National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guards In U S Schools

[F430murci]

I had a condo in DC in 2002-04 and spent a lot of time up there in the late 80s and early 90s after graduating from George Washington University.

What I was trying to allude to in a very politically correct way was that the vast majority of DC violence is and always has been black on black, drug and gang related disputes primarily occurring in certain neighborhoods or areas. Neither the shooter nor the perp would likely ever pass a background check.

I doubt either one of us fit the typical DC gun crime victim profile or would even in be in the neighborhhods where violence was/is prevalant. So . . . the point being is you, I and similarly situated people can buy all the guns we want and it is not going to have any impact on gun crime or homocide rate unless we turn to crack and start going into high risk neighborhoods to buy and sell crack to support our habbits.

The question that you seem to duck is simply whether you oppose all states having the exact same guns laws now in effect in DC?

My answer goes all the way back to page 1 and it's this. You can have all the gun control you want but it still won't stop the criminals from getting illegal weapons from the 300 million guns still out there. DC's high crime rate (even though it has dropped after the gun ban was lifted) just goes to show gun control doesn't really work. The numerous black on black gang killings just goes to show no matter how tough a gun law you put in place, the criminals will still be able to get illegal guns easily anyway. And while the law abiding citizens may not be the majority killed because of gang and drug violence, they are still in danger of getting robbed, mugged, raped, house invaded, you name it! And thus a law abiding citizen should have every right to purchase a legal weapon easily.

So you are against states having laws like DC even though the homicide rate has gone from 500 to 77.

Where do you live? Montanna? You are really out of touch with reality of urban crime and gang issues.

You can be packing your pistol all you want and in a city like Memphis you will still get capped for going into the wring neighborhood. Those guys have feared getting shot since they were 10 or 12 and have have metal detectors in school since grade school. After a while, the fear turns to apathy or rage and you having a gun is no deference. They live in a war zone and we live in lillywhiteputin. Us with something lose will hesitate that spli second and just got shot for having a gun.

I worked on a case once representing property owner that had a rap club in a strip mall. The club had metal detectors and like 20 bouncers that night. There were 8 squad cars in parking lot. A guy who had gotten busted and lost of load of coke was walking toward club in parking lot. The perp walked up, held gun to his head, emptied clip, placed gun on his chest, turned around and just walked away. Thus was with 8 cop cars close by and they never caught dude.

Point being, these guys are not scared of anything and if they want you dead, there is nothing you can do about it. I have seen cases where guy was shot over a chicken wing. Most if the dead guys have guns and are not afraid to use them.

You seem to be ignoring the 300 million guns already out there. What's the point of having draconian gun laws when a criminal, who isn't going to be able to buy a gun legally anyway, can easily buy one illegally? These tough gun laws only prevent law abiding citizens from getting a legal weapon easily. Now you say it's because of the gun laws that DC's murder rate has dropped. I say it's because the gun ban was lifted and citizens are once again able to defend themselves.

Your example of the crazies and the animals out there who aren't afraid of the cops and who would blatantly shoot someone in front of them is the perfect example of why citizens should be able to have guns and defend themselves. I mean if you can't rely on the police to protect you from getting shot then you just have to defend yourself. Tough gun control laws don't stop criminals from getting guns. If they're not afraid of killing someone, you think they care whether they're put in jail for having an illegal firearm? On the opposite side, it just makes it more difficult for a law abiding citizen from getting a weapon legally. And he's definitely not going to buy an illegal weapon for fear of getting arrested.

You keep saying law abiding citizens, but you say your against background checks for purchases from private sellers, no guns sold to felons and mandatory registration of all guns including those sold by private individuals. Be congruent.

Not sure how one can say they only want law abiding citizens to have guns, but oppose those measures I listed unless they are a felon or whack alcoholic that abuses his wife. NRA members in favor of these by 74%.

Right now, you and I can buy AR-15s and then sell it to a felon gang banger without a background check for a profit. Mandatory registration and background checks on private sales would stop that if I could get jail time for selling to felon. It would take time, but it would eventually work.

Edited December 29, 2012 by F430murci

[gl555]

Since when did I ever say I was against background checks? Since when have I said I was against criminals and crazy people not being able to buy guns legally? The problem is even if you do stop these people from buying guns legally, they will just buy them illegally. Tightening up on private sales may work but once again, these criminals can always get one illegally. Gun control doesnt work if you can't control the illegal sale of the 300 million guns already in circulation. Making it harder to buy guns legally only penalises the law abiding citizens who need one.

