Full Auto?

[TexasRifleman]

I would love for every one to be able to do that, but reality dictates otherwise.

You do understand there are already laws in place to prevent criminals from buying weapons?

Why would an M1 tank or M249 be different from a Remington 700?

That is always the end question.

Why does one class of weapons "scare" people more than others, when criminal history shows that it's the more benign weapons, improvised or otherwise, that are used in criminal activity the most even though the "big scary stuff" is out there and available for sale already?

No one ever seems to want to answer that one head on.

Cars kill more people than guns, knives kill people all the time, so do doctors and prescription drugs for that matter.

Why are we debating about whether some niche area of firearm collecting should be legal or not?

It's absurd.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Quote:
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.

Wow. When did Bill Clinton join THR? Seriously, I doubt the founding fathers had any such intentions.

Actually the constituion is a living document, but not the way people understand it to be. AFterall, there is a provision within the constitution to allow altering it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

WHO is flying a F-14 in the USA ? or is it just a static plane ?

I'd love to see one to fly again !

I can't remember the guys name. He bought a lot of the scrapped airframes and managed to get 2 complete wing spars, which was the hard part apparently.

I don't know if he's got it flying yet or not, but he managed to get all the pieces, including engines.

I will see if I can dig up the story, I read about it a year or so ago. Seems he was having this exact argument with the FAA while trying to get an N-number. The FAA argued that it was a "destructive device" or whatever their term for that is. He countered that it could not be since it was not in service any longer, and many other military jets had been licensed the same way.

It's really the same argument we are having here, a "gut" feeling that the FAA or anti gun folks may have that something is "bad" or "scary" should not be reason alone to prevent a law abiding US citizen from engaging in an activity with their own money.

 

[EHL]

Actually the constituion is a living document, but not the way people understand it to be. AFterall, there is a provision within the constitution to allow altering it.

Too true Servicesoon, but the way many libs use the term "living document" is that we can simply "reinterpret" what the constitution meant as opposed to simply reading it for what it states. We can amend it and thereby change it, but simply arbitrarily changing it's meaning without going through the necessary amendment process is what gun grabbers and lefties like Ginsburg would opt for. Thats scary, because all our constitutional rights become arbitrary matters that can be "reinterpreted" by whoever happens to be in power at the time.

 

[hso]

do you know what the diffrence between a crimal and a law abiding citzen is?


The crimal got cuaght.

If that's an honest opinion instead of hyperbole there's not much that can be said except let's hope that you get caught soon so there's one less criminal out there with access to a gun.

For the rest of us who aren't criminals waiting to get caught, this is an example of the psychology of some antis who honestly believe that since they can't be trusted with a firearm then no one else can be trusted with them. A twisted sort of logic that twisted individuals try to apply to the rest of the world.

 

[Cyborg]

Buy What You Can Afford

Everything I can find about the Founding Fathers' ideas regarding RKBA tells me people ought to be able to purchase, possess and use any weapon they can afford.

Go ahead and outlaw all the WMDs you want. I can manufacture a usable Clorine gas by mixing bleach and amonia. To make Phosgene I need chlorine gas (that I can derive from bleach and amonia), carbon monoxide and activated charcoal. All ingredients are very difficult to obtain, aren't they? I could also make ricin. Fifteen years ago I spent a whole half hour searching the internet - through a 14.4 modem mind you - and found and downloaded the recipe for ricin. At the time the biggest hurdle seemed to be the acquisition of castor beans. Everything else I needed I could get at Home Depot. So are you people who want to ban things because they MIGHT be used for nefarious purposes going to outlaw Chlorox, household ammonia, and water filters?

FRACK! Many times more true children (as opposed to the 25 year olds included in the child gun death statistics) are killed on bicycles than by guns every year? If you REALLY wanted to make a dent in child mortality you could outlaw bicycles. You could also outlaw cars. Three birds with that stone - reduce child deaths, reduce innocent adult deaths AND eliminate the possibility of somebody driving an H2 into a Mackey D's. IMS outlawing cars would save upwards of 100k lives per year.

Criminals aren't interested in FA weapons (except for sub-machine guns possibly) any more than they are in WMDs. They are lousy tools for conducting a criminal enterprise. Except as a getaway vehicle, a Striker wouldn't be very useful to a criminal. Definately wouldn't be much good to a hunter. But if somebody can AFFORD one why shouldn't he be able to BUY one? And if he wants to outfit it with a Ma Deuce he should be able to do so.

SHEESH!

Cy
Burying your head in the sand only makes your a** a better target.

 

[qwert65]

Wow, the reading comprehension, of some of the posters is really abysmal. I've read this entire thread, I don't remember a single post that anyone said that FA should be outlawed.

Some posters, myself included believe that for some(or all FA) only law abiding citizens should posess. Yet how do you differentiate btw law abiding and not? I reccomended a bkgrd check and was called an anti. dosent any one here have a better idea on how to tell if someone is law abiding?

I love THR but I find it insulting that i can write 3 paragraphs and someone can take one sentence completly out of context, while ignoring the questions put to them.

The OP asked if FA should be allowed and not a single poster said no. in fact every single posters suggestions are looser then what we currently have. Yet we squabble anyway.

I cant believe that some posters here Including a moderator states something they know to be false just because they don't agree with someones position(this specific one regarding the constitution, which if they read the constitution in full would explain how/when it can be altered)

I'd like to add that overall, this has been a good disscussion,(even with the tangents) but I find it odd that intelligent ppl can't read what is in front of them, ex If the OP asks what if any restrictions should be on FA - if A thinks that FA should have a bkgrd check to help keep nutjobs from getting them.

This is a statement.
When B types most FA are never used in crime. As a rebuttal to A, This 1 dosent answer the OP, 2 dosent make any sense due to the current price of FA. Now obvisouly, if there were no restrictions on FA, then prices will come down and they would become more common just as jennings are used in crimes more often then custum 1911s.
Point is poster B dosent answer the question, uses stats for one situation that clearly wouldnt apply to a situation where FA would be more common. This does not make B's position wrong but the argument is based on fallacy

Now watch a poster take 3 sentences out of context and turn me into fienstein

 

[JoefromTN]

I don't think anyone should be able to own/possess fully automatic, (machine guns), without strict permitting, documentation, and rules such as are now in place by the government. I do believe that the financial COST of such licensing should be lower, as it is now, only a rather rich person can afford these costs and so for the average citizen owning these types of guns is pretty much out of the question. I don't think owning them should be "out of the question", just regulated.

I do NOT feel the same way about "ordinary" guns, I don't believe they should be regulated in the same manner as fully automatic weapons.

I think there is a definite difference between fully automatic firearms and ordinary guns. I would classify fully automatic weapons as "military" weapons and as such, I think ownership of them should be regulated. I believe a "military" weapon is one that was built SPECIFICALLY for a military purpose, i.e., a "machine gun", and has no useful civilian application. Obviously, one would not use a machine gun for hunting, or self defense purposes. The fully automatic machine gun, is and was intended to be, an "offensive" weapon. I also don't think average citizens should own a mortar, an artillery piece, a rocket launcher, or other type of military weapon without strict oversight.

A civilian version of any type of fully automatic machine gun/sub-machine gun, one that fires ONLY semi-automatic, such as an AR-15, the Karh Arms Tommy guns, etc., I believe, are NOT "military" weapons, just because they happen to "look like" their fully automatic brethren and therefore should NOT be regulated; as fully automatic "military" firearms should be!

Just my 2 cents worth!

 

[TexasRifleman]

I believe a "military" weapon is one that was built SPECIFICALLY for a military purpose, i.e., a "machine gun", and has no useful civilian application. Obviously, one would not use a machine gun for hunting, or self defense purposes.

So you oppose police having automatic weapons as well then?

And of course the documented cases of people using legally owned automatic weapons in self defense don't matter? Those people should have just allowed themselves to be victims of crime simply because they only firearm they had handy was automatic?

