Michigan goes full auto again!! Woohoo!!

[PlayboyPenguin]

Does this sound familiar to anyone? It is the last sentence of the second amendment in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights "...The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is the part that people should focus on, not the "well regulated militia".

Never focus on anything with "..." in front of or behind it. It means something has been left out and therefore the quote is not likely to be in proper context. Focus on "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Deal with the idea in it's entirety.

 

[UberPhLuBB]

All good point. The one key thing you said is "since regulation" so if the regulations where taken away what would happen. Anyone's guess... All my experience with autos were in places like Panama, Iraq, etc...and lots of people were killed by them every day. That is where I base my "for killing people" opinion.

If that's the way you think then aren't you afraid that the government would be the only ones capable of "spraying and praying" over hundreds of citizens crowded together? That frightens me infinitely more than my fellow gun owners owning full-auto.

You must meet force with force, my friend. A few scattered shooters with hunting rifles an army does not make. By this logic, we should be allowed to purchase tanks and state of the art fighter jets as well, instead of being prevented from doing that by exclusive military contracts and FAA regulations.

It's scary to think about, even if it is very unlikely to happen. We NEED everything they have. Not want, NEED. Soldiers are people too, and some of them would no doubt defect, pushed by their morals. But as an Army grunt, you should know better than most the rigid control structure soldiers are subject to. Quitting and turning just aren't an option to most soldiers and they WILL fight us if told to, bringing their jets, helicopters, tanks and plenty of full-auto weapons to bear on us. And why not? What's to stop them? Certainly not us, with our $600 hunting rifles and pistols.

I'm no tinfoil wearing SHTFer, I rarely talk about this stuff. But think logically.

Sorry to get off topic folks.

 

[David W. Gay]

I would hate to think that people as professional and accomplished as supreme court justices let politics interfer with their job...

I have to appologize, but that made me laugh, too.

Anyway, it may be subtle, but EVERYONE has a political bent, and will take actions, and make decisions, that are as in line with such bents as possible. In other words, SC judges may shy away from the political limelight, but their decisions are still politically tainted, one way or the other.

Now me, on the other hand - I'm *completely* unbiased....

as far as engaging in debate...that is the best way to make your point and sometimes to be enlightened with information that may change your own opinion.

I have to tell ya', you're cracking me up! It takes me AT LEAST ten years to change my opinion (and I'll still never admit it). And most people around here? - Twice that, if ever.

Now, back to my original point, your statement above directly contradicts your original statement, the one I quoted earlier, about forming your own opinion without reading any political publications. This board is nothing but a collection of (rather short) political publications.

Carry on!

 

[stevelyn]

I have to wrestle with that notion that autos are only used for killing people...alot of people...with little effort. Having been on the receiving end a few times this is a hard notion to overcome. Like I said I would have to give it more thought. I guess a few well place .20 gauge shells could inflict almost as much damage as a full clip from most autos. So I am betting there are good arguements both ways.

Hmmmm..........How hard do you wrestle with the notion that all those Springfield '03s, M-1 Garands, Enfields and Mausers were only used for killing people at one time or another, not to mention a bunch of those Trapdoor Springfields that were used to massacre Indian women and children? Killing with those seem to be just as bad since all parties are equally dead.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I have to appologize, but that made me laugh, too.

Anyway, it may be subtle, but EVERYONE has a political bent, and will take actions, and make decisions, that are as in line with such bents as possible. In other words, SC judges may shy away from the political limelight, but their decisions are still politically tainted, one way or the other.

Now me, on the other hand - I'm *completely* unbiased....


I have to tell ya', you're cracking me up! It takes me AT LEAST ten years to change my opinion (and I'll still never admit it). And most people around here? - Twice that, if ever.

Now, back to my original point, your statement above directly contradicts your original statement, the one I quoted earlier, about forming your own opinion without reading any political publications. This board is nothing but a collection of (rather short) political publications.

Carry on!

Wrong...just plain wrong. you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Hmmmm..........How hard do you wrestle with the notion that all those Springfield '03s, M-1 Garands, Enfields and Mausers were only used for killing people at one time or another, not to mention a bunch of those Trapdoor Springfields that were used to massacre Indian women and children? Killing with those seem to be just as bad since all parties are equally dead.

Sorry, I refuse to use one evil as justification for another...that is a very dark place to take yourself and not the kind of thinking I fought to protect.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Penguin, I agree you have to look at the definitions, however you have to look at the definitions in use at the time the Amendment was written in order to get an accurate read. That's where the Fed/anti-Fed papers come in, they define exactly what the Founders meant the words to mean, not what Mirriam-Webster has as common usage today.

