From what I’ve read, what makes a rifle an ‘assault’ rifle often has little to do with caliber or magazine size, but rather things like a second hand grip. Which pretty much renders the phrase ‘assault weapon’ useless for the purposes of this discussion (or legislation).
Better off focusing on handguns, which are equally good at dispensing death and mayhem but, unlike an AR-15, can be carried in your back pocket.
Can we point and laugh at this one?
Fine by me. My bigger issue is with how many bullets a shooter can fire before reload but if this is the way to do it, great. I know folks get hung up on the definition of an assault rifle. I think six is more than enough. It’ll definitely slow down mass shooters long enough for a “good person” (armed or otherwise) to stop them
I’m probably farther left than any of the legislators you’re complaining about. I don’t really know how to quantify Mao (you’d have to give me a few hours to study his policies). It’s pretty doubtful me or your legislators are further left than Mao.
Given what all our legislators are comfortable with, I’m not sure I care how comfortable they are.
Well yes, I think that’s an extreme comparison.
Democide is a serious matter. I don’t support those who wish to increase centralized power for just this reason. Both major parties fit that category IMO.
You have a point. On the other hand, you had to go back seventeen years for one, and twenty-five for the other?
I have some assault rifles. Most of us who actually work with them agree that part of the definition of an assault rifle includes select fire and an intermediate sized cartridge, (but not always). But it is pointless to further complicate the process and expense of owning an MP-44 or FG-42. They are actually way too big to conceal, and too expensive to use for criminal activity. In the case of the FG-42, it would be cheaper to buy a small airplane and bomb your target.
I did not have a bunch of gun control quotes at hand. I did a quick web search, and posted the first two that I saw and could verify that stated the position clearly. It may be that the gun control people have changed their position lately, and now support some elements of gun ownership. From my personal observations, things are more polarized than they have been in the past. But truthfully, I did not pay enough attention to the age of the quotes.
Wha… what? WHAT? I was told the cake was a lie. But there it is… so that was a lie? How can I tell realty from friction any more?
My regret is I can only upvote you once. [quote=“quorihunter, post:44, topic:83180”]
HOWEVER…the analogy here is that any person can also own a motorcycle, or boat, or sports car, or however many other vehicles of any make model and type they choose. They must however register and insure those vehicles properly. And the same should be for any gun owners.
There is no logical reason or argument to counter this view. NONE.
[/quote]
I have been making the argument for ages that mandatory liability insurance for gun ownership would be great for both gun owners and the public at large as a way to promote responsible behavior. Every argument against such things is generally based on a lack of knowledge as to how property/casualty insurance works, miss how private companies collecting ownership/registration data cuts own possible government misuse, and make silly statements about costs of premiums as some kind of limiting factor.
[Deleted because the conversation was purposefully ended]
Except for tracing weapons which are bought under legal pretenses and end up in the illegal market through straw buyers. Guns used in crimes in the US are not smuggled into the country or usually stolen from homes, but bought in stores and other legal vendors of firearms. Registration at a national level allows for collection of crime statistics for weapons and tracing where guns ending up on the black market are coming from.
The vast majority of gun owners make excuses for irresponsible aspects of their firearms ownership. They don’t think much of liability insurance because they never want to acknowledge the possibility of accidental injury or death from misuse. Despite it being a a statistically common occurrence among the.
as for 1b (see my first comment). Non-traditional means is typically buying guns legally and selling them illegally across state lines. The sort of thing which national level gun laws and registration would make far more difficult.
And quite common and easy to do thanks to lack of national level regulation and registration
“The other big reason to not want registration, is it has lead to confiscation or otherwise removal in other western democratic countries in recent history”
Some people probably should have their guns confiscated. Gun ownership is a responsibility that few people want to do in a responsible fashion.
Yes, but no. Quoting words out of context is poor journalism. It seems the dealers have taken this decision seriously.
From the release:
Application of this Enforcement Notice (dealers licensed under G.L. c. 140, § 122):
The Guidance will not be applied to future possession, ownership or transfer of Assault weapons
by dealers, provided that the dealer has written evidence that the weapons were transferred to the dealer in the Commonwealth prior to July 20, 2016, and provided further that a transfer made
after July 20, 2016, if any, is made to persons or businesses in states where such weapons are
legal.
Application of this Enforcement Notice (individual gun owners):
The Guidance will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer of an Assault weapon
obtained prior to July 20, 2016.
Keep your reciept.
From the release:
"provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include…
(ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action;"
So, you’ve got that going for you. Also the interchangeability test states the firearm must include two operating components from the list; a magazine port is only one.
