Assualt weapons

[_RockSlider]

More along what I'm trying to say in this thread.

To be considered an uber true blue Mormon in my day, one had to be in circle of the knowers and be a dedicated preparation'er because the end dates were (still are) know, they just seemed to be off by a year or so every time.

Well if there was a super-uber tbm, because of dooms day'ing, it was me. I have a 12X20 room in the basement with no windows packed top to bottom with everything from tampons to water purifiers. I have a years supply (per an old church pamphlet) for the basics (wheats/grains/water) for 20 people. I have a years worth of the "advanced basics" for 10 people (canned goods).

I have thousands of dollars in survival supplies and gear down in that mess. Hell we prayed for the day. What a sad and embarrassing waste. (but the tons of powder, primers, casings and bullets and reloading presses/dies for all or my gun calibers was a lot of fun).

Why even an ar in my collection? Why my 10mm and 9mm hand guns? Those are the calibers used by the governments of the world. When you kill those bad government guys, you pick up their weapons/ammo (geese don't you guys play Call of Duty?) They have their reasons for using those calibers, and guess what ... they are not the reasons I've been harping on for what makes a superior terrorist attack (on a 50 dollar budget) on helpless civilians.

The reason you want to get an "assault rifle" is for the whole concept of protection from those genocidal governments where one might be found in an Afghanistan type of citizen gorilla warfare against; picking up the common ammo/weapons from the tyrants after ya smoke their nasty asses.

If you ban assault rifles, you are not protecting helpless citizens from terrorist attacks, you are protecting a government gone awry, thus keeping me from being that super-uber TBM end of days nut case (but harmless, violence wise anyway). Of course the whole government, constitution hanging by a thread stuff may or may not ever come to pass (no matter how damn hard we pray for it to be)

If you want a good banning cause --- keep the government buying up all the 22 ammo, and force all Americans to turn in those cop killing body armor piercing mini-14's, and ruger 10-22's. And someday if you are in your office and hear 7 very loud and powerful shots go off, much stronger than any sissy assed ar/ak sound ,,, and you hear the bell ... you know that crazy bastard Chad decided to bring the M1G just for the principle of the whole damn thing!

Oh, and remember that's the time to rush me like in all the news experts are showing us of late (unless of course you see my H&K 10mm in my hand and my 10-22 slung over my shoulder). But if I'm in the bell tower with my brown bear hunting setup, and you are dead before you hear the shot ... don't feel bad, there was not a damn thing you could do.

[_RockSlider]

You know the term "that rings a bell", well that comes from the WW trenches with US troops shooting the M1G's and the enemy waiting to hear the bell ring before poking their heads up and attacking. It is a gas operated (kind of amazing tech for the era) semi-auto, with a unique 8 round clip that rings like a bell when the last bullet is fired and the clip auto-ejects.

Great story (I love the history of idioms), but I'm not sure it's true. Most websites say 'That rings a bell' comes from Pavlov, and its use predates WWII. Could be the troops of WWII were ironically using the expression...

likely true ... seems I've heard something about grave bells as well?

anyway, its a bitching sound, and shoving the new clip in from the top is unique as well.

the sucker eats fingers however, and it hurts

[_AZCaesar]

likely true ... seems I've heard something about grave bells as well?

anyway, its a bitching sound, and shoving the new clip in from the top is unique as well.

the sucker eats fingers however, and it hurts

I think the grave bell one was a "dead ringer". And I have to agree about the M1 ping, it's a great sound.

[Guest]

Kevin

Earlier in the thread you suggested we define "assault rifle" i.e. what should be banned. Instead of listing items, I provided common types of guns enthusiast own.

I also spent a fair amount of time trying to show that the right combination of pistol grips, flash suppressors, semi-automatic, high capacity clips, etc are not what one should fear (in homeland shooting context) and try to ban. It would have no effect.

Ok, one more example and then I'd ask you to qualify the things/guns in my examples which are considering "assault rifles" and why they should be banned.

