Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dan from Michigan
Talk about sloppy journalism. CA passed their AW ban in '89, not '99. This is one of many problems with the article, not the least of which is the use of the term "assault weapon", which is, for all practical purposes, meaningless.

I've noticed a lot of "AK-47s" in the news lately. The AK-47 is a selective-fire capable rifle, and therefore classified as a machine gun. Recent laws make them very difficult to obtain. The guns being used in the aforesaid articles are most likely AKSs (or similar firearm), which are the semi-auto only variant.

What I am trying to point out is that the same obfuscation and lies are being trotted out once again to try to drum up support for these proposed laws.

11 posted on 02/25/2005 2:10:38 PM PST by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Disambiguator
The AK-47 is a selective-fire capable rifle, and therefore classified as a machine gun. Recent laws make them very difficult to obtain.

How old are you? I don't know that I'd call the 1930s "recent". Even the 1986 ban on selling newly made machine guns to ordinary citizens isn't all that recent, even to a "fifty something" like me.

24 posted on 02/25/2005 8:43:43 PM PST by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Disambiguator; Squantos; Joe Brower
What I am trying to point out is that the same obfuscation and lies are being trotted out once again to try to drum up support for these proposed laws.

Exactly, I had to read this three time to figure it out

According to a report by the Violence Policy Center, between 1998 and 2001, one in five law enforcement officers (41 of 211) killed in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon. Furthermore, of the law enforcement officers killed by a rifle during this period, 75 percent (38 of 49) were killed with an assault rifle.

So 38 of 41 were assault 'rifles' that are already heavily reguated, select fire.

The other 14, were done with assault 'weapons' and 'sniper rifles'.

So by their own logic, [and BS phraseology] this preemption to confiscation would only effect THREE weapons that arent already regulated to death ?

Being as though 80% of duty deaths result from 'other' causes, how about we regulate the wreckless driving of cops hurrying back for shift change, or blowing through red lights on the way to meet the 'Mrs' for a box lunch ??? /sarc...sort of

25 posted on 02/25/2005 11:11:22 PM PST by Gilbo_3 (Patience is a virtue, but it aint one of mine !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson