I posted:
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:
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.
(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.
Last edited: