Amazing that many people still think we use fully automatic weapons

Ignorance is understandable. It just represents a lack of understanding or a lack of info. I think all we can do is calmly explain the difference between fully automatic and semiautomatic firearms. We also need to explain due process and constitutional rights. Only foolish or ignorant people willingly surrender their rights.

A person is only stupid when they have the facts and choose to continue with an incorrect or illogical action or thought process. That being said, there's plenty of folks who choose that.

Stay calm and explain things. Educate with a smile and a handshake, and you can do this country a lot of good.

What I've been seeing lately is the anti's have progressed to a 'we don't care what the BATF considers to be an assault weapon, and we don't care about select fire' position. They want anything with a detachable magazine and self loading features gone. They strongly feel the second amendment is obsolete and needs to be gone as well.

Those that live in urban America have little opportunity to use firearms, especially handguns. This obviously leads to unfamiliarity. Then they are constantly bombarded with anti-gun propaganda from leftist/progressive news media. Crime committed by human beings is constantly blamed on "gun violence."

Given all this the residents' attitudes and perspectives about guns shouldn't come as any surprise.

It's really a fruitless tactic for the pro-gun side to be stressing the difference between fully automatic and semiautomatic. If people delve into this more deeply, they realize that certain semiautomatic guns are almost as effective, militarily, as their fully automatic cousins.

If you go down this road, you end up having to concede that if fully automatic guns should be banned, then semiautomatics should be also. You don't want to be put in that position.

The crux of the issue is that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people as a whole (the "constitutional militia") to be as well armed as the standing army. This is the ultimate guarantee of democracy. In this light, the NFA is unconstitutional to the extent it puts restrictions on military weapons.

It's really a fruitless tactic for the pro-gun side to be stressing the difference between fully automatic and semiautomatic. If people delve into this more deeply, they realize that certain semiautomatic guns are almost as effective, militarily, as their fully automatic cousins.

If you go down this road, you end up having to concede that if fully automatic guns should be banned, then semiautomatics should be also. You don't want to be put in that position.

Click to expand...

Not only is this 100% correct, but it walks you straight into the position of expressly AGREEING that "of course" full-auto firearms are banned, and SHOULD BE banned. That's a given, right? These aren't those dangerous military full-auto machine guns!!! Oh no, no, no! These are the SAFE kind that can't to what those highly lethal machine guns do -- those terrible weapons of war we DON'T allow civilians to have!




Say wut? I'm sorry, I thought I was fighting FOR the 2nd Amendment. For the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the defense of home and country. MOST SPECIFICALLY weapons of parity with military forces.

As Tench Coxe so eloquently said, "Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans."

So, yeah, can we please stop AGREEING with the antis that there are guns just too lethal to ALLOW citizens to own?

The truth is that semiautomatic weapons are MORE deadly than full auto. It take a LOT of training and practice to use full automatic weapons to their potential . Training that the military doesnt even really bother with because they want their people to use semiauto aimed fire so they can actually hit things. Full auto has its place for suppressive fire so that the enemy keeps their heads down while your people move but thats really about it. For 99% of shooters once that go fast button is pushed aiming and control go out the window. Not to mention the "clip" is empty in 2.3 seconds. Full auto is pretty much a waste of ammo.

It is not only ignorance; it is proud and intractable ignorance. The attitude goes something like this:

"Guns are scary. Guns kill people. I don't know anything about guns, and I don't want to know anything. Anything you try to teach me is just your attempt to justify these scary things that I hate. So shut up."

That has pretty much been my experience.

What really amazes me, is the number of people in this country that believe full auto weapons are illegal.

This is especially true of the politicians and those in the media, although thats probably more about promoting an agenda than it is about truth.

The truth is that semiautomatic weapons are MORE deadly than full auto. It take a LOT of training and practice to use full automatic weapons to their potential . Training that the military doesnt even really bother with because they want their people to use semiauto aimed fire so they can actually hit things. Full auto has its place for suppressive fire so that the enemy keeps their heads down while your people move but thats really about it. For 99% of shooters once that go fast button is pushed aiming and control go out the window. Not to mention the "clip" is empty in 2.3 seconds. Full auto is pretty much a waste of ammo.

Click to expand...

Ive been shooting FA weapons since the 60's, and owned a few since the early 80's. Learning to shoot them effectively really isnt a big deal, and doesnt take much effort.

Ive taught a lot of people to shoot them, and generally had them making good hits on target within a mag ot two. Both my kids were shooting my MP5, on their own, at 5 years old, and had no troubles controlling the gun, the trigger, and keeping all their hits on target.

The technique is simple, and easily learned, and applies to all the shoulder fired guns. Pistol caliber guns are the easiest, and full mag dumps into a pie plate at 10 yards is easily done with a little practice and was actually one of our little challenges/competitions for beer when we got together.

Some things contrary to what many seem to think....

... you dont dump the mag, you point/aim at the target, and shoot in controlled bursts. Its not the often touted spray and pray, which is simply a user problem.

... its only an "ammo waster", if youre an ammo waster. You control the gun, or not.

...except for suppressive fire, its meant to be used at close range. With most guns, if you control the trigger, you can usually squeeze off single shots, even in FA, and shoot accurately that way at longer distances. But it is in reality, a close range proposition, and very much like a shotgun with buckshot, in "effective" range (not bullet range) and effectiveness.

From what Ive seen of most of the military and police Ive shot with over the years, very few had any kind of actual training in their use (and actually, didnt really shoot all that much anyway). In fact, those people were usually the scariest when I was shooting with them, and you needed to stay close and watch them closely.

AlexanderA said:

It's really a fruitless tactic for the pro-gun side to be stressing the difference between fully automatic and semiautomatic. If people delve into this more deeply, they realize that certain semiautomatic guns are almost as effective, militarily, as their fully automatic cousins.

If you go down this road, you end up having to concede that if fully automatic guns should be banned, then semiautomatics should be also. You don't want to be put in that position.

The crux of the issue is that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people as a whole (the "constitutional militia") to be as well armed as the standing army. This is the ultimate guarantee of democracy. In this light, the NFA is unconstitutional to the extent it puts restrictions on military weapons.

Click to expand...

yup, this. We waste our breath, and they expand their scope.

AK103K wrote:

What really amazes me, is the number of people in this country that believe full auto weapons are illegal.

This is especially true of the politicians and those in the media, although that's probably more about promoting an agenda than it is about truth.

Click to expand...

Wayne LaPierre himself said this, in congressional testimony. I was watching the hearings, after Newtown, and I about fell out of my chair when I heard him say it.

Of course, technically he may be right. 18 USC section 922 (o) states a blanket rule that possession, etc., of machine guns is illegal -- but then carves out an exception for guns that were legally possessed on May 19, 1986. So, yes, machine guns were banned, but existing ones were grandfathered. This was the infamous Hughes Amendment.

Maybe the NRA's thinking, in saying that machine guns are already banned, is to let sleeping dogs lie and not stir up the crowds with the torches and pitchforks. But that puts the NRA in the difficult position of saying one thing to the general public, and another thing to its own members. I remember that after FOPA was signed into law by President Reagan, the NRA promised that it would work to remove the Hughes Amendment. Nothing ever came of that.

I recently read that their were 183K registered full autos when the registry was closed. Assuming that is correct and assuming the "300 million guns in America" is also correct, that would mean about 99.94% of guns legally available to the public are not full auto, and that is assuming that all of the 183K are still functioning.*



*I know, lots of assuming going on in there.

Old Fuff said:

Those that live in urban America have little opportunity to use firearms, especially handguns. This obviously leads to unfamiliarity. Then they are constantly bombarded with anti-gun propaganda from leftist/progressive news media. Crime committed by human beings is constantly blamed on "gun violence."

Given all this the residents' attitudes and perspectives about guns shouldn't come as any surprise.

Click to expand...

Quite the opposite.
People in urban areas are most familiar with handguns and have very little to no use for long guns.
Most murders in urban areas are committed with handguns as a matter of fact as are almost all legal defensive use of a firearm.
The response of most urbanites, even those that keep and use handguns for defense is, "I don't see why anybody needs an assault rifle to protect themselves."
I hear this line so often it almost becomes tiring trying to explain it...

Wayne LaPierre himself said this, in congressional testimony. I was watching the hearings, after Newtown, and I about fell out of my chair when I heard him say it.

Click to expand...

Non-gun enthusiasts look at me like I have three heads when I tell them I'm not a member of the NRA, because they compromise too much.

Machine guns and so-called Destructive Devices, and silencers and SBRs and SBSs need to be deregulated. If the other side wants to compromise, let's start with us getting something back for a change.

toivo said:

It is not only ignorance; it is proud and intractable ignorance. The attitude goes something like this:

"Guns are scary. Guns kill people. I don't know anything about guns, and I don't want to know anything. Anything you try to teach me is just your attempt to justify these scary things that I hate. So shut up."

That has pretty much been my experience.

Click to expand...

Hey, you've met my mother!

I recall that the "news" coverage promoting the build-up to the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban showed people blazing away with full-automatic firearms at firing ranges with a voice-over about the need to get semi-automatic assault weapons off the streets.

You have a whole generation conditioned to hear "semi-auto" and to see "machine gun" in their mind's eye. Pavlov's theory at its most effective, especially among the urban population whose only contact with guns is the media misinformation.

Things like slide-fire stocks, SIG arm braces, and "handguns" that are really short rifles without stocks, have blurred the distinction between NFA and non-NFA weapons. There is a whole body of arbitrary and capricious rules promulgated by the AFT in an attempt to administer the NFA. The NFA itself has become a historical relic, and needs to be repealed. Why is it impossible to have a rational discussion about this? The pro-gun side seems to be afraid to touch the issue, lest it open some sort of Pandora's Box. Yet here is an area where we (the pro-gun side) could finally get something in exchange for something the other side wants. Why is it that we are always giving up things and getting nothing in return? I could see some sort of voluntary UBC system, with safeguards to make sure a gun registry is not created, in exchange for repeal of the NFA, or at least of the Hughes Amendment.

I live in FL for 20 yrs, NY before that. I meet many snow birds in my development and many are from Canada. They are as a whole fine people.
They are extremely curious about how our Country works, and are under the impression that an AR or a Glock, is a "for no better terms", a fully automatic machine gun.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised as most people get their news and information from the main stream media including ABC, NBC and CBS. They don't know anything about guns so why would the people who rely on them for information know anything about guns.

They also think that this economy is going along great.

It's by design. YEARS ago, Josh Sugerman INTENTIONALLY conflated semi-automatic firearms with "machine guns". He's ADMITTED as much.

It's like the "blood libel" against Jews (which survives to this day in "mainstream" culture in the Islamic world).

If you want to get rid of something (or someone), you must first demonize it.

The truth isn't even an incidental consideration...

AlexanderA said:

It's really a fruitless tactic for the pro-gun side to be stressing the difference between fully automatic and semiautomatic. If people delve into this more deeply, they realize that certain semiautomatic guns are almost as effective, militarily, as their fully automatic cousins.

If you go down this road, you end up having to concede that if fully automatic guns should be banned, then semiautomatics should be also. You don't want to be put in that position.

The crux of the issue is that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people as a whole (the "constitutional militia") to be as well armed as the standing army. This is the ultimate guarantee of democracy. In this light, the NFA is unconstitutional to the extent it puts restrictions on military weapons.

Click to expand...

NEVER let a lie go unchallenged.

It is INVARIABLY viewed as an invitation to tell more and bigger lies.

I do EVERYTHING I can to let the other side show its true character.

NEVER pass up an opportunity to expose a liar AS a liar.

I agree that words are powerful tools, and that whoever controls the terminology controls the debate. The antigunners' most brilliant coup, IMO, was their misapplication of the term "assault weapon" to a class of semiautomatic rifles. This tends to magnify the fear of these guns among the general public. But that's water under the bridge.

The pro-gun side's attempt to use the term "modern sporting rifle" for these same guns is lame, to say the least.

Yes, lies should corrected when they are encountered. But pointless nitpicking gets us nowhere. Insisting that an "assault rifle" is a selective-fire weapon of intermediate caliber is nitpicking. That factoid belongs in the history books. It has no real relevance to the current discussion.

If you watch tv and movies you can clearly see they are everywhere.

Only folks in the gun culture know any legal machine gun price, is going to start in the thousands of dollars and be as registered as it gets here. In the you even have to notify them if your going to take a trip with it over State lines.

A great number of the anti-gun folks I've had the displeasure of knowing are very proud of their ignorance regarding firearms.