[F430murci]

Since when did I ever say I was against background checks? Since when have I said I was against criminals and crazy people not being able to buy guns legally? The problem is even if you do stop these people from buying guns legally, they will just buy them illegally. Tightening up on private sales may work but once again, these criminals can always get one illegally. Gun control doesnt work if you can't control the illegal sale of the 300 million guns already in circulation. Making it harder to buy guns legally only penalises the law abiding citizens who need one.

Your evasive, won't answer unambiguous questions or clearly state your position on very straight forward issues so you are just a time waster playing games with zero credibility. Haha, you certainly sucked me in, but no more.

[submaniac]

You keep saying law abiding citizens, but you say your against background checks for purchases from private sellers, no guns sold to felons and mandatory registration of all guns including those sold by private individuals. Be congruent.

...

Right now, you and I can buy AR-15s and then sell it to a felon gang banger without a background check for a profit. Mandatory registration and background checks on private sales would stop that if I could get jail time for selling to felon. It would take time, but it would eventually work.

If there is a problem with private sales, that is a state issue. I give you a case and point example. Under California law, ALL handguns (even used) can only be transferred through a licensed dealer that runs a background check. California does not have any requirements of private sales of used long guns go through a dealer with a background check. Other states, such as Nevada, do not require the sale of any used firearm (handgun or long gun) to go through a dealer with a background check. The issue is one belonging to the states. You should be aware of U.S. v. Lopez (1995 U.S. Sup. Ct.) 514 U.S. 549 that the Federal government does not have general police powers and their sole source of authority is that which is expressly granted by the Constitution (i.e. commerce clause). If California wanted to require background checks on private sales of riles, it has the ability to. The legislature chose not to. Similarly any state can pass more stringent requirements for privates sales of used firearms.

If you're complaining about mandatory background checks and private sales of firearms, then complain to your state legislature. It's up to the States to regulate sales of firearms in their own jurisdiction. It's not really a Federal issue because the Federal government is already pushing it's authority under the commerce clause.

[gl555]

Since when did I ever say I was against background checks? Since when have I said I was against criminals and crazy people not being able to buy guns legally? The problem is even if you do stop these people from buying guns legally, they will just buy them illegally. Tightening up on private sales may work but once again, these criminals can always get one illegally. Gun control doesnt work if you can't control the illegal sale of the 300 million guns already in circulation. Making it harder to buy guns legally only penalises the law abiding citizens who need one.

Your evasive, won't answer unambiguous questions or clearly state your position on very straight forward issues so you are just a time waster playing games with zero credibility. Haha, you certainly sucked me in, but no more.

What's so evasive about my answers? And there's nothing straight forward about this issue. You can call me whatever names you want but you're the one obviously making up statistics you've 'heard or read somewhere' and also purposely misinterpreting the statistics you actuakly do post. Zero credibility? That would be someone who pulls numbers out the air and lies about it.

[endure]

One post containing flames and profanity (double top there!) removed. If you can't be civil be quiet - oh and re-read the forum rules you signed up to please.

[narak86]

Also read some saying the swiss gun laws aren't too dis-similar to the yanks and they have a low murder by gun rate hmmmm. Look at the percentage per capita. Its massive. NO TO GUNS

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect App

[F430murci]

You keep saying law abiding citizens, but you say your against background checks for purchases from private sellers, no guns sold to felons and mandatory registration of all guns including those sold by private individuals. Be congruent.

...

Right now, you and I can buy AR-15s and then sell it to a felon gang banger without a background check for a profit. Mandatory registration and background checks on private sales would stop that if I could get jail time for selling to felon. It would take time, but it would eventually work.

If there is a problem with private sales, that is a state issue. I give you a case and point example. Under California law, ALL handguns (even used) can only be transferred through a licensed dealer that runs a background check. California does not have any requirements of private sales of used long guns go through a dealer with a background check. Other states, such as Nevada, do not require the sale of any used firearm (handgun or long gun) to go through a dealer with a background check. The issue is one belonging to the states. You should be aware of U.S. v. Lopez (1995 U.S. Sup. Ct.) 514 U.S. 549 that the Federal government does not have general police powers and their sole source of authority is that which is expressly granted by the Constitution (i.e. commerce clause). If California wanted to require background checks on private sales of riles, it has the ability to. The legislature chose not to. Similarly any state can pass more stringent requirements for privates sales of used firearms.

