No one needs 15 rounds

[BraveUlysses]

intensive purposes? really? you know better than that

[rwh11385]

And calling a civilian semi-auto AR-15 an assault rifle is like calling a 1984 3-speed automatic M10-powered 318 the same as an E30 M3 and a touring car champion because they look similar and potentially have some parts that bolt up. And it is about as obvious and cringe worthy as saying it's a mute point or for all intensive purposes... or calling a BMW car a beamer. It highlights that you have no idea what you are talking about and are a sheep to what people tell you to think because you can't be bothered enough to do any research or get an understanding before you judge or campaign for change about something you know nothing about.

[rwh11385]

Your avoidance of the question makes me suspect you aren't ready to back up your statement.

Please explain to me how closing loopholes in a law that already exists will force the creation of a nation-wide gun registry.

Your avoidance of becoming educated about basic concepts of a subject you want to give the impression that you are concerned about leaves you wildly ignorant.

How hard is it to understand? If states allow you to do private party sales between individuals who reside in the same state, the only way to force a background check would be to know if the gun has changed hands without one and the only way to know if a gun changes hands is to know ownership of all the guns - a national gun registry. Of course, these are hard to actually make happen, upset law-abiding citizens (look to CT), and do absolutely nothing to the criminals who trade guns with filed serial numbers and are the actual problem, not Jim Bob selling his hunting rifle to his friend across town and values his freedom and privacy.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Yeah, a SAW/M249 is about as light as a light machine gun gets and is still a pretty heavy piece of gear.

[marshallnoise]

for the most part? Is there a year of manufacture rule or something?

You have to have certain classes of license to own these types of guns. Requires that the government searches around your prostate for any baddie activity.

More over, a fully automatic small arm is stupid on many levels. A light machine gun is a different story, but those aren't exactly easy to carry into a school or government building and not be noticed.

[ParsedOut]

Your avoidance of the question makes me suspect you aren't ready to back up your statement.

Please explain to me how closing loopholes in a law that already exists will force the creation of a nation-wide gun registry.

If I have time today I'll do a simple Google search and give you the links since you obviously can't be bothered to educate yourself on a topic you are soooooooo passionate about.

[ParsedOut]

for the most part? Is there a year of manufacture rule or something?

Pre-NFA act firearms are legal to own but they are old and ridiculously expensive. Modern select fire rifles can be owned by law enforcement only. Also Class 3 firearm dealers can own them. Average Joe Blow cannot.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Why would it require a national registry? We already have background checks, and there's no registry. How would closing loopholes mandate the creation of one?

There *IS* a registry... just not an official one. The FBI is required to dispose of NICS data within a certain amount of time, and but they haven't and/or won't/can't verify that they are.

So creating an official registry is as easy as admitting that they're already creating an unofficial registry... which would be easy under the current administration.

"Closing loopholes" requires that the Federal government regulate private citizens selling private property to each other. That's a Pandora's Box that no one with any sense wants to open.

And of course "closing loopholes" means expanding the unofficial registry.

Can you find any proof that background checks have prevented any gun crimes?

A NICS denial is NOT proof that a crime was prevented. It's not even proof that the individual didn't get a gun. It just means he didn't get that gun from that licensed dealer on that occasion.

However 'assault rifle' is a widely-used and accepted term. I realize that there are negative connotations associated with it, which some people don't like, but the term is nearly universally used and accepted.

"Assault rifle" is an accepted term, but you're using it incorrectly.

"Assault weapon" is as meaningless as "affirmative action". I can assault you with a can of tuna, therefore a can of tuna is an assault weapon.

for the most part? Is there a year of manufacture rule or something?

Yes. National Firearms Act made it illegal for Joe Citizen to own an automatic rifle. Weapons already in private hands at the time were grandfathered and are legal for citizens to own. As such, they command high prices (five figures) when they change hands.

[CorvallisBMW]

More proof of ignorance. Do a bit more research on the subject and you'll understand.

Your avoidance of the question makes me suspect you aren't ready to back up your statement.

Please explain to me how closing loopholes in a law that already exists will force the creation of a nation-wide gun registry.

[Sea Aych]

Widely accepted by those that don't have a clue...an "assault rifle" is by definition a fully automatic rifle which are illegal for normal citizens to own (for the most part).

for the most part? Is there a year of manufacture rule or something?

[ParsedOut]

Why would it require a national registry? We already have background checks, and there's no registry. How would closing loopholes mandate the creation of one?

More proof of ignorance. Do a bit more research on the subject and you'll understand.

You're correct, 'clip' is not a good term to use. I've tried to use 'mag' or 'magazine' in all of my posts but that one was written in a hurry. However 'assault rifle' is a widely-used and accepted term. I realize that there are negative connotations associated with it, which some people don't like, but the term is nearly universally used and accepted.

Widely accepted by those that don't have a clue...an "assault rifle" is by definition a fully automatic rifle which are illegal for normal citizens to own (for the most part).

