View Single Post
Old 03-14-2018, 11:53 PM
Mazryonh Mazryonh is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 275

Okay, after a bit of research, it seems that since 2013 the percentage of congress members with direct military experience has been dropping steadily ever since the end of the Vietnam War. Guess no one ever thought that this demographic change would lead to an increasing ignorance about guns at large in the US. Perhaps some of the remaining veteran congressmen privately think to themselves: "I've fired helicopter miniguns in combat and you don't know what a barrel shroud does?"

Originally Posted by Evil Tim View Post
Come on Mazryonh, don't you remember how the Scary Gun Bill ended the menace of drive-by rifle grenadings and gangland bayonet charges?
Rifle-grenadings? You mean carbombings, right? And gangland bayonet charges still exist, they're called stabbing sprees, since bayonets that aren't WWI-vintage are just knife-length blades. What you're talking about might be par for the course in the worst part of cartel violence in Brazil or Mexico, or maybe 1930s Chicago.

Originally Posted by Evil Tim View Post
More seriously, the feature test of the Clinton AWB and others was based on a precedent from the "sporting purpose" test of the Gun Control Act (ie the ATF Form 4950, which was a transparent attempt by US gun companies to screw over their European and Combloc competitors by either banning their weapons entirely or requiring the addition of features nobody wanted). The idea is that the features are not sporting features, therefore banning guns with those features will ban scary military rifles and leave only grandpa's lever action or something.
Obama banned importation of quite a few former Soviet firearm manufacturers without mentioning features, so the anticompetition bit wasn't necessary in the end. But the purpose behind "sporting features" bit escapes me. Even a single-shot .22 LR hunting rifle can be perfectly serviceable as a killing tool in the right hands.
Reply With Quote