Select-fire

[USAFNoDak]

I posted:

(From the Brady Center Website)This means that a semi-automatic fires a little more slowly than an automatic, but not much more slowly. When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic.

Ownership of machine guns has been tightly controlled since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and their manufacture for the civilian market was halted in 1986. However, semi-automatic versions of those same guns are still being produced.

What are the Brady's doing here, TG? How do you argue that they are not using the NFA and FOPA in an attempt to also ban or virtually ban semiautomatic "assault weapons"?


TG responded:

I think the NFA has nothing to do with what they are saying. They are trying to confuse people into thinking that "assault weapons" are machine guns because they fire "almost" as fast. The key element IMO in their appeal is that these guns are as dangerous as machineguns that the public will think of as miniguns or M2s etc.

The NFA has everything to do with what they are saying, which is why they specificially mention it in their statement. They are pointing out how they feel that SA "assault weapons" are ALMOST as dangerous as machine guns. They probably feel that they are. So what? But they could have just left it at that if that's the only point they were trying to make. But wait, there's more!

What the Brady's are implying in their statement is "Gee, we ban machine guns and have tightly regulated them since 1934 and have banned possession of new machine guns since 1986. Since semi automatic 'assault weapons' are almost as dangerous, why shouldn't we ban those as well?"

They specifically mention the NFA and allude to the Hughes ammendment of 1986. First they equate the danger of the two (FA and SA). In that, you are correct and I agree with you. But then, they make the jump to pointing out how machine guns are banned but SA "assault weapons" are not. This is trying to further their agenda to ban SA "assault weapons". They may not ever get it done, but that was never my point. They are attempting to use the ban on machine guns, coupled with them pointing out how SA "assault weapons" are almost as dangerous as machine guns in an attempt to convince the reader that SA "assault weapons" should be banned as well. It's very easy to figure that out just by reading what they say, and having some cursory knowledge of their agenda.

But, as you mentioned, you don't feel that's the case. So be it. I'm willing to bet that many others can see what the Brady's are up to and it includes equating the dangerous nature of SA "assault weapons" with machine guns, which are banned, in the hopes of convincing people to help push for a ban on SA "assault weapons" as well.

After yesterday's shooting in St. Louis, you can bet the Brady's will be back on the circuit pumping for a new "assault weapons" ban. Will they get it? It's doubtful at this time, but political winds can change. We've seen it before.

And let's not forget the bill that Pete Stark and 33 other members of the House of Rep. tried to get enacted which would treat SA "assault weapons" just as machine guns. But there's nothing to see there folks. Move along.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

USAFNoDak,

Just a final couple of questions.

If there were no Hughes Amendment and no NFA, but folk still had the fear of FA that they do today (and thus the same number of law abiding citizens possessed them) would the Bradys still try and ban semi-auto "assault rifles"? Would they be any more successful then than they have been?

I'll go out on a limb and say yes to question one and no to question two is what I believe. I think that takes out the NFA from your equation. Heck if there were no such thing as FA and thus no NFA they would still try to ban them (assault rifles)!

Sure they will bring up that FA is regulated just like they bring up that cars are regulated, dynamite etc. but the driving force to regulate guns is not because we have other regulations but that they (the antis) think they are dangerous.

Anyway, I think I have lost what your original point is. Are you saying that the NFA is causing other gun regulation and therefore bad? If you are then I refer you back to the slippery slope fallacy because that is what it appears to me you are saying. Here is a quote from Eugene's Volokh's "Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope" that I think pertain to what you are saying:

Political momentum: Once the government has passed this gun law it becomes easier to pass other gun laws, including laws like confiscation.

Follow my previous link to see why that is a fallacy.

I think we agree that the Bradys try to scare and misinform the public.

EDIT: After reading some more of your posts I think one of the differences we have is that you (and ironically the antis) do not think there is very much difference between FA and SA. I think there is a big difference and I think the public does too when informed properly and that is why up until now we have been able to beat back the AWBs to date when we are able to show the public the difference. That maybe coloring our arguments, just a guess.

 

[zukiphile]

If there were no Hughes Amendment and no NFA, but folk still had the fear of FA that they do today (and thus the same number of law abiding citizens possessed them) would the Bradys still try and ban semi-auto "assault rifles"?

Emphasis added.

The "and thus" suggests that a severely restricted market would result in as much lawful possession as a very open market. That isn't a reasonable premise.

Additionally, the issue presented is not what "the Bradys [would] still try" to do, but whether an existing near ban serves the rhetoric of other near bans.


While my personal interests do not rest in selective fire items, that the federal government takes such draconian measures against NFA items can only contribute to the sense that there is something wrong with owning them.

The portion of the NFA that I believe is more awful that the selective fire ban is the unnecessary licensing of sound suppressing systems. Guns are loud. Too loud, really. Loud enough to cause hearing loss over time. Yet the same states that will ticket you for not having a muffler on your automobile often have their own laws against having one on your firearm. Is hold ups with suppressed weapons a big problem? I can only guess that we would have laws requiring use of suppressors in populated areas if it weren't for the impediments to ownership that keep them rare.