I own a tactical home defense shotgun. This is hands down the most deadly close quarters weapon that one could own/bring to an office party. There is no 4 dead 6 wounded, there is only 10 dead.

Note how one can pick up a bottom of the line one, brand new for about 400 bucks (my nice one was about 1200 15 years ago).

12 gauge shotgun

Is this a gun that should be banned?

Considered very slow pump action, low capacity, not even a rifle, no pistol grip, no barrel guards, no folding stock, and yet hands down the most dangerous weapon available for indoor attacks. I personally could not choose this one because of the gore ... just little 10-22 holes that hardly bleed for me please. However if you break in my home and threaten my family, the 3" mag, double ought buck loads I keep for it are going to all but cut you in half.



Now please kindly rate the guns I have presented, ignoring anything I've said about them if you desire, and list which ones you would have banned.

Would you take away my freedom/right to own/use my shotgun?
Would you take away my freedom/right to protect my family in my home with said shotgun?
Would you take away my freedom/right to own/use my ruger 10-22?
Would you take away my freedom/right to own/use my M1A?
Would you take away my freedom/right to own/use my 300 win mag?
Would you take away my freedom/right to own/use mini-14?
We already know you would take away my freedom/right to own/use my ar15.

Everything I've listed (and pictured for you to analyze for definition purposes) except the ar15 are often justified as "hunting weapons" 10-22 varmints, shotgun deer/birds, m1a, mini deer, win 300 Elk up to brown bear.

Of course I've noted I don't give a squat about hunting, I use my guns at the range and in the mountains killing paper targets. My freedoms (which you want to take away) do not demand that I own them for hunting. My freedom to own these guns involves my right to a hobby where I love to shoot them, reload for them, compete with them etc.

Now as you select which of these guns you want to be illegal for me to own. Please explain how against my will, forcing me to discard some of my guns (based on some asinine criteria of determining their only purpose is to kill people) are deemed dangerous and encroaching upon your rights, and is not taking freedom/rights away from me. And once you have taken away my rights and guns, please explain exactly how that is going to make things safer for you.

Also I'd like you to know I have never been a member or had any association with the NRA. I would suggest that the large majority of gun owners along the Mormon Corridor (extended Canada to Mexico) are simple country folk like myself. All my time shooting I don't know of any that are members or involved.

Thus don't paint with a wide brush when it comes to gun owners and the NRA, they are not synonymous.

Ok, please list my guns that need to go:

[_RockSlider]

by the way, anyone is welcome to comment, others, please make your lists and explain why.

[_Jersey Girl]

If anyone has been reading the news media lately, it's become clear that there are some serious discussions as to whether assault weapons should be legal or not.

Do any of you feel that the sale of assault weapons should be allowed or banned? Why should they be allowed or why should they be banned?

Personally, I can't see any reason for the average citizen to own an assault weapon.

Thoughts?

Okay, let me take another shot at this one. I'm no gun expert but here goes...

Pros: There are folks who are hobbyists and like to shoot them on shooting ranges.
If ISIS gets into the US (woops! It already is) I want one in my house. Or a lot of them.

Cons: They can kill a relatively large number of people fast.
In the hands of the mentally ill or extremist, they're a threat to all of us.

Which leads me to say that I don't think we can have this discussion without talking about the status of mental healthcare delivery in this country.

I don't mind changes in gun restrictions, but I believe/know/am convinced that we need to do something about mental illness and not just in terms of gun ownership.

In closing, I think we need to place stricter controls on people not the guns that they use. By that I mean, stiff background checks, address mental illness, immigration issues, and that sort of thing.

[_Jersey Girl]

Haven't read all the posts and I might not be right about this, but I think the weapons and ammo used in the San Bernadino mass shootings were already banned and/or restricted. To my knowledge, CA has one of the (if not the) strictest gun laws in the country.

Criminals don't obey gun restrictions or bans.

And nobody replied to this?

