Us Assault Weapon Ban **read First**

[Gideon35T]

"Wait, you mean I can't go buy an AK-47 at the gun show this Saturday without a FOID or a background check?"

Only AKs you'd be buying would be semi auto. It's implied within your own statement.

[caanglin]

Where did I say I was buying a semi-automatic AK-47 oh high and mighty? You dropped semi-automatic into it. My roommate in college was a FFL. I saw more than my fair share of AKs move through the apartment. And it doesn't take much to move from semi-automatic to selective.

An AK is an AK in its potential. Whether it's semi-automatic or fully selective fire, it's still an assault rifle.

Liar!. Assault weapons kill! You would be dead if you seen a Kalashnikov.

[Burn-E]

"Wait, you mean I can't go buy an AK-47 at the gun show this Saturday without a FOID or a background check?"

Only AKs you'd be buying would be semi auto. It's implied within your own statement.

Why is that? From a Federal perspective private or public sale of a fully automatic is legal if it was imported prior to the ban and the buyer has the right documentation.

My point is still accurate that in the real world, not LA LA LAND USA where we designate weapons as "assault" based on certain features, the AK is an assault rifle. Whether it's semi-automatic or selective fire is meaningless since the gun is still the same you just have to pull the trigger like you have to on a certain AR-15 that went through 150 rounds in 5 minutes.

So your original quote remains the MOST ironic statement I've read in this forum EVER.

The Small Arms Survey in Geneva, Switzerland, THE source for public information on the sale of global small arms has declared the AK-47 = assault rifle. But because of the idiocy of US gun laws they insert this disclaimer:

Assault rifles are primarily weapons designed for military use. In US law the term ‘assault weapons’ is used to describe firearms that include some features of assault rifles.

End discussion on this matter.

[Gideon35T]

You remind me of CNN ...

[Burn-E]

You just don't like it when someone decisively demonstrates you're wrong.

And here's the even funnier thing Gideon, I couldn't even buy a selective fire AK-47 in Illinois or even own one for that matter if I wanted one. They're banned by the State. So going back to my original statement, it was an inside joke that:

[Gideon35T]

You just don't like it when someone decisively misunderstands the constitution, law, news, etc.

I'll certainly admit I'm unable to grasp inside jokes that I'm not on the inside of however,

Anyways, Obama has stated he's looking to create a fresh round of executive orders to get more people on the no-go lists for background checks. Right or wring it's the progression of things.

[caanglin]

The "assault" definition is broken though. It's pretty much cosmetic stuff. AKA "It looks scary."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/what-makes-a-gun-an-assault-weapon.html

Same gun, one is just wrapped in plastic.

Is this an assault rifle?

What about this one?

Edited April 19, 2013 by fivex84

[Burn-E]

this was precisely my point in asking what Gideon was smoking when he declared the Kalashnikov - even as a semi-automatic - is not an assault rifle.

[Gideon35T]

His example comes from hollywood ... I hope this is another inside joke ...

[caanglin]

Some what interesting interview with Cody Wilson. The guy who made the AR-15 lower CAD file.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTYWGrfo-ao

[Burn-E]

DoE facilities are not soft targets. They all have a lot of guys with a lot of guns.

Oh the irony Chuck. So what about the break in at the Y-12 nuclear facility in Oak Ridge, TN last summer? As a boy I lived 5 miles up the road from this facility and can say that security by obscurity has been the greatest benefit for protecting it.

Nuclear weapons have been the United States’ third-highest national priority since World War II, in terms of dollars, and we spend a fortune every year to manage and secure them. Yet a crucial facility in this nuclear enterprise “wasn’t even nun-proofed, much less terrorist-proofed,” as a Tennessee congressman would put it in a February hearing on the break-in, which shut down Y-12 site operations for two weeks.

I had to search to come back and find your comment because I immediately thought of you when I came across the story. And it's hilarious now that I think about it because we're talking about one of the biggest storage facilities of highly enriched uranium in the country.

So a group of 3 old people (average age 65) hikes across a ridge down to this ultra secure storage facility, cuts through 4 fences with ordinary bolt cutters, and then proceed to attack the uranium storage facility with hammers and spray the building with with red paint and blood. And what is the security response? They send out one old guy who is 3 years from retirement (mid 50s) who doesn't even bother to pull a weapon on them let alone get out of his car.

