Full Auto ban tyranny?


PDA






shephard19
March 6, 2010, 01:40 AM
If we as civilians are supposed to be the true militia of our states shoudn't we have access to full auto? The ban on anything new after 86' is obviously intended to phase it out completely out of private hands except for the extremly rich.

If you enjoyed reading about "Full Auto ban tyranny?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jcwit
March 6, 2010, 01:51 AM
With this logic should we also not have RPG's and Mortars at our disposal?

Lets return to the real world.

BlayGlock
March 6, 2010, 01:54 AM
I think it is a fair question to ask. Just where should we draw the line and why?

jcwit
March 6, 2010, 02:17 AM
The line has already been drawn!

Bobarino
March 6, 2010, 02:40 AM
the line may be redrawn after a series of long and drawn out court battles that find their way to the Supreme Court and maybe, just maybe, strict scrutiny will be applied and the Miller case will be applied to mean what it says about weapons in common use at the time. if it does happen that way, it will be many years in the making.

Bobby

Shung
March 6, 2010, 02:46 AM
With this logic should we also not have RPG's and Mortars at our disposal?

yeah, I like this logic.. and this logic certainly match the meaning of the 2nd amendment..

N003k
March 6, 2010, 03:20 AM
With this logic should we also not have RPG's and Mortars at our disposal?

Lets return to the real world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, can't we ALREADY, by jumping through similar hoops to getting a MG? Just with the added effort of jumping through identical hoops for each explosive round too. I could be wrong, don't know THAT much about the NFA...but was fairly sure that was the case...

Also, why not?

If you're not gonna shoot a semi auto AR-15 illegally, you're not gonna shoot a FA AR-15 illegally, you're not gonna shoot an RPG illegally, you're not gonna fire a mortar illegally, you're not gonna drive a tank/fire a tanks weapons illegally, etc, etc. Why limit what those that already obey the law can own? Especially since I'm fairly sure it's all still legal, just with annoying hurdles to jump though...

General Geoff
March 6, 2010, 03:56 AM
With this logic should we also not have RPG's and Mortars at our disposal?

Absolutely we do (or at least should).

danprkr
March 6, 2010, 06:47 AM
If we as civilians are supposed to be the true militia of our states shoudn't we have access to full auto?

Yes. A full auto ban is a step into tyranny. Granted a small one, but maybe the most dangerous one in that it opens the gate to strip us of our ability to fight the next steps taken into tyranny. Until eventually there is no freedom.

EddieNFL
March 6, 2010, 07:21 AM
With this logic should we also not have RPG's and Mortars at our disposal?

Lets return to the real world.
There is a vast difference in safety/storage requirements of smalls arms ammunition versus HE warheads.

The antis love this attitude. If they can gradually educate (brainwash) folks into believing certain firearms are bad, they will eventually win.

Little bites go down easier than large chucks.

MisterMike
March 6, 2010, 07:25 AM
Tyranny? Do you really feel that we're ruled by tyrants? Or is it that collectively, through democratic process, we've gotten what we asked for?

That's a serious question . . . so often the claims of tyranny and oppression I read hear ignore the fact that we elect our legislators. Ultimately, it seems that we've gotten what we've asked for, or acquiesced to.

Mp7
March 6, 2010, 07:37 AM
i find it far fetched.

While guns dont kill people
unless people pull triggers ...

with fullautos everywhere you donīt
have to be a genius to assume it will
not make the country safer or more democratic
if everyone could use full auto.

02$.

Gouranga
March 6, 2010, 07:38 AM
We have gotten here by complacency. The silent majority will always be ignored because it is silent.

As for full auto ban. I understand where you are coming from but IMO, i have always been fine with the full auto "ban". My concern with these weapons is that they are a lot different to use properly than semis they really require the handler to have training. If I screw up with my 40 I will fire 1 single shot which is worse enough. And AD with a FA could be much worse.

Keep in mind I live in a subdivision with lots just under 1 acre. For those who live more rural you would very likely not see the same danger in that AD as I do here. It is definitely a slippery slope. With the current FA permits you are more likely to get owners who have training in proper use. I really have not problem with FA in the hands of trained and responsible people, it is just how do you ensure that?

To me (and I know there are folks on here who will vehemently disagree with me), there has to be a line drawn where ownership of these weapons is balanced against public safety. It is not very lightly I consider that. You can easily slide to many extremes with that mentality where everything is legal or nothing is.

jcwit
March 6, 2010, 08:22 AM
In reading the posts so far I see this thread is accompolishing just what it was ment to do .

1. open a can of worms
2. stir the pot
3. reach no meaniful conclusion

mbt2001
March 6, 2010, 08:42 AM
:scrutiny:

Walkalong
March 6, 2010, 08:45 AM
So far........ that's certainly accurate jcwit.

The difference between being ruled and being served is a fine one that we must guard with vigilance, else the politicians will rule us.

Nothing different here than other times in history, except we actually started with a country where all were free. Most started out being ruled and had to take their freedom first.

AK103K
March 6, 2010, 09:00 AM
You forgot #4, annoy jcwit because he doesnt agree. :)


I agree with shephard19, as we "are" the militia, or at least we are supposed to be, although I seriously doubt we would ever be allowed to act in that capacity these days.

Since at the time the original document was written (not that it seems to mean much these days), the Brown Bess was basically the military arm of the time, then today, there should be an M4 (as well as anything else they feel they need) in the hands of, or at least available to, every able bodied person in this country, and without any restriction.

Technically, the '34 act was lawful, but at the same time, an end run around the Constitution. They simply taxed the guns out of the average person of the times hands with a $200 tax. The '68 and '86 bans took things into the realm of being unconstitutional by restricting and prohibiting the weapons, basically outright.

Whats the difference in a gun thats already in the registry and one that is not, that you simply want to pay the tax on? Why cant you pay your tax and possess the gun? You'd think with the state of things, the government could use all the money it can collect.

The whole purpose of this is control, and nothing more.

I have to wonder why "opening a can of worms" or "stirring the pot" in respect to this is a bad thing. Seems they are valid questions that need addressed.

Then again, I think they have a ball game on TV and beer's on sale again. ;)

Impureclient
March 6, 2010, 09:19 AM
How is a full auto any more dangerous than a semi of the same variant? Is it because it can kill faster/better?
At that reasoning anything above a .22 revolver should be banned also. Maybe we should only be allowed airguns instead.
Actually airguns can kill also. Human beings shouldn't be trusted with any guns....even staple guns or caulk guns.

I think it's just baby steps to take it all away.
Step one: Take away "big, fast & mean looking" guns or charge a fortune to own them.....Check
Step two: Limit amount of guns that are legal to purchase/own at a time.....Check
Step three: Remove the rights to own certain guns in certain States/cities..... Check
Step three: Limit where you can carry your gun.....Check
Step four: Make laws that make you carry a license to carry guns.....Check
Step five: Keep a record of gun purchases and/or make gun owners register their guns.....Almost there.
Step six: Guns are bad, take them away.....?
Step seven: "Eat your soylent green, sit in your cubicle and shut up Citizen number M8542Z15FL. Do you want the go back in the "calm" box again?"

There's no such thing as making laws that give us more rights, there's only new ones that take away more of our rights slowly.
It also is a plus for our Government to make money in the process of stripping our rights by charging a ridiculous price to access full auto as the OP said.

Victor1Echo
March 6, 2010, 09:23 AM
We should even have access to nukes. I think if the commom man everywhere had access to small arms in every country--there would have been no need to have developed much of the weapons we have now. The most powerful weapon is your mouth armed with the deadly bullets of truth.

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 09:28 AM
With this logic should we also not have RPG's and Mortars at our disposal?

That's why Hughes is so silly. I can still go buy all the grenades I want, mortars,etc. Hughes didn't touch any DD's. It was political only.

It allowed some scumbag politicians to claim they were "doing something" about guns without actually doing anything.

EddieNFL
March 6, 2010, 09:29 AM
We have gotten here by complacency. The silent majority will always be ignored because it is silent.

As for full auto ban. I understand where you are coming from but IMO, i have always been fine with the full auto "ban". My concern with these weapons is that they are a lot different to use properly than semis they really require the handler to have training. If I screw up with my 40 I will fire 1 single shot which is worse enough. And AD with a FA could be much worse.

Keep in mind I live in a subdivision with lots just under 1 acre. For those who live more rural you would very likely not see the same danger in that AD as I do here. It is definitely a slippery slope. With the current FA permits you are more likely to get owners who have training in proper use. I really have not problem with FA in the hands of trained and responsible people, it is just how do you ensure that?

To me (and I know there are folks on here who will vehemently disagree with me), there has to be a line drawn where ownership of these weapons is balanced against public safety. It is not very lightly I consider that. You can easily slide to many extremes with that mentality where everything is legal or nothing is.
Even a single round ND is too dangerous in populated areas. Firearm ownership should be limited to rural areas.

