because it's so easy to buy a gun in the US, terrorists can easily...

acquire them. handguns, semi-automatic weapons that can easily be converted to automatic weapons. you name it. whatever the militia gun nut white supremecist freaks in idaho can get, so can your run-of-the-mill extreme islamic fundamentalist terrorist.

so, here are some questions:

a) would the bush administration ever try to outlaw guns by saying that because they're so accessible, that makes them easy for terrorists to get?

AND

b) would the fawning bush-suckers (who were paranoid that kerry would make guns illegal) praise bush for this move the way they praise him for making it ok to spy indiscriminantly (or so we must assume since no warrants have been applied for) on american citizens?

in other words, where do the fawning bush-suckers draw the line?

is there any constitutional right that they would stand up for even if bushco used 911 and terrorists as the justification to abolish it? or are they all just a bunch of cowardly pussies that let republican leadership wipe their feet all over them.

i think smart money is on the latter.

Really? Exactly which weapons are these?

killing power of a semi and full automatic one?

a google search yielded this and a number of other sites about it:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosesix.htm

The site you state is hardly unbias info. Those books are available at places such as "Paladin" books. I have seen them up close and personal. They are machining directions that are so poorly detailed that nobody could possibly convert a weapon using them. In fact, it would almost be easier to start from scratch than to convert a weapon.

Seriousstan's post (#5) is about as true as words can get.

And he touches upon an important point when he says:
"In fact, it would almost be easier to start from scratch than to convert a weapon."

The point he touches upon is this:
Anyone with the tools and skill to "convert" a semi into an assault weapon
could build one from scratch.

There's a NAME for people like that: they are called 'machinists'.
And any machinist worth his salt could build an assault weapon
just as easily as any other simple machine.

It is an extremely biased and inaccurate site. They are working for elimination of guns and many of the things they say have already been shown, here on DU, to be lies.

"many of the things they say have already been shown, here on DU, to be lies."
Not hardly.

In fact, that is one of the major appeals of these assault weapons....

I did it as a teenager with a semi-auto .22 I had. It jammed up when it fired full auto, but it worked. You just have to realize that all a full automatic is powered by is a spring which gets pushed back by recoil of a bullet, and loads a new bullet and brings the hammer down on the new bullet from the force of the spring bouncing back. Semi-automatics are just automatics with a little catch in there, so you have to release the trigger before you can fire again.

...face. You merely filed down the sear, which allows the hammer to follow the bolt as it moves forward. That causes the hammer to strike the firing pin a bit earlier than it would in a gun designed as a full auto. In a real full auto, the hammer is delayed a bit before it is released so that the cartridge can be fully chambered. .22s are so low powered that the only thing that happened to you was the gun jamming by premature firing. But with a more powerful cartridge, premature ignition can cause the case head to rupture allowing the burning gases to escape around the face of the not completely seated bolt. Translation: It blows up in your face.

There are also other problems with your method, (Jaming & misfires) but that is the worst one.

Yeah, it was something I did as teenager, when I took it apart and saw how it worked. But nowadays I choose not own guns (though I respect the rights of those who do) so my face should remain safe! :)

keep in mind your average idiot that will want to convert a gun to fire fully automatically is not exactly the most safety minded person. a warning from a book or website that says the gun will blow up isn't much of a deterrent, neither is the federal law.

there is a BIG difference between "can't be done" and "can't be done safely".

i enjoy recreational shooting myself on ocassion, i've had SKS's jam up and fire auto, scared the bejeezus out of me. and i know people that can't get their hands on one without filing the sear, and then brag about their converted gun and show it off, i try to stay away from those people, but they are certainly out there in numbers.

...assault rifle can be converted to full auto. let's forget that part of the question. like one poster said - is there really that big of a difference between the two when you're talking about killing people?

without using the argument that "semi-automatic weapons can be converted to fully automatic weapons" i think the question is still valid. semi-automatic assault weapons in the hands of terrorists are dangerous tools. they're easy to acquire, thanks in part to the NRA.

so, consider the idea of bushco deciding to outlaw semi-automatic assault rifles and a host of other types of firearms using the 911 argument that's been such a successful tool used to remove other constitutional rights. is it possible they would ever try it? and, if so, would the bush-suckers capitulate like they always do?

i think the first question is a valid question. you're seeing the administration spying on US citizens without even attempting to get a warrant. they say they're within the law according to the patriot act. well the patriot act is a big thick stack of papaer that says a lot of things. seems to me they could justify just about anything they want by citing the vague wording of the patriot act and repeating the word "911" over and over again.

and, i think the second question is an interesting one to ponder. aside from a handful of conservatives in the government, the majority of republicans from freepers to talking heads like hannity, coulter, limbaugh to the usually libertarian types like pat buchanan are falling over backwards for bush regarding the domestic spying without a warrant issue. i've even seen many of them (including buchanan) on TV repeating the lie that bush needed to do this because he had to act fast and couldn't wait the 72 hours for a warrant even though the law says he can do it and then file for the warrant within 72 hours after the fact if continued surveillance is needed. they're still using this lie to try to defend bushco.

