Does the Assault Weapons Ban regulate machine guns?

[FeebMaster]

Sorry about yet another AWB thread. Well, not really. I just was wondering if people knew what they were supporting when they say they support the AWB.

[Worst Username Ever]

1. Assault weapons and machine guns are two different kinds of guns n/t

[rinsd]

2. Shhhhhh....you're going to ruin the poster's experiment (nt)

[sangh0]

6. Not an experiment.. It's a ploy

If the OP has a pointto make, they should just state it, IMO

[rinsd]

8. The OP's point(not mindreading but its not subtle)....

....was to prove that people are unaware of what the AWB covers and doesn't cover.

Though DU has pulled through and shown that they do in fact know the correct answer.

[FeebMaster]

9. So far at least.

I guess all my hard work has paid off and we won't be seeing people whining about machine guns in AWB threads anymore. Hopefully I won't have to start a poll asking if the AWB regulates RPGs next.

Although come to think of it maybe I should have defined machine gun since there was some confusion yesterday about whether submachine guns and assault rifles fell into the machine gun category or if they were in a separate full-auto category.

[tom_paine]

3. Tough to figure, and I have done some (not a ton) of reading on it before

I THINK it doesn't cover machine guns.

Which won't help me keep from looking like a doofus if it turns out it does.

[IronLionZion]

4. hehe, anyone who says yes must be a liberal douche-bag!

:evilgrin: :hi:

j/k

If you're going to support a ban, it's good to know what it bans:

In 1994, the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed. This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:

* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
* A grenade launcher.

Grenade launchers were already illegal and regulated by the ATF as "Destructive Devices". However, most militaries use an item known as a rifle grenade. This grenade attaches to the muzzle of the rifle and is launched by firing a round (or special blank round) into the base of the grenade. Since civilian flash suppressors were identical in diameter to military flash suppressors, they were capable of using this grenade (although possession of such a grenade is illegal and unlikely). For the purposes of this bill, this made these flash suppressors into "grenade launchers".

Firearms manufactured and owned prior to the ban are still legal if you can prove to the ATF that the gun was built as an assault rifle prior to 1994. After 1994, no more assault weapons (as defined above) can be manufactured.
http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/aw94.htm

[MrBenchley]

5. Of course any mention

that assault weapons can be converted pretty easily to automatic weapons is strictly verboten....

As is any mention that more than 70% of voters, our Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidates, most Democratic elected officials, pretty much every liberal organization, and just about every liberal writer or pundit supports the ban on assault weapons...

As is any mention that those opposed to the ban include the Aryan Nation, Tom DeLay, David Duke, Bill Frist and the KKK.

[IronLionZion]

7. automatic weapons have always been illegal

since 1934

And you can get an automatic rifle that looks like this:



That's a Browning Automatic Rifle MkII Safari btw. It would fool most people.

so you're just proving my point. :P

And you forgot Satan and Osama. :crazy:

[NickB79]

17. Could you please detail how you accomplish such a conversion?

All theoretical, of course, because doing so would be highly illegal. Without new, replacement parts specifically designed for fully-automatic weapons (and these parts themselves have already been highly regulated since 1986, I believe), the most you could do is file the sear of the weapon, or cause the sear to jam in some fashion. What would then happen is that the weapon would fire in full-auto, but when you released the trigger it would not stop firing! It would fire until the magazine was empty, yielding results even less impressive than when it was in semi-auto only mode. An AK or AR clone firing 30 rds in 3 seconds is NOT going to be controllable in any reasonable way, meaing the muzzle will wander off-target and make even halfway accurate shooting impossible. This is one of the reasons many militaries implimented 3-rd burst modes on their weapons instead of full-auto modes: firing full-auto the soldier can't keep his/her rifle on target and simply wastes ammo spraying the area. Forcing him/her to fire in bursts increases accuracy.

[Trajan]

10. There are technical definitions that are germain to the legal arguments

Then: there are aspects to these questions that arent placed above board in these discussions .... for instance ...

The so-called 'Assault Weapons' are NOT, by established legal definitions, described as 'Machine Guns' .... Yet: the weapons that are banned under AWB were developed and sold, prior to the AWB, under the regulation of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which didnt ALLOW them to fire multiple rounds under one trigger function .... so the point as to whether 'assault weapons' are 'machine guns' is moot ... they BY LAW cannot be .... We are VERY thankful that those who wrote the NFA that they DID 'ban' machine guns, since otherwise: we would REALLY be in a a world of hurt ...

That being said: what is the difference ? ...

The definition of a 'machine gun' is essentially 'a weapon that (re)loads and fires more than one round while pressing the trigger once' ... CERTAINLY citizens, after the vicious gun crime of the prohibition era needed succor and relief from the deadly effects of those weapons .... They didnt actually ban them: they just made it nearly impossible to be approved to own one ....

