Gun laws

David · 14th December 2008, 10:13 PM

Here is a little bit more of this bill. I have bolded certain words for better understanding.

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:
‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
‘(B) any firearm that--
‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
‘(iii) is an antique firearm;
‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

The first part bolded is "paragraph (1)". Please note that this entire section deals with weapons that are exempt from this bill, including those listed in appendix A.
The last part even assures us that even if the firearm is not on the appendix A list, it may still be exempt from this bill if it meets the criteria.

Ed · 14th December 2008, 11:42 PM

Lists of things that the government "allows" us to have makes me nervous.

The woman pushing this bill lost her husband to the nut who killed those folks on the Long Island RR some years ago. She has been persuing this since then.

The bill is ipso facto dishonest since it refers to a definition of assault rifles that is aesthetic. The gun banners in the US have been monkeying with commenly accepted terminology to demonize virtually every firearm. I have seen references to "assault pistols" for example.

This

‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

Includes every semi automatic weapon in existence. Every one.

This is the aesthetic BS

Quote:

‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

‘(iii) a bayonet mount;

‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

‘(v) a grenade launcher;

These are things that are absolutely meaningless.

This

Quote:

SEC. 3. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2(a), is amended by adding after subsection (v) the following:

‘(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

suggests that one would have to trust the government enough to tell them that you have such magazines and get "permission" to keep them.

It also suggests that bad guys cannot do High School level msheetmetal work.

This is BS window dressing:

Quote:

SEC. 4. STUDY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(a) STUDY- The Attorney General shall investigate and study the effect of this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and in particular shall determine their impact, if any, on violent and drug trafficking crime. The study shall be conducted over a period of 18 months, commencing 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) REPORT- Not later than 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the Congress a report setting forth in detail the findings and determinations made in the study under subsection (a).

They did such a thing in NJ some time ago. They found that the law did zero, nada, zilch. The law is still on the books because "it can't hurt".

I will refrain from dealing with the logical errors in this law.

Jesus. And people fall for it.

Ed · 14th December 2008, 11:46 PM

It's worse than I thought.

The list of firearms are those that are "acceptable" to the government. Not one surplus rifle or pistol. I estimate, what, 300 on the list. 400?

There are thousands of different firearms available.

This is confiscation and not close to being "reasonable".

Ed · 15th December 2008, 01:39 AM

Re reading it it seems that there are certain ambiguities.

For example, my m1 carbine is an antique (unless that definition changes) but it can (as any clip fed gun can) accept a clip > 5 rounds. So which trumps what? And for how long?

David · 15th December 2008, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

It's worse than I thought.

The list of firearms are those that are "acceptable" to the government. Not one surplus rifle or pistol. I estimate, what, 300 on the list. 400?

There are thousands of different firearms available.

This is confiscation and not close to being "reasonable".

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

clockwork · 15th December 2008, 02:52 AM

look at the list and u will find guns that are out lawed on the old list such as the MINI 14 and B.A.Rs also under the law any gun older than 1898 I believe is considered a courio relic and would be excempt so why put them on a list?

I have never seen a list for guns that are allowed only guns to be banned this makes no sence to me. I also noted that the bill contradict its self in a few places. be warry of this bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

clockwork · 15th December 2008, 02:57 AM

according to wikipeda C&R goes back 50 yrs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

Ed · 15th December 2008, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clockwork

look at the list and u will find guns that are out lawed on the old list such as the MINI 14 and B.A.Rs also under the law any gun older than 1898 I believe is considered a courio relic and would be excempt so why put them on a list?

I have never seen a list for guns that are allowed only guns to be banned this makes no sence to me. I also noted that the bill contradict its self in a few places. be warry of this bill

The BAR is an NFA weapon. ie. a sevective fire weapon. It is handled under a completely different set of laws. But ... maybe not.

clockwork · 15th December 2008, 03:21 AM

there are a cpl diffrent versions of the BAR from full auto to selective fire so it can fall under diffrent regs depending on the type that a person has. I believe that machine gun kelly used this weapon

Ed · 15th December 2008, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

Ummm I collect them.

