busy_squirrel
Member
I believe that our capabilities as a "militia defending a free state" are limited when we can't own, or are hassled for owning FA firearms.
Full Auto?
- Thread starter Clint C
- Start date
- Status
DoubleTapDrew
Member
I know, and I thought about including those but I didn't want it to get wordier than it already was.
The NFA was the first major infringement I'm aware of and the FOPA in '68 probably banned more arms from importation than the '86 ban. Not to mention all the jim crow laws and the like. Apparently the government has an entirely different definiton of "infringed". Either that or they were fully aware of the true intent of the 2a and it scared them because they had no intention of serving the people rather than ruling them.
The point is we all need to stick up for each other in all things related to this Right. The antis outnumber the full auto fans. They outnumber the EBR crowd. They outnumber the bird shooters and probably outnumber the big/small game hunters. They outnumber a lot of the individual groups in this sport/hobby/right. But if we all stand together all the time on every issue we outnumber them at every turn. We all have something in common and we need to focus on it.
Valkman
Member
Lots of people around here have FA weapons, including me, and I've never seen anyone shoot them in semi-auto mode. There is no sense in that, spending all that money and firing one round at a time?
Also the ATF does not come knocking on your door if you own FA. I cannot believe some of the stuff I'm reading here.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Uh, the developers made a select fire version for the military trials.
Those civilians termed it the AR15. The Army named it the M16. At the time, I don't believe any semi-automatic versions were in production prior to its acceptance as the Army's new weapon.
Those civilians termed it the AR15. The Army named it the M16. At the time, I don't believe any semi-automatic versions were in production prior to its acceptance as the Army's new weapon.
+1. This is what I have been thinking for the longest time. The antis know what the 2A is for and most of these bans and regulations are to limit our capability to fight back in case the SHTF. They know that FA and "assault" weapons are not used in the majority of crimes committed with guns, but to have them in the hands of average joes would make things a little more hairy for them.
xx7grant7x
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 382
IMHO They should keep the tax and background check but repeal the pre-86 BS and allow ownership of new manufacture full auto's. Think of how "convenient" sound suppressor ownership is given the plethora of current manufacturers, add to that the fact that an extensive background check/waiting period and 200$ tax would serve to discourage the less motivated and criminal types from even initially applying anyway.
halfbreed808
Member
WWHHAAAAT?!:banghead:
i shoot my FA ar15 in semi more often than full.
if it's just a toy, then yeah, why not shoot it in full?
if it's a tool, use as appropriate
sort of like asking why someone would drive a corvette downtown since they spent all that money on a car that would go over 100 mph and are only going 15 mph.
zombienerd
Member
I have an interesting quote from Trench Coxe, one of the many people who were giving input to those writing of the Bill of Rights.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"
This mindset, as many others here believe, is that the Citizens of this country are entitled by God, or whoever you believe is your creator, to every single weapon that is available to the government itself.
Yes, I believe every law abiding citizen should be able to walk into Mom'n'Pop's Gunshop, and buy a Browning M2 at their leisure, and at or around the cost of what the government pays.
Anyone who is against this has had the wool pulled over their eyes for too long. This is the ideal that this country was founded on, FREEDOM to do whatever the heck you want as long as you don't hurt another person. In my opinion, this relates to Firearms, Drugs, Sexuality, Religion, Gambling, Prostitution, Seatbelts, Helmets, etc... If it doesn't hurt another person, why does the government care how YOU spend YOUR life? They shouldn't.
If you infringe on another's right to Life, Liberty, etc, then your rights can be removed as necessary, in direct return for the crime committed.
That is my belief.
Also by Trench Coxe:
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Also by this passage, further shows the reason why weapons should not be regulated. What good is a group of guys with low-caliber weapons versus the might of the US military IF someday the unthinkable happens, and a president tries to assume a dictatorship? That is the point of the second amendment, to prevent our government from exerting too much control over the populace. They've been trying slowly to disarm America since the early 1900's, we cannot allow them to take one more inch.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"
This mindset, as many others here believe, is that the Citizens of this country are entitled by God, or whoever you believe is your creator, to every single weapon that is available to the government itself.
