2 ms·

For example, would you argue that acquiescing to the ban on assault weapons falls under this quote? Yes. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and I be

by Zak 15y ago

For example, would you argue that acquiescing to the ban on assault weapons falls under this quote? Yes. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and I believe that right (reasonably) extends at least to infantry rifles and the like[0]. Aside from being the check of last resort on government power, military-style rifles are the most effective thing available to civilians for home defense and the like. While I will concede that those situations are rare, the use of weapons covered by assault weapons bans in crime is also exceedingly rare; criminals tend to use inexpensive, concealable pistols. [0] Bans on "assault weapons" tend to list features like pistol grips and flash suppressors commonly found on military weapons and rare on target/hunting rifles. Incidentally, the only provision of any assault weapons ban I am aware of that actually affected the lethality of the weapons is the limitation on magazine capacity.

sliverstorm 15y ago
I knew a lot of major gun enthusiasts back in California, and from what they talked about, you are allowed to own just about any gun with pistol grips or whatever you please, so long as you follow a certain set of rules which basically revolve around removal of full-auto and the limitation on magazine capacity you mentioned. You mention military rifles- is now a good time to point out that old stock of the M1 Garand, with full-auto removed, is available to citizens at many gun stores?
- Zak 15y ago
  rules which basically revolve around removal of full-auto That's not quite right. Full-auto means that the gun can shoot more than one shot per pull of the trigger. These have been severely restricted by Federal law since 1934, requiring a $200 tax and registration. New registrations have been banned since 1986, driving prices in to the five-figure range for weapons that would otherwise be worth less than $1000. What does enable you to have all the scary-looking features you want in California is not having a detachable magazine. A detachable magazine does actually have an impact on a gun's combat effectiveness (it makes reloading faster), but there are alternatives to that as well: guns like the SKS and M1 Garand have fixed magazines that can be quickly reloaded from an external clip. So in CA, you can have say... a Mini-14, which doesn't look scary, but is semi-automatic and equipped with a detachable magazine just like the AR-15 (a semi-automatic-only version of the US military's M-16) and just as deadly, or you can have a very military-looking SKS that takes a little bit more practice to reload quickly but is otherwise functionally similar to an AK-47. What, exactly has this law accomplished aside from making legal gun owners learn a bunch of very detailed regulations to ensure they're not committing a felony? The M1 Garand is actually sold to civilians through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, sponsored by the Federal government. They also appear in gun stores on occasion. These guns were never full-auto, and removing full auto doesn't satisfy the ATF as far as the aforementioned registration requirement; that's the reason the CMP doesn't sell the later M14 and M16 rifles to civilians.
khafra 15y ago
> military-style rifles are the most effective thing available to civilians for home defense I'd always heard a large, well-trained dog was more effective against many threats, especially if you're not home or asleep.

by Zak 15y ago

sliverstorm 15y ago

I knew a lot of major gun enthusiasts back in California, and from what they talked about, you are allowed to own just about any gun with pistol grips or whatever you please, so long as you follow a certain set of rules which basically revolve around removal of full-auto and the limitation on magazine capacity you mentioned. You mention military rifles- is now a good time to point out that old stock of the M1 Garand, with full-auto removed, is available to citizens at many gun stores?

Zak 15y ago
rules which basically revolve around removal of full-auto That's not quite right. Full-auto means that the gun can shoot more than one shot per pull of the trigger. These have been severely restricted by Federal law since 1934, requiring a $200 tax and registration. New registrations have been banned since 1986, driving prices in to the five-figure range for weapons that would otherwise be worth less than $1000. What does enable you to have all the scary-looking features you want in California is not having a detachable magazine. A detachable magazine does actually have an impact on a gun's combat effectiveness (it makes reloading faster), but there are alternatives to that as well: guns like the SKS and M1 Garand have fixed magazines that can be quickly reloaded from an external clip. So in CA, you can have say... a Mini-14, which doesn't look scary, but is semi-automatic and equipped with a detachable magazine just like the AR-15 (a semi-automatic-only version of the US military's M-16) and just as deadly, or you can have a very military-looking SKS that takes a little bit more practice to reload quickly but is otherwise functionally similar to an AK-47. What, exactly has this law accomplished aside from making legal gun owners learn a bunch of very detailed regulations to ensure they're not committing a felony? The M1 Garand is actually sold to civilians through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, sponsored by the Federal government. They also appear in gun stores on occasion. These guns were never full-auto, and removing full auto doesn't satisfy the ATF as far as the aforementioned registration requirement; that's the reason the CMP doesn't sell the later M14 and M16 rifles to civilians.

khafra 15y ago

> military-style rifles are the most effective thing available to civilians for home defense I'd always heard a large, well-trained dog was more effective against many threats, especially if you're not home or asleep.