Since no one can own a 'machine gun', and since 'assault weapons' ARENT 'machine guns' (because the National Firearm Act of 1934 PROHIBITS Machine gun ownership or sale without approval and registration by the FBI), that means Assault weapons are A-OK .... right ? ...

Ehem ...

Let's return to the definition of a 'Machine Gun', per federal statute: ....

§ 5845. Definitions

For the purpose of this chapter --

-snip-

(b) Machinegun. -- The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

-snip-

ANOTHER reference is further down in the text of the act: ...

Subpart B-Definitions

§ 179.11 Meaning of terms.

When used in this part and in forms prescribed under this part, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. Words in the plural form shall include the singular, and vice versa, and words importing the masculine gender shall include the feminine. The terms "includes" and "including" do not exclude other things not enumerated which are in the same general class or are otherwise within the scope thereof.

Machine gun. Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

-snip-

The ENTIRE definition of a machine gun, turns on the phrase "by a single function of the trigger" ....

I needn't point out to everyone that so called 'semi-automatic' weapons, which include the vast majority of so called 'Assault Weapons' .... and that these weapons ARE reloaded automatically, and these weapons CAN be fired AS FAST as the trigger can be pressed. SO called semi-automatic assault weapons can be fired VERY rapidly and VERY effectively .... so much so, that we might as well ask : WHO gives a shit about the difference between a Machine Gun and an Assault Weapon ??? .... BOTH are extremely deadly: BOTH are dangerous in the public sphere .... BOTH would have been 'regulated' by the authors of the National Firearms Act of 1934 IF so called 'assault weapons' were prevalent in the 20's and 30's .... well they were: they were called MACHINE GUNS ! ....

Now: as a citizen .... as a human being .... as a father and husband, ... as a son, an uncle, a friend, a co worker, and associate of ANY other human being .... DO I really care whether the trigger is pressed once or more than once ? ...

DO I really care if the assholes holding up the bank 'only have assault weapons' ? ... and not machine guns ? ...

Really .. truly .. the distinction is minimal .... I would posit that the deadly force available to the assault weapon's holder today is JUST as deadly and dangerous as that of a machine gun in the 20's and 30's, given the advances in weapons technology and the development of the science of ballistics since then ...

The argument that AW's are NOT 'machine guns' is beside the point ... AW's would CERTAINLY have been included in the 1934 NFA IF they had existed then ... LIKE sawed off shotguns were ... LIKE Silencers were ... There is no place in the public sphere for assault weapons ....

No: ... Assault Weapons ARENT Machine Guns ..... but who cares ? ...

There is no significant difference ....

[FeebMaster]

12. No real difference?

I hate to break it to you, but semi-automatic weapons did exist when the NFA was passed and, in fact, predate the NFA by decades.

Development of the science of ballistics? Many of the most popular cartridges today predate the NFA by twenty or thirty years or more.

[hansberrym]

20. Somehow, I do not think that it was news to anyone.

... that semi-automatic weapons have been around much longer than the NFA.


Seems like someone was "Pretending". Plato would not be amused
with the modern day practioners of Sophism.

[Pepperbelly]

11. why drag gun control into GD anyway?

They usually just move it.

[FeebMaster]

13. If the admin want to move it, they'll move it.

All the best gun threads happen up in GD. No one is forcing you to read it.

[FeebMaster]

14. Kick for the 160 of you who voted in the other AWB poll

but not this one.

Maybe I should have put an "I don't know" option in.

[sendero]

15. The assault weapons ban...

... is just a wedge issue for Republicans to drag needed votes away from Democrats.

As a practical matter, the AWB accomplishes absolutely nothing other than to give Reps an opportunity to call Dems "anti-gun, they want to take away your guns".

[FeebMaster]

16. Gratuitous kick.

For the other 158 of you.

[FeebMaster]

18. Kick.

153 to go.

[FeebMaster]

19. If you aren't voting because you have no idea

please let us know. Sorry, I probably should have made that an option.

[FeebMaster]

21. Alright then

So I guess next time an AWB thread comes up we're not going to see any posts about machine guns being back on the streets when the AWB sunsets or how nobody needs a machine gun or whatever.

[69KV]

22. No. Machine guns are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

But I have mixed feelings about the AWB in any case. I think a good justification could be made in favor of it, on grounds that I don't hear brought up too often: mental health. The phenomenon of people amassing a collection of wicked black military-looking rifles trying to live out Rambo fantasies stoked by the likes of Soldier Of Fortune magazine is...well I'm not going into that. It's a mental health issue. Terms for the phenomenon include "compensation" and "surrogate activities." But I really don't hear that angle brought up all that much except in a few books like Warrior Dreams which is a must read.

On the other hand I generally support the second amendment. My position in general: Laws regulating *who* can legally own and carry firearms and under what circumstances should be loosened, rewritten, maybe even a few of them repealed. But laws regulating *what kinds* of firearms are legal should be tightened and expanded. The AWB is one of the latter, and I really don't have a problem with it on principle.

