As has been pointed out many times in this thread, the only reason I need to own a gun is because I want it. End of story.
And point out in the 2nd Amendment where the word "hunting" or "hunt" is, please.
Full Auto?
- Thread starter Clint C
- Start date
- Status
And point out in the 2nd Amendment where the word "hunting" or "hunt" is, please.
Valkman
Member
And we haven't even touched supressed FA yet, which is even more fun!
Sorry, I know now that I'm a "elitist" for owning FA but I'm just trying to act like one of the folks.
Sorry, I know now that I'm a "elitist" for owning FA but I'm just trying to act like one of the folks.
Shung
Member
If you think that the 2nd amendment is about hunting.. well, I guess you have no idea of why your founding fathers wrote this particular thing....
Since I made the remark I'll spell out the objective of my analogy. The point to be made was that instead of being illegal and banned from private ownership (like modern US combat jet aircraft are supposedly restricted{which most folks would assume anyone with the money could own}) machine guns are legal to own by most people in the US and that the process is not appreciably more difficult to acquire than that involved in buying a recreational vehicle from a dealer. You, me, Joe and anyone else with a clear background and the funds can purchase a machine gun with roughly the same procedural difficulty as purchasing a vehicle. Price, the supply/demand impact of Hughes and the intended consequence of scarcity was not the objective since it's best to make one point at a time and dispelling the myth that machine guns are not legal to own was the objective.
Gunnerpalace
Member
An Applause Smiley is needed as you understand it completely,
On the other side of it,
Grammatical errors aside, you don't "walk in" and pick up a machine gun that would mean you are committing a felony as the Background check for that is averaging 3 months around, Yes you can defend yourself with a FA it has been done by a dealer who used a SW-76, and used suppressing fire to stop thieves from robbing his store, and the other guy who used a AC556 to stop some guys chasing him. It ain't terrible and does work.
rfurtkamp, saying sarin isnt a common weapon of war is ridiculous, niethier are hollowpoints
smallpox is kept by cdc for the express purpose of terriost using it against us. B. abortus was concentrated and devolped by the US in WW2 is that weapon of war enough for you?
I use O2 every day for Anesthesia, purchase is ok but large quanities must be stored in certain ways required by law.
I wasn't asking about 2A I was asking do you the reader think ppl should have anything they desire?
Fact is we live in a different world then the 18th century. Another fact is arms are weapons of war. Anything used as a weapon in war is a weapon of war. shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed, ergo any weapon of war, bio weapons included are allowed.
I cannot beleive any sane person thinks you should order this stuff through the mail.
Now here's the rub. If you think ANY of those should be restricted you've become an "anti" Now I may be wrong aboutr where that line should be but there is and needs to be a line.
smallpox is kept by cdc for the express purpose of terriost using it against us. B. abortus was concentrated and devolped by the US in WW2 is that weapon of war enough for you?
I use O2 every day for Anesthesia, purchase is ok but large quanities must be stored in certain ways required by law.
I wasn't asking about 2A I was asking do you the reader think ppl should have anything they desire?
Fact is we live in a different world then the 18th century. Another fact is arms are weapons of war. Anything used as a weapon in war is a weapon of war. shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed, ergo any weapon of war, bio weapons included are allowed.
I cannot beleive any sane person thinks you should order this stuff through the mail.
Now here's the rub. If you think ANY of those should be restricted you've become an "anti" Now I may be wrong aboutr where that line should be but there is and needs to be a line.
I know, lets make shooting up malls illegal. That'll fix 'em.
Oh, wait...
There is a line; commit a crime with a gun, go to jail.
Who would you like to draw the line? Brady? Feinstein?
Fact is, you don't forbid something because someone might commit a crime with it. My truck is a dangerous object. It weighs four tons. I could commit all kinds of mayhem with it.
Should I be arrested and have it taken away from me?
The object is dangerous, and people aren't to be trusted, so ban the object.
We've been infiltrated by anti's. That makes me sick.
IndianaBoy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,551
Hey qwert:
Reductio ad absurdum is not a valid way to win a debate.
You have completely missed the point earlier made by another:
The founders intended the militia to be armed with the standard military arms of the soldier of the time.
Sarin and smallox don't enter into it.
Kindly provide me with the statistics of all the mass killings when machine guns and anti-tank rifles were available by mail-order. Speculation is purely that.
Reductio ad absurdum is not a valid way to win a debate.
You have completely missed the point earlier made by another:
The founders intended the militia to be armed with the standard military arms of the soldier of the time.
Sarin and smallox don't enter into it.
Kindly provide me with the statistics of all the mass killings when machine guns and anti-tank rifles were available by mail-order. Speculation is purely that.