On that, ironically, honest, competent, legal authorities on both sides of the gun control issue agree. The really smart anti-gun rights legal minds realize the 2nd has to be repealed in order to enact Constitutional gun control. It's the Schumer's, Brady's and lesser lights who try to say it doesn't mean now what it meant when it was written.

Original intent is the key.

I really did not have anything to add here... I just found it funny that someone on a gun board is called "Carebear" I just had to sit down and sketch this...forgive the crudeness of the drawing...since I am on the job site all I had was a sharpy marker and the back of some old wallpaper to draw on...I then took a pic with my cell cam and uploaded it to my portable to color it.

 

[David W. Gay]

Wrong...just plain wrong. you couldn't be more wrong.

What, precisely, is wrong?


PS: See ya'll tomorrow!

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

What, precisely, is wrong?

Oh...sorry. you are wrong in saying that i contradicted myself. i do form my own opinions...if i choose to engage in debate and gather info I did not previously have that is not a contradiction. if I try to read the legal viewpoint as officially recorded, that does not contradict my statement. I will not read opinions written by political figures that do not result in judgement. And i do not listen to paid mouthpieces for the far right or the far left. i turn off air america in disgust about as often as i do rush or O'Rielly

 

[Meplat]

I am not sure of my stance on full autos for the general public (myself included) but I do know I would probable like to own one...maybe take it to an outdoor range occasionally.

Dunno why the ambiguity about ownership of full auto weapons.

No. 1: In the only example that I can think of where a LEGALLY owned full auto was used in the commission of a crime, it was used by a police officer to murder his wife.

No. 2: The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd with the idea that it might someday become necessary to defend against enemies both foreign AND/OR domestic. In order (should such a drastic thing ever come to pass) to be armed in a manner that would allow you to do that, don't you think it would be necessary to be at armed with tools equal to those possessed who might attack you?

 

[stevelyn]

Sorry, I refuse to use one evil as justification for another...that is a very dark place to take yourself and not the kind of thinking I fought to protect.

I'm not implying one evil as justfication for another. As I see it there is really no difference. The technology of the machinery changed not the evil intent to do harm to others. The guns are inanimate objects no more, no less.

Your sentiments are misplaced in my opinion. It's not the instrument. It's the person wielding them that can be evil.
Personally, I'd rather face some undisciplined nut with a full-auto than I would a skilled and disciplined one with a semi-auto or repeater.

However, as one poster has already pointed out full-auto guns have never been a problem in this country. The "problem" was govt prohibition of alcohol creating the gangs.........you just like the govt prohibition of some drugs creating the gangs of today.

And contrary to the Brady trash propaganda .50 caliber rifles aren't either.

 

[Meplat]

Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same.

You are placing the emphasis on a subordinate clause...an unthinkable act of butchery of the English language. The 2nd, in MAIN does indeed state the right of the INDIVIDUAL to "casually" carry a weapon. "People". Go see how many times it is used in the BOR. Tell me ONE other instance where the word "People" meant some collective body. NOT ONCE. ..."keep and bear arms..." kinda hard to bear something you can't...ummm...carry (bear)....now ain't it?

 

[Meplat]

All good point. The one key thing you said is "since regulation" so if the regulations where taken away what would happen. Anyone's guess... All my experience with autos were in places like Panama, Iraq, etc...and lots of people were killed by them every day. That is where I base my "for killing people" opinion.

What he said was legally owned full autos since regulation. The use of English really is a subtle thing. One has to pay close attention.

There have been plenty of illegally owned fully automatic weapons used in crimes, and even if all firearms were to be taken from the legal gun owners in this country, then there would still be plenty. If a drug ring can smuggle TONS of drugs into this country, then a few machine guns thrown in the shipment wouldn't be too hard to carry off.

 

[Meplat]

Thanks for the advice but I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making.
...

Mr. Humphreys asked you to read the Federalist Papers. Am I to take it that you consider the Federalist Papers a "politically biased publication"??????
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Meplat]

I've never fired a fully automatic, or had any training regarding their use.

I've fired MP5's, Thompson's and M16's. And no, they are not effective when used in the spray and pray mode for other than close quarters combat. That is the reason for the last modifications to the M16. It's selector switch now goes "Safe", "Semi" and "Three Round Burst". The average soldier in a firefight, when equipped with a full auto weapon, will fire hundreds of rounds for each casualty inflicted. That said, however, the usage of full auto in sweeping a hostile room, or in CQC is not to be denied.

