...back to the semantics of 'what makes a military gun'. Any thoughts on how to make the distinction and who should have that authority?

It would be a forever changing description and impossible for government to keep up with.

Lets say you take every firearm made today and classify them. By tomorrow afternoon, the manufacturers will be adjusting what they make to have their stuff fit into civilian category.

already does this, since all military weapons, in the terms you are thinking, are capable of automatic fire. The pretend military rifles are not military rifles. If you are going to limit it to modern weapons. My wife has a military rifle from the 1930s, but it is viewed as a civilian bolt action rifle today.

Class III, are fully automatic, and is what the military uses....None have be available for sale new, to civilians since 1986.

The rifles that many in here want to ban, only LOOK like military rifles, and fire ONLY semi-automatically... Just like most civilian firearms already do.

This is what is so infuriating to people that actually know what they are talking about. is the out right lies and deception put forward from those that wish to ban guns.

If these "bushmasters" where so deadly, why don't the army ACTUALLY USE THEM??

this is already done. military rifles have been banned since the 1930's.

the ar-15 is the civilian version, its only available in semi automatic with no select fire switch (this is reserved for military/police only).

They would classify the same way.

Gun owners are seeing that some people want to reestablish the
assault weapons ban and are now, also looking at magazine capacity. This shows a stronger effort to go further to restrict guns ad this makes people think that the anti-gun people will try to go as far as they can.

There probably isn't much one can say or do when gun owners don't trust the administration.

Their response is to buy what they can and hunker down.

I don't know alot about the legalities and was wondering out loud. I guess it's hard all the way around. But I'm glad we're having the conversation. Thanks for your input, I am learning alot.

Their are a few good democrats, that know this issue inside out, and many of use actually OWN these rifles. sadly, their are allot of people here on DU that just want to cuss us out, and tell us how evil we are. I simply have no time for them anymore, they are a lost cause. Their is no way around willful ignorance.

For example, this Democratic congressman from GA, just won his reelection bid, with this ad... It shows him holding a WWII era German K98k rifle...it is a TRUE, military weapon, and most likely saw action in WWII. But the subtlety is such that many in here wanting to ban "military guns" are totally clueless when they see him hold it, to them it is nothing more than a old "hunters rifle"..

&feature=share&list=FLjWDrFizLG5QbGYD2ZbB8zg

Yet, when they see a semi-automatic rifle that LOOKS like a military one, they demand not only banning, but some are even pushing for confiscation...of a rifle, the military would NEVER use...

Its the same logic as banning honda civics from on road use, because some kids put spoilers, gawdy paint, and loud mufflers on them, to make them LOOK like race cars, but under the hood, it is the same ol' 4cyl engine...

Also, a salient fact is that these rifles that some are pushing to ban, has been, for over the past decade, the most popular rifles in America. Millions of gun owners uses them responsibly, and they should not be punished for what a crazy person "that could not even purchase one legally" does with an illegally obtained one.

This would mean that certain guns could be owned by novice
gun buffs and as they continue to acquire training they would be
able to buy differt types of guns. This would allow people to acquire many different types of guns for sport and competition but they would have to go thru more advanced safety training or competitive achievement.
This way you could collect the types of guns you want and not be restricted but people who don't take guns seriously woud not want to go thru all the rig-a-ma-role.
This may go against the NRAs desire to allow any law-abiding citizen to buy whatever they choose as soon as they desire to enter the sport but maybe not - depends on how far down they draw their lines of restriction.

Would you stand for the same sort of restrictions to own books, or voting? Please understand I am not trying to sound like a smart ass but to require training to exercise a civil liberty is a dangerous precedent. We must be careful what arguments we use against a civil liberty...for example the word "need" is extremely dangerous in regard to restrictions on civil liberties. {why do you need such a gun/why do you need the internet}

That being said, I think such training should be widely available, even in public schools for those that want it. I am all for punishing harshly those that break the gun laws, pretty much as they stand now.

