE KILLING PEOPLE.YOU ARE ANOTHER ANTIGUN NUT AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE LIFES.KEEP TAKING YOUR DUMMY PILLS BECAUSE THAT IS ALL YOU ARE.
Posted by:BREAKOUT 45July 17, 2008 9:09:31 AMRespond ^
Rob Sez: ["And it isn't guns that create violence, it's people. So maybe in the meantime, we need a regulation that puts the price of ammo closer to Chris Rock's suggestion: $5G a bullet."]

OK Rob. It's a "people" problem, but your plan to solve it is by taxing an inert object (hopefully) out of existance?

A: That's exactly how the federal government set out to eliminate marajuana. How did that work out?
(Hint: It made a lot of previously honest people into "criminals", and it made a lot of criminals into multi-millionaires.)

B: You'll make potential millionaires out of people who handload their own ammo. Most of us keep a sizeable stock of reloading components on hand, because we buy in bulk when we find a good deal. Some wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to sell a round of ammo they have 20 cents invested in for $1,500.00 or $2,000.00.
You'd also place an irresistable temptation in front of some who handle ammo at the local police station, or at military supply depots.

Next time, before you toss out some simplistic scheme a comedian dreamed up to get laughs as a serious proposal, you may want to spend 5 to 10 seconds thinking through what the end results might REALLY be.
Posted by:Rob SezJuly 17, 2008 9:29:03 AMRespond ^
MI John, you sound like you actually belong in the libertarian category. Roughly described by some as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Actually, we're focused on maximum personal liberty, so long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights, and government that strictly adheres to it's Constitutional limitations.

You might enjoy taking the World's Smallest Political Quiz, if you haven't already.
www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
Posted by:Senator Phillip BusterJuly 17, 2008 9:37:59 AMRespond ^
Rob Sez: ["America will eventually wake up and realize that gun rights lobbyists are a minority"]

Well 'Duh'!!
I think most people in America are bright enough to realize that all the lobbyists for all interests lumped together are still a MINORITY in this country.

However, the people who believe in the various positions these few lobbyists lobby FOR form a definite majority. Probably, they form the whole of the US population, because SOME lobbyist in DC or you State capitol is lobbying for something you believe in.

Those who believe in the right of Americans to own firearms are NOT a minority. Not nearly.
Polls consistently show this, year after year.

Here's a bunch of examples for ya':
www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
Posted by:Dr. Benjamin DoverJuly 17, 2008 10:01:17 AMRespond ^
Your reporter(& all reporters) should research the term "Assault Weapon"! An Assualt Weapon is used by the Military and Law Enforcement. Those are illegal to own by the average law abiding citizen since fully automatic weapons(machine guns) were outlawed in 1937. A law abiding can apply for a special permit to buy & possess a machine gun (Class 3) but may not move freely about while carrying or transporting such a weapon. Those are strictly controlled and cost $250. just for the permit. An "Assualt weapon" should only be described as such when it is capable of fully automatic firing. This means firing several shots by holding the trigger in the compressed position. The look of the firearm has nothing to do with the described capability. Legal firearms for possesion by the average Law Abiding Citizen is capable ONLY of firing 1(one) shot with one compresion of the trigger. If the trigger is held back until doomsday, nothing happens ... until the trigger is released and compressed again.
Posted by:EdmondJuly 17, 2008 10:18:32 AMRespond ^
There are two ways to get rid of assault weapons:
1) Use the definition of a machinegun in 26 USC 5845 (b) which includes the language "is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot"

2) Use Washington, DC's definition of a machinegun, which is similar to 26 USC 5845 (b) which is DC code § 7-2501.01 (10): “any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot: (A) Automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger; [or] (B) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.”

According to DC v. Heller, this is perfectly legal.
Posted by:MichaelJuly 17, 2008 11:38:39 AMRespond ^
["An "Assualt weapon" should only be described as such when it is capable of fully automatic firing."]

But Edmond, if we aren't at least a wee bit deceptive with our terminology, we won't be as effective in scaring the pants off the gullible people who support the "Disarm America" agenda.

