I have read that, according to some, if you have machine gun parts you can
go to prison for trying to build a machine gun. If that's so, how to they
sell machine gun parts kits?

I'm in process of building an AR-15 and am curious, from what I see, the M16
lower receiver is different than an AR-15 lower receiver. M16 full-auto
parts installed in an AR-15 won't make a machine gun because there is no
hole for the auto-sear and the area is milled different, no room for the
auto sear. So, in an AR-15 receiver, all the full auto parts that you could
fit would let it work normally in safe and semi, but Auto would only let the
hammer follow the bolt forward and you would have to pull the "Charging
handle" to re-cock the hammer. It seems everything except the auto-sear
would work in an AR-15 for safe and semi, selecting full auto would only let
the hammer down without firing.

To me, it seems that jailing someone for having some machine gun part, that
work fine in an AR-15's, is kind of like throwing a man in jail for rape
because he has a penis. Or giving everyone a speeding ticket because their
car is capable of speeding. Crazy!

RogerN

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 23:13:02 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:

I have read that, according to some, if you have machine gun parts you can
go to prison for trying to build a machine gun. If that's so, how to they
sell machine gun parts kits?

I'm in process of building an AR-15 and am curious, from what I see, the M16
lower receiver is different than an AR-15 lower receiver. M16 full-auto
parts installed in an AR-15 won't make a machine gun because there is no
hole for the auto-sear and the area is milled different, no room for the
auto sear. So, in an AR-15 receiver, all the full auto parts that you could
fit would let it work normally in safe and semi, but Auto would only let the
hammer follow the bolt forward and you would have to pull the "Charging
handle" to re-cock the hammer. It seems everything except the auto-sear
would work in an AR-15 for safe and semi, selecting full auto would only let
the hammer down without firing.

To me, it seems that jailing someone for having some machine gun part, that
work fine in an AR-15's, is kind of like throwing a man in jail for rape
because he has a penis. Or giving everyone a speeding ticket because their
car is capable of speeding. Crazy!

RogerN


Welcome to the world of Leftwing Firearms Assault.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

RogerN wrote:
I have read that, according to some, if you have machine gun parts you can
go to prison for trying to build a machine gun. If that's so, how to they
sell machine gun parts kits?

I'm in process of building an AR-15 and am curious, from what I see, the M16
lower receiver is different than an AR-15 lower receiver. M16 full-auto
parts installed in an AR-15 won't make a machine gun because there is no
hole for the auto-sear and the area is milled different, no room for the
auto sear. So, in an AR-15 receiver, all the full auto parts that you could
fit would let it work normally in safe and semi, but Auto would only let the
hammer follow the bolt forward and you would have to pull the "Charging
handle" to re-cock the hammer. It seems everything except the auto-sear
would work in an AR-15 for safe and semi, selecting full auto would only let
the hammer down without firing.

To me, it seems that jailing someone for having some machine gun part, that
work fine in an AR-15's, is kind of like throwing a man in jail for rape
because he has a penis. Or giving everyone a speeding ticket because their
car is capable of speeding. Crazy!

RogerN



Welcome to the common sense side of the gun debate.
Be prepared for all the anti-gun folks to start screaming at you.



--
Steve W.

Imprison all women, because they are equipped to be prostitutes?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/reinwald.asp

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
I have read that, according to some, if you have machine gun parts you can
go to prison for trying to build a machine gun. If that's so, how to they
sell machine gun parts kits?

I'm in process of building an AR-15 and am curious, from what I see, the M16
lower receiver is different than an AR-15 lower receiver. M16 full-auto
parts installed in an AR-15 won't make a machine gun because there is no
hole for the auto-sear and the area is milled different, no room for the
auto sear. So, in an AR-15 receiver, all the full auto parts that you could
fit would let it work normally in safe and semi, but Auto would only let the
hammer follow the bolt forward and you would have to pull the "Charging
handle" to re-cock the hammer. It seems everything except the auto-sear
would work in an AR-15 for safe and semi, selecting full auto would only let
the hammer down without firing.

To me, it seems that jailing someone for having some machine gun part, that
work fine in an AR-15's, is kind of like throwing a man in jail for rape
because he has a penis. Or giving everyone a speeding ticket because their
car is capable of speeding. Crazy!

