Full Auto?

[Byron Quick]

Need? Need has absolutely nothing to do with the matter. The 2nd Amendments enumerates my right to own any weapons used by tactical military personnel. That includes crew served weapons and artillery if I can pay for them.

I'm not for controlling weapon access. Now, I am for controlling criminal and nutjobs access to weapons...by controlling the criminals and nutjobs. If society was run my way, the criminals and nutjobs would think twice about the use of a beltfed in a schoolyard. Because the school would have access to crew served weapons of its own and would blow the attacker to hell.

To the devil with trying to control tools. Use them to destroy those who would prey on the innocent.

Headline: Idiot attacks school with SAW. Neighbor with tank runs over him before dropping a 40mm grenade on his greasy remains. Film at 11!

Little criminal wannabes should grow up knowing that there is a heavily armed populace out there just chomping at the bit to kill people like them.

It's like the nutjobs that have 'anger management issues.' I've seen exactly two people who truly had this diagnosis by my criteria. Which is, if you stick a shotgun in the face of an extremely angry man and he doesn't calm right down then he has 'anger management issues.' But it's easily cured...pull the trigger.

Under my scenario, the supply of criminals and nutjobs would drop after a while. Loosen the self defense statutes, tighten the assault statutes, fight back and kill those who would prey on you and your kith and kin.

Don't get me wrong. I'll abide by the current law. Grudgingly. But I support broader definitions of what is self defense and narrowing the definitions of what constitutes assault. There are a lot of people charged with assault where the 'victim' darned well had it coming.

Violent criminals should never see the light of day that does not stream through the razor wire. If an individual cannot be trusted with weapons then that individual should not be trusted with, as a previous poster noted, bleach and ammonia. In other words, a person that cannot be trusted with weapons cannot be trusted with freedom. They should be killed in the act if possible and locked up forever if by some mischance they are captured alive.

 

[pkoch62]

pkoch62, thank you for answering my question, and not a made up/fragment of what I posted. You gave your position and why.

We disagree, however I see your pt. and have to admit some of it is valid.
I dont believe I will be attacked by an armored velhicle, but if that happened I see where a rpg could come in handy. I fully support your right to an rpg but I believe you should have a backgrd check first.

If I had ironclad assurances that a simple, quick, cheap (no such thing as a fre lunch), fair and objective background check would stay that way, I might agree to it. "Reasonable restrictions" have a way of turning into unreasonable ones with time, I think the best way to handle this is to simply not start down that road.

I suspect simple market forces would keep most of the really nasty stuff out of reach of those who would misuse it. As someone already stated, the Army already spends $4,000 a pop on the M249, and I assume they're getting a better price than we would given the quantities involved. How many gangbangers have $4K to drop on something like that, or the mechanical knowledge to keep it in working order?

Probably would be a very small market for RPG-type rockets as well. Plenty of people willing to drop $500 on a gun, but I'd balk at spending that on a one-use item like that. Can't imagine a whole lot of stores wanting things like that sitting on their property either. You'd end up with a small group of folks offering things like this, and they would most likely be somewhat more cautious about these items ending up in the wrong hands, due to the consequences of a mishap being so much higher than a ND with a 12-gauge.

Tanks, fighter jets, and similar things? You got that kind of money, knock yourself out. The huge cost and logistical "tails" of these things are already effective at keeping misuse extremely low.

 

[Cyborg]

I do not live on a "slippery slope". Trust me that I am an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I hate any attempt to regulate our gun rights out of existence!

You say you are an ardent supporter of RKBA and yet you go on about defensive vs offensive weapons. Either you are completely ignorant of the reason the 2nd amendment was written or you really are a closet anti.

The preferatory clause of the 2A makes it clear that the purpose of the RKBA was not sporting nor was it defensive operations (although as Vince Lombardi once said; "The best defense is a good offense."). It was to allow the citizenry to be armed to be able - in a pinch - to defend the country. That means military style operations and "offensive" weaponry. By any logical system we should be allowed to purchase/own more lethal weapons than simple rifles. We should by rights be able to own RPGs and MA deuces and stingers and ANY OTHER "MILITARY" HARDWARE THAT MIGHT HELP REPULSE AN ENEMY AT THE GATES!!!. And that INCLUDES elements of our own government if it becomes necessary.

