|
If you really concerned about conversion of semi-auto to full-auto conversions, why don't you do your research and learn exactly how it is accomplished. I own an AR15 style rifle (post ban), and I can tell you that the assault weapons ban does absolutely nothing to prevent these conversions. Instead of worrying about passing a law that bans cosmetic features, how about a law that would require bolt carriers that won't trip an autosear? Colt does this voluntarily, as do almost all manufacturers. How about requiring a high shelf in the lower receiver, preventing the installation of lightning links and drop-in autosears? (All but one or two manufacturers do this now). How about holes in the lower receiver that will not allow the installation of M16 fire control parts? (Colt does this now).
I personally don't support these ideas, because I prefer to have standard size parts, but at least a law to that effect would actually do something to prevent full-auto conversions (which are rarely done anyway).
Instead, you focus your energy on "sticking it" to "gun crazies" with ineffective, symbolic laws.
The ironic thing about the assault weapons ban is that there's nothing preventing anybody from buying pre-ban parts and assembling a post-ban gun into a pre-ban configuration. Even then, there's nothing more deadly about pre-ban configured guns. For example, collapsible stocks are illegal, yet it's perfectly legal to completely remove the buttstock, provided the rifle is at least 26". Fixed stocks as short as 7" are available and legal for installation on post ban guns. These stocks are exactly the same length as a fully collapsed tele-stock.
The grenade launcher portion of the ban refers to the outside diameter of the compensator on the end of the barrel, 22mm. Any muzzle device with this dimension is a defacto grenade launcher because a rifle grenade could theoretically be fired. This is laughable because rifle grenades are not available to civilians. These rifle grenades are not in common use even by any of the military forces of the world. Our soldiers don't even use this type of grenade, they use m203's, a 40mm launcher that mounts under the barrel. A 37mm version of this launcher is available to the civilian market, and legal to mount on a post ban rifle. (only flares are available for these.)
The whole bayonet lug thing is a joke. If bayonets are so deadly, why are they perfectly legal to mount on a pump shotgun or any other gun, as long as they don't fall under the definition of "assault weapons".
If flash supressors are so deadly, why can they be legally mounted to a bolt action rifle or any handgun, except those handguns defined as "assault weapons"? Besides, like I said before, if someone were so inclined, they could just buy a flash supressor and install it without reguard for the law. The AWB does nothing to physically prevent this. Flash supressors are available for $5 on scores of web sites. Muzzle flash is quite visible even with a flash supressor anyway.
Pistol grips do nothing to make any firearm more deadly. Non-pistol gripped guns are actually easier to fire from the hip position than pistol-gripped guns. On the AR15, the bolt and bolt carrier ride inside of a tube in the buttstock. This requires a buttstock that is straight in line with the bore. With this configuration, a pistol grip is necessary for the shooter to reach the trigger with his/her hand. Not that it matters anyway, because spray-firing from the hip is a myth. Like I said before, there's nothing physically preventing anybody from simply installing a pistol grip without reguard for the law. They're available and legal to buy.
Threaded barrels are not intended for the installation of silencers, which are already strictly regulated. On the AR15 rifle they're threaded so that the muzzle device can be removed, which is the first step toward disassembly of the barrel components (fromt sight base, delta ring, weld spring, barrel nut, snap ring). Besides, if someone really wanted to make an illegal silencer, it could simply be attached with set screws or compression fittings.
Standard (high) capacity magazines continue to be readily available even after ten years. They're perfectly legal to own and use in post-ban firearms. Even if the current supply runs out, there's a provision in the ban that allows damaged magazine bodies to be replaced with readily available replacement bodies. Anybody could simply buy a replacement body, and then buy the internal parts to make a new, high capacity magazine. This would be illegal, but there are no markings on these replacement bodies that would indicate that it was sold as a replacement. These newly manufactured illegal magazines would be indestinguishable from legal pre-ban magazines.
There's really no reason to be worried about a flood of uber-deadly weapons on the streets, because post-ban weapons are functionally identical to their pre-ban counterparts. The bottom line is that the assault weapons ban does nothing but give people a false sense of security.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
