Most of us recognized that the Chi-Com SKS was much more reliable in the real world of mud and dirt than the Mattel 16
The only part of the M-16 that was Mattel…were the grips. The gun was designed and built by Colt.
As for the dirt jamming the gun. The early versions of the M-16 were very susceptible to jamming if got dirty. But by the time I went to nam…that problem was solved.
There is a big difference between handling and shooting of hunting and self defense weapons and the M16 auto and semi AR15 for civilian use. I grew up in a sports minded family in Maine. Neither my self nor any immediate or extended family memeber or friend found any use for these type weapons for hunting. Varmint hunting as discribed by gun enthusiast, still doesn’t rationalize putting offensive “man killers” in such easy reach of untrained, the young and mentally unstable. The solution is to make those who do have the ability to acquire them more responsible.
Registering the gun with the owner, like a car, IMO, would help accomplishe this. I don’t have to remind those of us with military experience how closely guarded the use of these weapons were. And yet, the public in some areas has easier access to them then trained military personel in non combat zones. It is a sad commentary on our society.
The debate IMO, should be on what technology we restrain, not whether we should do it. That should be a given. You and I have little control over the criminal mind. We do have though, have access to the means to limit that person fom acting out his criminal intent.
As far as I know, when you purchase the firearm at a dealer, they DO register it to you. That’s what you’re filling out when you buy the gun, a transfer paper
The M16 looked like a toy and the recoil mechanism prevented the weapon from cycling if water entered the stock. The weapon appeared to be a toy and it was, in actuality, very fragile compared to the weapon it replaced. And everyone smirked at the silliness of the round being superior because it “tumbled” on impact." But maybe there’s a old veterans forum somewhere to discuss this.
@bscar2 “As far as I know, when you purchase the firearm at a dealer, they DO register it to you”
ABSOLUTELY NOT, FEDERALLY ! It is requirement in states and that info DOES NOT go into a national archive. THAT REGISTRATION INFO CAN AND IS LEGALLY DESTROYED in some states !
The ATF has NO way of tracking inter state sales of guns because registration of the firearm on the federal level is not available. MAYBE in your state. But that means nothing when some one from an ajoining state can buy as many fire arms as they want as long as they have NO criminal record (a federal requirement).
The fallacy of this provision now is…private sale because of NO nationally prseserved registration can take place. Criminals and those who cannot buy them from a dealer can now buy in “Uncle Henry’s” for example and at gun shows where legal and on the street. There is no record of any registration of private sales conducted interstate.
That’s how guns poliferate to ANYONE. That’s why the NRA LIES when it says, gun laws in states don’t work. They do work when backed by a federal regulation !!!
That in part is what the CIVIL WAR was all about. The need for a Federal Laws by a central government !
No.55 or thereabouts,there will be an attempt toward parity and national defense on the Swiss model-Kevin
Interesting article about the NRA interview on Meet the Press. The host had asked to have an empty 30 round magazine on the show, but the DC police said no; it violated DC’s gun laws. Yet he brought one out to show on the air anyways.
The more the head of the NRA talks the more I dislike the NRA. What a wacko.
I’m an absolute believer in the right to bear arms provided one has not been convicted of a crime, but agree that the head of the NRA is not a good representative of that right. He’s a bit “off the charts”. I’d much prefer to see someone who redirected the arguments toward getting criminals off the streets and toward finding the real root causes of events like that in CT.
I also think the issue of assault rifles and high capacity clips needs to be discussed. But as a supplement to keeping convicted felons off the street and to working on the real cause of the CT tragedy. NOT instead of doing those things. My personal feeling is that these weapons should be controlled in a way similar to the way drugs are. Perhaps training, a more thorough backround check, and registration should be required for certain types of weapons. Perhaps they should be required to be stored at a licensed storage facility. I don’t know the answer. But, again, the issue needs to be seperated out in order to come to a sane conclusion.
I also believe in the right to "bare"arms. But then, only in the summer and the person in question doesn’t have too much cellulite hanging under their over 60 excuse for well developed pipes. Otherwise, as the 2 nd amendment says, a highly regulated militia. What’s wrong with a little more regulation that works ? We federally regulate by registration, everything from the location of sexual offenders to stolen cars and parts. That we don’t do the same for weapons is a shame.
" What’s wrong with a little more regulation that works ? "
What’s wrong with it is that a little is never enough and then we need a little more . . .
Shades of grey is what you’ll have in place of black and white. We’ve got enough regulations, in fact too many, Thank You.
I didn’t see where any liberals called for airplane bans after 911.
We just had our second recent subway pushing death. Perhaps we should ban trains.
Enough, already !
CSA
I didn't see where any liberals called for airplane bans after 911. We just had our second recent subway pushing death. Perhaps we should ban trains.
That has to be the most illogical argument I’ve ever heard.
I also believe in the righ to bare…oh, nevermind.
Seriously, I do believe firearms regulations are appropriate, but the argument usually goes to “banning firearms” and the evidence suggests that banning firearms only disarms the law-adniding citizens, and that makes things worse. It’d be like putting a sign on your house that said “house not protected”.
