Full Auto?

[rbernie]

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.

This line of thought PRESUMES that allowing unfettered access to fully automatic weapons would cause such occurrences. So tell me - have you actually looked at the issue from the perspective of those societies where F/A arms are available, and have you detected such a terrible pattern of negligent behavior? Or are you simply projecting an argument that says, "It may not be an issue in real life with quantifiable and documented risk to innocents, but I actually just do not trust my neighbors and therefore I wish there to be a restriction that assuages my fears."

Frankly, your position is aristocratic pap. In your described world, only the well-heeled are presumed to be responsible enough to own F/A weapons. Those of lesser castes need not apply; they are presumed to be too irresponsible.

What a load of elitest dookie.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Do you actually own a fully automatic Uzi?

I had a Walther MPL for many years, as well as an Uzi and the truth is that the things you talk about just don't happen with someone who has the slightest bit of training. My suppressed Uzi was incredibly accurate and quite easy to hold on a target even during a complete mag dump.

I also have a 1918A2 Browning Automatic Rifle, full auto shooting .30-06. I can put a full 20 round magazine into a man sized target at 100 yards, do it all the time.

In fact one of the stories in a BAR history book involves the complaint that the rifle was too accurate for "area fire" and training techniques evolved to reduce the accuracy of the weapon to make it more effective at area suppression.

This idea that they are just bullet hoses is Hollywood. The fact is that any firearm; submachine gun, rifle, or handgun, can be fired by someone that isn't up to the task, and hit an innocent. The firearm type has nothing to do with that.

Like Byron I bought all this stuff pre-86 so I have very little money in these weapon and when I bought mine they were readily available.

Here's the thing that you need to keep in mind when you talk about restrictions. How many people would actually want them? Pre-86 you could buy Uzis in the $600 range but yet they were not selling. I paid a whopping $900 for a BAR, and $450 for a Walther MPL. They had no real value and were seen as niche items, even when commonly available.

With ammo costs as they are today that would likely remain true. There are a small percentage of people that would buy them, even if they were sold at Cabelas next to the Browning Superposed shotguns.

Placing some artificial limit on the Second Amendment is a downhill path that you seem to be missing. You keep talking about full auto as a different "class" of firearm but that's how the anti's talk about "assault weapons". By agreeing in principle that firearms can indeed be classified and regulated in subgroups you by default admit that it's OK to do. This just allows the anti's to keep going with bans of other types.

The arguments you make about full auto, high rate of fire and high capacity, could be slightly twisted to apply to 9mm Glocks with big magazines. Whats the difference? And because of cost it's arguable that "high capacity" Glocks would be used more by criminals than belt fed full autos.

If your argument is the safety of bystanders, then are you saying we should not have "high capacity" semi auto handguns? Well the truth is that those things don't happen in real life, even with all the people out thre carrying Glocks with 20 rounds in them. Playing "what if" to regulate guns is dishonest, I've said it before and it remains true. If you are going to debate this, you have to use facts. You can't just make up stories about what "might" happen "sometime, somewhere".

Where does it end? For anti gun people, it doesn't, and you are beginning to sound just like them. You are using the same arguments.

 

[Cyborg]

2nd American Revolution

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

Hate to burst your bubble, sport, but a significant number of people would disagree with you on that. A growing number of people are convinced that a 2nd American Revolution is just over the horizon. One could infer that the Obama Administration agrees with them since one of its stated goals is the formation of a Gestapo-like "National Security Force". In point of fact the (now) President himself stated his goal in a stump speech in Colorado Springs on 2 July

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

And as for your assertion that

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).

while I agree that, absent some really stupid moves by the rebels, you are likely correct, the above would seem to render our shared belief moot. Do you honestly believe that the people who are likely to join Obama's Army (and if the National Defense Force is authorized see how long it is before that appelation is applied - HERE!) are likely to be the same people who wold serve in the regular armed forces? I do not. I think there will be selection pressure such that the majority of the people who enlist in OA will be liberals who, like the CSGV's Ladd Everitt, believe that

The government must have a monopoly on force.

Think about it. And for goodness sake, let the "not useful/responsible/prudent for self defense" argument on regulating FA weapons go the way of your earlier "need" argument. The 2A is no more about self-defense (except defending oneself from home-grown tyrants and foreign invaders) than it is about collecting, target shooting or hunting. It is about one thing - equipping the unorganized militia. I am convinced that is the raison d'etre for the 2A. All the other things - hunting, target shooting, collecting, "fondling" (OK, "just to own look at and handle" RDCL ), etc. are side benefits. The reason for the 2A as put forth by many of the writings of the founding fathers and contemporaries was to make the people strong enough to keep the government honest. That is only possible if regular old law-abiding Joes and Janes can buy - with a minimum of regulation - any sort of destructive modality they can afford. I, for one, do not think the 2A is restrictive on the types of destructive modalities it protects. If I won a mega-lottery tomorrow, I should be able to buy an M1A1 if I can afford it.

