By ERIC BARTON
Last night, NBC News aired this story about the recent gun violence in Chicago and offered up this quote from Police Superintendent Jody Weiss:
"Why in the world do we allow citizens to own assault rifles?"
Funny timing, Jody. Just yesterday, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signed a bill into law that allows Kansas residents to buy those very weapons.
Sebelius' signature on Senate Bill 46 allows Kansans to buy silencers, sawed-off shotguns and
fully automatic machine guns. Supporters of the bill argued that the 1933 Kansas ban on such guns kept collectors from these prized items. Sebelius, according to the Associated Press, didn't elaborate on her reasoning for singing the bill, and a spokeswoman didn't immediately return a call from The Pitch this morning.The bill actually began its life as a proposal to increase the penalty for those who scrape serial numbers off guns, according to this article in the Fort Scott Tribune. Thanks to the miracle of the legislative amendment process, the law now allows firearms collectors access to things so often wanted in target practice, such as silencers and fully automatic AK-47s.
Showing 1-50 of 51
On the silencer, those are used in attempt to respect our neighbors (you know the anti-gun advocats that don't know how to repect the rights of others)
Gun owners should be required to bear a mark.
That way we will know who to, and not to defend, and the criminals can more readily idendify victims.
I will respect your right to helplessly watch as your loved ones fall victim of a violent crime right in front of you , and you will respect my right not too.
If someone comes into my home (or multiple someones) and I perceive them to be a threat, it is my duty to protect my family. I don't care if it takes a 9mm Beretta or if I have to use a 7.62mm M4A1, I will protect them. This bill is doing that. It is allowing me to do just that.
Legally owened fully automatic guns never get used in crime. 99.99 percent of the time the full auto guns used in crimes and violence are illegally converted!
For the attention of the Author can I have permission to use some of the facts from your above post if credit for the post is given in a link back to your website?
First off, the Second Amendment does not grant ANY rights, it PROTECTS them. Secondly, The Tenth Amendment RESTRICTS the GOVERNMENT from TAKING any rights PROTECTED...
Also, NFA goodies are fun. Lighting up my back yard with 30 rounds over a few seconds is incredibly fun. Irresponsible? Immature? Nope, I'm on acres of land with a well built backstop. The closest to completely silent I have ever heard a gun is a Bolt Action (cuts down on action noise, something a "silencer" does not do for other styles of weapon), Subsonic ammo (a "Silencer" does not and can not stop physics, and while that bullet is supersonic, it will make a crack all the way to the target, but guess what, that SLOWER bullet has less damaging ENERGY), and "Silencer". But guess what, would you call a bolt action (manually load EACH round then pull the trigger) hunting rifle with SLOW ammunition an "assault" rifle? Or would you say it is a sniper rifle. Oh, another question, would you say I need to shoot a gun that is wildly inaccurate because hunting with a "sniper rifle" is just "overkill"? Sorry, I need to know that animal is not going to suffer, that I'm going to put meat on my table, and that I won't end up injuring something OTHER than what I'm shooting at.
Bottom line is, a "silencer" only CUTS DOWN on one of 3 aspects of noise. And, with all 3 aspects covered, you have slowed your rate of fire and lowered the damage you can do per shot. NOT desirable in a crime-committing mindset.
So I offer two challenges.
ONE: Cut your muffler off your car if you are opposed to silencers (you wouldn't want the Police to NOT hear which direction your car went if it got stolen and used for crime!).
TWO: Take the spare tire out of your car if you are opposed to concealed/open carry of weapons (Hey, you won't need it anyway right? You not going to get a flat today... Because when seconds count, Police are only minutes away.).
Sorry for the long post, just needed to get that out.
I just recently did a report on silencers and now I have to give a speech. I need some ideas or hint as to what i could say. I am only in 8th grades so I need to be able to understand.
can reply here or at robertson9240@gmail.com .
I need this by 3/15/2010 monday.
These guns already exist and aren't going away. These ridiculous laws just make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get the best possible means of defending themselves. This article makes it sound like they are handing out full auto ak's at candy stores, in reality obtaining full auto legally involves setting up a trust, buying a pre '86 receiver which will cost at a minimum $10,000. No thug is going to jump through these hoops just to get full auto and no collector would let one of these guns/investments go on the streets.