There is also this issue: Bush wants to re-authorize the AWB this year. If that happens, probably sometime around September, would that help or hurt Kerry at the polls, especially if the 2A purists correctly put the blame on Bush? Something to think about.

[FeebMaster]

23. If the AWB is renewed

it will probably hurt Bush, but not as much as his father's ban hurt him. A lot of Republicans seem to have gotten this idea in their heads that it's OK if a Republican passes some gun control because, by God, whatever the Democrats end up passing if they're elected will be far worse.

Now granted, some Democrats have certainly helped this idea along. The attempt to ban .30-30 ammo and other cartridges as armor piercing while killing the lawsuit preemption bill certainly didn't win the Democrats any gun owner voters. But these Republicans with their Democrats are automatically worse idea seem to be operating under the assumption that if Kerry gets elected he'll just rubber stamp everything Congress sends him like Bush does. I suppose that's possible, but only if the Democrats also control both the House and Senate, which, as far as I know, isn't likely to happen.

Basically, what I see happening, is the Republican base is going to start supporting more and more gun control with each passing election so while the Republican's stance on gun control will remain nominally pro-gun, they will continue to pass more and more gun control as they have in the last few decades. People who still think the Republicans are pro-gun are basically a lost cause, but each election more really pro-gun people are going to abandon the Republican party. Although, frankly, I think it will be fewer with each passing election since most people with any sense already realize the Republicans pass more gun control at the federal level than the Democrats anyway.


Sorry if none of that made sense. I stopped for lunch in the middle of it and sort of lost my train of thought. ;)


on edit: spelling

[69KV]

24. Good analysis

I pretty much agree with what you said about which way the Republican party is going to go on this issue.

I actually except there to be some kind of realignment over this issue. The Repukes will never give up their claim to be pro-gun but they will keep on passing more and more.

They will lose the 2A purists over this. I'm not convinced though that they will ever come over to the Dem side except maybe in special situations. They'll probably cast Libertarian protest votes. One of those special situations though might be 2004. The ABB bandwagon effect. 2A purists don't much care for the Patriot Act and such either. But will they vote Kerry? I have my doubts, no matter what position Kerry stakes out on the gun issue. More likely, Badnarik or another third party.

With the Democrats I expect the emphasis will shift toward "gun safety". It already has done this to some extent. The emphasis is going to be on public safety issues, issues like trigger locks and requiring firearm owners to keep them stored out of reach of children, maybe restricting the availability of saturday night specials and 50 cals, etc. Things I generally support BTW and see no contradiction with the second amendment. But things like national gun registration will gradually disappear from the Dem platform, if they haven't already.

The Repukes on the other hand will start pushing gun control laws which focus on further restricting who can legally own a firearm, and sending people to long prison terms for technical gun violations. They have made a big effort on pushing racist buttons and tough on crime buttons, and will expand this to supporting peculiarly right-wing forms of gun control. It has long been my view that much of the NRA crowd isn't for gun rights, they are only for gun rights for conservative whites.

If we ever have national gun registration in fact, I expect it will come from the Repukes, and the NRA will roll over and let it happen because they are so closely tied to the Repuke leadership.

In sum I think the future debate isn't going to be over pro-gun vs. anti-gun, but a debate where each party disagrees over what *kinds* of gun control they will accept, with both parties staking out a position which supports an individual's right to keep and bear arms but within limits. The NRA congressional ratings are skewed with only selected votes which make Repukes look good and Dems look bad on the issue, but I think if one were to actually look at all the votes on the issue which affect gun rights, for example, including the Patriot Act as an anti-gun vote and including Project Exile as the anti-gun vote it is instead of a pro-gun vote as the NRA does (!!!), both parties would come up equally in the 40-50% range, with the best rating on gun rights probably going to our own Russ Feingold. But don't expect honest ratings from the NRA - I don't trust them.

[FeebMaster]

25. There is no way a 2A purist is going to

vote for Kerry, at least not without Kerry making some sort of speech about seeing the light or something. Without the Democrats coming out strongly in favor of gun rights, most of the 2A purists won't vote for Democrats in the future either other than maybe occasionally at the State level. At best, you can hope they won't decide whoever the Democrats run is a big enough gun grabber to scare them into voting Republican and that they'll vote for the Libertarian or whoever.

I had a poll in GD:C2004 a while back, which I can't seem to find now, that discussed this very issue. Basically, it said something like if Kerry made a speech tomorrow that said he had a change of heart on gun control and wanted to repeal the various Clinton and Bush import bans, the Assault Weapons Ban, and the Reagan civilian machine gun manufacturing ban would you still vote for him. The results showed Kerry could pick up at least a dozen votes even here at DU at the cost of only 3 or 4 who really liked gun control. It's probably back in the archives somewhere.