California gun control law mimics Tx abortion law

[RF667799]

and such sale shows nothing about restrictions of purchase or the number of sales, so if I missed something quote it to support the claim you quoted before about the number of M1 Carbines sold in the 1960s to NRA members (which I assume you imply that they were private individuals).

http://www.bandksalesllc.com/images/Collectors_Guide_M1_Carbine.pdf

 

[RF667799]

You cannot follow me. You respond to a post of mine about military small arms tactics and definitions in the 1980's and 1990s. It stared when somebody called M1 Carbine a "battle rifle" So, my quote has NOTHING to do with what you and I were discussing (meaning the purchase of military carbines by individuals in the 1960s).

You claimed in the 80s and 90s there wasn't much focus on short range firefights, and that "eventually we saw the expansion of assault-rifles."

Whatever the Greek army was ****ing around with from the 80s and 90s until that "expansion", the US Army already was equipped with a firearm commonly called an assault rifle.

 

[Rucker61]

I posted elsewhere a good study that proved that as soon as the ban expired mass shootings increased.

Do your own math.

US mass shootings, 1982–2025: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings.

www.motherjones.com

Unfortunately there were still a lot of such weapons around that weren’t affected by the ban. Therefore it took a long while for them to be outdated.

What do you mean by "outdated"? There are examples of the Remington Model 8 that are still fully operational.

I could live with semi-automatic weapons if the magazines were of limited capacity so the the shooter had to take more time to reload and he could possibly be stopped during that time.

How would you confiscate the 100s of millions that already exist?

 

[pamak]

When is the last time we saw Constitutional, effective or enforceable laws proposed?

There is not much point in finding the "last time" but I will remind you one quire recent gun safety law which survived constitutional challenge

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs bid to block Trump's gun 'bump stock' ban

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed President Donald Trump a victory by rejecting for the second time in three days a bid by gun rights activists to block his new ban on "bump stock" attachments that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly.

www.reuters.com

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs bid to block Trump's gun 'bump stock' ban​

MARCH 28, 2019

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed President Donald Trump a victory by rejecting for the second time in three days a bid by gun rights activists to block his new ban on “bump stock” attachments that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly.

Irrelevant to the point I made. The enforceable part is linked to the attitude of the states. When Texas already reveals that it will oppose any new gun safety regulation, then obviously, it will be more difficult to enforce gun safety laws in Texas and effectiveness will also be law. I think TRumps ban

The effectiveness and enforceable part is obviously closely related to the attitude of the states. I simply point at the fanaticism of Texas' conservatives who presume things about the constitutionality of any law even though it is quite clear that we can have gun safety laws that can survive a legal challenge.

 

[Rucker61]

You claimed in the 80s and 90s there wasn't much focus on short range firefights, and that "eventually we saw the expansion of assault-rifles."

Whatever the Greek army was ****ing around with from the 80s and 90s until that "expansion", the US Army already was equipped with a firearm commonly called an assault rifle.

In the 80s the Greek Army had a 3 on 2 engagement at the Evros River.

 

[Rucker61]

There is not much point in finding the "last time" but I will remind you one quire recent gun safety law which survived constitutional challenge

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs bid to block Trump's gun 'bump stock' ban

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed President Donald Trump a victory by rejecting for the second time in three days a bid by gun rights activists to block his new ban on "bump stock" attachments that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly.

www.reuters.com

U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs bid to block Trump's gun 'bump stock' ban​

MARCH 28, 2019

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed President Donald Trump a victory by rejecting for the second time in three days a bid by gun rights activists to block his new ban on “bump stock” attachments that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly.

Irrelevant to the point I made. The enforceable part is linked to the attitude of the states. When Texas already reveals that it will oppose any new gun safety regulation, then obviously, it will be more difficult to enforce gun safety laws in Texas and effectiveness will also be law. I think TRumps ban

The effectiveness and enforceable part is obviously closely related to the attitude of the states. I simply point at the fanaticism of Texas' conservatives who presume things about the constitutionality of any law even though it is quite clear that we can have gun safety laws that can survive a legal challenge.

Name some.

 

[RF667799]

A guy on the CMP forum posts some original sales receipts. Interesting that a 1911 pistol was only 17.00.

Carbines sold thru NRA? - CMP Forums

Please post your questions and comments regarding CMP Carbine Sales here!

forums.thecmp.org

 

[pamak]

You claimed in the 80s and 90s there wasn't much focus on short range firefights, and that "eventually we saw the expansion of assault-rifles."

Whatever the Greek army was ****ing around with from the 80s and 90s until that "expansion", the US Army already was equipped with a firearm commonly called an assault rifle.

Do you realize that the word "expansion" implies existence of assault-type rifles prior to the 1980's and 1990s?

The expansion of assault rifle and smaller ammunition implies their adoption as the main weapon of the infantry man It is not a matter of just having an equipment (assault rifle) in the 1960s. It is a matter of what equipment was standard. infantry equipment then. And yes, there were assault rifle even then, including the most famous one (AK-47), but in western at least armies, assault rifles were not the standard infantry weapon.

