Full auto isn't any more dangerous than anything else.


PDA






twoblink
December 13, 2005, 02:36 AM
Full auto isn't any more dangerous than anything else. It just has a stigma attached to it, sadly even in the minds of gun owners.

This is a quote from Correia in http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=170071&page=3
thread..

My question:

How fast can you pull the trigger on a semi-auto? I can empty a mag to the point where you almost think you are hearing a continuous stream of bullets, not single shots.. and I'm sure there are quite a few people who have faster trigger fingers than me.

Because I fully believe his statement; a semi + fast finger is close to the damage potential of a full auto IMHO... (Insert image of twoblink with A-team van in background, mini-14 in hand, cigar in mouth) "I love it when a plan comes together."

If you enjoyed reading about "Full auto isn't any more dangerous than anything else." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
8Balls
December 13, 2005, 06:56 AM
Semi-auto is imho more dangerous than full auto. (Lots and lots of noise + recoil = hard to control, hard to hit anything if range is over 50 meters) Ofcourse my experience is limited to AKs in 7.62x39, and that was hard to control, cant say anything about mp5s or ARs...

jefnvk
December 13, 2005, 12:49 PM
Can shoulder fired weapons be more dangerous? Maybe.

Can mounted MG's be more dangerous on full than semi? I have no doubt.

Jim K
December 13, 2005, 01:39 PM
A thought, but if full auto is not dangerous, then it seems to me that Browning, Johnson, Maxim, Schwarzlose, etc., wasted a lot of time designing machineguns, and armies wasted a lot of money buying them. I think the results from WWI and WWII pretty well indicate that machineguns in the hands of people who can use them are a whole helluva lot more dangerous than semi-auto rifles.

Jim

Azrael256
December 13, 2005, 01:44 PM
machineguns in the hands of people who can use them are a whole helluva lot more dangerous than semi-auto rifles No doubt about that, but it assumes two things. First, that the person shooting has both the proper training and equipment. That's quite an assumption. Second, it assumes conditions for which machineguns were designed. There is quite a difference between a trained soldier fighting off the enemy with his trusty M2 and a gang-banger blazing away at his rivals with a mac-10. If the gangbanger stopped, took five or six carefully aimed shots, he would likely do far more damage. Trying the same thing in the trenches might well get you splattered by a Maxim. They're two different worlds.

Correia
December 13, 2005, 01:46 PM
Jim, in the context of that other thread, there was some discussion of full auto, and sure enough, just as there always are, there were several gun owners who piped in that full auto is more dangerous, and therby needs to be more regulated.

That is, of course, hokum. From that perspective, they are the same as anything else.

Now in the context which you refer to, totally different. GPMGs are valuable tools on the battlefield. In that first thread, when they were talking about danger, they were speaking in the traditional gun grabber, bliss ninny, sense. Where they are just too dangerous to be in the hands of regular people.

What I'm saying is that full auto is no more dangerous to society, and the individual, than any other type of gun.

Werewolf
December 13, 2005, 01:47 PM
...I think the results from WWI and WWII pretty well indicate that machineguns in the hands of people who can use them are a whole helluva lot more dangerous than semi-auto rifles.

JimNO Kidding! In WWI the MG was devastating and was the single most influential factor in creating trench warfare and the massive casualties that resulted.

The tactics of the time just didn't exist yet to deal with the massive amount of firepower an attacking unit faced during a charge against a MG. Once the die was cast the MG combined with new indirect fire artillery methods revolutionized and defined 20th century warfare.

MG's are very, very dangerous - in the right hands, trained hands. In untrained hands they just become bullet hoses. That said it is still wrong for the US and State governments to violate our god given and 2nd amendment right to have one (yeah - yeah - I know - we can have one if we want... if we're well to do, want to wait a long time, roll over and beg for the privelidge that is).

The Real Hawkeye
December 13, 2005, 01:55 PM
A full auto is more deadly, in the sense that you can sweep a battlefield and kill lots of folks in short order, but in terms of civilian contexts, a semi auto is probably just as effective in 99% of typical situations where a gun will be employed. The main danger of a civilian owning a machine gun is to a totalitarian government. That's why they want them out of our reach. Not because criminals will use them against us. If a criminal has a Tommy Gun, and I have an M1 Garand, we are equally matched. I am better armed, if we are both behind barricades or we are more than 25 yards apart.

Tequila_Sauer
December 13, 2005, 02:00 PM
"Because I fully believe his statement; a semi + fast finger is close to the damage potential of a full auto IMHO"



Shhhh.....don't say it out loud. If the democommies find out, they'll be coming for those next.

MechAg94
December 13, 2005, 02:41 PM
When you fire a full auto or fire a semi-auto real fast, you are making the assumption that you will actually hit a target. That is not valid IMHO.
If the target is 5 feet way, sure you will hit it. If the target is 100 yards away, you will likey be more dangerous to the target in semi-auto.


[below is not politically correct at all]
I look at it this way: If you were standing in the center of a football field with the stands full of enemies and you had a full auto rifle and a semi-auto rifle, which would be more dangerous? If you emptied the full auto in one burst across the stands on one side, you would likely hurt a lot of enemies. If you fired aimed individual shots at the other side with the semi-auto with the same amount of ammo, you would kill or hurt more enemies with the semi than with the full auto. Full auto is powerful and effective in many situations, but I think semi-auto is more deadly especially for the individual.

The Deadly Weapons video did a demonstration of this. They placed about 5 big targets out at 40 or 50 yards and spaced out across 30 yards or so. He fired a full auto FAL sweeping across all five. He nicked one. He fired 5 shots in semi and put a bullet into each target in almost the same amount of time.

MechAg94
December 13, 2005, 02:47 PM
Mabye someone can speak up with more information, but my understanding of full auto crew served weapons is that they are not typically used to "sweep" the battlefield the way most visualize it. They are mounted and aimed to hit specific points with a burst of fire and the aim adjusted gradually to cover across the target area or out front of advancing infantry. I guess human wave attacks are a different issue, but I would think you still need to shoot at individual targets or you won't hit anything.

The Real Hawkeye
December 13, 2005, 02:52 PM
Mabye someone can speak up with more information, but my understanding of full auto crew served weapons is that they are not typically used to "sweep" the battlefield the way most visualize it. They are mounted and aimed to hit specific points with a burst of fire and the aim adjusted gradually to cover across the target area or out front of advancing infantry. I guess human wave attacks are a different issue, but I would think you still need to shoot at individual targets or you won't hit anything.I believe they would set up a crossfire so as to keep the enemy from advancing. If the enemy was on the move, they open fire. In WWI, this was used to make the space in between trenches a meat grinder.

Kurush
December 13, 2005, 02:55 PM
A thought, but if full auto is not dangerous, then it seems to me that Browning, Johnson, Maxim, Schwarzlose, etc., wasted a lot of time designing machineguns, and armies wasted a lot of money buying them. I think the results from WWI and WWII pretty well indicate that machineguns in the hands of people who can use them are a whole helluva lot more dangerous than semi-auto rifles.

Jim
I believe he was talking about dangerous in terms of a gun owner flipping out. I'm trying to picture Dylan Klebold et al coming to school pulling an M1910 Maxim gun on a sokolov mount behind them like a radio flyer wagon but it's not working out for me.

http://www.winterwar.com/images/Weapons/m1910mg.jpg

Henry Bowman
December 13, 2005, 03:10 PM
Shhhh.....don't say it out loud. If the democommies find out, they'll be coming for those next.What do you think the AWB was all about?

f4t9r
December 13, 2005, 03:39 PM
A thought, but if full auto is not dangerous, then it seems to me that Browning, Johnson, Maxim, Schwarzlose, etc., wasted a lot of time designing machineguns, and armies wasted a lot of money buying them. I think the results from WWI and WWII pretty well indicate that machineguns in the hands of people who can use them are a whole helluva lot more dangerous than semi-auto rifles.

Jim

agree

jsalcedo
December 13, 2005, 03:42 PM
Full auto isn't any more dangerous than anything else.


But it is a heck of a lot more fun.