You see, we get maximum benefit from talking to guys like "No Guns!", who make comments like: ["Its hard to believe some people still defend semi-automatic ownership."]
"No Guns!" is totally unaware of the fact that a practiced rifleman using a Winchester or Marlin rifle with a design originating in 1894 is capable of firing just as fast as the average user of a semi-auto SKS can fire.
We don't want to let him in on that, because then he'd start screaming about outlawing Great-Great-Grandpa's lever action deer rifle.
We don't want That part of our agenda out in the public's eye just yet.
Posted by:Prof. Hugh G. ReckshunJuly 17, 2008 11:46:09 AMRespond ^
Michael, Edmond just explained to you that those definitions do not DESCRIBE "assault weapons".

That's a term that's being intentionally mis-applied to gain political mileage for those who think Americans should eventually be totally disarmed, leaving only the forces commanded by the likes of George Dubya Bush armed with anything better than a slingshot.

Do you LIKE that idea, by the way?
Posted by:Prof. Hugh G. ReckshunJuly 17, 2008 11:51:46 AMRespond ^
Fro, Fear is what makes you want to carry a gun in the first place. Fear of the alien invader, the strange neighborhood, the gangstas', the federal gub'mint, the rapist hiding in the alley, the cranked up robber that will crash your late night stop at the quick E mart. I have read some of the fiction stories in guns and ammo, etc that glorify 'quick draw saves the day' nonsense.
Point to a statistic that correlates gun ownership to crimes prevented in the U.S. I see the same tired statistic about 'Jamaica's crime rate' versus the U.S. - show me number of guns versus crimes prevented by them (excluding police activity). Also, the deterrence of a potential criminal not knowing whether or not you have a gun is a B.S. argument the same as the death penalty is a crime deterrent.
Time for some good ol' personal introspection - why do you want the gun? Just because you can? Really? Why does the SC want to guarantee your individual right to a gun - so you can overthrow it if it becomes a tyranny or fight off foreign invaders? Or because it is a huge corporate interest?
Posted by:RobertJuly 17, 2008 12:16:09 PMRespond ^
Robert Demands: ["Point to a statistic that correlates gun ownership to crimes prevented in the U.S."]

OK then, since you really are interested in the truth, and are willing to absorb it, even if it contradicts what you currently believe.
This comes from a U.S. Justice Department report from 1994 (The Clinton Years, so it was the Clinton Justice Department):
["On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor
vehicle theft."]
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
Their Statistics:
On average, about 83,000 per year.
227 times per day.
9 1/2 times per hour.
Once ever 6 1/3 minutes.

This, from a National Institute of Justice Brief, dated 1997, considers an accurate low-ball number to be 108,000 per year.
["On the basis of National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one
would conclude that defensive uses
are rare indeed, about 108,000 per
year. But other surveys yield far higher
estimates of the number of DGUs.']
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Their statistics:
108,000 times per year.
296 times per day.
12 times per hour.
Once every 5 minutes.

Care to look at whether "gun control" laws actually prevent crimes? Whether a ban on handgun ownership reduced violent crime?
Here are some comments from one of the Supreme Court's dissenters to the Heller decision that might shed some light on those questions:
["Justice Stephen G. Breyer, one of the dissenters in the 5-to-4 decision, surveyed a quite substantial body of empirical research on whether gun control laws do any good. Then he wrote: “The upshot is a set of studies and counterstudies that, at most, could leave a judge uncertain about the proper policy conclusion.”
...
"At the crudest level, as Justice Breyer wrote, violent crime in Washington has increased since the ban took effect in 1976. “Indeed,” he continued, “a comparison with 49 other major cities reveals that the district’s homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction went into place.”]
www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/wee kinreview/29liptak.html?n=Top/ Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court

Any other questions you can't find answers to?
Posted by:Robert SezJuly 17, 2008 2:04:16 PMRespond ^
You know, it's interesting...when you speak up in support of the right to bear arms, some anti-gun activist is invariably going to accuse you of being an ignorant, right-wing redneck with no understanding of the Constitution. Sometimes they even accuse of being a paid lobbyist of the NRA!

Well, I'm a registered Democrat. I consider myself a liberal. I was hoping for Edwards to make the ticket this year, but now I'm supporting Obama. I'm a person of mixed ethnic heritage, but I've never been taken for a white man. I have an Ivy league degree, and served for twelve years in the US Army. I deployed twice to Iraq. I have never given money to the NRA, and I consider them a corporate front group. I am currently living overseas in the employee of the federal government, and I do not own a gun.

But give up the right to keep and bear arms? Never. I can assure you that once I return to my native soil, I will be looking to purchase a firearm. The Second Amendment is as vital a part of the fabric of our freedom as the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to a free press, and the right to worship without government interference. It is as fundamental to our liberty as voting. It is one tool we were given by our founders to keep us out of slavery. It is the right of last resort. Ultimately, if you cannot fight for your liberty, you do not own it.