The difference between an "assault weapon" and a "sporting rifle" often boils down to whether or not the gun has a black plastic stock or not:


Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle
Caliber: .223 Remington, the LEAST powerful of all common centerfire rifle rounds.
Marketed as an all-around utility rifle, can be used for hunting small game up to coyotes, as well as defensive purposes.
Specifically recognized by Dianne Feinstein and other authors of the 1994 "assault weapon" bait-and-switch as being "particularly suitable for sporting purposes," whatever those are.



The same gun with a more modern looking black plastic stock:

Exact same rifle (not just the same model, the same firearm) with a black plastic stock. Now it's magically an evil "assault weapon" in California and by the definition of S.1431/H.R.2038, supposedly useful only for criminals and terrorists. But still "particularly suitable for sporting purposes" under the expired Federal AWB.



The same gun with a stock that folds for storage:

Banned as an evil baby-killing assault weapon under the 1994 AWB (possession was legal, and you could buy and sell a pre-1994 example, and you could buy a post-'94 folding stock, but you couldn't possess the stock and the rifle simultaneously if either was purchased separately after Sept. 1994.



The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was about style, not lethality. A 9mm pistol was "good" if it had traditional styling, and "evil assault weapon" if it was more industrial looking. Same rate of fire as any other civilian 9mm pistol, similar magazine capacities, everything; but if it LOOKED a certain way, it was verboten. Same for rifles; all Title 1 civilian self-loading firearms have the same rate of fire and the same lethality for a given caliber and capacity, regardless of what the rifle looks like.



As far as terrorist access goes...the most lethal of all firearms are repeating shotguns. If you're not going to ban them all, banning just rifles with black modern-looking stocks as opposed to those with wooden cowboy-style stocks is just window dressing.

And no, you can't have mine. :)

i'm not against owning rifles or shotguns for personal protection or legal hunting, etc.

i'm not crazy about handguns as i think they're made for concealing and that makes them excellent tools for criminals. i've had a few pulled on me. but there are so many handguns out there in circulation, there ain't much we can do about it now. a law i would like to see is life imprisonment for ANYONE caught committing a crime with a gun (whether they fired the gun or not).

anyways, that's all off the subject. i'm interested to know if there's anything in the planning by the gov't to try to make gun owning laws more strict by using 911 and the patriot act. and, i also would be interested to see how the bush-suckers would react to such laws assuming they came into being.

as rabid as right wing republican gun nuts are, i have a feeling they would roll right over for bushco. i'm not talking about the militia guys in rural middle america that don't trust the government no matter who's in charge, i'm strictly talking about bush-suckers....you know, freepers and the like.

but most gun owners probably aren't freepers. I've seen a NSSF survey indicating around half of gun owners are repubs, around a third are democrats, the rest are independents, 3rd party, or unaffiliated. Of the 50% or so that are repubs, it's anybody's guess how many are hardcore neocons and how many are moderates, but I wouldn't imagine it would be all of them.

There are those who are trying to use Terrah as an excuse to pass stricter gun controls, both on the right and the left, but those are often the same people who had been using the threat of Terrah to push the Patriot Act and such.

I do know that bushco is NOT popular at the moment on a number of gun boards I frequent...crap like imprisonment of American citizens without trial, secret prisons, routine spying on Americans without warrants, and other Orwellian stuff scares a LOT of people, all across the political spectrum.

just for shits and giggles the answer to both questions is no.

damage in any public area rather quickly with the arms available at any weekend gun show in this country. They could easily overwhelm ANY first responders too and continue until they ran out of ammunition, I suppose. Any Bush suckers not willing to give up their guns at that point would just have them taken with Patriot Act sneak and peek (and seize) actions, after they were ferreted out with NSA communications sweeps and other warrantless mechanisms. I guess this is more my prediction than an answer, but when the car you buy, and the library books you check out require more id than buying a gun...just sayin'.

Go into a gun store, start to buy a gun, and before they give it to you, they have to get a background check with FBI to see if you are OK.

I've wondered that, It seems like cities especially could be vulnerable with the skyscrapers.

I am to wise to the lessons of history to worry about it too much. Stalin and Mao combined killed 33,000 of their own people for every one killed on 9/11 by terrorists. Therefore, I fear Al Queda with 1/33,000 as much as a fear a totalitarian US government.

So it seems most probable that weapons will continue to be widely availiable in the US. They are already in terrorist hands (an awful lot of them are sourced in the USA).