Very interesting.

 

[IndianaBoy]

Over and over again, some of you are coming in here making the exact same arguments against FA that the antis make against semi-auto.

Do you enjoy sitting on that slippery slope?

"offensive weapons" my caboose.

 

[30mag]

I'm for FA weapons being legally owned.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Too true Servicesoon, but the way many libs use the term "living document" is that we can simply "reinterpret" what the constitution meant as opposed to simply reading it for what it states. We can amend it and thereby change it, but simply arbitrarily changing it's meaning without going through the necessary amendment process is what gun grabbers and lefties like Ginsburg would opt for. Thats scary, because all our constitutional rights become arbitrary matters that can be "reinterpreted" by whoever happens to be in power at the time.

That is what I meant to say. You explained it better than I.

 

[JoefromTN]

TexasRifleman,

In response to your comments;

"So you oppose police having automatic weapons as well then?

And of course the documented cases of people using legally owned automatic weapons in self defense don't matter? Those people should have just allowed themselves to be victims of crime simply because they only firearm they had handy was automatic?

Very interesting."

Yes, as a matter of fact, I don't believe that even the police need to have fully automatic firearms. Machine guns are OFFENSIVE weapons designed SPECIFICALLY to "spray" bullets over a large area and are NOT used for pinpoint shooting at specific targets! Now, if a "police force" wanted to have a few fully auto guns available for special SWAT operations, such as terrorist response or hostage rescue teams, then I think they should have them for those specialized specific situations. But, they should not be used by the average beat cop.

As for the 2nd part of your "attack" on me, 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.

 

[JoefromTN]

IndianaBoy,

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!

However, I believe that my argument against "offensive" military fully automatic guns is NOT the same, (although it may sound the same), as that used by the "antis" against semi-automatic firearms. The 2 arguments do not go together.

 

[TexasRifleman]

As for the 2nd part of your "attack" on me, I have never heard of any "documented" use of a legally owned fully automatic weapon being used for self defense.

First off, I didn't attack you but as to your second point maybe I should at least attack your statements.

If you had done any reading on the subject at all you would know of some VERY public cases where full auto was legally used in self defense cases. One of the people involved owned a gun store and actually used a full auto weapon to defend his life from robbers MORE THAN ONCE.

So your point that full auto has no place in lawful self defense is, as most of these things and as I tire of stating, provably wrong.

You are, back where most of these end up, stating your "gut feeling" even when that is proved wrong by the facts.

It's irrational, plain and simple.

Spend a few minutes on google.

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.


Another well publicized case involves several attempted robberies of a gun store where the owner used (again going from memory) a legally owned Uzi to defend his life. That guy had to do it more than once.

Just because YOU don't know about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And again, documented stuff here not made up of "gut" feelings, there has been ONE crime committed with a legally owned machine gun. That one was committed by a police officer who shot his wife (memory says it was a Mac10).

So, those are facts, not gut feeling or suspicion or fear or whatever else you want to attribute it to.

Why is historical fact irrelevant but peoples irrational fear acceptable argument?

You don't 'think' machineguns have a place, but all the facts prove that they have done no harm but in fact have served legitimate purposes more often than not.

It's goofy reasoning.

Machine guns are OFFENSIVE weapons designed SPECIFICALLY to "spray" bullets over a large area and are NOT used for pinpoint shooting at specific targets!

And of course another provably wrong statement. Having fired LOTS of fully automatic weapons over the years I can tell you that this one is 100% incorrect as well. They can be quite accurate. You simply don't know what you are talking about plain and simple.

Again, do some research. Even here on THR, ask folks that have experience with the weapons. They most certainly are not "spray". That idea comes from watching too many movies, not reality.

It's nothing personal to you, but you truly don't know what you're talking about here. Tell us your experience firing full auto weapons? How many do you own? How often do you shoot them?