People advocating gun laws need to step out of the movie theater and hit a shooting range to see what reality is like. 95% would enjoy it I guarantee.
"Why in the world do we allow citizens to own assault rifles?"
In honor of every service person who has sacrificed for that which was set forth in America in 1776. I think that includes FBI personnel. Some "unseen / sleeper cells" use to where white sheets about the facial area here in America to conceal their indentities (cowards). They could or could have been consorting with Bin Laden. Know what I mean? Lots of U.S. Soilders have died.
I used to work as a federal agent in the DEA, I've seen may crimes and crime scenes, been involved in many busts both drug-related and not. Silencers are not the sign of a criminal or criminal activity. Silencers have been painted as a "BAD" thing used only by the evil elements in society. This is unfair and incorrect. silencers have a life of good as well and not just within the LE community. I personally use one as do many of my friends that are not LEO's, they prtect the hearing of those that are shooting and those around that might be shooting as well as those that are observers. They're just a smart move if you shot alot!
As for "sawed off" shotguts. If they are below the 18" minimum, then they are definitely illegal and there's no more talk of those. As for the "tactical" shotgun variant, those are in fact legal and so they should be! They are excellent CQB weapons and are one of the best home defense weapons a person can have as they spread a great many shots into the air and that certain increases the home owners chances of hitting the home invader/intruder when the owner might nervous and might not otherwise have their best aim about them.
As for the so-called "assult weapons", these are really unfairly named due only to the fact of how they're made in design and definitely NOT due to the fact that they are fully automatic AKA "machine guns"! The commonly labelled "assult weapon" is nothing more than a .223, 5.56, 7.62, or one of the other newly forthcoming calibers out there wrapped in a flashy skin of metal and polymers. It's nothing more than your standard rifle, just pumped up a bit.
As for the "evil" machine guns now, those are Class 3 firearms and thusly under much more legal terms than I really care to go into here. I'll just briefly say that anyone wishing to purchase a Class 3 firearm of any type will be filling out ALOT of paperwork and paying a VERY hefty price for said firearm. There is a price for the pleasure of owning a Class 3 weapon, they definitely ARE NOT cheap! Personally, I bought a Barret M107, not to be confused with the look-alike M82A1 version. I paid around $10,000 for mine and it's not even a Class 3 weapon!
All I have to say is that I can't believe I just had to go over half way through that thread to find any mention of the original intent of the 2nd ammendment. There is no such thing as a good government that is not afraid of their people. Hence our right to maintain militias. THAT is the big picture. And I have to throw in on the "voice of reason" person too . . .nevermind, you ARE hopeless.
Wake up MORON!
The fact that assault weapons are designed to kill people is basic common knowledge. The fact is the good guys are going to do what's right when it comes to protecting their home, family, church congregation, and country against the bad guys. You must be very ignorant to believe that the bad guys don't have better and more powerful weapons than our very own law enforcement officers that are sworn to potect us "good guys". If you've already forgotten about 9/11, we have a serious threat against our existance as a free nation. We have terrorist training camps within our own country that are recruiting directly from our prisons system. Ironically, our law enforcement's hands are tied to do anything to stop them because they're on private property and our own laws protect them from being raided. If we cannot legally stop their advancement, then YOU must be responsible and defend the ones you love and our 2nd Admendmet makes it LEGALLY OKAY to own and bear (wear) arms.
So quit squabbing over thing that are right and just and get a life!
If I saw someone trying to rob or hurt you and your family, even though you don't believe we should have the right to have guns, I will still do my best to protect even you.
Remember, someone else has already declared a Holy War against us. Our problems are only just beginning.
So for all of you who are proponents of a so called "assault rifle ban," please, enlighten me as to how many crimes have been committed with registered weapons owned by law abiding citizens.
have some of you forgotten our amendment rights. I believe that it should be legal for any good law abiding American citizen to purchase and own any amount or caliber firearm that allows them to feel that they can safely protect their loved ones. The majority of the people who do/would use firearms with the intention to kill do not purchase firearms legally now and they sure won't start if more gun laws are passed. They will continue to buy and sell arms illegally no matter what so all these laws are doing is depriving good American citizens of their right to feel safe and protect their families. I urge you to re-evaluate your opinions and not limit Americas rights before they are lost.
people who think they need guns like these should be shot with one right in the gut to show them how bad it hurts
This is a GRINGO CULTURE, that it says "if your neighbor had a gun, you will need another bigger one", this is why mexico have problems with war drugs, besides, US is the NUMBER ONE DRUG CONSUMER.