Understand, I am not advocating armed resistance to duly constituted authority. But, as a wise and VERY FRAKKING intelligent gentleman from Virginia once put put it, sometimes "in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another". That same gentleman also observed

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

On the Constitution and its purpose, perhaps Patrick Henry said it best:

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Thus endeth the lesson.

Cyborg
Go ahead and bury your head in the sand. You only make you a** a better target by doing so.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

Even the Mods are anti Full auto.

Just a note: Unless the mods are moderating, as in; issuing a warning to stay on topic, closing a thread, etc., etc., they are just members joining in on the conversation.

We are, after all, members here too.

 

[qwert65]

Jimbothefiveth,

Thanks to general Patraeus and the surge, I believe we are winning. The Iraqi government will probably be able to take over somewhat effectively, even if it's not as good as U.S. troops.

is this due to the advanced weapons we have? or more boots on the ground? I agree that we are winning and I think this is bc of ppl not weapons as I stated

 

[Byron Quick]

People are tool users. More people on the ground is more people with tools. In this scenario, many of those tools are weapons. It takes both.

What the insurgents are using to fight with are weapons also.

Please name me one war in recorded history that was won by people without weapons. You are correct with your statement that wars are won by people. But you are taking your point into fallacy. They are won by people who are using weapons among other tools. Tactics is a tool. So is strategy. Maps. Aircraft. Satellites. All tools used by people. It takes people and tools. Proper training is a tool that becomes a weapon. You train people.

To answer your question about advanced weapons and people, the answer is both. One of our most advanced weapons is the training our soldiers get.

 

[qwert65]

pkoch62, that is an interesting angle,
Do you think that if there was easier access costs would drop more civilian(less costly) quality ones made and/or devolped. I'm not really concerned about gangbangers buying a 4k weapon, more somee wacko going postal. (why I think only belt fed should be regulated) I don't think an untrained guy with an AR15 is that much more dangerous then with an M16(and may be less so do too climb and the fact that he has to reload more often)

 

[qwert65]

Byron, read my entire statement on post 163. I never said weapons were unneeded. please dont take things out of context

 

[JoefromTN]

TexasRifleman,

I'll have to admit, that you correctly point out that my argument is somewhat contradictory, when you pick apart my statements the way you did, above.

Yes, I have shot a machine gun and done so "accurately" within the limits of "machine gunning". In other words, enough of the bullets fired from my machine gun hit the intended targets and I "scored" well enough to be called an "Expert". In combat, enough of my bullets hit the enemy that I killed them, or destroyed my intended target.

I have fired .50 cal machine guns, M60 machine guns, and M16's on full automatic all well enough to hit targets and kill the enemy. I have fired foreign Army machine guns/sub-machine guns like the Uzi and others well enough to be as "accurate" as a machine gunner has to be.

However, in doing so, I also had many bullets miss my intended targets and go who knows where?

Look, you are completely misunderstanding my point of view, (and for your own entertainment, and that of others, I am sure), you are "spinning" my words to try to make your own point.

Let me try one more time to make myself clear;

I do NOT believe a fully automatic firearm is well suited as a DEFENSIVE firearm in the civilian sector. No matter how good you are with it, you can NOT make sure that each and every bullet is going where you intend for it to go, that is, INTO YOUR INTENDED TARGET! Therefore, it is NOT well suited to be used as a DEFENSIVE firearm in a home, or any other public place!

As responsible gun owners, it is our responsibility to NEVER use our firearms in a negligent way so as to endanger innocent bystanders and using a machine gun, would in my "opinion", be IRRESPONSIBLE and negligent!