RogerN

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 04:44:06 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:
snip
According to liberal logic is a farmer has fertilizer and diesel fuel they
are intending to make a bomb. That's just as stupid as claiming that
machine gun/semi-auto parts used in a semi-auto is attempting to make a
machine gun. As long as you aren't trying to modify the semi-auto into
full
auto, you aren't attempting to make a machine gun. As long as you aren't
mixing your ammonium nitrate with the fuel and making a detonator, you
aren't making a bomb.

RogerN

Hey, roger, why would you have M-16 parts in the first place? Are you
planning to make a sculpture out of them?

--
Ed Huntress

Because, thanks to demo-c-rats, some AR-15 parts are out of stock, if
available relatively high $$, some are sold out/back ordered throughout
2013, but original Colt Vietnam era M-16 parts kits are available. All the
parts except the auto sear can be used in an AR-15 receiver to make a
semi-automatic only rifle.

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/c...aspx?a=1143546

The reasoning for the M16 bolt carrier being legal is because it's also used
in some semi-auto AR-15's, so why can't the other semi-auto parts be legally
used in a semi-auto rifle?

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
I have read that, according to some, if you have machine gun parts you can
go to prison for trying to build a machine gun. If that's so, how to they
sell machine gun parts kits?

I'm in process of building an AR-15 and am curious, from what I see, the
M16 lower receiver is different than an AR-15 lower receiver. M16
full-auto parts installed in an AR-15 won't make a machine gun because
there is no hole for the auto-sear and the area is milled different, no
room for the auto sear. So, in an AR-15 receiver, all the full auto parts
that you could fit would let it work normally in safe and semi, but Auto
would only let the hammer follow the bolt forward and you would have to
pull the "Charging handle" to re-cock the hammer. It seems everything
except the auto-sear would work in an AR-15 for safe and semi, selecting
full auto would only let the hammer down without firing.

To me, it seems that jailing someone for having some machine gun part,
that work fine in an AR-15's, is kind of like throwing a man in jail for
rape because he has a penis. Or giving everyone a speeding ticket because
their car is capable of speeding. Crazy!

RogerN


To clarify, it is not any M-16 parts, it is 5 specific parts, mostly the
trigger group and the bolt carrier.

When installed in an AR receiver it can be easily converted to full auto
with a drop in auto sear. At that point it comes under the NFA definition.

Luckily, you are able to adapt the M-16 parts to legal.
http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/AR15-M16Parts/

Personally, I would pitch out and replace the selector lever and bolt
carrier as they would be a pain in the ass to adapt. The rest would involve
grinding the hook off the hammer, welding up the end of the groove in the
trigger and cutting off the projection on the end of the disconnector.

However, Roger, if I were you, I would spend less time trying to scam the
NFA and more time trying to figure out how to get your tools out of your
mother's garage.

Paul K. Dickman

"Paul K. Dickman" wrote in message ...

snip
To me, it seems that jailing someone for having some machine gun part,
that work fine in an AR-15's, is kind of like throwing a man in jail for
rape because he has a penis. Or giving everyone a speeding ticket
because their car is capable of speeding. Crazy!

RogerN


To clarify, it is not any M-16 parts, it is 5 specific parts, mostly the
trigger group and the bolt carrier.

When installed in an AR receiver it can be easily converted to full auto
with a drop in auto sear. At that point it comes under the NFA definition.

Luckily, you are able to adapt the M-16 parts to legal.
http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/AR15-M16Parts/

Personally, I would pitch out and replace the selector lever and bolt
carrier as they would be a pain in the ass to adapt. The rest would involve
grinding the hook off the hammer, welding up the end of the groove in the
trigger and cutting off the projection on the end of the disconnector.

I have an AR-15 lower parts kit, that's the parts I plan to use in the lower
receiver.

The M-16 bolt carrier is supposed to be legal to use in an AR-15. AR-15
bolt carriers are the most difficult to find part now AFAIK.

However, Roger, if I were you, I would spend less time trying to scam the
NFA and more time trying to figure out how to get your tools out of your
mother's garage.

