Assault Weapons Fraud

Sierra Times ^ | 23 December 2003 | Ted Lang

[45Auto]

It amazes me how many supposedly intelligent folks continue to parrot the ignorance deliberately being spread by the leftist anti-gun media concerning an accurate and truthful definition of so-called “assault weapons.” The only legitimate and authorized “assault weapons” are those used by military and police in America. They have several firing options, the least deadly of which is semi-automatic single trigger pull firing. This is defined as a shot being fired every time the trigger is pulled, and this type of firing option has been available on American firearms since the late 1800s.

Military assault rifles, also used by a variety of American police agencies, must be capable of semi-automatic single trigger pull firing, limited-automatic multi-shot “bursts,” such as bursts of three shots with each trigger pull, or just continuous uninterrupted fire for as long as the trigger is depressed and until the magazine runs out of ammunition. Such a multi-firing capability, along with a flash suppressor, bayonet stud, and other minor military features, is what truly constitutes a military assault rifle.

Such multiple firing options would render any such weapon classifiable as a machine-gun. That is not what the Clinton and Bush administrations seek to ban. They are seeking to ban a totally legitimate rifle action, which allows a shooter to fire each time the trigger is pulled, and which has been in use for well over one hundred years. These weapons that were formerly classifiable as military assault rifles have been rendered inoperable as regards limited-burst and continuous fire fully automatic. Such converted former military assault rifles are now returned to fully legal semi-automatic firing actions and sold as surplus. They are not limited or continuous fire machine-guns.

Clearly, military surplus “assault rifle” remarketers incur expense to render these weapons acceptable as civilian grade semi-automatics. Remarketers have in the past, sold these completely legal firearms with minor military features in place, such as the flash suppressors and bayonet studs. How would these in any way affect the firing capability of the weapon? How would these in any way convert a legal semi-automatic rifle to a multi-purpose military grade machine-gun? The obvious answer is that they wouldn’t.

Yet, when remarketers of military surplus rifles failed to remove these minor military characteristics which have no bearing whatsoever on a military surplus rifle’s firing capability, and these features were included in Clinton’s “assault rifle” definition, remarketers removed them. Now liberal propagandists, especially those in the media pushing hardest for a total ban of ALL firearms, offer that sellers of military surplus civilian-legalized, semi-automatic former assault rifles are “making minor changes to these ‘assault rifles’ to get around the law.” All that they are really doing is making cosmetic changes to the firearm. The media lefties are now offering these changes as “gimmicks” to “get around the law.” This charge, just like the false term “assault rifle,” is a media gimmick to trick Americans into thinking that evil gun manufacturers and the NRA are trying to sell machine-guns. It is nothing more than propaganda to weaken the resolve of law-abiding citizens tired of the constant media caterwauling.

How easy is it to establish the real facts in this matter? At one time, the NRA used to acquire surplus military firearms, such as the prestigious Garrand M-1 Rifle of World War II fame, and make them available for resale to private citizens. This rifle is a military relic, weighing more than ten pounds, not concealable or able to be reduced in barrel length, and certainly not convertible to a saw-off stock considering the powerful recoil.

But Bill Clinton, a draft-dodger who never served in the military, disallowed the re-importation of these surplus military semi-automatic “assault rifles” into the United States after they were used in a war by a Third World ally and sold back to a US remarketer. M-1s were developed in the mid 1930s, yet 60 years later, our illustrious former president was terrified of these cumbersome antiques being allowed back into the nation that developed, manufactured and used them to preserve our Second Amendment and other Bill of Rights-ensured freedoms.

Leftists have abolished the NRA’s Director of Civilian Marksmanship program. They would rather see taxpayer dollars used to build these fine weapons wasted by their complete deactivation and destruction rather than allowing the taxpayers who paid for them to buy them back. It seems they hate both guns and the Constitution. Come to think of it, it is becoming increasingly apparent that they hate everything else about US as well!

[Ajnin]

They have several firing options, the least deadly of which is semi-automatic single trigger pull firing.

This is only true if you can hit vital targets in multi round bursts. I'd much rather take on an Iraqi blazing away with an Ak-47 than a Marine Sniper with a bolt action hunting rifle.

[FormerlyAnotherLurker]

THANK YOU!

I got off my duff and went there for my previous post, read a little and found this:

"CMP Update 12/12/03

LAKE CITY SURPLUS M2 BALL NOW AVAILABLE FROM CMP. After several years of effort, the CMP has been successful in securing the transfer of a sizeable amount of linked M2 Ball from the U.S. Army. A condition of the transfer was that all links and tracers be removed and demilled and only the M2 Ball rounds sold to members of CMP affiliated organizations. CMP has contracted with TALON for the delinking and the first of many truckloads was received by CMP this week. This ammunition is packaged 20 rounds per box, 12 boxes per can, 4 cans per case (960 rounds per case).

"Cases we have opened have all been LC-72. Mail order sales are by case lot only. Item Number 405. $192.00 per case + $38.00 S&H per case."
http://www.odcmp.com/latest_news.htm


$230 for 960 rds.!
Thanks again.

[MarkL]

I was in Atlanta recently and heard more than one of the television stations cover an armed robbery and state that the perpetrator used a 45mm handgun.

Journalistic "expertise" in action.

That would be the new "Bofours Magnum."

Mark

[Atlas Sneezed]

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/ausguns.htm
"Claim: Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun buy-back program in 1997.
"Status: False.
"Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001] "

---

Your skepticism is respected, but note the parsing, because while homicide was largely unchanged, most other violent crime increased. The claim is true regarding "crime rates" and snopes is literally (but deceptively) right regarding homicide.

