The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Farm Boy]

Oh no, I'm just legit interested in the answer to that.

 

[zxcvbob]

I thought the select fire .308 .30-06 and other similar calibers were called "Battle-Rifles" like the M-14.

Yes, they are. The semiautomatic M1 Garand with 8-round clips was also a battle rifle. I was mixing my terminology, even tho' I try not to do that. (sorry about that) The military probably doesn't call something as small as a battle rifle a "machine gun" or a "light machine gun", but the ATF does if it has a full-auto or 3-round burst mode.

 

[Commodore]

I have a hard time thinking of the FN SCAR as a 'machine gun'.

Depends on if it's a SCAR-L or SCAR-H. The SCAR-H I believe was designed to be able to be readily converted to, and function as, a light machine gun.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Pffffft! Magazines are for sissies, belt-fed ammunition with a 250-round belts is the way to go!
I wonder what kind of modifications an AR-15 style rifle would need to use belt-fed ammunition.

You just switch out the upper receiver (the top half of an AR) with one that takes belts.

It's fun until you actually have to pick it up.

 

[Broken_Erika]

You just switch out the upper receiver (the top half of an AR) with one that takes belts.

It's fun until you actually have to pick it up.

It doesn't look that heavy....

and yes. This is classified as a "Machine-Gun"
I had this in my fallout 3 weapons mod, alongside the M249, HK21 and RPK74 for 5.56mm MG's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_Shrike_5.56

 

[Bugfatty300]

It doesn't look that heavy....

and yes. This is classified as a "Machine-Gun"
I had this in my fallout 3 weapons mod, alongside the M249, HK21 and RPK74 for 5.56mm MG's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_Shrike_5.56

Take into account the heavier barrel and gas piston, the heavy belt system itself and a belt box and ammo (a 250 round belt will weigh more than the rifle itself)...all of it on the front half of the gun.

You're right that it's not heavy especially compared to other the machine guns in your mod, but IRL belt-fed ARs I've shot tend to feel about as balanced as holding an umbrella with lead fishing weights tied to one end.

But there are .22 rimfire belt-fed AR uppers. Now those are much more fun and I'm definitely going to look into getting one someday.

 

[Commodore]

So it seems the ATF may have been enforcing certain laws regarding the sale of firearm parts incorrectly for years. The ATF has always held that a completed receiver constitutes a firearm by itself, and as such, requires a serial number and license to be legally sold. Well a federal judge recently dismissed some (not all) charges against a guy who was illegally selling guns, ruling that a completed receiver by itself should NOT be considered a completed firearm. This ruling is big, because now it's going to create a loophole where entire firearms can be purchased piece by piece and the government doesn't have to be notified or made aware at all.

The judge's ruling was based on the exact wording of the regulation in question which is the following:

That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.

The "and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel" is the part the judge took issue with. Lower receivers for AR-15s are not "threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel" and so, in the judge's opinion, does not meet the criteria for being defined as a firearm. And upper receivers already don't count as firearms (in case any of you are thinking about that technicality) because even though they can receive the barrel, they don't meet the other criteria. So basically, because the AR-15's receiver is split into two separate parts, neither part meets the ATF's definition of a firearm and thus should not require a serial number, background check, or be subject to any other regulation regarding the sale of a completed firearm.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Surely the word "usually" here applies to firearms in general, not to the specific model in question.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Surely the word "usually" here applies to firearms in general, not to the specific model in question.

50 years ago maybe but today most modern firearms are designed to be modular and don't have any single part that can be clearly considered a "receiver" based on Gun Control Act's definition.

This is the equivalent of considering an empty plastic PC case to be a computer. Or a plastic zip-loc bag to be marijuana

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well I have no idea about any of that, I'm just going on the wording as written. It seems to be a general description of a standard part of a gun that "usually" is threaded at its forward position. To me this "usually" means "in most guns", but the judge seems to be interpreting it as "usually for the particular model of gun in question". Only in the latter case would his/her ruling make sense (seemingly).

