[OT] Clinton Assault Weapon Ban Ending - was - RE:gmailinitiations

[Dustin Decker]

> From: kclug-bounces at kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces at kclug.org] On Behalf
> Of Brian Densmore
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 3:43 PM
> To: kclug at kclug.org
> Subject: RE: [OT] Clinton Assault Weapon Ban Ending - was -
> RE:gmailinitiations
> 
> Not true. I had the opportunity to purchase a .44 "semi-automatic" rifle
> a few years back. Totally legally, before the Clinton ban. This is called
> a semi-automatic, but in reality is a .44 sub-machine gun. A simple
> modification
> turns this semi-automatic "assault weapon" into a fully automatic mass-
> people-killing
> "assault weapon". The modification is and almost always has been illegal,
> but lots of
> people do it anyway, I'm sure. I'm sorry, but I really see no reason for
> these weapons
> to be legal. I have a gun and use it to kill food with (food <> human
> beings), and
> Shooting a deer with an assault weapon pretty much nullifies the food
> quality part
> of it, not to mention the fur/leather quality.

Pretty much any semi-automatic weapon (including those you shoot Bambi with)
can be modified to become fully-automatic.  Hell, if you can pull the
trigger fast enough, you needn't modify.  In the Mini-14 world there is a
popular device for this very purpose, allowing you to avoid the illegal
modification of your rifle.

I've fired thousands of weapons in my day, and to be honest, those Chinese
AK-47 knock-offs (they call it an SKS) that were popular a while back are
probably the most dangerous.  They sold for $200.00 or less.  These are
excellent for modification to full auto - in fact, most of them are mere
millimeters from it to begin with.  (As with most weapons of this sort,
fifteen minutes with a bastard file will get it done.)  I can certainly see
(even as a self-professed gun nut) that these don't need to be readily
available in that format.  I let my stepson fire one last year; handed it to
him with six rounds in it, he pulled the trigger once, and they all went
down range!  Note: These weren't even part of the ban, I can buy one NOW.

As for the deer bit, I'm not sure how soft I should make this landing... but
here goes.  In the service I preferred to fire a 7.62 NATO round, roughly
equivalent to your .308 Remington.  The ever-popular 5.56mm NATO round fired
by an M-16 (and many variants) is practically identical to a .223 Remington
as well.  At ranges exceeding 500 yards, I still prefer a .308, but you
really can't beat a .223 for precision firing at less than 200 yards with a
scope.  Both of these rounds are excellent for their purposes both in
combat, and in sport.  Their behavior in both realms is IDENTICAL.  Either
punch through flesh and bone (.308) or fragment and do as much damage as
possible (.223).

The .223 is messy enough to keep most folks from surviving to the hospital,
as in the case of our D.C. sniper (hardly qualified to hold this title,
however).  The effects on the flesh of a deer are exactly the same as that
with any mammal, and when fired properly the terminal effects are the same:
a hole in (or through) a target.
Dustin