I hope this sets a few of those biased anti-gun types straight. There are plenty of us out here who have come to a reasoned and thoughtful understanding of our right to be armed. I recognize and accept the need for some restriction of private ownership of arms to maintain domestic peace. But I, for one, am not about to let a biased, ignorant, fearful hack deprive me of my rights.
Posted by:ChristianJuly 17, 2008 2:51:43 PMRespond ^
Bruce Falconer admits: ["Bob Printz is quite right."]

Bob Printz had previously commented: ["One of the worst info articles I have read."]

I agree with Bob, and thank you Bruce, for having the courage and candor to admit that he was right.


There! How's that Bruce?
I can do Journalism just like You!
Posted by:Well Bruce...?July 17, 2008 5:43:03 PMRespond ^
Robert Sez: ["Why does the SC want to guarantee your individual right to a gun - so you can overthrow it if it becomes a tyranny or fight off foreign invaders?"]

It's not a matter of what the Supreme Court wants Robert. They didn't compose the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
It's a matter of what the guys who wrote those documents wanted, and if you were to read their other writings you'd find that, indeed, they Did want us to have the ability to "overthrow it if it becomes a tyranny or fight off foreign invaders".
Posted by:Robert SezJuly 17, 2008 5:51:05 PMRespond ^
While your at it do a report on how bad cars are, their dangers and how they should be outlawed. More people die from car deaths than guns.

Just because I can take my chainsaw down the road and go on a homicidal rampage doesn't mean ban chainsaws. Just because a criminal rapes someone at knife point doesn't mean I should'nt be able to enjoy cutting my steak with one.

*Sigh* Day by day this country is turning into a fascist sh*t hole because people are too pu**y and turn over their freedoms to the powers that be.
Posted by:AnAmericanJuly 18, 2008 3:19:09 AMRespond ^
I like guns and own a few and plan to fill out the collection with an assault rifle some day. However, the main point of this article is that there are too many cheap and powerful rifles ending up in the big cities. The balance to be foound here is to have reasonable rules regulating the purchase of weapons by law abiding citizens while drastically reducing the number of imported untraceable cheap weapons that are flooding the streets.
Posted by:unidioticJuly 18, 2008 6:32:13 AMRespond ^
["too many cheap and powerful rifles ending up in the big cities."]

So? What matter if people in the cities enjoy the same rights as people who live in rural areas? Aren't we supposed to all enjoy the same rights?

["...to have reasonable rules regulating the purchase of weapons by law abiding citizens while drastically reducing the number of imported untraceable cheap weapons that are flooding the streets."]

Direct from Brady Campaign talking points.
1. That term "reasonable" along with "common sense" is used by every advocate of more gun control to describe their position, so that they may paint anyone who doesn't AGREE with their position as "unreasonable" and lacking "common sense". That's a bull[deleted] tactic that DOESN'T make your position automatically "reasonable".

2. There are plenty of laws already, regulating the sale of all firearms to the law abiding. Form 4473 to be filled out, background checks for criminal records. More controls on the law abiding won't hinder those who AREN'T law abiding.

3. "Untraceable" weapons being imported? Any weapon that fits that description is imported illegally, by a criminal, and it WON'T be changing hands in a licensed gun dealers shop, or in at a gun show that's packed with cops and BATFE agents working undercover. All firearms LEGALLY imported MUST have unique serial numbers, the must be recorded by the importer, the distributer he sells them to, and the local dealer the distributor sells them to. It's The Law.

4. "Cheap weapons" I love it when gun control guys start chattering about "cheap" firearms. It immediately exposes the fact that they want to deny firearms ownership to the poor, who couldn't afford even S&W's lowest price revolver @ $400+, let alone their version of the AR-15 @ well over $800. Also, when they chatter about wanting a BIG, Hefty licensing fee for certain guns or for a carry permit. Make sure the poor (those at greatest risk of violent crime) don't get their hands on guns to defend themselves.
Though sometimes, I think it's just people parroting the Brady Campaign's rhetoric without thinking through the logical impact of a policy like they propose.

