Police chiefs: Restore assault weapons ban

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Miami Herald

Police chiefs: Restore assault weapons ban
Posted on Wed, Sep. 19, 2007

Miami-Dade Officer Jose Somohano was shot and killed with a Mak-90 assault rifle three years to the day after the federal law prohibiting the sale of such weapons expired.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a report at noon Wednesday calling for, among other things, a renewal of the ban, arguing that it helps keep police officers safe by reducing the ``firepower available to criminals.''

The report hits home for South Florida law enforcement officers, who have been facing an increasing number of these guns on the street since the ban expired. Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez, a former police officer and police director, can't hide his anger when he talks about the fact that lawmakers let the ban expire.

''While I feel very strongly about the Second Amendment, I don't think that our founding fathers had AK-47s in mind,'' he said. ``There's absolutely no reason I can see having these weapons out on the street.''



Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/459/story/243073.html

[BOSSHOG]

1. That's just bygawd unamerican

Every citizen should have at least three AK-47's loaded at all times, for their SAFETY'S SAKE. Just ask any gun guy. They'll be more then happy to INTERPRET the constitution for you.

[Crayson]

121. That certainly would make cops think twice about tasering you...

Then they would probably try to speak to you first in a mannerly way.
^_^

Or maybe people should all wear explosive bomb belts that trigger when electrocuted.
^_^

[nebenaube]

2. isn't the Mak-90 a pistol? n/t

[damntexdem]

3. I have a little pearl-handled one just for my own protection.

Not!

[Az_lefty]

7. Here's a pic...

[Seabiscuit]

76. Yeah, that sure looks like a pistol to me!

:evilgrin:

[reprobate]

12. Mak-90 is a chinese made AK-47 basically. You're thinking of the MAC-10 or 11.

[Doctor_J]

4. Why sould we listen to them when drug addict/statutory rapist Ted Nugent says

he needs an arsenal?

:sarcasm:

[shain from kane]

5. And tasers all around. n/t

[Xithras]

6. Only if we take them away from the police too.

I don't believe that law enforcement should be better armed than the citizens they serve.

[superkia]

20. Thats the issue I have with gun control exactly.

Our founding fathers didn't have AK 47s either.

[Evergreen Emerald]

87. really?

A victim of a crime may think differently.

[kestrel91316]

8. Why does IACP hate America????

[hogwyld]

9. The only people that should be armed

Are police and military. There is no good reason that the civilians need an arsenal.

[reprobate]

13. I used to agree with you. But the more we become a fascist nation,

the more I believe that firearms in the hands of citizens will be the only thing that takes the country back and restores the constitution.

But then, I realize that most citizens have never even touched, let alone been trained in firearms.

That's when I get really depressed. What the hell, I have mine and I'm well trained in their use, in fact I may still have the old expert marksman ribbon around somewhere.

I may be old but I'm pissed off.

[Hydra]

22. Teach me?

I was taught that guns were evil. I'm not an idiot, though.

[reprobate]

29. A firearm is simply a tool, like a hammer. It's the hand that weilds it that can be evil.

There is only one purpose to a gun, and that's to kill. Whether the target is an animal for food or a human for defense it is used to kill that target. It is the person using that gun who is responsible. Unfortunately, all to often that person is NOT responsible. There are far too many unloaded guns killing people, family members mistaken for burglars late at night, etc. IMO training in the proper handling, use, and law should be required for all who buy a weapon, similar to what the state of Florida requires to qualify for a concealed carry permit. Lives can be saved that way.

For myself, I found a long time ago that I cannot kill animals so I hunt only paper targets. I find there is personal satisfaction in being able to punch little round holes in concentric rings printed on paper from a distance. There is a danger in target shooting though, particularly indoor ranges. The use of ear protection is vital. Unfortunately, when I started as a teenager there was no such thing except for a wad of cotton stuffed in the ear, so I have some high frequency hearing loss now. Not much, just enough to be occasionally annoying. But I consider myself lucky since kids who go to rock concerts have more hearing loss.

[qdemn7]

39. Read these articles

THE IDEOLOGY OF GUN OWNERSHIP AND GUN CONTROL IN THE UNITED STATES by David B. Kopel

SOCIAL SCIENCE AND SAGECRAFT IN THE DEBATE OVER GUN CONTROL by WILLIAM R. TONSO

[knight_of_the_star]

27. In all honesty

What good is even a .50 Rifle against a tank?

[Recursion]

28. I guess I've imagined the Iraq war?

And the Israel/Hizballah war last summer?

I mean, the US and Israel have tanks, so militia members can't do anything to stand up to them, right?

[Toots]

32. Yep firearms have done wonders in Iraq, made them completely safe...yep yep

:crazy:

[Recursion]

33. id non sequitur

I didn't say they had "made Iraq safe" (though the neighborhoods that are safe are safe because of armed militias). I said that militias armed with rifles have succeeded in grinding to a halt the most technologically advanced army in the world.

[Hydra]

37. Innovative warfare can kill tried and true methods

The large armies rely on size of their armies and the thickness of their armor. Useless in the presence of ingenuity and people with little fear.

[reprobate]

40. None at all. Except that tank crews don't live inside and have to get out occassionally.

That's when they're vulnerable. But your point is well taken. Insurrection is always unbalanced, that's why it's called asymmetric warfare. I think the only way it could be successful here is if elements of the military switched sides. After all those officers pledged to uphold the constitution, not the republican party of president. And I consider that possible. Consider the Russian revolution. It became inevitable when the military was ordered to fire on the mobs and they refused. I'm still hoping that we are not past that point yet.

[qdemn7]

17. That's is so comical!

On a Progressive website where people are constantly slamming the police and military, people like yourself only want the same despised groups to posses all the guns.

[Retired AF Dem]

35. That is the great DU Paradox

It never fails to amuse me.

[scipan]

59. Are you on the same DU as me?

I see very little troop bashing. And if you're implying that most DUers want to ban all guns, I have read very, very few posts like that. Of course you can find all sorts of comments here.

You don't believe that criticizing the military/industrial/congressional complex is military bashing, do you? Because that would be pretty ridiculous.

[slackmaster]

38. Free citizens don't need what you might consider a "good reason" to own things

Even things you don't like.

[Lorien]

53. Bombs? Bio weapons? Is there REALLY no limit? n/t

[benEzra]

54. The line is drawn at non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber

with some larger-caliber shotguns and hunting rifles allowed by exception (e.g., .729 caliber hunting shotguns). That's been Federal law since 1934; possession of anything outside those parameters outside of police/military/government duty is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4).

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is merely an attempt to outlaw some of those non-automatic civilian guns that have been on the civilian market since the 1890's, including the most popular civilian target rifles in America. Comparing that to the laws against the possession of weapons of mass destruction is quite a stretch, IMHO.

[BrightKnight]

56. A .50 anti-materiel weapon is over the line in my opinion

Generally I agree that it is best to let the "assault weapon" ban lie where it is.

[Irreverend IX]

57. Do you know how frequently .50 caliber weapons are used in crimes?

Criminals just love spending $6000 on extremely heavy, unconcealable weapons that they will have to throw in a river the first time they get used.

[BrightKnight]

60. Branch Davidians had and fired 4 Barrett .50 at the FBI

There are probably a few other examples. I saw a simi truck taken out by a swat team with 2 rounds. I am guessing that the second round was not really necessary.

I am not worried about the 99.999 percent of safety conscious gun owners.

[Irreverend IX]

70. The Branch Davidians...

Were the only people to criminally use a Barrett that I've ever heard of, and they didn't do a very good job of holding off the FBI. With the money they spent on those rifles, they could have gotten at least a dozen M1As or FALs that would have posed more of a threat to the FBI agents. I'm not convinced that the use of this weapon in one crime merits an infringement of the RKBA, especially when there are many rifles in smaller calibers whose performance is equal to or better than that of the .50 BMG.

