Full Auto?

[qwert65]

Byron, 30% of the population is quite a bit in tdays terms that would be 90 million ppl our military has what, 3 million servicemen/women?

Continuing with the revolution we stole cannons(we did own some but not very many) from the british, which is what could happen again.

The American Revolution is a bad example, as with supply lines of the time and Britian involved all over the world. The british just decided we werent worth it(some brilliant victories like saratoga also played a part) Remember at this time they owned a good chunk of the Known world(and tried to take us back in 1812)

I think a better analogy would be the American Civil War, where most of the confederates supplied their own weapons/ or siezed goverment aresnals just before the war broke out.

My statement about lever actions meant that the ppl would get modern equipment ASAP. I also explicitly stated that I dont think we should be restricted to lever guns.
In any civil war most ppl play the middle esp. after the first few yrs. Anyway, If it ever came to that I'm sure it would be more like the Phillipines ca 1899-1902 then VA in 1863

 

[pkoch62]

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)

I will confess that I'm not an expert when it comes to beltfeds, I've never owned or fired one. All my knowledge on this subject comes from books and talking to a couple of folks at gun shows who have them.

It might be possible to make an el cheapo beltfed for half of that or a little more, but I don't have enough engineering skill to say for sure, or know exactly how one would go about doing this. Something that's under as much mechanical and thermal stress as a beltfed is _not_ a good place to start trying to go cheap on.

All laws, rules, and social customs are made under the assumption that the vast majority of the population is sane. As horrible as these incidents are, they are extremely rare and should not be used to set policy, IMHO.

 

[JoefromTN]

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.

If you have read my earlier posts, you'll see that I am NOT against a law abiding citizen being allowed to own a fully automatic firearm, but I do think that since I believe them to be strictly a "military" weapon, not well suited for self defense purposes, that they should be tightly regulated, to insure that only collectors and trained persons have them. I do not believe that every average citizen ought to be buying one for personal defense use. You admitted, that you are not against reasonable regulation when you said;

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.

That's ALL I have said in my posts on this subject. I think that where "FULLY AUTOMATIC" firearms are concerned, I'm not opposed to tight regulation on who has them. So, it seems that on that point, we are in agreement.

As for citizens being allowed to own other military weapons such as cannons, mortars, artillery, rocket launchers, claymore mines; Our Founding Fathers may have thought that "we the people" should have access to these things in order to have a militia that would be as strong as a standing Army, but I have never seen any evidence of that, and that's NOT what they said in the 2nd Amendment.

Clearly, any study of their words and thoughts shows that when they were using the term "arms", they meant the citizen's own gun, (rifle/pistol). They were concerned with making sure that the citizen was never barred, in this country, from owning and keeping, their own individual "arms", as they had been in England. I think that's quite clear!

So, I believe that if the Founding Fathers had been deeply concerned that "we the people" should always have access to military weapons such as "cannons", they would have said so.

Now once again, let me be CLEAR, that when I use the term "military weapons" I am ONLY referring to those weapons that are NOT well suited to self defense in the home, or public place such as "FULLY AUTOMATIC" machine guns! I DO NOT mean to include in that term, military "style" guns such as AR-15's etc. Any gun, no matter what it looks like, as long as it functions in some manner OTHER THAN fully automatic, should NOT be restricted to civilian ownership.

 

[ChromeLibrarian]

So, I believe that if the Founding Fathers had been deeply concerned that "we the people" should always have access to military weapons such as "cannons", they would have said so.

Maybe they didn't think it was necessary. Maybe they understood that cannons were "arms". Maybe they couldn't comprehend a time when the average citizen would be so anxious to have the government crawl up their butt with a flashlight and a magnifying glass.

 

[JoefromTN]

NOTHING they ever "said", that I can find in their recorded words, such as speeches, personal letters, diaries, ever said so. I have seen many quotes where they were CLEARLY referring to an individual's "personal arms" such as a rifle or pistol.