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

If there were no Hughes Amendment and no NFA, but folk still had the fear of FA that they do today (and thus the same number of law abiding citizens possessed them) would the Bradys still try and ban semi-auto "assault rifles"? Would they be any more successful then than they have been?

Now we are straying into hypotheticals or what ifs. I choose not to go there. My point includes the fact that we do have an NFA and a Hughes Amendment, and those are used by some anti gun groups in attempts to strictly regulate, virtually ban, or completely ban other types of guns.

I'll go out on a limb and say yes to question one and no to question two is what I believe. I think that takes out the NFA from your equation. Heck if there were no such thing as FA and thus no NFA they would still try to ban them (assault rifles)!

If there was no FA and thus no NFA, yes, they would still try to ban semi autos and other types of guns. But that's not the case today. There are FA's, and there is an NFA. The antis, such as the Bradys, use that in their attempts to strictly regulate other types of guns. Their website demonstrates that, as I have shown.

Sure they will bring up that FA is regulated just like they bring up that cars are regulated, dynamite etc. but the driving force to regulate guns is not because we have other regulations but that they (the antis) think they are dangerous.

I don't recall how many times I've agreed with you that the Brady's want to regulate all guns because they believe they are all dangerous. But it's not politically possible for them to ban all guns at this time. They need more justification. So, as their website demonstrates, they point to machine guns and the NFA to help them justify banning SA "assault weapons by comparing, the dangers (falsely in my opinion) between FA and SA".

Anyway, I think I have lost what your original point is. Are you saying that the NFA is causing other gun regulation and therefore bad?

No, what I've been saying all along is that laws such as the NFA are dangerous to our civil rights because they can be used as tools by the anti's to further regulate other types of guns. The Brady's have been doing exactly that with the NFA and the Hughes amendment, in their attempt to ban SA "assault weapons", specifically.

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

After reading some more of your posts I think one of the differences we have is that you (and ironically the antis) do not think there is very much difference between FA and SA. I think there is a big difference and I think the public does too when informed properly and that is why up until now we have been able to beat back the AWBs to date when we are able to show the public the difference.

The only difference between an M16 and an AR15 is that the M16 can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger, the latest versions using 3 round burst to fire three rounds per trigger pull. Other than that, they are identical. They look the same, sound the same, and shoot the same bullet with the same cartridge. Now, if we get into mini guns and belt fed machine guns, there is a lot of difference because to the best of my knowledge, I don't know of any semi auto only belt fed machine guns nor any semi auto mini guns. So, I do note the differences between SA and FA, but with respect to SA "assault weapons" specifically, and their FA counterparts, there is not much difference other than multiple rounds per trigger pull vs. one round only per trigger pull.

 

[44 AMP]

I don't know the Bradys personally.....

So I have no idea what they would do, specifically. But if you take a look at the history of the gun control movement, one can find some good indicators.

They were fine for decades with just the NFA 34. They didn't care about what they today call assault weapons (military style semi autos). Certainly they would have gladly accepted any restriction on any one owning any gun, but the didn't push for any additional restrictions on machine guns, or their semi auto look alikes. For decades, they focused their main effort on handguns, when they focused on a specific type at all.

Their push against handguns was led by the catch phrase "Saturday Night Special", which, of course, they defined to suit themselves. The GCA 68's provisions for banning the import of handguns below a certain arbitrary size criteria (along with other guns for other reasons) was what they got from that campaign. And they got the GCA 68 due to a combination of two main factors, the Kennedy assassinations, (how it was sold to the public) and trade protectionism (how it was sold to many members of Congress).

They didn't give a rat's posterior about making any significant effort to restrict military style semi autos. First, because they had not been used in any spectacular crimes, and were very very seldom used in "ordinary" street crime. Second, they were a relatively small portion of the gun market (in those days), and third, the new that the time was not right so their efforts would be wasted. Public support just was not there in the 60s, or the 70s. They got support for handgun restrictions, "Saturday Night Specials" were crime guns.

Enter the 80s. Drug traffickers use of illegal full auto guns brought them back into focus in the anti gunner's eye, and back on to the radar of the general non shooting public. Hollywood's increased use of machineguns in every conceivable action movie (because they are dramatic), where before machineguns, especially SMGs and actual assault rifles, where they had been rather rare before, outside of war movies, put them back into the eye of the public (and always in the hands of a bad guy or a cop/soldier).

Then the mass shootings began. San Ysidro Mcdonalds (uzi) didn't get much traction, but it did stir the coals. Stockton schoolyard (AK -semi) started flames, as the media focused on the gun used, instead of the dead nut who pulled the trigger. Our newly developed 24hr news coverage kept it going. the mass murder of children is always news, as often and as grizzly as you can report it, or anything connected with it. The Reagan assassination attempt (handgun) brought the Bradys into it personally. Sarah became the mouthpiece for the movement, and a pretty effective one, using her victim status and political/PR savy to build the image of "assault weapons" in to an evil dangerous threat to life, safety and the American family. Willingly aided and abetted by a major portion of the news and entertainment industry, endlessly repeating (usually for free) whatever lies, disinformation, or obfuscation spoken by any anti gun personality, the political movement built up steam.