 

[yokel]

I don't think anyone should be able to own/possess fully automatic, (machine guns), without strict permitting, documentation, and rules such as are now in place by the government. I do believe that the financial COST of such licensing should be lower, as it is now, only a rather rich person can afford these costs and so for the average citizen owning these types of guns is pretty much out of the question. I don't think owning them should be "out of the question", just regulated.

I do NOT feel the same way about "ordinary" guns, I don't believe they should be regulated in the same manner as fully automatic weapons.

I think there is a definite difference between fully automatic firearms and ordinary guns. I would classify fully automatic weapons as "military" weapons and as such, I think ownership of them should be regulated. I believe a "military" weapon is one that was built SPECIFICALLY for a military purpose, i.e., a "machine gun", and has no useful civilian application. Obviously, one would not use a machine gun for hunting, or self defense purposes. The fully automatic machine gun, is and was intended to be, an "offensive" weapon. I also don't think average citizens should own a mortar, an artillery piece, a rocket launcher, or other type of military weapon without strict oversight.

A civilian version of any type of fully automatic machine gun/sub-machine gun, one that fires ONLY semi-automatic, such as an AR-15, the Karh Arms Tommy guns, etc., I believe, are NOT "military" weapons, just because they happen to "look like" their fully automatic brethren and therefore should NOT be regulated; as fully automatic "military" firearms should be!

Just my 2 cents worth!

Don't want to sound dismissive or patronizing, but you just have to laugh at the sheer arbitrary silliness of this.

What absolute drivel...

All those who like to argue that the authors of the Second Amendment did not intend to protect the right of ordinary American citizens to own military weapons and equipment must contend with the fact that the same Congress which passed the Second Amendment also passed the Militia Act of 1792. This law required every free male between the ages of 18 and 44 to own the same type of rifle that was used by soldiers in the Revolutionary War and to own ammunition as well.

 

[JoefromTN]

Hey man,

I never said it hadn't happened, I said I hadn't heard about it! AND, I believe I told you that if it had, I was NOT in favor of anyone being prosecuted for it! If they legally owned that weapon and it was the only weapon they had available at the time, then so be it.

However, I STAND on my previous statements that a FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN/SUB-MACHINE GUN is NOT a "defensive" weapon and has no specific use as a defensive weapon!

Now, read this carefully.....I believe that ANY law abiding person should have EVERY right to use WHATEVER weapon they LEGALLY possess to DEFEND themselves from harm! That INCLUDES a FA firearms.

Do you believe that we should ALL be allowed to carry around an Uzi and use THAT if we are confronted with a knife wielding mugger in a Wal-Mart parking lot?

I believe that one of the first tenants of proper, safe gun use, is "to be sure of your target and what is beyond". A responsible gun user would NEVER fire his gun in a manor that endangered innocent bystanders! When using a "machine gun" the shooter can NOT be sure of where his bullets are going! That is NOT proper DEFENSIVE shooting!

Now as I have stated before and will say again, I am not for a total ban of FA arms, just reasonable regulation and I do NOT believe they are the best choice for DEFENSIVE use, although if they are the only available choice of the legal owner at the time, then it should be legal to use them!

 

[TexasRifleman]

However, I STAND on my previous statements that a FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN/SUB-MACHINE GUN is NOT a "defensive" weapon and has no specific use as a defensive weapon!

You can stand on it all you want, but it's provably false.

When using a "machine gun" the shooter can NOT be sure of where his bullets are going! That is NOT proper DEFENSIVE shooting!

And again, spoken by someone who has never actually fired one.

Turn off the movies, go rent one. The real world is vastly different than Hollywood.

They are very controllable with practice. They can kill bystanders just like handguns can. It's all about training and the user pulling the trigger.

Not the firearm.

You are going off your gut feeling, and I am asking you to look at the facts instead. It's up to you.

Read your signature again "Everyone has an opinion, some are just more informed opinions."

Do you believe you are truly informed on full auto weapons?

 

[JoefromTN]

Yokel,

I'm sorry you find my opinion to be "drivel".

I understand your point and actually agree with you. However, I stand on my "opinion" that the average citizen has no need to own "offensive" military weapons which fully automatic machine guns are, without being regulated.