 

[pamak]

Name some.

I gave you the link as the latest example I recall of a gun regulation which survived a constitutional challenge. This should be enough for the point I made.

 

[Rucker61]

Do you realize that the word "expansion" implies existence of assault-type rifles prior to the 1980's and 1990s?

The expansion of assault rifle and smaller ammunition implies their adoption as the main weapon of the infantry man It is not a matter of just having an equipment (assault rifle) in the 1960s. It is a matter of what equipment was standard. infantry equipment then. And yes, there were assault rifle even then, including the most famous one (AK-47), but in western at least armies, assault rifles were not the standard infantry weapon.

The first "assault rifle" was fielded in 1944. The US Army adopted one in 1964 as the standard infantry rifle. The Soviets had already adopted the AK-47 in 1947. China had adopted the Type 56 in 1956.

Those were the three biggest armies in the world, and they had all adopted assault rifles by 1964.

 

[RF667799]

Do you realize that the word "expansion" implies existence of assault-type rifles prior to the 1980's and 1990s?

The expansion of assault rifle and smaller ammunition implies their adoption as the main weapon of the infantry man It is not a matter of just having an equipment (assault rifle) in the 1960s. It is a matter of what equipment was standard. infantry equipment then. And yes, there were assault rifle even then, including the most famous one (AK-47), but in western at least armies, assault rifles were not the standard infantry weapon.

By the 80s and 90s, the Army and Marine infantry units were already equipped with variations of the M16. Not only infantry, but support units as well. It became the standard service rifle of the US armed forces in 1969.

 

[pamak]

A guy on the CMP forum posts some original sales receipts. Interesting that a 1911 pistol was only 17.00.

Carbines sold thru NRA? - CMP Forums

Please post your questions and comments regarding CMP Carbine Sales here!

forums.thecmp.org

Guys post in forums many things, including fake photos. I want you to explain to me why the guy in this forum says that you had to be an NRA member to get such military guns. If there is such type of restriction, then obviously, it does not make sense to talk about a tradition of selling military grade weapons without imposing purchase restrictions. So, on the contrary, what I see is a tradition of federal restrictions in purchasing military-grade guns. By the way, the carbine sold were unserviceable as you can see.

 

[DarkWizard12]

KRON4

The Bay Area's Local News Station

www.kron4.com

Private citizens can now sue anyone who distributes assault weapons, ghost guns etc
This mimics what Texas did. Has to be legal, right?
Hopefully we can get some of the problematic guns off the street.

if there was no 2nd amendment, it would be legal.

but there is so.....blame the founders for specifying arms.

 

[pamak]

The first "assault rifle" was fielded in 1944. The US Army adopted one in 1964 as the standard infantry rifle. The Soviets had already adopted the AK-47 in 1947. China had adopted the Type 56 in 1956.

Those were the three biggest armies in the world, and they had all adopted assault rifles by 1964.

Again, they were not adopted as the standard infantry weapon. You are free to see how many within the US platoon in the 1960's carried assault rifles and how many carry it today!

 

[RF667799]

Guys post in forums many things, including fake photos. I want you to explain to me why the guy in this forum says that you had to be an NRA member to get such military guns. If there is such type of restriction, then obviously, it does not make sense to talk about a tradition of selling military grade weapons without imposing purchase restrictions. So, on the contrary, what I see is a tradition of federal restrictions in purchasing military-grade guns.

It's not much of a restriction, considering that you pretty much fill out your name and address, and send in whatever the yearly dues were back then.

The rifles were intended to be used by civilians to hone their rifle skills engaging in competitive marksmanship events, most of which were administered by the NRA. Hence the connection with the NRA.

NRA membership is no longer required. The qualifications aren't really very stringent. I'm already qualified without even trying. See below.

And you're arguing a strawman. Nobody said there were no purchase restrictions. That's where you went when your disbelief that guns were sold at all by the government to civilians was proven to be in error.

CMP Purchase Eligibility Requirements - Civilian Marksmanship Program

Read all of the requirements toward obtaining parts, ammo and other CMP Sales items, including eligibility and local shipping information.

thecmp.org

 

[RF667799]

Again, they were not adopted as the standard infantry weapon. You are free to see how many within the US platoon in the 1960's carried assault rifles and how many carry it today!

You are free to show that the M16A1 was not the standard service rifle in 1969.

 

[pamak]

It's not much of a restriction, considering that you pretty much fill out your name and address, and send in whatever the yearly dues were back then.

The rifles were intended to be used by civilians to hone their rifle skills engaging in competitive marksmanship events, most of which were administered by the NRA. Hence the connection with the NRA.

NRA membership is no longer required. The qualifications aren't really very stringent. I'm already qualified without even trying. See below.

