GOP Debate - Round 2

So a 10/22 is one?

 

Some really don't care where the argument lands.

What does the pro gun crowd need to get in front of?

 

A browning BAR isn't based on prior or current military weapons, so no. The WW2 BAR was an automatic weapon, with an open bolt. And it would be considered one.

The current hunting version is a BAR in name only, to trade on its history, but it that's about it, and in its current iteration has never been a military weapon, to my knowledge.

 

I know, so is it still considered an assault rifle by the masses?

 

A selective fire weapon doesn't refer to the user's ability to fire multiple shots or not, but the gun's ability to fire multiple shots or not. The original M16 was a selective fire weapon, in that it could shoot single or full auto. The current iteration is a selective fire because it can fire a single shot, or three burst shot. The M4 is selective because it can do that, or versions can shoot single or full auto. An MP5 is selective because it can shoot single, burst, or sometimes auto.

A civilian AR is not true selective fire weapon because it only has one fire setting--single shot.

You are mixing "repeating" with "selective fire." They aren't the same. A civilian AR is a repeating rifle. But it is not a true selective fire weapon. Military versions are, though.

 

The M1918, the BAR, was an open bolt fully automatic rifle, not a selective fire weapon. It only had the one speed, as all open bolt weapons. You hold down the trigger, the bolt is released, firing pin strikes the primer, round is ejected, and the bolt returns to the open position. If the trigger is held, there is no catch to stop the forward momentum of the bolt being pushed by the spring, so it continues on down until the bolt hits home again. And repeats, for as long as the trigger is held.

If the trigger is released, the bolt is caught, but remains in the open position.

Current hunting BARs are nothing like the M1918. They are closed bolt, non selective fire repeating rifles.

 

My qualifier? It isn't my qualifier. And I believe the selective fire aspect extends beyond whether such a switch is installed or not.

 

See my post above.

 

So guns that are not selective fire but are semi-automatic should be classified as selective fire. Makes sense.

 

If they have the capacity to be such, which my understanding is that they often do.

Keep in mind I don't think assault rifles should be outright banned. I get the feeling I am going to be the gun control whipping boy again.

 

All guns have the capacity to be selective fire or fully auto through engineering the firearm. All guns.

You can turn a 10/22 into a fully automatic, open bolt, firearm. That doesn't mean a 10/22 is a fully automatic, selective fire, machine gun.

Your single shot .22? I can cut a hole in the bottom and fit a magazine in to it. If it's semi-automatic, tube loaded, I can weld the tube, cut the hole, throw in the magazine, put a spring in the back, remove the hammer catch, put in a simple stop for the bolt, and turn it into a .22 automatic.

It ain't a fully automatic, just because it has the capacity to be made as such.

So your understanding is wrong.

 

Well no, you're just taking "engineering" further than intended. If a weapon is a bolt action for example, it would need to be transformed to be made to be an assault rifle.

This kind of shit is why the gun issue will never die. You have no interest in making a safer situation, only in bemoaning any action taken as being pointless because you can find some way around it. That attitude misses the whole point, which is that it is EASY for any moron to get their hands on dangerous weapons. I'm not worried one bit what float_ can do to modify a weapon, whether float_ owns an AR or even a grenade launcher. I'm concerned with how much effort and time it takes to acquire one. I don't mind having a process in place to let you buy RPG's, but I don't think someone should be able to show up and buy one in a store or pick them up within a month without some sort of vetting about their intentions, storage plans, and ability to function as a human being.

 

Intended is an interesting word in this discussion.

Die?

 

You can't take action just for the sake of taking action. And that is what you are proposing. You can't adequately define an assault rifle, but want the process to acquire one made difficult. But you don't even know what one is. By the definition given, in that a weapon is select fire and magazine fed, what you would consider, on the civilian market to be an assault rifle, is not an assault rifle, by definition. Because it isn't select fire. The "lever" on the receiver is nothing more than a safety. That's it. It's the same as a push button safety on a shotgun. It allows for changing the mechanism from not fire-able to fire-able. That doesn't make it select fire, any more than the push button safety on a pump shotgun is a "select fire mechanism." It's just a safety.

So make rational, well thought out definitions and maybe action can be taken, if necessary. But doing something for the sake of doing it, especially when you don't have any idea what is being done, is foolish.

For a civilian AR to be an assault rifle, it would have to be "engineered" further than intended, as the manufacturer didn't intend for the non-select fire weapon to be select fire. The only difference is the level of engineering required. And it would be easier to make a 10/22 into fully auto than it would be to turn a civilian AR into a select fire weapon. Just as it would be easier to turn an AR into a fully automatic rifle than it would be to turn the same rifle into a select fire weapon.

That doesn't mean it can't fall into the category of assault rifle. It just means the proposed definition is flawed.

So your definition fails. Don't put that blame on others simply because we want well thought out classifications, not "progress" for the sake of "progress."

 

We need pictures, plans, diagrams etc. of these procedures.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_RoMXz3Opg&t=82


Can't seem to embed that video, but you get the idea.

 

What is this "proposed definition" stuff?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assault-rifle

http://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle

These aren't like segways or some other novelty that we don't fully appreciate yet. They've been around for decades and you and I and everyone else has a pretty good idea what the term is referring to. What kind of mass hallucination is it that millions of Americans pretend like this phrase isn't a thing?

 

The problem is, per the definitions you provided, Americans don't own or have access to assault rifles.

 

"a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military"

"any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use"

I'm very certain many people on this board own guns that would match that definition. Which is fine. Just pointing that out since you said Americans don't own or have access to them per the definitions.

 

You mean like the millions of Americans that believe literal means figurative? Or the definition of the same? What is this mass idiocy that keeps people from realizing the definition they believe to be accurate is not?

But let's go through them:

1.

Civilian AR. Not designed for military use. The one designed for military use, is used by the military. It isn't sold to your average civilian without a lot, and I mean, a lot, of additional leg work. The kind you say we should have. But for whatever reason, want to apply the same to the one that isn't designed for military use. Even though the definition says "designed for use by the military."

2.

The first definition is addressed by the above. The second is the one I applied in mine. You're the one that added in magazine fed and selective fire. And then included semi-automatic weapons... that weren't modeled on military rifles.

3. This one isn't even a definition. It's a description. And not even an all encompassing one, or even a very good one.