Maybe if anyone can refer me to a quote from a Founding Father that shows that the 2nd Amendment was meant to include "military weapons" i.e. "cannons", and not just "individual arms" such as rifle/pistol, I would appreciate that, as I would go take a look. But, I have never seen anything like that.

 

[ShadyScott999]

I personally don't NEED most of what I have. Would I like to be able to purchase what I want? Yes! I have the means to buy a Class III if I want. I have the want as well. What I don't want is to be placed on that short list by the Feds. And before anyone starts, I realize that we are all on some list of some type somewhere. If major laws are ever passed, I can almost guarantee that the heading on that list will be highlighted very quickly.

 

[ChromeLibrarian]

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
Samuel SAdams

Since the government has cannons and full auto, so must we in order to defend ourselves.

Noah Webster, 1787:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

In order to maintain that we, the people must have the same weapons as the military. If not, we are no longer superior.

Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters form the Federal Farmer, 1788:

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Can't be taught alike if you don't have access to military weaponry

Trench Coxe, writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788:

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

.

ANTECEDENTS Connecticut gun code of 1650:

"All persons shall bear arms, and every male person shall have in continual readiness a good musket or other gun, fit for service."

The musket was the military weapon of the time, the equivalent of today's M-16.

Shall I go on. The founding fathers clearly thought that the people should have access to the same weapons used by the standing armies of the day. To argue that they didn't know about current weaponry is assinine in the extreme. Had there been M-16s, rpgs, and F-16s then, they would have wanted people, other than the government, to have them. They knew better than we that the government is only honest when they have the fear of the armed populace behind them.

Before people make pronouncements about the founding father's intentions, they should actually read what the founding fathers had to say. There is no doubt that the founding fathers thought that the people should be as well armed as any soldier.

 

[EHL]

NOTHING they ever "said", that I can find in their recorded words, such as speeches, personal letters, diaries, ever said so. I have seen many quotes where they were CLEARLY referring to an individual's "personal arms" such as a rifle or pistol.

Maybe if anyone can refer me to a quote from a Founding Father that shows that the 2nd Amendment was meant to include "military weapons" i.e. "cannons", and not just "individual arms" such as rifle/pistol, I would appreciate that, as I would go take a look. But, I have never seen anything like that.

There is evidence that many people owned cannons and other military devices used by regular army at the time. Just do a google search and you'll find it. There were many city codes that regulate how citizenry should store these devices. Look up Boston's city code in the late 1700's and you'll see them even mention citizens storing their cannons and how they should be able to do so.

More to the point though, I think you have placed words in the Founding Father's mouths too. You state "individual arms" but the exact wording in the constitution is "...to keep and bear arms.." The words "individual arms" do not appear on the amendment. If they had indeed intended on only rifles/muskets and pistols to be the "accepted" arms that they were envisioning, it would have just have been as easier to state "to keep and bear rifles and pistols". These men were statesmen and many were trained in the law, so they would know how to express exactly what they meant when they wrote it down. They chose to use "arms" instead of "rifles and pistols" as you would suggest they intended. If you look up the definition for "arms" in any dictionary it will tell you-"weaponry". Replace the word "arms" in the amendment with the synonym for it and you get "....to keep and bear weaponry..."
In the words of the original district court that ruled in favor of Heller, "once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District(or in our case, the Government) to ban it"

 

[TexasRifleman]

So, I believe that if the Founding Fathers had been deeply concerned that "we the people" should always have access to military weapons such as "cannons", they would have said so.

I thought that's what the English word "arms" meant.

Silly me, thinking they expected us to still understand the language 200 years later.

They didn't put "handheld arms" or "small arms" or any other silliness. Most cannon used by the Revolutionary Navy were privately owned, drafted into service by something called "Letters of Marque".

Our own U.S. Constitution specifically assigns the power to issue letters of marque to the U.S. Congress, and the power was used extensively in the Revolutionary War.