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 09:32 AM
With the current FA permits you are more likely to get owners who have training in proper use.

Evidence here that you have NO idea what you are talking about.

There are no "FA permits", there is no additional training required to own a machine gun, the background check is not more strict. It's just a money game.

Maybe you should go get a clue before entering the debate? It's best to have at least some minimum idea of what you are talking about before taking an anti gun position on a pro gun forum.

Seriously, not making fun of you. You are repeating a commonly held idea but it has absolutely no base in truth. You've been told somewhere along the line that access to machine guns takes a "class 3 permit" or some other such silliness. It's just not true.

jcwit
March 6, 2010, 09:35 AM
Even a single round ND is too dangerous in populated areas. Firearm ownership should be limited to rural areas.

OMG!

ATBackPackin
March 6, 2010, 09:40 AM
Even a single round ND is too dangerous in populated areas. Firearm ownership should be limited to rural areas.

OMG!

I think (hope) he was being sarcastic.

AK103K
March 6, 2010, 09:50 AM
Oh, I dont know. I think many times, were our own worse enemies. I've owned full autos for 25+ years now, and I've heard some pretty stupid things from other gun owners.

It seems that many think that by appeasing the monster by giving up my guns, they will be left alone to continue with their favorite pastime, like shooting benchrest, or trap. Why in the world would you need a machine gun? :rolleyes:

Anyone who believes that one is worse than another, has their head someplace dark and stinky. Then again, maybe not. :)

shockwave
March 6, 2010, 09:51 AM
So just how much firepower would you like these gentlemen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bix0V8MqIhs) to have?

AK103K
March 6, 2010, 09:55 AM
How much should we allow YOU to have?

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 09:56 AM
So just how much firepower would you like these gentlemen to have?

Problem is, they are criminals. They are going to get as much firepower as they want anyway. That's sort of the definition of criminal, someone who doesn't pay attention to laws.

SharpsDressedMan
March 6, 2010, 10:00 AM
I think that the persons above that attack this thread need to open their eyes a bit. Open discussion of the topic is GOOD; it gets people thinking, and makes them aware of important things if they keep their minds open. Regarding bans, if they take power away from the people, then they make "government" something other THAN the people. We are supposed to BE the government, not have a bureaucracy as some separate entitiy ABOVE us. If the government is "entitled" to have something, then, by definition, WE should be able to have it. Regarding RPG's, mortars, etc, in general, we DO have provisions under current law to own them. BUT, grenades and shells for them are considered "destructive devices" themselves, and require a $200 tax EACH, so if you are made of money, have all the mortar shells or rockets you want! On the practical question, suppliers of such DD's in most cases won't sell them to you. If you find grenades and mortar shells for sale, good luck. My brother has a an M79 grenade launcher, but only has flares, practices grenades, etc, but still has a ton of fun with it.

wishin
March 6, 2010, 10:05 AM
In theory, there should be no restrictions. In reality, to live in a civilized society of law and order there must be controls. Many RKBAers see the issue through rose colored glasses, thinking that all of our citizenry are of good judgement and as law abiding and responsible as they are.

Moreover, 9/11 being foremost in the minds of Homeland Security and law enforcement agencies these days, I don't see a change in the law for some time to come. There's no question that the '86 law has made MG's pretty scarce and difficult for illegal obtainment, which is really what we all want. I also know that if you're wealthy enough, and up to no good, any and all weapons are at your disposal. A cork big enough to plug this hole doesn't exist.

I'm not smart enough though to know the ultimate answer of how to keep everybody safe and happy without infringing on the rights of American citizens. How do we go about saving us from ourselves?

ATBackPackin
March 6, 2010, 10:07 AM
When laws are created for gun control, the only people they control are those whom abide by the law.

If guns are outlawed, then the only people who will have guns are the outlaws. That is making me to make a choice; be an outlaw or a victim.

Ultamitely there has to be a line drawn. Where? I'm not sure. I guess it would depend what one considers arms to be.

Just one man's opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

Shawn

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 10:08 AM
In theory, there should be no restrictions. In reality, to live in a civilized society of law and order there must be controls. Many RKBAers see the issue through rose colored glasses, thinking that all of our citizenry are of good judgement and as law abiding and responsible as they are.

Problem here is that it's not "theory".

Before 1968 there were basically no gun laws other than NFA. Before 1968 there were no background checks and no licensed dealers.

And, the gun crime rate in 1968 is the same as it is today.

Except for a spike during the late 1980's drug craze it's clear that all of these "controls" you speak of have had no impact on actual crime.

That seems to be the hardest thing to get people to understand; Criminals don't obey these controls anyway, they buy guns from illegal sources and use them in crime.

Explosives, machine guns, and all other manner of firearms are used in crimes all the time. So, how do you explain that these "controls" would do any good anyway?

It just doesn't make sense.

This is not and has never been a "gun" issue, it's a crime and punishment issue.

Diverting it to guns is just the easy political way out, since the actual solution is to deal with the crime problem and that is hard work.

There's no question that the '86 law has made MG's pretty scarce and difficult for illegal obtainment, which is really what we all want.

One of the dumbest things ever posted on THR, that one. And it's completely dishonest. Why do you have to lie to argue your point?

Hughes didn't stop crime either since there WAS no machine gun crime. Since 1934 there have been only 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns, and one of the people who committed them was a cop. So seriously, what exactly do you think is the problem here? Be honest.... Dishonesty won't sell here.

Shung
March 6, 2010, 10:09 AM
the '86 law has made MG's pretty scarce and difficult for illegal obtainment, which is really what we all want

have you any idea of what you are talking about ? do you know how EASY is to turn any semi-auto AR-15 into a FA ???? damn, FA triggers groups you can buy them... With a drill and a dremel you can do it, in a hour or so...

You just don't do it cause it's illegal and you are a law abiding citizen.. Do you think criminals and terrorists have such limitations ?

Steve in KC
March 6, 2010, 10:09 AM
Yes. A full auto ban is a step into tyranny. Granted a small one, but maybe the most dangerous one in that it opens the gate to strip us of our ability to fight the next steps taken into tyranny. Until eventually there is no freedom.
Tyrannasaurus' were around long before machine guns.

markdaniel
March 6, 2010, 10:09 AM
If the government doesn't trust its subjects with a weapon should the subjects trust the government with the same weapon?

hso
March 6, 2010, 10:12 AM
Wow! There's so much mis/disinformation being tossed around that we'll never get anywhere.

Full auto weapons are available to the "common man". They're restricted to those made before May, 1986, but anyone with a clean record and the money to purchase a small car can own one if they live in a state that permits them. Same for Destructive Devices. In each case you have to pay the Fed a $200 tax for the transfer of said hardware. That means that you also have to pay $200 for each round for RPG or mortar or cannon.

You can purchase Full Auto, DD and other NFA items if you can pass the background check and have cooperative CLEO and state laws.

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 10:14 AM
Wow! There's so much mis/disinformation being tossed around that we'll never get anywhere.

As usual, that's their only tactic. Spread lies and confusion to keep the argument going in circles.

They know that the facts don't back up one single thing they say, so they have to resort to making it up as they go.

This is what we talked about in a thread a couple of weeks ago, about how a real debate can never happen since the anti side will not participate in any honest discussions.

HoosierQ
March 6, 2010, 10:26 AM
I am going to say that current full auto laws in the USA are neither the result of, nor a step toward, tyranny. That was the OPs question.

Maybe they don't make sense, maybe they aren't doing any good in terms of stopping criminals, maybe we could trust law-abiding people who can responsibly own firearms would take just as much care with FA as SA. We here at THR believe so.

But tyranny? Come on. This tyranny stuff gets the 2ndA community nowhere. Now I am not saying the 2ndA community should be against FA here...FA should be support by the 2ndA community. But running around crying "TRYANNY" is counter-productive in the short and long run.

The law books of the USA and each state in the Union are full of stupid laws that do nobody any good, and I will argue that none are the result of "tyranny"...just a bunch of 3-Martini Lunch swilling, C- students that by and large run the legislative branch of the government, making laws that they think will get them re-elected first and foremost, get them in good with their congressional superiors secondly, make them look good (they think) to their constituents, and lastly, what is good for America. Obviously there are exceptions to my little scenario...but not very many.

It is not tyranny I am afraid but just politics.

wishin
March 6, 2010, 10:40 AM
What I said was no more dishonest than your asinine misrepresentation of it!

danprkr
March 6, 2010, 10:40 AM
Tyranny? Do you really feel that we're ruled by tyrants? Or is it that collectively, through democratic process, we've gotten what we asked for?

Yes, and yes. That we have a tyranny of a complacent majority does not make it any less tyrannical. The whole idea of the checks and balances in the Constitution is to make this not possible, but since we've quit teaching the constitution it's become less and less effective. The answer is to teach your kids their rights as humans and as Americans. And, to demand that your schools do the same!

I agree with shephard19, as we "are" the militia, or at least we are supposed to be, although I seriously doubt we would ever be allowed to act in that capacity these days.

Allowed? For crying out loud since when did we decide we needed permission to be men, and do the moral thing? When the time comes we'll not have permission, but our conscious will demand that we act anyway.

There's no question that the '86 law has made MG's pretty scarce and difficult for illegal obtainment, which is really what we all want.

Already debunked. I just wanted to ally myself with those that realize that criminals can/will get anything they want. If you don't believe it ask yourself how well prohibition has worked on other items - booze and drugs fling themselves to the front of my mind.

If guns are outlawed, then the only people who will have guns are the outlaws. That is making me to make a choice; be an outlaw or a victim.

Brings us back to the conscious issue. Someday we will all have to decide between legal and moral. I hope to have the courage to decide moral.

Tyrannasaurus' were around long before machine guns.

And people actually, but even if not I don't get your point. Feel free to PM if I'm being dense here, but I just don't get what you were getting at with that comment, and since it was in direct response to my original post on this thread I'd really like to at least understand your point. No sarcasm intended I'm just truly confused.

If the government doesn't trust its subjects with a weapon should the subjects trust the government with the same weapon?

NOW THAT IS A GOOD IDEA! Just like a loser pays civil court system. I LIKE IT! :D:D:D

Then again, I think they have a ball game on TV and beer's on sale again.

That's right folks, plenty of bread and circuses here. Pay no attention to the Cesar's actions.

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 10:49 AM
What I said was no more dishonest than your asinine misrepresentation of it!

I will quote you directly, you are welcome to correct anything I say here:

the '86 law has made MG's pretty scarce and difficult for illegal obtainment, which is really what we all want

1) the 86 law has had zero impact on illegal machine guns used in crime. That is easily shown by looking at any of the crime statistics. Legally owned and manufactured machine guns have not been used in crimes. TWO since 1934 in fact. The use if ILLEGAL machine guns in crimes is the same now as it was before Hughes in 1986, so there has been NO NET CHANGE in the rate of automatic weapons used in crime.

2) Legally owned machine guns, stolen then used in crimes later, are not in there either. There is no real record of legally owned machine guns being stolen and then later used in crimes. People who legally own machine guns have in fact been VERY careful with their weapons, both in using them and in keeping them out of the hands of criminals. Hughes didn't change anything there either.

3) Hughes made it illegal to add more MG's to the NFA database, but it had no impact on HOW you convert a semi to FA. That is a relatively simple procedure, takes only a minimum amount of skill and time. Illegally converted machine guns continue to be used in crimes all the time, at about the same rate as before Hughes. So no, it didn't make anything "scarce" except for law abiding citizens who are provably not committing crimes anyway.

So please, rebut any of the above with actual facts that show otherwise.

If you cannot, please be honest and admit that you were mistaken.

And this is very important:

If you will not admit you are mistaken then you have to be taken as someone who is intentionally lying to further some agenda, how else can we possibly take it?

By the way, I will save you some time. You will find NO reputable evidence to counter what I have put above. Those come from FBI, ATF, and DOJ in various crime reports over the years and have not really ever been contradicted.

Please, I welcome your response. I hope you will be honest in your reply.

Blakenzy
March 6, 2010, 10:51 AM
So just how much firepower would you like these gentlemen to have?

Absolutely none. Full auto or non full auto is a non factor there. A sharp stick in their hands is too much, based on the use they intend to give the weapon.

Full auto is more scary than effective. Automatic weapons don't automatically make more dead people (pun, pun!). Case in point: the North Hollywood shootout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

On the other hand, unarmed(or under armed) victims automatically set the stage for mass executions, regardless of the weapon the victimizer carries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda_massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia

Final point: if you say someone shouldn't have a full auto, they shouldn't have anything at all. You won't be any more or less dead by a bullet from a semi auto vs full auto.

LibShooter
March 6, 2010, 10:54 AM
The ban on fully automatics is one of those things where my idea of common sense differs from the Constitution. It just seems like a bad idea to allow anyone a machine gun. Recruits don't get an FA on day one.

However, the Second Amencment doesn't say some arms are more free than others. So the ban on machine guns or RPGs or even Nuclear Weopons seems unconstitutional.

Having said that, I really hope none of you has a nuke.

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 10:56 AM
The ban on fully automatics is one of those things where my idea of common sense differs from the Constitution. It just seems like a bad idea to allow anyone a machine gun. Recruits don't get an FA on day one.

Again, I refer you back to the fact that legally owned machineguns have only been used in 2 crimes since 1934. So exactly what is the problem?

I am glad to see you admit what I think a lot of people won't; that it's a "gut feeling" rather than anything based in fact. The facts simply don't hold up the notion that legally owned machine guns cause any problems whatsoever. Their owners are some of the most law abiding citizens in the country, borne out by the crime statistics on MGs.

So may I ask you this question please?

Since all of the evidence is contrary to your gut feelings on this, what makes those gut feelings remain in place?

danprkr
March 6, 2010, 10:57 AM
The ban on fully automatics is one of those things where my idea of common sense differs from the Constitution. It just seems like a bad idea to allow anyone a machine gun. Recruits don't get an FA on day one.

However, the Second Amencment doesn't say some arms are more free than others. So the ban on machine guns or RPGs or even Nuclear Weopons seems unconstitutional.

Having said that, I really hope none of you has a nuke.

Congratulations on being intellectually honest, and funny. I like it that you can recognize a right that you may not agree with. Good job.

sarduy
March 6, 2010, 11:09 AM
ok so no full auto after 86'.... but why not 3 round burst?...

AK103K
March 6, 2010, 11:12 AM
Allowed? For crying out loud since when did we decide we needed permission to be men, and do the moral thing? When the time comes we'll not have permission, but our conscious will demand that we act anyway.
I meant "allowed" in another way. In other words, it would be squashed before it happened.

By all means, act, just dont count on a lot of help from fellow gun owners if its not something they deem appropriate or necessary, or is a threat to them losing "their" favorite type gun. They will hang on as long as possible and will quickly throw you to the wolves without any other thought, if they think it will prolong them being left alone.

The old... "they came for the Jew's..." thing, is very applicable here as well, and by the time it sinks in, it wont matter.

AK103K
March 6, 2010, 11:17 AM
It just seems like a bad idea to allow anyone a machine gun.
Why? Whats the difference?

Having said that, I really hope none of you has a nuke.
I havent got one yet, but I'm still trying. I'm just not that good at MW2 yet. Those 10 year olds have much better reflexes than a 55 year old old fart with short arms, and I havet got a 25/0 kill streak yet. I do curse them out better though. Still, being called a wanker by someone whos voice hasnt yet changed just adds to it all. :)

wishin
March 6, 2010, 11:23 AM
One of the dumbest things ever posted on THR, that one. And it's completely dishonest. Why do you have to lie to argue your point?

If you feel I'm wrong in what I say, feel free to point it out, debate it and prove me wrong, but to start making accusations and characterizations right out of the blocks is immature. It probably would have made you happy for me to say "IMHO". Guess what, my aim is not to make you happy. Should you feel abusive, go kick your dog or beat your wife...................

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 11:28 AM
If you feel I'm wrong in what I say, feel free to point it out, debate it and prove me wrong, but to start making accusations and characterizations right out of the blocks is immature.

I did that. I'm still waiting for your response. You were dishonest, and it's been proven. I await your evidence to the contrary, or I await your admission that you were dishonest and/or mistaken. You can retreat to the "oh it's a personal attack" stuff, but you posted something that was an absolute fabrication so you can't really expect to not be called on it can you?

SharpsDressedMan
March 6, 2010, 11:28 AM
It may be morally objectionable to some, but a well placed nuke could well change things for the better. That being said, I am glad that I don't have one. :evil:

AK103K
March 6, 2010, 11:32 AM
LOL! I know the feeling.

That, and the little kid in you that wouldnt let it sit around long, good or bad. :)

qwert65
March 6, 2010, 11:35 AM
Again, I refer you back to the fact that legally owned machineguns have only been used in 2 crimes since 1934. So exactly what is the problem?

I'm cool with ppl having FA- but I don't think this is the best point. If true it could be said that the 1934 NFA works- which I am against btw

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 11:44 AM
I am glad some of you "whatever anyone wants to own they should own" folks do not have any power to enact such legislation. You guys lack any common sense of the real world IMO.

Seems the vast majority of voting Americans agree with me. :)

mljdeckard
March 6, 2010, 11:45 AM
In a word, yes.

Mortars and RPGs are not arms, they are ordnance. I think that there is a perceived divergence in the public mind about them, because as machine guns were widely deployed in WWI, they were horrifically effective. As weapons like the BAR and the Thompson emerged, they were easy to regard in the same way as the Maxim and Browning 30. Where the confusion comes in about automatic weapons, is that there are autos that are non-crew served, completely intended to be used by individuals AGAINST individuals. They are absolutely traditional arms in the sense that the founding fathers intended, and as part of the militia, as well as being free individuals, yes, we should be allowed to have them.

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 11:46 AM
I'm cool with ppl having FA- but I don't think this is the best point. If true it could be said that the 1934 NFA works- which I am against btw

I understand, but we can't demand honesty in the debate and then cover up things that don't go 100% with us. The best we can do is explain why it is.

The crime statistics don't really exist before 1934 showing any breakdown of legally owned vs illegally owned machineguns since the sales were not tracked at all.

The prohibition gangsters used MG's very often against LE and each other, which is what kicked off the NFA in the first place. That's a fact, can't really argue it.

What we can argue is that AFTER the NFA, once sales were tracked, these same gangs continued to use MG's in crime with really no change, they just used illegally obtained MG's.

The only thing that dropped the MG crime rate down was the repeal of prohibition, which removed the gang element from bootlegging.

So by that it's still pretty easy to show that NFA didn't actually DO anything to stop crimes involving machine guns. They were then, and remain today, pretty easy to get for criminals who want them.

wishin
March 6, 2010, 11:48 AM
Again, I refer you back to the fact that legally owned machineguns have only been used in 2 crimes since 1934. So exactly what is the problem?

One of the dumbest things ever posted on THR, that one. And it's completely dishonest. Why do you have to lie to argue your point?

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 11:49 AM
One of the dumbest things ever posted on THR, that one. And it's completely dishonest. Why do you have to lie to argue your point?

Please post your evidence to the contrary. I will do the same. See, here's the difference. I'm not just making stuff up.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Crime with Legally Owned Machine Guns

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One 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.
---
Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.

Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source).

Here is what you will likely post as your "evidence" though you will notice that there is no reference to the actual cases so the number can't be proven, and the ATF admits that most of these could very well be administrative "crimes" of paperwork so it's difficult to argue that they really count.

In Targeting Guns, Kleck cites the director of BATF testifying before Congress that he knew of less than ten crimes that were committed with legally owned machine guns (no time period was specified). Kleck says these crimes could have been nothing more than violations of gun regulations such as failure to notify BATF after moving a registered gun between states.

See how that works? Honesty in my argument, and no fear of posting things that go counter to my point. You should try it.

Here is more, this time on the illegal MG side. Even illegal machineguns don't turn up in crime often.

Again in Targeting Guns, Kleck writes, four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)

In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere. Kleck cites several examples:

Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.
A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.
16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.

AK103K
March 6, 2010, 11:50 AM
I'm cool with ppl having FA- but I don't think this is the best point. If true it could be said that the 1934 NFA works- which I am against btw
The easiest way to shoot that down would be to point out how many non registered, "illegal" guns were used, and how ineffective the law really was.

Only the honest, law abiding register them, and of those that were registered, there was virtually no use of them illegally, proving that the problem isnt with those who generally obey the law, but with those who choose to ignore it.

Again, the whole purpose is to control the masses. Misinformation, and disinformation, just add to things, and from the responses you get from the general population on these things in general, both have worked very well at perpetuating the myths.

Due to the lack of actual use of them, mainly due to people never actually learning to shoot them in a realistic manner (very easily learned too, I might add), and whats portrayed on TV and in the movies, you also get more misinformation, from our own ranks, on what they can and cant do.

esquare
March 6, 2010, 11:51 AM
I always find the threads about full auto to be very interesting. Let me start by noting that our founding fathers really didn't like the idea of democracy. Democrazy is like three wolfs and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. WE (the people of the United States) live in a Constitutional Republic that elects representatives through a democratic process. That's a world away from a real democracy, and it drives me up the wall when I hear our presidents and other government officials saying that they want to spread freedom and democracy around the world. Please! It shows so blatantly that they didn't pay attention in 7th grade civics class.

The primary function of a constitution in a constitutional republic is to protect its citizens (and residents) from oppression. Otherwise, why have the constitution? So, when the constitution says something like, 'the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed', that's what it means, whether you are comfortable with that or not. If the founders wanted to restrict this right for some reason, they would have said so.

So, with that in mind, I fully believe that arms that the infantry has access to should be available to all law-abiding citizens without undo burden. (BTW, let's leave the larger arms out of the discussion for a minute). Now, the question is, what's an undo burden. I could argue that $200 for a tax stamp on a firearm isn't terribly bad, but it's certainly more than the ATF should need to process the registration paperwork, so I would argue that if they are generating more than their costs, it is more of a tax, and a tax on a right is not constitutional.

But, this is minor compared to the ban on transfering new FA items to citizens. That is a defacto ban on an entire class of arms that are squarely within any interpretations of 'arms' that you could honestly come up with when reading the thoughts of the founding fathers. The analogy to the 1st amendment would be to ban the sale of books on a certain subject if printed more recently than 1986. Even while typing that, it just seems so ridiculous that I couldn't imagine anyone even CONSIDERING doing something so moronic. Yet, we deal with stuff like that all the time with the 2nd.

BTW, those that argue that the founders could never have imagined FA gear, well, I find that extremely insulting to our American heritage. Our founders were well educated (better than today probably) and well versed in history. They knew the progress of arms through history and any I can't imagine any of them thinking that it would just stop once the constitution was written.

So, yes, I think it's a pretty easy case to make that the 86 NFA laws on FA arms is oppressive. Sure, we don't really NEED them for every day fun at the range or whatever, but it is our right to keep and bear them as we see fit (without the undo burden that currently exists).

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 11:52 AM
" the 86 law has had zero impact on illegal machine guns used in crime. That is easily shown by looking at any of the crime statistics. Legally owned and manufactured machine guns have not been used in crimes. TWO since 1934 in fact. The use if ILLEGAL machine guns in crimes is the same now as it was before Hughes in 1986, so there has been NO NET CHANGE in the rate of automatic weapons used in crime."

Faulty logic....the fact that no one including you have any ideal of how many FA firearms have not been used in crimes where non FA firearms where used solely because the FA were not easily available.

Do you hold he point that the 1000s and 1000s of firearms crimes commit since 86 that were committed with non FA firearms would have included no FA firearms had laws not been enacted? That is a poor position to hold, that laws preventing something do not work when those events do not occur after the laws are enacted.


But then again I should know better than to debate gun laws on the internet. :) Sufficient to say that it is mute point as FA are not going to be legalized, end of story whichever side you fall on.

AK103K
March 6, 2010, 11:54 AM
Seems the vast majority of voting Americans agree with me.
Now thats funny, using vast and voter in the same sentence.

Most Americans that even bothered to vote, dont have a clue what or who they voted for or why, and even if they do, it doesnt really matter, as most of "our" representatives vote how they are paid, not by what "we" tell them.

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 11:57 AM
Do you hold he point that the 1000s and 1000s of firearms crimes commit since 86 that were committed with non FA firearms would have included no FA firearms had laws not been enacted? That is a poor position to hold, that laws preventing something do not work when those events do not occur after the laws are enacted.

Maybe you don't understand what happened in 86. Machine guns were not made illegal in 1986. The only thing that happened in 1986 was that no more MG's could be added to the NFA registry.

If this helped crime we should see a decrease in all machineguns used in crimes after 1986. That didn't happen at all. MG's have been used at about the same rate in crimes both before and after 1986, with a peak in 1980 well before Hughes was passed. So the net is that Hughes didn't have any impact on the MG crime rate at all.

As for the 1934 law, I showed that above as well. The overall MG crime rate didn't change after 1934. The MG crime rate actually dropped dramatically in 1933, after prohibition was repealed. NFA was well under way by then, but the "crime problem" appears to have been solved by repealing the 18th amendment rather than passing NFA.

jcwit
March 6, 2010, 11:58 AM
I sincerely hope FA weapons do not become commonplace. Hexx bells its hard enough to get ammo and primers they way it is now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 12:07 PM
"Maybe you don't understand what happened in 86. Machine guns were not made illegal in 1986. The only thing that happened in 1986 was that no more MG's could be added to the NFA registry."

I understand that and if more could be added, thus making them more "available" I would suggest that they very well could have been used in more gun crimes. Simple logic really. Might not be a popular thought here but SOME firearms laws do make sense and do control the severity of gun crimes.

The debate is now and will continue to be which laws make sense and which do not.

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 12:11 PM
I understand that and if more could be added, thus making them more "available" I would suggest that they very well could have been used in more gun crimes. Simple logic really. Might not be a popular thought here but SOME firearms laws do make sense and do control the severity of gun crimes.

But if they were not used in more gun crime in the 52 years between 1934 and 1986 by what basis do you propose that they would have all of a sudden taken a jump upward after 1986 if Hughes had not been passed? That doesn't make any sense. What do you suggest would have been the catalyst that would have increased legally owned machine gun crime rates? Again, we are talking about LEGALLY owned machine guns. Illegally owned machine guns continue to be used at about the same rates, which are extremely low.

I dont' guess I understand your point. You argue that Hughes somehow made MG's "less available" but if that were true why don't we see a decrease in overall MG crime after 1986?

You are trying to tie two different crime statistics together, and they really have nothing to do with each other.

LEGALLY owned machineguns are not and have never been used in crimes for all practical purposes. 2 homicides since 1934, one being a cop who wouldn't have been impacted by Hughes anyway, if it had happened post '86.

ILLEGALLY owned machineguns are used at about the same rate since 1934, with a peak in the 80's during the drug violence, mainly in Miami.

ALL machinegun crime rates went down after the repeal of prohibition in 1933, not after passage of 1934's NFA.

So I still don't see how you can connect any lowering of crime to any gun law we're talking about here.

AK103K
March 6, 2010, 12:11 PM
I sincerely hope FA weapons do not become commonplace. Hexx bells its hard enough to get ammo and primers they way it is now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thats because your thinking like a bolt action shooter! :neener:

Those of us who have FA's, are still shooting that cheap ammo we bought by the truck load back before the Clinton's had everyone terrified. You know, the $100/case .308, and the $90-100/2000 round cases of 9mm. :)

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 6, 2010, 12:12 PM
86 should hopefully be reppealed, then 34.

Shung
March 6, 2010, 12:24 PM
I understand that and if more could be added, thus making them more "available" I would suggest that they very well could have been used in more gun crimes

Have you ever fired full auto guns aside from semi-autos ???

I fail to see how full auto could be more dangerous or more deadly when used to commit crimes...

my bet is that an aimed semi-auto fire is MUCH MORE deadlier and accurate than a burst of full auto from a small arm...


FACTS and reality of war show it...

to me, the ban on full auto is PURELY ideologicand psychological.. (as someone suggested, this may have to do with the extensive use of machine guns in WW1, compared to assault rifles..)

btw: in Switzerland, our issued guns (SiG550) are fully auto capable..
we have scumbags using them in crimes, sometimes... it happends.. we yet have to see, in more than 50 years (SiG510 before 1988) someone using FA in the process...

jcwit
March 6, 2010, 12:24 PM
I sincerely hope FA weapons do not become commonplace. Hexx bells its hard enough to get ammo and primers they way it is now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats because your thinking like a bolt action shooter!

Those of us who have FA's, are still shooting that cheap ammo we bought by the truck load back before the Clinton's had everyone terrified. You know, the $100/case .308, and the $90-100/2000 round cases of 9mm.


Got more ammo and reloading supplies than I'll use up in the rest of my life time. Don't you wish you did.


He who cares least, wins. ;)

I won--I won--I won.

mljdeckard
March 6, 2010, 12:28 PM
For right now, I would even settle for the '86 registry to be opened on a limited basis. The absolute closure makes no sense. Having it closed entirely is like saying you can be a car nut, but you can only work with frames that were manufactured prior to 1986, there is no way to use anything more modern.

If it was opened on a limited trial basis, it would be a chance to prove that the closure has absolutely no effect on crime, and could be used as leverage to have it loosened even more.

AKElroy
March 6, 2010, 12:29 PM
But tyranny? Come on. This tyranny stuff gets the 2ndA community nowhere. Now I am not saying the 2ndA community should be against FA here...FA should be support by the 2ndA community. But running around crying "TRYANNY" is counter-productive in the short and long run.

Tyranny of the majority
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Look up tyranny or majority in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's interest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and despots.[1]

Sounds like tyranny to me.....Silly notion, that we might have rights of the individual that supercede majority rule.

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 12:38 PM
"Have you ever fired full auto guns aside from semi-autos ???

I fail to see how full auto could be more dangerous or more deadly when used to commit crimes...

my bet is that an aimed semi-auto fire is MUCH MORE deadlier and accurate than a burst of full auto from a small arm..."

Yeap I think I could still take an M249 apart and reassemble blindfolded, not as quick as I once could but I could pull it off. :)

FA weapons are still in very very wide use across all militaries because of there ability to quickly deliver rounds downrange. I do not know about you but if some loser was to break into my house armed I would rather him have a SA Uzi than a FA Uzi for example.

meytind
March 6, 2010, 12:40 PM
For right now, I would even settle for the '86 registry to be opened on a limited basis. The absolute closure makes no sense. Having it closed entirely is like saying you can be a car nut, but you can only work with frames that were manufactured prior to 1986, there is no way to use anything more modern.

If it was opened on a limited trial basis, it would be a chance to prove that the closure has absolutely no effect on crime, and could be used as leverage to have it loosened even more.
This sounds like a great first step. Maybe after McDonald, someone with a lot of money will bring this issue to the courts.

Torchman
March 6, 2010, 12:42 PM
Seriously, not making fun of you. You are repeating a commonly held idea but it has absolutely no base in truth. You've been told somewhere along the line that access to machine guns takes a "class 3 permit" or some other such silliness. It's just not true.

CLASS 3 is a pet peeve of mine! The correct term is Title 2, with which ATF form 4 must accompany the weapon. Class 3 is an FFL allowed to transfer said weapon.

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 12:44 PM
"So I still don't see how you can connect any lowering of crime to any gun law we're talking about here."

If you do not already see how then I am not the one to try and convince you. No offense to your view intended but IMO it just holds no water, it also seems you are in the vast minority in your view in this country. I would think that will continue to be the story going forward. :)

hso
March 6, 2010, 12:45 PM
Having the registry closed was a mistake based on prejudice instead of facts.

Having it opened is the fervent wish of most FA owners I know. Even though it would "destroy" the value of their collections by resetting the value to a third or less it would allow them to purchase new designs and weapons at prices that weren't inflated.

General Geoff
March 6, 2010, 12:47 PM
with fullautos everywhere you donīt
have to be a genius to assume it will
not make the country safer or more democratic
if everyone could use full auto.

This country is not, nor has it ever been (nor should it be) a democracy, and freedom is far more important than safety.

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 12:50 PM
"Sounds like tyranny to me....."


and such is gay marriage, all types of drugs not being legal, total freedom of speech, speed limits and so on. There is a difference between laws and tyranny. When elected representatives enact laws that are not overturned in subsequent elections or in the courts they are not tyranny, they are laws. As the founders intended IMO.

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 12:53 PM
"This country is not, nor has it ever been (nor should it be) a democracy, and freedom is far more important than safety."

And thus we should pull the inspection points out of the airports.....I spent 45 min in line just this week. Let's get rid of those speed limits as well. Safety and freedom must coexist, to say otherwise is silly and unrealistic.

General Geoff
March 6, 2010, 12:53 PM
and such is gay marriage, all types of drugs not being legal, total freedom of speech, speed limits and so on. There is a difference between laws and tyranny. When elected representatives enact laws that are not overturned in subsequent elections or in the courts they are not tyranny, they are laws. As the founders intended IMO.

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."

As such, since (at least on paper) police and government agents can't possess or use controlled substances, drug laws are not in and of themselves tyrannical. They ARE dumb, but not tyrannical. Gun laws almost invariably are. Go and see how many gun laws don't have a military/LEO/government agent exemption built in.

RDCL
March 6, 2010, 12:54 PM
Although I do not own FA myself, and likely never will......I am and always have been in full support of the good folks that DO own legally registered machine guns. I symathize with their headaches regarding and maintaining legal ownership. It should'nt be.

I've always wanted to own a genuine Colt made Thompson, however. Never mind the laws and restrictions. The rarity of this gun alone puts it out of my ability to purchase one. It would be nice to be able to buy a more affordable re-production.....ah but then here is where the heavy restrictions put the price WAY beyond what any re-production should cost. WAY beyond. And you know what? I take offense to the astronomical cost of full auto because it is just not fair. I take even more offense that while the government can trust itself with an aircraft carrier.....I ....little 'ole me....can't be trusted with a "dangerous" firearm.
Does anyone seriously believe that a crook going into a bank waving around a cap & ball revolver would be laughed out the door? Hell no.....he'd pull off the crime just as easily if he held a sten. Remember though that he could GET the Sten ( or anything else) if wanted it much cheaper and EASIER than a law abiding collector.

But then.....MOST gun laws are not fair. I've read somewhere here that someone once said we only need ONE single law regarding ALL guns and that is this: "Thou shall not commit any crime using a firearm". That's it period. Nothing else need apply.

Remember that the most devastating and henious crime with the deaths of thousands.....ever committed on American soil did'nt even involve a firearm of any sort let alone a machine gun....but simple box knives and the ability to fly a jet. Something just about anyone can learn to do. (with no legal restrictions).


Sorry to rant. It's how I feel.

Russ

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 12:58 PM
"Remember that the most devastating and henious crime with the deaths of thousands.....ever committed on American soil did'nt even involve a firearm of any sort let alone a machine gun....but simple box knives and the ability to fly a jet. Something just about anyone can learn to do. (with no legal restrictions)."

Because laws prevented them from taking firearms on the aircraft.

General Geoff
March 6, 2010, 12:59 PM
And thus we should pull the inspection points out of the airports.....I spent 45 min in line just this week. Let's get rid of those speed limits as well. Safety and freedom must coexist, to say otherwise is silly and unrealistic.

Safety is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. The government is there to punish those who infringe on the rights of others. Not to limit freedom arbitrarily.


Because laws prevented them from taking firearms on the aircraft.

Even assuming this was true (which it is not), you are not helping your argument at all. ;)

harmonic
March 6, 2010, 01:00 PM
Maybe you should go get a clue before entering the debate? It's best to have at least some minimum idea of what you are talking about before taking an anti gun position on a pro gun forum.

Seriously, not making fun of you.

If that last statement is true (and I find it doubtful), then you need to be less insulting and abrasive in your responses. I personally could care less what you say, but some newbes might be put off by it.

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 01:01 PM
"As such, since (at least on paper) police and government agents can't possess or use controlled substances, drug laws are not in and of themselves tyrannical. They ARE dumb, but not tyrannical. Gun laws almost invariably are. Go and see how many gun laws don't have a military/LEO/government agent exemption built in."

Point is that to prevent any laws (aimed at improving safety) from being enacted because they violate someones freedom would in turn prevent almost any laws from being enacted. The real world is the real world, trying to change it on a internet forum is pointless.

"Safety is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. "

That is just plain stupid in the context of enacting laws. Again rather it be traffic laws, airport security etc the individual can not fulfill that roll. If we are going to go out of the real world into catchy little saying then I really have no interest in this any longer.

Also for the record being in favor of certain laws regarding firearms does not make me anti gun. Being in favor of laws preventing some loser from walking thru the diner my family is having dinner at yelling about his sexual conquest the night before does not make me anti freedom of speech either.

harmonic
March 6, 2010, 01:03 PM
This country is not, nor has it ever been (nor should it be) a democracy

Are you serious? One man, one vote (unless you're a democRAT, then it's one man, multiple votes) isn't a democracy? We were founded as a Republic, but the America haters destroyed that some time ago.

RDCL
March 6, 2010, 01:04 PM
Because laws prevented them from taking firearms on the aircraft

True, they certainly WOULD have if they could have. My point being though is that the act was committed anyway. They were not ineffective in doing their dirty work at all.

Russ

danprkr
March 6, 2010, 01:05 PM
AK103K nothing personal, and you make a good point with, I meant "allowed" in another way. In other words, it would be squashed before it happened. I am railing against that mentality not you. Also, when you say, Most Americans that even bothered to vote, don't have a clue what or who they voted for or why, and even if they do, it doesn't really matter, as most of "our" representatives vote how they are paid, not by what "we" tell them. you are sadly totally correct.

Please tell me you are being sarcastic with: Sounds like tyranny to me.....Silly notion, that we might have rights of the individual that supersede majority rule. I'd hate to have to have to school you on the Founding Father's philosophy. You seem much more intelligent than that.

...it drives me up the wall when I hear our presidents and other government officials saying that they want to spread freedom and democracy around the world. Please! It shows so blatantly that they didn't pay attention in 7th grade civics class.

Problem is they no longer teach the concept of Representative Republic in 7th grade civics. Or any other class for that matter. At least not as far as I can tell. Which of course makes it much more important for us to start teaching our kids the facts, and start DEMANDING THAT OUR SCHOOLS DO THE SAME!!!! :banghead::fire::banghead::fire::banghead::fire::banghead::fire:

I sincerely hope FA weapons do not become commonplace. Hexx bells its hard enough to get ammo and primers they way it is now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know you were kidding of course, but it is an interesting point that I hadn't considered. Having done so for all of about 3 seconds now I believe it's like the death penalty being more expensive than housing a murderer for life. Sometimes ya just gotta do the right thing regardless of cost.

General Geoff
March 6, 2010, 01:09 PM
That is just plain stupid in the context of enacting laws.
All laws do is punish those who infringe on the rights of others. They do not prevent people from infringing on the rights of others.

Again rather it be traffic laws, airport security etc the individual can not fulfill that roll.
You as a driver are far more responsible for your own safety on a daily basis, than the police car sitting on the median watching for speeders.

If we are going to go out of the real world into catchy little saying then I really have no interest in this any longer.
So anything not as strict as or stricter than the status quo is not "the real world." Gotcha. Enjoy your tyranny-Os.

danprkr
March 6, 2010, 01:10 PM
This country is not, nor has it ever been (nor should it be) a democracy, and freedom is far more important than safety.

Amen brother. Especially that last part about Freedom being more important than safety! If more Americans realized that, and awakened from their state of sheepledom there would be a longer line at the unemployment office. That line would be filled with politicians. As it is, this go-along-to-avoid-any-pain-at-all mentality is killing the country, and the American spirit that made us the greatest nation on earth.

harmonic
March 6, 2010, 01:11 PM
I've always wanted to own a genuine Colt made Thompson, however. Never mind the laws and restrictions. The rarity of this gun alone puts it out of my ability to purchase one. It would be nice to be able to buy a more affordable re-production.....ah but then here is where the heavy restrictions put the price WAY beyond what any re-production should cost

I couldn't have said it better myself. Especially re a full auto Thompson.

But concerning the original post and some subsequent responses, I had a debate with a college logic professor on the same issues. I gave my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. He said, "Well then, we'll just let everybody have tactical nukes as well!" I said that the 2nd doesn't guarantee me to have tactical nukes, but that it does say I can own and carry firearms. And since it's not specific, then I can own any firearm I choose, unless a totalitarian government entity tries to deny me that right.

Mostly I thought it was ironic that a logic teacher (Cal State) would throw up a strawman argument, when he had just been teaching us about strawman arguments.

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 01:15 PM
"Because laws prevented them from taking firearms on the aircraft.
Even assuming this was true (which it is not), you are not helping your argument at all. "

Huh?
Laws do prevent firearms from being taken on a commercial flight. And I would suggest to you that the terrorist would have used firearms instead of box cutters if they could have, to suggest otherwise is silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

How would this have turned out had the scumbags had firearms? No one will ever know. It could have turned out much worse :(

General Geoff
March 6, 2010, 01:18 PM
Laws do prevent firearms from being taken on a commercial flight. And I would suggest to you that the terrorist would have used firearms instead of box cutters if they could have, to suggest otherwise is silly.

And if there were no laws against carrying firearms on planes, they'd have been stopped dead in their tracks by other people on the planes carrying THEIR firearms. To suggest otherwise is silly.


How would this have turned out had the scumbags had firearms? No one will ever know. It could have turned out much worse

It could not possibly have been worse. a several-ton jet aircraft flying at 600mph is a far more potent weapon than a pistol or rifle. It could, however, have turned out much better, with only a few dead terrorists instead of ten thousand dead innocents.

smince
March 6, 2010, 01:20 PM
FA weapons are still in very very wide use across all militaries because of there ability to quickly deliver rounds downrange. I do not know about you but if some loser was to break into my house armed I would rather him have a SA Uzi than a FA Uzi for example.Men I know who have went through HK school were taught 95% of the course of fire on semi-auto. Same goes for basic training because semi-auto is in reality more effective (not Hollywood).

Sure, the 249 is used more effectively in F/A, but the tactics employed with them are different that the Uzi/M16.

Matter of fact, if said 'loser' isn't trained, I would rather face him armed with an F/A than an S/A Uzi. If he is trained, then except for very limited circumstances, he's probably going to use it in semi-auto anyway.

RDCL
March 6, 2010, 01:21 PM
General Geoff......EXELLENT points, sir!:)


Russ

AK103K
March 6, 2010, 01:21 PM
AK103K nothing personal...
Hey, no problem. I should have been more specific. "Allow" is a broad word. :)

Got more ammo and reloading supplies than I'll use up in the rest of my life time. Don't you wish you did. Oh, I'm not doing to bad, and I still shoot my squirt guns on a pretty regular basis. How about you? :)

I won--I won--I won.
Naw, not yet, youre still caring to much if you have to shout it out three times. :neener:

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 01:22 PM
"They do not prevent people from infringing on the rights of others.


They are one of the prime reason reason people do not violate the rights of others, the fear of the repercussions if they do. You sound like maybe you need to move the mountains in Montana and live alone. Does not sound like you are cut out for living in a true society. :)

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 01:24 PM
"Matter of fact, if said 'loser' isn't trained, I would rather face him armed with an F/A than an S/A Uzi. If he is trained, then except for very limited circumstances, he's probably going to use it in semi-auto anyway."

Not me brother, not me. From 5 feet away a FA Uzi / AR is much more deadly than a SA one in anyones hands.

General Geoff
March 6, 2010, 01:26 PM
Ruggles, it is not I who should move into a land of the Free. It is perhaps you who should move out.

Most people do not violate the rights of others, not because of laws, but because they have a conscience. I don't kill my neighbor because it's WRONG; not because it's against the law. Perhaps you or someone you know is a sociopath, but most people are not.

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 01:30 PM
"And if there were no laws against carrying firearms on planes, they'd have been stopped dead in their tracks by other people on the planes carrying THEIR firearms. To suggest otherwise is silly."

Subjective at best. The vast vast majority of Americans do not carry even where it is legal to do so. To assume that a average commercial airliner would have someone on it who is armed is faulty math based on percentages of folks who carry. Math is on my side on this one. Maybe you should stop watching all those action movies. :)

"it could not possibly have been worse. a several-ton jet aircraft flying at 600mph is a far more potent weapon than a pistol or rifle. It could, however, have turned out much better, with only a few dead terrorists instead of ten thousand dead innocents."

If that aircraft would have struck it's original target instead of crashing into the ground after the passengers heroically overpowered the box cutter armed terrorist. Could they have done the same thing had the terrorist been armed with some FA AK74s? Who knows, but I would bet against that.

General Geoff
March 6, 2010, 01:31 PM
Subjective at best. The vast vast majority of Americans do not carry even where it is legal to do so. To assume that a average commercial airliner would have someone on it who is armed is faulty math based on percentages of folks who carry. Math is on my side on this one. Maybe you should stop watching all those action movies.

Please, bring this math to bear. I and many others are very interested to see you talk your way out of this corner. You are saying that not a single person on that plane would be statistically likely to be carrying a firearm, out of what? 200 people? You're saying that less than 0.5% of the population carries (in a state that does not prohibit or severely restrict it)? I don't buy that.

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 01:35 PM
General Geoff you seem to be beyond logic and common sense in this matter. I really have no interest in wasting either of our time debating an issue you that will result in nobody changing their minds. My views are real world, yours are nothing but catchy little sayings. Society works off of real world facts, I will stick with those. :)

General Geoff
March 6, 2010, 01:37 PM
General Geoff you seem to be beyond logic and common sense in this matter.
Ad hominem.

My views are real world, yours are nothing but catchy little sayings.
Again, anything less strict than the status quo fails your test for being "real world."

Society works off of real world facts, I will stick with those.
So where are those numbers, then?

AK103K
March 6, 2010, 01:47 PM
....the fear of the repercussions if they do.
Only affects those who are fearful. It does nothing for those who are not.

You sound like maybe you need to move the mountains in Montana and live alone. Does not sound like you are cut out for living in a true society.
I did pretty much just that (just not MT) a couple of years back. While I do have more freedom in many respects, I'm also now in an area where the people are very narrow minded and set in their ways, and its not as "free" as you might think. You do sometimes have to watch out for what you wish for. I sure could use some more open mindedness and reality! :)


Not me brother, not me. From 5 feet away a FA Uzi / AR is much more deadly than a SA one in anyones hands.
First off, from 5 feet away, if youre not already dead, and youre still thinking about it, then you get what you deserve for thinking. ;)

As much as I hate to assume, I have to here based on the comment. From personal experience teaching people to properly shoot them, those who have no training are more apt to not do well, than someone with only minimal training.

Too many people seem to think what you see in the movies is really how things work. My kids knew better than that at 5, but then again, they have been shooting my guns since that age, and knew what was up. Most adults dont. I've seen, and on more than one occasion, supposed "combat vets", miss a target at 10 yards completely, using what they were supposedly taught in the service, while my kids could literally shred the center of the same target with the next mag.

Its a very simple technique to learn and apply, and yes, even little kids can learn it and use it (I've taught a bunch of them to do it), but if you dont use it, you can easily miss close range targets faster than the gun is shooting, and for the whole time its running.

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 01:50 PM
You are saying that not a single person on that plane would be statistically likely to be carrying a firearm, out of what? 200 people? You're saying that less than 0.5% of the population carries (in a state that does not prohibit or severely restrict it)? I don't buy that.

40 folks (crew and passengers) on that flight not 200. Do the research and see how many folks have CCW in such gun friendly states such as Texas and Florida. It is not even close to 1 in 40. I can not imagine what it would be in non gun friendly states in the country. I have carried since 1994 in Texas and I can tell you it is not as common as I would like it too be for others to carry. Again not interested in debating you, you have your views and I have mine. Have a good day. :)

General Geoff
March 6, 2010, 01:52 PM
Again not interested in debating you,
That's been abundantly clear given the content of your posts. Still no numbers.

Good day to you as well, sir.

RDCL
March 6, 2010, 01:53 PM
I've noticed throughout the years that some gun owners....not all....but some....tend to be concerned with laws that only apply to the specific kinds of guns they own or want to own. I've heard guys say they could care less about NFA guns and the laws restricting them.

This is a dangerous way of thinking in terms of our gun rights because just where will the laws end?

It may be years into the future, but believe me the way things are going one day the government will be going after ALL devices that fire a projectile of any sort.

I'm even suprised that in this day and age dedicated black powder shooters remain......free.....or should I say....un-restricted.


Russ

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 01:54 PM
"First off, from 5 feet away, if youre not already dead, and youre still thinking about it, then you get what you deserve for thinking.

As much as I hate to assume, I have to here based on the comment. From personal experience teaching people to properly shoot them, those who have no training are more apt to not do well, than someone with only minimal training.

Too many people seem to think what you see in the movies is really how things work. My kids knew better than that at 5, but then again, they have been shooting my guns since that age, and knew what was up. Most adults dont. I've seen, and on more than one occasion, supposed "combat vets", miss a target at 10 yards completely, using what they were supposedly taught in the service, while my kids could literally shred the center of the same target with the next mag.

Its a very simple technique to learn and apply, and yes, even little kids can learn it and use it (I've taught a bunch of them to do it), but if you dont use it, you can easily miss close range targets faster than the gun is shooting, and for the whole time its running."

There is a reason the AK47 (the most widely used and successful untrained peasant weapon in world history) has been FA since it inception. :)

Ruggles
March 6, 2010, 01:59 PM
"'ve noticed throughout the years that some gun owners....not all....but some....tend to be concerned with laws that only apply to the specific kinds of guns they own or want to own. I've heard guys say they could care less about NFA guns and the laws restricting them.

This is a dangerous way of thinking in terms of our gun rights because just where will the laws end?

It may be years into the future, but believe me the way things are going one day the government will be going after ALL devices that fire a projectile of any sort.

I'm even suprised that in this day and age dedicated black powder shooters remain......free."

Sooooo in favor of any gun laws = in favor of all gun laws? Silly.

Free2game
March 6, 2010, 02:14 PM
People don't commit shootings because there are guns. Crime is a complex social problem something that an "easy" solution like banning guns isn't going to change. Nevermind it's unconstitutional. That's all gun bannings are, people looking for the quick and easy solution to a complex and difficult to solve problem.

AK103K
March 6, 2010, 02:16 PM
There is a reason the AK47 (the most widely used and successful untrained peasant weapon in world history) has been FA since it inception.
Dont know anything about select fire AK's either, eh? :)

Oh, and the real reason the AK is probably "the most widely used and successful untrained peasant weapon in world history" has nothing to do with the gun, its the price. ;)

meytind
March 6, 2010, 02:42 PM
And during the cold war, that price was FREE to any group that claimed to be communist and hate America. Needless to say, A LOT of AKs were given away.

Officers'Wife
March 6, 2010, 02:57 PM
With this logic should we also not have RPG's and Mortars at our disposal?
yeah, I like this logic.. and this logic certainly match the meaning of the 2nd amendment..

The 2nd reminds the government of the people's retained right to arms, meaning small arms. RPG's and mortars are ordinance.

smince
March 6, 2010, 03:11 PM
There is a reason the AK47 (the most widely used and successful untrained peasant weapon in world history) has been FA since it inception. Obviously, AK103K and I are going to have to defer to your superior weapon and tactical knowledge :rolleyes:

Alex23
March 6, 2010, 03:15 PM
Philosophically I see no reason for a FA ban at all, but if they were legalized again I'd want to see deep-vetting of every applicant. The fact of the matter is you can do a huge amount of damage very quickly with something like an M60. Far more than you can with an AR/AK. I'd also want to stipulate storage requirements.

If a mad man walks into Walmart with an AK/AR he'll do some damage for sure. If he sets up an M60 at the checkout he'll do a entire magnitude of order more damage.

Might be an idea to seriously vet the owners eh?

Got to draw the line somewhere.

EddieNFL
March 6, 2010, 03:18 PM
It seems that many think that by appeasing the monster by giving up my guns, they will be left alone to continue with their favorite pastime, like shooting benchrest, or trap. Why in the world would you need a machine gun?

Little bites.

mboylan
March 6, 2010, 03:23 PM
I don't favor restrictions in gun laws. Like it or not, if full autos were more available, there would be more crime with full autos. There wasn't much crime with full-autos before the Hughe's ammendment because they were and are relatively rare. $200 was much more back then than today. Chief LEO signoff was hard to get back then and there was no alternative like there is now. There also was not much information about NFA readily available. As a result between 1934 and 1986 only about 135,000 full autos made it into civilian hands. There would be probably be over a million in civilian hands in the first few years alone if the Hughes ammendment was repealed.

Ammo was also much more expensive in the 80s relative to salaries. That weeded many people out as well. They still cost a fortune to feed, even if you reload. I'm spending $130/1000 to reload 9mm for my Max-11. With that option, if you can't afford $4000 for the gun, you probably can't afford to feed it.

Shung
March 6, 2010, 03:33 PM
There is a reason the AK47 (the most widely used and successful untrained peasant weapon in world history) has been FA since it inception.

Yes there is a reason.. The combat doctrine of that time.. Which has been proved to be far less effective than aimed semi-auto fire more than a (possibly 2) decade(s) ago..

Sorry, but once again.. i'd rather have a criminal enter in a crowded place and shoot a 30 round mag at people in 3 seconds (and maybe it a few of them but wasting a LOT of rounds) instead of aiming and hitting every person he would aim at for more than 30 secs..

IT HAS BEEN PROOVEN far more effective...


Full auto, exept for suppresive fire with adequates weapons, has been prooven far less effective... Like it or not..

Again, in Switzerland, full-auto assault rifles can be found in every house (or nearly) of the country.. but criminals don't use them.. strange hey ? Still we have gun crimes... but not trace of full-auto rampages...

ants
March 6, 2010, 03:35 PM
Why in the world would you need a machine gun?

Why in the world would you need a machine gun?
Why in the world would you need a short barrel rifle?
Why in the world would you need a sawed off shotgun?
Why in the world would you need a 12ga shotgun with drum magazine?
Why in the world would you need a semiautomatic rifle with drum magazine?
Why in the world would you need a AK47 with drum magazine?
Why in the world would you need a AK47 with giant 50 round banana magazine?
Why in the world would you need a AK47 or AR15 with 50 round magazine?
Why in the world would you need a AK47 or AR15 with 30 round magazine?
Why in the world would you need a AK47 or AR15?
Why in the world would you need a black enhanced battle rifle in military caliber?
Why in the world would you need a black battle rifle in military caliber?
Why in the world would you need a black rifle in military caliber?
Why in the world would you need a rifle in military caliber?
Why in the world would you need a rifle in largebore centerfire caliber?
Why in the world would you need a centerfire rifle?
Why in the world would you need a rifle?
Why in the world would you need a firearm?

Well then, take away all the firearms. No one needs them.



It's the little bites as the gentleman pointed out.
Each one seems so small, yet the outcome is so profound.

jcwit
March 6, 2010, 03:43 PM
The 2nd reminds the government of the people's retained right to arms, meaning small arms. RPG's and mortars are ordinance.

Wrong! First I'm not to sure what ordinance has to do with this discussion.

Second, the definition of (ordnance) is --1. Military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintence tools and equipment.
This per Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

I believe that would enclude most everything from a 9mm pistol to an H-Bomb. Somewhere RPG and mortars fit in that description.

jcwit
March 6, 2010, 03:47 PM
It's the little bites as the gentleman pointed out.
Each one seems so small, yet the outcome is so profound.

Well for the mass majority the bite has been taken, so the only point I can see is to get the law changed.

What have you (not you, ants personally) done lately to change the law?

AKElroy
March 6, 2010, 03:56 PM
And thus we should pull the inspection points out of the airports.....I spent 45 min in line just this week. Let's get rid of those speed limits as well. Safety and freedom must coexist, to say otherwise is silly and unrealistic.

These are ENUMERATED rights? No. RKBA is. As many have posted, freedom is not safe. You can argue every practical point you choose, but you will not be able to change the original intent of RKBA; that our founders believed that for firearms to be held soley by the government was to leave them in precisely the WRONG hands. Are you arguing that the people are not identified by the BOR as the prescribed check against tyranny? Have you read the federalist papers? Have you read the despodic history of those countries failing to heed to these rights? There is a reason politicians want more restrictions to RKBA. They fear it. Why?? What actions could they possibly be considering to warrant that fear?

The answer to that question is why I will continue support every effort to win back as much of the ground we have conceded as possible. FA included.

AKElroy
March 6, 2010, 04:00 PM
Please tell me you are being sarcastic with:
Quote:
Sounds like tyranny to me.....Silly notion, that we might have rights of the individual that supersede majority rule.

I'd hate to have to have to school you on the Founding Father's philosophy. You seem much more intelligent than that.

Majority rule, AKA pure democracy, is tyranny of (by) the majority. It is precisely what the BOR was ennacted to prevent.

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 04:11 PM
If you do not already see how then I am not the one to try and convince you. No offense to your view intended but IMO it just holds no water, it also seems you are in the vast minority in your view in this country. I would think that will continue to be the story going forward.

Yes, and that's the entire problem. I am in a minority in this country.

I'm a member of a minority of people who believe that when you pass a law it should actually have some impact, and I believe that if you pass a law and it changes nothing then it serves no purpose and it should go.

Apparently that's considered outdated. Today all you need to do is "feel like" passing a law will help and that's good enough.

And that's what you have with Hughes. Repeatedly I've asked you to show any evidence in any form that shows that any crime has been reduced by the law.

You won't do that, instead you come back with the usual anti BS by claiming that I'm some kind of fringe minority crazy person because I think machine guns should be sold the same as any other firearm. You tell me my argument holds no water even when it's backed up by FBI, DOJ and ATF crime statistics. You offer no evidence in rebuttal because you can't.

Yes, I'm crazy because I think laws should actually DO something when passed.

Guess you will be wanting me locked up next huh? Can't have crazy people like me out there insisting on rights guaranteed by the silly Constitution, or insisting that politicians pass laws that actually help things get better.

No, can't have people like me out there ruining everyone's fun.

We need more people like you, who are happy to have laws on the books with no demonstrable effect at all, that do nothing but make you "feel better".

I don't understand it.

SharpsDressedMan
March 6, 2010, 04:13 PM
While we get a bit emotional, sentimental, and justly passionate here, it's still a great hotbed of thought, theory, and good intentions. Keep it up. It DOES stimulate my mind. MODERATORS: DO NOT close this just because it becomes passionate. A little passion now and then lets us know we are still alive!

TexasRifleman
March 6, 2010, 04:25 PM
If that last statement is true (and I find it doubtful), then you need to be less insulting and abrasive in your responses. I personally could care less what you say, but some newbes might be put off by it.

Yes, I am insulting and abrasive to people who lie in their posts. Someday I'll bring down the wrath of the moderators for it I suspect.

How hard is it to simply tell the truth, or at least try to justify a position with some kind of evidence.

That's all I've asked of anti's I've debated on this topic over the years, and not once have they ever actually done it.

No rebuttals with statistics, facts, figures....nothing.

100% of the time it's been what happened here. They come in, make their outrageous claims then when confronted with conflicting evidence they

1) Claim the evidence is fake. Just 2 weeks ago in a thread a poster claimed that all FBI gun crime statistics were faked by FBI agents under the control of the NRA.

2) Claim a personal attack and exit the debate without having to come up with any counter evidence.

3) Stay in the debate saying the same old things but try to demonize the pro gun side with things like "You just want to sell machine guns to toddlers in Wal Mart" or other silliness like that, trying to make the topic a wedge issue between gun owners rather than actually face the fact that maybe, just maybe, gun laws don't do anything to lower the crime rate. To consider that possibility is simply beyond their ability or their willingness.

In this thread alone you can see examples of all 3 of these typical responses.

So no, I find it very hard to be nice to people who are intentionally dishonest.

I'll debate an anti any time anywhere if they will be honest, but since their entire side of the argument is based on falsehoods it just never happens. They cannot debate the issue without bringing in "gut feelings". They cannot stick to facts because the facts support absolutely NONE of their assertions. Ever.

Alex23
March 6, 2010, 05:17 PM
Where do you draw the line then Tex?

FA weapons, claymores, M203s, M18A1s? ;)

meytind
March 6, 2010, 05:48 PM
First, M18A1 is the designation for a claymore.
Second, while I can't answer for Texasrifleman, I can answer for myself. I draw the line at bearable (carry-able) arms. If you can carry it by yourself, without the aid of a vehicle like a crane or forklift, you should be able to own it. That means claymores, M203s, even a suitcase nuke if you want it. (Of course, those who owned nukes would have to keep them in underground bunkers just in case they accidentally went off, but whatever ;) )

Forbidding people from owning something is punishing them for something they MIGHT do, not for something they did.

hso
March 6, 2010, 05:59 PM
Some of you will be getting PMs. Some of those will be ban notices. Civility in our discussions is the core requirement here. Attack the argument and not the person making the argument. Those of you who can't remember this can find plenty of firearms forums where no one cares how you represent firearms owners to the rest of the world.

If you enjoyed reading about "Full Auto ban tyranny?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!