[_RockSlider]

In closing, I think we need to place stricter controls on people not the guns that they use. By that I mean, stiff background checks, address mental illness, immigration issues, and that sort of thing.

Bingo! it's an old warn out saying but true none the less ... Gun's don't kill people, People Kill people.

My guns are of no threat to innocent individuals. I will defend myself and my family. If you take away my guns, you have done nothing to improve your safety. If you take away my guns you have taken away my freedom to defend my home in the best way I know how.

Once again, don't trade freedoms for a sense of security/safety. And in Kevin's case, don't trade other peoples rights/freedoms for your own selfish sense of security.

[_subgenius]

Given the US constitutional amendment, any weapon of any sort should be permissible for a citizen to possess.

The idea that one cannot defend oneself is abhorrent to the fundamental structure of our community.

So, yes, any assault weapon should be allowed for all law abiding citizen of the United states

[_MissTish]

Haven't read all the posts and I might not be right about this, but I think the weapons and ammo used in the San Bernadino mass shootings were already banned and/or restricted. To my knowledge, CA has one of the (if not the) strictest gun laws in the country.

Criminals don't obey gun restrictions or bans.

And nobody replied to this?

Hey Jersey Girl, I don't profess to be familiar with CA gun laws, but this is a sample what I've been reading regarding this couple and their weapons

San Bernardino Guns Originally Bought Legally, Later Modified
Changes violated California’s ban on assault weapons

The four weapons used in the San Bernardino mass shooting were purchased more than three years ago and one or more of them were purchased at Turner’s Outdoorsman, a Southern California-based retail chain, according to a law-enforcement official.

The official declined to give details on which of the weapons were purchased at Turner’s or which branch made the sale.

Bill Ortiz, vice president of compliance for Turner’s, said the store cooperates fully when law-enforcement requests information pertaining to purchases. Mr. Ortiz would neither confirm nor deny whether the chain had been contacted by authorities regarding the weapons used in the attack, as per the company’s corporate policy.

The weapons were illegal under California law because they were modified and violated the state’s ban on assault weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said on Thursday.

Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the suspects in the Wednesday shooting that left 14 people dead and 21 wounded, were armed with four guns. They carried two .223-caliber semiautomatic weapons and two 9mm semiautomatic pistols, according to San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan.

The two semiautomatic rifles were versions of the popular AR-15 model, according to San Bernardino officials. One was made by DPMS Inc., and the other by Smith & Wesson.

While they were originally sold legally, with magazine locking devices commonly known as bullet buttons, the rifles were subsequently altered in different ways to enhance them, according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with the ATF.

The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it to fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said.

Those alterations made the weapons unlawful under California’s ban on assault weapons, which bans guns with magazines that can detach for quick reloading.

The state allows the sale and ownership of assault weapons that have fixed magazines.

Ms. Davis said authorities were working to determine who purchased the rifles, and whether they were connected to Mr. Farook. Ms. Davis said one handgun was made by Llama and the other was made by Springfield Armory.

The models of the handguns weren’t specified. California approves the sale and use of certain handguns. Ms. Davis said the handguns were purchased by Mr. Farook.

The purchases of the two rifles and two handguns carried by the two suspects in the shootings all passed the background checks required by federal law, according to Ms. Davis.

Under federal law, all firearms purchases made through federally licensed dealers are subject to a review with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Such a review checks several categories of information, and stops a sale when certain red flags arise, including a felony record or that someone has been involuntarily committed to a mental-health facility.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/san-bernard ... 1449254384

California lawmakers revive gun control ideas after San Bernardino attack

The Mass shooting in San Bernardino has state lawmakers looking again at new gun control legislation for California, while leading advocates for restrictions called Friday for the state to close a loophole that allows detachable ammunition magazines like one used by the killers.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) said he will revisit some proposals that previously stalled, and an assemblyman proposed banning the sale of guns to those on a federal "no-fly" list.