This same idea has been tossed about again recently with the increase in piracy, especially high profile piracy like we've seen in Somalia . Privately owned shipping, armed with privately owned ordnance of various types (arms), carrying letters of marque has been considered to reduce the chance for piracy since the ships would be, in effect, military vessels under the US Flag, but with privately owned weapons.

That's very similar to what contractors like Blackwater do.

Again, history shows us that the Founding Fathers had no misunderstanding about what they were writing. It's a fairly recent argument to claim that they didn't mean what they wrote, and it's more of the same silliness.

 

[Byron Quick]

From 1776 until 1934, any American could buy any weapon they could pay for. Regardless of the statements or lack of statements from an Founding Father...I'd consider that to be a very strong precedent. Wouldn't you? 158 years of any citizen owning any weapons they could pay for, regardless of provenance. As opposed to 75 years of unconstitutional restriction.

And precedent counts for much in our system.

 

[ChromeLibrarian]

Unless you're a liberal, and precedent doesn't match what you want.

 

[Byron Quick]

Some here have made statements such as the Founding Fathers never envisaged fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, grenades, ad nauseum...so that's not covered under the 2nd Amendment.

Tell me, they never envisaged modern high speed printing presses, copy machines, computers, the internet, television, radio, and so forth either. Would you argue that these are not covered under the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press and freedom speech? It's the same argument in both cases.

 

[Shung]

Tell me, they never envisaged modern high speed printing presses, copy machines, computers, the internet, television, radio, and so forth either. Would you argue that these are not covered under the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press and freedom speech? It's the same argument in both cases.

after that, if you still think modern weapons do not belong the the 2nd amendment, you show a total lack of logic and honesty..

 

[Cyborg]

Need????????

Every time one of the gun control types whips out the word "need" I get angry. Now a member here - allegedly one of our own - is using that word. JoefromTN has repeatedly stated his belief that fully automatic weapons

should be tightly regulated

Further he has more than once said that ordinary people do not NEED such devices since they are - in his inestimable opinion - of little use for personal defense.

Need, sir?!! NEED????!!!!

Precisely who do you think yourself to be to decide what anyone but your self might or might not need???? How dare you to presume that you better know what is in someone else's best interests than that person themself?

How DARE you??? Who made you arbiter of what is or is not in someone else's interests?

What heights of megalomania such statements reveal. I may not always know what is best for me but I frakking well know better then anyone else what that is. You may not like the way I swing my arms or how often I do so but so long as my arm-swinging avoids your nose then you have no business telling me when and how to swing my arms.

That is the essence of modern liberalism. The left KNOWS with an absolute moral certainty and are entirely willing to impose their standards upon others.

JoefromTN, you use much the same argument as the Brady Bunch. How, materially, do you differ from them? As long as I confine my activities to my own back yard, what say is it of YOURS what I do.

Perhaps I wish to buy what you deem "military weapons" to prepare to overthrow the government. Until I actually do so or conspire with others to do so I have committed no crime. Who are your to tell me I may not spend my money upon any "frivolous" or "unneeded" item I choose? Who are you to regulate my spending habits?

There is a PARSEC of difference between a quick CBC and draconian regulations to "insure that only collectors and trained persons have them." I suppose you will also be the arbiter between "legitimate" collectors and not. Will you be the one to set the standards as to what constitutes someone being sufficiently "trained" to have earned the priviledge of owning a fully automatic, "military" weapon???

WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, ANYHOW?????

You make me ashamed of the fact that my line came from - and many kinfolk remain to this day - Tennnessee; specifically Picket County.



Cyborg

 

[Prince Yamato]

Why is it that whenever we mention full-auto, people automatically assume that everyone is going to buy some sort of .308 or 7.62x54 belt fed and just go blasting away, making a lot of noise?

There's quite a bit of practicality in owning a machine pistol or sub-gun. It's cheap to shoot and it allows for a very quick follow up (hold the trigger for 3-5 bangs). Something like an Uzi would make an excellent home defense weapon. And yes, I've shot an Uzi. They're easy to control and very practical.

