=======================================================================================
=======================================================================================
In Don Lemon:
Posted on 08/21/2014 12:18:49 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Via our colleagues at Twitchy, here’s a demonstration of why the national media is so bad at covering Second Amendment issues. CNN’s Don Lemon is normally not a bad anchor, but he’s clearly out of his depth in this debate — and what’s worse, refuses to recognize that he’s out of his depth even when it’s being made painfully clear to him by Ben Ferguson. Lemon himself all but declares his ignorance of firearms while delivering an indictment of the US based on the supposed free availability of a commodity that’s actually so tightly controlled it’s impossible to acquire without government intervention.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
FERGUSON: The law says that you and I can’t just randomly go out and buy an automatic weapon, so let’s deal with the facts here. A semiautomatic weapon is gun that you and I are allowed to own, and in different places they have different rules. But to imply that anyone can walk out and buy an automatic weapon is just not true, Don.
LEMON: What do you mean anyone can’t wa— Listen, during the theater shooting in Colorado, I was able to go and buy an automatic weapon, and I, you know, have maybe shot a gun, three, four times in my life. I don’t even live in Colorado. I think most people can go out and buy an automatic weapon. I don’t understand your argument there.
Lemon doesn’t understand the argument because Lemon hasn’t bothered to do even basic research into the classes of firearms before lecturing viewers and Ferguson on them. The point, to the extent that Lemon has one here, is that he thinks anyone can walk off the street and get military weapons at any time, which is preposterous — and a strange argument indeed for the story in Ferguson, Missouri, where most of the concern has been about the militarization of police, not the citizenry. The kind of weapons that Americans can buy today are the same kind of weapons they could buy thirty years ago and even sixty years ago. Access to semiautomatic weapons is neither novel or significant.
Ferguson tried to explain that, but Lemon felt the need to urgently communicate his complete ignorance on the topic, claiming that the difference is “semantics” (via The Blaze):
“Let me finish, Ben. But listen. I think you are getting into semantics. Regardless of what you want to call it, an automatic or a semi-automatic weapon.”
“It’s a big deal,” Ferguson interrupted. “It’s the difference between breaking the law and not breaking the law.”
The difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons is hardly semantic. As Ben tried to explain, semi-automatic weapons and revolvers have one important commonality: only one shot gets fired for every trigger pull. In fact, one can shoot a double-action revolver at the same rate as a semi-automatic pistol, although the latter will have magazines with larger capacities. Even that can be mitigated with quick-loaders and some practice for owners of revolvers. Automatic weapons, on the other hand, can fire multiple rounds with just one trigger pull, which makes them so dangerous that it takes a special license from the federal government to own one, and those are rarely granted. They really are much more dangerous and have the potential to cause a lot more damage in a short period of time … which is why the law severely restricts access to them.
The third person in this conversation, Van Jones, knew enough to mostly keep his mouth shut. Lemon should have followed his lead. This problem of ignorance on firearms and weapons laws is not limited to Lemon, though, which is why defending gun rights takes so much effort. Lemon’s irresponsible and uninformed rhetoric does not belong on a news broadcast, but unfortunately all too commonly appears on them, and not just at CNN.
...at the airport.
=======================================================================================
=======================================================================================
In Don Lemon:
OK Don, let’s see you go buy a few.
The fact remains that if you can pass the standard background check, “most” CAN (as in legally allowed) purchase an automatic weapon. The fact that they choose not to due so, either because of the hassle or price or some other reason was not part of my point.
I should also mention that people can manufacture their own firearm, apply for their tax stamp, and upon receiving, convert their firearm to full auto. This of course assumes a class II (manufacture) license, which of course is extra paper work (Form 1), $1,000 per year for the license, plus the $200 per weapon, etc. Oh, and it will be nontransferable.
My point to all of this is that one CAN (legally)... if you want to spend the money, time etc. I was attempting to dispel the perception that it is not legal for a citizen to obtain a machine gun. There is a legal way to do so. Granted your point about cost and it being a real pain is also true.
To legally own a machine gun, you have to be willing to a) pay a $200 tax per transfer, wait 8-14 months for the ATF to approve, and the weapon is registered with FedGov until it is destroyed. And oh, by the way, since 1986, it is illegal for a citizen to own a newly-manufactured machine gun, you have to pick from the rapidly-dwindling universe of machine guns available for transfer (i.e., ones that were on the list since 1968).
And also, there are many, many states (CA, IL, MA, NY, NJ) where NFA transfers are either no longer allowed, or require so much money and power to get through that nobody tries.