I believe that background checks should be done for all commercial firearms purchases, including at gunshows. It’s unrealistic to think that private sales will or can do background checks, but with the exception of 'saturday night specials" I don;t think they’re the problem. And people doing Saturday night specials aren’t going ot comply with any law anyway.
I also continue to be convinced that if we don;t begin to reinstitute some systems of right & wrong in our schools and public forums, and if we don;t begin to remove those convicted of violent crimes from the streets, violence will not subside.
I would also argue that if administrators of schools were required to be trained in firearms use and allowed to carry concealed, the magnitude of situations like that in CT might be reduced.
Law abiding adults should be able to carry either open or concealed without concern. Let’s focus on those that have proven not to be law-abiding, and lets not remove guns from those that can stop mass murders. I argue this not as a first amendment srgument, but as a common sense argument.
There are countries that use smart gun registration and regulation, Israel for example, that still manage to preserve their right to protect themselves. They are in much more danger then we but they have fewer per capita gun related accidents and fewer young people as shooting victims per capita.
Btw @MikeInNH…how was the snow. I just shoveled for the third time with a total of over 15 inches. Fortunately it was cold and light. My neighbor just went by with his tracked skid steer to play in the snow and plow everyone out. It’s good to live among neighbors with toys. Hang around with with a shovel too long and someone will run you over trying to plow you out before some one else does.
@MB - I agree with what you’re saying. But I do believe that more laws can help the situation. I know some law abiding people who I’m afraid for the general public if they carry a gun. We pass laws on who can drive a car…we should also regulate someone carrying a weapon. One federal law I’d like to see pass is carrying while under the influence. If you have a gun in your possession and you’re under the influence…a very hefty fine (say over $5000). Second offense…$10,000 fine and you loose your right to bear arms for 5 years. 3rd offense - Felony with a mandatory 1 year in prison.
@Same
Using terms like “Banning” and regulating you are right, can drive a lot of people out of the conversation. We register and regulate cars…we don’t ban them. Heck, we register and regulate full automatic machine guns yet some still say we ban them, which we don’t. Just about, anyone without a criminal record can legitimately own a full automatic machine gun.
But, it is expensive (fee), you need to jump through hoops, it is registered federally to you and YOU could be held responsible if it falls into the wrong hands, with stiff fines and, or jail time. IT WORKS and we don’t ban them !
When was the last mass killing done with a full auto machine gun and .how many killings have you read about in the last 50 years done with a full auto machine gun ?Very, very few, …yet, the are not banned !
I disagree that law abiding citizens should be able a concealed weapon without a permit (if that is what you meant) Some sates allow it, many don’t where it is regulated at the state level. Law abiding does not mean qualified. Accidents happen with opportunity.
I have a CWP and it is much more difficult to renew since the state took that over fom the towns. I was in the military, a state trained police officer at one time and still have my first wife. How much more law abiding can you get…yet, I have little reason to carry and never do. Appying from scratch is even more difficult and the only reason I keep it active. That’s the way it should be.
Good points. No need to worry about being caught and fined federally and EVER getting your CWP (or CCW or whatever) permit back again. That would constitute having a criminal record with a fine that high…you will never see a CWP again in states that do a background check.
While we might disagree on the carrying of concealed weapons by law abiding citizens, at least we’re debating a specific point. I should point out that I do not feel that CWP rights need to include all weapons. IMHO there’s really no reason for assault weapons. Perhaps no need for semi automatic weapons. A netter control might be to allow peoepl to purchase them after a background check, but require thm to remain stored at a licensed facility. That would allow the afficiados to enjoy them, but might prevent the kind of massacures we’ve seen. Since the kid in CT got the weapons from his home, such a requirement might have mitigated the suffering.
The general discussion in the media is all over the map, and usually focuses on outright bans on all weapons. That discussion typically gets nowhere useful.
I see your point and understand it. But, in requiring a weapon of a specific type to remain out of your possession after purchasing it coukd be a problem. The problem would be that the ACLU would have something to say about that. If you are the legal owner of a weapon, you should be allowed to take it with you. What would accomplish what you say, is pretty much what they do with full auto matic weapons. It is such a hassle to buy and posses one, why not just go to a controlled and licensed facility with registered guns and shoot them on sight as a rental.
My personal point of view is that a list of guns is made available, by manufacturers and model that becomes legal to purchase by any non criminal. But, these guns must still be registered with the AFT. If you sell it, it must be reregistered by the buyer and they must have a background check as well. This applies to all personal sales. You could do this by going to a dealer and have him use his facility to consumate the sale for a reasonable fee.
AFT? You mean the ATF? 
My opinion of the ACLU cannot be printed here.
I’m not totally uncoomfortable with the registration requirement, except that the data shows that it doesn;t reduce ccrime or violence. Areas with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates. It creates an imposition on only the law abiding, and that’d exactly the opposite of what you want it to do.
semi automatic weapons need strcter controls, and I’m comfortable with them being kept in licensed facilities. Automatic weapons could fall under the same guidelines.
The ACLU would have problems with my suggestions, but let them challange it. I don;t advocate considering the ACLU when writing legislation.