A machinegun (especially a sub-gun) is a very practical tool. It takes the place of both pistol and machinegun. Think about it folks. I honestly don't understand why you can't just walk in, pass NICS, and get one. There's no need for the other nonsense associated with it.

 

[JoefromTN]

Cyborg,

HEY! Take a deep breath man! I AGREE with you! In fact, if you had read ALL of my posts BEFORE you went on that rant, you would have seen that in post #234 I said,

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.

You see, I was already CORRECTED on that issue once and I took that "spanking" to heart!

As for your accusations about me deciding who is, "trained, a collector, qualified to own, etc.", I do not pretend to say that I, or anyone else should make that decision. I just think that fully automatic firearms should be regulated so that not EVERYONE is buying one, "thinking", they'll use it for self defense situations that it is NOT well suited for.

However, when it comes to FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms, which YES, YES, YES, "can be" used for self defense, they are NOT well suited for that purpose and except in very unusual circumstances, it would be irresponsible, negligent, and down right dumb to use a fully automatic firearm in a self defense situation! UNLESS, as I said, it was one of those very unusual situations where it was the only weapon available to you, and you were in an area where absolutely no one could get hurt by bullets missing the intended target.

Would you AGREE with me that as RESPONSIBLE gun owners, it is our responsibility to ensure that we know where our bullets go when we fire our weapon? Therefore, firing a "burst" of fully automatic fire, in a self defense situation, would NOT be prudent, as we couldn't be sure that every one of those bullets would hit our target and NOT endanger someone else!

Therefore, since I believe, (that means that it is my OPINION, so don't get so stressed out! It's just my OPINION.), that fully automatic firearms are NOT well suited for self defense; I believe that regulating these firearms and ensuring that just not everyone is buying one to carry around and use for self defense, is within the the realm of a "reasonable" restriction on the 2nd Amendment.

Yeah, I AGREE with you; that if you are a law abiding citizen and you have machine guns, mortars, artillery pieces, claymore mines, rocket launchers, stinger missiles, dragon missiles, anti tank mines, and a truck load of C-4; and you never use the stuff for anything illegal, or outside your own "backyard", so that no one is ever endangered by your use of these things, then what's the big deal? But do you think our Founding Fathers really meant for us to have all the strictly "military weaponry" when they wrote the term, "arms" in the 2nd Amendment?

You know I have raised quite a ruckus on this thread by the fact that I think it's OK for fully automatic firearms to be regulated. But the fact is, that fully automatic firearms ARE AVAILABLE to ANYONE, who wants to pay the exorbitant fees for the licensing to qualify for ownership of fully automatic firearms and then has the 10's of thousands of dollars it takes to buy a working machine gun! So, what's the beef?

These things ARE NOT BANNED, if you want one, go get it!

 

[Harold Mayo]

Tell me, they never envisaged modern high speed printing presses, copy machines, computers, the internet, television, radio, and so forth either. Would you argue that these are not covered under the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press and freedom speech? It's the same argument in both cases.

Totally in agreement. Also...it can be argued, and very effectively, that the press has caused FAR and away more damage with how they present information than ANY individual could EVER do with a firearm.

 

[Byron Quick]

Would you AGREE with me that as RESPONSIBLE gun owners, it is our responsibility to ensure that we know where our bullets go when we fire our weapon?

Yes, but ensure? 100% assurance would preclude any of us ever firing anything in self defense and to judge from their reported hits vs. shots fired would also preclude the police from firing their weapons.

Even the various treaties governing land warfare don't come anywhere close to this criteria. Military units are forbidden targeting solely civilian targets. If a hostile military unit inserts itself into a civilian installation then that prohibition does not apply. Granted, a private citizen might be more curtailed than a military unit.

Therefore, firing a "burst" of fully automatic fire, in a self defense situation, would NOT be prudent, as we couldn't be sure that every one of those bullets would hit our target and NOT endanger someone else!

Within the distances in the common home, my accuracy with a 3 shot burst from my Uzi is at least as good as rapid fire double taps from my handguns.

Seeing as how some of handgun rounds miss during practice(mainly from headshots) does this mean that I should never fire my handgun in self defense?

Tell me, do you never miss the target with your handgun? If so, how can you absolutely ensure that any shots fired by you will absolutely hit their intended target?

 

[RDCL]

Although I've always been fascinated by machine guns, the only full-auto I'd love to own would be one of the original Colt made 1921 Thompsons.

Of course...It'll never happen though...my pockets just are'nt deep enough

The next best thing I suppose is that I have some books on the Thompson gun and every now & then I look through the pictures. Just a marvelous piece of vintage engineering that old gun was.
As far as the laws & restrictions go, it just is not fair, because I suspect there are a lot of unregistered Thompsons forever frozen into police departments that will never see the light of day.....and when they do they will be destroyed!
We gun buffs just don't associate machine guns with killing people and robbing banks. I for one appreciate the history and engineering that goes into them and although I have never fired a full-auto gun there'd be no doubt how fun it would be. The anti-gun crowd (and SOME pro)...just don't get that and never will nor do they want to!

OH!....but you'd better not impose restrictions on what THEY consider a favorite hobby or pastime!

A lot of times the anti-crowd will ask: "Why do you NEED a machine gun?"

My answer has always been: "Well, actually I DON'T need a machine gun....I WANT one and that's all YOU need to know about it.....anymore than I'd ask YOU why you need a car that can go 180 mph!"

Frustrating indeed! I mean, the government can own & operate an aircraft carrier but little 'ole me (Whom has nothing but RESPECT for law & order in this land)....CAN'T have a Thompson just to own look at and handle with out even shooting it.

Just my 2-cents
Russ

 

[JoefromTN]

Byron,

You said;

Yes, but ensure? 100% assurance would preclude any of us ever firing anything in self defense and to judge from their reported hits vs. shots fired would also preclude the police from firing their weapons.

I never said anything about never being able to employ your handgun in self defense if you can't deliver 100% accuracy!

You AGREE with me that as RESPONSIBLE gun owners, we have the RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that we do NOT, "negligently" endanger innocent people when we employ our gun in a self defense situation, you do agree with that, don't you? I mean, we can't just pull our gun out and start blindly throwing bullets, "hoping" that we'll hit the bad guy! THAT would be "negligent" and irresponsible, don't ya think?

In fact, I believe that in most jurisdictions a legally armed citizen, who uses their gun in self defense will be held LIABLE for any harm done to another person during that defensive shooting.

I would bet that you would AGREE with me, that it wouldn't be prudent, for someone to use a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot to shoot at a criminal in a crowded restaurant. The chances of killing, or at the very least, injuring innocent bystanders, as well as the criminal, would be far too great.

Now, given a semi-automatic pistol loaded with hollow points, in the hands of a trained and practiced, RESPONSIBLE gun owner; and one well placed shot can take this bad guy out, even in a crowded restaurant without hurting anyone else. Even if a follow up shot is needed, it can be delivered with accuracy and not endanger others.

So, I'm NOT saying that every self defense shooting MUST ONLY happen if the shooter can ensure 100% accuracy! I'm ONLY saying that we have a RESPONSIBILITY to not NEGLIGENTLY endanger innocent bystanders. If we do, I'm sure the law will, (rightfully), hold us liable for our actions.

So, my point being, that IF we are to be RESPONSIBLE gun owners, and use our guns in a RESPONSIBLE way for self defense, then we would obviously want the BEST CHANCE of shooting the bad guy WITHOUT endangering others.

Just as you can't do that with a shotgun in a crowded store, you can't do that with a machine gun!

Now BEFORE you go off an another rant, read back on some of my other posts. I AGREE that in a case where you can employ a machine gun in self defense and not endanger anyone else, then so be it. But as an ordinary, everyday, anywhere self defense gun, a fully automatic machine gun is NOT well suited as a defensive weapon!

How much plainer can I make that argument?

Even if you don't agree with me and still think ya ought to be allowed to carry around your Uzi because you're such a great shot with it that you can consistently and accurately deliver 3 round bursts, and always be on target, do I get any points for at least making a coherent argument? (By the way, congratulations! When I fired Uzi's, they fired so fast, I always found it difficult to get a 3 round burst, I usually had 4-5, or more, and I NEVER was able to get every round "on target" which meant that at least one or more rounds were going, "who knows where", and I had a lot of practice with one! I received training with an Uzi and several other types of machine guns and other weapons from a couple of different foreign Armies which use them on a regular basis. I also scored as an "Expert", winning the coveted Gold Medal marksmanship badge from the German Army on a course that included Uzi's a couple of other machine guns/sub machine guns, pistols, and rifles. That is something that is rarely done by Americans, so I must have learned something about handling these types of weapons.)

 

[JoefromTN]

By the way Byron,

You said,

...my accuracy with a 3 shot burst from my Uzi...

Do you actually own a fully automatic Uzi?

If so, what's the licensing requirements like for owning a fully auto firearm? And, just out of curiosity, what does a fully auto Uzi cost?

As I had stated in an earlier post, fully auto guns aren't banned but the prices for the licensing and the guns usually puts them out of reach of anyone but the most serious collectors with lots of money.

I would like to own one some day, but knowing the costs are pretty high, I've really never seriously pursued "the dream". I could do the research and get the answers, but if you actually are a full auto owner, as your post suggests, maybe you could fill me in on the costs?

 

[HeavenlySword]

Joe, do you understand the point of the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting, sports, OR EVEN SELF DEFENSE

Those are mere side benefits, the Founders of the United States created the 2nd Amendment to allow citizens to 'resist tyranny', to defend the nation from invasion, or our own government.

You can argue that even M16s in every house wouldn't stop a state armed with aircraft carriers and stealth bombers, but look at Vietnam.

Even more importantly, most of or at least a significant portion of the armed forces would not side with the wanna-be dictator, and fight for freedom with the people.

How much is reasonable? The only restriction that I believe would be reasonable would be the Swiss system, where you get a special liscence saying you are sound of mind. People should be allowed to own MBTs and jet aircraft and artillery, like in Switzerland (with the special liscence)

 

[LoneStarWings]

I believe that dealers should be able to sell newly manufactured fully automatic weapons to the public with an extensive background check, rather than restricting the supply to pre-84 models.

I don't buy into the line of thinking that it would make rough neighborhoods more dangerous. The kind of people who would use those weapons on innocents will get them by breaking the law, since that isn't difficult to do.

 

[JoefromTN]

Joe, do you understand the point of the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting, sports, OR EVEN SELF DEFENSE

YES! I sure DO know that! But, the subject of this thread has been whether or not fully automatic firearms should be readily available to the general public.

It is my "OPINION" that fully automatic firearms are NOT well suited for general self defense and therefore, should NOT be easily, and readily accessible to the general public. I also do NOT think that the general public should be allowed to possess, OTHER "military weapons", (you see, since I believe fully auto weapons are NOT well suited for self defense, they are a "military weapon", used primarily for offensive purposes), such as artillery, mortars, claymore mines, etc.

I believe that a "military weapon" such as a fully automatic firearm should be regulated as they are now. This limits them to only serious collectors with lots of money and the average citizen isn't running around with an Uzi intending to "defend" himself in Wal-Mart from a mugger. THAT would be irresponsible and negligent.

AGAIN, YES, I understand the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, self defense, or gun collecting. But, I believe the 2nd Amendment, just like ALL of the Amendments is subject to a "reasonable" amount of regulation, and "for me", that line can be drawn between fully automatic firearms and others.

 

[General Geoff]

Why aren't fully automatic firearms reasonable for self defense? Trigger discipline is all that's needed for controlled bursts. And often times, one must shoot an attacker more than once to stop them anyway.

While we're at that, full length rifles aren't particularly suited for self defense either, perhaps they should be regulated like machine guns are now?