Paul K. Dickman

My machine tools are in my garage at my other house where my mother lives.

Scam the NFA? The M-16 bolt carriers are legal, some AR-15's came with
them, other parts are questionable. The auto-sear is the only part I know
of that has no use in the semi-auto rifle and it doesn't fit an AR-15
receiver according to M-15 versus AR-15 blueprints.

I'm pretty sure it would be easier to make a full auto modification to an
AR-15 than it would be to convert it to an M-16.

For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDWVYYJN_2Q

RogerN

RogerN wrote:

I have read that, according to some, if you have machine gun parts you can
go to prison for trying to build a machine gun. If that's so, how to they
sell machine gun parts kits?

"Constructive intent" or some such. If you have all the parts to
assemble into what would be an NFA firearm and don't have the tax stamp
to go with it you are presumed to have the intent to assemble them into
an illegal firearm. If you say have a set of full auto internals for an
M16 and do not have a firearm to install them into (no AR type
receivers) you are legal since you don't have the complete set of parts
to produce what would be an illegal firearm.

Full auto however is pretty pointless for an individual weapon and just
wastes valuable ammunition. FA is for "crew served" weapons with a
military supply line backing them for an ammo supply.

"Pete C." wrote in message ...


RogerN wrote:

I have read that, according to some, if you have machine gun parts you
can
go to prison for trying to build a machine gun. If that's so, how to
they
sell machine gun parts kits?

"Constructive intent" or some such. If you have all the parts to
assemble into what would be an NFA firearm and don't have the tax stamp
to go with it you are presumed to have the intent to assemble them into
an illegal firearm. If you say have a set of full auto internals for an
M16 and do not have a firearm to install them into (no AR type
receivers) you are legal since you don't have the complete set of parts
to produce what would be an illegal firearm.

http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/~ch...s/zm300-15.JPG

The auto sear, on the left in this picture of an M-16 receiver, won't fit an
AR receiver because the AR receiver is left thick above the selector detent.
Also, the AR receiver doesn't have the pin hole for the auto sear. A person
couldn't assemble the M-16 auto parts in an AR receiver to make a machine
gun unless they milled above the select fire detent and drilled the pin
hole. A person could use them to make a machine gun if they had a M-16
receiver but the AR receiver would require modification.

Full auto however is pretty pointless for an individual weapon and just
wastes valuable ammunition. FA is for "crew served" weapons with a
military supply line backing them for an ammo supply.

Exactly, that's why, other than it's illegal, I don't want to build a
machine gun. I'd build one if it was legal but it would be too expensive to
shoot very much in auto. Currently I have an M16 parts kit but I have no
AR-15 lowers completed yet. I have a lower parts kit for an AR-15 to use in
my lower that I have to machine, I just have to find out if possessing a
complete AR-15 lower, with no full auto parts, makes it illegal to have the
machine gun parts kit.

I bought an M-16 parts kit with the intent to build a legal AR-15. I just
don't want be accused of intention to build a machine gun just because I
have the parts that came in the parts kit. I don't and won't have a
receiver that the parts will fit in. Even if this country came down to a
civil war or revolution, the sound of machine gun fire would make a target
out of the person with the machine gun. They need to make game calls with
the sound of machine gun fire to draw the attention away from the gun
owners!

RogerN

On 3/17/2013 12:46 PM, RogerN wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 04:44:06 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:
snip
According to liberal logic is a farmer has fertilizer and diesel fuel they
are intending to make a bomb. That's just as stupid as claiming that
machine gun/semi-auto parts used in a semi-auto is attempting to make a
machine gun. As long as you aren't trying to modify the semi-auto into
full
auto, you aren't attempting to make a machine gun. As long as you aren't
mixing your ammonium nitrate with the fuel and making a detonator, you
aren't making a bomb.

RogerN

Hey, roger, why would you have M-16 parts in the first place? Are you
planning to make a sculpture out of them?

--
Ed Huntress

Because, thanks to demo-c-rats, some AR-15 parts are out of stock,

The Democrats did it!!! Finally I know who is buying guns like crazy
people! I thought it was the conservative nut jobs who were buying all
the guns and hiding their 25th assault rifle in a PVC tube in the backyard.