I would agree with an assault weapons ban if there were mostly law abiding citizens in the country -- a country that didn't have a huge drug problem with crazy criminals who don't obey gun laws and are hopped up on those drugs. WE DON'T LIVE IN THAT COUNTRY. And if we did...NO NEED TO BAN ANY GUNS.
A gun ban will NOT solve the gun problem because we have a huge narcotics crime problem in this country. You solve the drug problem, then you most likely solve the gun problem because most of the time guns are used irresponsibly or for murderous intent, drugs are usually involved -- whether it be because the gunner was on drugs, selling them, stealing them, or making a "business" murder. That's where many of the gun related crimes come from...DRUGS. Not good people who own guns. I don't need to be told how to conduct myself, and I don't need some control freak asswipe or some scared punk ass flower child telling me what I DO need, or don't need.
I guarantee that people who are anti-gun are ALWAYS either one of two things, and usually both at the same time -- naturally afraid of guns...and have NEVER been assaulted by someone with a gun. If you aren't afraid of guns, then you won't be hustled by joe-politician into supporting such a bullshit law...If you've been shot at before or had a gun put to you (I HAVE)...You'd wish you had a gun and wouldn't support such bullshit gun laws.
I believe in non-violence when it works. When it doesn't -- if a gun is involved -- I'm using my gun to defend myself against that gun toting assailant.
Dr. King was a genius. His philosophy worked as a tool against social oppression and civil rights violations. His approach was a statement for social change. BUT...You best believe if he was at home with his family and some asshole(s) broke in on them and tried to hurt his family, he would not be a man if he didn't try to defend them in any way possible.
The odds of that happening are very slim...But so are the odds of you getting in a major car accident that causes you to fly through the windshield...But you still wear a seat belt. Cars kill people at the same rate guns do, in the same irresponsible ways. Don't play the odds when it comes to your safety.
I'd like to thank and commend the posters who listen, read carefully, and get the facts before "spouting off" on some pansy coated fear factored rant about what people don't "need". Guns can be a terrible tool. They can also be a valuable tool. Some gangbanger or crazed maniac makes a gun a terrible thing. The person defending their family in a home invasion or the SWAT officer who rescues your ass from a hostage situation makes the gun a wonderful thing. This is just common freakin sense. Many people, especially afraid people (the kind that control freaks love), cannot see this. They will not see it. Fear blinds them. In the movie Casino, DeNiro tells an incompetent employee that if he didn't know he was being scammed on three consecutive slot reels, then he was either too dumb to keep the job, or he was IN ON IT. Either way, your fired. So, if you refuse to be reasonable in the gun argument and acknowledge that there are many responsible gun owners out there, than you are too afraid to see the truth, or you are purposely SQUELCHING IT for your own agenda. Either way, you will be fired upon.
It never ceases to amaze me the ignorance of the population.
This law applies only to law-abiding citizens. Criminals will get whatever weapons and accessories that they want.
Only ignorant people think gun control laws will curb gun violence.
What is needed is for more law-abiding citizens allowed to carry concealed weapons (after training and background check) for their own protection as well as protection of their neighbors from the very criminals and thugs the anti-gun fanatics continue to give the edge to.
This may be a late post but I felt compelled to throw in my two cents worth.
"Reasonable Gun Owner" - A good silencer works fine on rifles. I own three myself. Their purpose is to capture/redirect the rapidly expanding hot gasses, which in turn reduces the sound. Generally, the noise/crack you hear is the bullet breaking the sound barrier. Use of sub-sonic ammunition makes it work much better. I have them for pistols, sub-machineguns, bolt action .308win and .50BMB. They all work well. My Ruger 10/22 shooting a Hyper Velocity round sounds like a pellet rifle. My .308win bolt action sounds like an aluminum bat smacking a concrete floor really hard. The .50BMG, well... it's still loud, but comfortable to shoot without ear plugs.