If you're complaining about mandatory background checks and private sales of firearms, then complain to your state legislature. It's up to the States to regulate sales of firearms in their own jurisdiction. It's not really a Federal issue because the Federal government is already pushing it's authority under the commerce clause.

I get that, but being a lawyer I understand that Federal prosecution and enforcement is much more effective than local which could be subject to selective enforcement.

Federal regulates class III weapons very well. All assault weapons and high capacity clips need to be banned and transferred under class III for federal regulation. I would be cool with state registration for revolvers, shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles if I believed all states would pass uniform laws and actually enforce them. If not, then a felon can still hop down to a Texas gun show and buy ARs, AKs, and etc. from a private seller fronting for a dealer and take it anywhere he wants.

The only way to stop and start getting things on right track is uniform registration laws and enforcement. Unfortunately, absent federal action, states like Texas, Montana, Kentucky, Miss., Tennessee and etc. will never pass legislation thereby undermining those stares actually trying to do something about the problem.

[cdnvic]

Any posts containing insults will be deleted without further comment, so don't waste your time writing them.

[submaniac]

I get that, but being a lawyer I understand that Federal prosecution and enforcement is much more effective than local which could be subject to selective enforcement.

Yes, the Federal authorities are much better at prosecution. But this is due to the fact that they have more resources, and are limited to what types of cases (i.e. Federal level crimes) that they can handle. The local authorities are already strapped and have less resources because they have to prosecute the DUI's, the domestic violence, the petty shoplifting, the domestic violence, etc. types of cases. The Federal level is more selective as to what crimes they allocate resources to.

Regardless, it is not an issue of the Federal government being better at it or having more resources; it is an issue of jurisdiction under Federalism. Even if the Federal government has more resources, the Federal authorities are Constitutionally limited to what cases and crimes they can handle. As U.S. v. Lopez illustrates, they have no general police powers as that belongs to the states. So to do what you're proposing (Federal level regulation of guns analogous to the Class III NFA) we have to overcome (1) U.S. Constitution 2nd Amendment (2) Supreme Court's D.C. v. Heller case which say that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's rights to firearm for self protection AND, on top of all of that, you also need to overcome U.S. v. Lopez and the Federal cases involving state sovereignty and the limits of Federal governmental police powers.

The U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the lower Federal Courts, are BIG into states sovereignty these days.

Federal regulates class III weapons very well. All assault weapons and high capacity clips need to be banned and transferred under class III for federal regulation. I would be cool with state registration for revolvers, shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles if I believed all states would pass uniform laws and actually enforce them. If not, then a felon can still hop down to a Texas gun show and buy ARs, AKs, and etc. from a private seller fronting for a dealer and take it anywhere he wants.

This argument demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the National Firearms Act (NFA) works. The NFA is simply a taxing scheme. Prosecution for violating the NFA is actually a prosecution for tax evasion. For firearms listed as Class III of the NFA, an owner must pay a $200 tax for transfer.

This differs markedly from U.S. v. Lopez. In Lopez, the congress enacted a law which prohibited possession of any firearm near a school. (There was no tax involved.) The law was held unconstitutional as the United States Congress did not have general police powers, and said general police powers belong to the States, as they were never given to the Federal government by the States in ratifying the U.S. Constitution.

Simply put, the Federal Government and Congress simply don't have that much power to tell the states what weapons that can be sold. It's up to the individual states to decide for themselves which weapons they allow or prohibit.

All that the NFA does is require payment of a $200 tax prior to transfer of ownership. Class III covers such items as Machine Guns, Short Barrelled Rifles (SBR's), silencers, and the catch all "any other weapon" (AOW). None of these items are outright banned for sale to civilians. You just need to fill out the application and pay the $200. That's all.

Even in California, the most leftist socialist state of them all, I can theoretically even own a silenced, short barreled, machine gun. However, California enacted their own laws that any Class III ownership must be approved by the state Dept. of Justice. Hence, it is an issue of the states dictating what weapons may be owned, not the Federal government.