Seriously, assault waepons are already strictly controlled. And have been for ages.

What they are saying is that hunting weapons with un-pc looks are to be controlled. That's a non-starter.

BTW, semi auto .223 weapons that are wrongly termed "assault weapons" are widely used for target shooting, varment shooting and are avidly collected.

BBJW · 16th December 2008, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

bbjw

David · 16th December 2008, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBJW

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

Well it is pretty hard to kill 164 people with a sword like they did in Mumbai. Of course those were assault weapons, not semi-automatic ones, i am aware of the difference and they are indeed "dreaded".
If you really feel you "need" a semi-automatic rifle to hunt and protect your live stock that's your business, but i'm not at all interested in fighting for your right to keep them. I don't need them. I'm also not interested in fighting to take them away from you either. You don't care if i think they are necessary or not, but you see, i don't care if big brother takes them away from you, so really i think it's best if we just agree to disagree. I am sure that you are personally being a responsible citizen with you guns. I am not convinced that we can assume the same for everyone though.

BBJW · 16th December 2008, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Well it is pretty hard to kill 164 people with a sword like they did in Mumbai. Of course those were assault weapons, not semi-automatic ones, i am aware of the difference and they are indeed "dreaded".
If you really feel you "need" a semi-automatic rifle to hunt and protect your live stock that's your business, but i'm not at all interested in fighting for your right to keep them. I don't need them. I'm also not interested in fighting to take them away from you either. You don't care if i think they are necessary or not, but you see, i don't care if big brother takes them away from you, so really i think it's best if we just agree to disagree. I am sure that you are personally being a responsible citizen with you guns. I am not convinced that we can assume the same for everyone though.

The fact is that many of those killed in Mumbai were killed by grenades and other explosives. 10 trained and determined terrs with other rifles/pistols and pump shotguns could have done almost as much damage. ALSO the Indian police had very poor equipment. Few or no walkie talkies. No night vision or thermal imaging and some were armed with bolt action Enfield rifles. Had the Indian police had better equipment and training there would have been fewer casualties.

You may not care about my Constitutional rights, but I care about yours and have fought for them and would do so again.

bbjw

Gonzalo G · 16th December 2008, 07:23 AM

We all come from a very different societies. There are many motivations and obscure fears behind the gun control. I would pont the matter as follows:

* What right does a State has to impose over it´s subjects any limitation to their liberty, if it does not constitute an actual offense against the criminal law? Which is the limit of the State to make laws constraining civil and personal rights? Like the right to defend the live against a criminal activity not controlled by the same State which pretends to disarm the civil society.

In the past and in the present, the protestant societies had intended to control the personal behaviour over the basis of moral values. So it came the Prohibition. What the Prohibition did to control crime and alcoholism? Nothing. It only created an inmense and powerfull network of organized crime, and it grew to stay indifinitely in the basement of the social and political order. What does the laws against drug consuming and trafficking had made to stop the traffic and drug related crimes? Nothing, it only has created a new generation of a more powerfull organized crime, and more offcial corruption. Lets face the facts: laws must be evaluated against statistics and efficacy indexes. This prohibitions have a great economic burden over the pockets of the public, without significant results. It only maintain an inmense state police bureaucracy with few results. Meanwhile people wants drugs, alcohol or guns, they will get them at any cost, and they will be sold to enrich the organized crime, no matter prohibitions.

* What confidence would we give to political tycoons to legislate in favour of the people, when they only live to their personal benefit? Are they to be trusted? Threir personal criteria is always correct, or instead, they bend to the side of convenience?

In the catolic Latin America, gun control is exercised to mantain an overwhelming superiority od the represive organs of the State over a population exploited by an oligarchy, with their parodies of democracy, which is in fact a clientelist order permeated by an inmense corruption. In Mexico, there was no gun control until the rise of the gerrilla movement, originated on the stupid and inept measures of a deeply authoritarian government. I purchased my first own gun at Sears at 18 years old without any requirement but my money, and the criminal rate was VERY low at that time. Now, we have gun control since then, and a very high rate of gun involved homicides. Crime is not controlled with efficacy because crime is good business. The common criminal pays to the police to recive protection, and the money flows up, to the highest levels. Organized crime is a better business. They pay directly to the highest levels. And they have rocket launchers, assault rifles, machineguns, cal .50 BMG sniper rifles, armoued cars, hand grenades and so on. How it is possible, without the protection of somebody, some institutions, very important? We have a great wave of violence on the country for this reason. And meanwhile, the governments tightens the gun control over the civil and honest population, which is defenseless. So...