[CorvallisBMW]

I don't think anyone here has a problem with universal background checks in theory, I certainly don't. However, in order to enforce the closing of the private sale "gun show" loophole and requiring background checks (I also support) it would require a national registry of gun owners and what they own. THAT is the highly contested issue. History has shown that all confiscations start with a registry. The fact that certain politicians have openly said (which means there are many more with the same hidden agenda) don't want Americans to own firearms...period. Not saying YOU'RE saying that, but you can't have the enhanced background checks without a registry. Unless you can think of one that works, by all means share it here and with your representatives.

Why would it require a national registry? We already have background checks, and there's no registry. How would closing loopholes mandate the creation of one?

*edit* For god sakes stop calling them assault rifes and clips. You sound like the uneducated liberal media you're parroting which doesn't help your credibility as a knowledgeable person on the subject.

You're correct, 'clip' is not a good term to use. I've tried to use 'mag' or 'magazine' in all of my posts but that one was written in a hurry. However 'assault rifle' is a widely-used and accepted term. I realize that there are negative connotations associated with it, which some people don't like, but the term is nearly universally used and accepted.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Here's some good background check comedy:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/134705-my-nics-denial-overturned-ish-im-confused.html

Local PD issues erroneous warrant for a traffic infraction based on the officer's failure to verify insurance.
NICS finds there's a warrant
NICS denies the purchase
Guy has to go through a bunch of hoops, but gets NICS denial overturned

Aside from the fact a traffic citation has NOTHING to do with buying guns, this is a goofy system.

[The Dark Side of Will]

However, in order to enforce the closing of the private sale "gun show" loophole and requiring background checks (I also support) it would require a national registry of gun owners and what they own. THAT is the highly contested issue. History has shown that all confiscations start with a registry.

THIS.

Simply recording who gets checked gives the Federal government a list that's very close to a national list of gun owners. The FBI has already drawn attention for retaining that information when they're required by law to dispose of it. Same with the ATF illegally copying FFL documentation.


If the term has a definition at all, an Assault Rifle is a military weapon.
A civilian AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that is functionally no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. Its appearance just happens to scare ignorant hoplophobes.

Don't be part of the terminology problem ;)

[The Dark Side of Will]

"pretty much"? No. You're just accusing me of saying something because you wanted me to say it, so that you could lash back at me.

Did you read what you wrote?

Have you ever googled that yourself? Because all you'll get are a bunch of links to buy a book of the same title. If you've got actual evidence to show me, I'm open to it.

You can lead a horse to water...

When did I ever say this? Did I ever say that people should be prohibited from defending themselves? Because I sure don't remember that. I DID say that people have a right to defend themselves, that I don't want to ban all guns, that I don't want to prevent law-abiding people from owning guns, and that you don't NEED an assault rifle with a 100-mag drum clip to defend yourself. So unless you feel that such as weapon is literally THE ONLY weapon in the world that you could use for self-defense, and that you had a case of temporary amnesia after reading my other posts, you are unashamedly incorrect about my statements.

Quote yourself talking about the rights of people to defend themselves with firearms.

As for your viewpoints
A) You would prefer assault to homicide
B) Bruises heal and things can be replaced
C) Any of the above are preferable to people getting killed

These are viewpoints you've expressed. Putting two and two together sure sounds like you want people to lie back and be defenseless victims because you'd would prefer that over people getting killed with guns

So the NRA is not only quoting, but inflating and misleading an already debunked and completely unscientific study? I guess I'm not surprised.

OTOH...
Brief google: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...y-again-still/

" In response, the Clinton Department of Justice commissioned a study from Doctors Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig. That study concluded that there were 1.46 million DGUs per year."

They'd lie out of their mother's asshole if it would advance their cause of zero gun restrictions period.

The Brady Campaign would do exactly the same thing to achieve their objectives. True believers believe the ends justify the means.

The figures from the Brady campaign are based on actual, recorded instances of people using a weapon to fend off an attacker or assailant. Does that capture 100% of all such instances? No, of course not. Undoubtedly, some cases will go unreported. But if you believe the actual number is 2900% higher, you need to put down the crack pipe.

The Brady Bunch's numbers are based on the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is as under-reported as Keck's 2.5M is over-reported.

What makes DGU's difficult to talk about is that they are unreported BY DEFINITION. Why would someone report a crime that was never committed?

Here's the problem with everything you're saying about me: You're taking my position that some people, such as the mentally ill, convicted criminals, stalkers, domestic abusers, etc, should not be able to own a firearm, and twisting it in to "All guns should be banned and no one should ever have the right to defend themselves." In what universe are those things equatable? The laws I'm advocating for are supported by 90% of the American public and 74% of NRA members. They are in no way extreme, drastic, or infringing.

Are you naive enough to think that "reasonable restrictions" stop with background checks? The "big voices" talking about reasonable restrictions in public have also made their ultimate aims clear in other venues.

Go look up the definition of infringement... Infringements against everyone's 2nd amendment rights have been escalating for decades.

According to your definition of infringement, as long as I can buy a single shot .22 pistol, my rights of gun ownership have not been infringed. This is NOT in line with any legal or lexical definition of "infringement". Even court opinions balance the *significance* of an infringement against *expected* reductions in crime. NO ONE believes that 2nd amendment rights are not being infringed.

And the WaPo is only a tiny bit more credible than the Brady Bunch when it comes to reporting on gun issues.