California introduced their own laws limiting "assault rifles" defined as either (1) one of the firearms listed by manufacturer and model name, or (2) a semi-automatic, centerfire rifle that has both detachable magazines and a pistol grip.

The "banning by name" flopped because a manufacturer can just rename the model of their rifle to avoid the list. The banning by feature is a flop, because you can avoid the features provision of the law by having a locking magazine or not having a pistol grip. Below is a picture of my California legal rifle.

It's not an AK-47. It's actually a DCI model NDS-4. So it's not illegal by manufacturer.

What you see between the magazine and the trigger guard is a magazine lock (that funny shaped "L" looking thing), otherwise known as a "bullet button". The magazine does not qualify as "detachable" as I have to use a tool to remove the magazine. In this case, I use a bullet to press a button to release the magazine. So long as I can't release the magazine with my bare hands, it's legal and qualifies as a "non detachable" magazine.

So now, because of what a few nutjobs--who weren't legally allowed to own firearms in the first place--the law abiding citizens are stuck having to resort to using bullets as tools to release a magazine. And the law had no effect whatsoever on the availability of the firearms themselves. The law abiding citizens keep the bullet button on the rifle to remain legal. If a nutjob wants to go on a shooting spree, all he has to do is remove the bullet button with a screw driver. The difference is that the nutjob doesn't care that he's committing a crime by removing the magazine lock.

Below is a picture of the AR-15 rifle.

This is a picture of the Ruger mini-14. It shoots the exact same bullets as the AR, and uses the same magazine as an AR-15.

The difference is one is an "evil assault rifle" and the other is a "legitimate hunting rifle". So you have the guns, shooting the same bullets, that can use the same magazines. What makes you think that if somehow "assault rifles" were banned, the nutjob wouldn't just use a hunting rifle?

l

now here's the same Ruger mini-14 tarted up with an "evil looking stock":

here's an m1 garand in "hunting rifle" configuration:

put a different stock on it, and it's an "evil looking assault rifle"

The point I am trying to get across here is that there is so little difference between what is a hunting/target rifle, and what is an "evil assault rifle". The only way you can get rid of the "assault rifle" is to completely ban ALL semi-automatic rifles, and that's not going to happen. Too many hunters, and too many target shooters.

The only way to stop and start getting things on right track is uniform registration laws and enforcement. Unfortunately, absent federal action, states like Texas, Montana, Kentucky, Miss., Tennessee and etc. will never pass legislation thereby undermining those stares actually trying to do something about the problem.

It's called "democracy". The voters of these states will not put up with more legislation banning their guns. These are states which are BIG into hunting. As illustrated, there is little difference between a hunting rifle and an "evil assault rifle". People who know firearms know that a shooter can be just as dangerous with a hunting rifle as they can be with an "evil assault rifle".

Edited December 30, 2012 by submaniac

[maidu]

It's called "democracy". The voters of these states will not put up with more legislation banning their guns. These are states which are BIG into hunting. As illustrated, there is little difference between a hunting rifle and an "evil assault rifle".

Thanks for the informative post with photos. You last paragraph, above, could prove wrong. Voters may choose more restrictive laws. Admittedly, guns can be modified to fit with (slip in thru the side door) re; regulations. Similarly with hard drugs, there is a cottage industry of so-called 'designer drugs' being shipped in to the US, mostly from India, which are packaged as 'bath salts'. The ingredients change often. There is a section of FDA earmarked specifically to try and decipher the latest drug mix, in order to make specs to ban it.

If states which are now liberal toward gun-ownership (upper mid-west states, etc) have referendums and a majority votes to make their gun laws more like Wash.DC's, then it will be interesting to see the repercussions: Probably increasing modifications and deceptions for guns, plus outright hoarding of guns clandestinely. There is no quick fix. It would be as easy to steer fixated Americans away from gun possession as it would to steer Chinese men away from their hard-on potions made from endangered animal parts. It's a deep-set fixation. My personal compass says, 'if it doesn't cause harm, let it be.' Yet, even tho the majority of American gun owners aren't harming anybody/thing, there wll always be nutzoids out there who will go out of their way to harm people and animals (yes, I'm against sport hunting).

People who know firearms know that a shooter can be just as dangerous with a hunting rifle as they can be with an "evil assault rifle".

