Attempt Was Made to Make Gun in San Bernardino Fire Automatic

If the weapon had been successfully turned fully automatic, it would have fired far more rapidly. Semi-automatic weapons fire one round each time the trigger is pulled. Automatic weapons continue to fire as the trigger is depressed.

The weapon that was attempted to be modified to fully automatic is believed to have been used by Farook, the source said.

Two rifles and two handguns recovered after the police shootout were legally purchased, but authorities have not specified who bought the weapons, or who made the modifications.

Gun Used in San Bernardino Shooting Was Modified to Fire Automatic

The media has been trying to push the talking point that "all guns were legally purchased" but I suspected they were illegal firearms right away.

This article also verifies that the terrorists used 30 round magazines which is what I suspected.
Anything over 10 round capacity is a felony in CA. This alone made them illegal firearms.

It is surprising to find out that they tried to alter the rifles into fully automatic. That is a major felony of course. Fortunately the jihadi's gunsmithing skills were as weak as their bombmaking skills. They should have practiced more by rehousing clocks or something, like Ahmed the mechanical genius.

I guess California's extra strict gun laws did not deter these criminals.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

If you know what you're doing and have the proper tools/equipment, it's fairly easy to make it full-auto

a reply to: Vector99

ye olde dremmel.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

I guess California's extra strict gun laws did not deter these criminals.

Are you arguing for stricter federal laws?

I'm a little confused... You do obviously realize it would have been merely a matter of driving to Arizona and 'legally' purchasing the high capacity magazines?

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to call Cali's gun laws "extra strict"... not by international standards anyway.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance

The media has been trying to push the talking point that "all guns were legally purchased" but I suspected they were illegal firearms right away.

This article also verifies that the terrorists used 30 round magazines which is what I suspected.
Anything over 10 round capacity is a felony in CA. This alone made them illegal firearms.

It is surprising to find out that they tried to alter the rifles into fully automatic. That is a major felony of course. Fortunately the jihadi's gunsmithing skills were as weak as their bombmaking skills. They should have practiced more by rehousing clocks or something, like Ahmed the mechanical genius.

I guess California's extra strict gun laws did not deter these criminals.

The "legally purchased" comments have been slightly disingenuous to say the least. Yes, they were legally purchased in the first place by someone else, but were illegally obtained by the shooters. California (unlike many if not most other states) requires private sales to go through an official dealer just like a regular sale. The authorities have stated that there is no record of a transfer, so the gun didn't go through the required legal channels.

The illegal conversions are just the icing on the cake really.

My question remains: Who purchased them?
I saw an MSNBC clip that had Carly saying that one of the guns had been purchased by law enforcement but ended up in the shooter's hand. Has that been confirmed?
Was this a sting operation gone way bad?

My question remains: Who purchased them?
I saw an MSNBC clip that had Carly saying that one of the guns had been purchased by law enforcement but ended up in the shooter's hand. Has that been confirmed?
Was this a sting operation gone way bad?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

I guess California's extra strict gun laws did not deter these criminals.

I'm a little confused... You do obviously realize it would have been merely a matter of driving to Arizona and 'legally' purchasing the high capacity magazines?

Though they would become illegal once you crossed back into CA. Standard capacity magazines can still be possessed, but only if they were already in possession by a cut off date (in 2000 or 2001, I think?)

I think the point is that CA's (comparatively) strict gun laws mostly rely on people playing along. The people who are willing to play along aren't likely to be a risk in the first place.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
This article also verifies that the terrorists used 30 round magazines which is what I suspected.
Anything over 10 round capacity is a felony in CA. This alone made them illegal firearms.

That can't be. We were told these laws would keep them out of the hands of criminals. I just can't believe it was a lie.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

I guess California's extra strict gun laws did not deter these criminals.

Are you arguing for stricter federal laws?

I'm a little confused... You do obviously realize it would have been merely a matter of driving to Arizona and 'legally' purchasing the high capacity magazines?

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to call Cali's gun laws "extra strict"... not by international standards anyway.

All the high capacity magazines I've seen in Cali have nothing more than a rivet to turn them into 10 round magazines. wouldn't need to drive anywhere to remove that rivet..So the whole "magazines across state lines" argument is kinda dumb.

So OP. You think these "law" breakers, gave a damn, about "laws"? You "suspect" a wrong Mag capacity? That would be "illegal"! How'd that work? Full auto/assault weapon..blah, blah and blah. You are either "educated" by the government or cartoons.

So OP. You think these "law" breakers, gave a damn, about "laws"? You "suspect" a wrong Mag capacity? That would be "illegal"! How'd that work? Full auto/assault weapon..blah, blah and blah. You are either "educated" by the government or cartoons.

a reply to: murphy22

You are not very bright are you?

That's the point the op was making

These laws only work on law abiding citizens and have no effect on criminals who will get and use them for illegal activities. Even though the narrative the msm is pushing is the opposite

Every citizen should carry and know how to use a firearm. So when these attacks happen good people can defend themselves.

Or you end up with a paris

a reply to: Vector99

Actually making an ar 15 full auto like a m4 is not easy. No filing down the trigger so its doesn't catch is but the gun is unreliable. Now Ak 47 easy to make full auto.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I dont know much about gun laws, but i do know that it is not that difficult to make semi-automatic or even automatic guns, so the fact that they did not succeed in doing so shows me that they aren't very skilled at gunsmithing and/or this is a hoax, because the government is in fact trying to implement martial law and are very close to having the reasons necessary to do so with all of the shootings and threats being made in multiple cities.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: murphy22
These laws only work on law abiding citizens and have no effect on criminals who will get and use them for illegal activities. Even though the narrative the msm is pushing is the opposite

But do you really believe that, or is it that your hardcore extremist ideology about guns is so ingrained that your just incapable of seeing it any other way?

If all states adopted the same gun restrictions as Cali, then people (who aren't criminals) would still be able to own a firearm to protect there family, or whatever. Yet the price of a black market weapon would skyrocket, which would obviously have a huge effect on petty criminals obtaining them.

In Australia, a single shot .22 rifle from the 60's will cost you $500 on the black market... You could probably buy a brand new semi-auto hand gun in most US states for that.

I don't know if most people realize this, but most toothless methheads looking to break into your home don't generally have the few grand it would cost to buy a decent black market gun in countries that have tight restrictions.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

i would accept 3 times (or so)the number of homicides per capita per year and not bat an eye

why?
en.wikipedia.org...
10.3 or so deaths per 100k people in the u.s. in 2013
now what about homicides?
en.wikipedia.org...
3.5 or so
hell even if we include suicides (with i dont as i see life and death as a personal right ) we are 10.5 or just barely above the deadliness of cars
i would no more stop the deaths than i would stop people from driving
not to mention i see being armed as a right. just like the right to travel

and to live in a free society we necessarily live in a dangerous one

that danger can come in many forms from driving to work to a man going off the deep end to the government trying to suspend my rights call me a terrorist and ship me off to a camp

if you are not willing to die free then you cannot live free. want to be safe?

forget it. life is not safe . never has been .

those who choose to sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Mexico illegal to own guns. Cheaper than any where to buy a gun. Trinidad and Tobago illegal to own a gun unless special rights are given to store owners. Cheap guns every where. By the way the gun related deaths in these places have skyrocketed.