And self-defense has nothing - I say again FRAKKING NOTHING whatsoever to do with it.

Now excuse me, I gotta get ready to make a Sam's run. Gonna get a big bag of rice to store in my well cleaned/sterilized plastic cat litter containers. Already got a decent supply of dried pinto beans and corn meal. Figure to stop by Wally World in the way home to pick up another 100 rds of Winclean .40 cal ammo. It won't be as effective as hollow points but the brass can be reloaded with something that is.

Cy
Bury your head in the sand all you want. It only makes your a** a better target.

 

[IndianaBoy]

Joe just doesn't get it.

He thinks the second amendment has something to do with self defense at the mall. That might be a nice perk, but the fact of the matter is that the founders intended gunfire to be a check on a out of control govt.

He is willfully ignorant, making statements about 'civilian purposes'. I have changed my mind, I'm prett sure he is an anti troll. If I am wrong, I am certain logic is not his strong suit.

I wonder if he would changed his mind if the army started issuing laser or plasma guns to the troops. The M16 would then be an antiquated weapon, just like the Garand.

Some people just don't get it. I'm gonna go have a conversation with a brick wall now.

 

[Shung]

The government must have a monopoly on force

man, you are scaring me now..

 

[EHL]

I don't even know why you guys are still trying to get Joe to see reason. It's obvious that he's not gonna change his mind. After the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that has been offered, any reasonable person (and I think there were more than a few in here) would have changed their mind about this issue. I think there were a few fellas in here who were in the Anti crowd but have since changed their mind because of the absurdity of the premise that FA's are somehow "too dangerous" for regular civilians to own.
If Joe were actually reasonable, he'd see that many of us already conceded to "reasonable regulations" by accepting NICS and possibly mental health history. That's not enough for Joe and he still maintains that we shouldn't have access to "military weapons", because we COULD NEVER HAVE ANOTHER REVOLUTION. Althought the likelyhood of another one happening is remote, by outlawing citizens access to "military weapons"(as he calls them) only assures that if any revolution or invasion ever did take place, we would most assuredly lose. For all of the will and vigor to fight cannot stand up to weapons of destruction. Remember your history and you'll see how things are done. In the Revolutionary war, we had the will (at least some of the country) but we were missing the tools to wage the war. France supplied our troops with the weapons of war that were needed to fight against the British. Were it not for that, our side would have inevitably run out of will to continue the fight as our men would have just continued to have been killed by the better armed British.
In a more recent example, 1980's Afghanistan freedom fighters had little to no success until the US started providing them with MODERN WEAPONS of WAR. The freedom fighters had the will and the guts to fight the Russians, but not the weapons. We provided that crucial element and they were able to drive out the Russians.
Any person who would take the crucial element of "military weapons" away from the people only assures that peoples gauranteed subjugation to any outside or domestic enemy that would seek to rule them.
At this point Joe, if you honestly still believe as you do, you are either too trustful of government and have rejected the Founding Fathers promise of their posterity being able to have the means to throw off a despotic government, or (as others have suggested) you are indeed a troll.
I'm done on this topic, as there really isn't anything left that hasn't already been discussed.

 

[JoefromTN]

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.

Sorry, but this ain't true. No "burst" of automatic fire is as accurate as a single, aimed shot. That's a FACT! Period. That's not debatable. The reason military weapons, the M-16 and now the M-4, and other weapons were converted from fully automatic to burst fire weapons was exactly because soldiers were wasting ammo on full auto by simply spraying the fully auto fire across an area, rather than "aiming" it. The purpose of any automatic fire, (full, or burst), is NOT to make a perfectly "aimed shot", but to lay down suppressive fire over an "area" and if in the process you hit a target, great. Such as firing as you enter a room just to "cover" the room so that you can enter it. Firing to give "covering fire", (keeping the bad guy's head down), while other soldiers maneuver. Taking a "snap shot" at a moving target with a burst, in the hopes that one of the 3 rounds finds the target. Nope. Auto fire, burst fire, was never intended to be precision firing.

Can some people shoot burst fire well? Sure. You seem to be an expert at it. I can do it pretty well, when I AIM my burst, I even shoot full auto pretty well, when I AIM it as I have described earlier. But, it is not as accurate as single aimed shots, I don't care who's doing it.

Therefore, FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms are not well suited for "normal self defense" applications as they can not be CONTROLLED well enough to meet the RESPONSIBLE gun owner's need to not be NEGLIGENT in using his fire arm!

You may, (and WILL), disagree with my assessment, but I have REPEATED this dozens of times in this thread and for everyone's benefit here, I am not going to repeat this again!

