Why do we need automatic guns?


PDA






Yohan
May 3, 2003, 01:51 AM
Why would civilians ever need automatic guns? Plinking comes to mind, but is there anything else besides? Home defense? Let's hear the reasons. I'm not condeming automatic weapon, just hoping to gain some more insight. Why would someone pay so much for a gun we can just as easily rent at a range? A good conversational piece? Bragging rights? Are there any practical reasons I may not be aware of ?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do we need automatic guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PATH
May 3, 2003, 02:01 AM
My rights as a citizen should not be predicated by my explaining a need to exercise them. Why does anyone need to speak his mind and possibly upset others? Why do people need to practice their own religion? Why do you need a trial by jury? Don't you trust the judge? Why do we need laws against illegal search and seizure? Don't you trust the government.

"NEED" is a word used by the left to predicate their arguments against gun ownership. I don't see a need not to have automatic firearms!

By the way Yohan I am not calling you a leftist.:)

Yohan
May 3, 2003, 02:02 AM
Ay, I'm not saying having automatic weapons is wrong by any means, I'm just curious as to why people would want to pay so much to have one.

New_comer
May 3, 2003, 02:06 AM
I believe civilians don't need automatic weapons.


Automatics are offensive weapons. We'd be more prone to injure innocents when spraying one of those.


Beside, we already have something better: shotguns! :D


With 00 buck, the perp stands to receive nine 32 cal slug all hitting at the same time. With #4 buck, the BG would be on the receiving end of more than twenty 25 cal slugs. If that ain't firepower, then I don't know what is. ;)

PATH
May 3, 2003, 02:09 AM
Any weapon can be offensive. I dare say that auto weapons are fine for people to own. The only thing offensive is the government asking for a "need" before I can exercise my 2nd Amendment rights!

Oh, Yohan they are extremely fun to fire!:D

Hkmp5sd
May 3, 2003, 02:14 AM
Other than the normal need-2nd Amendment and why 10 rnd vs 11 round magazine arguments, machineguns are FUN to shoot.

Another reason is that if there are ever any Rodney King/LA similar riots where I live, a full auto could come in very handy.

I've never understood why most people think it's perfectly normal to spend thousands of dollars on such items as old postage stamps or coins, cars that can do 150 MPH, golf clubs, 4x4 trucks, a TV so big you can sit in your front yard and still watch or bass boats, but when it gets to machineguns, it's always why and need.

amprecon
May 3, 2003, 02:14 AM
Why you ask? To defend against tyrrany in government of course. We should be on a level playing field with those that have the ability to oppress the people.
Imagine the outcome of the American Revolution if they were relegated to the use of the bow & arrow or spear. The Revolutionaries owned the same or in most cases better weapons than did the mighty oppressors.

Justin
May 3, 2003, 02:38 AM
Ay, I'm not saying having automatic weapons is wrong by any means, I'm just curious as to why people would want to pay so much to have one. Yohan, there's something you need to keep in mind when asking about full-auto weapons. It does not cost that much for a company to make them. The prices on fully-automatic weapons have been artificially inflated due to increasingly strict regulations on them. A WWII era Sten gun probably cost under $50 to make, and that's being very generous. To buy one today, you will probably pay at least $1,500.
For those who are able to afford the cost of the weapon, ammunition, and the tax stamp, full autos offer a really fun way to turn money into noise. Plus, they rank way up there in the cool factor. (The first time you shoot a vintage Thompson is almost a religious experience.) From there, you can pretty much apply any of the standard answers to the age-old 'why do you own a gun?'

Telperion
May 3, 2003, 03:03 AM
Because they're cool, duh. :D

Telperion
May 3, 2003, 03:10 AM
Furthermore, and more seriously, the answer (probably) depends on what you think of the second amendment and the Miller decision. If you believe that the purpose is that citizenry ought to be an effective militia, why should they be armed with anything less than what every soldier in the world carries?

Mizzoutiger
May 3, 2003, 03:20 AM
That's exactly why I want my mark-19 automatic grenade launcher! Just think about the whole new "candy store" that opens up should we ever be able to own anything the government uses. Wowsers, I don't know where I would begin.

Kenneth Lew
May 3, 2003, 03:25 AM
I'm in a point in life where guns are getting pretty boring. Full autos brings at least a tiny little grin to my face. I also like to make a lot of noise at $1.28 a second.

Kenneth Lew

Byron Quick
May 3, 2003, 06:28 AM
Ay, I'm not saying having automatic weapons is wrong by any means, I'm just curious as to why people would want to pay so much to have one.

Well, a good many of us did not pay so much to have one. My Uzi for example. I have $775 in it...not counting the $200 tax stamp. $175 of that is the cost of converting it from semi-auto to selective fire. If it had been selective fire in the beginning a reasonable price would have been the same as the semi-auto...$600.

From what I see on various for sale boards, I could sell this Uzi for around $3000. OK. $600 for the basic weapon...$2400 for the government's idiotic laws restricting supply.

Consider the various kits available for various automatic weapons. These kits usually run from $200 to $700 from what I see in various ads. Consider the costs of getting them here...buying them, getting the receivers cut to BATF standards, shipping them by sea, and getting them inspected before sale. If it wasn't for the "laws" they could be sold for less because the sellers wouldn't have the costs of getting them cut up and inspection.

That FN Model D BAR that would cost you $20,000 for a transferable example would be around $600.

Thompson submachine guns that go for around $10K? There's at least one warehouse in Russia with NIB Thompsons.

As far as "need" goes... I "need" one .22 rifle for small game, one medium bore rifle for American big game...it could also double for social needs, a large bore rifle for when I get to Africa, a centerfire pistol/revolver for personal defense, a .22 pistol/revolver for plinking and practice, and a shotgun for wingshooting and clays . So six firearms could cover my "needs" handily. So why do I have at least 35 (I haven't sat down and done an actual count lately)? Because I like owning and shooting various firearms. It's what I do instead of collecting stamps, wives, cars or some such.

Need has nothing to do with it whether it's for hunting, plinking, self defense etc. after I obtained a small number of firearms. Want does.


The entire concept of "need" in relation to firearms plays into the anti's hands. It is an anti concept...as in "sporting need."

Don't play their game.

MicroBalrog
May 3, 2003, 08:48 AM
Actually, M-16's and Galils have been used for home defense vs. terrorists in the settlements on the Occupied territories.

WhoKnowsWho
May 3, 2003, 08:50 AM
I would want one for the fun aspect. For self defense, single, aimed fire. For covering fire, I suppose auto fire would be a plus though. But I would like it for the fun.
Stack up some targets on a backstop, and open the hose of lead!!

But alas...

Matt1911
May 3, 2003, 08:51 AM
As i am constantly tellin my wife,need has nothing todo with it.
I just shot a m-16,3 burst for the first time.............I NEED ONE!!!!

MicroBalrog
May 3, 2003, 08:55 AM
The average gunfight is on ranges below five meters - hard to miss for a trained indiviudual.
However, full-auto weapons could be used for intimidation (warining 20-round burst from a 120-round clip for an M-16), and if necessary, a followup with 10,20,30 rounds. :evil:

Tamara
May 3, 2003, 09:13 AM
Because the Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with duck hunting or protecting yourself from freelance criminals.

According to U.S. v. Miller, a Perazzi trap gun or a KelTec P-32 are not protected by the Second Amendment, while an M249 SAW is. (Unless there's some military use for Perazzis and KelTecs I'm unaware of...)

El Tejon
May 3, 2003, 09:37 AM
Why do we need Christianity? Just to brag about Hayzeus? To have a day off? We have a lot of other religions.

