Full Auto?

[JoefromTN]

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

Huh? You lost me on that one. This thread is about fully automatic firearms. What is your comment about semi-automatics and pre-84 models all about? I believe gun manufacturers are building and selling brand new semi-automatic firearms every day.

 

[LoneStarWings]

My fault, it was a 4 AM typo, I meant fully-automatic and have edited to reflect that. I apologize. We should be able to buy new ones. I don't want to spend $20k on a 25 year old full-automatic weapon, even if it has been in a safe the whole time. I want to be able to buy the latest and best technologies at a reasonable price.

 

[HeavenlySword]

Did you read the whole thing Joe?

If, the-god-i-dont-believe in forbid it, the people need to fight, are M16s not better than semi-auto only?

If so, wouldn't you want as many people armed as possible? With the most effective weapon available?

 

[JoefromTN]

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.

They aren't well suited for self defense because a RESPONSIBLE gun owner, who is employing his self defense gun in a RESPONSIBLE manner, can NOT ensure, with reasonable, RESPONSIBLE, accuracy, that he will employ that fully auto gun and NOT endanger innocent bystanders.

You wouldn't use a shotgun loaded with buckshot in a crowded store would you? That would be negligent, and as a responsible gun owner you are liable for any damage or harm that your use of a defensive firearm might cause.

You are correct that a full length rifle is also not "well suited" for self defense, however, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about "self defense" and so "in my OPINION" as long as the rifle is not fully automatic, it should not be regulated like a fully automatic should be.

 

[bthest86]

they are a "military weapon"

So were bolt-action and semi-automatic rifles not too long ago. What's your point?

You're still just plastering certain features with meaningless arbitrary labels such as "military" and "offensive." And that's exactly what the Brady Campaign does. I don't know how anyone who calls themselves pro-gun or pro-2A could follow such nonsense.

 

[General Geoff]

They aren't well suited for self defense because a RESPONSIBLE gun owner, who is employing his self defense gun in a RESPONSIBLE manner, can NOT ensure, with reasonable, RESPONSIBLE, accuracy, that he will employ that fully auto gun and NOT endanger innocent bystanders.

Prove it. I could certainly ensure with reasonable, responsible accuracy that I will not endanger innocent bystanders with a select-fire weapon.

You wouldn't use a shotgun loaded with buckshot in a crowded store would you? That would be negligent, and as a responsible gun owner you are liable for any damage or harm that your use of a defensive firearm might cause.

How would it be negligent? Have you ever patterned a shotgun? Disregarding the fact that I wouldn't likely be carrying a full length shotgun in a crowded store, if for some reason I was, and there was an assailant there, I would not hesitate to use it if the assailant was within any distance that I would consider a prudent shot with a handgun.

You are correct that a full length rifle is also not "well suited" for self defense, however, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about "self defense" and so "in my OPINION" as long as the rifle is not fully automatic, it should not be regulated like a fully automatic should be.

That sounds awfully close to circular logic, there.

 

[JoefromTN]

Did you read the whole thing Joe?

Yes, I did. What did I miss?

Yes, I AGREE with you, IF God forbid, (and I DO BELIEVE in HIM!), we had to fight against our own government, M-16's would be better than Ar-15's. But, the reality is, that there will never be another "revolution" where we'll have to fight our own government. No matter how many M-16's we had, we could never defeat the government with military forces they have available. That's just not realistic.

What IS realistic, is that we maintain our rights to keep and bear "ordinary arms" so that we always have the ability to defend ourselves from criminals and from an overly obtrusive government that would never risk trying to "forcefully" disarm the populace.

 

[General Geoff]

But, the reality is, that there will never be another "revolution" where we'll have to fight our own government.

The entire span of recorded human history would disagree with you.

 

[JoefromTN]

So were bolt-action and semi-automatic rifles not too long ago. What's your point?

You guys aren't reading my previous posts and I am repeating myself...

I AGREE, that almost EVERY gun EVER designed, manufactured, and put into use, was "originally" a military arm.

However, it is my "OPINION", that a fully auto firearm is a "military weapon" that I believe should be reasonably regulated as they are NOW! Whereas, non-fully automatic firearms, should NOT be regulated.

 

[HeavenlySword]

Joe, did the US get trashed in Vietnam?

Joe, do you think that Marine living across your street, who swore an oath to the Constitution, not the commander in chief, is going to help his government suppress the people?

Do you think our 250,000 man army can realistically take on 90 million armed citizens?

So, you would rather have our current freeze on new machine guns for civilians and the 8 states that don't allow them crap, as compared to the Swiss system?

 

[General Geoff]

Joe, your opinion is not substantiated with any facts, thus it's not something a logical person would agree with.

 

[LoneStarWings]

I'd like to have some full atuos more for that scenario of an invading foreign army. Any sort of grassroots resistance would be much better off with up-to-date weapons. You will laugh but the Mexican Army has been seen excursing onto US soil recently. Who knows why or what for, but if for some reason they were to try and cause harm, I'd want the best defense possible. Sure it'd be borderline suicidal for untrained militia to take on trained military forces, but there is strength in numbers and firepower.

Furthermore, the amount of regulation on automatics today seems excessive. If we can't get newly built ones, it's only a matter of time before they all cease functioning due to age. Maybe decades, centuries, but still a matter of time.

 

[bthest86]

I AGREE, that almost EVERY gun EVER designed, manufactured, and put into use, was "originally" a military arm.

OK then why bother inserting "military weapon" into your posts? Do you think an M1 Garand or SMLE is any less a "military weapon" than an AK-47 or Uzi? It just seems kind of redundant to me.

I believe should be reasonably regulated as they are NOW! Whereas, non-fully automatic firearms, should NOT be regulated.

And besides being unsuitable, in your opinion, for self-defense (that's not a legitimate reason for restricting something) what is your other reasons for regulating them?

 

[JoefromTN]

Y'all are going a little fast for me, let me see if I can catch up....

Prove it. I could certainly ensure with reasonable, responsible accuracy that I will not endanger innocent bystanders with a select-fire weapon.

So, what are you saying? That you would do the RESPONSIBLE thing and put the selector switch on semi-auto in order not to endanger others? If you are suggesting that you would use a fully automatic firearm in a crowded store, then that's just plain IRRESPONSIBLE!

How would it be negligent? Have you ever patterned a shotgun? Disregarding the fact that I wouldn't likely be carrying a full length shotgun in a crowded store, if for some reason I was, and there was an assailant there, I would not hesitate to use it if the assailant was within any distance that I would consider a prudent shot with a handgun.

I wasn't suggesting that the target is so close that every pellet would be sure to hit him, are YOU seriously suggesting that at a distance of 15-20 feet, (a reasonable pistol shot), in a crowded store that you would use a shotgun? Again, that's just plain IRRESPONSIBLE!

The entire span of recorded human history would disagree with you.

If we were talking history here, I would agree with you.

Joe, did the US get trashed in Vietnam?

We were defeated by POLITICS! There was NEVER any question that we could have won that war militarily. So, that's not a good example to use to prove that lesser arms can defeat better arms.

Joe, do you think that Marine living across your street, who swore an oath to the Constitution, not the commander in chief, is going to help his government suppress the people?

Maybe he might not, but, unfortunately, I think there ARE military and police officers, who WOULD "suppress the people" at the bidding of the government. Just look at New Orleans for the example.

Do you think our 250,000 man army can realistically take on 90 million armed citizens?

I think this is an unrealistic question. 1.) There aren't 90 million gun owners in America and not every gun owner would be willing to revolt. 2.) The military would probably NOT participate in any forced suppression of the American people, (at least not enough of them to be able to do it).

So, you would rather have our current freeze on new machine guns for civilians and the 8 states that don't allow them crap, as compared to the Swiss system?

No, actually, I WOULD prefer the Swiss system. But, it's NOT going to happen here, so I'm not going to get all bent out of shape whining about it not happening. Instead, I'm going to work to try to keep things from getting WORSE than they are NOW!

 

[General Geoff]

So, what are you saying? That you would do the RESPONSIBLE thing and put the selector switch on semi-auto in order not to endanger others? If you are suggesting that you would use a fully automatic firearm in a crowded store, then that's just plain IRRESPONSIBLE!

Just because you say it is, does not make it so. You act like a fully automatic firearm is a bomb or something, killing indiscriminately in all directions. It is not.

I wasn't suggesting that the target is so close that every pellet would be sure to hit him, are YOU seriously suggesting that at a distance of 15-20 feet, (a reasonable pistol shot), in a crowded store that you would use a shotgun? Again, that's just plain IRRESPONSIBLE!

From a distance of 20 feet, an 18"-barreled shotgun firing 00 buckshot would put every projectile within a ~12" diameter. Easily all within center of mass, with body mass to spare. Once again, just because you think it's irresponsible, does not make it so.

edit; in fact, according to the box o' truth, buckshot has a pattern of only 9 inches at 7 yards, or 21 feet.

 

[JoefromTN]

OK then why bother inserting "military weapon" into your posts? Do you think an M1 Garand or SMLE is any less a "military weapon" than an AK-47 or Uzi? It just seems kind of redundant to me.

Yes, an M-1 or an SMLE are NOT in my "OPINION" what I would classify as a "military weapon" because the are NOT fully automatic and have legitimate civilian uses.

And besides being unsuitable, in your opinion, for self-defense (that's not a legitimate reason for restricting something) what is your other reasons for regulating them?

Why is that NOT a legitimate reason for restricting something? Do think people ought to be able to have claymore mines for self defense? Claymores are NOT well suited for self defense because they can NOT be RESPONSIBLY employed against a target without the possible danger to innocent bystanders. I have no "other reason" for restricting fully automatic firearms, other than the fact that in MOST CASES, they can't be used for self defense without possible harm to unintended victims.

 

[JoefromTN]

Just because you say it is, does not make it so. You act like a fully automatic firearm is a bomb or something, killing indiscriminately in all directions. It is not.

I AGREE. It's NOT a bomb. However, just because "YOU say it's so", don't mean that is; and I have enough EXPERIENCE with machine guns to know, that even EXPERIENCED machine gunners can NOT ensure all bullets on target well enough that a machine gun could be REASONABLY used for ordinary self defense!

From a distance of 20 feet, an 18"-barreled shotgun firing 00 buckshot would put every projectile within a ~12" diameter. Easily all within center of mass, with body mass to spare. Once again, just because you think it's irresponsible, does not make it so.

OK, ya got me on that one, I haven't run out and patterned my shotgun yet this morning, so I'll give ya that one. But, I will still stand, ON MY OPINION that a shotgun, or a machine gun, would NOT be a RESPONSIBLE, PRUDENT, SAFE weapon to use in MOST self defense situations.

 

[General Geoff]

Shooting a fully automatic weapon responsibly requires trigger discipline, not just letting a full magazine loose with a single trigger pull, unless the weapon is particularly mild in recoil. This is why burst fire sears were invented. Burst fire sears are only needed by an undisciplined shooter.

Now according to military studies, 3-4 round bursts are extremely effective and usually just as accurate on-target as three or four individually fired rounds in a semi-auto. Are you saying that an AR-15 set to 3-round burst would be an irresponsible weapon to use in a self defense scenario? I don't think it is.

 

[General Geoff]

Do think people ought to be able to have claymore mines for self defense?

For self defense, maybe, maybe not. But I certainly think people ought to be able to obtain claymore mines.

 

[HeavenlySword]

Yes, if we had the political will, we would have 'won', at the expense of tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dead freedom-fighters and hundreds of thousands of Government Infantry.

A significant percentage of the Vietnamese people saw us simply as continuing the French and Japanese occupations of their homelands, and denying them the right to choose a government of their choice.

Yes, communism is bad, but if the people decide they want it, in DEMOCRATIC elections... if the local dictator decides to fight it, okay. But when the US joins forces with the local dictator, it causes the people to unite against the 'foreign devil', especially in nations that have been repeatedly raped (literally) by dozens of other empires, whether Chinese, French, Japanese, or American (thats how they see it)

 

[bthest86]

Why is that NOT a legitimate reason for restricting something?

Because it's arbitrary and vague and can be applied to anything?

Do think people ought to be able to have claymore mines for self defense?

Stop bringing up landmines. They are not even remotely comparable. If you want to debate those then make a thread. I'm debating the regulation fully automatic firearms. Not explosives.

they can NOT be RESPONSIBLY employed against a target without the possible danger to innocent bystanders.

Can you honestly tell me that you can fire any weapon into a crowd at Wal-Mart with out endangering bystanders?

I have no "other reason" for restricting fully automatic firearms, other than the fact that in MOST CASES, they can't be used for self defense without possible harm to unintended victims.

You keep mentioning shotguns too. Do we ban those as well?

And you do realize you can flip a switch on most of the things and they'll fire semi-automatic right? Just because my (I wish) AR-15 is selective fire doesn't mean I'm always in every situation going to empty the magazine at a target. Right?

And if I want machine gun to defend MY house then what business it of anyone else? And really your scenario of someone toting a submachine gun around Wal-Mart under their trench coat waiting to blast some punk just sounds ridiculous.

 

[qwert65]

Joe from TN, even if you are correct about using FA in public. What about home defense? If some guy is high on drugs I'd much rather give him a burst from a grease gun then keep blasting with a 1911. They use the exact same ammunition and as long as I don't live in an apartment building I really dont have to worry about over penetration. Just something to consider

 

[Gungnir]

Quote:
The entire span of recorded human history would disagree with you.

If we were talking history here, I would agree with you.

There is an element in your statement that implies (you can correct me if I'm wrong) that you do not believe that history will repeat itself.

I actually don't see why you're arguing against any of this.

RESPONSIBILITY is in the employment of the tool, not the tool itself. If I responsibly set up a Claymore killing zone for home defense, and ensure that only someone who has evil intent gets into that zone, is that irresponsible?

Also you're adding your perception to the tools employed. By your evaluation our Military is irresponsibly employing burst or fully automatic fire in areas of civilians regularly. I do not think that they're acting irresponsibly at all, and I also think that one of the primary focuses they have is civilian safety.

Restricting the tool, does not stop someone from recreating the tool, or obtaining it illegally.

The 2nd Amendment is not only about hunting rights, or only self defense or actually only anything. Nor does it identify specific exceptions for instance Select Fire, or only non-military arms.

If I want to buy a 155mm Howitzer for personal use why shouldn't I be able to? I could make a Trebuchet in my back yard, which might be just as effective (maybe with less range) which is acceptable to you. When we get down to it I don't even need to give you a reason why I want it.

 

[ZO6Vettever]

Gansta types have em', why not us???

 

[Byron Quick]

Do you actually own a fully automatic Uzi?

Yes, Joe, I do. The process involved filling out several forms for the ATF, and sending it to them along with two recent passport photographs and $200. And getting the form signed either by my local police chief, sheriff, or district attorney. Then getting a complete set of fingerprints on the FBI cards and sending that to the FBI. While this was going on my gun was converted. This was just a couple of months before the '86 ban took effect. My gun was returned to the SOT dealer before the approved forms with the attached tax stamp got back from the ATF.

I got this in 86 before the ban drove the prices into the stratosphere. So my total cost including the conversion and the tax stamp is $975. My actual cost not including the $200 tax was $775. That would be $1447.36 in $2007 in 2007 dollars. Uzis were getting as much as $5000.00 a few months ago. The actual price depends on the condition and exactly how the conversion from semi-automatic was accomplished. Some methods of conversion bring a premium over other methods.

Now, I respect your training and accomplishments with marksmanship. Still, I'd be surprised if you had had a chance to shoot an Uzi as much as I have. In the past 23 years, I've shot at least five thousand rounds through the subgun. That's what I can remember. I've had the chance to experiment with different bullets, different bullet loads, different powders, and different powder amounts. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if I can shoot my Uzi with my loads better than military personnel who have not had a chance to shoot the sheer number of rounds through it that I have and who use what the military gives them to shoot and their particular Uzi might do that well with that load. My Uzi happens to do well with milspec+P+ but I've seen some that have poorer accuracy with them.