I shoot primarily at public ranges and it's true that they tend to be farther away from the general public. However, its VERY nice to be able to shoot without ear muffs or plugs. You can have a conversation while others are shooting (or yourself) and not have to yell over the loud gunfire. This doesn't happen much at my public range, since "everyone" doesn't have a suppressor to shoot with.
"Voice of Reason" - As a owner of many NFA items I will correct you regarding record keeping of these wonderful items. Once you've jumped through all the hoops and BATFE approves the purchase of the item they issue you a Tax Stamp for the item. The item is recorded and YOU become responsible for it. The item is serial numbered and "registered" to YOU. If it's ever sold, temporarily transported outside of your residing state, permanently relocated, or destroyed, YOU need to notify BATFE by filing out the correct forms. They require YOU to report to them anytime there is a status change. If it ever shows up in a crime... guess where they will look to? YOU!
So, why would anyone go through all this, just to sell it to a criminal? There are enough "Black Book" literature out there for criminals to make their own suppressors and machine guns.
If you legally purchased a full-auto AR15, you would have paid over $10,000. Do you think a criminal would pay YOU that much? They can buy a standard AR15 for $800 and buy a full-auto trigger group and bolt carrier for $350. It would only cost them $1,150.
Of course guns can kill people. Most of the comments here dance around the issue, which is the Second Amendment _right_ to bear arms. It is not a privilege, or just a good idea. It is my personal right as a citizen of the USA to bear arms for use in defense of my life and that of my family as well as my personal property.
If a criminal has illegal means to get automatic weapons then I should have the legal means to do the same.
My comment here is not to convince anyone of anything. It is just a statement of my constitutional right to bear arms. I will defend that very right with my own life if necessary.
You can all spin around the issue until you are blue in the face. Only God or a bigger gun can save the fool who tries to take my weapons.
All you liberals who don't like it can go live in Europe or Cuba.
To go back to a privious issue, all guns can kill people. plain and simple. If you want to spend an outrageously large sum of money on an automatic weapon (I prefer this term to "assualt rifle"), you should be able to do so. I personally live in kansas, and have many a friend with guns. ALL of them would be willing to spend $3000 + tax on a CAR-15 or even 7000 + tax on a BAR, and none of them would be opposed to restrictions. They should be allowed to do so, especially since the new bill requires backround checks.
All i'm sying is that because of all the rules, restrictions and regulations placed on automatic weapons (and supressors), people should be able to buy them.
If you dont see that, your ither mentaly challenged or are a liberal-pain-in-the-@$$.
To go back to a privious issue, all guns can kill people. plain and simple. If you want to spend an outrageously large sum of money on an automatic weapon (I prefer this term to "assualt rifle"), you should be able to do so. I personally live in kansas, and have many a friend with guns. ALL of them would be willing to spend $3000 + tax on a CAR-15 or even 7000 + tax on a BAR, and none of them would be opposed to restrictions. They should be allowed to do so, especially since the new bill requires backround checks.
All i'm sying is that because of all the rules, restrictions and regulations placed on automatic weapons (and supressors), people should be able to buy them.
If you dont see that, your ither mentaly challenged or are a liberal-pain-in-the-@$$.
"Reasonable Gun Owner"-
If silencers only work on handguns, then why is the military buying them for the rifles of Special Operations soldiers? (See, the Mark 11 Mod 0 used by US Navy SEALs)
I can't believe people are on here arguing that you need a silencer for target practice. Gun ranges are always built faraway from homes or businesses and any responsible gun users know you use ear protection when at the range.
Besides, silencers only work on handguns. Pistols are usually the quietest thing at the gun range. If you have ever been next to someone testing a hunting rifle at the range you know that a handgun does not even come close to the sound made by a rifle.
As a gun owner I am always dismayed that the voice of other gun owners often sounds like the voice of fools. Why can't we be reasonable? Yes, the constitution guarantees that we should be allowed to own guns but it does not guarantee that we need silencers and assault weapons.
What Voice fails to realize is that while it is true that guns can kill people, they also save people. How would you fend off a violent intruder in your home? Lock yourself in the bathroom? Dial 911 and wait to die?
It's your right to be a professional victim just as it's my right to defend myself and my family.
I like the way Ted Nugent puts it:
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."
--Ted Nugent
Voice of Reason? I don't think so. Perhaps a more apt moniker would be "Voice of Treason" since you're so quick to deprive the rest of us of all the things that frighten you.