I held a FFL during the AWB years. Some of it was onerous to deal with, most was pretty easily circumvented by those who chose to. Mostly it just drove up prices. As to your concerns that all semi-automatic rifles will be outlawed, I don’t see how a Ruger Mini-14 or 10/44 (first that come to mind, but there’s more) fails the test. Neither clones or duplicates any of the banned rifles, or fails the interchangeability test. Aside from accepting high capacity magazines, neither carries any of the additional features to run afoul of being classified as an assault weapon. Can you point me to what I’m missing?
I foresee gun laws will be changing in this country, like it or not. I have no interest in debating the morality, needs, or ideology of this. I’m happy to discuss what’s actually happening if we can abstain from this:[quote=“henry_minsky, post:78, topic:83180”]
The legislature, chock full of Democratic liberals who are to the left of Chairman Mao, has plenty of members who are more than a little uncomfortable with her power grab
[/quote]
If not, please enjoy some
&
There are hundreds of thousands of semi-auto rifles in the state, and the
amount of crime
committed with them is basically zero. The AG’s action punishes hundreds of
thousands of
firearm owners, and does nothing to improve public safety. It does not
affect the criminals at all,
the overwhelming majority of whom are already prohibited from owning
firearms due to prior arrest records.
According to the AG, semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines are
only useful for mass murder, and have NO defensive purpose:
" It’s [an AR-15 style rifle] a weapon of war, originally created for
combat, and designed to kill many people in a short amount of time with
incredible accuracy. It’s in the same category as weapons chosen by killers
in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. These are not weapons of
self-defense. They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no
business being in civilian hands."
However, the MA State Police disagree completely, and had this to say about
so-called “Patrol Rifles” (which are simply
AR15 style semi-automatic rifle)
http://www.mlefiaa.org/files/MPTC_NEWS/Patrol_Rifle_Student_Manual_2010.pdf
"We have found most officers have difficulty hitting the MPTC Q target with
regularity using their service pistol at distances further than the 10 yard
line. Now, factor in the stress level of a life and death encounter with
rapidly evolving circumstances – the actual hit ratio drops even further.
…the most popular patrol rifle round, the 5.56mm NATO (.223 Remington)
will penetrate fewer walls than service pistol rounds or 12 gauge slugs.
The rifle is a superior tool. It allows the officer to either stand off
from the threat or, if the situation requires, advance to the threat with
the confidence that the tool in their hands can deal with almost any
perceived threat. It has the power to deliver lethal terminal ballistics to
the threat. It has a larger magazine capacity than our service pistol or
shotgun. The longer sight radius makes it potentially a more accurate
weapon which lowers the liability to the department.
The Patrol Rifle is a force multiplier. The advantages of the rifle permit
a single officer to effectively deal with multiple adversaries without the
disadvantages of being only armed with a handgun."
In other words, in a stressful situation, when defending oneself,
especially against multiple attackers, you will tend to miss most of your
shots. A handgun is highly inaccurate in that situation, and puts you at a
severe disadvantage.
That is baloney. Based on the number of accidents per years, they are exceedingly responsible. Of course not all of them. But making such an overly broad statement is preposterous.
It is like saying people who drink alcohol can’t do it responsibly. Despite there being tons who end up hurt, dead, or doing something regretful from alcohol, the vast majority of people manage to consume it just fine.
Your response doesn’t address my position at all. I didn’t say anything about the millimeters and I don’t care whether cops like rifles. I didn’t even say “outlaw rifles.”
Have a good evening. 
Are you deliberately omitting the wording from the Attorney General’s letter? It said
Application of this Enforcement Notice (individual gun owners): The
Guidance will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer of an
Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016. The AGO reserves the right
to alter or amend this guidance."
So why do you act like there is any promise whatsoever to not, in the future, prosecute people who
own the now banned firearms? Are we supposed to depend on her good will?
There is so much vagueness in the “guidelines” that any semi auto could qualify. The exception above regarding bolt action was explicitly stated, by the Attorney General’s office, to be an assault weapon if it took an Ar15 magazine. Is this a direct contradiction with the exisitng AWB and the guidance letter? Maybe, nobody can tell at this point because the Attorney General has redefined the way things have worked for the last twenty years, in one broad stroke of "Under this test, a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating
system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially
similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons.
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility…
That may trump her letter of guidance.
How much would have been spent on alcoholic beverages back then? I’m wondering what the actual percentage (and percent change) is.
I would prefer higher income taxes on high income earners rather than higher sales taxes, which tend to unfairly target poor people. But the people who are against sales taxes tend to be the same people against progressive income taxation.
ETA (and percent change)
Way to drop the ball, NRA…Obama still has half a year left as president! Isn’t he supposed to be taking all our guns?