Valkman
December 13, 2005, 04:37 PM
My Uzi would be good for clearing a room but not much more - to me anyway. Anywhere past 20 yards my semi AR with EoTech on top is much more deadly. Past 50 yards a full-auto rifle or carbine would not be useful as much as semi or burst fire. For me. :cool:

Yep, full auto is fun. At a gathering here in Vegas last march I got to shoot all kinds of FA guns including a brand new M3A1 Grease Gun that had been in wraps since WW2. Sweet. Dumping a Beta mag out of another guy's M16 is a hoot also. :)

junyo
December 13, 2005, 05:05 PM
A thought, but if full auto is not dangerous, then it seems to me that Browning, Johnson, Maxim, Schwarzlose, etc., wasted a lot of time designing machineguns, and armies wasted a lot of money buying them. I think the results from WWI and WWII pretty well indicate that machineguns in the hands of people who can use them are a whole helluva lot more dangerous than semi-auto rifles.

JimExcept in those conflicts the machinegun was being designed and built to augment bolt action rifles (with the exception of the Garand). What have recent wars taught us? Browning's WWI designs still in wide use, some German designs from WWII, and not a whole lot of innovations/improvements since then. Infantry weapons, which worked their way from bolt action to semi auto to full auto, then worked their way back to select fire. If machineguns are so lethal, why are they pretty much relegated to a niche roll, a support arm?

Andrew S
December 13, 2005, 06:42 PM
A semi auto might be more effective against a single target but it doesnt make it more dangerous.


An automatic weapon has the ability to dump large capacities of rounds in a short period of time with no effort at all. The fact that anyone can just hold a trigger down and fire continuously makes it even more dangerous to EVERYONE around that area. You have to remember that bullets dont disappear when they miss that 1 person you are shooting at. They keep going until they hit something. It could be a tree, wall, or another person. They are more dangerous.

Manedwolf
December 13, 2005, 06:44 PM
To me, someone running around screaming and spraying without aiming would be far more likely to be put down by someone carefully aiming and shooting a few well-placed rounds directly at their COM. :scrutiny:

Why I've always felt so many "office rampages" would be over quickly if people were allowed to CCW in more places...

Standing Wolf
December 13, 2005, 06:47 PM
I've never seen the word "danger" in the Second Amendment.

Andrew S
December 13, 2005, 06:55 PM
I've never seen the word "danger" in the Second Amendment.

You mean the vague and outdated phrase that we have the right to keep bear arms? I am sorry but this is the weakest argument I see people make on these forums.

edit:

And to make myself clear I am not saying we should ignore it. Just saying that its completely outdated and that it needs to be rewritten.

Solo
December 13, 2005, 07:04 PM
The Second Amendment is fine the way it is.

SomeKid
December 13, 2005, 07:36 PM
You mean the vague and outdated phrase that we have the right to keep bear arms? I am sorry but this is the weakest argument I see people make on these forums.

edit:

And to make myself clear I am not saying we should ignore it. Just saying that its completely outdated and that it needs to be rewritten.

You are right, it ought to be re-written as follows:

"If a person says their right to keep and bear arms is infringed, it IS infringed, and the government will bend over backwards to rectify the situation."

...just reading that will cause minor strokes in your average anti. I would love to see those commi lawyers at the ACLU give a collective reading on this version.

jtward01
December 13, 2005, 07:47 PM
One of the gun mags, I believe it was American Handgunner, mentioned a few years ago that since the government began to regulate full auto weapons only one person has been murdered with a legally owned fully auto weapon. The victim was the wife of a police officer. He killed her using his department issued Thompson sub-gun.

Andrew S
December 13, 2005, 08:08 PM
You are right, it ought to be re-written as follows:

"If a person says their right to keep and bear arms is infringed, it IS infringed, and the government will bend over backwards to rectify the situation."

...just reading that will cause minor strokes in your average anti. I would love to see those commi lawyers at the ACLU give a collective reading on this version.


That isnt needed IMO(the constitution is the ultimate law of the land and should always be followed. This is just another problem) and isnt what I meant.

They need to define arms. Simple as that. When the constitution was written "arms" topped out with powder and ball guns. On the extreme side there were cannons. It damn sure didnt include automatic fire and nuclear weapons like we have today.

SomeKid
December 13, 2005, 08:16 PM
Andrew, the dictionary specifies arms as

arm2 Audio pronunciation of "arms" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärm)
n.

1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
1. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
2. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.
4. arms
1. Heraldry. Bearings.
2. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.

Note the bolded part. It is not just firearms, simply 'a weapon'. A knife used to attack someone, is, by definition classed as an arm.