Get over yourself. Go to the range and actually shoot a gun or two. If you're a man, you'll enjoy it. If you're a woman, you'll understand Ted's quote and probably go right out and buy one for yourself. If you're a metrosexual-liberal-GFW, there's no hope for you. Keep a cell phone in your bathroom.
"It's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would think they need to own a weapon that's bigger than they are. Silencers, sawed-off shotguns and assault rifles are only good for one purpose -- to kill people..."
I think when you saw something off, it gets shorter. Thus, the shotgun you describe that's "bigger than they are" must have started out over seven feet tall before being "sawed off" to a handy 6 feet in length.
Oh, the assault weapons! You should've said so. Except -- they only stand about 45" from end to end. If a silencer is used only to kill people, and attaching it causes the weapon to stand over six feet tall, I don't see why a killer would use it. That would be rather unwieldy, don't you think?
Look, I'll engage you in the marketplace of ideas, but saying things that are clearly silly won't get us anywhere.
Voice of Reason: John McHann spells out exactly what is wrong with the law. Yes you have to go through background checks to buy guns. But then what? Noone keeps track of what happens to the guns from there.
This is completely untrue. The firearms that are affected by the bill that was passed in Kansas are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. If you move them from their registered location even just for an overnight stay at another address, you must file form 5320-20 to notify the ATF in advance.
"How do you think criminals get guns? Most times, they buy them from somebody who bought them legally." -Voice of Reason
Care to cite a reference for this statement? There doesn't appear to be too many sheeple here willing to take your word as gospel.
"Silencers, sawed-off shotguns and assault rifles are only good for one purpose -- to kill people."
Which is why the police shouldn't have them.
The picture of the man with the large gun is copyright Obscure-Reference.com, and you have not been granted permission to use it. Kindly remove it within 24 hours of this posting.
Thank you for your prompt compliance.
Here's a little bit of trivia for you:
The gun in the photo is not any sort of "assualt anything". It is a Lahti 20mm Anti-Tank Rifle, owned legally, in compliance with Federal law - specifically the National Firearms Act of 1934. It is 7 feet long and weighs 125 pounds without ammunition. No one ever used it in an "assault" of anything. It's all one person can do to carry it, much less run around with it. Think "assault anvil".
These guns were made in Finland for the Winter War with Russia in 1939, and were barely up to being noticed by Russian tanks of the era. In other words, they were pretty much obsolete by the time they were made, not unlike a number of video recording formats.
On the subject of Kansas, I have never been to Kansas, so I am not at all clear what a picture taken in West Virginia of an anti-tank gun belonging to a resident of Virginia (at that time) has to do with either "assault" anythings or with Kansas.
Since there was no attribution of the origin of the picture, I can only assume it was plucked off one of the "redneck hunting trip" or "terrorist hunting trip" emails that periodically circulate (also violating my copyright), but also not supporting an anti-gun viewpoint which I do not share.
As for why anyone should be allowed to own one, it's the same reason why anyone should be allowed to own *anything* of their own choosing. Should the government dictate to you what to own? What to drive? What to wear? What to read? Would it be OK for the government to evaluate each and every desire an American has, and reject most of them because someone somewhere doesn't desire one? What if the authority behind this rejection isn't even IN the government? Not elected, just someone who reaches an audience? Should we ban dancing everywhere because one person someplace thinks no one else should be allowed to dance?
There's a big difference between not having something you don't want and making sure no one else has what you don't want, either.
Do we want to live in a free society? Or would we prefer a society where everyone with a pulpit and a convincing tone of voice gets to ban all of their personal pet peeves for everyone else? I know which society I'd prefer. Everyone who disagrees should turn in their car for a used Pacer and their latest video gear for an AM radio, because someone, somewhere doesn't want you having the things you'd prefer. Because someone might put their eye out.
"Voice of Reason" you are wrong on all counts!
It is simply not true that no one keeps track of these weapons after they are bought (with respect to the weapons legalized by this law). These are registered weapons on the NFRTR (National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record).
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/fa...
