Comments on: Gun misrepresentations in the local media http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:43:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Nate http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/comment-page-1/#comment-8872 Nate Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:11:53 +0000 /?p=3743#comment-8872 Publicola: Thanks for the answer. That's why you have a blog other people read and why I read other people's blogs. :) Publicola:

Thanks for the answer. That’s why you have a blog other people read and why I read other people’s blogs. :)

]]> By: Publicola http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/comment-page-1/#comment-8868 Publicola Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:16:22 +0000 /?p=3743#comment-8868 Nate: the short answer is no. Then again so is the long answer. If a firearm is capable of automatic fire (i.e multiple shots per trigger pull) it falls under the NFA & the AWB would have no effect on it, even if the switch was set to semi. The key word is capable. It does not have ot be full auto exclusively (as only a few firearms are) to fall under the unconstitutional provisions of the NFA & once it did fall under the NFA the AWB had no effect on it whatsoever. Funny isn't it? you couldn't have a semi with a pistol grip & a bayo lug because it would be too dangerous for civilians, yet you could have a full auto with all 5 of the banned features found in the AWB (well, after you jumped through some substantial & unconstitutional hoops). Nate: the short answer is no. Then again so is the long answer. If a firearm is capable of automatic fire (i.e multiple shots per trigger pull) it falls under the NFA & the AWB would have no effect on it, even if the switch was set to semi. The key word is capable. It does not have ot be full auto exclusively (as only a few firearms are) to fall under the unconstitutional provisions of the NFA & once it did fall under the NFA the AWB had no effect on it whatsoever.
Funny isn’t it? you couldn’t have a semi with a pistol grip & a bayo lug because it would be too dangerous for civilians, yet you could have a full auto with all 5 of the banned features found in the AWB (well, after you jumped through some substantial & unconstitutional hoops).

]]> By: Nate http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/comment-page-1/#comment-8866 Nate Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:10:13 +0000 /?p=3743#comment-8866 Pubicola: but if a select-fire weapon also had two of the banned features, wouldn't it then be a "semi-automatic assault weapon" in addition to a NFA regulated automatic weapon? It might have been (it makes me so happy to use the pluperfect subjunctive there) relevant in the following case: you have an actual, military-type assault rifle (not "weapon") capable of select-fire, and you jumped through all the NFA hoops to get it. It only has a pistol grip (so a semi-auto version is kosher by the AWB). Since it is capable of semi-auto fire (in addition to full-auto), would the AWB have prevented you from putting a folding stock on the rifle? Since, depending on where the selector was set, you had a semi-auto rifle which now had two, instead of one, of the assault weapon features, thus bringing it under the restriction of the AWB. Pubicola: but if a select-fire weapon also had two of the banned features, wouldn’t it then be a “semi-automatic assault weapon” in addition to a NFA regulated automatic weapon? It might have been (it makes me so happy to use the pluperfect subjunctive there) relevant in the following case: you have an actual, military-type assault rifle (not “weapon”) capable of select-fire, and you jumped through all the NFA hoops to get it. It only has a pistol grip (so a semi-auto version is kosher by the AWB). Since it is capable of semi-auto fire (in addition to full-auto), would the AWB have prevented you from putting a folding stock on the rifle? Since, depending on where the selector was set, you had a semi-auto rifle which now had two, instead of one, of the assault weapon features, thus bringing it under the restriction of the AWB.

]]> By: Publicola http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/comment-page-1/#comment-8841 Publicola Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:59:01 +0000 /?p=3743#comment-8841 The AWB did not touch machine guns. A full auto could have all of the banned evil features & it wouldn't fall under the AWB as it would already fall under a harsher unconstitutional law. The AWB did not touch machine guns. A full auto could have all of the banned evil features & it wouldn’t fall under the AWB as it would already fall under a harsher unconstitutional law.

]]> By: Thibodeaux http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/comment-page-1/#comment-8837 Thibodeaux Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:08:57 +0000 /?p=3743#comment-8837 Actually, Nate, the law specifically applies to <em>semi-automatic</em> "assault weapons." I believe anything with full-auto capability, which would include selective-fire, would be covered by the NFA. Actually, Nate, the law specifically applies to semi-automatic “assault weapons.”

I believe anything with full-auto capability, which would include selective-fire, would be covered by the NFA.

]]> By: Xrlq http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/comment-page-1/#comment-8835 Xrlq Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:05:38 +0000 /?p=3743#comment-8835 The federal ban had little to do with the L.A. incident, anyway, as California's AW ban dates back to 1989. The federal ban had little to do with the L.A. incident, anyway, as California’s AW ban dates back to 1989.

]]> By: Nate http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/comment-page-1/#comment-8830 Nate Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:54:57 +0000 /?p=3743#comment-8830 I meant to say, "if they were select-fire, i.e., they could ALSO shoot semi-automatically." I meant to say, “if they were select-fire, i.e., they could ALSO shoot semi-automatically.”

]]> By: Nate http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/comment-page-1/#comment-8829 Nate Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:54:11 +0000 /?p=3743#comment-8829 I think the AWB would only cover "machine guns" if they were select-fire (i.e., could shoot semi-automatically) and had those charactaristics. Maybe. I'm not quite sure if a gun would be classified as a "semi-automatic" for the purposes of the AWB. But who cares now, it'd dead, all but the weeping and gnashing of teeth. --Well, I don't plan on either. It's time for the saving up for one of them eeeevvvvilll guns. :) I think the AWB would only cover “machine guns” if they were select-fire (i.e., could shoot semi-automatically) and had those charactaristics. Maybe. I’m not quite sure if a gun would be classified as a “semi-automatic” for the purposes of the AWB. But who cares now, it’d dead, all but the weeping and gnashing of teeth. –Well, I don’t plan on either. It’s time for the saving up for one of them eeeevvvvilll guns. :)

]]> By: SayUncle : Thought I’d let you know . . . http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/comment-page-1/#comment-8853 SayUncle : Thought I’d let you know . . . Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=3743#comment-8853 [...] Thought I’d let you know . . . |By SayUncle| Regarding the gun bias I mentioned <a href="http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/">here</a>, I am currently involved in an Email exchange with T [...] [...] Thought I’d let you know . . .
|By SayUncle|

Regarding the gun bias I mentioned here, I am currently involved in an Email exchange with T [...]

]]> By: SayUncle : For those interested in a little gun debate http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/comment-page-1/#comment-8885 SayUncle : For those interested in a little gun debate Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=3743#comment-8885 [...] h the charming Ms. Smith (seriously, she really is nice), that I mentioned here, about her <a href="http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/">misrepresenting the assault weapons ban</a> is taking place o [...] [...] h the charming Ms. Smith (seriously, she really is nice), that I mentioned here, about her misrepresenting the assault weapons ban is taking place o [...]

]]> By: SayUncle : WATE Follow Up http://www.saysuncle.com/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/comment-page-1/#comment-8919 SayUncle : WATE Follow Up Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=3743#comment-8919 [...] rding some misleading statements she made about what was banned by the assault weapons ban <a href="http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2004/09/14/gun_misrepresentations_in_the_local_media/">here</a>). It seems she, instead of actually dealing with th [...] [...] rding some misleading statements she made about what was banned by the assault weapons ban here). It seems she, instead of actually dealing with th [...]

]]>