Forget guns.

I'm more interested in anti-drone drones.

"Richard" wrote in message
m...

Forget guns.

I'm more interested in anti-drone drones.

Go for it
http://diydrones.com/

Probably be easier to hit ground targets though.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

snip
More fantasy. The more guns in any developed society, the more
murders. Take a look at Switzerland's numbers. They're the worst in
Europe, and they have the most guns.

Of course, they can't hold a candle to us. They only have a fraction
of the number of guns we have, too. We're the modern-times champs.

--
Ed Huntress


RogerN


Romans chapter 1 is about when God abandons the people that abandon him.
That book's about as outdated as tomorrows newspaper.

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their
wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because
God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's
invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly
seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without
excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave
thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts
were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and
exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a
mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to
sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They
exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created
things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women
exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way
the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with
lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and
received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the
knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do
what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of
wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder,
strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,
insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they
disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love,
no mercy. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do
such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things
but also approve of those who practice them.

On 3/18/2013 8:57 PM, RogerN wrote:
"Richard" wrote in message
m...

Forget guns.

I'm more interested in anti-drone drones.

Go for it
http://diydrones.com/

Probably be easier to hit ground targets though.



PIC processors don't have the hoss power.

Parallax Propeller makes a better brain.
http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/...ased-quadrotor

We've come a long way, baby.
When I was trying to get on with the Outrider group we were using an
off the shelf A10 autopilot. Big as a breadbox and a lot heavier.
Sucked lots of trons too.

Now the whole thing fits in an Altoids box.

On 3/18/2013 9:14 PM, Richard wrote:
On 3/18/2013 8:57 PM, RogerN wrote:
"Richard" wrote in message
m...

Forget guns.

I'm more interested in anti-drone drones.

Go for it
http://diydrones.com/

Probably be easier to hit ground targets though.



PIC processors don't have the hoss power.

Parallax Propeller makes a better brain.
http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/...ased-quadrotor

We've come a long way, baby.
When I was trying to get on with the Outrider group we were using an
off the shelf A10 autopilot. Big as a breadbox and a lot heavier.
Sucked lots of trons too.

Now the whole thing fits in an Altoids box.


Sorry. I meant to include the store link.
Off the shelf pieces and parts.

https://store.diydrones.com/

Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive one;
it is man and not materials that counts. - Mao Tse-tung 1938

On Mar 17, 6:09*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Pete C." *wrote in . ...
RogerN wrote:

I have read that, according to some, if you have machine gun parts you
can
go to prison for trying to build a machine gun. *If that's so, how to
they
sell machine gun parts kits?

"Constructive intent" or some such. If you have all the parts to
assemble into what would be an NFA firearm and don't have the tax stamp
to go with it you are presumed to have the intent to assemble them into
an illegal firearm. If you say have a set of full auto internals for an
M16 and do not have a firearm to install them into (no AR type
receivers) you are legal since you don't have the complete set of parts
to produce what would be an illegal firearm.

http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/~ch...s/zm300-15.JPG

The auto sear, on the left in this picture of an M-16 receiver, won't fit an
AR receiver because the AR receiver is left thick above the selector detent.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:00:35 -0500, Richard
wrote:

Forget guns.

I'm more interested in anti-drone drones.



http://www.fpvpilot.com/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.fpvpilot.com/Pages/FPVReadytoFly.aspx

Some outstanding videos from FPV RC aircraft

http://vimeo.com/channels/firstpersonview

http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread....oft-machinegun


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:13:41 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

snip
More fantasy. The more guns in any developed society, the more
murders. Take a look at Switzerland's numbers. They're the worst in
Europe, and they have the most guns.

Of course, they can't hold a candle to us. They only have a fraction
of the number of guns we have, too. We're the modern-times champs.

--
Ed Huntress


RogerN


Romans chapter 1 is about when God abandons the people that abandon him.
That book's about as outdated as tomorrows newspaper.

Don't blame God, Roger. We did this to ourselves, and we're going to
have to undo it by ourselves.