.....and they will know that a 4 year old playing with a loaded gun can be just as deadly as Rambo. How many shootings by kids are reported annually? Not just kids on kids, but there's at least one story of a little boy shooting his father dead (pistol left in pick up truck seat, while out driving together).

[F430murci]

Submaniac:

Haha, cool your jets. I never read past about sentence 2 or 3 of any post.

Reread Scalia's opinion in Heller. You are seriously misinterpreting what he said in that opinion . . . Haha, this is a prime example why lay people should never attempt to practice law by representing themselves.

[submaniac]

Submaniac:

Haha, cool your jets. I never read past about sentence 2 or 3 of any post.

Reread Scalia's opinion in Heller. You are seriously misinterpreting what he said in that opinion . . . Haha, this is a prime example why lay people should never attempt to practice law by representing themselves.

You're not the only one on this forum with a law degree and a license to practice...and I actually went to better law schools than you did.

[F430murci]

...."I can make a list, if you'd like."

Don't bother.

Top of the list (of how gun-owners differ from non-gun-owners).

1. They can't take criticism without getting angry or vindictive.

Haha, maybe he's got that warrior gene . . . Pretty prevalent in gun owners and mass murderers . . .

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121093343.htm

Edited December 30, 2012 by F430murci

[maidu]

a clarification about the two senseless gun murders mentioned in an earlier post of mine (the girl at a party and the guy in the elevator) - in Washington DC. They took place in late 1960's which was probably prior to anti-gun legislation getting enacted. ....Back in the Mayor Marion Berry days (boy, he's got a pimpled reputation, but that's another story).

[chuckd]

...."I can make a list, if you'd like."

Don't bother.

Top of the list (of how gun-owners differ from non-gun-owners).

1. They can't take criticism without getting angry or vindictive.

I wasn't angry.

I was just trying to save you the trouble of looking up over 12,000 murders in the US and posting each of them on the forum.

[chuckd]

I get that, but being a lawyer I understand that Federal prosecution and enforcement is much more effective than local which could be subject to selective enforcement.

You claim to be a lawyer and make THIS statement?

On selective enforcement, think New Black Panther Party and Fast and Furious.

[gl555]

...."I can make a list, if you'd like."

Don't bother.

Top of the list (of how gun-owners differ from non-gun-owners).

1. They can't take criticism without getting angry or vindictive.

Haha, maybe he's got that warrior gene . . . Pretty prevalent in gun owners and mass murderers . . .

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121093343.htm

Once again, you put up a useless link to insult and misdirect, rather then trying to argue your point across. I especially like how you avoid the valid points made by submaniac by claiming you never read more then 2 to sentences! Haha well done!

[sunshine51]

Given that a nutter with a gun managed to kill 13 and injure 29 on a US military not so long ago which I assume had one or two armed guards about I am not sure how effective this solution would be. Any self respecting nutter would obviously target an armed guard first you would think.

That "nutter" was in the military himself, a psychologist and a Muslim who had

contacts with that Al Zawlaki (sp??) in Yemen who managed to convince the guy

to carry out the shootings. How the comvincing was accomplished I haven't a clue.

The man who carried out the shootings wasn't some low life Private...he was

a Major. Read up instead of calling names on subjects you obviously know

little about.

[sunshine51]

Who needs armed guards............

Boy Oh Boy...(pun intended)....I bet HK is happy with that sale

of MP-5's!

[Orac]

Given that a nutter with a gun managed to kill 13 and injure 29 on a US military not so long ago which I assume had one or two armed guards about I am not sure how effective this solution would be. Any self respecting nutter would obviously target an armed guard first you would think.

That "nutter" was in the military himself, a psychologist and a Muslim who had

contacts with that Al Zawlaki (sp??) in Yemen who managed to convince the guy

to carry out the shootings. How the comvincing was accomplished I haven't a clue.

The man who carried out the shootings wasn't some low life Private...he was

a Major. Read up instead of calling names on subjects you obviously know

little about.

Whatever his motivation, be it religion, saving the world or protecting some out of date document I would still say he was mentally unstable in some way.

[sunshine51]

• 
  A 35-year-old man was shot to death in
  Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania in September when he took a break from a game
  of dominoes on a second-floor balcony around 11 p.m. and urinated
  over the rail. Unfortunately, an unidentified man was walking
  below. He yelled, "Yo! Yo!" and fired several gunshots, killing the
  urinator. [National Post, 11-20-2012] [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,
  9-19-2012]
  

from News of the Weird

If I didn't have a gun...but only a baseball bat...I would have beaten the pisser to death so there.

[sunshine51]

Given that a nutter with a gun managed to kill 13 and injure 29 on a US military not so long ago which I assume had one or two armed guards about I am not sure how effective this solution would be. Any self respecting nutter would obviously target an armed guard first you would think.

That "nutter" was in the military himself, a psychologist and a Muslim who had

contacts with that Al Zawlaki (sp??) in Yemen who managed to convince the guy

to carry out the shootings. How the comvincing was accomplished I haven't a clue.

The man who carried out the shootings wasn't some low life Private...he was

a Major. Read up instead of calling names on subjects you obviously know

little about.

Whatever his motivation, be it religion, saving the world or protecting some out of date document I would still say he was mentally unstable in some way.

I agree....YES he was mentally unstable to say the least...it's that type of people with "guns"

that give us RESPONSIBLE firearm owners a very bad name...end of statement.

Edited December 30, 2012 by sunshine51

[aussiebebe]

Submanic - that's a highly informative post, I don't know about guns so had no idea there's so little difference between a hunting and assault rifle until I read your post. Your post is great, it explains a lot of questions I had about why bans don't work; it seems really odd to me that a mini-14 can accept AR-15 clips and that NDS-4 - how do manufactures get away with renaming like that? parts on that gun like the stock or receiver don't just resemble AK parts, they are the same aren't they?

[submaniac]

Submanic - that's a highly informative post, I don't know about guns so had no idea there's so little difference between a hunting and assault rifle until I read your post. Your post is great, it explains a lot of questions I had about why bans don't work; it seems really odd to me that a mini-14 can accept AR-15 clips and that NDS-4 - how do manufactures get away with renaming like that? parts on that gun like the stock or receiver don't just resemble AK parts, they are the same aren't they?

That's a very good question. An understanding of what I'm saying, will illustrate why it's not as easy to do away with guns as people on this thread think.

First off, under U.S. Federal law, the only piece of a firearm which is classified as a firearm is the receiver. The receiver is the part of the gun that everything else--the barrel, trigger, magazine, etc. attaches to. it's basically what holds the thing together.

This is the receiver for an ar-15 type rifle:

This is the receiver for my AK type rifle, the DCI NDS-4:

This is the frame/receiver for a 1911

Under Federal law, these are the only parts of the gun which are classified as a firearm, and are the only thing that you have to go through a background check to purchase. Everything else--barrel, trigger, magazine, is not classified as a firearm, and you can buy them mail order without any background check.

I have AR pattern rifles. I have AK pattern. All the ones I have, I built myself from parts. The AK started off as a parts kit that was imported. You can buy one already built, but I liked learning and building so I bought the unassembled kit, and I bought the receiver and I built it myself. The process I used is similar to the one detailed here: http://www.saysuncle...s_an_ak_part_1/

Long story short, the former communist block countries built millions of AK pattern rifles. They needed money and wanted to sell them. The U.S. put up laws preventing foreign rifles from being imported to keep AK's from flooding the streets. The laws were bypassed. The only thing which is a "firearm" is the receiver. Hence U.S. manufactures began building receivers--thus it is a domestic, USA made "firearm". The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, did not allow the import of full rifles. They did allow importers to torch cut the com-block rifle receivers, then import import all other parts of the firearm. The parts are then put onto a U.S. made receiver. If you look at the link above, this is how they are imported.

Virtually all AK pattern rifles are imported into the United States as parts kits. There was a time when it was legal to import a complete rifle. Those rifles are a bit of "collector's items" because they were never cut apart, and entered the U.S. as it left the factory.

There are actually very few "AK-47" rifles in existence and in the United States. They are collector's items that can fetch around $35,000 or so. The AK-47 was the name designated when the rifle was first developed in 1947. The name stuck to all rifles based upon the original design. The thing is, the Soviet Union licensed the AK design to communist countries, and each one made their own variant, and they were not actually called AK-47. For example, my rifle was actually manufactured by Zastava arms in Yugolsavia. It is not actually an AK-47 to begin with but is actually a Zastava M70AB2. The Chinese made version is the Mak-90, etc. The important point is there really were no "AK-47's" produced since the 1960's. My particular rifle was manufactured in 1988. When it came to me in parts, the soldier who had used it had carved his name and other markings into the wooden handguard. This was an actual field issued military rifle, and most likely saw combat in the Serbian wars.

