"So how many here know the difference between the AR-15 that you could buy legally, the pre-ban AR-15 that you could buy legally and the AR-15 that is illegal to buy under the present assault weapons ban? Too many of you have been sucked in by hype from the liberal ban the assault weapon crowd and fail to understand the AWB had, in effect, banned nothing of importance."
The answer:
Heres the idiocy of the AWB. There is absolutely no difference between the pre-ban (which is legal to buy) and the illegal post ban AR-15. Only difference is the date of manufacture. Heavens only knows how many pre-ban '15's have been readily available while the silly AWB has been in effect. As to the legal post ban 15's...they are identicle to a illegal configuration except the legal version cannot have:
1) a collapsable stock (yippee)
2) a bayonet lug (wow!)
3) a flash suppressor (oh my eyes)
The above 3 items are noted as the AR-15 already has:
4) a pistol grip
5) a detachable magazine
In this photo, the rifle is legal to buy as a pre-ban but illegal to buy as a post-ban. (note: only difference between pre and post is date of manufacture) The pre-ban variants are more than readily available.
Actually Roid, the 223 round that this particular firearm chambers, is not allowed for the hunting of deer in many states. The .223 round is much better for varmet shooting especially when the rifle is set up thus:
And yes, this variant is perfectly legal to buy under AWB
well.. i'd like to assume that woodchip means "any usually predatory wild animal considered undesirable; e.g. coyote", and not "an irritating or obnoxious person".
forgive me if i remain open to the possability of woodchip's definition meaning either.
roid wrote:...HOW FAST CAN THIS HUNTING GUN FIRE,...
No faster than the revolver carried by Barney Fife on the TV show Mayberry.
One shot per one pull of the trigger.
You have bought into the hype of the anti-gun crowd who want you to think it is an automatic weapon...like when they say AK-47's will be on the streets if we lift this ban. AK-47's are full auto and haven't ever been legal...pre ban or post ban.
Looks can be decieving.
Will,
you're doing a great job. Explaining what each one of those "baby killing features" is for would help the readers understand why the ban is/was a joke.
1) a collapsable stock (yippee)
Allows the rifle's over-all length to be shortened from about 46 inches to about 38 inches depending on the folding stock you chose. The reasoning behind banning this evil feature is due to the fact that it can be "easily concealed", according to the anti-firearm crowd. don't we all have 38 inch pockets?
2) a bayonet lug (wow!)
This evil feature allows a knife to be added to the end of the rifle because people that own these weapons intend to kill anything and everything in their path. The knife is a backup feature that every criminal wants to have on their AR in case they get into close contact combat.
3) a flash suppressor (oh my eyes)
This allows the shooter to shoot from places and not be seen because the flash suppressor changes the direction of the muzzle blast(fire out the end of the barrel) from going straight out the front to going out all the sides. Nobody will ever notice fire going out the sides of the barrel.
The above 3 items are noted as the AR-15 already has:
4) a pistol grip
The pistol grip allows the mass murderer to hold the weapon in such a way that it inhibits the shooters accuracy, however, it looks cool to hold the rifle this way and makes it that much more dangerous.
5) a detachable magazine
The non-detachable mag allows the shooter to load the ammunition from the top of the rifle instead of inserting the ammunition into the mag and into the rifle. In all honesty, this is the only part of the ban that may have have done something to slow down all the mass muderers that own these evil rifles.
Is there a semi-auto version of the AK-47? A friend of mine had what he called an AK-47 some years ago. I fired it a few times and thought it was a pos.
Dedman, they are a POS and AK's are semi-auto.
[edit] They do make full auto AK's, but unless you have a class 3 dealers license ( you have better chance of squeezing blood from a turnip) they are illegal and have been since 1934.
Will Robinson wrote:like when they say AK-47's will be on the streets if we lift this ban.
