SaMx
Member
well, presumably we can agree on all the other points
using machine guns as a point of leverage against antis in disguise.
- Thread starter General Geoff
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
General Geoff
Member
You keep equating "support some restrictions" to "anti-gun." Where in any of my posts in this thread did I say that anyone who supports any restrictions on any arms up to and including nuclear weapons, is anti-gun?
My original post refers to small arms only. Please stop using weapons of mass destruction as a straw man.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
The nuclear weapon angle is the "anti of the month club" argument when they are finally pushed into a corner.
Pretty standard stuff.
Titan6
member
I saw on a TV movie that they had these suitcase nukes and the bad guys carried them around just like guns. So they must be small arms because TV would not lie and say that a nuke is small and light enough to carry around in a book bag unless it really was.
Restorer
Member
The status quo ain't what it could be, but I think that pushing for deregulation of full-auto or select fire weapons would be a bad idea. As the old poker adage goes, you gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. By extension you've also got to know when it's time to raise the stakes. A time when an influential (or just loud) bunch of ignorant jerks want to shut the whole game down is not a time to raise. Win the hand on the table in front of you before you deal the next. Then deal the next. The analogy is not bad because if you do raise the stakes then you are essentially "all in". You might wind up convincing the indifferent or undecided among us that maybe the antis are on to something, and you wind up losing not only the bid for full-auto, but being saddled with a more oppressive AWB than what we've already had.
I'm not saying don't try it, just that now is not a good time. Retrench then attack.
I'm not saying don't try it, just that now is not a good time. Retrench then attack.
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
We must be fully committed to the elimination of all bans and measures that restrict law-abiding citizens from owning legally obtained arms as the ultimate aim of all we do.
The opponent just can't be permitted to set the agenda for relegation, marginalization, and stigmatization of any firearms that an individual soldier can carry.
Their "solution" implies that we can trust government with a monopoly on machine guns even though we can't trust ourselves with them.
I trust that this is not a "solution".
The opponent just can't be permitted to set the agenda for relegation, marginalization, and stigmatization of any firearms that an individual soldier can carry.
Their "solution" implies that we can trust government with a monopoly on machine guns even though we can't trust ourselves with them.
I trust that this is not a "solution".
Public opinion is never gonna support deregulating full auto. In fact I believe the only reason is still possible to own a full auto is because the majority of people don't know its still possible.
On the other hand, nearly any person who believes citizens of the USA have the right to own 'guns' will end up opposed to the AWB nonsense if the issue is fully explained to them. This gradual understanding by the public that the AWB doesn't apply to full auto, combined with realization by many Democrats that gun control has political consequences, is the foundation of us holding the line.
On the other hand, nearly any person who believes citizens of the USA have the right to own 'guns' will end up opposed to the AWB nonsense if the issue is fully explained to them. This gradual understanding by the public that the AWB doesn't apply to full auto, combined with realization by many Democrats that gun control has political consequences, is the foundation of us holding the line.
Titan6
member
I think "never" is a little unfair. If you were to say 25 years ago that most of the states in the Us would "never" allowed concealed carry you would like have gotten a few nods. It is just a bit harder to explain to people why it is important to their rights with all the misinformation out there.
Zach S
Member
Kind of an apples to oranges comparison.
25 years ago a lot of LEOs simply looked the other way if someone was carrying a gun, and didn't give the officer any bad vibes or have a record. Why? Well, CCW was illegal, criminals dont follow the law, there was no way that CCW would be allowed, everyone knew there wouldnt be a cop around when you needed one, and folks took care of themselves. Not so much of "the police will protect me" mindset that a lot of folks have today.
My wife's grandfather carried when he was in the towing business. So did her uncle. Both were "caught" several times and never prosecuted, and didnt get a hard time from the LEO. My grandfather got made several times in his life, and to this day has a spotless record. A few members here have posted about similar experiences, and I'm sure several others haven't posted theirs (I've been caught breaking a law or two, and got a break, but dont talk about them online - so I dont blame anyone else for keeping their mouth shut).
Today, 25 years later, I dont see many LEOs looking the other way when they see an unregistered MG. There's really no way to justify it like you could a CCW back when it wasn't allowed.
Phatty
Member
Criminals are extremely valuable to anti's (and those with a liberal/socialist mindset in general). The anti's want to strip the rights of all citizens through fear. Greater turmoil in society caused by crime makes it easier for the anti's to ram through legislation that appeals to people's emotional reaction to solve the crime problem.