--
Ed Huntress



Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their
wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because
God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's
invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly
seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without
excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave
thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts
were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and
exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a
mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to
sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They
exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created
things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women
exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way
the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with
lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and
received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the
knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do
what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of
wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder,
strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,
insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they
disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love,
no mercy. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do
such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things
but also approve of those who practice them.

On 3/19/2013 1:50 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Don't blame God, Roger. We did this to ourselves, and we're going to
have to undo it by ourselves.


Or not....

"Stanley Schaefer" wrote But if the ATF wants your
ass, you're
cooked with just about any AR type rifle. As mentioned, all they have
to do is get it to fire 2 shots with one trigger pull. It doesn't
have to work after that.

Stan

In that case the SKS I had (sold long ago) would have landed me in jail .
With some brass cased handloads it would double on occasion ... scared hell
out of me and made everybody at the range look at me funny .
--
Snag

On Mar 19, 2:33*am, Ed Huntress wrote:


So what? Assault rifles are despised by more than half of the US
population and they want to ban them (data on request) because they're
the vile weapons used in mass murders by lunatics.

Ed Huntress

Just because more than half of the U.S. population despises assault
rifles and wants to ban them is not a valid argument for banning
assault rifles.

Assault rifles are the sort of rifles that armies use. The sort of
gun that a well regulated militia should have. So banning them goes
against the Constitution. And the rifles are just rifles. There is
nothing vile about them. What is vile is the movies and video games
that show people killing each other.


Dan

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...

Romans chapter 1 is


Toilet paper, same as any other chapter.

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:53:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 19, 2:33*am, Ed Huntress wrote:


So what? Assault rifles are despised by more than half of the US
population and they want to ban them (data on request) because they're
the vile weapons used in mass murders by lunatics.

Ed Huntress

Just because more than half of the U.S. population despises assault
rifles and wants to ban them is not a valid argument for banning
assault rifles.

It's a valid argument to be aware that you're on the losing side of a
political debate, in which more than half of the voters are against
you.


Assault rifles are the sort of rifles that armies use.

Well, with the addition of select-fire, yes. But they're close enough
to attract Rambo wannabees, Walter Mitty Minutemen, and mass-murdering
lunatics. They're the best tools for those jobs, if you include
Bushmaster's argument that they'll "Renew your Man Card."

They're the guns that fulfill the desires of a wide variety of
sociopaths.

The sort of
gun that a well regulated militia should have. So banning them goes
against the Constitution.

You could try that argument, but based on court precedent, I think you
would lose. It would be an even better argument for M-16s, but as the
Court said in Heller:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military
service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second
Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But
as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the
Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable
of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that
they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that
a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would
require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be
useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern
developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory
clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."

So the principle has already been foreclosed. Then you're left with
the question of whether AR-15s are in "common use" for lawful purposes
(another provision of Heller), and you then have the fact that
miltiary-style semiautos defined as "assault rifles" by state statutes
make up only about 1.3% of the guns in circulation. And I doubt if the
Court would overturn state laws that defined high-capacity ARs as
"dangerous weapons" or "destructive devices," as some do now.

As long as you have handguns for home defense, the Court hasn't put
any other limits on federal or state laws -- so far. We'll have to see
if a challenge ever gets to the Court. After more than 20 years for
some states, there hasn't been a successful challenge yet.

And the rifles are just rifles. There is
nothing vile about them.

That's a matter of opinion. I think they're pretty vile, because
they're designed to appeal to some pretty ugly instincts. But your
opinion is your own business.

What is vile is the movies and video games
that show people killing each other.

I don't watch them, myself.

--
Ed Huntress

Richard wrote:

Forget guns.

I'm more interested in anti-drone drones.


No anti-aircraft guns?


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

" wrote:

On Mar 19, 2:33 am, Ed Huntress wrote:


So what? Assault rifles are despised by more than half of the US
population and they want to ban them (data on request) because they're
the vile weapons used in mass murders by lunatics.

Ed Huntress

Just because more than half of the U.S. population despises assault
rifles and wants to ban them is not a valid argument for banning
assault rifles.