Now, as I have stated earlier, I do NOT think fully automatic firearms should be kept from the average, law abiding citizen, should they want to own one. It should just be regulated, since they should ONLY be in the hands of collectors and trained users, they are NOT and should NOT be used by the average citizen as a defensive weapon. Should a law abiding citizen use a legally owned fully automatic gun in self defense, then they shouldn't be prosecuted for it, as long as it was a legal and RESPONSIBLE self defense situation! Now you're going to call that contradictory, but let me try to be clear;

If a person legally owns a fully automatic firearm and uses it to defend themselves and that use endangers NO ONE but the bad guy, then the citizen is in the right and should not be prosecuted. If a citizen used a legally owned fully automatic firearm to defend themselves in a Wal-Mart parking lot from an armed mugger, THAT wouldn't be a prudent, nor responsible use of that firearm and that person should be prosecuted for their negligent and irresponsible actions!

I do NOT "feel" like machine guns are "bad". In fact, they are a hell of a lot of fun to shoot! They just are NOT well suited as DEFENSIVE firearms in the civilian sector!

Lastly, you called me "dishonest". That really PISSES me off! I am a man of high integrity and maybe if you and I disagree about something and I try to make my point, we'll have to bounce it back and forth a few times before I, (or YOU), make a coherent point that can be understood, if not AGREED with! We might not agree, or you might find fault with my argument, but don't EVER call me "dishonest"!

As for the fellow who "got me" on using the word "need" in as; someone doesn't "need" that kind of gun, he is CORRECT, that was a poor choice of word and one that the antis use against us all the time. I take that criticism to heart and accept his admonishment for that slip.

Someone else has lambasted me for using the term "military weapon" as opposed to "normal weapon". I do NOT use that distinction lightly because it is used by the antis all the time in describing "assault weapons" as "military weapons" that average citizens "don't need".

I don't need to point out to anyone here that the term "assault weapon" is a phony term made up by the anti gun crowd to scare the uninformed about those "bad, black guns", you know, the ones that "look like" military guns. Those are NOT the ones I mean when I use the term "military weapons". I am NOT talking about the AR-15's etc.

When I use the term "military weapons" I mean fully automatic machine guns/sub-machine guns that are used for OFFENSIVE purposes on the battlefield. NOOOOOOO! I do NOT mean to include the semi-automatic shotguns that the military uses, or the semi-automatic pistols the military uses, those kinds of guns, although used on the battlefield for offensive purposes DO HAVE a very real DEFENSIVE use in the civilian sector, and they are SEMI-AUTOMATIC in function.

Let me wrap this up by trying to make one more analogy that I hope will clarify my point;

Yes, a machine gun CAN be used for DEFENSE, but so can a claymore mine. Should citizens be allowed to use claymores to defend their homes? Of course not, because that use of a strictly "military weapon" would not be a RESPONSIBLE act, since you could not insure that your use of that weapon would not endanger anyone other than the "bad guy".

I believe there is such a thing as a "military weapon". Fully automatic machine guns fit in that category. Should they be banned from private hands? No. Should they be tightly regulated? Yes. Should "ordinary guns" be regulated, NO!

Lastly on this "military" vs. "ordinary" guns thing, I AGREE that our Founding Fathers intended for the average citizen to own the same quality arms that were currently in use at the time, by the "military" simply because there was no DIFFERENCE between "military" arms, and "ordinary" arms. But, I do not think that they intended for the 2nd Amendment to allow "the people" to "keep and bear cannons". Therefore, I do not believe they intended for citizens to own "military weapons". Today, there IS A DIFFERENCE between "military arms" and "ordinary arms, and that difference is fully automatic vs. semi-automatic!

 

[Byron Quick]

OK, went back and found it and read it. To date, no guerilla style insurrection has won without the support of an outside power and a sanctuary. Motivated people is just one leg of the tripod.

The example of Vietnam is instructive. The Viet Cong guerillas were virtually annihilated during the Tet Offensive. They were never a significant factor after Tet, our forces were fighting NVA from that point on. But Tet broke the will of the American people to continue the fight. It was one of those rarities in military history-tactical defeat and strategic victory. Thermopylae is another example of this oddity. But the 'people' were no longer a factor nor were South Vietnamese Communists a factor in the governance of conquered South Vietnam after its defeat. It's hard to be a factor when you're dead. People were a factor in 1975 when North Vietnam launched its final offensive. Something often overlooked is that the armored forces used by the NVA were larger and more powerful than the armored forces used by the Wehrmacht during the invasion of the Soviet Union. The South Vietnamese defeated a similar offensive in 1972 without the assistance of US ground combat troops. In 1975, they had the same men with the same training and more experience. What they didn't have was resupply of ammuniton by the US or support from the US Air Force or Naval Air. The lack of supply and support forces made the difference.