Back then, congreve rockets and artillery was privately owned. It DID include machine guns. Personally, if you have the money to buy a tank, I say the 2A DOES cover that. When you limit the 2A, you limit freedom, hence my reading of 'if I say it is infringed...' this would let the individual determine for himself what he wanted, with no room for government interference.

Deadman
December 13, 2005, 10:07 PM
FWIW I found this amongst my archive of documents, an interview with Vietnam Veteran and SoF John Mullins -

Gamespy: In Soldier of Fortune players can select any weapon and simply point and click to shoot at a target. In real life I am sure different weapons require different firing techniques that the game simply cannot teach. How does the proper shooting technique with an SMG differ from the proper shooting technique for a pistol such as a Desert Eagle?

Mullins: For one thing, an SMG is fired from the shoulder, where you have the steadying effect of the body and both hands (firing from the hip is a sure way of wasting ammunition, despite what the movies would have you believe). We could go on and on about this, but suffice to tell you about one teaching technique I use to disabuse people about the effectiveness of automatic weapons fire. I set out ten targets, approximately four feet apart, and fire a full magazine of 30 rounds from an M-16 on automatic, sweeping back and forth as you see in the movies. I will usually hit one to four targets, depending upon how lucky I am that day. Then I fire one hastily aimed round at the same targets. I get a center-mass hit on each one. The time elapsed is the same. As an old team sergeant once said, you can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight.

1911Tuner
December 13, 2005, 10:08 PM
Agree with Jim Keenan's point, and those pertaining to crew-served light and heavy machineguns. Those things can win battles...not just minor skirmishes.

That said...I've always maintained that, in a mano e mano confrontation, I'd rather face one of the Gangsta/Mall Ninja types sprayin' an Uzi than a farm boy armed with a '94 Winchester.

georgeduz
December 13, 2005, 10:17 PM
full auto is a waste of time and ammo,but it is fun

VARifleman
December 13, 2005, 10:21 PM
One of the gun mags, I believe it was American Handgunner, mentioned a few years ago that since the government began to regulate full auto weapons only one person has been murdered with a legally owned fully auto weapon. The victim was the wife of a police officer. He killed her using his department issued Thompson sub-gun.
I read on several sources around the web it was a .380 MAC that the department had and it was a police informant who was murdered (I guess about internal affairs?).

Keith Wheeler
December 13, 2005, 11:27 PM
Full-autos are regulated the same reason as switchblades -- because "gangs use them!"

The sad part is the number of strong supporters of the 2nd who think that full auto is too dangerous in the hands on untrained "normal" people -- the same sort of reasons anti-gun types attack handguns, "sniper" rifles, "semi auto assault weapons".

I've got to say this though: being a subgun aficionado (and an M11/9 SMG owner) it is just goofy to say "full auto" is more/less/same dangerous as semi.

What's more dangerous, one of those semi-auto M2HBs or my full auto MAC? Full-auto American 180 (too cool!) or semi FAL? It depends so much on the type of weapon. Lumping "full auto" together is like lumping "guns" together. Machine pistols (drool drool drool Vz61), subguns, automatic rifles, LMGs, GPMGs, HMGs, auto-cannon all have different reasons, and may or may not be more or less dangerous than other types of semi-auto firearms. There! That should be simple to understand. :neener:

saltydog
December 14, 2005, 12:14 AM
A full auto in "trained hands" is a danger to his enemy. A full auto in an "untrained hand" is a danger to his surroundings. A semi auto in "trained hands" is a danger to his enemy. A semi auto in an "untrained hand" is "also" a danger to his surroundings.:D I believe a bunch of "untrained hands" with full autos or semi autos is why people bitch for more gun control. :eek:

ctdonath
December 14, 2005, 12:45 AM
Full auto is an option. It has its uses.

There are times when carefully (albeit quickly) each shot deliberately is superior.
There are times when throwing (albeit intelligently) a whole lot of lead downrange fast is superior.

I like options.

Too Many Choices!?
December 14, 2005, 02:20 AM
Too Many Choices!?:cuss:

Alex45ACP
December 14, 2005, 02:41 AM
I believe you have to look at the 2nd Amendment in the context of who the militia were. The militia were (and are) private citizens bearing their own personal weapons. They had muskets and cannon. The equivalent weapons today are all standard infantry weapons and certain types of artillery.