[benEzra]

81. ..and IF they did, they apparently didn't hit anybody with them...

Branch Davidians had and fired 4 Barrett .50 at the FBI

..and IF they did, they apparently didn't hit anybody with them...

The BATFE officers who were killed in the initial botched raid, were not killed by .50's. AFAIK, there has never been a single murder in the U.S. with one in the quarter-century they have been on the civilian market.

[BadgerLaw2010]

83. If they did fire - never heard of this - they most certainly missed. Barret injuries are...distinct.

The wounds wouldn't look anything like normal gunshots, and wouldn't be mistaken for such, just like how handgun and rifle wounds aren't confused by anyone who knows anything about them.

Energy is energy, pretty much.

[RantinRavin]

85. Not according to the FBI

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blwacoguns.htm

FIREARMS
Rifles and Rifle Components
61 M-16 Type and 2 M-16 Lower Receivers
61 AK-47 Type
34 AR-15 Type and 2 AR-15 Lower Receivers
13 Shotguns -- 12 gauge
11 7.62MM FN FAL Type
10 Mini-14 Type
7 37mm. Flare Gun/Launcher Type
6 .30 Carbine Calber US Carbine, Model M1
6 Assorted Rifles
5 M-11/Nine
5 M-14 Type
3 Galil
2 Heckler and Koch SP-89
1 Air Rifle
1 Heckler and Koch MP-5
1 Sten submachine gun

[BrightKnight]

91. GAO Office of Special Investigations letter, August 4, 1999:

GAO report (see page 4):

http://archive.gao.gov/f0502/162586.pdf
-----
list of crimes involving .50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles:
http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm

http://www.vpc.org/studies/50danger.pdf

[benEzra]

94. Two of those are press releases from the gun-ban lobby...

and one is a letter citing unnamed ATF sources, with no attribution or direction as to primary source. The actual report presented to Congress says that no .50's were found. Considering that the material RavinRaven cited was from an ATF spokesperson (note the source), I think one can conclude that the ATF concurred with the FBI's inventory and probably helped generate it.

The only things even close to being .50 related at Waco were four magazines for some sort of .50 (possibly .50AE pistols, e.g. Desert Eagle, comparable to .44 magnum), some spare .50 magazine springs (again, possibly .50AE), and some empty .50 links from an M2. The VPC lobbyists are flat wrong on this one.

The following is from a "Memorandum to the Press" issued by Chris Peacock, Treasury Department Director of Public Affairs on July 13, 1995 showing a list of all firearms, explosives, and related material seized by Federal law enforcement officers following the April 19, 1993 assault on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas.

SUBJECT: Weapons Possessed by the Branch Davidians

In total, the Texas Department of Public Safety, led by the Texas
Rangers, recovered more than 300 firearms from the Branch
Davidian compound. In addition, a number of live grenades and
more than 300 grenade components were uncovered. Hundreds of
thousands of rounds of ammunition were also seized.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms investigated David
Koresh for conduct involving: the illegal manufacture of machine
guns and the illegal manufacture and possession of destructive
devices. The FBI report provides evidence that the Davidians'
arsenal did indeed include weapons unlawfully manufactured. The
weapons listed include semiautomatic firearms illegally modified
to fire in full automatic mode, as well as grenades and
silencers. All of these weapons were unlawfully possessed.

I hope you find these documents useful as you review Treasury's
report on ATF's role in events at Waco.

WEAPONS RECOVERED FROM THE BRANCH DAVIDIAN COMPOUND:
TREASURY SUMMARY OF REPORT PREPARED BY THE FBI FOR PROSECUTORS
AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

ILLEGAL WEAPONS RECOVERED
Machine guns

The FBI determined that 46 semiautomatic firearms had been
modified to fire in full automatic mode:

22 M-16 Type Rifles

20 AK-47 Type Rifles

2 Heckler and Koch SP-89

2 M-11/Nine

The FBI also determined that two AR-15 lower receivers had been
modified to fire in full automatic mode.

Silencers

21 Sound suppressors or silencers

Hand Grenades

4 Live M-21 Practice Hand Grenades

The possession of lawfully manufactured machineguns, silencers,
or grenades requires the owner to register the weapon with the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. None of the compound's
residents were registered to own such a weapon, therefore it
would have been illegal for them to possess these weapons.
WEAPONS RECOVERED FROM THE BRANCH DAVIDIAN COMPOUND:
TREASURY SUMMARY OF REPORT PREPARED BY THE FBI FOR PROSECUTORS
AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

TOTAL WEAPONS RECOVERED
(Including Weapons Mentioned on Previous Page)

FIREARMS
Rifles and Rifle Components

61 M-16 Type and 2 M-16 Lower Receivers

61 AK-47 Type

34 AR-15 Type and 2 AR-15 Lower Receivers

13 Shotguns -- 12 gauge

11 7.62MM FN FAL Type

10 Mini-14 Type

7 37mm. Flare Gun/Launcher Type

6 .30 Carbine Calber US Carbine, Model M1

6 Assorted Rifles

5 M-11/Nine

5 M-14 Type

3 Galil

2 Heckler and Koch SP-89

1 Air Rifle

1 Heckler and Koch MP-5

1 Sten submachine gun

Pistols and Revolvers

23 Beretta

13 Glock

8 Assorted Revolvers

6 Safari Arms

6 Assorted Pistols

5 Sig Sauer

5 Walther

2 Taurus

EXPLOSIVES

Hand Grenades

4 Live M-21 Practice Hand Grenades

100+ Modified M-21 Practice Hand Grenade bodies; the bodies
of these had been threaded and plugged but lacked a main charge
or fusing system.

11 M-69 Practice Hand Grenades; the bodies of these
grenades exhibited indications of attempted modifications.

219 Grenade Safety Pins

243 Grenade Safety Levers

Rifle Grenades

200+ Inert M31 Practice Rifle Grenades.