Yohan, the purpose of the Second Amendment is not defense of home or hearth, it is not bunny shooting, or target shooting. The Second Amendment is about fighting.

As Tamara stated, the Court in Miller held that all weapons that are have a militree use are protected. That includes weapons which are fully automatic.

As to practical reasons, as wise man in Tejas sez, full auto fire is a great way to convert money into noise. Below squad level, they have limited purposes.

MicroBalrog
May 3, 2003, 09:40 AM
As to practical reasons, as wise man in Tejas sez, full auto fire is a great way to convert money into noise. Below squad level, they have limited purposes

What about house-clearing/home defense?

El Tejon
May 3, 2003, 09:49 AM
Micro, sure, you can do it with a machine pistol, but the more you shoot the more trouble you can get into. Inside my house I prefer a shotgun and pistol combo. YMMV.

Software is to hardware as 10 is to 1. :)

MicroBalrog
May 3, 2003, 09:53 AM
Well, given that I live in the Israeli Socialist Workers' Paradise, I choose pepper spray for house-clearing.
The Israeli army doesn't use shotguns at all afaik, moving to short-barreled assault rifles and SMG for house-clearing.

El Tejon
May 3, 2003, 10:03 AM
Run what ya brung.:D

MeekandMild
May 3, 2003, 10:05 AM
Yohan, why do you need an automatic transmission in your car? It would seem to me the old three speed manual would do just fine, or better yet, just a bicycle would be OK.

TallPine
May 3, 2003, 10:05 AM
Why do we need automatic guns?

Because some people just never caught on to using a clutch

:D

Thumper
May 3, 2003, 10:44 AM
Need? Pshaw...left-think.

Read U.S. v. Miller...that will address the need part of things.

CleverNickname
May 3, 2003, 11:24 AM
I'm just curious as to why people would want to pay so much to have one.

As others have mentioned, it's not due to any inherent characteristic of machineguns that they're so expensive, but the :cuss: '86 ban. For example, I bought an Uzi parts kit awhile back so I have some spare parts for my full-auto Uzi. It cost me roughly an order of magnitude less than what the Uzi is worth, yet the only difference between the two is that the parts kit is missing a rather large chunk of the receiver. Well, that and the Uzi has an entry in the BATF's database saying it's transferrable, which is what you're really paying for.

As for why I bought full-auto, there's several reasons.


It's fun to shoot.
It's evil (not only is it full-auto, but also has a short barrel, bayonet lug, and horror of horrors, a a folding stock! OH NO!)
It's fun to shoot.
It's increasing in value (not that I have plans to sell it)
It's fun to shoot.


I can't think of a situation where I'd use it defensively, mainly because it's too big to CCW and because a 5.56mm out of my AR is ballistically superior to the 9mm out of my Uzi.

cpileri
May 3, 2003, 12:00 PM
Dear Sir,
The conclusive answer from our office is that you do not need automatic weapons for any purpose.
We do, and so do our bodygaurds, as well as the security, law enforcement, and military whom we have control over; but you do not.
Thank you for your inquiry,
Senators Feinstein, Schumer, and Corzine representing a multitude of our colleagues.

Yohan
May 3, 2003, 02:32 PM
Yohan, why do you need an automatic transmission in your car? It would seem to me the old three speed manual would do just fine, or better yet, just a bicycle would be OK.

Automatic transmission is more convinient than a standard. So, what does an automatic gun do that a regular gun can't do? I mean, besides being fun and evil :evil: and cool, do they serve a real purpose? One of the reasons I saw was providing covering fire should a riot break out, but I don't think that will be happening anytime soon (If you disagree, I suggest you open another thread about it) but are there any reasons an automatic machine gun would be better than the normal average semi-automatic rifle or shotgun for normal usage? I'm thinking along the lines of critter control or such. I appericiate the fact that no one's flaming. Except for this little dude over here ----------------------------------> :fire: :neener:

MeekandMild
May 3, 2003, 03:06 PM
I'm just curious as to why people would want to pay so much to have one. Seriously, probably the best reason is that they are collectors items and in an economy where the stock market can fall 40% and beanie babies can fall 99% they are a desirable commodity. They just aren't making any more pre-86 SMGs so the values go up every year.

Skunkabilly
May 3, 2003, 03:20 PM
Authenticity. I want the original MP5 not some semi-safe 16" barreled beast!

They make great photo props too.

Hkmp5sd
May 3, 2003, 03:40 PM
Skunk must be getting ill. A post about MP5 submachineguns without using the word tactical. Maybe it's an imposter. :)

DFBonnett
May 3, 2003, 07:27 PM
"Need?".............. irrelevant...
"Want?".............. is all that is necessary.
Until I pull a ski mask over my head and go into a bank to close out everyone's account, it is no one's GD business what type of firearms I own or why I own them.

tyme
May 3, 2003, 07:45 PM
Why do we need firearms with 2- or 3- burst trigger groups?

Just because people want or "need" an automatic firearm doesn't mean they want or need to shoot entire magazines at a time.

(byron quick) Thompson submachine guns that go for around $10K? There's at least one warehouse in Russia with NIB Thompsons.
Let's go get them. :)

(microbalrog) However, full-auto weapons could be used for intimidation (warining 20-round burst from a 120-round clip for an M-16), and if necessary, a followup with 10,20,30 rounds.
(20-round clip is emptied) "Guns don't kill people. People kill people. For example, those two guys with the machine guns? If they start blastin' off, ain't none of y'all going home!" - Romeo must die

ahadams
May 3, 2003, 10:41 PM
okay first off *we* don't need two or three round burst devices - if people are taught proper trigger control to begin with, they don't need that nonsense.:fire:

That being said: I think full auto is tremendous fun as long as someone else is paying for the ammo...I mean I had a lot of fun with it in the Army, but Uncle Sam ain't payin' my ammo bill any more so if *I'm* buying, semi-'s good enough for me.

OTOH, we should still have access to full auto under the original intent of the 2A.

Marshall
May 4, 2003, 04:13 AM
Unless you're military or LE you don't need full auto weapons.

Tamara
May 4, 2003, 04:18 AM
"...but as for me, give me reasonable government controls and rapid, accurate background checks, or give me death!" :uhoh:

AK103K
May 4, 2003, 07:37 AM
Unless you're military or LE you don't need full auto weapons.
Its comments like that that make you part of the problem rather than part of the answer Marshall. Might as well say you dont need any firearms as you "will be taken care of".:rolleyes:

okay first off *we* don't need two or three round burst devices - if people are taught proper trigger control to begin with, they don't need that nonsense.
AMEN! :)

BlkHawk73
May 4, 2003, 08:15 AM
Marshall,

Please explain why we "don't need" automatic weapons.

Do you "need" everything that you own? Doubt it!

People own automatic and other Class III firearms because they want to and can! Some people like and buy shotguns, others a particular type of handgun while others prefer a type of rifle or a particular cartridge. to each thier own. I know people that favor rifles but have no interest in handguns but I am not going to tell them they don't need what they like/want/own. As long as there's people with your feeling towards autos, there's 2 things happening...1) there's a nother auto that is available for one of us that does think they're ok to own, and 2) there's another person that is giving a little boost to those that are trying to take ALL our firearms away from us. :banghead:

Exactly how many legally own autos are used in crimes each year? :rolleyes:

GAC

Thumper
May 4, 2003, 08:21 AM
When I get to be King, I want subjects like Marshall.

Byron Quick
May 4, 2003, 08:24 AM
How many legal full autos are used in crimes each year...thus far, since 1934, just one-by a law enforcement officer.

Kinda kicks this drivel:Unless you're military or LE you don't need full auto weapons. in the head, doesn't it?

