I was doing a search earlier and found this opinion piece that was posted on the Daily Kos in June. I am going to cut and paste it so you don't have to link to and give those commie bastards web traffic (If you must see the original, here's the link http://www.dailykos....Right-This-Time). This guy is downright scary and proof that the left really really wants to take our guns away-and trample our constitution (except for the right to smoke weed, fornicate with same sex partners (lube anyone), and murder cute little unborn babies. But us gun owners, we're the bad guys! Anyway, check this one out:
IF WE DO ANOTHER ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, CAN WE DO IT RIGHT THIS TIME?
June 15, 2016
Renewing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban fails to meet the basic objective of restricting ownership of one class of weapons that can cause a danger to the public if unregulated. The 1994 assault weapon ban attempted to define an assault rifle by ‘cosmetic’ features. We are now more than 20 years past the original definition, and firearms manufacturers have made a veritable industry out of building “featureless” AR-15s that are every bit as deadly but do not fall under the either the 1994 definition of an assault rifle, or the stricter California or New York definitions. Even if the ban were implemented retroactive to 1994, An AR-15 A3 configuration rifle could be brought into compliance in 30 minutes with a drill press and a spot welder (pin and weld on a muzzle brake).
This is poop.
We should not make the same mistakes a second time.
Let me give you my definition of an assault rifle: Any rifle with a self loading action; and a design muzzle velocity greater than 2000 feet per second or muzzle energy between 750 foot-lbs and 1750 foot lbs (arbitrarily benchmarked by the .30 carbine and .30-30 Winchester).
What makes those weapons in particular an ‘attractive nuisance’?
The cartridges that fall into that definition have enough energy that they are more powerful than any non-magnum handgun, making them very lethal against humans. These bullets are typically aerodynamic spitzer type bullets which can be fired at long ranges (hence why the AR-15 was the weapon of choice for shooters in both crowded environments and for the DC sniper). They also generate very little recoil so they are more pleasant to shoot. The smaller size of the bullets and light recoil means less metal is required to make them. The rifles can be as light at 5 pounds. Light rifles do not need as strong of materials to absorb the recoil (grips and furniture), which means more cheap plastic parts. Less metal and cheap plastic can make for an inexpensive weapon.
As a public safety threat, the bullets are small and light, with 35 or 40 of them to the pound. Light weapons can be more easily carried. (and therefore concealed: An AR-15 with 150 bullets can be concealed in a gym bag and weigh less than 10 lbs) Easy to shoulder and shoot means that less training is required for someone to become confident with one. Detachable box magazines allow for very rapid reloading. Any self loading rifle can be converted (with more or less effort) to accept a detachable magazine of any size.
What makes those weapons different from other classes of weapon that could justify special attention?
Full power self defense handgun cartridges and intermediate military rifle cartridges are designed to kill humans. Specifically, they are designed to maximize the chance of a life threatening injury with an imprecise shot to the torso. So let’s try to win Loki’s wager and draw an arbitrary distinction between what represents an “assault weapon type” threat to public safety and what represents a different kind of threat to public safety.
Mousegun calibers such as the .22LR, and .32ACP simply lack the energy needed to produce the same devastating effects. The most powerful of the tiny calibers, the .32, is often criticized by self defense and law enforcement professionals as having difficulty penetrating thick clothing, doors or walls, or into the vital organs of humans. When talking about threats to public safety from mass shootings, every single one of those criticisms is a plus.
Full power rifles such as the 308 Winchester or the mighty .338 Lapua fall off the other end of the spectrum. In addition to being powerful, assault rifles are cheap, light, easy to shoot. For their full power cousins (sometimes called "battle rifles") that does not apply. A typical battle rifle outweighs an typical AR-15 by 50% (9+ lbs to 6 lbs). That metal costs money, which means that a battle rifle has a comparable increase in cost. The ammunition is twice as heavy. (To repeat the example above, a FAL with 100 rounds would be upwards of 20 pounds, which would be much harder to conceal in a gym bag). While AR-15 ammunition can be had for $.25 a pop, battle rifle ammunition typically costs at least three times as much. For all practical purposes, a battle rifle shot is exactly as deadly as an assault rifle shot, which is why militaries adopted them in the first place (same public safety threat per trigger pull). Other weapons, like shotguns, are more likely to replace the AR-15 than FALs or HK91’s as criminal or terrorist's weapon of choice; based on price.