It's just like how your right to freedom of speech applies to the internet and telephone even though they didn't have that in the founding fathers' day. Your right to keep and bear arms also applies to the equivalents of the weapons militias used, even though they didn't have machine guns and rocket launchers at the time the 2nd Amendment was written.

So I don't believe things like tanks are protected by the 2nd Amendment. But that doesn't mean they should be illegal, that's more of a state/local issue. For example, obviously it would not be a good idea for people who live in NYC to be driving around in tanks, but in rural Montana it wouldn't be an issue.

Obviously WMD are not protected by the 2nd, and there's no way stuff like that should be legal, despite the "nuclear bomb strawman" argument the antis like to bring up.

Alex45ACP
December 14, 2005, 02:46 AM
Also, the National Firearms Act that originally regulated automatic weapons was passed right after prohibition ended. They were intended to provoke massive noncompliance so that the government wouldn't have to lay off all these agents they hired to enforce prohibition. This is a perfect example of how easy it is for government to get completely out of control.

Andrew S
December 14, 2005, 11:33 AM
Andrew, the dictionary specifies arms as

arm2 Audio pronunciation of "arms" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärm)
n.

1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
1. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
2. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.
4. arms
1. Heraldry. Bearings.
2. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.

Note the bolded part. It is not just firearms, simply 'a weapon'. A knife used to attack someone, is, by definition classed as an arm.

Back then, congreve rockets and artillery was privately owned. It DID include machine guns. Personally, if you have the money to buy a tank, I say the 2A DOES cover that. When you limit the 2A, you limit freedom, hence my reading of 'if I say it is infringed...' this would let the individual determine for himself what he wanted, with no room for government interference.

I know the definition thank you. Nuclear weapons are also considered arms. Do you believe you should have the right to own one?

Can you provide some proof that they owned machine guns when it was written? If I am incorrect on that I might have to revise my opinion somewhat.

Andrew S
December 14, 2005, 11:43 AM
I believe you have to look at the 2nd Amendment in the context of who the militia were. The militia were (and are) private citizens bearing their own personal weapons. They had muskets and cannon. The equivalent weapons today are all standard infantry weapons and certain types of artillery.

It's just like how your right to freedom of speech applies to the internet and telephone even though they didn't have that in the founding fathers' day. Your right to keep and bear arms also applies to the equivalents of the weapons militias used, even though they didn't have machine guns and rocket launchers at the time the 2nd Amendment was written.

So I don't believe things like tanks are protected by the 2nd Amendment. But that doesn't mean they should be illegal, that's more of a state/local issue. For example, obviously it would not be a good idea for people who live in NYC to be driving around in tanks, but in rural Montana it wouldn't be an issue.

Obviously WMD are not protected by the 2nd, and there's no way stuff like that should be legal, despite the "nuclear bomb strawman" argument the antis like to bring up.

So why arent WMD covered? With your idea that the 2nd amendment should cover all adaptions just as the 1st amendment.

My point is that there is a line. The 2nd amendment does not draw it and it should. Where you or I think the line should be drawn is beside my original point.

Werewolf
December 14, 2005, 11:43 AM
Also, the National Firearms Act that originally regulated automatic weapons was passed right after prohibition ended. They were intended to provoke massive noncompliance so that the government wouldn't have to lay off all these agents they hired to enforce prohibition. This is a perfect example of how easy it is for government to get completely out of control.Don't get me wrong - I don't totally disagree with this take. It makes sense at some level but I've never been able to find any proof of this contention in the congressional record relating to the 1934 NFA or the print media of the time. In point of fact the only time I've ever seen this claim made is in the rather loosely historical (albeit a great read) novel Unintended Consequences by John Ross.

Do you have a historical source to back up the above claim? If so please post the reference to it here.

Thankyou

Alex45ACP
December 14, 2005, 12:15 PM
So why arent WMD covered? With your idea that the 2nd amendment should cover all adaptions just as the 1st amendment.

My point is that there is a line. The 2nd amendment does not draw it and it should. Where you or I think the line should be drawn is beside my original point.

It covers "arms". At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, "arms" were all standard infantry weapons and certain types of artillery.

Andrew S
December 14, 2005, 12:23 PM
It covers "arms". At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, "arms" were all standard infantry weapons and certain types of artillery.

And their arms were a lot different than the arms we have today.