ChromeLibrarian
Member
One of my kids, at age 17, shooting a full auto Mac-10...
Mac-10 shoot 1
My other kid, age 14, shooting the full auto Mac-10...
Mac-10 shoot 2
Mac-10 shoot 1
My other kid, age 14, shooting the full auto Mac-10...
Mac-10 shoot 2
sturmgewehr667
member
the second amendment is about hunting.....
tyrants and occupying oppressors
tyrants and occupying oppressors
Tx rifleman, I know no one with a belt fed, so they must be uncommon? thats as dumb as your reply was. I never said that belt fed semi's didn't exist. I said they are uncommon. If you want we can just poll thr members who hear owns a semi auto beltfed(not select fire) in another thread. this will eliminate our different geographic areas from too much influence. then taking the amt of members on THR we can get a good idea of how common they are.
As for your other comment about me not knowing history. you are wrong sir. I never stated that the milita was suppossed to have the same TOE as a line company. Not to delve off topic but as long as americans are allowed to own firearms freely ewven if we all had garands. it would be sufficent to keep the goverment in check(alllowing we have the will and numbers to use them) I stated that allowing M4, AK47 etc allows the common man to fill the role of the militia man being called up. I didnt state that they would be equal.
IMHO no matter what weapons we have an insurrection will be crushed. unless the ppl are willing, and the beautiful thing about america is if the ppl are willing they wouldn't vote ppl in who create the need for an insurrection.
If you are going to debate, debate what I said, you give your position back up yours, and try to tear down mine. Do not insult me.
My position is that
1 belt fed machine guns should not be freely purchased from the hardware store(as I believe all other guns should be provided you are over 18)
2 I think that with a bkgrd check these weapons should be availible for purchase. obvisouly if you feel that the time has come you can bring your MG with you to stop the evil gov
3 while this may seem to many gunnies as a serious affront to 2A My position is that the founding fathers intended for the constitution to be a living document, updated from time to time, through congress/convention. Further, I don't feel that having beltfed MG will help the citizens win an insurrection any more then having M16s will/will not allow us too. If the american ppl wanted to overthrow the goverment now it would happen with the weapons we have now(and would capture) If you study history you will see that while weapons win battles ppl win wars esp. insurrections, see Iraq/Vietnam
4 I also think grenades/biowar/gasses/nukes artillery should be regulated but that is off topic to this thread
5. I think that beltfed weapons through a sustained rate of a high volume of fire, compined with/ bipod wieght of the weapon, and depictions on tv shows along with the general decrease in parents rasing their children. that this restriction, will save lives, even if theses incidents are few and far btw. In ex(though not involving FA) the columbine killers made many pipe bombs many of them failed to detonate, if they could have legally purchased hand grenades many more would have gone off leading directly to a larger loss of life
Now I could be wrong if you want to continue this debate I welcome it but please do not insinuate I'm on narcotics/or an imbecile. I've read many of your posts and believe you are a gentleman, plz do not disapoint me.
As for your other comment about me not knowing history. you are wrong sir. I never stated that the milita was suppossed to have the same TOE as a line company. Not to delve off topic but as long as americans are allowed to own firearms freely ewven if we all had garands. it would be sufficent to keep the goverment in check(alllowing we have the will and numbers to use them) I stated that allowing M4, AK47 etc allows the common man to fill the role of the militia man being called up. I didnt state that they would be equal.
IMHO no matter what weapons we have an insurrection will be crushed. unless the ppl are willing, and the beautiful thing about america is if the ppl are willing they wouldn't vote ppl in who create the need for an insurrection.
If you are going to debate, debate what I said, you give your position back up yours, and try to tear down mine. Do not insult me.
My position is that
1 belt fed machine guns should not be freely purchased from the hardware store(as I believe all other guns should be provided you are over 18)
2 I think that with a bkgrd check these weapons should be availible for purchase. obvisouly if you feel that the time has come you can bring your MG with you to stop the evil gov
3 while this may seem to many gunnies as a serious affront to 2A My position is that the founding fathers intended for the constitution to be a living document, updated from time to time, through congress/convention. Further, I don't feel that having beltfed MG will help the citizens win an insurrection any more then having M16s will/will not allow us too. If the american ppl wanted to overthrow the goverment now it would happen with the weapons we have now(and would capture) If you study history you will see that while weapons win battles ppl win wars esp. insurrections, see Iraq/Vietnam
4 I also think grenades/biowar/gasses/nukes artillery should be regulated but that is off topic to this thread
5. I think that beltfed weapons through a sustained rate of a high volume of fire, compined with/ bipod wieght of the weapon, and depictions on tv shows along with the general decrease in parents rasing their children. that this restriction, will save lives, even if theses incidents are few and far btw. In ex(though not involving FA) the columbine killers made many pipe bombs many of them failed to detonate, if they could have legally purchased hand grenades many more would have gone off leading directly to a larger loss of life
Now I could be wrong if you want to continue this debate I welcome it but please do not insinuate I'm on narcotics/or an imbecile. I've read many of your posts and believe you are a gentleman, plz do not disapoint me.