AK103K
May 4, 2003, 08:27 AM
When I get to be King, I want subjects like Marshall.
G.W. beat ya to it! :)

BigG
May 4, 2003, 08:29 AM
The base cost of a FA weapon is only the tip of the iceberg. Wait till you start buying ammo to feed the monster! :eek:

AK103K
May 4, 2003, 08:31 AM
Its even worse when you have a couple of kids!

"Dad, I need another mag!":D

cliffdropover1
May 4, 2003, 09:45 AM
I can drive an old Volkswagon to work and it WILL get me there. Or I can drive a new Corvette. One of them is a whole hell of a lot more fun. :)

Mannlicher
May 4, 2003, 02:38 PM
Yohan,

Just why does it have to be about 'need' in the first place? If you were only allowed what you 'needed', then you would have darn little in your house.

.................and, who is the one you would trust to determine you needs anyway????

pax
May 4, 2003, 03:21 PM
Yohan has explained at least twice that he isn't interested in taking anyone's guns away and that he's not for more laws. If I were Yohan, I'd be getting a mite irritated that people keep answering a question that hasn't been asked and attacking a position that hasn't been taken.

It's a fairly simple question: What does an automatic weapon do that you want done?

Only a few people have tried to answer the question that was actually asked. So far, the answers have been They're fun. You can use them to burn a lot of cash in a hurry. They're fun. They are mechanically interesting. They're fun. The military has them. They're fun.

Any other answers? Why does the military have them? What's the military doing with them that can't be done with a semi-auto?

pax

Full-auto is a good way to turn money into noise. -- Clint Smith

Thumper
May 4, 2003, 03:46 PM
Pax...I was purposely avoiding the full auto's utility as a weapon.

Yohan has expressed in the past that he's not comfortable with the idea of a firearm as a weapon.

That being out of the way, one of the best "stoppers" in a gunfight is the autonomous shutdown of the central nervous system. The best way to acheive this is by multiple near-simultaneous thoracic cavity trauma.

A three round burst zippered into someone's chest beats the heck out of three aimed shots...time wise and effectiveness-wise.

Other advantages include increased hit probability, effectiveness against multiple attackers, and the obvious psychological advantage.

BlkHawk73
May 4, 2003, 04:15 PM
A three round burst zippered into someone's chest beats the heck out of three aimed shots...time wise and effectiveness-wise.
Other advantages include increased hit probability, effectiveness against multiple attackers, and the obvious psychological advantage.

To me this is a little contradictory. The first sentence..."three round burst beats three aimed shots" Shouldn't ANY shots be aimed? :rolleyes: Also, how are the three round burst shots more effective than three non-three round burst shots?
Second sentence..."Other advantages include increased hit probability" Wouldn't hit probability be higher with aimed shots rather than the seemingly non-aimed three round burst shots?
Lastly, anyone using any fullauto against any badguy, will likely get A LOT more legal obsticals (sp?) thrown at him than if they used something else.

goon
May 4, 2003, 04:21 PM
Need doesn't have anything to do with it.
There should be no regulations on small arms at all in this country.
The cost issue would go away if there were no regulations.
Need has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Unless you're military or LE you don't need full auto weapons.
So why do we "need" any weapons at all?
After all, we have the police to protect us, right?
And the judicial system never fails us, right?
And why do police need FA weapons?
Perhaps they work better for solving certain situations, like putting some guy on PCP on his ass.
Don't I deserve the same ability to respond to a threat as a police officer?
If you want to get technical about it, the military doesn't need Full-auto either. Rapid aimed fire is almost always more accurate.
But, since we have now entered the age of peace on earth, maybe we should arm our servicemen with stun guns and pepper spray...
Why do they need guns after all?
I mean, guns are so dangerous...
Why can't we all just get along?:rolleyes:

To date, the only guns that I own that have been used to kill anyone are the old Mil-Surps, and that was 50 years ago. None of the AK's that I have owned have been used to harm anyone, nor have their Hi-Cap mags.
That trend would continue if I had a Full-auto.

The type of gun, the law, the Brady bill...none of them have anything to do with controlling my behavior.
Anyone with ten minutes of spare time, internet access and a hardware store nearby can build a bomb and hurt alot of people, IF they were so inclined.
But you will note that none of us have done that.
Why?
Because we don't want to hurt people.
Laws are nice, but at the end of the day, I am the reason that I don't hurt people.

BTW-I read somewhere that Thompson SMG's were used by farmers to kill prarie dogs before the NFA.

BlkHawk73
May 4, 2003, 04:38 PM
Need doesn't have anything to do with it.

Correct. Need is not synonomous with want. I need food but I want a stainless fridge to put in in.

There should be no regulations on small arms at all in this country.

Don't agree there. Are you saying anyone should be able to stroll down and buy whatever gun they want ? So...some ex-con, out after 15yrs in lockup for murder should be able to walk into Gus' Guns and by a MP5? That, I don't buy.

Thumper
May 4, 2003, 04:50 PM
It has become popular in some circles to malign full auto as unnecessary or perhaps a crutch for poor shooting. This idea indicates a basic misunderstanding of the use of the fully automatic weapon in a military environment.

If you want to get technical about it, the military doesn't need Full-auto either.

Absolutely untrue. See jsalcedo's post concerning his father's commendation.

Other advantages include increased hit probability" Wouldn't hit probability be higher with aimed shots rather than the seemingly non-aimed three round burst shots?

What indicated to you that burst fire shouldn't be aimed? Aimed three round bursts beat aimed single shots.

Ask anyone who's been on a military range whether they'd like to take a poke at the 400 meter target on semi or full.

What exactly is you background re: full auto?

three round burst beats three aimed shots" To me this is a little contradictory.

Hmmm...for those who haven't fired any full auto weapons, a three round burst into a chest is "aimed fire..." The only contradictory factor is the time issue, which is important. There is a physiological impact regarding the timing of hits. See my earlier post regarding nervous system shutdown. This is the primary reason for the effectiveness of the shotgun, i.e. multiple hits in a very limited time frame.

Lastly,
Lastly, anyone using any fullauto against any badguy, will likely get A LOT more legal obsticals (sp?) thrown at him than if they used something else.

The issue is whether or not full auto is more effective. Please read all posts before commenting.

Yohan
May 4, 2003, 05:29 PM
Pax...I was purposely avoiding the full auto's utility as a weapon.

Yohan has expressed in the past that he's not comfortable with the idea of a firearm as a weapon.

That being out of the way, one of the best "stoppers" in a gunfight is the autonomous shutdown of the central nervous system. The best way to acheive this is by multiple near-simultaneous thoracic cavity trauma.

A three round burst zippered into someone's chest beats the heck out of three aimed shots...time wise and effectiveness-wise.

Other advantages include increased hit probability, effectiveness against multiple attackers, and the obvious psychological advantage.
I've said that I see guns as a valid hobby, not as just a weapon used to kill people. I can goto a gun range just to have fun shooting, not to practice drills and get myself mentally prepared to kill someone. That's what I meant.

Ok, so a three burst "zippered" into someone's chest may beat the heck out of three aimed shots, but wouldn't shot guns be more dramatic and effetive? However, I did understand your point about the three bursts being more effective for killing intruders.

The issue is whether or not full auto is more effective. Please read all posts before commenting.
Ok, Mr.Thread Jacker ;) This post was actually about valid reasons for owning full automatic weapons, and you answered it by informing all of us that an automatic weapon would be the best way to kill people. Thanks.