You know that everytime there is a psycho who goes on a mass murder rampage the Brady folks are secretly high-fiving each other in their offices with glee. To everyone else it's a tragedy, to them it's a victory.
ezenbrowntown
Member
Change is usually not made in large upheavals, but slow and drawn out compromises. That's just the way it usually goes.
While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I believe the world works much better with some degrees of gray, than just black and white. I don't think we should be handing out fully automatic M-16's to people at MHMR, or elementary school playgrounds.
No restriction is just that, no restriction. I don't think anarchy is the answer to a problem. Do I like paying speeding tickets? No. But do I think there should be speed limits? Of course. I'm a big fan of traffic lights too, even though they can be "restrictive".
Machine guns, while I'd love to have one, are not something I think everyone should be able to get there hands on. What I find ironic is some of the same people who would want everyone afforded the opportunity to own a machine gun, would cringe at the thought of more countries having access to nuclear weapons. By that same theory, shouldn't everyone have access to bigger, better, toys?
While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I believe the world works much better with some degrees of gray, than just black and white. I don't think we should be handing out fully automatic M-16's to people at MHMR, or elementary school playgrounds.
No restriction is just that, no restriction. I don't think anarchy is the answer to a problem. Do I like paying speeding tickets? No. But do I think there should be speed limits? Of course. I'm a big fan of traffic lights too, even though they can be "restrictive".
Machine guns, while I'd love to have one, are not something I think everyone should be able to get there hands on. What I find ironic is some of the same people who would want everyone afforded the opportunity to own a machine gun, would cringe at the thought of more countries having access to nuclear weapons. By that same theory, shouldn't everyone have access to bigger, better, toys?
JImbothefiveth
Member
Well, right now the AWB not only is ridiculous, it is easy to explain why it is. "Because those aren't used much in crime and they aren't even real assault rifles. They are just like semi-auto hunting rifles".
Then, when that person who now opposes the AWB hears "they really are fighting for machine guns" the person says "you know what, they can ban 11 round magazines, better than having machine guns without background checks".
It's really not smart.
Then, when that person who now opposes the AWB hears "they really are fighting for machine guns" the person says "you know what, they can ban 11 round magazines, better than having machine guns without background checks".
It's really not smart.
Koos Custodiet
Member
JImboTheFiveth said:
Why don't you set those prisoners free? Why are you so anti-freedom?
;-)
And yes, I believe that when you release a prisoner he should get his guns back. If you can't trust him with a gun (which he can get immediately on the streets) you have no right turning him loose on society.
Yargh. Realised I hijacked the thread. We're not allowed fully autos here in SA, but our new president wants one badly
What makes machine guns so much more dangerous, that the average citizen cannot be trusted with them?
While I basically agree with your philosphy I can't agree with your argument. There are those who would want to argue that you should be able to have a nuclear weapon or nerve gas if you wanted. See my point?
While I basically agree with your philosphy I can't agree with your argument. There are those who would want to argue that you should be able to have a nuclear weapon or nerve gas if you wanted. See my point?
OP
OP
General Geoff
Member
Your point is a logical fallacy (straw man).
Aaron Baker
Member
It's not a logical fallacy to discuss weapons that are more dangerous than ones we can currently have.
The question is: what makes machine guns much more dangerous that the average citizen can't be trusted with them?
There's two parts to that question. The "average citizen" in this argument is not a criminal and is not likely to ever shoot another person (except possibly in self-defense). Nothing that this person, the "average citizen", possesses is dangerous. If I had a nuclear weapon or nerve gas, no one would be in danger because I wouldn't use them.
But there's a second part to the question, which is what makes machine guns more dangerous than what is currently commonly available?
That's a stupid question. You know perfectly well that machine guns are more efficient killing machines. The reason that our military uses them (and that includes 3-round burst, since that's a "machine gun" under federal law, even if it's not fully automatic) is that multiple shots with a single trigger pull is more deadly.
Your response is going to be that "average citizens" like you and I, who have no intention of ever killing anyone, should be able to own such things. I agree.
However, the reason that many people think the current state of affairs is okay is that if they were available without a $200 stamp, high price tag and background check by the ATF, more criminals would have them and would probably shoot more innocent people with them.
Think about it--criminals use pot-metal guns from manufacturers like Hi-Point and Jennings. (You know, unless they can afford that "Glock Forty" because they sold enough drugs.) They buy what's cheap. If full auto were legal, some of them would be VERY cheap indeed. A Sten is easier to build full auto than semi-auto, and it's made of out a damn piece of pipe.