Remember the maxim-"Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics?" Now, admittedly, a part of logistics is the replacement of troops, reinforcement of troops, and transportation of troops.

Look at the Revolutionary War. Early on, the Continental Army units fared poorly against the British regulars in open battle. Later on, those same men with more training(a weapon) beat them in the open field...not hiding behind trees.

JoefromTN,

I own a select fire Uzi. I can shoot three round bursts with the weapon reliably. With those three round bursts I can put three rounds into the head of a silhouette target reliably within distances found in the average home. From the prone position, I can put a three round burst into the chest of that target reliably from a distance of fifty yards. Now, I've never been in combat and I am sure that having fire coming back would degrade my shooting. But within my home, I believe I can use the weapon both responsibly and reliably.

My experience with beltfeds is limited. Some use in the Army and some as a civilian. However, depending on location, I could use one both responsibly and reliably. Especially if I ever get to move to the Terlingua area in the Chihuhuan Desert in west Texas. I've seen places out there where it would be safe to fire a Ma Deuce in a 360 degree circle. If the ban wasn't in place, I'd like to have an adobe house with a beltfed at each corner. Urban area is not the place for one perhaps. But then an urban area isn't the place for me either.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

I can assure you this mod isn't anti-FA, but he is anti-silly-arguments.

 

[Byron Quick]

Joe, as far as the claymore mines go. I disagree in practice if not in theory.

I should be able to put a sign up that proclaims "This house protected by Claymore Security Systems! Please leave a note stating your next of kin and your preferred funeral home before attempting unauthorized entry!"

Now, of course, planning to protect the innocent would be necessary. Walls capable of stopping the ball bearings would have to be emplaced downrange and also to protect any livestock on the property. But I should be able to boobytrap my property to a fare thee well as long as I take steps to limit the kill zone to the intruder(s). Someone who has climbed walls to get onto my property and ignored the warning signs is not among the set of the innocent. I should have no liability for anything that happens to anyone on my property who is not authorized to be there. I should have the responsibility to ensure that no one can casually gain unauthorized entry to property protected by such means.

There's a man here in Burke County whose home was burglarized numerous times. He erected an eight foot high cyclone fence around his home with the bottom edge embedded in a concrete dike that goes into the ground several feet to prevent digging. Or at least make it more difficult. He put signs about three foot square every twenty feet or so completely around the fence. Four inch high letters in red on a white backgrounds with the message,"NO TRESPASSING! VIOLATORS WILL BE SHOT!"

A strange thing happened. After he shot the first one who trespassed, he has had no more burglary attempts. Everyone else in the area is still being victimized from time to time but for some reason the burglars pass his very nice house with very valuable possessions by.

 

[qwert65]

Byron,
I see your point, and my statement made was inaccurate. The gist of what I was trying to say was that if the american ppl wanted a change in goverment, It wouldn't matter if we had lever actions. and if there was no majority wanting a "new gov" then it wouldn't matter what weapons we have.

Admitedly my statement was poor as troops and equipment are intertwined. If I was part of an insurrection(not planning on it ) I would want the most up to date weapons possible and would get them hopefully from the enemy/outside help.
IMHO every american should have his rifle of choice and be proficent with it wether an M16,AR15, AK47, Marlin 39A etc.. I believe these should be ale to be purchased over the counter with no restrictions to anyone over 18. I also believe that any beltfed FA, explosive, etc. should be availible for purchase after a backgrd check. I've stated why earlier in this thread.

I also think that if the time ever came "to rectify the situation" many accurate rifleman armed with mag fed FA and backed by the will of the ppl would be more then sufficent to get our rights back. whether we had tanks, etc would be moot if it was not a popular undertaking.