* The fact is that crime violence is not affected by gun control, only good citizens register their guns. The other violence, comming from psychopaths, sociopaths and unadaptated people, is generated by the same societies which suddenly are afraid of what they have created theirselves. Poverty, racism, opression and ignorance are different forms of violence, and every form of violence exercised over some people, generates an equivalent response. Just take a night trip to the hoods to see. The public cult of the violence on the media is another factor. But nobody tries to control it, because movies, TV programs and other media, are good business. You can limit the rights of the people, but don´t try to touch the big business. What we need is to change the social context. This, can limit more efectively the violence, alcoholism and drug consumption. I understand the canadians have more guns per capita than USA americans, but a very low index of violent homicides....why? Why they do not sepeak so insistently about gun control? Why in Mexico, with so few guns on the hands of the honest vast majority of the population, we don´t have a SINGLE gun store in the whole country, and all comes from the black market? Because it is good business, because it generates many money to the dealers, and their protectors, the corrupt politicians and police officers. So, you can purchase a black market pistol, and register it if it´s caliber is legally accepted by the law, without questions asked. Of course, guns are very expensive in this way, but you can get ANY gun you want, legal or not.

The entire world is now in a recession. The financial capital had used the lack of international controls to make big and unethical speculative business to the expense of the general economic stability, producing another deep cyclic crisis. We all going to suffer this situation. This, will bring more gun violence on the streets, more drug adictions and more alcoholism. But, where are the intentions to control this, more dangerous weapons? They try to give aspirins to cure a pneumonia, but they do not fight against the roots of the sickness. This is hypocrisy. We don´t need gun control. We need to control our politicians....and the too smart people. I respect the pain of the persons who had sufered a loss on the hands of the senseless violence, but this is no reason to make many other inocent people to pay for this.

Please excuse me for this protest. I am not a liberal. I am not a right wing follower. I am only a citizen tired of all this situation. More gun control is going to be a big business for some people, but useless. Today, the ban against assault rifles has expirated since 2005, I believe. The criminal statistics did not change with the ban, or without the ban. The ban has no effect over society. They only give a false and temporary sense of security. The ban only limits honest people. And the problems are not resolved with laws, though bad laws creates many serious problems...and good business for the too smart people.

By the way, Manolo, it was not Bonnie and Clyde, it was Dillinger.

Regards

Gonzalo

Atlantia · 16th December 2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBJW

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

bbjw

Its interesting you cite the 'sword ban' in the UK, as it clearly WAS an example of 'bad lawmaking'.
If we look at the figures (roughly) which led to the ban, if memory serves, we are talking about up to 60 000 incidents per year involving attacks with bladed weapons (worse case figures) in England and Wales.
However we are talking about approximately 5 or 6 actual deaths per year from attacks with the banned 'Samurai' class of reproduction swords.
That compares with many, many hundreds of deaths from 'stabbings' amongst which the preferred weapons are cheap chinese kitchen carving knives.
Statistically, more people are killed in the UK every year by: Boiled sweets, peanuts or wearing unsafe slippers.

Now for purposes of this discussion, the reason why the UK sword ban is an interesting example of lawmaking is that it is a headline grabbing attempt by a government to address a real problem with a ridiculous token law.

And introducing 'a little' gun control in the US is like the 'sword' ban here.
Like throwing a deckchair off of the Titanic.

So what do governments do?
Ours sees a problem with knife crime, and a public expectation of 'tough new laws to combat it' so is scared into banning something which will make no difference whatsoever.