So, probably somewhere between 500,000 and 1M people in the free states of the US could each own one legal, NFA-taxed machine gun.
Little Ray, the cutoff for new machine guns was May 1986, not 1968. You might be mixing it up because there was a 1-month general amnesty in 1968 for previously-unregistered machine guns, such as military bringbacks. Not many people heard about that, apparently, since it wasn’t talked much about on ABC/NBC/CBS, and there was no large internet.
Crap, is it that few? I thought there were a lot of "paper receivers" done just prior to the May 1986 cutoff that ballooned the supply. Plus some things like Ruger 10/22 full-auto trigger groups drop-ins, that are considered machine guns by the ATF.
Yeah, I forgot about SOT's and manufacturers. They can own. In fact, becoming a Special Occupational Taxpayer of one kind or another is probably done most of the time just to be able to own certain kinds of machine guns that are no longer available, but have to be built up from parts kits, etc.
That and the expense shooting at full auto!
Can you imagine shooting $2-300 per minute down range?
You have to find one to own.
You can’t own a new weapon manufactured since 1986.
Read somewhere that there are only about 175,000 registered automatic weapons in the USA.
So crap guns cost thousands. Good ones...
Makes one wonder if being ignorant is a criteria for being hired at CNN. Or his superiors are just as ignorant or they are all just farm animal stupid.
And they get paid big bucks for being ignorant and stupid.
What a gig.
It was 1986 FOPA that stopped new automatic weapons from getting NFA tax stamps.
It’s pretty crazy. A brand new full auto M-16 was not much more than a semi except for the tax stamp. Now they are 15-25k if you can even find one.
Well, with a class II license, parts kits or machining skills, you can make you own, file the paperwork, and get the tax stamp. But then again, that would be non-transferable. The restriction on post 1986 is that they can’t be transferred.
He’s a doofus. And until he apologizes for being ignorant and hard-headed, he’s a bad host, too.
If I need an application approved by the local sheriff, a year long processing time by ATF and have to pay a tax for an automatic weapon, this guy’s mouth of mass destruction needs the same kind of license to be on the air.
And that's wrong. I don't see anything in "the Right of the Poeple to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed" that authorizes the government to infringe on the right of the people to buy automatic weapons. Quite the contrary, in fact.
“Well, with a class II license, parts kits or machining skills, you can make you own, file the paperwork, and get the tax stamp. But then again, that would be non-transferable. The restriction on post 1986 is that they can’t be transferred.”
This is only part of the situation.
Under the NFA and more recent laws like the 1986 FOPA, the ordinary private citizen cannot legally make a full auto firearm (”machine gun”, in legal parlance and common usage), then apply for a tax stamp and get the item listed on the NFA Register. Anyone wishing to make such a firearm must first obtain the proper manufacturers’ license covering the device in question, and then obtain an authorizing letter from an approved government agency (DoD, law enforcement agencies at national, state, or local; any other agency approved by the regulatory authority) stating that the agency wants to obtain a particular firearm to evaluate for possible operational uses.
NFA registered machine guns are divided into three categories, ownership of which is progressively more restricted:
1. Fully Transferable. Allowed to be owned by anyone who has paid all applicable transfer taxes and fees, filed the proper documentation (commonly termed ATF Form 4) including passport photo and fingerprints, and obtained permission from their local chief law enforcement officer. This assumes neither state nor local law precludes possession.
2. Dealer Samples. Divided into pre-1986 and post-1986. Possession allowed only by FFL holders who have also obtained the Special Occupational Tax Stamp, commonly referred to as the “Class III” license. The difference between “pre” and “post” samples lies in permissible disposition on liquidation of the FFL holder business. “pre” samples can be somewhat more widely possessed, but this is in transition.
3. NFA registered full auto firearms transferred to approved law enforcement or other government agencies, after being produced by the manufacturer.
These rules are subject to constant revision and (worse) legal reinterpretation. Prospective buyers are urged to consult legal counsel before attempting to purchase anything. Regulatory agencies never feel themselves legally bound by previous interpretations and have no responsibility to notify NFA Device transferees of changes. And state and local laws are an entirely different matter.
Mechanically inclined forum members are admonished not to build something and then expect to obtain agency approval to continue possessing it; that way lies only huge fines and federal prison time. Full auto arms are great fun but convey no tactical advantage worth the trouble, in an individual situation.
Those laws don't apply to Leftists. Just ask David Gregory.
Yes, the class II license that I spoke of is the manufactures license and is subject to all of the ATF paperwork. However, a class II license is obtainable by most US citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.