“Now more than ever, we have to be working aggressively with law enforcement and crime prevention experts to better protect our communities,” De León said in a statement Friday. “I’ll be coordinating with the Assembly to deliver a package of proposals to the governor’s desk as soon as possible.”

Authorities investigating the shooting deaths of 14 people in San Bernardino by Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik found 4,500 rounds of ammunition in their Redlands home and 1,400 assault rifle rounds and 200 handgun rounds in their car.

California law prohibits assault rifles with magazines detachable by hand because they could allow for quick reloading.

One bill that failed to win approval by the Legislature in 2013 would have closed a loophole that allows semi-automatic guns to be fitted with a recessed “bullet button” that requires a tool to eject the magazine.

Meredith Davis, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spokeswoman, said that of the five firearms recovered, one of the two semi-automatic rifles had a bullet button.

Nick Wilcox, legislative advocate for the California Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called Friday for the state to ban bullet buttons.

“With the bullet button exception we have now, California does not have any assault weapons ban,” Wilcox said.

A much broader bill vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2013 would have banned semi-automatic rifles with magazines detachable by any means and required owners to register some low-capacity rifles as assault weapons.

In his veto message on SB 374, Brown wrote that he didn’t “believe that this bill’s blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners’ rights.

Former Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said Friday that SB 374, which he authored, “should be reconsidered.”

“The gun lobby has deliberately and consistently violated the intent of the original assault weapon bill,” Steinberg said. “My bill would have closed the most significant loophole.”

Brown noted in 2013 that he had signed AB 48, which closed a loophole on a law that limits magazines to 10 bullets, as well as two bills that restrict the ability of mentally unstable people to buy or possess guns.

"The governor will closely consider any bill that reaches his desk," spokesman Gareth Lacy said Friday.

Californians already must undergo a 10-day waiting period for purchasing firearms, as well as a background check. Also, the state generally bans the sale, purchase or transfer of assault weapons.

Former Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said Friday that SB 374, which he authored, “should be reconsidered.”

“The gun lobby has deliberately and consistently violated the intent of the original assault weapon bill,” Steinberg said. “My bill would have closed the most significant loophole.”

Brown noted in 2013 that he had signed AB 48, which closed a loophole on a law that limits magazines to 10 bullets, as well as two bills that restrict the ability of mentally unstable people to buy or possess guns.

"The governor will closely consider any bill that reaches his desk," spokesman Gareth Lacy said Friday.

Californians already must undergo a 10-day waiting period for purchasing firearms, as well as a background check. Also, the state generally bans the sale, purchase or transfer of assault weapons.

"California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, including bans on military-style assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines," Brown wrote in a veto message for Steinberg’s bill in 2013.

Another bill that may be revived would require background checks on those who buy ammunition to make sure they are not felons disqualified from owning guns.

Last year, the Assembly deadlocked 35-35 on such a bill by De León, while Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed background checks as part of a 2016 ballot measure. Neither of the San Bernardino shooters had a criminal record.

Meanwhile, Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Glendale) said Friday that he would introduce state legislation that would ban the sale of guns and some chemicals to people on a federal government’s anti-terrorist “no-fly” list of people restricted from commercial flights.

“I don’t think someone on a terrorist watch-list should be allowed to purchase any firearms,” Gatto said. Neither shooter in the San Bernardino massacre was on the list, but Gatto said it would help weed out potential misuse of guns.

A similar proposal has bogged down in Congress, as has a proposal to fund research into gun violence prevention.

State Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) said he was considering a bill to have the state fund such research.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol- ... story.html

As far as checks on immigration go, it may have raised a flag on the woman, but the man was born in the US.

I've also read that the man wasn't the original purchaser:

Davis said the agency isn't publicizing where the rifles were sold, and declined to name the person who purchased the rifles citing the ongoing investigation.

Earlier Friday, the Dave Bowdich, the FBI’s assistant director in charge of the Los Angeles Field Office, said the agency has spoken to the person who purchased the rifles. "That person is not under arrest at this point," Bowdich said.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/12/04/560 ... d-in-atta/