FIREARMS ACCESSORIES AND PARTS

Silencers

21 Sound suppressors or silencers.

Flash Suppressors

18 Flash Suppressors.

Firearms Barrels

17 M-16/AR-15 Type (5.56mm)

8 M-16/AR-15 Type (9mm caliber)

3 M-16/AR-15 Type (.45 ACP caliber)

1 M-16/AR-15 Type (5.56mm)

2 Ruger. 22 Caliber

1 M-60 machine gun

1 12 Gauge Shotgun

1 Taurus, Model 92, 9mm pistol barrel

1 Sig Sauer 9mm pistol barrel

Pistol Slides

1 Sig Sauer Model

Revolver Parts

1 .38 Special caliber cylinder

Bolt Carriers

39 M-16

24 AR-15

2 MP-5

2 AK-47

1 FAL

1 Unknown

Bolts

15 AK-47

7 .22 LR conversion

3 M-16/AR-15

1 FN FAL (1)

Bolt Assemblies

3 M-11/Nine

2 M-16

1 AR-15

1 MAC-10

1 Shotgun

Recoil Springs and Guides

3 Glock

2 Sig Sauer

1 Beretta

1 M-11/Nine

Stripper Clips

29 Stripper Clips

Accessories

6 .22 LR Caliber Conversion Kits

Hammers

31 AK-47

18 M-16

12 AR-15

4 M-11/Nine

2 Sig Sauer

1 Beretta

Hammer Springs

3 AK-47

Buffer/Recoil Springs

36 M-16/AR-15

4 AK-47

Selector Switches

9 M-16

3 AR-15

1 Unknown

Sears

1 M-11/Nine

Auto Sears

8 AK-47

4 M-16

1 FN FAL

Auto Sear Springs

12 AK-47

Disconnects

7 AK-47

1 M-16

Trigger/Trigger Mechanisms/Trigger Housings

17 M-16

6 AR-15

3 M-60

3 M-11/Nine

2 MP-5

2 Sten

1 AK-47

1 Heckler & Koch

1 M-14

1 Smith & Wesson

1 Beretta

1 Shotgun

Ammunition Magazines

289 7.62 x 39mm AK-47 Type

248 .223/5.56mm M-16/AR-15 Type

108 Sten Gun Type

88 .308 Caliber FN FAL Type

72 M-14 Type

61 Beretta Model Type 92

58 .308 Caliber of Unknown Type

28 Ruger Mini-14 Type

22 .22 Caliber

17 UZI Type

16 USAS-12 Type

13 .45 Caliber

11 Glock

11 MP-5

11 Sig Sauer P226/P228

9 Unknown Type

7 .308 Caliber Galil Type

6 Walther PPK

5 9mm Unknown Type

4 .50 Caliber

3 .30 Caliber U.S. Carbine

3 .380 Auto Caliber

2 9mm Smith & Wesson

1 AK-74 Type

1 Grendel

Ammunition Containers

220 Metal Boxes (Various Calibers)

15 Wooden Boxes (Various Calibers)

4 Buckets (Varioius Calibers)

1 Cardboard Boxes (Various Calibers)

Magazine Springs

360 M-16/AR-15

42 FN FAL .308 Caliber Type

35 AK-47

28 9mm Magazine Springs of Unknown Type

15 Unknown

10 M-14

6 M-1 Carbine

3 .50 Caliber

1 Mini-14 Magazine

1 Glock
These lists do not include dozens of other items recovered from
the Compound such as dust covers, extractors, front and rear
sights, gun cleaning equipment, bolt release levers,
compensators, .50 caliber belt links and numerous other parts.

[Paladin]

118. Congrats---You Won The Battle, But Lost The War

Perhaps there weren't any .50 caliber rifles at the Branch Davidian compound (I guess all those .50 cal. accessories were just used for decorations). But in all my years of arguing over guns, here and elsewhere, I have never seen more convincing proof of the need for stronger firearms regulation in this country than that sickening list of all the guns (legal and illegal), silencers and assorted lethal instruments that a violence-prone bunch of religious cult fanatics was able to assemble. You walked right into this one, Ben; a classic case of feverishly concentrating on a tree and missing a whole forest. And I certainly do appreciate it.

Do you ever get tired of doing these kinds of favors for your opponents?

[benEzra]

119. Obviously, we need to make silencers/machineguns Double Super Illegal...

since the existing 10-year felony for illegally manufacturing NFA Title 2 hardware without Federal authorization apparently didn't make it illegal enough.

And, using typical ban-the-guns logic, a single incident 14 years ago involving illegal NFA Title 2/Class III automatic weapons and sound suppressors somehow justifies banning the most popular NFA Title 1 civilian target rifles in America in 2007. :eyes:

But keep beating the ban-people's-guns drum if you want to keep the issue front-and-center indefinitely.

[Paladin]

123. Fair Enough

The only person who's keeping this issue front-and-center is you. Constantly. Day after day. Year after year. Oh, I'll get my licks in periodically, but compared to the barage that you and your gun activist troops have been laying down here at DU, I'm a piker; for every comment I make on one of your gun propaganda threads, I let 3 go by, and I don't post in the Gun Dungeon at all, as you well know. What percentage of your posts here at DU are non-gun related? Less than 5%, I'm willing to wager.

And feel free to keep spreading the falsehoods: that declaring items illegal pretty much does the job, or that current gun laws are a sufficient response to the tide of firearms-related violence in this country. Or that the firearms policy you're trying so hard to put in place here isn't right out of the Republican playbook. Or that the most important element of any shooting incident is the proper ID of the gun involved---because, God knows, the most important detail of 9/11 was the kind of planes that slammed into those towers, right? Or for that matter, that advocating stricter gun regulations---as I do, is the same as gun banning.

Look forward to talking to you on threads dealing with the next 10 school massacres in this country.....

[slackmaster]

96. Not one documented case of a person being shot with a 50 caliber rifle in the USA?

Amazing.

[BrightKnight]

61. YouTube - Marine Corps .50 BMG Barrett demonstration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9lMViBr6d8

[benEzra]

63. Raufoss/Mk 211 Mod 0 ammunition is limited to military/government only.

If you watch that video, they are using Raufoss rounds (Mk 211 Mod 0 explosive/incendiary), which is restricted to military/government use only.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211

IMHO, discussion of what a .50 rifle can do with Mk 211 Mod 0 ammunition is like talking about what a .357 or 5.7x28mm handgun can do with restricted armor piercing ammunition--interesting, but not particularly relevant to the civilian gun control debate, IMHO.

AFAIK, the number of U.S. homicides using a civilian owned .50 BMG rifle in the quarter century they have been on the market is zero.

I personally don't have a horse in that race (I don't own a .50 and likely will never be able to afford one), but I don't think a compelling case can be made for banning them, either. Limited to civilian ammo, I don't see that they offer much long-range capability that a .338 Lapua, .408 Cheytac, or .416 Barrett doesn't.

[BrightKnight]

92. Any solid steel round is armor piercing - Ballistic Threats Chart....

Also, any high school metal shop student could install a carbide penetrator rod in a round.

I believe that .50 Browning MG M2 AP round in this chart simply has a carbide penetrator rod in the projectile. Even without an explosive round the penetration is twice anything else.

<img src="">

[BadgerLaw2010]

95. Any 7mm+ hunting rifle round is armor-piercing, steel core or not.

Nothing outside military equipment or maybe some armored trucks has more than an inch of protection of anything. And less than that is no protection against a well-constructed rifle bullet.

Same for body armor. You hardly need a $6000, thirty pound .50 cal in order to have a gun that can kill someone through any body armor short of the military Interceptor. Just go to your local Gander Mountain and pick up a .30-06. No steel core needed. It just has too much energy.

Banning guns based on potential lethality per-shot is stupid, as the ones that are the most lethal - hunting rifles and .50 cals - aren't used in crime much if at all.

-

And possession of dedicated AP rounds such as steel, tungsten or depleted uranium core or solids is also illegal in most states.

[benEzra]

97. "Twice anything else" only because that graph omits most high-powered civilian calibers.

That graph you post omits EVERY civilian gun between the .30-06 (2900 ft-lb) and the .50 BMG (~13,000 ft-lb), which is quite misleading. A .338 Lapua, .408 Cheytac, .416 Barrett, .700 Nitro Express, and a whole host of other civilian calibers would fill that gap neatly.

I suspect that the top bar of your graph is the M903 .50 Saboted Light Armor Penetrator (SLAP) round for the M2 machinegun, which has been in service with the military since 1994, and is far more than a carbide rod stuck in the middle of a .50 round. It is a precision formed .30 caliber tungsten carbide projectile launched from a .50 caliber discarding sabot, and is apparently not compatible with the .50 precision rifles according to the video you posted previously.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/slap.htm

Without context and supporting documentation, it is hard to say what ammunition your graph covers, but the fact that it is around twice as penetrative as standard .50 ball suggests that it is, in fact, M903 SLAP. And considering the Marine Corps spent a decade developing it, I doubt it's something your average high school kid could replicate in shop class.

Do keep in mind that the VPC has a vested financial and political interest in hyping .50 caliber performance as much as possible--I would suggest well beyond the realm of rationality--just like they have done with the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch.

[BrightKnight]

104. .50" Browning Armor-Piercing M2 is not SLAP

The basic Browning AP M2 round is just a standard round without a carbide core. The chart would be an outright lie if the first round were SLAP.

----
Here is site that appears to have a fairly thorough breakdown of .50 caliber ammunition. Many of the rounds are anti-material and non explosive.

http://www.conjay.com/Ammunition%20for%20Armor%20Testing%20NATO%2050%20Browning.htm

If the round has a carbide core it would probably still be felony for anyone to posses it.

----------

I appreciate that the VPC site has an agenda that I would not entirely agree with. THe NRA has an agenda that I do not entirely agree with. I was surprised when I learned that it was legal for a civilian to own this type of .50 caliber weapon. Before I ever heard of SLAP or other incendiary and shaped charge variation I associated it with anti-material. Fifty caliber anti-material weapons have been around for a long time.