Assault rifles are the sort of rifles that armies use. The sort of
gun that a well regulated militia should have. So banning them goes
against the Constitution. And the rifles are just rifles. There is
nothing vile about them. What is vile is the movies and video games
that show people killing each other.


We need to ban liberal editors who play too many word games. AKA:
Kill filed.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:36:08 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


" wrote:

On Mar 19, 2:33 am, Ed Huntress wrote:


So what? Assault rifles are despised by more than half of the US
population and they want to ban them (data on request) because they're
the vile weapons used in mass murders by lunatics.

Ed Huntress

Just because more than half of the U.S. population despises assault
rifles and wants to ban them is not a valid argument for banning
assault rifles.

Assault rifles are the sort of rifles that armies use. The sort of
gun that a well regulated militia should have. So banning them goes
against the Constitution. And the rifles are just rifles. There is
nothing vile about them. What is vile is the movies and video games
that show people killing each other.


We need to ban liberal editors who play too many word games. AKA:
Kill filed.

Ah, but that just leaves you dumber than you already are, Terrell. You
probably don't even know that the Supreme Court precluded the "sort of
rifles that armies use" in the Heller case.

Killfiling keeps you stupid. Look at Gunner, fer chrissake. It's taken
months to catch him up on all he missed. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 19, 12:30*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


It's a valid argument to be aware that you're on the losing side of a
political debate, in which more than half of the voters are against
you.


Get real. It is not a valid argument. It is only a statement of what
peoples opinions are. A valid argument would be why assault rifles
should be banned.



Assault rifles are the sort of rifles *that armies use.

Well, with the addition of select-fire, yes. But they're close enough
to attract Rambo wannabees, Walter Mitty Minutemen, and mass-murdering
lunatics. They're the best tools for those jobs, if you include
Bushmaster's argument that they'll "Renew your Man Card."

They're the guns that fulfill the desires of a wide variety of
sociopaths.

*The sort of
gun that a well regulated militia should have. *So banning them goes
against the Constitution.

You could try that argument, but based on court precedent, I think you
would lose. It would be an even better argument for M-16s, but as the
Court said in Heller:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military
service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second
Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But
as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the
Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable
of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that
they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that
a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would
require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be
useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern
developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory
clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."

So the principle has already been foreclosed. Then you're left with
the question of whether AR-15s are in "common use" for lawful purposes
(another provision of Heller), and you then have the fact that
miltiary-style semiautos defined as "assault rifles" by state statutes
make up only about 1.3% of the guns in circulation. And I doubt if the
Court would overturn state laws that defined high-capacity ARs as
"dangerous weapons" or "destructive devices," as some do now.

As long as you have handguns for home defense, the Court hasn't put
any other limits on federal or state laws -- so far. We'll have to see
if a challenge ever gets to the Court. After more than 20 years for
some states, there hasn't been a successful challenge yet.

Hand guns are what you carry when you do not expect to need a gun.



*And the rifles are just rifles. *There is
nothing vile about them.

That's a matter of opinion. I think they're pretty vile, because
they're designed to appeal to some pretty ugly instincts. But your
opinion is your own business.

Do you really think they are designed to appeal to ugly instincts?
That is really funny. They are designed to be or resemble military
rifles.


What is vile is the movies and video games
that show people killing each other.

I don't watch them, myself.

And I do not have an assault rifle, but what does that have to do with
the price of tea in china? But the facts are that lots of people do
watch them.


Dan
--
Ed Huntress

30 love, Ed.

On 3/19/2013 3:38 PM, wrote:

Get real. It is not a valid argument. It is only a statement of what
peoples opinions are. A valid argument would be why assault rifles
should be banned.


Hand guns are what you carry when you do not expect to need a gun.



And I do not have an assault rifle, but what does that have to do with
the price of tea in china? But the facts are that lots of people do
watch them.


Dan
--


Probably more people watch shoot-em-ups DON'T have a rifle.

Not that that means anything...

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:38:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 19, 12:30*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


It's a valid argument to be aware that you're on the losing side of a
political debate, in which more than half of the voters are against
you.


Get real. It is not a valid argument. It is only a statement of what
peoples opinions are. A valid argument would be why assault rifles
should be banned.