A technically sound assault weapons law should be built something more like this:
Update the NFA with another category, to require the $200 tax stamp, background check, fingerprinting, registration, and letter from the local sheriff for any self loading firearm chambered in a cartridge with a case capacity above 10 gr H2O and below 52 gr H2O. (.32 ACP at the low end and .243 Win at the high end)
Here is why it would be better than the 1994 law, or a straight ban on the AR-15 (or other named weapons).
1) Such an update would be unassailable as constitutional. The NFA has withstood every challenge against it; unlike outright bans, which can run afoul of a supreme court rulings such as DC. The NFA leaves a legal mechanism to own such weapons, while imposing an administrative burden that reduces circulation.
2) Case volume equates to powder capacity, which equates to rifle “power”. (Setting the limit at 10gr, I will lampshade that I am lumping most pistol caliber carbines into the mix with my definition.) When talking about indoor ranges, malls, concerts, etc, pistol caliber carbines pose the same public safety issue. The key here is that case capacity is a simple, objective measurement that relates to the physics of how the firearm works. It is impossible to “get around” by changing an injection molded piece of plastic to a different shape or a similar trivial mod. The only trivial modification to bring a rifle into compliance, makes the rifle no longer semi-automatic.
2) Such a law does not single out one weapon while ignoring identical weapons. There is only one manufacturer of the AR-15; Colt. Smith&Wesson, New Frontier, Tennessee Arms, Bushmaster/Windham, Daniel Defense, Anderson Manufacturing, Aero Preciscion, Bravo Company, Remington (as DPMS), Del-Ton, and a host of others make or label firearms which are, for all intents and purposes, identical to the Colt AR-15. Banning the “AR-15 pattern” weapons does nothing about weapons with identical function but different pattern such as the AK-47, AK-74, AKM, Mini-14, Mini-30, Ares SCR, Kel Tec RFB, Steyer AUG, just to name a few.
3) The burden on responsible owners would be reasonable. An AR-15 (and in fact all gas and piston driven rifles of similar type including the kalashnikovs) have a critical component called the gas block that draws energy from the burning gunpowder through a hole in the barrel to operate the action. Replace the gas block with a blank without the gas holes drilled and the rifle can still shoot, but must be manually cycled with an external handle; they are no longer semi-automatic. Such “straight pull” rifles are uncommon, but they do exist, and have similar performance to any other bolt action rifle. Most importantly for the AR 15 and many similar weapons, replacing the gas block is easy to do and costs $10 or less. (pinned on gas blocks could have the gas port welded shut) That would be the total “cost of compliance” for any AR 15 owner who did not wish to register their weapon under the new NFA provision to a level that a reasonable person could hardly complain about as burdensome.
4) The law would have lasting lasting effect unlike the 1994 law. Manufacturing an AR-15 with the provisions to accept a gas system requires extra manufacturing steps to several parts. Omitting those parts and steps does two things. First, it makes the rifle slightly cheaper (perhaps $20 to $50). Second, such a “straight pull only” rifle requires several gunsmithing steps to convert into a semi-automatic rifle, or an entirely new upper half. (Drill a small and precise hole in the barrel, drill the upper receiver to accept a gas tube, align or replace the barrel nut) Since the cheapest weapons tend to be the most popular, even if it did not reduce the number of AR-15 pattern rifles sold, the number of AR-15 rifles that could readily be converted to “assault weapons” would gradually decline. Unlike the 1994 law, that would be a permanent change even if the law were repealed.
5) Technically, the gas block would become the semi-automatic part, requiring a serial number and registration form.
Let’s not kid ourselves. An assault weapon law of any kind will only serve to reduce how deadly some of these attacks are, and will prevent few if any attacks. As long as we have gun laws so weak that they might as well not exist, an assault weapons ban, like the 1994 law, will have negligible impact. We can only tackle the too-many-guns part of our violence problem with comprehensive reform of our firearms policy.
I personally do not support singling out “assault rifles” for special attention. My personal belief is that our firearms laws should be comprehensive enough and effective enough that such weapons do not need to be singled out. However, for those of us in our community that feel that assault rifles alone are a particular public safety threat to the exclusion of other weapons, here is an idea for consideration.