Now I'm not saying that I agree with these laws. But I'm saying that, in our democracy, there's a general consensus that "reasonable restrictions" can be imposed on the right to keep and bear arms. And I'm willing to bet that a majority of people think that it's reasonable to restrict fully automatic weapons. They think it's reasonable not because they worry about what honest, average citizens would do, but because they're worried about how much easier it would be for a criminal to obtain a fully automatic firearm, which are definitely more dangerous to innocent bystanders than semi-autos.
Right or wrong, arguing that they're less dangerous isn't the right way to win this argument.
And if you think there shouldn't be "reasonable restrictions" on our 2nd Amendment right, first realize that there are also "reasonable restrictions" on our right to religious freedom and our right to free speech. If you think we should be able to own fully automatic firearms with no restrictions, then ask yourself if people should be able to smoke marijuana as part of their religion or if they should be able to scream the proverbial "fire" in a crowded theater.
I honestly think it's a little conceited to basically make a thread where you're saying "All 'gun' people should agree with my view on guns, otherwise they're anti-gun." In a democracy, everyone is entitled to think their opinion is correct, but that doesn't make it true.
Aaron
The question is: what makes machine guns much more dangerous that the average citizen can't be trusted with them?
There's two parts to that question. The "average citizen" in this argument is not a criminal and is not likely to ever shoot another person (except possibly in self-defense). Nothing that this person, the "average citizen", possesses is dangerous. If I had a nuclear weapon or nerve gas, no one would be in danger because I wouldn't use them.
But there's a second part to the question, which is what makes machine guns more dangerous than what is currently commonly available?
That's a stupid question. You know perfectly well that machine guns are more efficient killing machines. The reason that our military uses them (and that includes 3-round burst, since that's a "machine gun" under federal law, even if it's not fully automatic) is that multiple shots with a single trigger pull is more deadly.
Your response is going to be that "average citizens" like you and I, who have no intention of ever killing anyone, should be able to own such things. I agree.
However, the reason that many people think the current state of affairs is okay is that if they were available without a $200 stamp, high price tag and background check by the ATF, more criminals would have them and would probably shoot more innocent people with them.
Think about it--criminals use pot-metal guns from manufacturers like Hi-Point and Jennings. (You know, unless they can afford that "Glock Forty" because they sold enough drugs.) They buy what's cheap. If full auto were legal, some of them would be VERY cheap indeed. A Sten is easier to build full auto than semi-auto, and it's made of out a damn piece of pipe.
Now I'm not saying that I agree with these laws. But I'm saying that, in our democracy, there's a general consensus that "reasonable restrictions" can be imposed on the right to keep and bear arms. And I'm willing to bet that a majority of people think that it's reasonable to restrict fully automatic weapons. They think it's reasonable not because they worry about what honest, average citizens would do, but because they're worried about how much easier it would be for a criminal to obtain a fully automatic firearm, which are definitely more dangerous to innocent bystanders than semi-autos.
Right or wrong, arguing that they're less dangerous isn't the right way to win this argument.
And if you think there shouldn't be "reasonable restrictions" on our 2nd Amendment right, first realize that there are also "reasonable restrictions" on our right to religious freedom and our right to free speech. If you think we should be able to own fully automatic firearms with no restrictions, then ask yourself if people should be able to smoke marijuana as part of their religion or if they should be able to scream the proverbial "fire" in a crowded theater.
I honestly think it's a little conceited to basically make a thread where you're saying "All 'gun' people should agree with my view on guns, otherwise they're anti-gun." In a democracy, everyone is entitled to think their opinion is correct, but that doesn't make it true.
Aaron
rojocorsa
Member
On not needing "one."
Well, you don't need a Porsche...you can technically get by with a standard sedan.
Well, you don't need a Porsche...you can technically get by with a standard sedan.
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
To all those appeasers, apologists, and defeatists who insist that lifting the ban is a definite non-starter and we are going about establishing our rights in the wrong way and at the wrong time, we must answer, "Who are you kidding?" Who has ever achieved individual liberty without taking it?
But take heed, now your evil, rapid-fire, mass casualty semi-autos are up next on the chopping block, and with good reason I suppose.
Time and time again we've all seen just how much dreadful carnage and mayhem just one unhinged individual with a semi-auto can rapidly inflict.
I regret to inform you that you that your specious argument that semi-autos are somehow "cool" and relatively benign in comparison to the "uncool" full-auto just won't wash.
No use looking for an easy out, especially of a situation we've put ourselves into.
But take heed, now your evil, rapid-fire, mass casualty semi-autos are up next on the chopping block, and with good reason I suppose.