5. "flooding the streets"??? Can you find two news stories about semi-auto rifles being used in street crimes since the ban expired? Post the links here? If not (and I think not) then "flooding the streets" is pure fear-mongering hyperbole, founded on imagination at best, or on nothing but an intent to decieve the gullible at worst.
Posted by:Idiotic IndeedJuly 18, 2008 8:49:32 AMRespond ^
Whatever it is that drives this seemingly erotic attachment to gun ownership and use - maybe penis envy, or such - it seems most ironic and telling to me that that rarely stated opening phrase of the Second Amendment is practically forbidden to sully the tongues of those using that oral organ instead mostly for French-kissing their beloved weapons - the phrase, you know, that goes: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...” Well regulated? Militia? Gimme a break, you MFers, I, me, am a militia unto myself and, yes, I am utterly well regulated. Never need a laxative; just gimme me my Glock, gimme my MAK, leave me be with my one-my-only claim to perpetual monogamy, my dearly beloved, my weapon that’ll blow your MFing brains to kingdom come, or somewhere, if I tell it to. Think it over. Amen.
Posted by:NormanJuly 18, 2008 10:51:03 AMRespond ^
No Guns! wrote: "Semi-automatics were designed to kill people and we all agree killing people is bad. I would be wary of someone who collected electric chairs, ...However, the average American would think a guy collecting guns is normal."

For the record, I DON'T agree that killing people is bad. Murder is bad, but justifiable homicide is good. (That's why we give guns to cops.)

Spell Check wrote: "Basic english people! I feel safe knowing that people who can't write their own language have guns."

I sympathize; I feel the same way about voting. When it comes to permits to carry a gun, I believe a valid voter registration card ought to suffice. Excepting physical defects such as total blindness, whatever disqualifies a person for one ought to disqualify him from the other.

Robert wrote: "Fear is what makes you want to carry a gun .... Fear of the alien invader, the strange neighborhood, the gangstas', the federal gub'mint, the rapist hiding in the alley, the cranked up robber that will crash your late night stop at the quick E mart."

Only in a figurative sense. It's not so much fear that makes me want to carry a gun but rather a desire not to submit burglary, mugging, rape, or car-jacking -- and the moral sense to do my share in ensuring that society as a whole does not tolerate such behavior. (The right to freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures is a key element of Liberty -- so that's what I'm defending when I carry a gun.)

Robert continues: "Point to a statistic that correlates gun ownership to crimes prevented in the U.S."

I have no statistics, but in 1992 in New Orleans it seemed that everyone I knew had a story about how they or someone they knew had been robbed at gunpoint on the street. After the first permits under the state's new "shall-issue" concealed carry law were mailed out, such stories became much less common. There was still lots of crime, of course -- only a few criminals were actually killed by intended victims. But most of the muggers changed to nonconfrontational crimes, such as 3am auto thefts.

Robert adds "Also, the deterrence of a potential criminal not knowing whether or not you have a gun is a B.S. argument the same as the death penalty is a crime deterrent."

It's not just to deter crimes, but also to stop those which are not deterred. As for deterrence, I belive most criminals have very short-term outlooks. When the death penalty was routinely administered for murder within weeks of the arrest, it WAS a deterrent, but we're more fearful these days of an innocent being executed. That's much less of a danger if the criminal is shot while in the act.

Also, there's a moral difference between killing a free criminal versus one who is already completely in your power. It's like the difference between shooting an enemy soldier in combat versus executing
P.O.W.s, or like the difference between shooting an attacking lion versus killing one that's in the zoo.
Posted by:fsilberJuly 18, 2008 11:03:39 AMRespond ^
You know Norman, it's amazing how anti-gun liberals sound just like the angry, hateful, bigoted, racist, homophobic 'rednecks' they all claim to be against, once they start talking about people who believe the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.
Wouldn't you say?
Posted by:To NormanJuly 18, 2008 12:11:59 PMRespond ^
You missed my point, Buster, obviously; namely, you lovers of death-dealing instruments conveniently tend to overlook the opening phrase of your beloved Second Amendment, with its straightforward “well regulated militia”. In the city where I live, New York, our relatively low murder rate would be even lower if hand guns weren’t being smuggled in from such enlightened places as my native Virginia. One thing, though, even an anti-gun liberal like myself must admit is that guns and innumerable other instruments of death are about all we’re manufacturing today of any significance.
Posted by:NormanJuly 18, 2008 2:13:35 PMRespond ^
Dan, you are why America is what it is.
Posted by:dedsetmadJuly 18, 2008 2:24:45 PMRespond ^
I am a proud owner of a few guns myself. Over the years the gun controversy has been greatly discussed. The american right to own guns goes a long way and is part of our culture and tradition. Of course, insane people do sometimes get their hands on guns and tragedies do happen.