Also, the #1 target shooting competition in the country is the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. These matches have civilians and military competing together. The #1 most popular rifle used in the competition is the AR-15, something considered an "assault weapon" by people who advocate banning certain guns. Here is a link to results of just 1 of the dozens of events. There are over 1200 competitors, and it lists the type of rifle used as AR-15 or M-16 for most. Also notice that 4 of the top 10 are civilians. At the top left there is a link to go to all of the results.
http://clubs.odcmp.com/cgi-bin...
Lastly "silencers," more correctly known as suppressors are very common in Europe. It is considered polite to shoot with a suppressor and keep the noise down. The #1 complaint against shooting ranges and reason they are shut down is noise. Legal suppressors would help address this problem. Think of them like mufflers on a car. My car is not silent because it has a muffler, just nicer for my neighbors to hear.
"Sound suppressors, a firearm accessory strictly regulated in many other jurisdictions, are also available in Finland. Their use is not regulated. Their use can be considered to reduce the noise pollution that firearms otherwise produce. Noise pollution is to some extent a problem, since although most ranges are located in relatively remote locations, many ranges may be closed down if the noise becomes a problem for the nearest inhabitants. Suppressors also reduced the risk of hearing damage while shooting. Silencers are not a major topic in Finnish gun control debates as they are almost never used in crimes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
I certainly use my suppressed Ruger 10/22 for target practice. Why make more noise than I need to? No sense in annoying the neighbors who live near the range.
Not having to wear earmuffs means that I can shoot more comfortably.
If I'm teaching new shooters, the lack of earmuffs means that it's easier to communicate with the new shooter, and they're more comfortable with the learning process.
There's no reason to prohibit NFA items, as they are almost never used in crime (there's been what, a single crime committed with a legal machine gun since 1934 where a police officer murdered an informant. A few isolated incidents involved criminals using illegally-owned machine guns, like the North Hollywood shootout, but that's extremely rare.).
I think more people have been bludgeoned to death with frozen hamburger meat since 1934 than people killed or injured with machine guns.
NFA items are absurdly fun when used responsibly.
Voice of Reason:
"How do you think criminals get guns? Most times, they buy them from somebody who bought them legally."
Actually, they generally steal them. Why would a criminal buy a firearm at full market value from an honest, law abiding citizen, when they could steal the same weapon for free? How do criminals get knives, bats, hammers, cars, tv's, etc...
"Machine guns, assault weapons, and silencers -- all things we don't need to enjoy target practice
You're right, target practice could be done with the most rudimentary of projectile weapons. We could all stand around and throw small rocks at bigger rocks and call it target practice. That's not what this is about. It's about being able to practice our natural right that is protected by our 2nd amendment.
You're missing the bigger picture. Our right protected by the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with target practice, hunting, or collecting firearms. It has to do with the protection of the people from a tyrannical government and as a last line of defense in times of invasion.
For that right to remain un-infringed, the people must be allowed to own effective weapons. Think if you were only allowed to practice your free speech on the technology that existed at the time the constitution was written (we wouldn't be typing this here for sure). I think in that situation, you'd say your 1st amendment right was being infringed.
Fringe benefits that come from our right to keep arms are hunting, target shooting and gun collecting.
You're also still missing the point of the newly passed Senate Bill 46. This bill simply allows the citizens of Kansas to purchase weapons that were previously not available to them, but were generally (if not easily) available to own in other states. According to the federal government, all of these items are legal to own in all 50 states. They are however, prohibitively expensive. I don't know too many gangbanger that will go out and purchase $10,000 legal machine guns (example) or even be able to pass the background checks required. They will, instead, be using the same guns they have always used.
I should not that "silencers"/suppressors are not perfect noise reducers. Supersonic bullets cannot be completely suppressed, just like you can't hide the sonic boom from a Concorde jet.
Additionally, silencers/suppressors help reduce the amount of toxic lead styphnate shot into the air (important for indoor shooting). Hearing damage is typically increased when shooting in an indoor space, thanks to the walls containing the sound in a tight space.
Anyway, I believe that picture is of a 20mm rifle, which is an NFA item. The owner (who can be found on some internet forum) undoubtedly passed extensive checks to buy or manufacture that rifle.
John McHann spells out exactly what is wrong with the law. Yes you have to go through background checks to buy guns. But then what? Noone keeps track of what happens to the guns from there.
How do you think criminals get guns? Most times, they buy them from somebody who bought them legally.
Machine guns, assault weapons, and silencers -- all things we don't need to enjoy target practice.