Alex45ACP
December 14, 2005, 05:03 PM
And their arms were a lot different than the arms we have today.

But the categories are the same. The militia back then had all standard infantry weapons and certain types of artillery.

Andrew S
December 14, 2005, 06:20 PM
But the categories are the same. The militia back then had all standard infantry weapons and certain types of artillery.

So if we deploy our soldiers with nuclear hand grenades in 200 years from now you would be comfortable with civilians having them in posession?

jsalcedo
December 14, 2005, 06:25 PM
So if we deploy our soldiers with nuclear hand grenades in 200 years from now you would be comfortable with civilians having them in posession?

Yes.

Right now a citizen could fill a 55gallon drum full of fertilizer diesel and 16 penny nails. And roll it down a hill into a target of their choice.

Does it happen?

Not very often.

Should citizens be forbidden to buy diesel, fertilizer and 16 penny nails?

Alex45ACP
December 14, 2005, 06:51 PM
So if we deploy our soldiers with nuclear hand grenades in 200 years from now you would be comfortable with civilians having them in posession?

Sure. Let's just worry about guns for now though. We've got enough on our plate as it is.

MechAg94
December 14, 2005, 07:00 PM
Realisticly, the average militia man did not maintain his own cannon did he? I thought those were normally bought by towns or the states and maintained at a local arsenal.

I would think the line could reasonably be drawn at crew served weapons and high explosives. Those could be maintained by the local militia group/town/state. Same with armored vehicles and heavy weapons.

Now the interesting question to me would be grenades, man-portable rocket launchers, grenade launchers, and ammo for them. Of course, if this were allowed somehow, I am sure the states would start regulating who is in the militia and who gets issued those weapons.

What is interesting is, what if the standing infantry army of the US were abolished (for the most part) and all citizens were required to own and maintain personal weapons and train occasionally with their local militia group. What type of weapons would people be required to have as part of the local milita? I seriously doubt they would make everyone keep guns at a central armory. Looking at the Swiss, didn't they stop at just requiring them to keep a rifle and ammunition?

Oh well, just thinking about it all.

joab
December 14, 2005, 07:18 PM
Browning, Johnson, Maxim, Schwarzlose, etc., wasted a lot of time designing machineguns, and armies wasted a lot of money buying them.Our army finally realized that in the 80s and developed the A2.

And their arms were a lot different than the arms we have today.You are correct, they were permitted to own the most advanced weaponry of the day we are not that's the difference

Andrew S
December 14, 2005, 07:19 PM
Yes.

Right now a citizen could fill a 55gallon drum full of fertilizer diesel and 16 penny nails. And roll it down a hill into a target of their choice.

Does it happen?

Not very often.

Should citizens be forbidden to buy diesel, fertilizer and 16 penny nails?


I am not sure why you even responded with this. Where did I say we should ban legal items used for other things so they cant be turned into something illegal?


Sure. Let's just worry about guns for now though. We've got enough on our plate as it is.


I guess I will just have to be happy I dont live in your world then.

Andrew S
December 14, 2005, 07:21 PM
You are correct, they were permitted to own the most advanced weaponry of the day we are not that's the difference

And you clearly missed my point.

joab
December 14, 2005, 08:00 PM
No, you did

The weapons available at the time were the best money could buy, as good as the military's

The weapons we are allowed to have, in general, would be considered third world rejects for miltary use.

When the document was written the population at the time was capable of overthrowing the goverment, but the clause was still written in.

The population today is not even capable of holdong private religious services much less keeping the goverment from taking their homes away.

A corrupt goverment will always have to fear it's subjects an honest goverment does not
Which is one reason the 2nd amendment is in there, too many people have forgotten that

Andrew S
December 14, 2005, 08:24 PM
No, you did

The weapons available at the time were the best money could buy, as good as the military's

The weapons we are allowed to have, in general, would be considered third world rejects for miltary use.

When the document was written the population at the time was capable of overthrowing the goverment, but the clause was still written in.

The population today is not even capable of holdong private religious services much less keeping the goverment from taking their homes away.

A corrupt goverment will always have to fear it's subjects an honest goverment does not
Which is one reason the 2nd amendment is in there, too many people have forgotten that


I understand your point but completely disagree with it as I have already stated.