The Virginia tech and the Columbine incidents are good examples of incidents which troubled many and put the gun question back on the table.

It the murderous kids hadn't used guns they could have done just as much damage with knives for sure.

In my opinion the death of those young students are only a small price to pay in order to exert to the fullest extent our right to own guns. I am glad to see that many others agree that the sacrifice of policemen, students and other civilians is well worth it in order for us to be legally allowed to own guns.

I don't think there is any number of lives that would make me give up my SKS.
Posted by:JoeJuly 18, 2008 2:38:18 PMRespond ^
First of all Karl, it's SigmUnd. And I hate to jolt you out of the 1900's but most of Siggy's theories are now just psychoanalytical laughter ! !
Posted by:dedsetmadJuly 18, 2008 2:41:32 PMRespond ^
Some suggest that those who write or publish gun-control-promoting articles like this are liars. Maybe because so much of the information included in such articles can so easily be shown to be false these people are just ignorant and uninformed, that is to say they just don’t know any better.
Posted by:Joseph L. BassJuly 18, 2008 6:12:48 PMRespond ^
Who could be expected to glean a point among all the anger, hatred, bigotry and mud-slinging contained in your previous post?

Nobody ignores the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, although gun-banners always think that's what's happening.
It's simply, as the majority of the Supreme Court observed, and as the Amicus Brief filed by Professors of Linguists & English (Amici Curiae 3) supports, the prefatory clause does NOT act as a limiting statement on the operative clause.

As the opinion stated:
["The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”]

If you Read both the opinion and the dissent (which you can do here:
www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf,) you'll notice that the dissent does not make reference to the brief filed by the Professors of Linguistics and English. They argue for their own interpretation of the English usage, take the very long way around the barn, and do not reference the brief filed by experts in the field because it CONTRADICTS their reading.

Why you gun-phobes continue to cling to an interpretation of the simple English of the 2nd that is clearly out of step with usage standards both today, and when it was written is beyond me.
I guess it's just hard to admit you've been wrong about something you've so passionately hitched your hopes to.
Posted by:To NormanJuly 18, 2008 6:42:59 PMRespond ^
Joe Sez:
["I am a proud owner of a few guns myself."]

To which I reply:
No you're not.
If you ever got within a foot of a real firearm you'd piddle in your panties.
Posted by:Joe SezJuly 18, 2008 6:51:22 PMRespond ^
Sir, or sirette, or whoever you are, you could make one downright antisemantic in your referring to the Amicus Brief filed by those Professors of Linguistics and English as a kind of holy sine qua non endorsement as to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. I prefer to call your Professors of Linguistics and English (or, if you prefer, Gods Descended To Us From On High) Thanatosophiles, and I hereby grant you permission to substitute for your really rather ugly designation of “gun-phobes” the term “Thanatosophobes”, which is far more stately and at least quasi-academic.

There, now that all that is said, let us return to that concept you cling to like a shipwrecked sailor and his piece of flotsam, as apparently do those supporting Professors - er, Thanatosophiles - of yours. I mean of course your cute 21st Century attempt to spin or, better still, to Scaliate a simple 18th-Century statement. And here let me remind you that said 18th Century, also known as the Age of Enlightenment (and Rationalism, Science, Deism, etc.) was not known for its inarticulateness. Thus yours and your Thanatosophiles’ speaking of the amendment’s “prefatory clause and its operative clause“ strikes me as an exercise in advanced puerility or a deliberate distortion worthy of Fox News.

You shock me no little bit, you and your Thanatosophiles, in denigrating the intelligence and linguistic savoir-faire of those (if indeed more than one) of our Founders who composed and accepted that brief and really quite simple amendment. You are suggesting no less that the first, or “prefatory clause”, hasn’t a bloody damn thing to do with the second or “operative clause”. If such is indeed the case, then why the hell did they include it? Why? Because it “announces a purpose.” Do you actually believe this nonsense?... Well, maybe you do, because, as you declare, we Thanatosophobes are “clearly out of step with usage standards.” Again, please let me refer you to Fox News and such contemporary purveyors of semantic standards.

Then off you go rewriting the poor thing, the 2nd Amendment. You sound really silly and actually contradictory when you preface it with “Because“. I humbly suggest “Although” as the more effective attempt at falsifying the meaning of the 2nd.