Yes, I believe every law abiding citizen should be able to walk into Mom'n'Pop's Gunshop, and buy a Browning M2 at their leisure, and at or around the cost of what the government pays.
Anyone who is against this has had the wool pulled over their eyes for too long. This is the ideal that this country was founded on, FREEDOM to do whatever the heck you want as long as you don't hurt another person. In my opinion, this relates to Firearms, Drugs, Sexuality, Religion, Gambling, Prostitution, Seatbelts, Helmets, etc... If it doesn't hurt another person, why does the government care how YOU spend YOUR life? They shouldn't.
If you infringe on another's right to Life, Liberty, etc, then your rights can be removed as necessary, in direct return for the crime committed.
That is my belief.
Also by Trench Coxe:
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Also by this passage, further shows the reason why weapons should not be regulated. What good is a group of guys with low-caliber weapons versus the might of the US military IF someday the unthinkable happens, and a president tries to assume a dictatorship? That is the point of the second amendment, to prevent our government from exerting too much control over the populace. They've been trying slowly to disarm America since the early 1900's, we cannot allow them to take one more inch.
Prince Yamato
Member
What I was implying is that many people seem to assume that just because you own an M-16, that you have to shoot it in full-auto. You don't, you can shoot it in semi as well. Select-Fire weapons offer you a choice of firing modes. That's why I'm a proponent of MG ownership. If NFA '86 went away, all my Glocks would get an aftermarket happy switch. My implication was, that if the '86 restriction went away, more people would purchase MGs, especially once they realized that an MG does everything their semi-auto does and more.
Exactly.
ThrottleJockey
member
Zombienerd
AMEN BROTHER!
AMEN BROTHER!
jackdanson
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 859
+1 on that.
The 2 biggest mass murders in US history were committed with nothing more than box cutters and fertilizer. (911/okc)
Not to mention, it really wouldn't be that much more effective to use FA if you were to go on a killing spree. Look at the Hollywood Shootout, they didn't kill anyone. I am significantly more scared of a decently skilled person with a 5 shot revolver and a 5 shot bolt action than an amateur with a FA AK.
jackdanson
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 859
Quick question. When you get the FA weapon you do have to sign something saying you will allow for warrantless searches, don't you? I'm not sure if that is true, but that is what a FA dealer I talked to said.
mljdeckard
Member
My ability to resist the .gov in the...."coming revolution" hinges on so many things besides full or semi auto, I haven't worried for one second about the difference in whether I posess them or not. Indeed, the .gov would be foolish to assume that limiting the availability of these weapons to the public makes them more safe.
Even in my job in the military, I don't remember the last time I used full-auto. I don't train my soldiers with full auto. I'm much more concerned with training them to hit the mark with the first round than the next 29.
Even in my job in the military, I don't remember the last time I used full-auto. I don't train my soldiers with full auto. I'm much more concerned with training them to hit the mark with the first round than the next 29.
Valkman
Member
Not that I'm aware of or have ever heard of on any FA boards.
woodybrighton
member
Think you'd need some minimal restrictions on sub guns probably the $200 TAX and hassle simply because in the hands of the untrained inexperianced there dangerous to themselves and others
machine guns with bipods tripods much harder to kill yourself or others by accident.
Now rpgs are a hoot to fire and cheap but the actual rounds are not the safest of things and require suitable storage etc. you could sell them around $50 a round and make a profit. Tourisit price ukraine with launchers being $100.
not sure many ranges would let you use them and who clears up the rounds that fail to detonate.
machine guns with bipods tripods much harder to kill yourself or others by accident.
Now rpgs are a hoot to fire and cheap but the actual rounds are not the safest of things and require suitable storage etc. you could sell them around $50 a round and make a profit.
Tourisit price ukraine with launchers being $100. not sure many ranges would let you use them and who clears up the rounds that fail to detonate.
Shung
Member
obviously wrong..
that's my full auto AR15...
HeavenlySword
Member
In many states, NFA arms are illegal.
I live in one of these.
More painfully, FA modern weapons are illegal.
The Atchinson 12, IMI Tavor-21, FN F2000, Steyr Aug...
Most modern FA arms don't cost 10 grand. They don't even cost $100.