Can I ask you, how many guns do you own?
If your government actually did decide to 'take the bull by the horns' and bring in large limits on gun ownership, and say for example they passed a law by which you were only allowed to own a side by side shotgun, for purposes of killing animals on your land, would you be prepared to turn in your other guns and accept government compensation? (which is effectively what was done in the UK).

Second part of the question is of course, even IF (which I serious doubt will ever happen) they did do that, and everyone legally owning guns did turn them in. How the hell would any administration tackle the millions of illegal weapons?

From an outsiders POV it sadly looks like any gun control with any chance of actually being passed into law in the States is just going to be at best a coat of paint on the golden gate?

Its obvious how strongly you feel about your 'right' to own guns, and clearly at least a sizeable minority of Americans agree with you. But by the same token, your experience of guns is going to be totally different from many other Americans. But surely nobody can argue that the US does have a huge problem with guns being used in violent crime, so from a pro-gun POV, how would you tackle it?

Regards
Gene

clockwork · 16th December 2008, 05:32 PM

Dave first off if you read the bill you would see that the bill contradicts it self and all the sudden there are gun on this bill that were outlawed on the old one. So do I think I miss read it not really since it was written with a bunch of attorney that double speak in every way. The Second amendment was given to the American people so that we could never be oppressed by the government and is not open to vast interpretation as you state. if you truly understand are history it is special interest groups and attorneys that have warped over the last 50 years. So I have to say that I completely disagree with you on your interpatation of are rights in this country.

Gonzalo G great write up and I agree with you completely.

16th December 2008, 07:23 AM	#14
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	We all come from a very different societies. There are many motivations and obscure fears behind the gun control. I would pont the matter as follows: * What right does a State has to impose over it´s subjects any limitation to their liberty, if it does not constitute an actual offense against the criminal law? Which is the limit of the State to make laws constraining civil and personal rights? Like the right to defend the live against a criminal activity not controlled by the same State which pretends to disarm the civil society. In the past and in the present, the protestant societies had intended to control the personal behaviour over the basis of moral values. So it came the Prohibition. What the Prohibition did to control crime and alcoholism? Nothing. It only created an inmense and powerfull network of organized crime, and it grew to stay indifinitely in the basement of the social and political order. What does the laws against drug consuming and trafficking had made to stop the traffic and drug related crimes? Nothing, it only has created a new generation of a more powerfull organized crime, and more offcial corruption. Lets face the facts: laws must be evaluated against statistics and efficacy indexes. This prohibitions have a great economic burden over the pockets of the public, without significant results. It only maintain an inmense state police bureaucracy with few results. Meanwhile people wants drugs, alcohol or guns, they will get them at any cost, and they will be sold to enrich the organized crime, no matter prohibitions. * What confidence would we give to political tycoons to legislate in favour of the people, when they only live to their personal benefit? Are they to be trusted? Threir personal criteria is always correct, or instead, they bend to the side of convenience? In the catolic Latin America, gun control is exercised to mantain an overwhelming superiority od the represive organs of the State over a population exploited by an oligarchy, with their parodies of democracy, which is in fact a clientelist order permeated by an inmense corruption. In Mexico, there was no gun control until the rise of the gerrilla movement, originated on the stupid and inept measures of a deeply authoritarian government. I purchased my first own gun at Sears at 18 years old without any requirement but my money, and the criminal rate was VERY low at that time. Now, we have gun control since then, and a very high rate of gun involved homicides. Crime is not controlled with efficacy because crime is good business. The common criminal pays to the police to recive protection, and the money flows up, to the highest levels. Organized crime is a better business. They pay directly to the highest levels. And they have rocket launchers, assault rifles, machineguns, cal .50 BMG sniper rifles, armoued cars, hand grenades and so on. How it is possible, without the protection of somebody, some institutions, very important? We have a great wave of violence on the country for this reason. And meanwhile, the governments tightens the gun control over the civil and honest population, which is defenseless. So... * The fact is that crime violence is not affected by gun control, only good citizens register their guns. The other violence, comming from psychopaths, sociopaths and unadaptated people, is generated by the same societies which suddenly are afraid of what they have created theirselves. Poverty, racism, opression and ignorance are different forms of violence, and every form of violence exercised over some people, generates an equivalent response. Just take a night trip to the hoods to see. The public cult of the violence on the media is another factor. But nobody tries to control it, because movies, TV programs and other media, are good business. You can limit the rights of the people, but don´t try to touch the big business. What we need is to change the social context. This, can limit more efectively the violence, alcoholism and drug consumption. I understand the canadians have more guns per capita than USA americans, but a very low index of violent homicides....why? Why they do not sepeak so insistently about gun control? Why in Mexico, with so few guns on the hands of the honest vast majority of the population, we don´t have a SINGLE gun store in the whole country, and all comes from the black market? Because it is good business, because it generates many money to the dealers, and their protectors, the corrupt politicians and police officers. So, you can purchase a black market pistol, and register it if it´s caliber is legally accepted by the law, without questions asked. Of course, guns are very expensive in this way, but you can get ANY gun you want, legal or not. The entire world is now in a recession. The financial capital had used the lack of international controls to make big and unethical speculative business to the expense of the general economic stability, producing another deep cyclic crisis. We all going to suffer this situation. This, will bring more gun violence on the streets, more drug adictions and more alcoholism. But, where are the intentions to control this, more dangerous weapons? They try to give aspirins to cure a pneumonia, but they do not fight against the roots of the sickness. This is hypocrisy. We don´t need gun control. We need to control our politicians....and the too smart people. I respect the pain of the persons who had sufered a loss on the hands of the senseless violence, but this is no reason to make many other inocent people to pay for this. Please excuse me for this protest. I am not a liberal. I am not a right wing follower. I am only a citizen tired of all this situation. More gun control is going to be a big business for some people, but useless. Today, the ban against assault rifles has expirated since 2005, I believe. The criminal statistics did not change with the ban, or without the ban. The ban has no effect over society. They only give a false and temporary sense of security. The ban only limits honest people. And the problems are not resolved with laws, though bad laws creates many serious problems...and good business for the too smart people. By the way, Manolo, it was not Bonnie and Clyde, it was Dillinger. Regards Gonzalo Last edited by Gonzalo G; 16th December 2008 at 07:38 AM.