To be critical I'd say this whole thread is a bit nonsensical.

...citizens would be nonsensical, too. but apparently the notion is not as nonsensical as it would seem.

i'm not trying to start a debate on whether we should or should not outlaw guns (in particular semi-auto assault weapons, though i don't see the use for them other than killing lots of people). i'm simply pointing out the fact that bushco has been successful in convincing their base to give up their civil rights because 911 happened. the group that hasn't been affected yet are the gun lovers and NRA types. it seems to me, their rights would be the easiest to violate using the 911 argument. so, if the normal progression of the assault on constitutional rights continues and the real intent of those people pulling the strings of bush and company is truly to work toward a totalitarian government, then is it really nonsensical to picture a scenario where the government uses 911 to start controlling firearms? and the real question is, would the bush-suckers (many of whom are single issue gun rights voters) roll on their backs and give up that right without a fight the way they gave into the patriot act and the domestic spying?

The NRA expend all their energies getting aerated over curbs in gun ownership and ignore other constitutional rights being eroded. By doing that they are not acting as the patriots.

p.s. sorry about taking so long to reply but I was goofing off in the lounge.

had bought guns....

illegally...unmarked, unregistered, chinese products are smuggled in everyday. You can get whatever you like, if you're able to pay. This has nothing to do with lawful gunowners.

"unmarked, unregistered, chinese products are smuggled in everyday"
And of course you have proof of this assertion....

The last time arms were found to have been smuggled in from China, the company that smuggled them in was Norinco and Poly Technologies, two of the charmers in the gun industry that "lawful gunowners" were fighting tooth and nail to protect.

Look at all the terrorists attacks in the past few years. They have all been bombs, except for 911. The last one where guns were used was an attack in Japan. Since then, all attacks that I have heard of have used explosives. So your concern about terrorists getting guns is moot. Yes, they can get them, but they don't really want them. They want stuff that goes BOOM, not BANG.

.....i'm just trying to connect the dots forward to see what other constitutional rights would be vulnerable in a totalitarian state using 911 or terrorism as the justification to attack those rights.

some here think it's a stretch, others apparently don't.

the question of real interest to me in my original post is the one regarding the response to such a violation of constitutional gun rights by the very same gun rights advocates who voted for this government.

When guns started being wrongly collected there, the NRA and all the guns rights groups screamed. The NRA and several others sued in federal court and the federal judge agreed with them.

The one sued was the Chief of Police.

.....the one collecting the guns was not bushco, and the reasons given were not 911 and terror.

and hope they don't change their minds?

Brillian...NOT.

i think it's ridiculous to think that terrorists are not interested in guns.

Gun usage also requires the terrorist to be there to shoot the guns and become subject to capture or being killed. A bomb can be placed and the terrorist long gone when it goes off.

Interfering with my right to buy guns would not hurt the terrorists in the slightest, and would use up police resources by wasting time on the estimated 100,000,000 Americans who have guns legally.

...strike. do you think the 911 hijackers made a last minute escape from the planes? do you think suicide bombers survive their strikes? you're not using logic.

anyways, i'm not trying to make a case for stricter gun laws. if you actually read what i wrote you'll realize that i am asking DUers if they think it's possible that a continuation of the violation of our constitutional rights will occur and possibly lead to the violation of gun ownership rights. bushco uses 911 to justify everything they do. they could certainly make a better case to strip gun owners of their rights by using 911 and the threat of terrorists than they did by justifying their tax cuts for the wealthy by using 911 and terrorists.

comprende?

In either case, bombs are the prefered method.

I seriously doubt that you will see Bush try to round up guns. Sadly, it is our side that is on a gun control kick. And that stance has hurt us dearly at the polls, time and again.

but there's no argument TOO absurd for the trigger happy....

I've actually heard a gun nut argue that a coin collection was as dangerous as an arsenal of assault weapons because a child could choke on a penny.

that terrorists want to buy guns in the US has their collective heads up their butts. Why draw attention to yourself by getting a gun that may or not leave a paper trail? Even purchasing one illegally leaves a witness. Terrorists prefer explosives, especially timed detonations when they can be far away when they go off.

first of all, you're correct that most terrorists seem to use explosives, though the getting away part doesn't seem to be too important to them. many are suicide bombers that blow themselves up as well.

your point about leaving a paper trail is an interesting one. i'm not sure how legitimate it is. republican leadership doesn't seem to have too much interest in following up on paper trails left behind by islamic terrorists. remember those suspicious fundamental islamicists taking flying lessons in florida (jeb's state) but only wanting to learn how to take off and fly but not how to land? no red flags were raised there. remember the august 6th memo entitled "bin laden determined to strike in the US" that bush was to busy vacationing to care about? and what about after 911 when john ashkroft refused to investigate possible gun purchases and ownership by suspected terrorists?

anyways, again, you're only helping to get off the real subject of this thread. the idea here is would bushco, in wanting to advance to a totalitarian-like state, use 911 to continue to take away our constitutional rights? one of the next rights in the progression could certainly be gun ownership. this administration has used 911 for its excuse for practically everything it's done. is it totally out of the question they might use 911 to try to disarm their growing opposition?

and bypass any background check....