Also, may I remind you that a Supreme Court in its ineffable goodness and wisdom once gave us the Dred Scott decision and more recently, alas, designated as President a malevolent fool. And so it seems to be with this recent (mis)interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which apparently needs parsing to enable our weapons industry and its adherents like yourself to enhance both our gun myths and indisputable statistics from morgues and such throughout the country.

I’d love to discuss all this with you over a beer or two, but fear that if you visited me where I live, New York City, you might risk arrest since we have extremely strict laws against concealed weapons.
Posted by:NormanJuly 19, 2008 6:59:15 AMRespond ^
To assert that the only purpose of firearms (including manual action, semi-automatic or fully automatic) is murder is illogical.

For those who are unclear, let's review difference between the terms "Murder" and "Kill". Murder is a subcategory of "killing" (of a human) that is done for unlawful purposes. It does not follow however that when someone is killed, it was necessarily unlawful, or done with malicious purposes.

Recognize that if a device is "Designed to Kill", it does not necessarily imply that it was designed for "murder", but rather, only for the application of lethal force. There are circumstances where it is lawful for both government and private citizens to apply lethal force, most notably to stop the comission of serious crimes (arson for example) or to prevent serious injury or death to one's self or another person. The right to use force, including lethal force, to resist these things is an inalienable individual human right, and is exactly what many writers and political figures at the founding of the U.S. sought to protect (from usurpation by a king or state), ultimately taking form of the 2nd amendment.

There have been and are circumstances around the world throughout history where firearms of every sort, including "assault weapons" have been relevant to defense of individuals and communities. The U.S. has been blessed with relative domestic peace and security in the last century, and providence willing, we will continue to experience it. This does not in any way abrogate or undo the rights of the people to keep and bear such arms (lawfully, and for lawful purposes) as would be relevant to defense of self and community. This means that persons who have NOT shown themselves to be irresponsible, incompetent, traitorous, or otherwise using force in an unlawful manor, have an individual right to keep and bear modern firearms.

So long as a person is willing to submit to verification of their lawful status, there is no reason why (as is true today a majority of states) even fully automatic firearms should be forbidden a person who's character demonstrates that they will keep, maintain, and use such weapons lawfully and responsibly.

To allow abrogation of these rights out of FEAR that someone might do something improper some day, is to violate the same principles that argue against censorship, restriction of freedom of association and assembly, unreasonable search and seizure, and the full content of the bill of rights.
Posted by:SidheJuly 19, 2008 9:23:19 AMRespond ^
Norman Opines: ["Then off you go rewriting the poor thing, the 2nd Amendment. You sound really silly and actually contradictory when you preface it with “Because“. I humbly suggest “Although” as the more effective attempt at falsifying the meaning of the 2nd."]

Maybe you believe you can write convincingly because of your ability to research and apply 4 and 5 syllable words, assuming (wrongly) that people will not be able to decipher their meanings and therefore assume you Must know what you're talking about.

Given your lack of reading comprehension skills, it's clear that quite a bit still remains to be learned.

Let's try this again, and this time, please read the first part, first.
As the OPINION stated:
["The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”]

Here's that link, in case you actually want to examine the reasoning of the decision, rather than just criticize it based on what you THINK it says:
www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

If you don't like the paraphrasing, or the fact that 5 of the Justices agreed with the Professors of English & Linguistics, (you remember, those people who TAUGHT you how to use your thesaurus to research & apply big words) and the other 4 didn't attempt to refute their brief, stating that the prefatory clause does not grammatically limit the operative clause, you'll simply need to challenge Justice Scalia (who wrote the text you take such exception to) along with Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito who signed on to the opinion as written, along with those who've made a career of understanding English Usage. Perhaps you'll need to direct them to Fox News. Perhaps you should ask them if they "believe this nonsense".

Then, you can undertake to explain to them how they are wrong about the grammar and structure of the amendment, and go to explain it's proper interpretation.
I'm sure they can't wait to be instructed by you.

Face it, Norman. Your side LOST this debate over what the 2nd Amendment means, and it's time to move on.
That's over, so save your wind and your typing fingers for something that matters.

You people need to get to work and try to push a Constitutional amendment through to nullify the 2nd, if you think you can.

Go for it.
I can hardly wait.
Posted by:To NormanJuly 19, 2008 9:25:18 AM