Or let me reframe here.

If "they" are going to say that we can't own certain guns
then "they" are setting a limit that is acceptable for "them".

Then we can use the training in order to gain access to what we
can call a restricted class of firearms. Ones that we would use for competition and the like. (competition would qualify for "training" since shooting in competition requires advanced skills to compete you would automatically be "qualified" to own the firearms used in that particular type of competition.

The question would be - where do we allow the line to be drawn for everyday, normal firearm ownership...

Better?

Assault weapon is not defined well, and since it is really the same thing as any semiautomatic rifle, it is impossible to define without banning most firearms in civilian use today.

The truth of the matter is, from a "how it functions" point of view, there is almost no difference between

this:




and this:


They both use the same rounds (.223)

They both can hold the same amount of ammo

They both functionally fire at the same rate

One looks a bit scarier than the other (to some)

I can put the same optics on the ranch rifle as the AR15

The things they say are cosmetic and make something an assault weapon really don't make much any difference in how they function.

Pistol grip really does not have much bearing on how you fire the rifle.

Flash hider does not actually do anything except keep the flash out of your eyes (not that the flash blinds you or anything).

The bayonet lug, is just a lug, only makes a difference if you want to attach a bayonet.

Adjustable stock just makes it so that you can share it with someone who is smaller / larger than you.

So they say they want to ban assault weapons, but have no way to define an assault weapon, you can see how we find this silly.

... but so long as you are being responsible with your rifle, I don't really care which one you choose, it's none of my business.

I like my little 04 SS mini but it just didn't hold the groups I wanted.

The good news is the newer minis are much more accurate I'd like to have one in 6.8

Ruger discontinued the 6.8 mini this year. A shame, but it probably just wasn't a seller because ammo isn't as cheap or plentiful as 5.56. FWIIW, I have a newer (3 year old) Mini. I installed an accu-strut and had the trigger worked over, and it's a solid MOA rifle. Very rugged, dependable platform too.

I can shoot it,

My 5' 5" wife can shoot it comfortably

My 5' 10yo daughter can shoot it comfortably

My 4' 8" 8yo son can shoot it comfortably.

Our AR's are one size fits all platform that everyone can enjoy at the range and in the field.



I bought my son a 7mm 08 handi rifle youth sized for deer season but it's still a little long in the stock for him to shoot when hunting. If shooting from our hunting blind off sand bags it's just fine. However.com when out and about it's hard for him to just slap it against a tree and hold it steady for getting a shot. Fit is everything when it comes to hunting.

Would all the "formerly civilian" guns in civilian hands be made illegal?

And, who can have a "military" gun? Just the military? Or would police be allowed to possess them? What about civilian security personnel?

Originally developed for the civilian market then later adopted by the military.

But that's one of the major things everyone wants to ban, even though it was a "civilian" firearm to begin with.

See "The 50 Caliber Terror"

... adopted by the military as the M9.

The Barrett .50 cal is a very specialized weapon with a very limited customer base. Not easily concealed, and the ammuntion costs a few dollars per round. Great for pre-tenderizing the venison, though. Out of my price range.

Remington 700 was another civilian gun adopted by the military. I'd hate to see that one outlawed for civilian use.

because of their "select fire" capability; i.e. they can fire in automatic fashion, the standard of military infantry weapons.

It might help to study how many military weapons have "evolved" to civilian status, esp. the old bolt action weapons (Krag, Mauser, Springfield, etc.) have been adopted by civilians as primarily hunting and sporting weapons, with improvements and modifications for those uses. This continued with the Garand M1 semi-auto rifle first used in WW II, then in Korea and somewhat in Vietnam. That weapon was also adopted for use by civilians (exp. includes Remington 242). The present AR, AK, etc. weapons now available are merely clones of the full-auto weapons, firing only semi-auto. In reality, civilians have not seen a change in weapon-type since WW II, and few expect that any sort of full-auto will be adopted by civilians.

In a sense, civilian weapon types have remained static.