Lee F
December 14, 2005, 08:38 PM
Andrew S,
Humor me and please tell us where you would like to see the line drawn. I am also curious about your background and experience with these tools you would like to see banned. Military service? Family member killed by guns? I am sincerely trying to understand someone on a firearms discussion board with your point of view. Thanks.

yy
December 14, 2005, 08:50 PM
There's a quote/paraphrase from Stargate regarding the staff weapons: "they are loud, they are scary, but they are not terribly accurate or efficient ... they are effective as terror weapons not killing weapons"

think the same apply here for FA firing in untrained/unaimed use.

Andrew S
December 14, 2005, 09:34 PM
Andrew S,
Humor me and please tell us where you would like to see the line drawn. I am also curious about your background and experience with these tools you would like to see banned. Military service? Family member killed by guns? I am sincerely trying to understand someone on a firearms discussion board with your point of view. Thanks.

My line is drawn pretty close to where it currently stands. I dont want to see anything banned. I just understand why certain things ARE banned and dont want it to change. I think that the barrel length restrictions and some of the current importing restrictions are wrong. I think some of the state/county CCW laws are ridiculous.

I dont have or need any formal training or experience with these tools. I am just aware of what things are capable of. I am on a firearms discussion board to learn about and discuss firearms just as you are. Is this forum not available to casual shooters who are mostly comfortable with current laws/restrictions?

jsalcedo
December 14, 2005, 09:49 PM
Is this forum not available to casual shooters who are mostly comfortable with current laws/restrictions?

Of course it is.

Many of the members joined this site with the same beliefs and attitudes as you.

For some reason if you stick around THR long enough you will likely become a knuckle dragging, camo wearing, machinegun toting Libertarian.

:evil: :D

Lee F
December 14, 2005, 09:52 PM
Thanks for the answer Andrew. If I understand your point of view it's a good start even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

The gun hobby is just like most families. It has a little of everything in it, from the tactical shooters to duck hunters to bench rest shooters to sporting clay group. Just like most families we won't always get along every time we get together but we still should try. We all should check ourselves every now and then to make sure we aren't the crazy cousin in the family too.

Andrew S
December 14, 2005, 10:20 PM
Thanks for the answer Andrew. If I understand your point of view it's a good start even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

The gun hobby is just like most families. It has a little of everything in it, from the tactical shooters to duck hunters to bench rest shooters to sporting clay group. Just like most families we won't always get along every time we get together but we still should try. We all should check ourselves every now and then to make sure we aren't the crazy cousin in the family too.


I suppose so. And due to my minority opinion here it might be best for me to stick to the Tools and Technologies sections.

Too Many Choices!?
December 14, 2005, 10:56 PM
If Special forces can have it.....THEN I WANT IT:). Plain, simple, and totaly within reason. Hell I could be facing the special forces of this or another nation in the tumultuos days ahead, nobody knows. So why shouldn't I be equally armed as somebody I might have to face?:uhoh:

Jim March
December 15, 2005, 08:27 AM
Any weapon's "reasonableness" for use is dependent on potential threat to innocent bystanders. In a perfect world that respected our right to arms and self defense we would have a right to any weapon we want BUT we could be charged with "reckless endangerment" for actions that put our neighbors at undue risk.

By this standard, a full-auto .22LR home defense gun makes more sense than a 5-shot 50BMG in a typical suburban tract house situation. The 50 (unless loaded with frangible ammo that comes apart into dust or BBs at the first thing it hits) will go through a dozen or more homes and would make a psycho home defense gun. The 22s on the other hand will be stopped or radically slowed by most home exteriors so even if you spray 150 out per mag, who cares as long as the target was a valid threat and you greased him good?

If on the other hand you're running a cargo ship across the South China Seas or off the coast of Somalia and you're worried about pirates, multiple turret-mounted full-auto 50BMGs make perfect sense...along with high explosives, incendiaries, 20mm or bigger cannons, what have you.

200 years from now, you've got a nice little asteroid mining homestead, your nearest neighbor is 800,000 miles away and you set up a nuke-based home defense system for space pirates, kewl, not a problem.

This "bystander threat level based standard" makes MUCH more sense than arbitrary limits on full auto, caliber, explosives, etc.