I mean what is the response time there - 20 minutes? The gift to us is that terrorists are insufficiently creative and lack true state sponsorship.

With those 20 minutes of uninterrupted access to the site, [terrorists] could have blown through the doors or walls of the HEUMF with an explosively formed penetrator and rigged an improvised nuclear device using highly enriched uranium and conventional explosives. A 10-kiloton detonation at Y-12 would cause an estimated 60,000 casualties, including 18,000 deaths, in East Tennessee. Radiation would have sickened people over 40 miles.

[Gideon35T]

"They spray painted the building’s north wall, which was designed to withstand the impact of aircraft" - They penetrated fences and NOT the building. I'm unimpressed.

And what did they accomplish? They got that old man security gaurd screwed over before his retirement.

"The gift to us is that terrorists are insufficiently creative and lack true state sponsorship"

Please fill us in on your extensive experience with terrorists ...

"With those 20 minutes of uninterrupted access to the site, [terrorists] could have blown through the doors or walls of the HEUMF with an explosively formed penetrator and rigged an improvised nuclear device"

This idea is based on what exactly? The author knows the design and layout? Even though he earlier states the the building "was designed to withstand the impact of aircraft"

Some great material you find. Grade A. Top notch conjecture for sure ...

[Burn-E]

Gideon I don't need experience with terrorists to know a clusterfuck when I see one. And that's exactly what was going on at Y-12, one of those hardened DOE sites that Chuck was characterizing. Now, one would imagine that security has been thoroughly reviewed at all DOE sites since this event. But considering that we're 12 years after 9/11 during which massive amounts of investment were made on all of our critical targets, I could be a pretty dumb terrorist and expect that gaps exist throughout the security infrastructure. The biggest one being the people we're paying to maintain the security.

Maybe if you go read the article you might find that the author's conjecture was based on threat analyses and algorithms designed by the DOE and DOD.

The facts in this case are damning enough, I don't need to make anything up.

In fact, the security camera that watched Zone 63, the area of the trio’s incursion, had been out of service for six months, according to a subsequent report from the Department of Energy’s inspector general. At the time of the break-in, there were 56 busted security tools across Y-12, seven broken security cameras surrounding the HEUMF and an average of 2,170 sitewide alarms per day — many caused by wildlife, weather and foliage.

This sounds exactly like typical bureaucratic oversight if you ask me:

The problem, according to a string of reports over the years from the DOE’s inspector general and the Government Accountability Office, was a lax security culture and hands-off federal oversight. The problem was “a culture of compliance, as opposed to a culture of performance,” according to a B&W Y-12’s post-mortem of what became known internally as “the Security Event.” A GAO report released, coincidentally, three days after the break-in admonished the NNSA for cost overruns, mismanagement and an absentee relationship with contractors.

The problem here is the scapegoat was the guard and no one who was the real source of this screw up was fired. But I still would have fired the guard too because he acted inappropriately in handling a potential threat to the facility. The lesson learned here for a would be attacker is that if I were going to arrange an attack on a facility like Y-12 in the future I would leverage peaceniks to create a diversion and then take advantage of distraction to perpetuate the real crime.

[Gideon35T]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that our critical infrastructure is up to snuff. Actually, I find it to be exceptionally vulnerable. I'm simply pointing out the stupidity of the author and idea as a whole. Especially considering that the supposed threat (if the individuals had been terrorists) is WILDLY exaggerated from start to finish. There are other places where terror like strikes could cause significant damage but this facility (or any facility like it) is not one of them.

I know you know that I prep (even though it's a secondary idea). Within the community of people like me there are those who have their tinfoil hats on a little too tight. Those people actively research potential targets if the US population were to revolt against the government. I can't help but happen upon their articles as they tend to pop up from time to time even in some of the places where I can typically get tin-foil-hat-less information. Even they agree that to target locations like these does not work out in cost/benefit analysis.

This reminds me of everyone scared after 9/11 about poisoning of water supplies. Not realizing that even a small water supply tainted with a highly toxic substance would require HUGE amounts of the contaminant.

[Burn-E]

You still don't get it.