Time and time again we've all seen just how much dreadful carnage and mayhem just one unhinged individual with a semi-auto can rapidly inflict.
I regret to inform you that you that your specious argument that semi-autos are somehow "cool" and relatively benign in comparison to the "uncool" full-auto just won't wash.
No use looking for an easy out, especially of a situation we've put ourselves into.
Last edited:
sohcgt2
Member
I think that no firearm is more or less leathal in the hand of a trained user than any other firearm. With that in mind I agree that if you can afford to own and feed a 20mm machine gun that should be your right. I also think current regulations regarding ownership of firearms may seem "unconstitutional" to some, but are reasonable and fair. I have never been denied the purchase of any firearm I wanted, but I have been to public ranges with people I wish had been denied. I think the laws currently on the books in my state are sufficient and reasonable. I wish they were enforced more vigorously, unfortunately changing regulations is what regulators do to justify their salaries. If ownership of high capacity or rapid fire weapons is accompanied with a requirement to register with BATFE then I think that is the hoop you must jump through. The second amendment protects the right it doesn't say it will be untaxed.
Not sure this helps the argument.
What if the reason that machine guns are so infrequently used in crime is that they represent a very small percentage of the guns in circulation at all?
For example, stolen weapons are a main source of guns for criminals. What if the known pool of stolen weapons is demonstrated to include a miniscule percentage of machine guns?
Would it not be plausible that there's a connection between that small percentage and the small percentage of use in crime?
gyp_c2
Member
geez Louise...
...too much information...
That confounded topic is sneaky eh...
...too much information...
That confounded topic is sneaky eh...
And here we go again....
if you support any laws or regulation of firearms (new or old) you're anti gun........
if you favor any government regulation you're in favor of a nanny state.....
if you dare disagree with us you must be a Brady troll.....
gun laws prevent no crime therefore there should be no gun laws.........
I should be able to buy any type of weapon system I want.....in fact anyone should be able to buy any type of weapon system they want....
Blah blah blah......
Same old tired junk as the other thread..........no more true than it was then........
if you support any laws or regulation of firearms (new or old) you're anti gun........
if you favor any government regulation you're in favor of a nanny state.....
if you dare disagree with us you must be a Brady troll.....
gun laws prevent no crime therefore there should be no gun laws.........
I should be able to buy any type of weapon system I want.....in fact anyone should be able to buy any type of weapon system they want....
Blah blah blah......
Same old tired junk as the other thread..........no more true than it was then........
OP
OP
General Geoff
Member
Irrelevant; that's like arguing that ferraris shouldn't be publicly available because they might be stolen by crooks who'd use them to speed.
Thankfully, this is a Republic, not a democracy (where 51% of the people can force the other 49% to do whatever they wish).
Once again, this is NOT A DEMOCRACY. Never has been. I never said people should agree to my view on guns. I'm saying machine guns should be legal, and that anyone who wishes to further expand our gun rights should work toward deregulating them. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement at all.
Where was this stated in the original topic? Why do people keep exaggerating? I guess this kind of digression is why threads get locked for straying off-topic. What I don't understand is why people fail to read and follow the topic, instead of driving off the cliff next to it.
"In summation, I think that during a civil discourse with someone who you may think is pro-gun, it would be prudent to touch on their opinion of machine guns."
Thus if I favor some restrictions on fully automatic weapons (which I do) I am anti gun. Where is my exaggerating occurring at? Maybe you need to read a little closer before trying to vainly point out where others are not doing so.
Thus if I favor some restrictions on fully automatic weapons (which I do) I am anti gun. Where is my exaggerating occurring at? Maybe you need to read a little closer before trying to vainly point out where others are not doing so.
OP
OP
General Geoff
Member
Where did I say you are anti-gun? The only logical conclusion you can reach from that statement in my original post is that if you do not want to deregulate machine guns, then the battleground of gun rights will always be one step closer to home.
The status quo is a dangerous thing, when it sits adjacent to the objects in your closet, threatening to eat them up. By pushing it back to deregulated machine guns, we have that much more freedom as well as political running space. By not wishing to deregulate machine guns, you are more conservative, but less of an activist. Not that that's a bad thing. I never condemned people for sticking to the status quo; just the status quo itself.
edit; also, even if (and that's a big if) I was condemning those who don't want to deregulate machine guns, deregulating machine guns is a far stretch from "any laws or regulations of firearms (new or old)". This thread must be a farmer's field, so many scare crows (strawmen) strewn about.
- Status
Similar threads