I understand that there is a slippery slope and that some in the anti gun lobby would like to throttle back a whole range of high powered weapons. I would be very much opposed to that. This weapon is in a class by itself because of it's common anti material use. I do not believe that it is possible to simply regulate the ammunition.

=========

From a purely political perspective there are probably more important things to worry about.

[benEzra]

110. You are right on the M2 AP (my bad). But here's where the VPC is going with this.

The basic Browning AP M2 round is just a standard round without a carbide core. The chart would be an outright lie if the first round were SLAP.

You are entirely correct on the M2 AP, my bad. I mistook that as referring to the M2 platform itself.

I appreciate that the VPC site has an agenda that I would not entirely agree with.

Here's where the VPC is going with this. Keep in mind that they single handedly invented the .50 caliber issue; prior to that, it was the province of long-range target shooters (had been for two decades), and no one cared.

http://www.vpc.org/graphics/snipcov2.pdf

Check out how much time they spend talking about how dangerous the .308 Remington Model 700 is (M24, M40, 700P, etc.). The Model 700 is a straight-up Mauser model 1898 derivative and started out as a deer rifle. This is about far more than .50's.

As I may have mentioned upthread, I don't have a horse in this race, at least not directly; I'm into small-caliber rifles (I shoot recreationally and competitively with a civilian AK), and so the VPC is after me on the low end of the power spectrum rather than the high end. But the VPC has made no secret of its desire to bring "sniper rifle" bans down into the realm of the fast .30's, and I personally feel this goes way beyond high-end target rifles and is more an attempt to undermine the NFA '34 compromise itself. If it weren't, what would be the point? No one in the U.S. has ever been murdered with a .50 in the quarter-century they've been on the market; if it's not aimed at shrinking the lawful civilian gun market, what is it aimed at?

I was surprised when I learned that it was legal for a civilian to own this type of .50 caliber weapon. Before I ever heard of SLAP or other incendiary and shaped charge variation I associated it with anti-material. Fifty caliber anti-material weapons have been around for a long time.

They've been around longer than the military has been using them, AFAIK.

As I understand it, .50 BMG precision rifles started out as scratch-built custom single-shots in the '70s or very early '80s; Skip Talbot was one of the early long range competitors who adopted the .50, I think. The .50 scene was born in the West, where 1000-2000 yard places to shoot are not terribly hard to find. Some of these rifles were pretty industrial looking, and some looked like they came off a Star Trek set, anodized aluminum and all. Ronnie Barrett saw what target shooters were doing with the cartridge, and saw a business opportunity not only among civilian shooters, but also in cross-marketing the civilian gun to the military. He went with a semiauto to reduce felt recoil (some early .50's were brutal in the recoil department), sold a bunch, and simultaneously shopped them around to the military and police as well. The military liked them and bought into the concept, but AFAIK the concept of long-range precision .50's was initially civilian, not military.

Loosely speaking, one could consider the .50 anti-materiel rifles to be a throwback to the Boys Rifle of WWI, which was a .55 caliber rifle intended to penetrate light plate armor. But the Boys was not a precision rifle by any means, and the development of shoulder-fired recoilless rifles and rocket launchers made it obsolete.

BTW, until the VPC launched the .50 hysteria, .50 BMG target rifles were legal even in ban-obsessed Europe. .50 caliber rifles are still legal there, but have to be chambered in .510 DTC instead of .50 BMG (identical ballistics, but a .510 DTC gun can't chamber a .50 BMG cartridge).

I understand that there is a slippery slope and that some in the anti gun lobby would like to throttle back a whole range of high powered weapons. I would be very much opposed to that. This weapon is in a class by itself because of it's common anti material use. I do not believe that it is possible to simply regulate the ammunition.

The thing is, with civilian ammunition, it's not in a class by itself; it's near one end of a smoothly graded spectrum (and yes, there are more powerful civilian calibers out there, though they are no fun to shoot). As the VPC points out, it is a smooth spectrum from .50 down to .308 Winchester, and using civilian bullets, .50 BMG can't do much that .416 Barrett or .408 Cheytac can't do, never mind .510 DTC or .50 Fat Mac (.50-20mm), or even .700 Nitro Express. If .50 BMG disappeared tomorrow, what would change, unless you do exactly what the VPC wants and ban them all?

The VPC is doing the same thing with rifles that it tried with handguns; .32's and compact 9mm's are too small, X-frame revolvers are too big. The Goldilocks approach to gun bans, if you will.

[BadgerLaw2010]

86. And that has what to do with use in crime?

Possession of the Raufoss ammunition is also a felony.

[Greyhound]

88. A person with the requisite knowledge can produce both bombs and bio-weapons

with stuff that's in your house right now.

"Put down the Windex and step slowly away"

No Drain-o for you, you communist!

When matches are outlawed, only outlaws will carry matches.

[BrightKnight]

93. .

[Greyhound]

114. ?.

[NickB79]

43. Unless the cops take 45 minutes to arrive to a domestic violence call

And you're a 150 lb, 17-yr old boy who needs to use a gun to stop your enraged, 250-lb, former-high-school-wrestling-star father from beating and potentially killing you, your mom, your 14-yr old sister, and your 13-yr old brother.

Welcome to my world. I'll keep my "arsenal", thank you.

[cstanleytech]

58. Well I disagree

as I think people should be allowed to own regular rifles for hunting as well as most handguns but thats provided they are licensed.
They do need to crack down harder on having a gun and not being licensed for it and or using it in crime but I cannot agree to a total all out ban except for police and the military.
Ban machine guns ok but otherwise 2nd amendment stands and for the record I'm not a member of the NRA nor do I hunt nor do I own a gun.

[karlrschneider]

73. Why don't you just go ahead and propose only Republicans can be armed?

:eyes:

[JNelson6563]

113. Ban all guns! Make the streets safe for Government takeover!

Oy.

Julie

[sofa king]

10. The founders abso-fucking-loutely had AK-47s in mind.

There's no horse crap about hunting or recreation in the Constitution. What the Constitution mentions is a "well-regulated militia," which is an armed paramilitary force comprised of ordinary citizens.

The Militia Act of 1792 required every white male citizen to own "a good musket or firelock" and at least twenty rounds.

Muskets and firelocks (flintlocks) were decent weapons at the time, technologically advanced over the firearms of the previous century but not state-of-the-art, and therefore exactly analogous to the modern AK-47 in a number of ways. The AK-47 is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year, which makes it directly comparable to the Brown Bess, the standard musket of the British armed forces from 1722 to 1838. In 1792, the Brown Bess had been in service for 70 years, and was a very common militia weapon. Both the Brown Bess and the AK-47 were cheap to build, easy to maintain, and dependable even under rough handling.

So, hell fucking yes the AK-47 is what our founding fathers had in mind. It's exactly what they had in mind.

[LanternWaste]

62. Wasn't the militia re-organized...

Wasn't the militia re-organized as the National Guard sometime between WWI and WWII?

[sofa king]

64. Yes, in 1902, I think.

However, that does not detract from the total ignorance of the person quoted in that article. The founding fathers very clearly wanted every single household armed with a combat weapon. What we've done since then is move as far away as possible from that idea, and whether you like what's happened since then or not it's dishonest to claim that the founding fathers didn't want fully armed, combat-ready citizens.

[benEzra]

84. No; the Guard was organized in the early 1900's, but did not replace the militia.

The militia is still defined by Federal law as every male of potential military age; modern jurisprudence would extend that to females as well. And, of course, the right recognized in the 2nd Amendment is not limited to the militia; the Amendment says that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as a necessary precondition for having a functional militia.

The statement "A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" would not limit book ownership to those registered to vote, or those of voting age; the right of the people to keep and read books would be general and would apply to everyone, which would enable a well-educated electorate to exist.