That's not the argument I'm talking about. The meaningful argument is
about whether you have the votes.

In terms of popular votes, you don't. In terms of intimidation of
enough Republican members of the House to block passage, you very well
may.

Whether you want to ban assault rifles is pretty much based on your
ideology. I'm not going to argue with you about that.

The politics of it is going to be interesting. Right now, it looks
like Congress has decided that they'll take the safe course and not
rile the NRA. They have primaries to worry about.

--
Ed Huntress



Assault rifles are the sort of rifles *that armies use.

Well, with the addition of select-fire, yes. But they're close enough
to attract Rambo wannabees, Walter Mitty Minutemen, and mass-murdering
lunatics. They're the best tools for those jobs, if you include
Bushmaster's argument that they'll "Renew your Man Card."

They're the guns that fulfill the desires of a wide variety of
sociopaths.

*The sort of
gun that a well regulated militia should have. *So banning them goes
against the Constitution.

You could try that argument, but based on court precedent, I think you
would lose. It would be an even better argument for M-16s, but as the
Court said in Heller:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military
service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second
Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But
as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the
Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable
of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that
they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that
a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would
require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be
useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern
developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory
clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."

So the principle has already been foreclosed. Then you're left with
the question of whether AR-15s are in "common use" for lawful purposes
(another provision of Heller), and you then have the fact that
miltiary-style semiautos defined as "assault rifles" by state statutes
make up only about 1.3% of the guns in circulation. And I doubt if the
Court would overturn state laws that defined high-capacity ARs as
"dangerous weapons" or "destructive devices," as some do now.

As long as you have handguns for home defense, the Court hasn't put
any other limits on federal or state laws -- so far. We'll have to see
if a challenge ever gets to the Court. After more than 20 years for
some states, there hasn't been a successful challenge yet.

Hand guns are what you carry when you do not expect to need a gun.



*And the rifles are just rifles. *There is
nothing vile about them.

That's a matter of opinion. I think they're pretty vile, because
they're designed to appeal to some pretty ugly instincts. But your
opinion is your own business.

Do you really think they are designed to appeal to ugly instincts?
That is really funny. They are designed to be or resemble military
rifles.


What is vile is the movies and video games
that show people killing each other.

I don't watch them, myself.

And I do not have an assault rifle, but what does that have to do with
the price of tea in china? But the facts are that lots of people do
watch them.


Dan
--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:01:38 -0500, Richard
wrote:



30 love, Ed.

Who cares about what the majority wants, anyway? At the national
level, the Republicans seem to be giving up on the idea.

They're going to try something else. Stand back...

--
Ed Huntress



On 3/19/2013 3:38 PM, wrote:

Get real. It is not a valid argument. It is only a statement of what
peoples opinions are. A valid argument would be why assault rifles
should be banned.


Hand guns are what you carry when you do not expect to need a gun.



And I do not have an assault rifle, but what does that have to do with
the price of tea in china? But the facts are that lots of people do
watch them.


Dan
--


Probably more people watch shoot-em-ups DON'T have a rifle.

Not that that means anything...

On Mar 19, 8:49*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

That's not the argument I'm talking about. The meaningful argument is
about whether you have the votes.


What argument? You either have the votes or don't have the votes.
There is no argument.

Dan

Ed Huntress

And to back up the half and half - Most women would love not to
have a man in their life. They haven't been able to wipe us out
to their desire or lack thereof. Martin

On 3/19/2013 10:53 AM, wrote:
On Mar 19, 2:33 am, Ed Huntress wrote:


So what? Assault rifles are despised by more than half of the US
population and they want to ban them (data on request) because they're
the vile weapons used in mass murders by lunatics.

Ed Huntress

Just because more than half of the U.S. population despises assault
rifles and wants to ban them is not a valid argument for banning
assault rifles.

Assault rifles are the sort of rifles that armies use. The sort of
gun that a well regulated militia should have. So banning them goes
against the Constitution. And the rifles are just rifles. There is
nothing vile about them. What is vile is the movies and video games
that show people killing each other.


Dan

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:16:52 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 19, 8:49*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

That's not the argument I'm talking about. The meaningful argument is
about whether you have the votes.