Ahh whats the problem, we had one under our bed for thre first few years of marriage....and it was the wifes. It made me nervous so it's in the armory now. I'm supposed to take it when i guard once a month, i take my guitar and a six pack instead
EDIT: The Mrs just told me it was an M-16 not an AK-47.....shows what i know dosn't it.
I think assault weapons with grenade launchers are also illegal. "Hey Dad, let's go target practice with our grnade launcher!"... Yeah.
The ban didn't really do much of anything; do you really think that a guy with an assault rifle is going to come in and say "hey, I have a big gun here. Arrest me."? You have to be able to enforce a ban when you make the ban, and people with assault rifles generally aren't nice, peaceful citizens.
Brain,
you can get all the parts off e-bay except the receiver, that's the piece that has the serial number and the part that makes the weapon function.
You can buy any part you want from anyone, but the receiver has to be dealer transfered and a background check is part of that. Without the receiver you have nothing.
For a liberal, I'm pretty centrist on Gun Control. The way I've always seen it, there is a certain level of firepower an individual should be disallowed from owning. Brian brings up Nukes, which is an extreme example of weaponry that doesn't belong in the hands of your neighbor. I don't think all guns should be outlawed, or that private citizens should be disarmed. What I do think is that vast killing power should be kept from the hands of an individual. I think most people would agree with that. The disagreement occurs when defining "vast killing power."
Brian,
It's not strange if you consider the fact that some AK's are/were legal even durring the Clinton gun ban. However, regardless of the parts' legality, he still had to have the receiver transfered legally as I mentioned above.
Stryker wrote:and people with assault rifles generally aren't nice, peaceful citizens.
Retarded generalization.
edit:: oh...hi Dedman...
I like the SKS's more than the AK's. I think they were more stable. (A mag full of tracers is fun too)
I really dont' think any gun control should be in place. Want a gun, fine. Armed robbery? Life. Murder? Execution. Responsibility? Yours.
'Gun control' is/was/will always be a joke. It's nothing but yet another bull%!@# blanket law. If I want a gun, I can get one within the day. I can even get it from a police evidence locker. I mean..c'mon.
If people are going to start killing people, I wish they would start with soccer moms.
Birdy, just out of curiosity...why is it whenever a firearm topic comes up you start posting about owning Nukes? No one, even in the NRA, will condone owning bombs, tanks, chemical munitions or any other such equipment. All we are talking about are long guns and pistols.
Birdseye wrote:Why couldn't he have gotten the receiver illegally?
He could have bought the reciever locally and all the other parts off e-bay. By buying locally from a private owner, all the paper work can be avoided.
Actually, I think Woody is right. I keep assuming every other state is like Kaliforniatsan, in that, any firearm purchase(rifle or pistol) must be transfered by a dealer.
Woody, can you guys legally transfer longarms without a dealer? If so, what state are you in?
Fusion pimp wrote:Actually, I think Woody is right. I keep assuming every other state is like Kaliforniatsan, in that, any firearm purchase(rifle or pistol) must be transfered by a dealer.
Woody, can you guys legally transfer longarms without a dealer? If so, what state are you in?
Fusion, here in Michigan it is indeed legal for private transactions selling longuns without all the paperwork. Thats how I picked up my '15. Pistols are a slightly different matter. Private transactions are again O.K., but then the pistol still has to be registered in the new owners name. May be a transfer of ownership form needed. With my CCW I am not required to go to the local police station and aquire a permit to purchase form. Instead I can just go into a sporting goods store, show my carry license and buy the pistol. Store gives me a registration form and down to the sheriffs office I go to register the newly purchased pistol. Pretty easy.
Woody,
Thanks for the clarification.
In Cali no firearm can be transferred without a 10 day wait and a background check, be it private or retail transaction. If you're buying a pistol you're required to complete a BFS(basic firearm safety) course or you can challenge the test. The test is a joke at best, I can't imagine anyone not passing it. Of the dealers I work with only one has had a customer not pass,english was his second language so they had to have someone read him the questions in Spanish, he passed the second time.