[bluestateguy]

11. If the cops will give up their tasers, we'll talk

nt

[jpgray]

14. Gun fans will tell you the AWB only bans cosmetic features, but that's disingenuous at best

Basically the ban affects tactically effective features, and tries to affect guns that have a primarily military design. No serious gun enthusiast could disagree that the following provide significant tactical advantage over admittedly more high-powered weapons that aren't affected:

1. High capacity magazines. Particularly for shotguns but also for rifles, this is not necessary unless you want to lay down a high volume of fire in a brief period of time. Huge tactical advantage over weapons without high-capacity magazines, such as service revolvers (are any still in use?) or semi-automatics.

2. Collapsible stock. Allows increased opportunity to conceal certain rifles, which would ordinarily be a more bulky, unwieldy weapon.

3. Flash suppressor/threaded barrel. Reduces visibility while shooting.

All of these are cosmetic features? I wouldn't say so, and neither would anyone who had been in the military. The pistol grip bayonet lugs, etc., seem more cosmetic and seem an attempt to catch weapons of military design.

[RamboLiberal]

15. You're wrong on the flash suppressor

It only redirects the flash from the shooter's eyes thereby maintaining his night vision.

It is commonly thought that they are used on military rifles to reduce visibility to the enemy, but the size of a device necessary to completely hide the muzzle flash from an enemy during the night would be prohibitive. Military flash suppressors are designed to reduce the muzzle flash from the shooter to preserve their night vision, usually by directing the incandescent gases to the sides, away from the line of sight of the shooter. Military forces engaging in night combat are still quite visible, and must move quickly after firing to avoid return fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor

For the most part the AWB was one big dud that did nothing to suppress so-called "assault weapons". I'd rather not see it revisited. What I'd rather see is more money effectively used to help law enforcement combat rising crime with guns. Get the criminals and not penalize legitimate gun owners like myself.

Oh, I wish lazy news writers would get away from the old "service revolver" term. Probably 99% of cops now carry high capacity semi-auto pistols like Glocks, Sig-Sauers, S&W, etc. It's the rare cop carrying a revolver except maybe a backup ankle or pocket snubbie.

[jpgray]

18. Well, that should read "increase visibility of others while shooting," in that case.

Still a tactical advantage, but I am sorry for the mistake. On your other note, I believe I've read the figure for service revolver use as opposed to semi-auto pistol is 1 in 20 for NYC cops.

[qdemn7]

16. You are wrong

1. So called "assault weapons" ARE semi-automatics, they are NOT MACHINE GUNS.

2. Collapsible stocks still do not make a rifle less concealable than a handgun. The shortest length you would find a rifle with a stock collapsed is 20-30 inches. This compares to 7 inches or LESS for a handgun.

Already covered in above post.

[jpgray]

19. Read my post next time? Nowhere do I say they are machine guns.

A rife with a collapsible stock and a large capacity magazine makes for a far more tactically effective weapon than a pistol, depending on the situation. If the situation is a shootout with police in the streets, for example, which one would you rather the perp have ready access to?

[benEzra]

23. Why are you comparing it to a pistol rather than to traditional looking rifles?

A rife with a collapsible stock and a large capacity magazine makes for a far more tactically effective weapon than a pistol, depending on the situation. If the situation is a shootout with police in the streets, for example, which one would you rather the perp have ready access to?

Why are you comparing it to a pistol rather than to traditional looking rifles? That strikes me as a somewhat dishonest comparison.

A more honest comparison would be a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle vs. a civilian AK. Absolutely identical, except for looks.

AK vs. Winchester 1894 in .30-30. The Winchester is more concealable, offers a comparable rate of aimed fire, and can be continuously topped off.

AR-15 to a Remington 7615 pump-action rifle. Same caliber, same range of capacities, similar rate of aimed fire.

AR-10 vs. Dragunov vs. Romak vs. Remington 7400 in .308 Winchester. Identical in every way but looks.

Or, how about civilian AK (.30 Russian Short) vs. Mossberg 500 (.729 caliber). Load the Mossberg with buckshot and use a spreader choke, and Rifle Guy is outgunned, if the guy running the shotgun doesn't care about bystanders.

ANY rifle beats a pistol in your scenario. However, ANY rifle is almost impossible to conceal on the person; a collapsible-stock AR-15 with the stock fully collapsed is still 32" long (16" barrel, remember, not LEO SBR). The odds are that a criminal "on the street" won't have ready access to a rifle even if he owns one, which is why only around 3% of homicides involve ANY type of rifle.

[spoony]

120. Then why did you say they offer an advantage over semi-automatics?

[benEzra]

24. My primary AK mags hold 20 rounds. A Glock 17 holds 18 rounds.

1. High capacity magazines. Particularly for shotguns but also for rifles, this is not necessary unless you want to lay down a high volume of fire in a brief period of time. Huge tactical advantage over weapons without high-capacity magazines, such as service revolvers (are any still in use?) or semi-automatics.

My primary AK mags hold 20 rounds. A Glock 17 holds 18 rounds. You can reload the Glock in under 2 seconds. IMHO, the capacity issue is largely a red herring, and over-10-round magazines are by no means limited to "assault weapons".

Are you trying to say that no non-LEO civilian has a legitimate use for a 20- or 30-round rifle, a 15-round handgun, or an 8-round shotgun?

If I or my wife needs to check out a "bump in the night," and it turns out to be an attacker, she or I will meet the threat with only the ammunition in the gun. Your typical LEO carries 15+ rounds in the gun and 30+ rounds available for instant reload on the duty belt, and more than that if rifle equipped; however, most of us "civilians" don't sleep in web gear, so we won't have that luxury in a pinch.

I also shoot IDPA/IPSC style rifle, and shoot recreationally. Nothing screws up the zen of shooting like having to constantly reload paramecium-sized magazines.

2. Collapsible stock. Allows increased opportunity to conceal certain rifles, which would ordinarily be a more bulky, unwieldy weapon.

Most "collapsible" stocks are more accurately "adjustable stocks," since even the shortest setting on a typical (M4 style) collapsible stock is still a full-length rifle stock. I measured once, and a 16" barreled AR-15 (shortest civilian-legal length without going the NFA Title 2 route) with a stock collapsed to the shortest possible position is 32" long, or six inches LONGER than the Federal minimum length for a fixed stock rifle. An AR is also thick and, what, a foot tall? Compare that to a 16" barreled Winchester M94 in .357 or .30-30--and unlike the Winchester, an AR can't be sawed off and still work.

With folders, you might have more of a point, except a typical autoloader with a folder is STILL larger than the Federal minimum for a fixed stock rifle, and immensely larger than a handgun.

Here's my Ruger Ranch Rifle (one of the smallest and slimmest of centerfire autoloading rifles) with a svelte Butler Creek folder, compared to a medium-sized pistol (S&W 3913):



One of those will fit in a pocket. It isn't the rifle. And that's not even a small pistol.

BTW, looking at how to conceal a rifle, its radial dimensions are a lot more important than axial length, within reason. A narrow rifle with a slim receiver and no pistol grip is much easier to conceal than a rifle with a bulky receiver, a protruding pistol grip, and tall sights. And a folder adds width like crazy.

3. Flash suppressor/threaded barrel. Reduces visibility while shooting.

Actually, a flash suppressor keeps you from being annoyed/blinded by your OWN muzzle flash, and is VERY applicable to civilian target shooting and defensive purposes. Have you ever shot a .223 carbine WITHOUT a flash suppressor? I have, and it's not nearly as pleasant to shoot as the small caliber would suggest.

It's also helpful (some would say essential) for a civilian defensive carbine, since if I were going to use a carbine for HD, it would be a 16" .223, and firing a 16" .223 in dim light would make it harder for me to be safe post-shots (trying to follow Rule 4 with big purple blotches in my field of vision).

Lack of a flash suppressor doesn't hinder a criminal much, though. Is he going to be conscientious about following Rule 4? No....