"...based on a full 12 months of data: Australia-wide, homicides up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults up 8.6 percent.

"Australia-wide, armed-robberies up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent.) In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300 percent. (Up until the government gun grab, figures for the previous 25 years had shown a steady decrease in homicides with firearms, as well as armed robberies, Mr. Tidswell notes.)"
http://www.mannkal.org/intentdetail.asp?Code=2

---

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics website, murders have fallen from 312 in 1996 to 284 murders in 1998, after experiencing a slight increase in 1997, from 312 to 321. [Back up to 318 in 2002]

However, almost every other form of crime in Australia has increased, sometimes dramatically, in the same time period:

For instance, since the introduction of Australia's sweeping gun bans, armed robberies rose a whopping 70 percent, from 6,256 in 1996 to 10,850 just two years later. [7817 in 2002]

Unarmed robberies also rose by about 20 percent, from just over 10,100 to nearly 13,000 incidents. [13144 in 2002]

In addition:

* Attempted murders rose from 335 in 1996 to 382 in 1998 [396 in 2002]

* Manslaughter rose from 38 to 49 [45 in 2002]

* Assaults were up from 114,156 to 132,967 [159,548 in 2002]

* Sexual assaults rose slightly, from 14,542 to 14,568 [17850 in 2002]

* Kidnapping and abductions climbed dramatically, from 480 in 1996 to 662 in 1998 [696 in 2002]

Some other highlights from the 1998 Australian government crime statistics report:

* Blackmail and extortion went from 268 cases a year to 298 [344 in 2002]

* "Unlawful entry with intent (breaking into a home or business) involving the taking of property" rose by 30,000 cases, from 313,902 shortly after the ban was passed to 343,256 cases in 1998 [292,769 in 2002]

* Other "unlawful entry" cases increased during the two-year period from 88,177 to 92,414 [101,605 in 2002]

* "Motor vehicle theft" increased by 8,658 reported cases, and "other theft" rose to 565,214 from 521,762 [679,460]
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15324
(The Austrailian governemnt moved their crime data report, and appears now to be charging $30 for it.)
2002 data: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/76c8926bd8a12e1fca2568a9001393f2!OpenDocument
It appears from government crime date that the general lawlessness in Austriali has continued or increased. While armed assaults are down, all assaults are up, suggesting that thugs are using other means. Rapes are up. I wonder if the decline in burglaries reflects a reluctance of citizens to report them, and have cops snooping arouind to find their illegal guns.

But Snopes is wrong when it says that a crime increase is false. The crime increase is true.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The writer may be fake, but that stats are true, and have not been disputed.

[ezo4]

no ones taking my flintlocks pall

[Mulder]

And then there's this little tidbit from none other than the "honorable" Senator from Wisconsin, Howard Feingold:

Feingold is probably the only halfway decent democrat in the Senate. He was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, and now appears to be leaning against the AWB, which is better than many Republicans, including Bush.

His decision to "lean against it", is also political, since it's becoming appararent that being anti-gun is a very quick way to lose an election in most areas in this country.

Other democrats are starting to realize it also, and are even supporting CCW bills in their respective states.

It's really a great opportunity for the GOP to be more aggressive with regards to repealing many gun laws, and daring the democrats to oppose them. This is not only good policy, it's good politically.

But I guess the GOP has other priorities, like letting more illegals into the country. And when all those illegals get to vote, the democrats will no longer need the votes of pro-gun Americans, so they can go back to their gun-grabbing agenda.

[thompson]

Just an FYI - the current bill pending for the renewal of the so called assault weapon ban - H. R. 2038 - will in effect ban almost all semi-automatic handguns. Why is no one talking about this, are they missing it? This is actual text from the bill:

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--
`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

So couldn't that be interpreted as any pistol that has the capacity to accept an 'extended' magazine?

Read it for yourself here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2038:

[B-Cause]

Thanks much.

[B-Cause]

Thanks much.

[teeman8r]

laws are what the courts interpret them to be...

all of our court are belonging to them...

hold onto your guns with both cold dead hands

teeman

[Atlas Sneezed]

The stats are meaningless. If you look at the long term crime stats from the Australian Institute of Criminology, it undermines his entire argument.

---

Can you describe why the facts are meaningless?

Is there evidence that crime dropped in response to the gun restrictions?

[AnAussie]

The Snopes entry is aimed at determining if the initial email is true or not. It is not aimed at determining if there has or hasn't been an increase in crime. Although as part of the Snopes entry is it pointed out that some of the statistics are incorrect and are less than claimed. Or the statistics have been stated in a way which may be misleading.

There is also an entry on the BreakTheChain website which analyses the statistics in more detail.

As a general note it is common practice for people to report statistics in a way which reinforces their point of view and ignore any qualifications, special or mitigating circumstances and statistics which don't support their argument.

I notice you have quoted that armed robberies rose by 70% between 1996 and 1998 but failed to mention that they decreased by 28% by 2002. Assuming the 2002 figures you have quoted are correct. It should also be noted that armed robbery includes ALL weapons, knives, baseball bats, even bricks, not just guns. It has been pointed out numerous times that the percentage of guns used in armed robberies has decreased steadily.

1998 and even 2002 figures are now quite out of date. If you are interested in statistics try going to the Australian Institute of Criminology www.aic.gov.au. But please bear in mind that Australia and the USA have different cultures and it can often be tenuous to compare statistics without taking this into account.