Andrew S:

There is strong supporting evidence that the purpose of the 14th Amendment (1868) was to ensure that the entire "privileges and immunities of US citizenship" were applied to the newly freed black population - and that phrase had been found by the US Supreme Court in 1856 to mean basically "the entire Bill Of Rights plus the traditional rights of free Englishman such as the right to travel"...and specifically including the 2nd Amendment right to arms.

If this interpretation is correct, it means three things:

1) Since blacks didn't yet have the vote (that was the 15th Amendment of 1872) then the right to arms was being decoupled from the "political right" of militia duty which in 1792 was very similar to the right to jury duty. In other words, blacks in 1868 were declared to have "civil rights" but not "political rights" (yet) the same as a free white woman would have had at the time. The right to arms was being transformed from a political right to group and community self defense (for any purpose up to and including standing up against a crooked/tyrannical government) to a personal right to self defense.

Multiple quotes from the key author of the 14th (John Bingham) support this view. See also the books "That Every Man Be Armed" (1984) by law professor Stephen Halbrook of George Mason or "The Bill Of Rights" (1998) by Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, two people with wildly different political stances who independently came across the same Bingham quotes. Halbrook is a lawyer for the NRA when he's not teaching law but Amar is well known in Liberal circles and clearly didn't LIKE what he was writing.

2) If Amar and Halbrook are correct, then it's not the guns of 1792 we should be looking at as "standard models of possible weapons". It's the guns of 1868. And that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. The Gatling Gun was invented in 1862 and fielded by 1863/64. The Mormons had invented the snubnose big-bore defensive revolver meant for concealment by 1858 or so (look up the "Avenging Angels"). Entire Northern Regiments had been equipped with 15-shot lever-action rifles and by 1868 these were firmly in civilian hands. And everybody knew S&W's patent on the through-bore revolver cylinder was going to run out by 1872 (eagerly awaited) and were starting to at least think about what cool new bangtoys would result...some of the designs that DID result are still available in practically every gun shop in America, esp. the Colt SAA and derivatives...and are still highly effective weapons even in the original caliber with period-reproduction ammo.

3) Finally, if the goal was to arm blacks against the rising tide of KKK (and there was a lot of Federal legislation to do just that between 1866 and 1870), then the framers of the 14th would have known that open carry of personal defensive handguns would have gotten Southern blacks shot on sight. Only *concealed* carry would have been effective for defense against crooked sheriffs, the KKK and the like.

The Second Amendment in it's original "militia format" may be a bit dated, although not completely dead. But in the "personal defense format" of the 14th Amendment, it's VERY much alive and kicking.

1911 guy
December 15, 2005, 09:47 AM
Most hand held, non crew served automatics are terribly innacurate due to lack of controllability. However, facing a group of thugs bent on looting or other nonsense, the psychological factor may be of value.

goon
December 16, 2005, 01:37 AM
I think that the whole FA argument is a moot point for most uses.
When I pull the trigger on a load of 3" 00 buck I send the equivalent of half a magazine from a submachine gun at something.
If I can be trusted with my Mossberg, I can be trusted with an UZI.
Both are deadly. That is why they are effective.
Both require responsible handling or people will end up hurt.
From the philosophical standpoint, what is the difference?

From the practical standpoint, semi auto on my FAL suits me just fine.
But it would still be great to have a M240B machine gun with all the fixins'. Not because I need it, but because I am an American and as long as I am not hurting anyone doing it, I should be able to do whatever makes me happy.
Shooting a belt fed GPMG into an old strip mine cut is no more dangerous than shooting an Enfield into the same strip mine cut.
People ask me why I should be able to do things.
I ask them why I should not.

1911Tuner
December 16, 2005, 08:19 AM
I think that the whole FA argument is a moot point for most uses.
When I pull the trigger on a load of 3" 00 buck I send the equivalent of half a magazine from a submachine gun at something.
If I can be trusted with my Mossberg, I can be trusted with an UZI.
Both are deadly.

Bingo. With all the fuss over hand-held auto weapons...and lately, even semi-auto...the unenlightened have completely ignored, or are plain ignorant of one of the most deadly short-range instruments to come down the pike...and it predates machineguns and submachineguns by a good many years. The ubiquitous sawed-off shotgun. (18 inch minimum, of course)

The "Trench Gun" was so horrifyingly effective in WW1 that the Germans complained to the Hague Convention over their use.

If you enjoyed reading about "Full auto isn't any more dangerous than anything else." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!