What argument? You either have the votes or don't have the votes.
There is no argument.

There is until the vote is taken. d8-)

What do you think you're going to settle about ARs, anyway? Some
people think they're just more of the same ol'. Others think they
represent a qualitative change in the culture of civilian gun
ownership.

If you wanted to pin it down to something technical, I'd say it's
because they're the spawn of a new doctrine in military small arms:
more lead downrange, more enemy casualties. Precise aimed fire seems
to have gone the way of snipers and the dodo. The small caliber is
chosen to minimize recoil, for the sake of maintaining high rates of
fire, whether in semi-auto or burst-fire mode.

That doesn't relate to civilian uses of guns in any sensible way.
Whether you accept the guns into the fold of civilian gun culture
depends on whether you accept the concepts they represent.

--
Ed Huntress



Dan

Ed Huntress

On 3/19/2013 11:23 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:16:52 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 19, 8:49 pm, Ed wrote:

That's not the argument I'm talking about. The meaningful argument is
about whether you have the votes.


What argument? You either have the votes or don't have the votes.
There is no argument.

There is until the vote is taken. d8-)


Arguing never changed anyone's mind about anything.
In fact, it probably causes them to sling tighter to their opinions.

If you can sway someone's opinion, they probably didn't have a solid
opinion for you to change in the first place.


I'm pretty sure voting never did either.

On Mar 20, 12:23*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:16:52 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:49*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

That's not the argument I'm talking about. The meaningful argument is
about whether you have the votes.

What argument? *You either have the votes or don't have the votes.
There is no argument.

There is until the vote is taken. d8-)


-
Ed Huntress


Wrong. There is speculation, but no argument. Saying how many people
want to do sometihing is not an argument.

Dan

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:53:33 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

And to back up the half and half - Most women would love not to
have a man in their life. They haven't been able to wipe us out
to their desire or lack thereof. Martin

And, along that line, logic dictates... http://tinyurl.com/c9k2qhh



On 3/19/2013 10:53 AM, wrote:
On Mar 19, 2:33 am, Ed Huntress wrote:


So what? Assault rifles are despised by more than half of the US
population and they want to ban them (data on request) because they're
the vile weapons used in mass murders by lunatics.

Ed Huntress

Just because more than half of the U.S. population despises assault
rifles and wants to ban them is not a valid argument for banning
assault rifles.

Assault rifles are the sort of rifles that armies use. The sort of
gun that a well regulated militia should have. So banning them goes
against the Constitution. And the rifles are just rifles. There is
nothing vile about them. What is vile is the movies and video games
that show people killing each other.

I like seeing that because it takes it out of me. I love seeing some
bad guy get what's coming to him. It's so unlike real life (amidst
CONgresscritters (and Speaking Weasels and other libruls) where the
bad guys are given more rights than the victims.

I just watched Atlas Shrugged and believe that Ayn Rand was absolutely
right. We ARE headed down that very same punkass path.

--
In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.
--Charles de Gaulle

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 06:50:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 20, 12:23*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:16:52 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:49*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

That's not the argument I'm talking about. The meaningful argument is
about whether you have the votes.

What argument? *You either have the votes or don't have the votes.
There is no argument.

There is until the vote is taken. d8-)


-
Ed Huntress


Wrong. There is speculation, but no argument. Saying how many people
want to do sometihing is not an argument.

Go for it, Dan. Whatever satisfies the definitions in your head is
fine with me.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/20/2013 9:01 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

I just watched Atlas Shrugged and believe that Ayn Rand was absolutely
right. We ARE headed down that very same punkass path.


Yep. I posted the same thought a month or two back.
The nay sayers jumped all over me for it.
But that's exactly where we are heading.

Aviation hadn't developed all that far in Rand's day.
Nothing like today.

I wonder if air travel could become so expensive (and cars too)
that rail will end up the only viable transportation?

On Mar 20, 10:47*am, Ed Huntress wrote:

Wrong. *There is speculation, but no argument. *Saying how many people
want to do sometihing is not an argument.

Go for it, Dan. Whatever satisfies the definitions in your head is
fine with me.

--
Ed Huntress

Try thinking.

Dan