Semiautomatic for the People
News: In which a MoJo reporter goes to a gun show in search of some serious firepower.
|
|
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

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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Assault-Wea pons-Evil-Black-Rifles-or-perhaps-not
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.
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."
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.
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.
Anything to say in your own defense before the judge pronounces you guilty of Yellow Journalism??
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?
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;┄┄┄┄┄
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?
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.
" The fear of a weapon is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.." Sigmound Freud
Makes you wonder about them doesn't it?
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>
Vote Democratic in November: it might help to end some of the slaughter...
"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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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!
Keep up the good work that has made MoJo the great, informative zine that it is.
Ted Scott
tscott@washoe.k12.nv.us
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.
["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.
The flat earth syndrome trying to rush us all over some imaginary cliff.
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!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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!
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".
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.
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.
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.
Wouldn't you say?
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.
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.
["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.
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.
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.
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.