And you're arguing a strawman. Nobody said there were no purchase restrictions. That's where you went when your disbelief that guns were sold at all by the government to civilians was proven to be in error.

CMP Purchase Eligibility Requirements - Civilian Marksmanship Program

Read all of the requirements toward obtaining parts, ammo and other CMP Sales items, including eligibility and local shipping information.

thecmp.org

Even your documents show that the M1 Carbine is unserviceable.
Then I see that you are not supposed to resell what you get
And you had to be an NRA member

We are talking here about the "tradition" of selling military grade rifles, but even if we assume that the above documents are genuine, I see a federal tradition of selling junk where the government imposes specific limitations. If they do it for unserviceable weapons, I do not see any tradition of leaving unregulated a market of serviceable military guns.

 

[pamak]

You are free to show that the M16A1 was not the standard service rifle in 1969.

In the European armies, assault rifles were not standard. Perhaps the trend started with the US army in the late 1960's. In any case, we should agree that the M1 Carbine is not a battle rifle, correct?

 

[What if...?]

I know. It’s up to SCOTUS who has already ruled in 4 separate cases that it’s unconstitutional lol.

See Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen

Did any of those use the civil court workaround like Texas?

 

[natman]

There are no details regarding the program . For example, the info that it was sold to NRA members is puzzling because it implies that it was not available to the general audience. It sound like this info comes from NRA statistics which are unreliable. In any case, we can agree that the government did not sell battle or assault rifles then, correct? So, as I said, tradition has changed over time.

My father bought an M1 Carbine from the government in the early 60s for the princely sum of $20 shipped. And yes, you did have to be a member of the NRA, but that was no problem because my father had been one for years.

Back in the 60s the NRA worked closely with the government to promote REAL gun safety, back when that phrase meant, well, gun safety.

So yes, the government did sell real weapons of war to the public and mailed them directly to your house. It's true, whether you want to believe it or not. Sorry if it doesn't support your narrative.

Here's another thread discussing it. Now I suppose these people could have made it all up 14 years ago just to fool you, but that seems unlikely.

 

[RF667799]

In the European armies, assault rifles were not standard. Perhaps the trend started with the US army in the late 1960's. In any case, we should agree that the M1 Carbine is not a battle rifle, correct?

So what? Here is my earlier statement:

Whatever the Greek army was ****ing around with from the 80s and 90s until that "expansion", the US Army already was equipped with a firearm commonly called an assault rifle.

And you referenced "US platoon in the 60s".

 

[pamak]

My father bought an M1 Carbine from the government in the early 60s. And yes, you did have to be a member of the NRA, but that was no problem because my father had been one for years.

So yes, the government did sell real weapons of war to the public and mailed them directly to your house. It's true, whether you want to believe it or not. Sorry if it doesn't support your narrative.

Back in the 60s the NRA worked closely with the government to promote REAL gun safety, back when that phrase meant, well, gun safety.

The narrative I see is that there were restrictions in purchasing such guns and the receipt one posted mentions that these M1 Carbines were unserviceable and you could not resell them.

Can you imagine today the government telling you that you cannot resell your military grade weapon?

 

[RF667799]

Even your documents show that the M1 Carbine is unserviceable.
Then I see that you are not supposed to resell what you get
And you had to be an NRA member

We are talking here about the "tradition" of selling military grade rifles, but even if we assume that the above documents are genuine, I see a federal tradition of selling junk where the government imposes specific limitations. If they do it for unserviceable weapons, I do not see any tradition of leaving unregulated a market of serviceable military guns.

I figured you would seize on that "unserviceable" part. That means they were surplus to the needs of the service. If you had read a little more, you would have noticed they were also sold as safe to fire with standard ammunition.

Once again, I never claimed that they were sold without restriction. Your desperation is becoming ever more noticeable. It may really be unbelievable to you in Greece, but it is common knowledge here that the government sold, and continues to sell, surplus firearms to civilians.

 

[RF667799]

The narrative I see is that there were restrictions in purchasing such guns and the receipt one posted mentions that these M1 Carbines were unserviceable and you could not resell them.

Can you imagine today the government telling you that you cannot resell your military grade weapon?

Yet I showed you a gun dealer reselling one of those original DCM carbines, noting that it included the provenance proving it was what it was claimed. Because those carbines command a premium over some of the later returns.

 

[pamak]

So what? Here is my earlier statement:



And you referenced "US platoon in the 60s".

Because you focused on the Greek army, like it was some type of exception. I said that I am not an expert in the US army so I had to challenge you to give me the facts with respect to the US platoon. I am fine with what you provided, so if you are claiming that the US adopted in the late 1960's an assault rifle, that is fine with me. Perhaps the Vietnam jungle experience and the experience of battling against AK-47 armed enemies helped the US army appreciate much earlier the benefit of volume of power and smaller caliber in shorter distance. In any case, the whole conversation started when you or somebody else here made the claim that the M1 Carbine was a battle rifle. I think we can agree now that it was not a battle rifle.