All of these are cosmetic features? I wouldn't say so, and neither would anyone who had been in the military.

The group that invented the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch (Violence Policy Center) has recently dropped flash suppressors from its "eee-villl" list, and have added thumbhole target stocks and extreme Monte Carlo stocks instead.

The pistol grip bayonet lugs, etc., seem more cosmetic and seem an attempt to catch weapons of military design.

That doesn't explain the extension of the ban a la H.R.1022 to cover thumbhole target stocks, extreme Monte Carlo (biathlon style) stocks, and whatnot. I'm personally convinced it's more about aesthetics, and about gun-haters who consider modern styling to be somehow sinister.

BTW, Mauser-pattern rifles are also military style. So are Garand pattern rifles, the SKS, the M1 carbine, the Winchester Model 70, the Remington M700, and the Mossberg 500.

[slackmaster]

44. The "high-capacity" magazine provisions in the expired AWB were ineffective

There were already so many used and surplus ones for popular rifles in circulation that it didn't significantly affect the price or availability of them.

2. Collapsible stock. Allows increased opportunity to conceal certain rifles, which would ordinarily be a more bulky, unwieldy weapon.

3. Flash suppressor/threaded barrel. Reduces visibility while shooting.

Seriously jpgray, how often do you believe either of those features have actually played a role in crimes?

The AWB also did not prohibit the manufacture, sale, or possession of those items.

Before you jump to the conclusion that the AWB was the right idea but just not strict enough, please consider the political implications of trying to pass a more comprehensive gun control package.

[beevul]

46. Gun "detractors" on the other hand...

Basically the ban affects tactically effective features, and tries to affect guns that have a primarily military design. No serious gun enthusiast could disagree that the following provide significant tactical advantage over admittedly more high-powered weapons that aren't affected:

1. High capacity magazines. Particularly for shotguns but also for rifles, this is not necessary unless you want to lay down a high volume of fire in a brief period of time. Huge tactical advantage over weapons without high-capacity magazines, such as service revolvers (are any still in use?) or semi-automatics.

2. Collapsible stock. Allows increased opportunity to conceal certain rifles, which would ordinarily be a more bulky, unwieldy weapon.

3. Flash suppressor/threaded barrel. Reduces visibility while shooting.

All of these are cosmetic features? I wouldn't say so, and neither would anyone who had been in the military. The pistol grip bayonet lugs, etc., seem more cosmetic and seem an attempt to catch weapons of military design.

Gun detractors like to point out most of the things that you just did, though you did not mention the "barrel shroud". Beyond that, you go on to say that "the ban affects tactically effective features, and tries to affect guns that have a primarily military design". Thats just plain nonsense. The firearms in question are semi-automatic CIVILIAN weapons, not military firearms. You knew that, but chose to frame it the way you did in spite of the truth.

Maybe you can explain how a gang banger might conceal a rifle with folding or colapsable stock on his/her person. Increased opportunity "to conceal" you say. No more so than the cutting off of part of a "traditional" wooden stock, except that the cutting is free, instead of a feature that one must actually purchase and add to a firearm. You reckon criminals are buying colapsable stocks in large numbers?

Flash suppressors and threaded barrels? Boy howdy. You could not be more wrong. Its been explained, but I think it bears repeating that this helps the operator of a firearm actually see what they're shooting at when they're shooting. You charactterize this as a "tactical advantage". I guess it is. Much the same way as advanced optics, quality iron sights and shooting glasses are. Do you think those should be banned too? And as for threaded barrels, well, the threads are there for supressor attatchment, but since suppressors are an NFA item, thats a total non issue.

Bayonette lugs aren't even worthy of discussion as a tactical accessory . There are no drive by bayonettings. They aren't an attempt at catching military weapons either. They are an attack on a particular culture. Part of someones little culture war. Pistol grips are another part of it. The "pistol grip" issue flies in the face of the FACT that pistol grips are less conducive to "firing from the hip", and are in fact ergonomically superior to a traditional wooden stock for actually firing a rifle from the shoulder as they are designed to be. So called "pistol grips" on a rifle provide increased control of the rifle and that leads to increased safety. In fact, a traditional wooden stock is MUCH more conducive to firing from the hip than any rifle with a pistol grip, but for someone to actually know and understand this, they would have to have fired rifles with both types for themselves, or at the very least have a good working knowledge of firearms.

And last but not least...hi capacity magazines. The killer in the VT tragedy for example, did not use them. You say that they are "not necessary unless you want to lay down a high volume of fire in a brief period of time". So anyone that uses a high cap because they do not wish to reload as frequently is either misusing it or not firing their firearm fast enough? You say "Huge tactical advantage over weapons without high-capacity magazines, such as service revolvers (are any still in use?) or semi-automatics". Exactly who would this be an advantage over? Police use high cap magazines in semi-automatic and often FULLY automatic weapons, and I haven't seen a service revolver in the hands of a police officer since before my grandfather retired from the police department years ago. Again, when a non-leo is in possession of a firearm with a high capacity magazine, whom exactly do they have a tactical advantage over?

What were you saying about...disingenuous at best?

[BadgerLaw2010]

51. Magazine capacity provisions are worthless.

First, military calibers have gigantic surplus supplies. These stocks never ran out during the AWB.

Second, it is extremely rare to have more than a few shots fired in any crime, let alone so many shots that the guy would actually reload even 10-round magazines and continue to shoot.

I'm just not seeing where capping magazine size would deter or hinder crime.

[benEzra]

21. Civilian AK's have never been banned in the United States.

Miami-Dade Officer Jose Somohano was shot and killed with a Mak-90 assault rifle three years to the day after the federal law prohibiting the sale of such weapons expired.

The report hits home for South Florida law enforcement officers, who have been facing an increasing number of these guns on the street since the ban expired. Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez, a former police officer and police director, can't hide his anger when he talks about the fact that lawmakers let the ban expire.

Civilian AK's (non-automatic) have never been banned in the United States. If, indeed, more rifles are being seen "on the street," it has nothing whatsoever to do with the expiration of the much-hated Feinstein Law, because that law didn't ban any rifles. It merely specified that new civilian AK's made between 1994 and 2004 had to have smooth target-style muzzles and had to be incapable of mounting a bayonet. Last time I checked, bayonet charges by gangs were pretty rare in this country. :eyes:

BTW, note that the firearm in question was a Norinco MAK-90. Those were only imported between 1988 and early 1994, meaning that the rifle used in this tragedy predated even the Feinstein "ban". Nor would the MAK-90 even have been classified as an "assault weapon" under the Feinstein law, since MAK-90's lacked protruding handgrips and bayonet lugs.

"While I feel very strongly about the Second Amendment, I don't think that our founding fathers had AK-47s in mind," he said. "There's absolutely no reason I can see having these weapons out on the street."

Actual AK-47's are very tightly controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934; possession of one outside of police/military/government duty without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony. If you have a squeaky clean record and jump through all the hoops to get a Form 4, an actual AK-47 will set you back in excess of $15,000 due their extreme scarcity (the BATFE Title 2 machinegun registry was closed to new weapons in 1986, well before the fall of the Iron Curtain, so very few civilian-transferable AK-47's were ever imported).

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

NON-automatic civilian AK lookalikes (like the MAK-90, FWIW) are civilian guns, not military weapons. They're a heck of a lot closer to the technology and capability available in 1791 than Webb presses, radio, TV, the Internet, Blackberries, or the server that DU is running on, yet the First Amendment still applies to what I say here on DU as long as I don't libel or slander anybody.

BTW, I own a civilian AK; it's identical in every way except looks to a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle. Same caliber, same rate of fire, same range of capacities, same effective range, same everything, except the Mini Thirty has a traditional 19th century style stock.

[fedupfisherman]

25. Stupid just stupid

Banning guns just leaves them in the hands of criminals and right wing nutcases who bury them

[Stump]

48. I agree...

We must be able to defend ourselves from such types.