 

[qwert65]

Castro taking over cuba was close to no outside help but he did have some. at times he had very little weapons/ammo, but he had the will of the ppl(and an idiot for an opponent)

 

[Byron Quick]

Yes, Castro was extraordinarily fortunate in Batista.

But, personally, I'd rather see some future hostile general amend Admiral Yamamoto's quote about invading America to "You cannot invade America, there would be an artillery piece behind every clump of trees."

Rifles are fine. I love them. But God is on the side of the heavy weapons. I want God on my side.

 

[JoefromTN]

Byron,

I agree with you to a point.

I have no feelings at all for the intruder with bad intentions, who has invaded my property, (or yours), and has paid for it with his life, or has been seriously injured! SCREW HIM!

But, I disagree that you should be able to use claymore mines, or booby traps that can't be controlled and might hurt/kill innocent people who intended you no harm.

Would you suggest that the teenager entering your property to pull a Halloween prank, pay for that with his life? What about the lost child whose parent has taught them to go to a house and ask for help. Should that child die in your booby trap?

No, I disagree that you should be able to booby trap your property. Protect it yes, booby trap it, no, and I believe that in most jurisdictions if you did so, you would bear the liability for injuries to people injured by it.

 

[IndianaBoy]

I am taking my ar-15 to the range tomorrow. And my 22 conversion for it as we'll.

A DIAS would be a heck of a lot of fun. Nothing offensive about it.

Sometimes freedoms are nice just for kicks... Not for keeping the King of England out of your face.

Need doesn't enter into it. Thanks for your service JoefromTN. You have my gratitude and a humble request that you read up a bit on the fellows who insisted on a BOR, and those who fought against it because an enumerated right my then be singled out for attack later.

 

[Byron Quick]

It wouldn't matter if we had lever actions. and if there was no majority wanting a "new gov" then it wouldn't matter what weapons we have.

qwert,

I think you might need to go back and study the history of revolutions and insurrections a bit more closely.

Revolutionary War? Some estimates place the percentage of people who wanted independence and were willing to fight as high as 30%. Some. It was nowhere near a majority and in many areas the Loyalists equalled or outnumbered the revolutionaries.

Look at Cuba. How many Cubans fled Cuba rather than live under his rule? I'd be surprised if it wasn't more than the troops he had and his active supporters. The 'support of the people' in many insurrection often means the people are too terrified to do anything but support us. Seems the alternative is death.

It does require the support of the people. Many analysts mistake this for the people loving and cheerfully supporting the insurrectionists. It does not require love and good cheer. The support of the people can be gained simply by proving to them that while the government cannot protect them; the insurrectionists can kill them if they do not cooperate.

 

[Byron Quick]

Would you suggest that the teenager entering your property to pull a Halloween prank, pay for that with his life? What about the lost child whose parent has taught them to go to a house and ask for help. Should that child die in your booby trap?

Joe,

It appears that you missed where I said that it was my responsibility to ensure that entry was not possible in a casual manner? That teenager has ignored signs promising death to unauthorized people. He has climbed an eight foot wall. Bluntly, he's about to win a Darwin award as he's too stupid to live. His parents should be charged with a crime for letting him roam without protection.

The little, poor lost child can't get in to trip the claymores. However, he can reach the intercom in the wall as there is a thoughtfully placed step below it for children.

Problem solved. I couple doing this with the responsibility of ensuring that casual unauthorized access is not possible. If I could prepare defenses in this manner, I'd even be willing to install a telephone in the wall that has no dial, pick it up and you're connected straight to 911.

Tell me, if you were a teenager and lived in a society where boobytrapping property was legal...would you ignore a sign promising death and dismemberment and climb an eight foot wall to gain access to that kill zone? Having heard of people being killed in similar circumstances all of your life?

In that society, wouldn't parents tell their little children that when confronted by a walled residence with signs on the wall to by no means attempt entry but look for the emplaced intercom and emergency phone?

Your objections make sense in this society where boobytraps are illegal and rare. They do not in a society where boobytraps are common and legal. Which this is not. We're getting way hypothetical here...and we're hijacking the thread.