I talked with a friend who lives in NM and he told me the same thing you did. They have instant background checks. He said by the time you're finished writting the check you've been cleared by the computer and you take home your new rifle/pistol.
If you transfer a rifle or pistol in California without a DROS(Dealer record of sale) you're guilty of a felony.
According to the enemy we don't have to do anything in South Carolina when selling a handgun in a 'citizen to citizen' sale. As long as the buyer is an adult, private sales are just that, private.
If it's a long gun the same applies but even minors can buy them without government intervention
I always laugh when I read posts by people who think allowing ownership of assault rifles will allow them to resist military oppression. Note the huge success of the Palestinian vs the Israelis. Not much use having an AK47 when the opposition arrives in a tank. If for some totaly bizarre reason troops from the UN were to try to occupy an American city jumping out and potshoting them with your M16, fully automatic or not would be a guarantee of catching a burst from a 55 caliber machine gun followed by a couple of rounds from a tank gun.
Owning guns may make you feel like a man but you will end up hiding in the basement like everyone else when the armoured cars arrive. Look at the insurgents in Iraq. Armed with RPG rounds and all the explosives you could ask for and they die by the hundreds when facing a real army.
These things (assault guns) are either toys for guys to shoot for fun or occasionaly a weapon used to commit a crime of some kind. Defending yourself from oppression will have to be left to the profesionals.
You're not comparing apples to apples if you're trying to compare armed palestinians resisting the will of armed israeli's with armed americans resisting armed american political authority...which is one of the reasons we have our second ammendment and why we have more than just the second ammendment to protect our freedoms. It's a package deal, the second ammendment is only one part of the recipe.
To use your example and make it analogous to the U.S. and her citizens: I do see different factions among the palestinians use their weapons succesfully to keep their leadership from going in a direction they don't like. Arafat and his closest followers have been close to armed conflict with 'fellow' palestinians who don't like it when he gets to cozy with the israeli's. They do use their weapons to shoot each other for deserting the cause etc. Likewise they do use their weapons to defend against such acts....
The U.S. government would have to command men who don't care about us armed citizens to be able to get them to mow us down like a bunch of palestinians shooting bullets at israeli tanks.
Sure we have an occasional Kent State or Ruby Ridge but look who puts the brakes on quickly when that happens - the authority does because they know we will make them pay for it at the ballot box.
We don't have rogue military leaders on the verge of becoming dictators taking over the country, and if one did try to gain control who would he command?
But Will you only need a hand gun to whack some guy that you think is selling out your cause. Assault rifles are for heavy fighting and if the going gets that tough the tough get heavy caliber and heavy armour, not to mention artilery and air power. The whole scenario of U.S. citizens having to oppose some portion of their government with force of arms is a fairytale told by survivalist whackos. IT AIN"T GOING TO HAPPEN. Not in your lifetime not in your children's lifetime and in no time in the forseable future. Buy all the guns you want, shoot all the gophers you want but relax man, there is no armaggeden around the corner that is going to involve street fighting in the continental U.S.
Kent State involved a bunch of poorly trained, badly commanded National Guards who ended up way over their heads and panicked. Under your scenario the protesters would have been packing M16's with teflon bullets and the excrement would really have interfaced with the air handling equipment. The protesters were opposing their government's armed suppression of their right to dissagree with it's policies. Armed as you suggest it would have been a blood bath.
Woodchip lovely piece of hardware. But why the scope? To punch through any more than a hummer you would have to be awful close wouldn't you.
"Woodchip lovely piece of hardware. But why the scope? To punch through any more than a hummer you would have to be awful close wouldn't you." Ford
This particular rifle is accurate to a mile or more. The scope now becomes obvious. In competition, the Barretts .50 has shot 5 inch groups.
In Vietnam a buddy of mine was taking cover behind 1/2"
steel bridge girders when he noticed .50 caliber size holes appearing in them. He figured he was not in a good cover situation and di di'd.