I've read other people here on THR though who talked about the evils of spray and pray, and the virtues of aimed single shots. This makes sense to me, but I don't really know.

In most cases, that is entirely correct.

Although I think people should be able to own fully automatic weapons just for fun if they want to, I question whether they're really any more valuable in a SHTF situation.

They do have their uses, yes. Like any other tool. That's the main reason for selective fire weapons. To be able to select how to best use the tool for the proper circumstance.

I'd like to hear from people with experience as to whether they'd rather have an auto or a semi-auto if there ever were a need to gather the militia and fight someone.

Personally, I'd rather have a full auto sub gun along with a full scale battle rifle. Right tools again.

Just to be clear, I consider it a fantasy - and a dangerous fantasy at that - to think about fighting off the ATF if they come to your home to arrest you.

Actually, a good portion of the Colonists thought that way as well about the British.

So I'm not asking about crouching behind your wood stove and spraying a mob of feds in your front yard. I'm imagining a field engagement between two forces, such as might have occurred in 1776, 1812, or 1861.

Without doubt, marksmanship and the motivation to win play more of a role when both sides are similarly equipped. Andrew Jackson's exploits with a rag tag bunch of 4,000 rednecks who could shoot the eye out of a squirrel at 100 paces is a good indicator of that. Had the British had the ability to focus heavy automatic weapons fire on the marksmen, though, their 12,000 member force would most assuredly have had an even larger advantage, with most probably an entirely different outcome. I think the same could be said about ANY of the other battles you mentioned. That's the reason we don't go to war with muzzle loaders as issued weapons today. And the reason if your government SHOULD ever come after you, they won't do it with Brown Besses.

And, as Dame Katrina taught us, if the military or local authorities can't get to you in time to help, then you damn well better be armed at least as well as your antagonists.

 

[Meplat]

No, over eating causes fat. Spoons are just a vehicle. People kill...guns make it much easier and sometimes more likely.

Mucho wrongo. Study some of the ancient battles, before firearms were invented or in common usage. The rate of killing was horrendous when two armies met on the plain of battle. Firearms have actually made warfare MORE humane.

And from the first recorded murder on, something as simple as picking up a rock has always been fairly easy, even for a weak person to do.

More likely? I don't think so. The value a society places on human life is what makes murder more or less likely. When life is cheap, murder is rampant. When it is valued, it is rare. It doesn't matter what weapons are available. It just isn't THAT hard to run someone through with a sharpened piece of metal or to club them over the head, unless they are armed equally or even superior to you. The Swiss are REQUIRED to keep REAL assault weapons in their homes, and are issued ammuniton annually, and expected to practice with it. What are their murder rates like?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Mucho wrongo. Study some of the ancient battles, before firearms were invented or in common usage. The rate of killing was horrendous when two armies met on the plain of battle. Firearms have actually made warfare MORE humane.

And from the first recorded murder on, something as simple as picking up a rock has always been fairly easy, even for a weak person to do.

More likely? I don't think so. The value a society places on human life is what makes murder more or less likely. When life is cheap, murder is rampant. When it is valued, it is rare. It doesn't matter what weapons are available. It just isn't THAT hard to run someone through with a sharpened piece of metal or to club them over the head, unless they are armed equally or even superior to you. The Swiss are REQUIRED to keep REAL assault weapons in their homes, and are issued ammuniton annually, and expected to practice with it. What are their murder rates like?

Where do you get this info from. I have been there and I never saw one family with auto weapons in their homes nor heard mention of it. In fact when we were in state there we were given instruction that the local gun laws were actually quite strict. Have they changed? is this something that used to be true but is no longer? just curious.. As for picking up rocks being equivelant to using a gun you need to step back and rethink that...if someone had just had a rock I would not have seen my friend SSG A. Michell shot in the back from a hundred yards out while handing out candy to local children...if someone had only had a blade I would not have been present when 3 men lost their lives to automatic weapons fire from a nearby roof top in the very spot that a friend of mine and I had been standing mere seconds earlier, etc.

 

[Meplat]

Wrong...just plain wrong. you couldn't be more wrong.

BRAVO! Good strong points, excellent parrying, and a thrust to the core.

Methinks you MUST be a troll.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

BRAVO! Good strong points, excellent parrying, and a thrust to the core.

Methinks you MUST be a troll.