Let's get back to full auto.

 

[Byron Quick]

Hey does anyone know details of the ATF regulations regarding Gatling guns?

I know that Gatling guns are legal and are not covered by the NFA as long as they are hand operated.

You cannot operate it by attaching an electric motor. But what is the wording of the regulation? Does it specify an electric motor? Or hand operated?

If the regulation does not specify hand operated or simply prohibits electric motors; I've got an idea that would probably drive them up the wall.

Take the gearing, pedals, chains and sprockets from a 21 speed bicycle. Make a seat where you are semi reclining but looking over the gun's sights. Place the pedals appropriately. Hood the chain and gearing up to a flywheel. Attach the flywheel to the gatling gun to be engaged by a clutch operated by one hand. Traverse and elevation could be handled electrically and controlled by levers in either hand. The clutch would be operated by a bicycle type lever on one side.

But, most likely, the regulation is written in such a way as to preclude this. Or a new regulation would be written muy pronto.

Wait a minute. A straight hookup of foot powered pedals would probably pass muster. Then build the seat and the traverse and elevation mechanism that is motorized. They might have a difficult time justifying a regulation against that.

 

[Exposure]

And so it comes to pass............

The antis have won.

Here on a site that is supposed to be 100% pro gun, where we should all be standing in a giant circle singing a gun friendly song, we aren't.

And why is that?

Because so many have bought into the "it COULD happen!!!" frame of mind.

Well prepare to give up everything folks. The gun grabbers have gotten exactly what they wanted, and they did it under our noses.

Apparently many who want 2A freedom just want that freedom for the firearms that are important to THEM.

Personally I want everyone to enjoy the firearms that they like, be it revolvers, O/U's, machine guns, AK's, suppressed firearms, grenade launchers, whatever......

But I guess that won't happen. The antis have won with their rhetoric of fear about what COULD happen. Despite the actual facts, despite first hand accounts, despite COMMON SENSE, we still have people here who would willingly disarm their fellow brothers and sisters. And why? Because the firearms their fellow shooters enjoy scare them, not because those firearms have been used to commit crimes, but because they COULD be used to commit crimes. Much like the steak knives I own could stab someone, the chainsaw I own could dismember someone, and the length of rope I own could strangle someone. The thought police have arrived fellow THR members.

It looks like dark days ahead for gun owners. The anti gun sentiment brewing for decades in this country is coming to a boil. How very, very sad.

 

[hso]

I have never heard of any "documented" use of a legally owned fully automatic weapon being used for self defense. If there have been such cases, NO, I do NOT think a person, who has used such a weapon for self defense should be prosecuted. IF the weapon was legally owned, and they legally used it in a verified self defense situation, NO, they should not be prosecuted.

One incident involved a legally owned Ruger AC556 and a gun manufacturer employee (believe it was HK) who used the fully auto rifle to defend his life and the life of his girlfriend.

One person who used a "legally owned fully automatic weapon being used for self defense" is a buddy of mine by the name of Gary Fadden. That's who TexasRifleman is referring to as an HK employee. Gary won't talk much about the incident except to say that he did everything to avoid trouble, including fleeing until cornered, and only used a firearm when he had no other choice. The fact that it was a Ruger AC556 wasn't particularly relevant. What was relevant is that that rifle at that time in that situation was all that he had to defend his life and the life of his finance. Would it have made any difference if it had been a Mini14 instead of an AC556? He used every opportunity to get away, was pursued, cornered and attacked and used a machine gun just like anyone else would have and no differently than if it had been a semi.

Folks, there's a lot of opinion that a certain type of firearm, a thing, an inanimate object made by man, is somehow fundamentally more dangerous to the public than a slightly different type of firearm. They're both things, neither having a will of their own and neither can injure or kill more than a very few people when improperly used. And that's the crux of it.

The user determines how an AC556 or a Mini14 is used and whether it is used to defend innocent lives or attack them. Improper use is terrible to those injured and killed, but they are not WMD or HazMat that can injure and kill hundreds or thousands by improper use or handling. That difference in scale is where we decide that a thing should be regulated to protect public health.