An AKM fresh from the Izhmash factories costs around $60. Modern, updated. Full Auto.
Even more importantly, the conception something is too dangerous in the hands of citizens (outside of perhaps nuclear, biological, and chemical arms, which are truly unsportsmanlike ;p ) has allowed our rights to erode to the miserable state they are in today.
Imagine 100 years ago. Citizens would kick and scream at the thought that they were not allowed to own the latest in military hardware.
Our founders would sound the call to arms, to bring about a new revolution.
Seeing your replies leaves me in a saddened and hopeless state.
I live in one of these.
More painfully, FA modern weapons are illegal.
The Atchinson 12, IMI Tavor-21, FN F2000, Steyr Aug...
Most modern FA arms don't cost 10 grand. They don't even cost $100.
An AKM fresh from the Izhmash factories costs around $60. Modern, updated. Full Auto.
Even more importantly, the conception something is too dangerous in the hands of citizens (outside of perhaps nuclear, biological, and chemical arms, which are truly unsportsmanlike ;p ) has allowed our rights to erode to the miserable state they are in today.
Imagine 100 years ago. Citizens would kick and scream at the thought that they were not allowed to own the latest in military hardware.
Our founders would sound the call to arms, to bring about a new revolution.
Seeing your replies leaves me in a saddened and hopeless state.
I think all belt feds should be under NFA i think that school shootings and such would be much more dangerous if they had sustained fire/tracers to walk fire into.
For all magazine fed FA ie M16. AK47, tommy guns, uzi etc. I think they should fall into the regular category of firearms(and there should be no restrictions on these at all)
I think this keeps in the spirit of 2A as 1 you're not keeping the ppl from owning anything. and 2 the ppl will be able to outfit themselves as a standard infantryman of the times
For all magazine fed FA ie M16. AK47, tommy guns, uzi etc. I think they should fall into the regular category of firearms(and there should be no restrictions on these at all)
I think this keeps in the spirit of 2A as 1 you're not keeping the ppl from owning anything. and 2 the ppl will be able to outfit themselves as a standard infantryman of the times
Shung
Member
as a matter of fact, full auto isn't more dangerous than semi auto.. actually, I bet you'd kill more people byjust aiming and double taping each of them instead of spray&praying..
there is no logic behind making full auto illegal of harder to get...
In Switzerland the situation is even more stupid..
personal Full auto's are legal for collectors trough a special 150$ tax.. But you cannot shoot them.. unless you pay a daily 100$ tax... Beside that, every male (18-34) serving the country owns a full-auto SiG550 at home, and it's perfectly legal to shoot it semi, whenever you want.. but can't do the same with your AR.... what is the logic here ?
there is no logic behind making full auto illegal of harder to get...
In Switzerland the situation is even more stupid..
personal Full auto's are legal for collectors trough a special 150$ tax.. But you cannot shoot them.. unless you pay a daily 100$ tax... Beside that, every male (18-34) serving the country owns a full-auto SiG550 at home, and it's perfectly legal to shoot it semi, whenever you want.. but can't do the same with your AR.... what is the logic here ?
moooose102
Member
well, if our lawmakers had any GUTS, we could. all they would have to do is make the penaty for useing ANY firearm n a crime so severe, that no one would do it. and actually, isnt that what should be done anyway!?!?
woodybrighton
member
I agree with most full auto rifles your get less rounds on target firing bursts.
submachine guns machine pistols FA pistols anything short lightweight and FA is more dangerous to the users and bystanders possibly less dangerous to the intended target
The swiss are all trained riflemen do you really want to be on a range with someobody whose just brought a sten gun from walmart? and never fired a subgun before?
if they have a browning 30 cal or an m60 or a m240 its at least pointing in the direction of targets and likely to remain so
submachine guns machine pistols FA pistols anything short lightweight and FA is more dangerous to the users and bystanders possibly less dangerous to the intended target
The swiss are all trained riflemen do you really want to be on a range with someobody whose just brought a sten gun from walmart? and never fired a subgun before?
if they have a browning 30 cal or an m60 or a m240 its at least pointing in the direction of targets and likely to remain so
- Status