14th December 2008, 10:13 PM	#1
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,218	Here is a little bit more of this bill. I have bolded certain words for better understanding. (a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following: ‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon. ‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection. ‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to-- ‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993; ‘(B) any firearm that-- ‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; ‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or ‘(iii) is an antique firearm; ‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or ‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine. The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect. The first part bolded is "paragraph (1)". Please note that this entire section deals with weapons that are exempt from this bill, including those listed in appendix A. The last part even assures us that even if the firearm is not on the appendix A list, it may still be exempt from this bill if it meets the criteria.

14th December 2008, 11:46 PM	#3
Ed Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 260	It's worse than I thought. The list of firearms are those that are "acceptable" to the government. Not one surplus rifle or pistol. I estimate, what, 300 on the list. 400? There are thousands of different firearms available. This is confiscation and not close to being "reasonable".

15th December 2008, 01:39 AM	#4
Ed Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 260	Re reading it it seems that there are certain ambiguities. For example, my m1 carbine is an antique (unless that definition changes) but it can (as any clip fed gun can) accept a clip > 5 rounds. So which trumps what? And for how long?

15th December 2008, 02:57 AM	#7
clockwork Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 96	according to wikipeda C&R goes back 50 yrs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

15th December 2008, 03:21 AM	#9
clockwork Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 96	there are a cpl diffrent versions of the BAR from full auto to selective fire so it can fall under diffrent regs depending on the type that a person has. I believe that machine gun kelly used this weapon

16th December 2008, 05:32 PM	#16
clockwork Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 96	Dave first off if you read the bill you would see that the bill contradicts it self and all the sudden there are gun on this bill that were outlawed on the old one. So do I think I miss read it not really since it was written with a bunch of attorney that double speak in every way. The Second amendment was given to the American people so that we could never be oppressed by the government and is not open to vast interpretation as you state. if you truly understand are history it is special interest groups and attorneys that have warped over the last 50 years. So I have to say that I completely disagree with you on your interpatation of are rights in this country. Gonzalo G great write up and I agree with you completely.