[Recursion]

26. I didn't think the '94 ban covered Mak 90's?

Or am I forgetting a different law?

[benEzra]

31. It didn't cover them; you are 100% correct.

All MAK-90's predated the Feinstein law (they were imported 1988 through May of 1994 or thereabouts), and were therefore completely exempt from the law. But even if they hadn't been exempted by date of import, they would not have fallen under the "ban" anyway, as they did not have protruding handgrips, bayonet lugs, or (AFAIK) usable muzzle threads.

[oscarmitre]

30. I wonder if the Chiefs realise most of their cops don't support them.

I don't get it but many average coppers are totally against the ban. I'm not anti-firearm, I've had long weapons and handguns in the past, but I don't see any justification for possessing/using an assault rifle unless you've got a Rambo fantasy. But then that could be satisfied in a controlled environment.

[benEzra]

34. Has nothing to do with "Rambo fantasies."

I'm not anti-firearm, I've had long weapons and handguns in the past, but I don't see any justification for possessing/using an assault rifle unless you've got a Rambo fantasy. But then that could be satisfied in a controlled environment.

Has nothing to do with "Rambo fantasies."

The AR-15 is the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States, because it is remarkably accurate, ergonomic, and doesn't kick much. Some manufacturers guarantee 1/2 MOA out of the box for their mass-produced target and varmint hunting models, and a tuned benchrest gun will do better than that.

My wife’s "assault weapon" is a historically significant (1952 Tula) SKS, which she likes because it is historically interesting, looks good, and doesn’t kick much, not because she has "Rambo fantasies."



My primary all-around rifle is a civilian, non-automatic AK-47 lookalike (SAR-1); it is my primary target rifle, I shoot competitively with it, it is legal for deer hunting here in North Carolina with a 5-round magazine (though I currently don't hunt), and it also makes a fine defensive carbine. Like my wife's SKS, it doesn't kick much (7.62x39mm is less powerful than .30-30).



It's identical in every way except looks to a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle:



BTW, my pistol is a Smith & Wesson Ladysmith (3913LS), with which I also shoot competitively; does that sound like Rambo to you?

I wonder if the Chiefs realise most of their cops don't support them.

I don't get it but many average coppers are totally against the ban.

I would say it's because many rank and file police know enough about guns to know that the shape of a rifle stock doesn't determine lethality, understand that the Bradyite claims about the magical powers of protruding handgrips/etc. are BS, and many are undoubtedly "assault weapon" owners themselves (taking H.R.1022 as the operative definition, there are about twice as many "assault weapon" owners in this country as there are hunters).

The fact that rifles of any type are rarely used in violent crimes certainly doesn't help the chiefs' case (2.97% of homicides in 2005 from all rifles combined); twice as many murders were committed with bare hands and shoes/boots.

www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

The greatest danger to officers is from handguns, not rifles of any description:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/table28.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/table34.htm

Many/most of them also understand that their job is to "protect and to serve," not "keep the 'civilians' in line." Some big-city chiefs apparently forget that.

[slackmaster]

36. The MAK-90 was NOT covered by the expired AW ban

Miami-Dade Officer Jose Somohano was shot and killed with a Mak-90 assault rifle three years to the day after the federal law prohibiting the sale of such weapons expired.

Here's the real story folks:

The expired federal "assault weapons" "ban" did NOT prohibit the sale of MAK-90 rifles. In fact, the MAK-90 was available before and during the ban.

The AWB prohibited firearms with certain physical features. Rifles that were functionally identical to the MAK-90 but had "Avtomat Kalashnikova" or "AK-47" stamped on them, or had bayonet lugs, were banned.

The AWB is the reason there are so many MAK-90s in circulation now. A renewal of the AWB would not make the MAK-90, or many similar weapons, unavailable.

[-..__...]

41. Restore the assault weapons ban?

:rofl:

I don't think so, hell I wish the armor piercing ammo ban would be repealed.

The IACP can shove it up their doughnut holes as far as I'm concerned.

[NickB79]

42. Funny, I handled numerous MAK-90 rifles in the late 90's

During the middle of the AWB.

In a major sporting goods store.

In the Twin Cities.

In Minnesota, a fairly liberal state with stricter-than-most gun laws.

[slackmaster]

45. They were available in California until 2000

:shrug:

[kineneb]

47. which hasn't stopped 'da boys in 'da hood from getting them

I gather they have some interesting weapons. I have always thought that gun laws in the US were inefficient. Between the arsenals of the white supremacists and the gangs, there are plenty of illegal weapons to go around. And let us not forget the pot farmers out in the hills, who always have been well armed.

[derby378]

49. Founding Fathers: Enough with "assault weapons" bans

Ben Franklin was a diehard tinkerer and inventor - he would most likely have been fascinated with the design of the AK-47 and AR-15. And then he'd insist that every law-abiding American have one.

But what do I know? My wife, who's a blood relative of Franklin, might tell me that he would have been horrified that those two rifles were ever developed.

Still, there's that pesky Second Amendment, which states that I have the right to own both if I so choose...

[benEzra]

50. Interesting...the IACP conference and report was apparently funded by the U.S. gun-control lobby...

follow the link to the actual .pdf report:

http://www.theiacp.org/documents/pdfs/Publications/ACF1875%2Epdf

and read the acknowledgement of outside funding. It was funded by the same Wizard of Oz behind a desk at the Joyce Foundation that funds the Violence Policy Center (which invented the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch strategy in the first place) and other gun-ban organizations, and I recognize a number of the conference attendees as Joyce-funded gun-control activists. So read it as if it were a VPC press release, which in essence it is, IMO.

The Joyce Foundation has done a lot of good in other areas, but their OBSESSION with banning popular civilian rifles has cost Dems immensely in the overall scheme of things.


-----------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[Realityhack]

108. hey...

stop spreading facts. It's un-american and not allowed on DU.

I read some of the report. Honeslty some of the ideas are perfectly fine and a lot of people here would argue for them. They just sliped in a bunch of junk in between.

Also if I understand correctly #12 reguarding balistic fingerprints is just plain factualy wrong. If that is true it should be a huge red flag.

[DrDan]

52. why does this mayor hate America . . . .

If he doesn't like it . . . . he should damn-well leave . . .

[BrightKnight]

55. perhaps, but gun control is off the table - n/t

[benEzra]

65. News Flash -- Rifle crime DECREASED in 2006...from 2.97% to 2.91% of murders.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports came out today. Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, debunks the idea floated a few months ago that the expiration of the 1994 Feinstein ban on rifle bayonet lugs and adjustable stocks in 2004 led to the murder rate increase in '06. Turns out that rifle crime is actually down slightly.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Tell me again how small-caliber rifles with modern styling are such a tremendous crime problem?...

[ProudDad]

69. I'd be for banning handguns

I'm glad you are too...

[Paladin]

74. Well Said, Proud Dad

Gotta love it when ol' BenEzra dutifully trots out his murder statistics, time after time, trying to convince us how safe rifles are, and instead he ends up demonstrating just how out of control the pistol problem is in this country.....

[ProudDad]

78. Yeah he seems hoist by his own petard

(and I'm reasonably sure it's a he)...

The statistics show an increase in hand gun murders...

Proves that banning rifles is not nearly as effective as an absolute ban on handguns would be....


Hey, DiFi, BenEzra's got the facts you need!!!! What a good guy...

[benEzra]

80. Proof that the post-9/11 "Homeland Security" model of policing...

doesn't work nearly as well as the community policing model of the 1990's.

Handgun availability hasn't changed a bit; what has changed is a tanking economy, fewer officers off the street, and a general shift in police attitudes from that of protecting and serving the law-abiding to one of keeping the 'civilians' in line, a la the philosophy this administration is pushing from the top down.

