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

[Andrew S]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SomeKid]

Andrew, the dictionary specifies arms as

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

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

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

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

 

[Deadman]

FWIW I found this amongst my archive of documents, an interview with Vietnam Veteran and SoF John Mullins -

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

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

 

[1911Tuner]

FullAuto

Agree with Jim Keenan's point, and those pertaining to crew-served light and heavy machineguns. Those things can win battles...not just minor skirmishes.

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

 

[georgeduz]

full auto is a waste of time and ammo,but it is fun

 

[VARifleman]

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

I read on several sources around the web it was a .380 MAC that the department had and it was a police informant who was murdered (I guess about internal affairs?).

 

[Keith Wheeler]

Full-autos are regulated the same reason as switchblades -- because "gangs use them!"

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

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

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

 

[saltydog]

A full auto in "trained hands" is a danger to his enemy. A full auto in an "untrained hand" is a danger to his surroundings. A semi auto in "trained hands" is a danger to his enemy. A semi auto in an "untrained hand" is "also" a danger to his surroundings. I believe a bunch of "untrained hands" with full autos or semi autos is why people bitch for more gun control.

 

[ctdonath]

Full auto is an option. It has its uses.

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

I like options.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Dead is dead!!!!! Crime is crime!!!!! I swear ,"stupid", should hurt...

Too Many Choices!?

 

[Alex45ACP]

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

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

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

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

 

[Alex45ACP]

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

 

[Andrew S]

Andrew, the dictionary specifies arms as

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Andrew S]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Werewolf]

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

Don't get me wrong - I don't totally disagree with this take. It makes sense at some level but I've never been able to find any proof of this contention in the congressional record relating to the 1934 NFA or the print media of the time. In point of fact the only time I've ever seen this claim made is in the rather loosely historical (albeit a great read) novel Unintended Consequences by John Ross.

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

Thankyou

 

[Alex45ACP]

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

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

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

 

[Andrew S]

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

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

 

[Alex45ACP]

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

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

 

[Andrew S]

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

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

 

[jsalcedo]

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

Yes.

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

Does it happen?

Not very often.

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

 

[Alex45ACP]

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

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

 

[MechAg94]

Realisticly, the average militia man did not maintain his own cannon did he? I thought those were normally bought by towns or the states and maintained at a local arsenal.

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

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

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

Oh well, just thinking about it all.

 

[joab]

Browning, Johnson, Maxim, Schwarzlose, etc., wasted a lot of time designing machineguns, and armies wasted a lot of money buying them.

Our army finally realized that in the 80s and developed the A2.

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

You are correct, they were permitted to own the most advanced weaponry of the day we are not that's the difference

 

[Andrew S]

Yes.

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

Does it happen?

Not very often.

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

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

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

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

 

[Andrew S]

You are correct, they were permitted to own the most advanced weaponry of the day we are not that's the difference

And you clearly missed my point.