In Tacoma, Washington, the Bullseye Gun Shop "lost track of" nearly 300 weapons..including the ones used by the Beltway Sniper. The GOP's response was to forbid the BATF from demanding a written inventory from gun dealers.

can go to any gunstore and do a compliance check which means they have all the books in front of them. I know. I have endured many compliance checks. And getting a gun without a background check is a neat trick. Enlighten me on how its done. All paperwork on a gun trasaction has to have the operators number and a unique code written in the spaces provided indicating NICS check was done. And if the check doesn't clear right away, then there is a three day waiting period.

And the VPC and other antigun organisations are highly biased.

"nd getting a gun without a background check is a neat trick. Enlighten me on how its done."
It's called the gun show loophole.

"And the VPC and other antigun organisations are highly biased."
Says you.

try to go to a totalitarian state in response to 9/11? Now is too late. During the hysteria following attacks would have been his best chance. I know several people who are die hard republicans and they all say, nobody (Dem And Rep alike) better take my guns away. The incident in NO was just some over zealous police chief who over stepped his boundaries and has since been slapped down. (He quit anyway).

Official history so far has it that terrorists don't need guns in order to cause terror.

box cutters were supposedly the weapon of choice to take control of 4 airliners on 911. they couldn't have gotten through airport security with guns. boxcutters will probably never work again for the terrorists. if i saw some dude pull out a boxcutter on a plane i'd jump out of my seat and go for his throat, as would every other passenger on the plane.

so, you're saying because boxcutters were used in one terrorist attack, no guns will ever be used by terrorists? terrorists definitely use assault rifles in their attacks and assassinations overseas....what makes you so sure they have no use for them here?

When is the latest incident of a terrorist attack using a gun?

why bother with guns if box cutters and planes are much more effective?

Where i'm leading to here is the implausibility of taking over not just one but four airliners, with nothing but box cutters.

We're not guarding sites where we have large amounts of deadly explosives that make guns look like childs play. THOSE are going to show up somewhere someday....

The first WTC bomb and the OKC bomb were homemade bombs.

Or just being facetious?

semi-automatic weapons that can easily be converted to automatic weapons

of the sort America endures daily, because a multi-million dollar lobby keeps us all in the line of fire...

"He'd just screwed up at work. He had problems at home. And finally, Michael Richardson told police, he just snapped and, in the spur of the moment, gunned down his wife, daughter and the daughter's boyfriend during an early morning break from work Tuesday.
But, Newport police said, there was nothing spur-of-the-moment about the arsenal investigators found set up inside Richardson's Laycock Lane home, which included at least five pieces of military weaponry trained on the doors and windows, some capable of penetrating police body armor.
...When they entered the home, the grisly scene inside confirmed not only that Richardson's family members had been slain, but that his daughter's 17-year-old boyfriend, Phillip Leslie, had also been killed. A family dog - neighbors said the Richardsons had three - had also been shot.
Police also found a high-velocity, .50-caliber rifle on a tripod aimed at the front door and other weapons placed throughout the house aimed at doors and windows, Collins said. The rifle fires a bullet that can penetrate protective vests worn by police, he said."

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051228/NEWS01/512280347

Worth noting there are several Democratic proposals to ban these .50 caliber weapons...all held up in Cognress by the GOP.

Would you like to fill me in on what centerfire rifles will not penetrate NIJ Level II or IIIA body armor?

Fatal Bullet Pierced Kevlar Vest

The murder weapon was a relatively low-powered .30-30 Winchester hunting rifle, the design dating from the late 1800's.

In 1993, Kasi used a rifle he had purchased at a local gunstore to murder 2 and wound 3 CIA employees waiting at a traffic light near HQ in Langley, VA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_Aimal_Kasi

And let's not forget the period of intense terror created by John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, the infamous "Beltway Sniper(s)". Using a single rifle, the two murdered 10 and critically wounded 3 others around the DC area during a 23 day period of random attacks occuring in 2002. Citizens of the greater DC area were paralyzed w/ fear because of the randomness and perversity of the attacks - victims included a school child, a guy mowing his lawn, customers at gas stations and retail stores, a bus driver... At the time, I was convinced the Beltway Sniper was an AlQueda operative, but the BWS turned out to be a home-grown lunatic and a brainwashed child.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks