[Monkeyleg]

Today I stopped by the office of a business associate. Our talk eventually turned, as it often does, to RKBA.

To give some background on this fellow: while I was trying to get into Mary Jane _____'s purty pink panties, he was over in VietNam, at first with the infantry and then again as Special Forces. (Yes, I've verified this).

Anyway, he loves the idea of concealed carry, keeps a home defense gun, does some shooting and believes in much of what I do.

However, he has a problem with the idea of people being able to go out and buy full-autos without a background check (we're talking hypotheticals here: my beliefs versus his). His position is that he's seen what M16's, M60's and other full-autos can do, and doesn't want them in the hands of just anyone, especially idiots and criminals.

I pointed to his Ford Explorer and explained how many people he could run down with one of those, and how any idiot or criminal could buy one. His response was that an M16 or M60 would do a lot more damage.

I also mentioned that, prior to the NFA of 1934, civilians weren't that interested in full-auto's, perhaps due to the cost of ammo and that, even with civilian possession being legal in most of the country, there still aren't that many sold.

He remained unconvinced, and replied that things have changed with regard to bad guys since 1934, a point that's hard to argue, since we do have more shooters than in days past.

At this point I was just about out of ammo. He's been there, I haven't. He's not opposed to permits, registration and so on, even though I think I made a convincing case for the "confiscation follows registration" argument. He wonders why the hardline gun owners won't compromise.

I'll be seeing this guy tomorrow. Any suggestions on how to "flip" him? (I think he's close to being ready).

[brownie0486]

Monkeyleg:

Flip him? I think he has the right ideas here.

See the thread on this forum about the same subject, be prepared to read many pages of back and forth. It's starts about suppressors and twists and turns to this area of your post.

I'm with him on the point of checks, especially for autos for the same reasons. Could have something to do with having served in the same country and seeing the same things.

Brownie

[bogie]

At the same time, anyone who can be trusted with possesion of a "standard" firearm can be trusted with a buzzgun. The fact that the thing can fire more than one round with a trigger pull is only mechanical. The enactor, in this case the brain that sends the signal to the finger to squeeze the trigger, is what drives the action.

Besides, they're fun to shoot at bowling pins.

[Triad]

Ask him to explain the difference in lethality between the bullet fired from a semi auto AR15 and a full auto M16.

Personally I would simply ask whether or not he can understand that a firearm is nothing more than an inanimate object and that what it is used for is dependant on the motives of the person using it. If he can't understand that any effort on your part is wasted.

There are no deadly weapons, only deadly people.

[bogie]

Oh yeah - I'm a _much_ better shot with my bolt action rifles than I am with a buzzgun - With an M-16, I may scare something to death, or basically accidentally hit it, but at 200 yards plus, it's a crap shoot.

I can consistently hit a silver dollar (one of the new ones, thankyouverymuch) at 200 yards with my bolt guns.

But I like buzzguns too.

[Hkmp5sd]

It's real hypothetical since, with the exception of private party transfers in some states, everyone gets the instant background check at a minimum.

The easiest argument is that criminals do not buy guns at gun stores. Most of their guns either come from the black market or they do a straw purchase with someone that can pass a background check.

Any criminal in the United States that wants a machinegun can have one within 24 hours. Just like any doper that wants some, can go on the street and find crack cocaine. If they cannot find a "factory" original machinegun, they can buy a semi and have it converted in a few hours.

The fact that a law abiding citizen could walk into a gun store and purchase a machinegun over the counter would have no bearing on the criminal's acquisition of a machinegun.

Since we're doing hypotheticals, if some magic wand was waved and every illegal machinegun in the US vanished and it became physically impossible to convert a semi to full-auto, the criminal could still get a machinegun if he wants one.

He can ambush a LEO he knows has one and take it. He can steal one from a government armory. He could find some LEO or military person that's willing to sell him one that they have access to. He can get someone with a clean record to purchase a NFA weapon for him. The person simply reports it "stolen" after he leaves.

The reason there are not that many criminals walking around with machineguns isn't because of the lack of a source. It is because a machinegun is not the weapon of choice for a criminal, just as the so-called "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon" never was the weapon of choice for criminals.

The weapon of choice for the majority of criminals has been, and for the foreseeable future will be, a handgun.

[Standing Wolf]

A gun's a gun's a gun.

[Chris Rhines]

You're going about the argument the wrong way. You already have the pre-existing right to own the weapon of your choice. The question you should ask him is, by what right does he claim to determine what property you get to own?

If you have the right to own that Ford Explorer, you have the right to own that machinegun. It's the same right.

- Chris

[cordex]

f you have the right to own that Ford Explorer, you have the right to own that machinegun. It's the same right
Yup. And the same responsibility for what you do with it.

[gunsmith]

what burns me up is that people like richard allen davis
the guy who raped & killed 12yr old polly klass never ever used a gun in his crimes. he always used a car to kidnap girls and rape them.
yet when he got out of jail for rape & kidnap for a 4th time
he was able to get a car to go do it again:cuss:
if libs want us to go thru hoops for our rights then why do they
not insist that violent felons never possess a drivers license?
:fire:
getting a machine gun should be no more difficult then
getting a concealed carry permit.
restricting our access to them while allowing Iraqi's to own
them stinks!!!
no dictator would ever allow the subjected people to
own a machine gun. I don't need to have to prove my need for any gun,my permit , the 2nd amendment says I have the right to own any gun....
lets take away the most commonly used tool of the criminal
CARS!!!!
(PS...DO NOT USE MY ARGUMENT WITH YOUR FRIEND I AM YELLING TO MUCH:neener: )

[gunsmith]

You have a God-given Right to protect and defend yourself,
your family and your property.

Americans are now suffering wide spread attacks by government agencies failing to respect their Right of self protection as secured by constitutional law. _ Your Right to own a gun is inalienable. _ Any and all other legislative enactments to the contrary, that are designed to erode, undermine or attrite that Right are invalid, immoral and an invitation to massive non-compliance by the people._ The Second Amendment was not intended to guarantee your bird hunting, or for states to maintain militias._ The Second Amendment was and is intended to guarantee an individual's Right to protect his God-given Rights from abuse of government power under the color of authority._ Governments that disarm their citizens do so only for the purpose of unlawfully controlling them by force. Like other criminals, they do not want armed victims questioning their power to steal your money and property.
http://www.guncite.com/
Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has ever been used in crime, and that was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
---


__

[WonderNine]

Honestly I think that a semi-auto is alot more dangerous in the wrong hands than a full-auto. But then I also realize that criminals will get whatever they want anyways and there are many things out there as destructive or much more destructive than an M-16. Like you said his vehicle could easily be used as a deadly weapon. You could run over just as many people on a crowded street as you could shoot. And they don't restrict the sale of ammonium nitrate and the Ryder truck which Tim McVeigh used to blow up 300 people. Or the boxcutters that terrorists used to murder 3,000. I oppose all gun control. It's illogical and a huge waste of tax dollars.

[brownie0486]

WonderNine: You have stated that you think semi auto is a lot more dangerous than full auto in the wrong hands.

I would like you to explain the reasoning behind that statement if you would please.

This should be good for another 10 pages of debate alone.

Brownie

[bogie]

Spraying looks impressive. Aiming works.

[gunsmith]

IF YOUR LUCKY
survive a single .223 round at 100 yrds.
It seems to me a 45/70 guide gun
would do alot more damage...

[Airboss]

From 1934 when the NFA(National Firearms Act ) became law.
One count them one Crime has been committed with a Machine Gun That was on the NFA registry.ie. a legal Machine Gun.
By the way the perp in that case was a LEO.The LEO shot a snitch.
If past history is anything to go by,The Machine Gun owning public in this country are the most law abiding group in the United States.
ALL the Class 3 in my safe have killed fewer people than Ted Kenedy's Car.In 69 years the class 3 community has committed fewer crimes than members of congress do in any one year period or for that matter LEOs.
Here is a suggestion Lets regulate Congress critters and let everyone have Class 3 Weapons Statisticly we would be safer.

[Hkmp5sd]

Lets regulate Congress critters and let everyone have Class 3 Weapons

Has my vote!

[Chris Rhines]

Lets regulate Congress critters and let everyone have Class 3 Weapons Does this mean we eventually get to confiscate them? :D

- Chris

[brownie0486]

Chris Rhines:

Interjecting humor here was good.
LMAO

Brownie

[Baba Louie]

Flame suit on... check

Maybe he has a valid point.

Don't you just love to watch the mid-eastern types celebrate the moment by going outdoors and letting loose a full magazine whilst holding the gun "safely" upwards into the evening/morning air, expressing their joy?

Why, that'd never happen here in the good old US of A if Class III was available and no restrictions were applied.

Right?

Of course, I would never do such a thing, but with my luck the bozo down the street or two blocks over just might... on New Years Eve or the 4th of July or at his daughters/nieces wedding.

Hate to have a 14 year old take one of his daddy's M-16/Mac-10's to school to get even with someone who wronged him. But that never happens here either...

Right?

Might thin out the gene pool tho'.

Adios

[cordex]

Don't you just love to watch the mid-eastern types celebrate the moment by going outdoors and letting loose a full magazine whilst holding the gun "safely" upwards into the evening/morning air, expressing their joy?

Why, that'd never happen here in the good old US of A if Class III was available and no restrictions were applied.

Right?
Happens now with semi-auto, bolt-action, lever-action, slide-action and break action weapons. Falling bullets don't damage things worse because they're launched from a machine gun. And there aren't necessarily more.
Of course, I would never do such a thing, but with my luck the bozo down the street or two blocks over just might... on New Years Eve or the 4th of July or at his daughters/nieces wedding.

Hate to have a 14 year old take one of his daddy's M-16/Mac-10's to school to get even with someone who wronged him. But that never happens here either...

Right?
And that'd be worse than having the bully blown away with a 12 gauge blast to the head ... how?

It's the crime, not the tool.

You were being sarcastic, though ...
Right?

[Monkeyleg]

What's the difference between firing twelve roughly .22 diameter shotgun pellets instantly with one pull of the trigger and firing twenty .22 diameter bullets in a few seconds' time? Plus, with the shotgun you can fire multiple shells very quickly. In just a very few seconds you can launch dozens of shotgun pellets and, if your patterning is right on, you stand a better chance of hitting your target with all of them than with a full-auto.

[brownie0486]

00 bck will spread a pattern from a modified choke at about 1" per 3 feet [ 1 yd. ].

At the average room distance of 12 feet, the pattern is roughly 4 inches, 15 feet would be about 5 inch spread pattern.

Lets see, all those .22 cal balls inside 5 inches at across the room. Now full auto spraying the room would not be over those diameters?

Really now, that logic just went out the window hey?

Brownie

[cuchulainn]

1) What Chris Rhines said: The burden of proof is on those who favor government control ... at least it ought to be in a free country.

2) With all due respect to Vietnam vets, his tours over there are 100% irrelevant to whether he's right on this question. Some vets favor gun control; some don't. People come away from combat with differing opinions about guns ... same as everyone else. Tell him that you respect his service, but don't let him use it as an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.

[Specialized]

The framers of our constitution made it abundantly clear in the 2nd Amendment that, should the need ever arise (again), the people should have the ability to defend themselves from, on an equal footing, a government that has gotten out of control. That means having the same weapons, and at least access to the same or similar training. At that time, it was a more serviceable assumption than today, because the state of the art in fired weaponry was simple and individual-oriented, consisting of handguns, rifles, shotguns, and cannon. The average citizen or private organization would be hard-pressed to afford the cost of state-of-the-art today, much less the training.

That being said, I have no problem with volatile background checks (where one's information is checked, but no record of the inquiry survives the event) to ensure that those who have proven themselves unable to or unworthy of owning/carrying a weapon don't get an opportunity to buy one. That is, I believe, necessary to the survival of any society, because there will always be those who cannot or will not handle such privileges responsibly. Even though those same people have the same God-given right to self-defense as every other creature on the planet, their rights to control their own destiny in such a situation must be tempered by their negative impact on the rights of those other, more law-abiding citizens in their midst.

If all this sounds very us-against-them, we should probably keep in mind that, at least on some level, it is. Our government isn't some big nameless, faceless, inhuman mass, it's an organization of people, just like us, that we have empowered to represent the whole of us. It is not at all inconceivable that the checks and balances we have put in place through the years could be overridden or declared invalid by those same people; history has shown that our human nature leads to this on a fairly frequent basis. To our way of life the last line of defense is, therefore, the citizenry of the country -- you and me.

For the same reason that nearly every state in the union, through prodding by their inhabitants, has come to realize the value of having a personally-carried firearm for protection instead of expecting the police to be everywhere at once, peoples must have the ability to overcome ill-conceived or ill-intentioned governments. If your friend believes that his proximity to battle and service to his country somehow makes his opinion more weighty than yours, feel free to point out this forum and some of the veterans that post our opinions here. I for one would be more than happy to show him an alternative viewpoint, and having walked the same mile as he has, maybe we could express it to him in terms that are more in line with his experiences and world view. Otherwise, I don't see where your opinion is any less important or learned than his. And given his experiences, I would think he would have learned more from them that he apparently did.

Just my opinion. As with all opinions, your mileage may vary.

Specialized

[cordex]

Lets see, all those .22 cal balls inside 5 inches at across the room. Now full auto spraying the room would not be over those diameters?

Really now, that logic just went out the window hey?
Okay, brownie, tell me ... in your years of training and military service, were you ever taught to spray rooms randomly as a way of being effective with a full-auto? Or were you taught to keep tight groups on individual targets and use burst control to keep from wasting ammo?

Think of a shotgun as a weapon with dedicated, adjustable burst-fire and it all comes into focus.

[geegee]

With all due respect to Vietnam vets, his tours over there are 100% irrelevant to whether he's right on this question. Some vets favor gun control; some don't. People come away from combat with differing opinions about guns ... same as everyone else. Tell him that you respect his service, but don't let him use it as an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.
I've heard that one used too often: "I know what those can do", or in other words, "You have no military service, so your opinion on this weighty issue is irrelevant." :fire: The lack of logic of that argument is too easy to overcome, yet sounds so "enlightened" and is usually delivered in such a condescending manner.

OTOH, it's interesting that most of the anti-gun legislators in Congress are not gun owners, yet are seen as the ideal class of people to write gun legislation, e.g. Hillary and Schumer. :banghead: geegee

[Monkeyleg]

brownie0486, from my admittedly poor knowledge of firearms history, I recall that the purpose of the shotgun and the machinegun are pretty much the same: to deliver multiple hits to the target as fast as possible. The end purpose is to deliver maximum trauma and shock to the target.

I don't know about your patterning, but I want a 8" or so pattern with 00 buck at 50 to 75 feet. Two or three shells, and that's a lot of holes.

At my best with my Thompson (and, I'm a bit proud to say I was a good shot with it), I could put all 50 rounds into a 3' patterning target at 50 feet. And the holes were pretty well dispersed.

[brownie0486]

I was taught to spray rooms with at least one partner as well as many other entry techniques.
Never entering alone under those conditions.

I know of no instance where an entry team has ever had to use that technique. Domestically speaking.

Shotguns were covered pretty extensively with Binelli's. I know the spread patterns in room distances and the damage they cause, say at 9-16 feet, and no question it's effective and has been used as first through the door for entry work.

IMO, if the room needs sweeping, [ I assume your "spray rooms" meant sweeping ] it would require two to be effective with a good operator on the scatter as one of them.

One of either going in is foolish if it those conditions. Sweeping is indiscriminate offense.
Have never heard it happening domestically.

Tight groups with burst control 3 at a time in an urban setting. Scatters have their place in the scheme of things.

If I'm sweeping with the sub I have 30 rds of 9mm to spend in a big arc at the entrance/doorway. If I have the scatter I have perhaps 6 for the same arc. At 15 feet, each 00 will open up at the widest point 5 inches. Closer and less one inch for every 3 feet. You have 30 inches of death at the maximum distances and less usually as not all inside will be at the far walls of the arc.

When the sub runs dry, the reload is one second to up and running for another 30. The scatter really can't be reloaded and must be dropped to continue with something else if we are then moving inmto the room.

Hope that answered your question.

Brownie

[brownie0486]

Monkeyleg:

I gave a scenario a few minutes ago relative what I thought someone said about sweeping rooms.

At 75 feet your pattern will be 25 inches. You want 8 inch patterns stay aroud 25 feet. The scatter will cover a man at the shoulders left to right at about 54 feet. Certainly still enough on him at 75 feet to probably put him down if the shot pattern and hold keep the cone of fire centered perfectly left to right.

80% of a 20 rd mag from a thompson at 75 feet all day on a suit coat on a hanger from a pole if I have myself planted right.

I like the toys as well.

Brownie

[Hal]

Sweeping is indiscriminate offense. Have never heard it happening domestically.

'bout a year ago. SWAT team member hunkered down, reached up over above his head and kind of off to the side/backwards,,poked his MP5 into a window and hosed down the living room,,,changed the magazine and repeated it. You can search over at TFL for the incident.

I forget the entire context of the post. IIRC, it was about some guy that shot one of the LEO's at his front door responding to a DV/possible suicide(?), then retreated into the house. SWAT was called in, and things turned ugly. (uglier?)

[brownie0486]

Hal:
I would assume he had some form of intel to determine he was in the home alone. Otherwise it wasn't a smart ploy.

Did the article say whether he hit anything in the room?

Thanks for the headsup.

I know a line officer that pretty much did the same thing with his glock 17 through a window, then found out innocents were in the room when they cleared it. No accounting for somes actions whether they wear the blue or are non LE.

Brownie

[mercedesrules]

He thinks he's better than you. Shun him. He's one of "them".

MR

[brownie0486]

mercedesrules:

I'd prefer you just say thankyou for the service they provided to this country in protecting your freedoms and be on your way myself.

Yup, one of "them". Thats what you call people who have different views than yourself. The old us vs. them mentality.

Brownie

[mercedesrules]

(Brownie0486) I'd prefer you just say thankyou for the service they provided to this country in protecting your freedoms and be on your way myself.

He's for gun control, so evidently he didn't fight to protect my rights. He fought to protect his.

Yup, one of "them". Thats what you call people who have different views than yourself. The old us vs. them mentality.

Exactly. It's called a debate. You're for gun control, I'm not.

MR

[Don Gwinn]

I've held my peace until now, but I have to respond to that, Brownie. Mercedesrules is being too divisive for your taste? Why was it acceptable (and correct) for the original subject of this thread to tell a friend that since he was one of "them" (cake-eating civilian who had not "seen what those can do" in Vietnam) his opinion on the matter was less worthy and his right to keep and bear arms irrelevant?

After all, it was apparently the height of bad form for Mercedesrules to comment on "them" (people who think they're better than the rest of us and deserve to make our choices for us) in response.

Please reconcile those two positions for me.

[brownie0486]

Hi Don,

I have gone over the thread here twice now and see nowhere I stated it was acceptable for the vet to state that position as well.

Likewise, in reading what Monkeyleg stated in the original posting about the vets comments I did not see him mention the vet making that statement. I have reread it twice and don't see it if it is there.

If you are referring to the vets reported comment about "seen what those can do" I still see no reference to the vet making that statement. I took that quoted remark as an explanation for the vets opinion on civilians owning them. No more or less.

If you are indeed referring to that quote in the first post about the vets comment and that you took it as an us vs. them attitude when he said it, that would be your opinion on the comment. I don't see where the vet was making it an us vs them by the quote [ above ] alone but you may certainly have taken it that way.

As to whether he meant what you suggest or he meant what I thought the comment came from in his thought process I can't say.

I can say I don't look at it as an us vs. them problem. I don't agree with that attitude but certainly others may have no issues with it. I don't agree with it because I feel that delineates us as a nation and creates another set of barriers/hurdles to overcome to come to terms with each others ideology.

Where I'm concerned, due to the LE background, where I hear it more often from brother officers [ who really do have an us vs them attitude all to often for my taste], I don't hang with the us vs them crowd in "blue". Their attitudes are not to my liking and in that venue I see too many with that attitude who abuse their position and force their prejudices on the public.

I have many issues with the boys I have been forced to work with over the years on different depts. I believe that we need to be objective in our actions and too many [ for my taste ]police officers and even admin at times have the impression it is us vs them on the streets, which it is not. I think it is a jaded view and not one prone to objectiveness.

It [ the us vs them thought process ] also leads to dicrimination which comes with its own set of issues.

Though I am not sure I have given you an adequate answer to your questions, I hope that clarifies a liitle further my feelings on the us vs them comment in mercedesrules post.

The us vs them can be used for about any scenario.
The vets vs non vets
The haves vs the havenots
The liberals vs the conservatives
Etc, etc, etc.

I don't agree with the thought process behind it as I feel it is counter-productive.

There is one us vs them I do believe in [ there may be a few more but not right off the top of my head ]. Thats when it concerns the safety of the US and it's citizens from those who would do us harm.

Even vets who have been there and done that have been known to return to the country they fought in as soldiers and come to terms with the former enemy. I would not be one of them but I understand their point of view whether I agree with it or not.

Brownie

[Monkeyleg]

Brownie, the vet I was talking to wasn't presenting his argument as an "us versus them" position. He essentially was questioning why some folks--like me--think there should be no restrictions on weapons that he feels are much more destructive than others. It's a valid question, but I was unable to convince him of my position. The next time I'm in his office, I'm going to invite him to THR for further "education." ;)

By the way, while not questioning your experience and training with subguns and shotguns, I have to question your statement about 25" patterns at 75 feet. Because it's been awhile since I took my shotgun out for practice, I went back to The Firing Line to find an old post of mine and the response from another member.

Here it is:

************************
Well, I finally had a chance to pattern the PMC 9 pellet 00 buck. At fifty feet, the best grouping was with a modified choke on my M1S90. Groups ran about 8-9" including the one or two flyers with each shell. Without the flyers the groups were 6-8." Is that acceptable, or can I do better?

Thanks for any replies.


__________________
Dick

TFL Alumni



10-11-2001 04:18 PM

Dave R
Senior Member

Registered: 01-07-2000
Location:
Posts: 3174

I get best groupings with modified choke, too. 8-9 inches at 50 ft. sounds pretty acceptable to me.
*************************

[brownie0486]

It's a mystery to me as well. 50 feet would have been 16" on the Benellis so thats twice the area opened up on your results.

The Benellis at HK held 1" every three feet out to the furthest distance shot which was 18 feet in the rooms. They used a 20 inch tube.

I like your results better though. How long a barrel on yours, do you know what the other gentlemans barrel length was? I don't know if that would make a difference or not. Chokes were the same.

Thanks for the info, I think I'll call HK next week to see if they have an answer.

As to the vet, thats the way I read/interpreted it also.

Brownie

[Double Naught Spy]

Monkeyleg, why do you feel it necessary to convert this guy to being pro citizen machinegun ownership? Why does it matter to you what this guy thinks?

In all due respect, it sounds like this guy has the background and understanding to make the judgement he has made. You may not agree with it, but he is making an informed decision. It might be another matter if this person was just some liberal spouting a party line on a topic about which he had no direct knowledge, but this guy does have knowledge and direct experience.

[Monkeyleg]

Double Naught: it's really not a matter of converting the guy to the idea of making full-auto's available at every gun shop. As much as he likes guns, as much as he did honorable service for our country, and as much as he is a thinking man, he still cannot understand the problem that "radical groups" like the NRA have with licensing and registration.

He doesn't see the connection that most members of THR see: licensing=registration=confiscation. Much as I've described those scenarios being played out in CA, NY, IL and the British Colonies, he doesn't believe me.

Certainly I can understand how a veteran arrived home from a terrible war would want nothing to do with weapons; I've met many veterans who feel the same way.

But, as I said, this guy wants to be able to buy, own, and carry a gun for the protection of himself and family. He's not Josh Sugarman.

He just doesn't understand or believe what Josh Sugarman has in mind.