A girl saves her boyfriend from a robbery by pointing a machine gun at two armed robbers.(Texas)

[u/AdministrativeMud907]

[u/Whitestrake]

The law says "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot".

I think legally speaking what happens when you remove that feature is that you are changing the design not to shoot fully automatic.

[u/fordlover5 → u/Whitestrake]

"can readily be restored to shoot". There is several things that make it not so, you cannot just take a full auto parts kit and install it into one of these AK or ARs.

Contrary to popular belief, there is a lot of stuff to prevent this. Such as on an ar, the trigger pocket has a different cut which you would need to machine out, then you need to take a 3rd pin jig, drill, and install different lpk, also likely replace bolt carrier.

On this ar, it to is not readily convertible. Needs a different rivet pattern, another hole, and a different lpk. Also often a different bolt assembly.

This goes deeper, cause you need to understand the definition of readily convertible for the particular firearm that you are referring too. I know several FFL SOTs who are licensed to turn semi auto into full auto.

I suggest that if you want to mis inform people on a US law that your misinformation and or misinterpretation could cause someone up to 10 years in prison, you learn something about it.

"Readily convertible" is when you can slap in a parts kit without doing any major modifications.

You cannot legally possess a 3rd pin lower without NFA approval, or being an SOT. Or any other receiver or firearm classified under the readily convertible thing.

[u/Whitestrake → u/fordlover5]

"can readily be restored to shoot". There is several things that make it not so, you cannot just take a full auto parts kit and install it into one of these AK or ARs.

I'm in full agreement. A (Colt) AR-15 is not a machine gun. A semi-automatic AK is not a machine gun. Do you think I'm saying it is?

These guns are not designed to shoot fully automatic, cannot be "readily converted", and are therefore don't qualify - that's what I'm saying.

Only a rifle which is designed to shoot fully automatic counts. "A rifle designed to shoot fully automatic is a machine gun" was my original claim. M16 rifle = "legally classified as a machine gun". AR-15 = not legally a machine gun. Are you saying that's wrong?

I suggest that if you want to mis inform people on a US law that your misinformation and or misinterpretation could cause someone up to 10 years in prison, you learn something about it.

Where's my misinterpretation, exactly? What have I said that's incorrect?

An AR for example, it is designed to shoot more than one shot per action of the trigger.

The original ArmaLite AR-15 is, but civilian AR-15s are not. You're literally explaining this to me at the start of your comment. I'm confused about exactly what you think I'm trying to argue and what you're trying to correct me on. I feel like we actually have the same understanding, except that you're trying to pull me up on wording that isn't actually incorrect.

[u/fordlover5 → u/Whitestrake]

Oh yessir. I know get your point. Sorry. I'm cranky as hell after having to put up with stuff and I understood you to be arguing that the shown ak is an MG. Sorry

[u/Whitestrake → u/fordlover5]

Right. I do honestly get it, dealing with actually misinformed idiots all day will get to you and you work in a field where that stuff is rife. Just reckon maybe you should've been a bit less hasty to shoot from the hip with stuff like:

I would say you know very little about guns at all.

Because aggressively misunderstanding other people is exactly what all the misinformed idiots are doing, and the world could use a lot less of that.

Hope your day picks up, man.

[u/fordlover5 → u/Whitestrake]

Yessir. Thanks