Interesting AWB news story
- Thread starter Selfdfenz
- Start date
MicroBalrog
New member
MicroBalrog
New member
Both MVPEL and Devonai are correct. That image was made before the NH bill was defeated (though it's not over till the fat lady sings, and they are going to try again next year). Hope the general progression works out as predicted.
The following is a copy of an e-mail I sent to Mr. Martinez. In the unlikely event he responds, I will share what he says with readers.
Mr. Martinez:
Came upon the above mentioned article on the internet today, and if you will bear with me, I have a question, one that you might find interesting.
Assault weapons are properly defined as follows; SELECTIVE FIRE WEAPOINS, USUALLY OF RIFLE CONFIGURATION, CHAMBERED FOR INTERMEDIATE POWER CARTRIDGES. This definition appears in standard reference texts that deal with small arms, and it can be found at www.britannica.com also. If that were insufficient, check with the Dept.of Defense and or The Dept. of The Army. I admit to being partisan. Are anti gun organizations, reporters and "talking heads" willing to make the same admission?
Interestingly, NONE of the rifles speficically mentioned in the original legislation, the 1994 Crime Bill, as they were offered for commercial sale in this country, have selective fire capability. Neither do clones of specified rifles, which would have brought the number of rifles effected to approximately 200, quite a jump from the 19 often mentioned. Additionally, assuming for the moment, that these so-called "assault rifles" did have selective fire capability, they would have fallen under the purview of 70 year old federal legislation, The National Firearms Act of 1934.
So sir, given the foregoing, why in blazes do so many media types go on and on over and or about "assault weapons"so-called, which by the way, according to data in police reports, never figured prominently in gun related crime.
Your attention is directed to the above. Do you care to respond?
Mr. Martinez:
Came upon the above mentioned article on the internet today, and if you will bear with me, I have a question, one that you might find interesting.
Assault weapons are properly defined as follows; SELECTIVE FIRE WEAPOINS, USUALLY OF RIFLE CONFIGURATION, CHAMBERED FOR INTERMEDIATE POWER CARTRIDGES. This definition appears in standard reference texts that deal with small arms, and it can be found at www.britannica.com also. If that were insufficient, check with the Dept.of Defense and or The Dept. of The Army. I admit to being partisan. Are anti gun organizations, reporters and "talking heads" willing to make the same admission?
Interestingly, NONE of the rifles speficically mentioned in the original legislation, the 1994 Crime Bill, as they were offered for commercial sale in this country, have selective fire capability. Neither do clones of specified rifles, which would have brought the number of rifles effected to approximately 200, quite a jump from the 19 often mentioned. Additionally, assuming for the moment, that these so-called "assault rifles" did have selective fire capability, they would have fallen under the purview of 70 year old federal legislation, The National Firearms Act of 1934.
So sir, given the foregoing, why in blazes do so many media types go on and on over and or about "assault weapons"so-called, which by the way, according to data in police reports, never figured prominently in gun related crime.
Your attention is directed to the above. Do you care to respond?