The thing is, if you look at the link I put up there, it really is not that difficult to build a receiver for an AK. All it is, is a bent piece of metal. You can buy a pre-cut piece of flat metal for $14 and home build a receiver for an AK. That link shows you how to do that.

It is completely legal to manufacture your own firearm for your own personal use. They don't have to be registered with the Federal government. I bought mine already pre-built so that it would be registered with the BATF, so if there was a ban on future sales, mine would be in the books. The problem is if there is a ban of assault rifles, anyone can build their own rifle. Since it is not required to be on the books, it would be very difficult to prosecute since no one could prove whether it was homebuilt before the ban or after the ban, as there are no serial numbers on it.

On top of that, all a receiver does is hold in the other parts. The receiver itself, is not 'load bearing'. People can and have built AR receivers from plastic cutting boards, and they will fire. They're not pretty, but they will work:

And if you're wondering why the military rifles are so popular, it really isn't a bunch of guys trying to play Rambo. It's because the rifles are military surplus, and the parts and ammunition are cheaper. (Well it used to be; after the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, the military didn't have surplus and the ammo prices went up. After the wars are done, the prices will probably drop again.) The U.S. government purchases ammo for their military rifles. They make surplus. They sell them to the public. The rounds are cheaper. All the calibers the government uses, end up being popular rounds for civilian use. The 1903 springfield, the M1 garand, 30-06 caliber. 30-06 is one of the most popular hunting rounds in the USA.

The AR is popular because you can (could at least) buy milsurp ammo. The AK, the ammo is military surplus from the former soviet block countries, and it is cheaper than what can be manufactured in the USA.

And if you are wondering how other companies can make an AR under different names: it's because the AR design has been in use since the 1960's. The design is so old it becomes "open source" so anyone can make it. The same thing happened with the Colt 1911. Everybody started copying the design after it no longer was patent protected. Same thing with the AR. So hence there are so many manufacturers making it because it is not protected. That's why you can't ban it by manufacturer and model number. The design of the receiver is so simple that it is easily copied, such that some guy could make one out of a plastic cutting board.

People's calls to "ban" the rifles just won't work. There are already millions of them. Even if there was a ban, people (including me, and at best I am a hobbyist and not a serious gunsmith) know how to make one.

P.S.

Per PM from sunshine 51, the picture I put up on previous posts, the rifle identified as an m1 garand, is actually the m1 carbine. I had problems linking the picture of the Garand, so I used the m1 carbine instead. But you get the point. There's very little separating a hunting rifle from an "assault rifle".

Edited December 30, 2012 by submaniac

[Scott]

An off-topic exchange and replies has been deleted. Please stay on topic.

[Habs]

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. There's 300 million guns in circulation in the United States. There are 150 million of us gun owners in the United States. "Ridding" the U.S. of guns is simply not going to happen. There's too many of us.

Some of us happen to support the U.S. 2nd Amendment.

I love how people who are not from the United States, don't live in the United States, and have no connection with the United States like to spout their opinions of what United States laws should be. If you do not like the laws of the United States then don't come to the United States.

Do you think all those kids had a choice about your 2nd Amendment, I think not and by the way I am connected to the US by a border It's called Canada.....

[beechguy]

Submaniac:

Haha, cool your jets. I never read past about sentence 2 or 3 of any post.

Reread Scalia's opinion in Heller. You are seriously misinterpreting what he said in that opinion . . . Haha, this is a prime example why lay people should never attempt to practice law by representing themselves.

You're not the only one on this forum with a law degree and a license to practice...and I actually went to better law schools than you did.

Thanks for the post showing the weapons, it made some points that I wanted to put out there. Of course it will be over the head of many that refuse to look at things logically.

[Scott]

An off-topic discussion about another country has been deleted. Because someone gives an example does not mean that the responses can be about the example only. STICK TO THE TOPIC, please.

[farang000999]

i think the crazies do it because of all the media exposure the other crazies get. why dont crazies in Thailand do it? there are a ton of guns here.