John McHann said:
"I bought my M107 on the 'open market' several years ago and I've never submitted myself to an extensive background check, was never fingerprinted (except for those three discretely different occasions), nor obtained the permission of my local sheriff (who runs by weekends to shoot the damned thang and STILL doesn't pay for the ammo he uses - you have any idea how much a .50 shell costs?) nor did I pay any damned special tax."
Yes John, that's the way it should be (the Sherriff should pitch in for some ammo once in a while though).
Of course, 50 BMG rifles are not on the NFA list so you don't have to jump through all the hoops the ATF sets out to own one. Your M107 is as legal and easy to own as a .22 rimfire only with slightly more expensive ammo and a bigger initial price tag. Buying a 50 BMG rifle is not regulated by the federal government and is only prohibited by specific localities.
I'm not exactly sure where you are going with your statements.
I'd probably refrain from talking about shooting the mailman. Those types of statements, even if joking, tend to put a bad face forward for legal firearm owners.
A Voice of Reason:
Actually, "Silencers" are extremely reasonable for target shooting. Shooting is loud. Reducing the noise involved (and that is what it does. I put "silencer" in quotes because only in the movies does a suppressed firearm become truly silent.) is good not only for the shooter (and their hearing), but is less disruptive to those around them, i.e. houses around a range. In Australia, a country with far stricter laws than the U.S., a suppressor is seen as a courtesy, and they are readily available. We use mufflers on cars, why not allow them for guns?
Eds.
Frankly the bill is much to do about small ordinance; I bought my M107 on the 'open market' several years ago and I've never submitted myself to an extensive background check, was never fingerprinted (except for those three discretely different occasions), nor obtained the permission of my local sheriff (who runs by weekends to shoot the damned thang and STILL doesn't pay for the ammo he uses - you have any idea how much a .50 shell costs?) nor did I pay any damned special tax.
And I still have the sense of piece afforded me in knowing that should one of my neighbor�s cows contract that �mad cow� disease I can safely put it down from over a mile away.
Or that damned pot-smoking mailman, come to that. Hit him right between the eyes while he�s over to old man Sumter�s place what, mile and quarter away?, stuffing circulars in the mail box out in front of the main house. That�d be a high the old doper would remember. Or not. Heh.
But hell, you don�t ever see anyone using a .50 for crimes. Like I say, fussin� �bout nuthin�.
Wow. More drooling ignorance on the part of hoplophobes, opining on subjects they know absolutely nothing about.
The bill in question deals with Class III firearms. These firearms have been strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act since 1933. To legally obtain one, you must submit to an extensive background check, be fingerprinted, obtain the permission of your local sheriff/police chief and pay a special tax. This bill simply allows Kansans the opportunity to do this.
No legally-owned Class III firearm has ever been used in a crime. Ever.
A Voice of Reason says:
And how can you argue for a silencer? Tell me you use a silencer for target practice.
I most certainly would if I was "allowed" to do so (Washington state "allows" ownership but not use of silencers). Better protection for the hearing of all in the area where target practice is being done and _much_ less noise for the neighbors of the range.
Fact: for the last 74 years it has been legal to own and use silencers in most states. Fact prior to 1934 it was legal in almost _all_ states. Fact: usage of "silencers" in commission of a murder is very rare.
To "A Voice of Reason"
You sound more like the "Voice of hysteria".
You are completely uniformed and your ignorance is obvious. Please do some research before you voice your opinion.
The term "assault rifle" is used entirely improperly in your google search. An assault rifle is considered one that fires more then one bullet for every one pull of the trigger. The "assault rifles" mentioned in your Google "Stats" are actually semi-auto rifles that simply look like the fully automatic version. On very rare occasions they are illegally converted semi-auto rifles, in which case, it's a federal offence. Those people doing the shooting don't care about the laws anyway.
"Assault rifles" are machine guns and have been heavily regulated for many years in the US. It takes an extensive FBI background check, finger printing, local law enforcement permission, and a $200 tax for each machine gun/suppressor/short barreled rifle/short barred shotgun that a person wants to own.
Furthermore, suppressors are actually required equipment for rifles in some European countries. They are required to keep the noise pollution down. Consider them like a muffler on a car. You would be outraged if your neighbor drove his car up and down the street without a muffler, but to put one on a firearm, and suddenly it becomes an instrument of death and the owner some wild hit man? This is a very poor argument.