 

[Commodore]

As Virginia Democrats plan to enact laws that would allow for the seizure of legally obtained firearms from citizens, some sheriffs have found a novel way to protect their citizens from such laws. The law proposed makes exceptions for current or retired law enforcement officers. So what some Virginia sheriffs are planning is to immediately deputize everyone that is legally allowed to own a firearm in their jurisdictions upon the potential passage of any such laws. Deputizing citizens effectively makes them law enforcement officers, thus making then exempt from any gun bans that may be put in place.

You know, for all the talk of conservatives being stupid, we sure do always seem smart enough to find ways to frustrate any attempts by Democrats to actually do anything they want to do.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'm sure deputizing citizens with guns won't lead to anything bad

 

[Commodore]

I'm sure deputizing citizens with guns won't lead to anything bad

Then Virginia Democrats should abandon their plans on gun control to keep it from happening. Especially since 90% of the counties in Virginia have enacted 2nd Amendment sanctuary policies since the Democrats took over the state legislature in November. That's basically a declaration that it doesn't matter what laws Democrats pass, because the people aren't going to follow them and law enforcement won't enforce them.

 

[sophie]

As Virginia Democrats plan to enact laws that would allow for the seizure of legally obtained firearms from citizens

This is literally a meme. It's not happening in reality.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Then Virginia Democrats should abandon their plans on gun control to keep it from happening. Especially since 90% of the counties in Virginia have enacted 2nd Amendment sanctuary policies since the Democrats took over the state legislature in November. That's basically a declaration that it doesn't matter what laws Democrats pass, because the people aren't going to follow them and law enforcement won't enforce them.

I still remember the last time conservatives claimed Democrats were coming to take their guns... and all the other frenzied, deeply Ill and sick proclamations of impending tyranny under Obama.

Give us all a break, your persecution complex is showing

 

[Commodore]

This is literally a meme. It's not happening in reality.

Virginia Democrats have already submitted gun control bills ahead of their next session, and given the rhetoric for on Democrats on gun control lately, I'm going to say it's pretty safe to assume the worst from them until the details come out.

But even if they aren't going for confiscation, they are certainly going to try for an "assault weapons ban" (nevermind the term "assault weapon" is completely ridiculous) which is also going to be resisted by the sanctuary counties.

What's the governor going to do in the event of such resistance? Fire all the sheriffs? He doesn't have the authority since they are elected officials. Mobilize the state National Guard to enforce his laws? It's illegal to use the military, including the National Guard, for law enforcement purposes. Even if they could be used, Trump can supercede the governor's authority, federalize the Virginia National Guard and order them to stand down. Seek relief from the courts? Good luck considering it would likely end up in federal court and the federal courts are firmly under conservative control thanks to Trump.

Please, just allow me this moment to gloat about the fact that even when Democrats win elections, they are still powerless to do anything.

 

[Imaus]

They are powerless because they're picking more fights than they need to. Rhetoric often flies and expands and balloons and then turns into nonsense bills and more radical rhetoric. And of course, people *respond* to rhetoric. Too often even just enforcing the current laws is ignored, in its place is the constant talk for new laws.

Gun Control and Immigration are the two on-the-fence position for many people, and one as an observer needs to recognize that. If it is expedient to shelve, halt, do a turn-around, or otherwise be lenient on an issue for the sake of votes...do so. The Democrats need not be the permanent Anti-Gun, Open Border party.

Victory needs to come first, then rule competently, increase the standard of living with economic policies and fair rule, and then more fringe issues can be introduced. And if there is still resistance, fine. Drop it. Move on.

 

[Estebonrober]

Please, just allow me this moment to gloat about the fact that even when Democrats win elections, they are still powerless to do anything.

I mean I understand your position here, but you do see the problem in relishing in this reality do you not?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Over the years I've grown less afraid of democrat politicians seizing my AR-15 than I have republican-supporting authoritarian police and sheriff's departments seizing it extra-judiciously.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think I remember reading somewhere that higher rates of gun ownership correlate with higher rates of law enforcement officers getting shot (and also with higher rates of people getting shot by police, I think). I don't remember the details, but these sheriffs who want to deputize people only because they own a gun might want to Google that first.