If you disagree with me and still think that YOU have the ability to safely employ a fully automatic weapon in a PUBLIC self defense situation, then so be it. we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

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.

The only reason I have brought that up, is to make the point that the use of any weapon which you can not RESPONSIBLY ensure is going to injure ONLY your intended target, is a weapon that is not well suited for most "normal" self defense situations. Some here, have suggested that they should be allowed to use any weapon of their choosing for self defense, including claymores, and I assume any other type of weapon, or explosive, that THEY "think" they can reasonably employ against the bad guys!

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

As a trained, and RESPONSIBLE gun owner, I believe I could RESPONSIBLY, (I have been lambasted for use the caps and YELLING my points, but this idea of RESPONSIBILITY is the KEY to my argument!), use my semi automatic pistol, making an aimed shot and an aimed follow up shot if necessary, and fulfill my responsibility of not needlessly and negligently endanger others.

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

I have only mentioned shotguns as a comparison to the "spraying" of automatic fire to demonstrate my point that "most" responsible gun owners wouldn't employ a shotgun in a self defense situation where an aimed shot is needed to lessen the danger to innocent bystanders. NO! I do not think shotguns should be "banned" I have also repeatedly stated that I don't think fully automatic weapons should be banned, either! Just regulated as they are now.

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.

I would much rather the guy not even be in my house and if he was, I would much rather he get blown up by my claymore and I not even have to confront him! Come on, let's get real here. If you can stop the guy with a "burst" from your grease gun, you can stop him with a 1911!

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?

You will never see "why" I believe that fully automatic firearms should be regulated because you do not believe they should be. As for the claymore? The answer to the question, as you have framed it, is no. IF you can 100% ensure that no one "innocent" can be harmed by it, then, no, that's not irresponsible. But, I seriously doubt that could be done. For every case in which you present a scenario where you "think" you could RESPONSIBLY employ a claymore, I could give an exception that would be just as absurd about how an innocent person could be harmed by use of the claymore.

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.

It's not my "perception", I'm speaking from my experience. Having "been there and done that", I agree with you about our military employing burst and automatic fire as responsibly as possible, but then they are engaged in "COMBAT", not "self defense", totally different situations. In combat, although civilian casualties are a concern, collateral damage is an acceptable consequence of battle. That is not so in a civilian self defense use.

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

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

This is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! I AGREE, 100% with that statement. And this is the argument we use to defend ourselves every time an anti gunner wants to restrict any of our 2nd Amendment rights. I have used this very same argument myself. However, atomic bombs could be "gotten" by terrorists, so should we civilians be allowed to have them ourselves, for self defense?

Of course not!

Here's something I have said earlier, I'll say it again and for the last time;

ALL of our Constitutional "rights" come with some restrictions. The same is true for our 2nd Amendment. The argument is, what is a "reasonable" restriction? I believe that line can be drawn between "military weapons" and "ordinary arms".

I believe that FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms should be REGULATED as they are now. I do not believe that is unreasonable.

Unless someone comes up with a "new" attack on me, y'all have worn me out with the same old tired arguments, I'm outta here!

 

[JoefromTN]

Frankly, your position is aristocratic pap. In your described world, only the well-heeled are presumed to be responsible enough to own F/A weapons. Those of lesser castes need not apply; they are presumed to be too irresponsible.

THAT was a "new one"! And well said! I can fully understand why you would say that and I agree with you that my argument sounds like that. But, it's NOT. I have NEVER said that only a certain class of people should be allowed to have fully automatic firearms, I have only argued that they are NOT well suited for normal self defense situations and therefore should be classed as "military weapons" and be regulated. I have no "fear" of my law abiding neighbor.

 

[JoefromTN]

Where does it end? For anti gun people, it doesn't, and you are beginning to sound just like them. You are using the same arguments.

You're RIGHT! I'm done. You have converted me! I will no longer argue my point.

I will ask though, is there ANY "reasonable" restriction that you would accept on the 2nd Amendment? Do you accept restrictions on any of the other Amendments? I'm asking, in order to get your thoughts on the issue, but I'm not going to come back and engage in that continuing debate, besides, it kind of gets off the original thread.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Gentlemen, I think we've pretty much gone as far as we can with this one. We've moved into personal attacks, politics, and conspiracy theories. If someone can't form/change an opinion based on these 13 pages, I don't think any more discussion will have any more effect.

If anyone has any compelling reasons to reopen this to further discussion today, send me a PM. Otherwise, I don't think there is much of the horse left to beat.

 

[Byron Quick]

I apologize for posting to a closed thread. I was not aware I could do so without first opening the thread, had been up all night, and did not notice it was closed.

Again, I apologize to anyone who thought I might have been taking advantage of my moderator status.