What Kansas has done, is to allow law abiding citizens the chance to own something that is legal to own in the majority of the rest of the country. I guarantee you there will not be a sudden spike in "Assault weapon" murders in Kansas following this law. The people that own these types of weapons simply don't commit crimes.
Eric Barton
Voice of reason
Do yourselves a favor and educate yourselves a little on the facts of an issue before spouting off. It might save you from looking stupid. But if thats your thing....
Ah "Voice", I said "Alomst Entirely", not entirely, don't misquote. Also, most of the so-called "Assault rifle" murders, were generally not the Fully Automatic Assault Rifles discussed here, they were almost entirely semi-automatic rifles of moderate power patterned after military rifles. Don't distort the facts.
What's wrong with using a sliencer for practice? Environmental noise polution disrupts the natural beauty of the surroundings for other land users.
Of course a rifle isn't an SUV, but the attitude that dictating to the American public that they must defend their "need" to goods and services, is a significant 180 from our founding ideals.
The problem is not the weapons, like any thing, they can be used legally or illegally. The problem is the character of the people. The fact that the mentally ill aren't well monitored any longer, the fact that children are only taught hollywood violence, not safety and responsibility, the fact that children are taught that there are no universal morals, and they are just part of the survival of the fittest story (numerous school shooters have employed "darwinistic" rhetoric).
So the real question is, why is our society raising murderers, and what can be done about it?
A Voice of Reason:
The bill deals with Class III firearms, which are strictly defined. Class III firearms are very rarely used in crimes, and individuals permitted to own Class III firearms are very rarely involved in any illegal activity, whether gun related or not.
You bring up "assault rifle murder" -- what is the exact definition of an "assault" rifle? Would that be any rifle used in assault? Which makes for a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Let me know how many examples you can find of legally owned Class III firearms used in crimes over the past 50 years.
"Noprob" offers an argument that is absurd. Ban SUVs because they kill people? Guns are made to kill people. That is their intended purpose.
To say that it is "entirely unheard of" for one of these guns to be used in a crime is just the stupidest thing I think I have ever read on the internets. Google 'assault rifle murder' or 'assault weapon murder' and you will find out how often these are used for killing someone.
And how can you argue for a silencer? Tell me you use a silencer for target practice.
The first male born on this earth killed his brother with a stone! Did they ban stones then?
Low-life people will kill other people with whatever it takes to do it!
If a person decides to kill another they can and will find a way to do it!
Don't blame the guns . . . blame the low-life upbringing and mentality of those who will kill without giving second thought to it.
First of all, realize that this is no different than numerous other states where lawful responsible citizens enjoy the right to own weapons that can fire more than one bullet with the pull of a trigger. And, it is almost entirely unheard of for these weapons to be used "to kill people". The reasons are thus: The persons allowed are heavilly screened, and the weapons are incredibly expensive to purchase, and to operate. The sort of people who own them have too much to lose to use the firearms irresponsibly.
Understand that these are like the sports cars of firearms, they are collected, and used recreationally (see youtube: machine guns arizona). So long as the weapons are in the hands of the lawful, competent and responsible citizens, there is no justification for the "gun fear".
Shall we begin restricting "dangerous" items such as knives, sports cars, propane stoves, personal aircraft, SUVs based on "need"? The founding ideals of America are based on liberty, not dictatorship. It is improper to ask if these people really "need" anything they have (the sort of thing a Marxist might ask), rather, the question is, can we trust them to be responsible with what they have. The track record of NFA Weapon ownership resoundingly says yes.
This afternoon, Nicole Corcoran, Sebelius' press secretary, sent me this response:
"This law allows gun collectors to lawfully possess Class III weapons. Governor Sebelius carefully reviewed this bill, which is similar to the laws of 30 other states that require compliance with extensive federal guidelines. In addition, she was not inundated with requests from law enforcement to veto like she was with concealed carry. (As a matter of fact law enforcement actually testified in favor of the bill.) There's a heightened federal process that has to be met to own these weapons. The individual has to submit a form to the ATF for a background approval, and also has to have the local sheriff sign a statement that the person would not use the gun unlawfully.
like
dislike