Do we have any history of FA weapons being used in crime so extensively that the frequency of abuse puts them on a scale to be regulated? NO. There just aren't enough examples of this. Not even amongst criminals that don't have to obey the 86 FOPA and it's Hughes Amendment. If even criminals, who aren't restricted to pre-86 machine guns, don't use them then what makes anyone think that non-criminals would? Are you and I somehow less responsible, more dangerous than violent felons? Of course not. So there's no history of incidents being frequent enough to warrant regulation.

Add that the 2A says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Arms that anyone could purchase once upon a time, just like you could a shotgun.

Let's be clear about this, there's no rational basis for the fear of these weapons that makes regulating them more than other weapons reasonable. Why limit a right guaranteed in the BOR if there's no basis for it in protecting the public as a whole?

 

[Byron Quick]

Millions of veterans brought back fullauto weapons from WWI. Now, the crime rate among veterans today is, I believe, comparable to other segments of the population who have no military service.

I've never heard of the heinous crimes committed by these veterans with their super dangerous automatic weapons.

And beltfeds were brought back, too. I've seen a Mauser water cooled beltfed that was plowed up out of a field one year. The mechanism was rusted solid as was the barrel. We assumed it was buried there by someone who couldn't pay the $200 tax then and got worried about getting caught with it. Just as an aside, $200 in 1934 dollars would equal $3067.30 in 2007 dollars. That's one hell of a tax for the time.

 

[EHL]

But, I do not think that they intended for the 2nd Amendment to allow "the people" to "keep and bear cannons". Therefore, I do not believe they intended for citizens to own "military weapons". Today, there IS A DIFFERENCE between "military arms" and "ordinary arms, and that difference is fully automatic vs. semi-automatic!

Actually, citizens were indeed allowed to buy and own cannons. Cannons in the late and 18th and most of the 19th century were the biggest baddest weapons of the day and were basically our version of mortars, bazookas, RPG's, etc... The founding fathers always intended for the citizens of this great country to have access to the same or better weapons that they could get their hands on in order to possibly repel a foreign invader or (as has been pointed out) in the case that we have to fight an internal enemy of the people. (i.e. a despot who has usurped all power and is in control of the military)

It is sad that even in a forum that is dedicated to the advancement of the 2nd amendment, we have many people who in some way or another have bought into the anti's message that we (the people) cannot be trusted with arms because we either don't "need" them or will be "too dangerous" and so forth. In the hope that maybe these valued members will not feel left out, I can concede that many in here would consent to "certain regulations". What those regulations are is the hairy question though. Personally, I don't object to background checks (as long as they don't keep a record of it and track my firearms) nor would I even object to making sure that I haven't checked out of an insane asylum, but that would be about all of the "reasonable regulations" that I could stomach. It seems more often than not, that the moment we consent to one measure of regulation, there are a whole string of other regulations that some anti would foist upon us as well. All in the name of "reason".

 

[csspecs]

ey does anyone know details of the ATF regulations regarding Gatling guns?

I know that Gatling guns are legal and are not covered by the NFA as long as they are hand operated.

You cannot operate it by attaching an electric motor. But what is the wording of the regulation? Does it specify an electric motor? Or hand operated?

If the regulation does not specify hand operated or simply prohibits electric motors; I've got an idea that would probably drive them up the wall.

Take the gearing, pedals, chains and sprockets from a 21 speed bicycle. Make a seat where you are semi reclining but looking over the gun's sights. Place the pedals appropriately. Hood the chain and gearing up to a flywheel. Attach the flywheel to the gatling gun to be engaged by a clutch operated by one hand. Traverse and elevation could be handled electrically and controlled by levers in either hand. The clutch would be operated by a bicycle type lever on one side.

I was thinking last year about doing something like that for a 10/22 by making one of those bfm cranks have a extension like what you see on a rotary tool, and having a shooter operated clutch. So you have your shooting buddy crank and you pull the clutch trigger to fire when you please. I don't read anything in the law that says the shooter and the aimer are the same people