Copycat Stockton style shootings and others around the country (and media focus on them) added to the affectiveness of gun control arguments, in the uninformed court of public opinion.

Even though he himself was wounded in the attack, Pres Reagan did not call for, or support more gun control laws. But when the Clinton administration took over, that changed.

The antis have been hitting hard on "assault weapons" ever since. The only remotely beneficial side effect this (for us) has been the relaxation of their attack on handgun ownership. Due to that, and more so to the general public realization after Sept 11 that guns in private citizens hands were not the most dangerous thing facing the people of our nation, we have made a lot of progress in the legal protection of people having and using handguns for self defense in recent years. But make no mistake, they haven't given up, on anything. Once they win another restriction on those evil black rifles, etc. they will go back to trying to get rid of those dangerous handguns as their main effort.

The people making up the movement fall into a few general categories, as to their views on guns. Some fear guns, as objects. These people either un/under educated as to what guns really are, or a simply pathological in their worldview. Some have been "victims" of "gun violence", who have focused on the tool used, instead of the person who did the deed. Many are politically motivated, and do not fear guns at all. What they fear is guns in the hands of people they do not control! They don't want any guns in the hands of Joe Sixpack, generaly holding the elitist view that the great unwashed are unable to be trusted with their own safety, or more importantly, the safety of their precious elitist skins!

The Bradys had no problem as part of the White House entourage, being surrounded by Secret Servicemen and women carrying guns, even true machineguns and assault weapons, on a daily basis. The never said a word in public about the danger they were in from the people around them having these weapons. Not a peep!

The most anti gun politician is fine with an armed bodyguard, the police, and the military having all these weapons. But not with you or I having the same, or anything that remotely resembles them.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

No, what I've been saying all along is that laws such as the NFA are dangerous to our civil rights because they can be used as tools by the anti's to further regulate other types of guns.

I understand your point and as I stated before it is part of the slippery slope fallacy to wit:

Political momentum: Once the government has passed this gun law it becomes easier to pass other gun laws, including laws like confiscation.

It does not follow.

They need more justification.

Which they find (as pointed out by 44 AMP above) by the crimes committed with those guns by drug gangs and insane mass shooters that worry the public. THAT is what drives them NOT the NFA or FOPA '86.

Also, the Hughes Amendment was just a poison pill for the FOPA which contained a whole bunch of stuff (like FFLs being able to do gunshows) which the antis did not want. I don't think the antis really cared about FA other than they want them along with everything else banned and it certainly had no bearing on the NFA.

So, I do note the differences between SA and FA, but with respect to SA "assault weapons" specifically, and their FA counterparts, there is not much difference other than multiple rounds per trigger pull vs. one round only per trigger pull.

Which we have disagreed on before but that is a different argument.

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

I understand your point and as I stated before it is part of the slippery slope fallacy to wit:


Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Political momentum: Once the government has passed this gun law it becomes easier to pass other gun laws, including laws like confiscation.

It does not follow.

Remember, we did have an assault weapons ban for 10 years. And polling seems to show that the public still supports a ban on "assault weapons". Thank God the anti's couldn't get enough support in congress to renew it. Lord knows the anti's such as Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, and others tried. Even old "go along to get along" GW Bush said he'd sign an "Assault Weapons" bill if it came to his desk, though he probably knew he was in no danger of having to do so. The congress critters were still wary of how many democrats lost their seats for supporting the AWB in 94 and voting for it. Thus, I don't believe the slippery slope is non existent. We have managed to balance it for now, and we've even made some gains with more CCW states and Heller, though Heller is a luke warm victory in my opinion. We'll see what else it leads to. I'm hoping it leads to a slippery slope in the other direction for a change. We are always on a teeter totter when it comes to political issues. The balance can shift.

Quote:

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
They need more justification.

Which they find (as pointed out by 44 AMP above) by the crimes committed with those guns by drug gangs and insane mass shooters that worry the public. THAT is what drives them NOT the NFA or FOPA '86.

Yes, but they also use the NFA and FOPA 86 as pointed out by me, above, several times. They will use whatever they can to push their agenda. Crime, mass shootings, previous control, the collective rights theory, etc. That doesn't mean they are always successful. I've never claimed they have been 100% successful. However, they have had successes in the past, as in a 10 year AWB and the NFA and the Hughes amendment.

Also, the Hughes Amendment was just a poison pill for the FOPA which contained a whole bunch of stuff (like FFLs being able to do gunshows) which the antis did not want. I don't think the antis really cared about FA other than they want them along with everything else banned and it certainly had no bearing on the NFA.

They may not have cared about FA, but that doesn't stop them from now using the issue in their attempts to ban SA. They will use the "perceived" ban on machine guns if they think it can help them. We've already seen Pete Stark and his merry men, plus the Bradys, do so.

 

[Al Norris]

228 Posts and no one has managed to change anyone elses political stance.

I'm closing it, before we move to another page.

Thanks to everyone that added to this debate.