Homeland Security: Buying 7,000 assault weapons

[BCT]

You believe that those enforcing the law should have exactly the same weapons restrictions as the general population?

No, I just hope that we keep our right to even have a gun, they disarm the people we are in big trouble.

 

[lurkingdirk]

No, I just hope that we keep our right to even have a gun, they disarm the people we are in big trouble.

Don't take the douche nozzles here seriously. There is absolutely no discussion of disarming anyone.

And that's beside the point I was trying to make. I think Service People and Police Officers, while on duty, should have access to weapons that the general public should not.

 

[Mayhem]

I appreciate this post. But I'm not entirely comfortable with it. I have a hard time refuting what you say, and yet I have to admit that I'm far more comfortable with the riot cops having access to a lot of those things than I am with private citizens having access. Fully automatic, and scoped sniper rifles, for example. What Citizen needs access to that? However, I can see Riot cops needing those. I maintain that the general public and the military need have different rules for what is legal.

Ah, you fell into my trap. Now come here so I can spank you with a cheese-pretel. A sniper rifle can be a varmint rifle can be a benchrest rifle, etc.

http://www.ruger.com/products/no1Varminter/models.html
http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/66/Guns/Rifles/Benchrest-Varmint-Rifles-misc.htm
http://www.mossberg.com/products/rifles/centerfire/mvp-varmint

Defintions kill the gun debate. I have seen honest-to-God news stories where they called the M-16 a sniper rifle. And....they're not wrong, but they are not right either.

But if I am not allowed an "assault" rifle or a "sniper" rifle, am I still allowed to have a "varmint" rifle or "benchrest" rifle?

 

[Rattrap]

Defintions kill the gun debate. I have seen honest-to-God news stories where they called the M-16 a sniper rifle. And....they're not wrong, but they are not right either.

I don't know if it extends beyond the entry threshold, but this is why I like the German benchmark for what classifies as a proper gun, as opposed to a toy that shoots: 7.5 Joules. That is, if it shoots a projectile that has over 7.5 Joules of energy, you've left toyland. Extend Joules to Watts to consider rates of fire and I think you could have much more meaningful classifications.

 

[Mayhem]

I don't know if it extends beyond the entry threshold, but this is why I like the German benchmark for what classifies as a proper gun, as opposed to a toy that shoots: 7.5 Joules. That is, if it shoots a projectile that has over 7.5 Joules of energy, you've left toyland. Extend Joules to Watts to consider rates of fire and I think you could have much more meaningful classifications.

I'll look that up, I've never heard of it before. But I'm talking about politicians. They don't give a shit about defintions. Or facts. One thing that keeps occuring to me (although it is kind of horrible) is that the Sandy Hook shooter could have used a single shot pistol and done the exact same thing. What was going to happen? The kinders were going to say, "Hey he's reloading. Let's rush him."?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I hadn't thought about it from this angle before.....so let's take a walk over to Mr. Wizards Laboratory"

Revlovers - Both (Private Citizens and Law Enforcement) can have.
Semi-Auto Pistols - Both
Shotguns of any and all gauges and configurations - Both
Semi-Auto Rifles - Both
High Capacity Magazines - Both
Scoped "Sniper" Rifles - Both
Full Automatic Firearms (Rifles and Submachine guns) - Both (conditionally)
Grenade Launchers - Neither, except as a means to deploy tear gas or flares
Rocket Propelled Grenades - Neither
Armored Vehicles - Both, but in the civilians case it would probably have to be home made


I don't feel like I am missing anything here, but I might be. So no, keeping Law Enforcement to the same standards of weaponry really isn't as outlandish as it may seem.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, grenade launchers fall under the category of "dangerous devices" as defined under the Clinton era ban, which was part of some class 3 rules that didn't sunset, so you cannot get them, even under special license. And I think a teargas projectile is not allowed either. If anything, you might be allowed inert practice grenades.

Not sure though, I may have misunderstood the laws.

 

[Mayhem]

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, grenade launchers fall under the category of "dangerous devices" as defined under the Clinton era ban, which was part of some class 3 rules that didn't sunset, so you cannot get them, even under special license. And I think a teargas projectile is not allowed either. If anything, you might be allowed inert practice grenades.

Not sure though, I may have misunderstood the laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M203_grenade_launcher#Civilian_ownership_in_the_United_States

In the United States, M203 grenade launcher attachments fitted with the standard rifled 40mm barrel are classified as "Destructive Devices" under the National Firearms Act part 26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11,[26] because they are a "non-sporting" firearm with a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter. M203s are relatively common on the civilian NFA market. New M203s sell for approximately $1,750 to $2,000 plus a $200 transfer tax, and new manufacture 40mm training ammunition is available for $8 to $10 per cartridge, as of March 2008. High explosive 40mm grenades are available for $400 to $500 per cartridge; however, they are exceedingly rare on the civilian market, as each grenade constitutes a Destructive Device on its own, and must be registered with the Federal government, requiring payment of a $200 tax and compliance with storage regulations for high explosives. There are also sub-caliber adapters available for the 40mm M203 (and M79) grenade launchers, which will allow the use of standard 12 gauge shotgun shells[27] and .22 Rimfire ammo.[28]

I was a little bit off, but not by much.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M203_grenade_launcher#Civilian_ownership_in_the_United_States



I was a little bit off, but not by much.

So in all reality, lets face facts...if you don't have a 40mm G.L under your SCAR, that you can lob fully explosive rounds from...what in the fuck is the point?!?! Unless you're living on a few hundred acres, and have a shit load of disposable income, and the ability to get junk cars towed in daily...where's the real fun?

 

[Mayhem]

So in all reality, lets face facts...if you don't have a 40mm G.L under your SCAR, that you can lob fully explosive rounds from...what in the fuck is the point?!?! Unless you're living on a few hundred acres, and have a shit load of disposable income, and the ability to get junk cars towed in daily...where's the real fun?

Well, you're right. The cost of the HE ammo would come out to $1000 per round, and you still have to shell out to demonstrate that you can store the damn things safely.

I think the fun comes in in shooting training/marker rounds and flares. You can also get adapters for 12 gauge and other stuff.

I'm explaining this, but only because it came up. I have no fascination in M203s and wouldn't bother with one unless I was extremely wealthy, bored and jaded.

My original point that I was telling Dirk was that Law Enforcent doesn't really have anything that the lawful gunowner can't get and that one man's "sniper" rifle is another man's varmint/hunting/competition rifle. And again, they are immediately available to the public.