Now, let's put out of the flames and get back to normal civilized discussion.

http://www.htcacademic.mnscu.edu/amathiowetz/ext.gif

:D :cool:

AK103K
May 4, 2003, 05:36 PM
Don't agree there. Are you saying anyone should be able to stroll down and buy whatever gun they want ? So...some ex-con, out after 15yrs in lockup for murder should be able to walk into Gus' Guns and by a MP5? That, I don't buy.
I dont agree with this, I think anyone should be able to buy what they want. I thought when you did your time, "you did your time". I think felons who serve their time should be allowed to vote and own guns again. If they are deemed to be able to be released, whats it matter if they buy their gun legally or not? They sure as hell get them anyway.
As for the rest of the last couple of posts, I think Thumper covered it pretty well. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as to how full auto weapons are used and what they can and can not do. I guess a lot of this is from the movies and the media. In untrained hands they may appear to be uncontrolable and ammo wasters. In the right hands, they can be very effecient weapons that will shut a threat down "right now" with a quick burst. You cant get that in semi, even with fast aimed shots. In full auto, its one quick aimed burst. The other misconception is, just because its full auto you have to shoot it that way. Even with guns that are full auto only, you do have trigger control that will allow single shots(all but a few) with practice. There is a time and place for everything, its knowing when to use it that makes the difference.

MicroBalrog
May 4, 2003, 05:37 PM
Don't agree there. Are you saying anyone should be able to stroll down and buy whatever gun they want ? So...some ex-con, out after 15yrs in lockup for murder should be able to walk into Gus' Guns and by a MP5? That, I don't buy.
You know what? Let's keep NICS. But if you are a law-abiding citizen (pass NICS), you should be able to walk out with all the MP5's and RPG-7's you can pay for.

Thumper
May 4, 2003, 05:37 PM
Oh...I understood that "why do we need" had been altered in the course of the thread to "why are they more effective."

My bad.

If it's still "why do we need," perhaps a re-reading of the Federalist Papers is in order. Madison was plain regarding the purpose of the Second.

AK103K
May 4, 2003, 05:43 PM
Things you miss while typing. :)

This post was actually about valid reasons for owning full automatic weapons, and you answered it by informing all of us that an automatic weapon would be the best way to kill people. Thanks.
Yohan, anything discussed on this board will kill someone if misused or used properly. Doesnt matter how fast it runs. Full auto guns are fun and they are serious, depends on what you want out of it, just like anything else. To say they are "bad" is to say all guns are bad. The only real weapon on here that is truly dangerous is whats doing the typing, everthing else is minor in comparasion.

Yohan
May 4, 2003, 05:52 PM
Well, let's think about this. Like, the corvette and VW comparison. Why do people pay so much more for a Corvette? Because first of all, it's a better car, secondly, it's a Corvette (need I say more?). Now, going back to automatic weapons- we have established that first of all, there is the fun factor. Secondly, it seems that some people feel that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to own an automatic weapon, and I feel that this is all subject to individual interpretation. So, why exactly is the government trying to regulate automatic guns? We have to forfeit a few rights for the greater good, such is evident in the Patriot Act. What would happen if everyone suddenly had access to full automatic weapons? I'm assuming that although some of the High Roaders have had NDs and ADs before, we are mostly aware of the gun safety- However, what about the people who fail to observe the gun safety rules? We can't assume responsibility for actions that other people take, therefore, I feel that certain limitations imposed by the government is indeed for a greater good. I have no doubts that if every single member (well ok- majority) of the High Roaders were to be given access to automatic weapons, the government would see no increase in crimes. However, what about the small minority of people who will cause more problems?Wouldn't the availability of automatic weapons to the general public enable certain people to gain access to weapons which could be more effective in taking people out by "zippering" them with three bursts? How many of the people who have shot up buildings gained access to guns through legal means? Are we willing to take the responsibility for those people? Perhaps I've been grossly mislead by ultra liberal writers, or perhaps I'm just pulling the D card (d for dumb). What I am interested in however, is intelligent responses aimed at giving me an insight into this matter. Consider it a practice in self control. Tell me reasons why I'm wrong. I guess it'd be ok if you get extremely POed and feel the need to use profanity or even call me some names, but if you do need to do so, do it through PM, for the sake of THR. Looking forward to some good discussion.

-Yohan

Thumper
May 4, 2003, 05:57 PM
Secondly, it seems that some people feel that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to own an automatic weapon, and I feel that this is all subject to individual interpretation.

How exactly? Why do you think the Second was included? In your "individual interpretation," what do you think was it's purpose? Hint: The Founders were very explicit about this.

I'll let others handle your "personal security before liberty" comments.

AZTOY
May 4, 2003, 06:10 PM
Geoge Washington would love a full auto MP5:neener:

AK103K
May 4, 2003, 06:26 PM
We have to forfeit a few rights for the greater good, such is evident in the Patriot Act.
Whats this WE crap!

What would happen if everyone suddenly had access to full automatic weapons?
Nothing more than is happening right now.

We can't assume responsibility for actions that other people take, therefore, I feel that certain limitations imposed by the government is indeed for a greater good.
Ok, thats it, I cant take it anymore! :banghead: :what: :cuss: :barf:
We need a gun to head and blowing your brains out smiley!

Yohan, you just go on about your merry way and leave us machine gun owning, dont want to hurt nobody, just want to be left unmolested to have some fun, hillbillys alone, OK? If you dont want to have one, then dont. Dont start whining about who might do what and how this or that might could happen cause it ustacould when it never did before cept in a wild dream you had before you were born! Now dont misconstrue this as leagal or medical advice from me as an internet lawyer or shrink like what happened to me just now on another thread, cause it aint! But its about to get Navy chief cuss word nasty in a short here if you dont get off it!:scrutiny:

Thumper
May 4, 2003, 06:36 PM
Don't get too mad at him...he's still young. At least he's asking.

Yohan...if you haven't yet, please read U.S. v. Miller

http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/histdoc/millercomplete.txt

It is a 1939 Supreme Court decision, the gist of which is that the citizens have a right to any small arms used by the military.

Our founders went further, stating that it is your duty as a citizen to remain armed against a standing Army.

BTW:

"We have to forfeit a few rights for the greater good, such is evident in the Patriot Act."-Yohan

versus

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Ben Franklin

'Ol Ben had your number, didn't he, bud?

Ben's are words for a citizen to live by, Podna...if you feel otherwise, you're already a Subject.

goon
May 4, 2003, 10:24 PM
Are you saying anyone should be able to stroll down and buy whatever gun they want ? So...some ex-con, out after 15yrs in lockup for murder should be able to walk into Gus' Guns and by a MP5? That, I don't buy.

Well, now we get into more of my grand plan.
In the country I envision, there would not be such a person.
He would have either been hanged, shot, etc., or he would have been killed by armed citizens.
There would also be no sex offenders. They would be killed by dousing them with gasoline and torching them.

The only people who should be in prison are people who can be rehabilitated. A shoplifter can be rehabilitated. A burglar can also be rehabilitated. A murderer or rapist can't be, and doesn't deserve the chance to be.
I say execute them and use my tax money to buy everyone ammo for their AK's instead of feeding, housing, and caring for people like that for 50 years.
Does that make me a Barbarian?

As for the military, militaries have been armed since long before the advent of the full-automatic. The best use of FA fire that I ever saw was with belt-fed MG's.
On second thought, they do need FA's. That way, guys like me get to shoot M2-HB's at taxpayer expense. :D
I personally feel that our forces would be better armed with something like a scaled up semi-auto AR-18 that fires a round of about 250 Savage persuasion.
Bursts are all well and good, but I know that I can put three shots into a target on with an M-16 on semi just as well as I can on burst. I have done it.
But they should keep the M-240B. They just rock.

While we are at it, how come police can be trusted with bayonet lugs and we can't?
Why does a cop need a bayonet lug?

Yohan
May 4, 2003, 10:46 PM
Ok, thats it, I cant take it anymore!
We need a gun to head and blowing your brains out smiley!
I'm sorry, if I had known that posting my humble thoughts on a web-site would make you so mad, I wouldn't have done so. Or, could it be that you're just over reacting? I think you're over reacting, and for no reason at all.


Dont start whining about who might do what and how this or that might could happen cause it ustacould when it never did before cept in a wild dream you had before you were born!
Was I dreaming about the Columbine Massacre? (But my guess is, if all the students had automatic weapons, it never would have happened, right?) Was I dreaming about recent shootings I see on the news?

But its about to get Navy chief cuss word nasty in a short here if you dont get off it!
So, instead of trying to explain your reasons and trying to get me to understand, all you're doing is expressing your frustration and anger towards me, without any explanation at all. What you've said can be equivalent to "AHHHHHH! AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!! ARRRRGGGGGGHhh" Plenty of anger evident, no logic or reason behind it. The least you could do is explain why you think the Patriot Act is unjust, and why you think the government ought you let you have all the machine guns in the world you want.
Yohan, you just go on about your merry way and leave us machine gun owning, dont want to hurt nobody, just want to be left unmolested to have some fun, hillbillys alone, OK?
In untrained hands they may appear to be uncontrolable and ammo wasters. In the right hands, they can be very effecient weapons that will shut a threat down "right now" with a quick burst.
We need a gun to head and blowing your brains out smiley!
Don't want to hurt nobody, eh? :eek: :p Here's a simple solution, if you see my name, just don't click on the thread and learn to relax. :neener:

MicroBalrog
May 4, 2003, 10:57 PM
Was I dreaming about the Columbine Massacre? (But my guess is, if all the students had automatic weapons, it never would have happened, right?) Was I dreaming about recent shootings I see on the news?

If the Columbine librarian had a decent automatic rifle and knew how to use it, it would have been less tragic.

But besides, full-auto weapons have been used in school shootings. In fact, firebombs, submachineguns, and explosives have been used - so much for the law!

Oh by the way - Chicatillo killed 52 people with a kitchen knife. What if his first victim carried an MP-5SD with three spare clips and a laser sight?

pax
May 4, 2003, 11:19 PM
. The least you could do is explain why you think the Patriot Act is unjust, ...
Yohan,

Check out http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21234

This wasn't an abuse of the Patriot Act. This was a perfectly legal use of the despicable thing.

This is the sort of activity the Patriot Act was written to promote. That is why I think the Patriot Act is unjust and flat-out wrong.

pax

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! -- Patrick Henry

cordex
May 5, 2003, 12:32 AM
Was I dreaming about the Columbine Massacre? (But my guess is, if all the students had automatic weapons, it never would have happened, right?) Was I dreaming about recent shootings I see on the news?
Was I dreaming about Julio Gonzalez and his happy trip to Happy Land with a gallon of gasoline?
Was I dreaming about the assorted stabbings, hit and runs, stranglings, etc, etc, etc, that I hear about in the news?

The issue isn't the tool used in the crime, it is the crime. As someone else pointed out, you're just as dead if Joe Killer burns you in your bed or blasts you with a belt from an M60.
The least you could do is explain [...] why you think the government ought you let you have all the machine guns in the world you want.
If I come up to you and tell you that you can't have something (a certain kind of car, let's say), is it up to you to explain to me why you should be allowed to have it?

jimbo
May 5, 2003, 02:53 AM
For the same reason I "need" steak and lobster when I could live on bread and water.

For the same reason I "need" a V8 engine when I could be transported by a 500cc 2-stroke.

For the same reaon I "need" to own a 4-bedroom house when I could get by with a studio apartment.

For teh same reason I "need" vacations and weekends when I could work 7-days a week, year round.

NEED has nothing to do with it. It is about freedom, fun, personal responsability and quality of life. The "need" to own automatic weapons would be the novelty, the history, fascinatino with their design and a desire to experience shooting them from time to time.:D

Marshall
May 5, 2003, 03:45 AM
I didn't say we don't want them. I didn't say we don't deserve to have them. I didn't say we don't have a right to have them. I simply answered the question asked, in my opinion.

Too bad that I can't go buy a full auto right now, do I as a civilian need it? No.

There's no argument here. You all assume way too dang much when reading a simple post. Geeze!

twoblink
May 5, 2003, 04:22 AM
People lived for centuries without electricity.. No internet, no In N' Out Double Doubles, nothing..

The argument for full autos is that we live in a "want" based society, not a need based one.

When years ago, the PRK wanted to pass a "limit" on how many cars you can own... because the PRK felt nobody should "need" to own more than 10... The car collectors ripped them a new hinny.. (Jay Leno being a fairly vocal one I seem to recall)

Probably can't think of a reason I "need" much of anything...

As my Econ 101 teacher said; there are no needs, only wants... You don't need air, you want it because you want to live...

Thumper
May 5, 2003, 08:36 AM
Too bad that I can't go buy a full auto right now

:confused:

Educate yourself on topics before throwing out hogwash. Oklahoma is NFA legal. If you're not a felon or underage, of course you can.

, do I as a civilian need it? No.

Well, I reckon I'll take the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion over yours...thanks anyway.

Yohan, did you read any of the recommended material? BTW, the Columbine kiddies used semi-auto weapons.

Baba Louie
May 5, 2003, 08:46 AM
This one was always one of my father's favorite answers to the very same question: "Need for a fully automatic weapon?"

"To defend my nation as a member of the militia".
"Like the Swiss and the Israelis or our founding fathers Sons of Liberty".

But he comes from another time and another country (mid 20th century USA)

When I asked him about the Sons of Liberty(?) he said something about being brave enough to resist the current regime against common current political sense if your cause is just.

I need one simply because I'm not allowed to have one (free from registering myself with some approval committee).

But I'll never get one and can rationalize it to myself all day with no real problem. Too many toys dull the senses, right?

Someone define "too many".

Adios

Marshall
May 5, 2003, 12:32 PM
Thumper, where's the Hogwash?

WASHINGTON, June 10, 2002 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court passed up a chance Monday to rule on the Bush administration's assertion that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear firearms.


The justices refused to review two cases in which the Justice Department filed briefs asserting that right, in a departure from past administrations.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
For much of the 20th century, the amendment's language has sparked a political debate as to what the words mean. Advocates of gun safety laws say the amendment applies to state militias, not to individuals. Gun freedom proponents, such as the National Rifle Association, say the amendment's language clearly applies to individuals who would make up a state militia.
The courts have mostly adopted the view that the amendment is talking about militia, not individuals, though the Supreme Court, while upholding federal gun laws, has never ruled on the issue.
Until last month, the Justice Department had consistently interpreted the Second Amendment to apply to state militias, not to individuals. However, earlier this year, Attorney General John Ashcroft wrote to the NRA saying he believed the amendment gave individuals the right to bear firearms.
U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson echoed Ashcroft's stance in the two government briefs he submitted to the Supreme Court in May, though he urged the court not to intervene in the cases of two men who claimed their Second Amendment rights were being violated through the enforcement of guns laws.
One of the men, Timothy Joe Emerson, was indicted by a federal grand jury in San Angelo, Texas, for possessing a firearm -- a Beretta pistol -- while under a domestic violence restraining order, a violation of federal law.
A federal judge dismissed the indictment, ruling that the federal law was a violation of the Second Amendment, but a federal appeals court subsequently reversed the judge. When the appeals court sent the case back down for a new hearing, Emerson asked the Supreme Court in a pauper petition to intervene.
Olson told the Supreme Court that the appeals court was right when it ruled "that the individual right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is subject to 'limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country."
Olson urged the Supreme Court not to review Emerson's case, even while the Justice Department took its new position on the Second Amendment.
In the second case, John Lee Haney showed up at a police station in western Oklahoma and told an officer that he owned semiautomatic and fully automatic firearms. Haney also told the officer that the weapons were not licensed and the federal government did not have the authority to make him get a license.
Officers later found two fully automatic weapons in Haney's car and house, along with literature describing how to turn a semiautomatic firearm into a fully automatic weapon.
A jury found Haney guilty of possessing two machineguns in violation of federal law and he was sentence to 33 months in prison.
An appeals court upheld the judge, ruling that there was no personal right contained in the Second Amendment. A federal law does not violate the amendment, the appeals court said, "unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well-regulated militia."
Haney then asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
In his brief to the high court in the Haney case, Olson said the Justice Department agrees with the appeals court in the Emerson case, but urged the justices not to intervene in Haney's case anyway.
(No. 01-8780, Timothy Joe Emerson vs. USA; 01-8272, John Lee Haney vs. USA)




Back to UPI


Washington Times UPI Article (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/10062002-104436-9217r.htm)

Thumper
May 5, 2003, 12:51 PM
He didn't pay his taxes...did you read your own article?

Two full autos equals 400 bucks in taxes. Haney didn't pay...do you understand the NFA laws yet?

Perfectly legal to own full auto in Oklahoma, brother...keep reading.

Jedi_7.62
May 5, 2003, 01:57 PM
First off, I don't own any full auto's only because my Government has seen fit to make it so that I can not afford them. Thanks,:cuss: :fire:

The constitution was written on the premis that we as a people not a beurocratic state be able to defend our liberties from anyone including our own Gov.
In the spirit of the constitution the Gov. was not trusted nor the state ran military.
We had just been turned by our king and our the british military.
They gauranteed our rights to weapons so that if need be we could rise up and offer a defense against millitary force NOT so we could shoot clay pigeons on the weekend.

This simply means people of this country NEED auto weapons if for no reason other that the millitary has them.

I could almost consider it a patriotic duty.

That is why we need them....

The constitution is a series of checks and balances........
Consider it the ultimate check and balance.......

Thumper
May 5, 2003, 02:01 PM
This simply means people of this country NEED auto weapons if for no reason other that the millitary has them. I could almost consider it a patriotic duty.

Almost verbatim, the Founding Fathers agreed with you.

Sam Adams
May 5, 2003, 02:01 PM
So, why exactly is the government trying to regulate
automatic guns?

It might have something to do with controlling the masses when some tyranny-minded group of our employees decides that it doesn't like having to answer to anyone. This, by the way, is explicitly why the 2nd Amendment was proposed and ratified - to prevent a powerful central government from imposing its will on the populace. How far would our Revolution have gotten if the Founding Generation didn't have guns equal to or better than those used by the British Army?

We have to forfeit a few rights for the greater good, such is evident in the
Patriot Act.

I'll reiterate Thumper's Franklin quote:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Ben Franklin


What would happen if everyone suddenly had access to full automatic weapons

I don't know - what happened pre-1934? Other than a few well-publicized mob killings/massacres, I don't recall hearing about blood running in the streets due to the existence of full-auto guns. The fact is that hundreds of thousands of veterans of The Great War (as WW1 was called then, there not yet having been an historical instant replay of European insanity) brought home war trophies - and at least several tens of thousands of those consisted of full-auto German, English, French and American firearms (yeah, that's right, the troops were actually allowed to bring the guns home - they were trusted, unlike our brave troops in the last several wars).

What I'd like YOU to answer is the following questions: Why do we have less rights than our grandfathers? Why could my grandfather, as a young man, have theoretically gone to the corner hardware store with a few of his hard-earned dollars and picked up a full-auto Tommy gun (complete with a couple of those evil 50-round drums) with no background check, no waiting period, no "permission granted" form to be signed by the local chief of police, and no $200 tax stamp - but I have to do all of those things if I want to get a gun that has been artificially (by government fiat) made into an absurdly expensive collectors item? Why could my father, as a young man, have ordered any gun he could afford via mail order, including a working 20mm Solothurn cannon with live ammo, also with no background check, no tax stamp, no waiting period and no permission from his employee at the local PD? (BTW, neither my father nor my grandfathers were gun nuts, so, regrettably, none of these items is "in the family"). WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?

The answer is simple - our rights have been sacrificed by people like you. People of good will and "common sense" who can't see the forest for the trees. The Founding Generation endured enormous hardship, including the loss of their fortunes and livelihoods, loss of home, loss of family, loss of health and loss of life - all so that you, I and everyone else in this country could enjoy LIBERTY. Was their sacrifice in vain? I sure hope not, but (with all due respect to you, who has the right to your opinion), the answer to that question would seem to be an unqualified "yes" because of the attitude and voting patterns of people like yourself.

If I am wrong about you, please do let me know. But someone who can reflexively say We have to forfeit a few rights for the greater good, such is evident in the
Patriot Act.

is just not on the same page as me. I respect your right to be wrong - but please don't be wrong because you are uninformed and, thereby, affect MY rights (the few that are left).

Mute
May 5, 2003, 02:05 PM
Setting aside the ridiculous idea that we have to justify why we need any particular type of firearm, let's address the fallacy that a civilian has no use for automatic or select fire weapons.

Why do LEO's use automatic weapons? Simple. Because they are effective. So if a civilian were to keep a firearm for self protection, why should he/she not have access to the more effective weapon. Now granted, an automatic weapon does not guarantee that it will be more effective than a non-automatic, it has that capability. So again, why wouldn't I choose the more effective weapon if it were available to me.

Carlos Cabeza
May 5, 2003, 02:54 PM
When confronted with multiple assailants as in a home invasion type robbery I think one would want the most effective weapon available. That means full cap mags and a select fire or semi auto weapon. Scenario's when a select fire weapon could be used would be few. I don't think most J. Q. Public types are up to the level of responsibility, accountability and mental acuity required for that type of scenario. Other than being fun to shoot, I don't think there is any other reason for them except serious offensive/defensive shooting.

Marshall
May 5, 2003, 04:56 PM
That's the whole point. I don't want to have pay and buy a liscense! If I want one, I want to be able to to walk in and buy one. Unfortunately, as I said, I can't just cruise down and buy one. Heck, you can't even find anyone who has em on the shelf, brother.

Thumper
May 5, 2003, 06:11 PM
Sure you can.

I understand about not wanting to pay for the tax, but them's the breaks.

But I'm confused now...do you want to buy one of these guns that you don't think you need?

If I give you the email addy of a dealer in Tulsa do I get a finder's fee?

;)

Nightfall
May 5, 2003, 06:57 PM
Well, it isn't up to the government to decide what anybody ‘needs'. Plain and simple.

Next up, simple question. If full-auto isn't a valid choice in civilian use (defense, fun, fighting tyrannical gov't ala the 2nd Amendment, etc.)... why do the police use full-auto weapons? MP5, M4, M249 SAW, etc. Virtually every single LE department in the USA has at least one of the above, especially SWAT teams. If a group of well trained, adequately funded police officers with much backup, military style assets, access to things ranging from flashbangs to the latest in non-lethal equipment, etc. need full-auto when they raid a house in somebody's neighborhood... why do the very people who have to live right next to that ‘dangerous raid target' everyday not ‘need' access to the same to ensure their well being? The group of LEO with all the equipment who will only be there for a few minutes to make a few arrests need a full-auto MP5... but the people who spend their lives in that environment don't deserve the same equipment if the task of self-defense arises?

Something doesn't click when the civilian LEO can produce a ‘need' for these military style weapons, and the very people living in that same place aren't aloud to. :scrutiny:

keyhole
May 5, 2003, 07:21 PM
Mg's are just plain fun to shoot, and having had the chance to do so, I always take it. In response to using them for self defense, BG's do not take into account having to account for all their rounds. LEO's, and the public at large do. By "hosing down" the BG's, and you hit an innocent, you become liable for them. That can be very expensive, not to mention possibly loosing the right,
( not privilage ) to own guns after a legal battle.

Combat-wombat
May 5, 2003, 08:28 PM
Let me put it this way: Look at the American Revolution. The American and British armies were more equal in terms of weaponry. We should keep it that way or we will lose the power to rebel if the government becomes out of hand. We can not fight our modern army with bolt-action hunting rifles!

SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI
May 5, 2003, 08:31 PM
Why do we need automatic weapons? How in the hell do you set up decent fire lanes without them?:p

Intune
May 5, 2003, 09:13 PM
Marshall, you said: “Unless you're military or LE you don't need full auto weapons.”

But then your tag quote is: "We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists."

Patrick Henery

Am I imagining the incongruity of these statements juxtaposition?

I see the rise of tyranny as a matter of degrees which have already begun. It must be done gently, coolly, non-confrontationally, ostensibly towards the betterment of the masses or to protect a weaker segment (the children) of society in order to dupe the great unwashed while they can still wield an armed response.

Write your own "reasons" after these "reasonable" lines... Bah!




No crew-served weapons







No belt-fed weapons







No full auto weapons








No hi-cap mags









No military caliber semi-autos











No semi-autos







No bolt-action repeaters








No single shots over .30 cal.







No handguns












NO NEED!!!!!



Dateline 2203 MidSpring 47
--------------------------- LET FREEDOM RING--------------------------
Big Brother would like to thank the United People of Earth and especially our vaunted security teams (Go Big Blue!) during this year’s Felon Finders drive! Your efforts produced 15 million additional workers for the Pits and took another FIVE thousand Citizen Killer Guns off of our child-filled streets! Citizen Haywood Jablomi of Middle York was the Grand Prize winner, turning in 18 evil Felons and leading authorities to a cache of AUTOKILLERS and SEMISLAYERS! Leave no stone unturned, watch every neighbor and coworker DO IT FOR OUR CHILDREN!


:scrutiny: ========================================= =========:scrutiny:

Combat-wombat
May 6, 2003, 01:42 AM
Is it just me, or does it seem like Yohan almost always causes controversy on this site?

Thumper
May 6, 2003, 08:29 AM
FWIW, I don't think Yohan's a troll.

I think he might suffer from an acute case of Counter Strike-itis, though.
:D

cordex
May 6, 2003, 10:05 AM
Is it just me, or does it seem like Yohan almost always causes controversy on this site?
Nah, he's just searching for his place and sorting out his beliefs. Patience is a good policy with regards to Yohan, I think.

pax
May 6, 2003, 10:11 AM
Hey guys. Stick to the topic, not to personalities.

pax, wearing the "Moderator" hat

If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. -- George S. Patton, Jr.

capnrik
May 6, 2003, 06:49 PM
Guess it's time to dust this one off and get it back out:

Why I Need To Own An M-16?


I am moved to write that as I was thinking how I pitied the rest of the semi-free world
who do not understand liberty. Those having never really had it, and having been
conditioned to reject true freedom and accept the propaganda and false freedom of your
own government, the world media and the UN. Unfortunately many are conditioned to
these evils and have accepted the intellectually void, historically unfounded, "guns are
bad" argument. Anyway, if you can get past your conditioning, here's my response to the
question.

Some of you may ask, “Why you think that it is your god given right to own a weapon
that was specifically designed to cause harm."

Let's start with a little history. About 230 years ago, some incredibly gifted, wealthy,
slave-owning white guys looked at Western Civilization and undertook what is
undoubtedly the most radical, profound political revolution ever conceived.

Despite what the history books say, it really wasn't about taxes, or troops in people's
homes, or the price of tea or any of that crap. These men were British subjects, but taxes
were lower in the colonies than in England at the time of the Revolution, there was
unprecedented freedom, particularly on the frontier, and these guys were generally the
wealthy elite who could have been colonial governors if they had chosen to. They could
have afforded to drink tea until they were urinating pure caffeine.

Another misconception was that it was a popular revolution. I don't remember who said it,
but one of those old dead white guys said that the colonists were divided roughly into
thirds, one third loyalist, one third ambivalent, and one third revolutionary (sound
familiar?). It took years of coercion and propaganda to motivate the general public to take
up arms against the Britts.

What was our Revolution all about then? These guys realized, 2000 miles from their ruling
country that they had an unprecedented opportunity to revolt and form a radical new
self-government, where political power was vested in the People themselves, not in a
ruling class.

It was an ideological revolution that is still radical today, with the Constitution as the
Blueprint for Freedom. In this system, individual liberty is the beginning and end of all
government activity. That is to say, government powers are only supposed to extend so
far, and only with the permission of the governed. Ideally, where my rights as a citizen
begin, the powers of government come to an abrupt halt. Conversely, the primary function
of government is to guarantee my liberties, hence the Bill of Rights. So what we have is an
incredibly radical new power structure, one not truly duplicated anywhere else in the
world.

So how does this explain why I need an M-16?

What the founding fathers knew, and so many of the "People" have forgotten today(or
never learned), is that Power is a zero sum game. If I have it, then the government doesn't,
and vice versa. Even many pro-gun citizens miss the point and we allow ourselves to be
distracted with "rights" issues, that while they exist, aren't specifically addressed by the
Constitution (right to hunt, right to self-defense, etc.)

The Constitution, the Blueprint for Freedom, and the Bill of Rights, the non-expiring
guarantee of liberty, are about one thing: Power. So don't get confused by other issues
here. If this is a country where Power is truly vested in the People, and the government is
LIMITED by the Constitution, then my ownership of an AR-15 is off limits to the
government. The Second Amendment guarantees my Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and
the Constitution limits the government to very specific, narrow activities, which does not
include regulating guns. So, not only is this right specifically reserved to the People (or,
even with a loose interpretation, the states), it also falls outside of the boundaries outlined
in the Constitution for the Federal Govt.

It’s a double whammy.

Why is it so important to us? Some people fear a tyrannical government taking over (some
think they're "paranoid", despite so many historical lessons that could fill several books;
but that's another topic). But most, I believe, are more like me. We still believe in the
Revolution and its ideals. We ARE Revolutionaries. Power is vested in ME, as a citizen,
and not in the government. It cannot be taken without my permission, which I do not give.
Remember, it’s a zero sum game, so if the government can infringe those liberties, then
liberty really doesn't exist at all, except in theory.

Well, I don't want theoretical freedom. I want the real stuff.

So some argue we still have freedom of the press and the rest of it, why the big deal over
guns? Well, the Bill of Rights is not a buffet. We don't get to pick and choose. I don't like
liberal neo-Socialist rhetoric, but I'm not calling for the abolishment of free speech, am I?
Because I know that the First Amendment is also about Power - the Power of information
(much deadlier than guns, in the right hands, by the way. Case in point, Hitler, whose
propaganda machine convinced the Germans to commit unthinkable atrocities; but I
digress).

Many of us here in the U.S. see the slow, steady, reversal of our Power structure. Our
rights are becoming more "theoretical" all the time. Anyone see the Dateline NBC story on
the Louisiana police who are confiscating cars and money from out of state motorists,
without a trial (due process) and are not even charging them with a crime or arresting
them? How about the IRS, which has the power to confiscate just about anything you own
with the wave of a bureaucrat’s pen. Both of these are examples of activities strictly
forbidden by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet it happens all the time and there are
many more examples beyond these.

So you see, it's not just the Second Amendment where the reversal of Power is evident.
Anymore, it seems that the Constitution is just a shell and government doesn't exist for the
people, rather the people (taxpayers) exist for the government. If you’ve never been an
American, that's a subtle distinction you may miss, but it’s the whole ball of wax to us.

So, like the colonists at Lexington and Concord, this is the issue where we choose to
make our stand. Not over taxes, which are atrocious or unreasonable search and seizure,
which is rampant, or the separation of powers (who said Clinton could declare war all by
himself, anyway?) or any of that other stuff, but over my Assault Rifle. Why? Because like
our forefathers (80 civilians on a bridge against 1800 regular troops! How committed
were they?), we realize it’s the foundation of Real Power. Without a weapon capable of
providing adequate resistance to overthrow an unjust, tyrannical, unConstitutional
government, the rest of those rights truly are hollow, no longer belong to the people, and
can be rescinded at any time by the government (many feel we're already at that point). At
that point they are no longer rights. They're privileges. Once again, a subtle difference sure
to escape those of you who think more “liberally”, given your "conditioning".

If the government can take my Assault Rifle, or restrict the amount of ammunition it
holds, or restrict further purchases of "Assault Weapons" then the revolution is dead and
so are the ideals countless thousands have died for. There's a reason for the Second
Amendment and gun ownership (ESPECIALLY assault rifles), a reason those colonists on
that bridge understood; its the last of my rights to go.

THAT'S why I need an Assault Rifle.

Some will not really understand any of this, which only serves to make my point. If you
don't get it, you're really not free, and I pity you.

(Oh, one more thing. I'll address God as well. My "God given rights" are described in the
Constitution as "inalienable". Look it up in the dictionary.)

Be free.

Yohan
May 6, 2003, 10:07 PM
Combat-Wombat
If I was a troll I wouldn't have said this-

Why would civilians ever need automatic guns? Plinking comes to mind, but is there anything else besides? Home defense? Let's hear the reasons. I'm not condeming automatic weapon, just hoping to gain some more insight. Why would someone pay so much for a gun we can just as easily rent at a range? A good conversational piece? Bragging rights? Are there any practical reasons I may not be aware of ?

Instead, I might have written something along the lines of
"Why in the world do people need automatic weapons? People have absolutely no need for automatic weapons and they smell like poo!"

I knew this would be somewhat of a controversial topic, which was why I was careful about phrasing. Just as it states, I was interested in practical uses of automatic weapons for civilian application. It's sad to see people get offended by igorance, but they usually waste all of the their energy typing out an anger filled rant with no logic or something, so it all works out in the end. Well, since I MUST be a troll, I'll just go hide under my bridge now. ;) :p

Frohickey
May 6, 2003, 10:45 PM
Why do we NEED automatic guns?

As a recent 9th circuit court justice wrote: "The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.
When the government fear the people, you have freedom.

I want the government to fear the people.

amprecon
May 6, 2003, 11:10 PM
capnrik, I don't know you, but you are now my friend. What you wrote detailed my sentiments exactly.

Yohan,
I would like to have a select fire weapon, why? Because it's what my potential enemies will have. The automatic rifle is not a doomsday device, it is not a weapon of mass destruction.

It does have it's applications, but the point is that why would I not have the same level of effectiveness as our regular army counterparts? The people are the militia, every able bodied man and woman, we are all responsible for the protection of our country and communities.

How are we supposed to effectively combat the enemy without the option of a full-automatic weapon? Not to say it couldn't be done, but full-auto fire does make suppression easier.

I believe that the majority of Americans are good and descent people, if not our country would have been doomed a long time ago. The criminals are now mostly concentrated in prisons and in our house of representatives and other elected positions.

Like it was said before, Tommy guns were readily ordered through the mail. Now I don't know how many were actually bought, because even at the "low" price it was still too expensive for most during the time.

But as easy as they were to acquire, history does not describe how Americans turned out in droves to cut each other down. Sure there were those that broke the law and became infamous with the tommy gun, but on a per capita basis, their notoriety far out distanced their numbers.

So, because of these few criminals, the goverment broke the law and passed an illegitimate law making acquisition of automatic weapons very, very difficult. Obviously, the gov't decided that those that had money were better trusted to have automatic weapons since only they could afford to purchase and license them.

It's funny that they don't trust us to have automatic weapons, but they trust us enough to vote them into office. What's ironic is that we're constantly and consistantly financing our own demise.

chas_martel
May 7, 2003, 12:19 AM
Yohan,

Have you ever shot a title 2 weapon?

I notice you are located in Dallas. It is easily within the realm of posibility for you to sample the firearms which you are talking 'bout.

Interested?

Charles

Drjones
May 7, 2003, 04:17 AM
Several here have said the 2A "isn't about hunting or Self-Defense."

Explain these:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson


"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion in private self defense"

- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States of America, 1788


... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

- WILSON V. STATE, 33 Ark. 557 (1878)


"Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1785


"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


:confused:

Sam Adams
May 8, 2003, 02:44 AM
Capnrik:

What an absolutely OUTSTANDING response to Yohan's original question (of course, you ARE a Texan). Had your response come immediately after his question, we wouldn't have a 4-page thread.

You are right - the ability to own a weapon the equal of the armed forces' standard infantry weapon is about nothing more and nothing less than the still-radical idea of LIBERTY. Those who value true liberty want to reduce the power of the government over the People in every way possible - whether it has to do with the level of taxation, the extent of regulations or REAL power, i.e. naked force of arms. And you are assuredly correct that without the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment, all of the rest of our rights could be illegally infringed at the whim of any tyrant or oligarchy willing to dispense with the pretense of legality.

Yohan:

The simple answer to your original question appears above. The longer, more accurate answer appears in Capnrik's posting.

In summary: No guns = no liberty; less guns = less liberty; less liberty = less means to slow, stop or reverse the slide toward no guns and, hence, no liberty. We The People need to have full auto weapons in sizeable numbers (in the multi-millions) in order to deter any potential tyranny or, if necessary, to overthrow any actual tyranny. The Founding Fathers would already have revolted - it just goes to show how much courage has been lost over the past 227 years.

By the way, I'd still sincerely like an answer to the questions I posed in the 2nd post on page 4 of this thread. I know that you posed your original question as a thought experiment, as bait to catch a bunch of comments of all stripes. Well, I posed my questions in the same spirit (though maybe I got a bit personal in my answering of my semi-rhetorical questions). Take them as legitimate questions - they are. Of greatest interest to me is your answer to "Why do we have less rights than our grandfathers?"

Peace to all; pray for Gorski's success in the Silveira appeal - it is our best (and perhaps only) hope of ever being able to buy full auto guns over the counter without background checks, just like gramps could have done.

LiquidTension
May 8, 2003, 07:05 AM
I NEED full autos because they are like crack. Just as addictive, twice as fun!

capnrik
May 8, 2003, 09:36 AM
Sam Adams, thanks for the kind words. I should make clear that I am not the author, just the cut and paster. But I certainly agree that it is a fine piece, whoever wrote it.

foghornl
May 8, 2003, 09:46 AM
In My Humble Opinion Only:

I think the next terr attack against the US may very well come from some sort of water-borne invasion. And since I live less than 2 miles from the coast of Lake Erie, and within 15 miles of SEVERAL nuclear power plants......

thrifty7
May 8, 2003, 12:40 PM
The quick answer to any question from an anti that starts out with "Why do you need....." is : "Because I want to be better armed than the criminals." Shuts 'em right up.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do we need automatic guns?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!