I hit the post too soon...if you read on you will see the next post carries the continuation...Some people are so quick to jump on things before seeing what is really happening or being said.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

BRAVO! Good strong points, excellent parrying, and a thrust to the core.

Methinks you MUST be a troll.

I hit the post too soon...if you read on you will see the next post carries the continuation...Some people are so quick to jump on things before seeing what is really happening or being said.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

2

 

[Meplat]

Where do you get this info from.

Here's one good source - although if you've done much reading on the Swiss system of miltia based service, you really wouldn't need it. http://www.constitution.org/mil/swiss_report.htm

I have been there and I never saw one family with auto weapons in their homes nor heard mention of it.

Had you seen me walking around town yesterday, you would not have seen the SIG P-226 I was carrying. Does not change the fact that it was still there.

In fact when we were in state there we were given instruction that the local gun laws were actually quite strict. Have they changed?

Nope. One of the major sports for the Swiss is rifle and pistol shooting events. They have over three thousand public ranges. How the hell did you spend any time in a country that size and NOT know that?

As for picking up rocks being equivelant to using a gun you need to step back and rethink that...if someone had just had a rock I would not have seen my friend SSG A. Michell shot in the back from a hundred yards out while handing out candy to local children...

As much as I hate to hear about your friend (and I DO hate to hear about him), quite frankly anyone with any amount of skill at all with a patched round ball and 100 grains of ffg black powder could have done the same thing.

if someone had only had a blade I would not have been present when 3 men lost their lives to automatic weapons fire from a nearby roof top in the very spot that a friend of mine and I had been standing mere seconds earlier, etc.

Once again, tragic. No sarcasm meant. It IS tragic. However, one loony with a gallon of gasoline could have gotten more people. Gasoline control, anyone? Were you aware that the worst mass murder episode in US history involved some dillweed pissed at his girlfriend, a gallon of gasoline, and a disco? Could a Malotov Cocktail hurled from the same rooftop possibly have taken out the three men you speak of? Could three well aimed shots from a semi-automatic weapon have achieved the same ends? Could some one with a burning desire and a quick hand with a blade not have walked up, taken them unawares and still struck them dead? Possibly not as likely, but it could be done. There HAS been more than one recorded case of multiple deaths by edged weapons, you know.

Edited 2-08-06 12:19 PM

Sorry. SECOND most deady mass murder took place by the use of gasoline. It only killed 90 someodd peolple. The largest mass murder was committed by a whacko with a truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil. Apologies for the mistake.

 

[Meplat]

I hit the post too soon...if you read on you will see the next post carries the continuation...Some people are so quick to jump on things before seeing what is really happening or being said.

Coffee is good. Too much coffee is not so good. You're jittering a bit there.

 

[UberPhLuBB]

If that's the way you think then aren't you afraid that the government would be the only ones capable of "spraying and praying" over hundreds of citizens crowded together? That frightens me infinitely more than my fellow gun owners owning full-auto.

You must meet force with force, my friend. A few scattered shooters with hunting rifles an army does not make. By this logic, we should be allowed to purchase tanks and state of the art fighter jets as well, instead of being prevented from doing that by exclusive military contracts and FAA regulations.

It's scary to think about, even if it is very unlikely to happen. We NEED everything they have. Not want, NEED. Soldiers are people too, and some of them would no doubt defect, pushed by their morals. But as an Army grunt, you should know better than most the rigid control structure soldiers are subject to. Quitting and turning just aren't an option to most soldiers and they WILL fight us if told to, bringing their jets, helicopters, tanks and plenty of full-auto weapons to bear on us. And why not? What's to stop them? Certainly not us, with our $600 hunting rifles and pistols.

I'm no tinfoil wearing SHTFer, I rarely talk about this stuff. But think logically.

Sorry to get off topic folks.

Any comment, Penguin, or were you going to ignore this one?

This is the High Road, so I won't resort to personal insults (especially since none were directed at me), but perhaps this isn't the forum for you.

 

[Meplat]

Sorry, I refuse to use one evil as justification for another...that is a very dark place to take yourself and not the kind of thinking I fought to protect.

Are we on the same planet? The topic of the thread is Michigan's decision to allow law abiding people with the means and the desire to own fully automatic weapons to do so. Your postulation was that you were uncertain as to whether this was a good idea because of the potential for destructive misuse, while maintaining that somehow other arms were acceptable to you. All that was pointed out was the fact that the use of military style arms before the invention and widespread usage of fully automatic weapons were fully capable of killing quite effectively. The same military style arms that you now consider "acceptable".