eventer289
Member
I have to say that I don't. I just think that if they became more widely available without any hoops to go through, they could more easily get into the wrong hands. I know the arguments that will come, however this is just how I feel about fully automatic weapons. I think they should (as they are in my state) be available to those who can go through the hoops.
DoubleTapDrew
Member
Imagine if the columbine killers had waited until school got out and piloted a speeding SUV through the front door of the school as kids were pouring out.
Legally owned full auto firearms are NOT USED IN CRIMES. Submit (every single one of) your fingerprints, photo, personal info, and CLEO's signature for a FBI background check and $200 for permission to buy a $10k+ gun instead of something you could do yourself in the kitchen with a file, yeah, that's brilliant.
[SARCASM]I don't own any muzzleloaders and really don't see any practical use for them. I wouldn't mind one bit if they were outlawed.[/SARCASM]
Legally owned full auto firearms are NOT USED IN CRIMES. Submit (every single one of) your fingerprints, photo, personal info, and CLEO's signature for a FBI background check and $200 for permission to buy a $10k+ gun instead of something you could do yourself in the kitchen with a file, yeah, that's brilliant.
[SARCASM]I don't own any muzzleloaders and really don't see any practical use for them. I wouldn't mind one bit if they were outlawed.[/SARCASM]
Last edited:
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
The absurd notion that people can’t control things, but that things control people and situations forms the bedrock premise of the gun control agenda.
How about the phony-baloney assertion that certain weapons should be regulated and restricted to a place of insignificance or of oblivion because “they have no purpose except to kill people in quick succession"?
We must constantly emphasize that the Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow Americans to entertain themselves with guns, defend and promote America's hunting and sporting traditions, or intimidate and deter street-level criminals and wackos.
How about the phony-baloney assertion that certain weapons should be regulated and restricted to a place of insignificance or of oblivion because “they have no purpose except to kill people in quick succession"?
We must constantly emphasize that the Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow Americans to entertain themselves with guns, defend and promote America's hunting and sporting traditions, or intimidate and deter street-level criminals and wackos.
deadin
Member
I think that qualifies you as a FUDD. (The road goes both ways.)
DoubleTapDrew
Member
I know, I was being sarcastic and showing how absurd the argument against certain guns is and how we all need to stand up for each other or we'll be picked off one at a time
Edited it to reflect such
God bless you Larry!!!!
You took the words right out of my mouth! I don't think these gun grabbers are going to listen to reason. I can't believe they've taken a page out of the Brady campaign and are using it in here (of all places) trying to convince us that we shouldn't have certain guns because "there will be more deaths". Good golly!! To you gun grabbers: When have murderers ever cared about what the laws are about firearm or explosive use on innocent people?? Can you honestly believe that some criminal is going to not buy (black market), steal, or make their own full autos or explosives or nukes if they have murder and mayham on their mind, laws be damned??? If you believe that, you really have been hoodwinked by the likes of Jim and Sarah Brady or Feinstein and Schumer.solareclipse
Member
Will never happen.
And FYI, arsenal AKs, if you can get them out of the factory are 1/3 to 1/2 the cost you see in stores here.....
And FYI, arsenal AKs, if you can get them out of the factory are 1/3 to 1/2 the cost you see in stores here.....
I'm fine with drawing the line at WMD.
Full autos, supressed weapons, and destructive devices can all be used to defend one's self. The fact that the weapon affects an area instead of a single target is not the determining factor, IMHO. It's not inconceivable that you may be threatened by someone in an armored vehicle, and you should be able to have the means to defend yourself against such a threat.
A cloud of poison gas that shifts with the wind, a virus that spreads and mutates, possibly wiping out our species, a bomb that can be carried by four or five stout men that obliterates a city, these things have only offensive uses and should not be owned or used by anyone, governments included.
I dont think that it is a debate over crazys killing people shooting up schools and malls. If people want to kill people they will, making it a law does not matter in the least. I bet if one tried it would be easier and cheaper to buy a fa off the street then to do it the right legal way. THe only reason i dont have any fa is i dont have the 15 k to buy one or the 10k a month to feed it. I probably should apply for the permit though.
- Status
