News FEinstein: Assault Weapons Ban Bill

[edward]

The NRA with 4 million members claims to speak for 100 million gun owners.

The NRA is designated as a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4) organization,[2] which allows it to operate both as a charity and to participate in political campaigns and lobbying.

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

WHO DOES THE NRA REALLY SPEAK FOR
IT SPEAKS FOR GUN MAKERS

But membership fees don't pay the NRA's bills alone. In recent years, the group has become more aggressive about seeking donations, both from individuals and corporations, and that in turn has led it to become more deeply entwined with the gun industry. In 2010, it received $71 million in contributions, up from $46.3 million in 2004. Some of that money came from small-time donors, who've received a barrage of fundraising appeals warning of President Obama's imminent plot to gut the Second Amendment and confiscate Americans' firearms. But around 2005, the group began systematically reaching out to its richest members for bigger checks through its "Ring of Freedom" program, which also sought to corral corporate donors. Between then and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers. The givers include 22 different gun makers, including famous names like Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA, SIGARMS, and Sturm, Ruger & Co. that also manufacture so-called assault weapons.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/

 

[Pete Cortez]

And that's why we need to bring the constitution out of the dark ages and face reality.

What dark ages? A law infringing on constitutional rights does not necessarily mean that they are unconstitutional. The courts are currently determining the appropriate level of scrutiny--to the exclusion of rational basis review--to apply to what laws in under what circumstances.

If we had won our freedom prior to the gun age, would you be arguing for swords? Also, it was meant for purposes of a militia, we have an established military/National Guard now, we no longer have the need to call on civilian volunteers. People don't really own guns now planning to be called to protect the country, IMO.

I'll agree that the 2nd ammendment covers guns if we restrict gun ownership to the same guns available at the time.

Why only to the guns available at the same time? Firearms have a thousand year history predating the adoption of the Constitution. Revolving wheellocks were around since the end of the 16th century. Breech loaders were present by the 17th. Surely the Founders were aware that these instruments did not appear de novo, nor unaware of innovations in gunsmithing within their own lifetimes. I find it difficult to believe given agricultural and industrial policy in post-colonial America that the Founders sought to peg a constitutional right to a particular frame of technology.

Anything more advanced would require a new law. It's ridiculous what people are trying to claim, that current guns are covered under what the authors of the constitution envisioned.

Aside from the two specific forms of action dominant today--recoil and blowback--all other major families of autoloading were conceived and invented within the lifetimes of the Founders.

 

[Pete Cortez]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/

Not quite sure where The Atlantic got the idea that Ring of Freedom was a corporate giving vehicle.

 

[Evo]

Out of date. Here's some more up to date. At 47 percent and with that margin of error, could well be that a majority of Americans own or have access to a firearm.

You've confused two different polls, mine was "gun ownership", you're qouting "guns in households". If you scroll down in your link you'll find "gun ownership" to be at 34%. So it has increased, but it's still roughly only 1/3rd of the population that actually owns guns. Most of the gun ownership seems to be heavily in the southern states.

Guns in household would be like my friend that inherited his grandfather's shotgun, but he has never used it, it's buried in the back of a closet. I guess you could say technically he now owns it, but he would be more likely to say he just has a gun in his house. He's not even sure if it works.

 

[Pythagorean]

You've confused two different polls, mine was "gun ownership", you're qouting "guns in households". If you scroll down in your link you'll find "gun ownership" to be at 34%. So it has increased, but it's still roughly only 1/3rd of the population that actually owns guns. Most of the gun ownership seems to be heavily in the southern states.

Guns in household would be like my friend that inherited his grandfather's shotgun, but he has never used it, it's buried in the back of a closet. I guess you could say technically he now owns it, but he would be more likely to say he just has a gun in his house. He's not even sure if it works.

I have about five guns that there are no record of, which is typical in Alaska, where people trade/sell/buy guns to each other regularly.

I'm giving them to my father though, as I haven't used them since joining the circus (er, I mean academics). My father will probably have 10-15 guns, maybe 2 or 3 of them have records associated with them.

 

[Pete Cortez]

Nonsense. You've posted one example of a crossover, but that's it. Most hunting rifles do not look like assault rifles. I'd like to know honestly how many people hunt with an M-16 copy. And in addition, you posted one very badly chosen example:

1. I don't think you can prove that most hunting rifles don't look like assault rifles; varmint hunting has a considerably lengthier season than big game.

2. AR-15 isn't a copy of an M16. M16, however, does derive from the AR-15.

Sniper rifles. Sniper rifles are intended for one-shot-one-kill use, much like hunting rifles. They are not the same as assault rifles and often aren't even semi-automatic, such as in your example of the Remmington 700.

Some are certainly semi-automatic.

1. M110
2. M82.


They wouldn't be classified as assault rifles even without the increasingly inconsequential select fire simply because they chamber cartridges lethal outside of the typical engagement range of modern infantry. In the old days, you'd call them battle rifles.

So in this case, you're arguing against your point: Since the rifle is a military-type, but specialized for accuracy and not high firing rate or portability or other infantry type functionality, it is not the type of weapon that needs to be banned for civilian use. Hence the need for another term to describe the type of weapon that is to be banned: assault weapons/rifles.

A point. For most of their history, civilian small firearms have been military type. Your stereotypical lever action breech loader is an evolved Henry rifle. Your standard bolt action finds its heritage in the Remington-Lee 1885 and the Krag-Jorgenson.

I'm not an expert, though, so you tell me: why is the Remmington 700 single-shot?

It's not, it has a five round magazine. You don't find much in the way of single-shots outside of the sporting and enthusiast community.

Why the lack of a carrying handle on top?

Most rifles throughout history have lacked such a handle, regardless of whether or not they were used by civilians.

Why no flash suppressor?

Same as above.

Why a solid stock?

Wood used to be cheaper than metal or plastic.

Could it be that all of these features affect accuracy?

No, but they do affect reliability (and in the case of the flash guard, improve visibility after firing).

 

[Pete Cortez]

You've confused two different polls, mine was "gun ownership", you're qouting "guns in households".

Not confusing the polls, simply providing more up to date information. And pointing out that 47 percent of Americans have access to said firearms, regardless of whether or not it is there name on the Form 4473. I'll also point out that this trend has been going up since the nadir in 1993, which is truly encouraging.

Guns in household would be like my friend that inherited his grandfather's shotgun, but he has never used it, it's buried in the back of a closet. I guess you could say technically he now owns it, but he would be more likely to say he just has a gun in his house. He's not even sure if it works.

Possibly. Or it means a parent who bought his kids' first rifles. A fifth of the population is under 18, remember? And again, neither this survey or the similar GSS one answers the question of "what do non-respondents own/have access to?"

 

[Evo]

I'll also point out that this trend has been going up since the nadir in 1993, which is truly encouraging.

I find the trend (primarily in the southern states) of stockpiling weapons very disturbing. And the reasons they're buying, fearing doomsday scenarios, believing their guns will be taken away, so need to buy as many as possible. How anyone can consider this "encouraging" is beyond me.

Anyway, we seem to have exhausted this topic and as was pointed out earlier, the thread is going in circles, so time to put another gun thread to rest.