I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment was written so that the average citizen's right to own and "bear cannons" would be protected. Therefore, I do believe there is a difference between a truly "military weapon" and other guns. I do NOT define a "military weapon" by it's LOOKS but by it's function and intended use. A FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN is and was designed as an "offensive weapon" for a battlefield and has no real use as a defensive weapon in a home or public place.

 

[JoefromTN]

TexasRifelman,

I'll have you know that I am a retired U.S. Army Infantryman and have used a machine gun many times, INCLUDING to kill the enemy! I have used all sorts of mschine guns even qualifying as an "Expert" on the German Army gun qualification course which includes being able to accurately shoot an Uzi!

I CONCEDE your point that I didn't do my homework about documented defensive uses of FA arms!

But I stand on my contention that machine guns are NOT defensive weapons that just EVERYONE should have!

 

[Mr_Rogers]

Full auto as a weapon requirement is vastly over-rated certainly for any situation the average, even extraordinary, individual will meet. If you want to play then go for it - no restrictions - but you are fantasizing if you think you will ever need full-auto.

Works great in video games.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

However, I stand on my "opinion" that the average citizen has no need to own "offensive" military weapons which fully automatic machine guns are, without being regulated.

There we are with the "need" again. This is not a need based society (yet), The USA is still a free country. I stand by what I said earlier:

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.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I have used all sorts of mschine guns even qualifying as an "Expert" on the German Army gun qualification course which includes being able to accurately shoot an Uzi!

OK so let me get this straight. You argued that full auto was uncontrollable and inaccurate but your experience shows it to be the opposite?

So now where does that leave you? Dishonest I'm afraid. You basically posted something you KNOW not to be true to spin your argument.

Why is that?

You said:

When using a "machine gun" the shooter can NOT be sure of where his bullets are going! That is NOT proper DEFENSIVE shooting!

Machine guns are OFFENSIVE weapons designed SPECIFICALLY to "spray" bullets over a large area and are NOT used for pinpoint shooting at specific targets!

You're gonna have to pick one. And please, be honest.

I don't mean to pick you on specifically, but your arguments are the classics. They are based on no facts at all, your experience shows otherwise, crime stats go against what you say, every piece of actual evidence to the contrary you still "feel" like they are bad.

 

[yokel]

I stand on my "opinion" that the average citizen has no need to own "offensive" military weapons which fully automatic machine guns are, without being regulated.

Why not try to form an opinion that rests on the real and substantial, not merely imaginary or whimsical distinctions like "ordinary", "military", "offensive" and "defensive" weapons?

We can reasonably conclude that the Founders expected citizens to be able to have guns as good as, or better than, the standard military weapons of the time in order to wield an effective and credible conventional warfighting capability.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

The look alikes are SKS type weapons such as the AK74.

The AK-74 is, if I'm not mistaken, an AK chambered for 5.45x39. The SKS is not an AK variant of any kind, it was in fact invented before the AK.

There is no truly practical purpose to owning ANY firearm.

Not true. The police simply can't be everywhere at once, there just aren't enough of them, so I need to be able to protect myself

As I understand it, the standard rifleman doesn't have a handgun, either.

I believe that for U.S. soldiers, pistols are standard issue.

you study history you will see that while weapons win battles ppl win wars esp. insurrections, see Iraq

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.

do you know what the diffrence between a crimal and a law abiding citzen is?


The crimal got cuaght.

No, it's that I've never sold drugs, broken in to someone's house, or murdered anybody.
(I'd like to point out the difference between murder and kill. A soldier or cop might kill someone, but they had a good reason to do so, such as protecting the U.S. from terrorists or society from a killer. Another example where it's justified could be if someone was about to kill you, but you killed them in self-defense. A murder, however, isn't justified)

(Due somewhat to my lack of knowledge about the issue, I'm not commenting on the original issue, I'm just going to correct any errors I see)

these things have only offensive uses and should not be owned or used by anyone, governments included

.
Other nations won't give up theirs.