Your man Bloomberg says that around 90% of shooters in NYC homicides had prior criminal records, a trend that probably holds up pretty well nationwide. This isn't so much about lawful handgun ownership, but the criminal misuse thereof. And as you well know, far too many Americans, including Dems and indies, lawfully and responsibly own handguns for a ban to EVER be politically feasible in this country. That number stood at 35 million at least two decades ago, with more than a million sold each year since.

I do hope this means we'll be seeing less "assault weapon" agitprop, though--and maybe it will force those of the "ban more guns" persuasion to instead sit down and actually look for common ground on fighting gun misuse instead of lawful ownership itself...

BTW, I am personally persuaded that taking a more rational approach to the War on Non-Approved Herbs (legalize cannabinoids, move toward a treatment model rather than a military campaign model for the hard drugs) would eliminate about 75% of gun-related murders in the long run, just like the repeal of alcohol prohibition did.

[ProudDad]

102. I'm glad we agree

"BTW, I am personally persuaded that taking a more rational approach to the War on Non-Approved Herbs (legalize cannabinoids, move toward a treatment model rather than a military campaign model for the hard drugs) would eliminate about 75% of gun-related murders in the long run, just like the repeal of alcohol prohibition did."

Decriminalize...

[derby378]

107. We call this "damning with faint praise"

Please don't put words in other people's mouths. I try not too, and you should, too.

[Zorra]

66. The PNAC/Bu*h fascist dictatorship is the exact reason the founding fathers

believed that the citizenry should be armed.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

67. American Citizens: Restore Sentences, get tough stop slacking.

Show them crime doesn't pay.

[ProudDad]

77. Yeah!!!

Let's lock up 4 million...

2 million ain't enough...ain't working...FUCK, let's lock 'em all up!!!

DUI -- straight to DEATH ROW!!!

Speeders -- into jail with you, right now!!!

You jaywalk -- into the fucking slammer with you...

Hell, 4 million might not be enough -- let's FUCKING LOCK UP 10 MILLION...

Yeah, 10 million, that ought to do it -- that should be enough -- unless it's not!!!



Yeah, let's just keep locking 'em up -- it's worked Sooooooo Fucking well so far...



Show 'em crime doesn't pay

Well, it don't pay except for...

Oh, except the fucking DA's, and the cops, yeah, the cops and the politicians who keep crying "tough on crime" to get elected, oh, and the judges and the defense attorneys -- ah, let's not forget the prison-industrial complex -- the prison guards, the private jails and prisons -- fucking corrections corp of amerika, fucking wackenhut and all the rest...

And the gun manufacturers and the bullet guys and the alarm salesman and the private security guard companies -- pays pretty fucking well for them...


Just don't pay well for "criminals"...






Jeez, in case you need it (and you know who you are) :sarcasm:

[benEzra]

82. How about we take a more rational approach to the drug issue,

stop locking up so many people for possession of non-approved herbs, shift to a treatment model rather than a punitive/militaristic model on the hard drugs, and focus law enforcement resources on violent criminals instead of the nonviolent?

We wouldn't have so many people locked up in this country if the only ones locked up were the ones who really need to be.

[ProudDad]

98. We have FOUND common ground

the phony "war on drugs" is responsible for the majority of the folks locked up in jails and prisons...

And it's responsible for most of the handgun killings in cities.

Without that phony "war on drugs" the cops could spend a little time actually dealing with real crimes and hand gun deaths in this country would shrink down to a fairly rare occasion, at least in the big cities.

And we could start building universities again instead of fucking jails and prisons...

[benEzra]

101. I'm with you 100% on that. (n/t)

[ProudDad]

68. Add those stupid f*cking handguns while they're at it! (n/t)

[leaninglib]

72. Actually, AK-47's are precisely the kind of weapons they had in mind.

Substitute Headline:

Police chiefs: Demonstrating ignorance of the Constitution as well as the definition of "assault weapon."

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Egnever]

79. stop beating around the bush

say what you freaking mean. Whats with the implied insult?

Just because every freaking dem in the world doesn't share your fear of all things with gun powder in them doesn't mean theres some crazy conspiracy going on. The tendency of DU'ers lately to call anyone who doesn't agree with them republicans is starting to make me think du is full of republicans!

Freedom.... its supposed to be what america is about and what supposedly we are here to protect. That means freedom to believe things you don't.

[Realityhack]

109. didn't they also mean...

for it to be a well regulated militia in place of a standing army?

[leaninglib]

111. You seem to be suggesting that "they" intended that only

"able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, ...under 45 years of age" were to be allowed to possess arms.

If that is what you mean, you are wrong.

[Realityhack]

112. Not what I ment

But they did include the term well regulated militia.

Unfortunately I am not well versed in actual US history only the BS tossed around in pre-college texts. But IIRC wasn't that part of the 2nd amendment part of a plan to not have a standing army? I don't remember the ages you sited being part of any revolutionary war criteria either. I think you are putting words in my mouth.

I am actualy fairly pro-gun. I just think banning fully automatic weapons is a rather reasonable concept even under the constitution.

[beevul]

115. What do automatic weapons have to do with this discussion?

"I just think banning fully automatic weapons is a rather reasonable concept even under the constitution."\


What do automatic weapons have to do with this discussion?

[benEzra]

116. Possession of any automatic weapon outside of police/military/government duty...

I am actualy fairly pro-gun. I just think banning fully automatic weapons is a rather reasonable concept even under the constitution.

Possession of any automatic weapon outside of police/military/government service is ALREADY a 10-year Federal felony, unless you first obtain Federal approval (BATFE Form 4), under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (yes, 73 years ago). The machinegun registry was closed in 1986 by the McClure-Volkmer Act.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch isn't about banning automatic weapons; it's about banning the most popular NON-automatic civilian rifles in America. I suspect you'd be surprised at just how many popular civilian guns H.R.1022 would actually cover.

[slackmaster]

122. The AW ban had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons

You have been duped by propaganda.

[Greyhound]

89. The chances of finding out just why the second amendment was included

in the Constitution become increasingly more likely as each year passes.

What would you think about the possibility of "private security" forces (think Blackwater or Wackenhut) become common on the streets of America as they are in other countries, and their employers decide that they don't wish to comply with some law passed? Do you still want an armed populace in that scenario?

Oh, but that can't happen here...

[MUSTANG_2004]

90. Thanks, but no.

When it comes to taking advice about my civil rights, police chiefs are the last people that I'm going to trust.

[ProudDad]

99. Right,

I take my advice about civil rights from the NRA...
















:sarcasm: <--- gun nuts need this...

[MUSTANG_2004]

100. Sarcasm aside,

you'd do well to. They, along with the ACLU, are one of the few effective groups that are effective at keeping the government from encroaching on our liberties.

[ProudDad]

103. I support the ACLU

I'm a "card carrying member"...

I was shocked when I went down to the local Convention Center to go to the Alternative Energy Show and encountered the monthly gun (frenzy?) show...

It made me physically ill to see so many misguided, sick individuals armed to the (few) teeth (they have left) walking around loose...

bye the bye, The NRA is the WORST ENEMY you liberal gun owners have... Their values are NOT your values.

[BrightKnight]

105. I am an ACLU member and freedom wing Democrat

that opposes most gun control. I don't take marching orders from the NRA or anyone else.

[derby378]

106. Let me tell you a little about myself

I bake pumpkin and sweet potato pies for Democratic rallies - I've screwed up at times, but at least I'm trying. My wife and I have donated a ton of food to one neighborhood woman who was close to being homeless during the holidays last year; it meant that she didn't have to choose between starving or getting evicted. I've taken a hard line on separation of church and state at recent Democratic meetings, often being the first to speak out on such. I love watching Anthony Bourdain visit restaurants around the world on the Travel Channel. I take great pleasure in having cats crawl all over my lap after a hard day at work. I would take a bullet for my wife if that's what it took to keep her safe.

And you apparently imply that I might be "sick" or "misguided" if I should happen to own a tactical rifle? Please.

[conspirator]

117. Ban assault weapons? How are you going to fight blackwater? With sticks? nt