Drgong
Member
I still say just get the moratorioum lifted on new registratons and then spend the poltical capital elsewhere where it will be better served to RBKA.
What "reasonable restrictions" should we accept for full auto
- Thread starter maestro pistolero
- Start date
- Status
doc2rn
Member
I think noise suppressors should be mandatory as an OSHA safety feature, full auto should be added to weapon systems similarly.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
As a safety feature? Really? If you can sell that, I won't oppose you. But I don't think I could sell "FA=safety feature across the board."
Frankly, registration wouldn't be that bad, if it were:
a.) Free.
b.) Largely instantaneous.
c.) Resulted in the FedGov sending a coupon twice a year for 2 boxes of practice ammunition.
d.) Included stipulation that any weapon or ammo bans indicates that the .gov has been infiltrated by aliens, zombies, the UN, or other hostile parties and the revolution is totally on.
If this were the case, registration would be fine with me.
a.) Free.
b.) Largely instantaneous.
c.) Resulted in the FedGov sending a coupon twice a year for 2 boxes of practice ammunition.
d.) Included stipulation that any weapon or ammo bans indicates that the .gov has been infiltrated by aliens, zombies, the UN, or other hostile parties and the revolution is totally on.
If this were the case, registration would be fine with me.
ctdonath
Member
Hey, the Army thinks it's a lifesaving feature, and it's practically free to build a rifle as select-fire instead of semi-auto.
ctdonath
Member
Standing order in Switzerland amounts to "if you hear your superior officers order you to surrender, you are to ignore them."
Open bolt designs are actualy a little cheaper to build than closed bolt designs.
The only reason open bolt is not legal and widely sold is because it is more easily converted to full auto.
There is more moving parts in a closed bolt design.
However when speaking of closed bolt designs that is correct, about the same cost for both.
Gunnerpalace
Member
As much as I like silencers that is a bad idea.
Scoutsout2645
Member
OK, I'm posting on this before I read the next few pages but *** Zoogster?
"A .223 is easily defeated by the body armor most wear"
"An entire team with M4s and wearing body armor is not dissauded by a home owner with a rifle, espcialy one in .223. Of course at that point anything shy of a cannon or explosives like grenades wouldn't do much good."
Are you basing the effectiveness of standard body armor based on how it performs in Grand Theft Auto? The body armor that "most wear" is (at best) level IIIA which is only rated for pistol rounds up to a .44 magnum semi-jacketed hollow point or a 9mm FMJ. A .223 will make short work of a IIIA even with a hard trauma plate (I've tried it. Through and through front and back panels through the trauma plate at a 30 degree angle). Some LE Agencies don't even require vests. The level III and IV ceramic plated "super-vests" might stop a .308 FMJ, but outside of numerically small elite units (SWAT, et. al.) civilian LE will never see deployment of these extremely expensive vests.
A trained team of officers with long arms will go after a homeowner w/ a .223 if we HAVE TO, but because that's our job--not because we labor under the delusion that our vests will protect us from direct hits. Why do you think all those barricaded gunman scenes involve locking down the perimeter and then prolonged attempts at negotiation to get him to surrender peacefully? Hint: it's not because we have a burning desire to hold his hand and make sure he ends up OK.
Regarding Iraq: "Such units jump at the chance to face individuals in open combat".
Yeah...our Military is designed to face conventional forces in straight combat. We're really good at it and anyone that steps up becomes fertilizer. Asymmetrical threats are harder to fight simply because they're too small to find, fix and destroy with the tools at hand. Given the choice between a symmetrical vs. asymmetrical fight, yes we'll jump at a chance for the first fight because that's a fight on OUR terms. That doesn't mean that professional soldiers eagerly seek battle, they too do it because it's their job and they're too good to do any less.
The caliber, or even the rate of fire, isn't what frightens "evil doers in government". As long as voter apathy reigns supreme, as long as you vote based on party-line, fear and catch phrases instead of their actual voting record on issues that matter for you, as long as politicians aren't held accountable because it's just easier to vote red or blue (because that's what you always do) then "evil doers" will happily let us vote to gut our freedoms in the name of "safety" and "security". As long as we allow ourselves to be kept just afraid enough, but not so afraid that we are driven to action, we'll do the evil-doer's work for them.
Sorry. Rant over. Go ahead and start flaming...
By the way, I think everyone should HAVE to take a NRA approved gun safety and basic shooting course when they apply for a firearms permit, and that a law-abiding gun owner should be allowed to have a minigun on a pintle-mount in his bedroom if that's what he wants.
"A .223 is easily defeated by the body armor most wear"
"An entire team with M4s and wearing body armor is not dissauded by a home owner with a rifle, espcialy one in .223. Of course at that point anything shy of a cannon or explosives like grenades wouldn't do much good."
Are you basing the effectiveness of standard body armor based on how it performs in Grand Theft Auto? The body armor that "most wear" is (at best) level IIIA which is only rated for pistol rounds up to a .44 magnum semi-jacketed hollow point or a 9mm FMJ. A .223 will make short work of a IIIA even with a hard trauma plate (I've tried it. Through and through front and back panels through the trauma plate at a 30 degree angle). Some LE Agencies don't even require vests. The level III and IV ceramic plated "super-vests" might stop a .308 FMJ, but outside of numerically small elite units (SWAT, et. al.) civilian LE will never see deployment of these extremely expensive vests.
A trained team of officers with long arms will go after a homeowner w/ a .223 if we HAVE TO, but because that's our job--not because we labor under the delusion that our vests will protect us from direct hits. Why do you think all those barricaded gunman scenes involve locking down the perimeter and then prolonged attempts at negotiation to get him to surrender peacefully? Hint: it's not because we have a burning desire to hold his hand and make sure he ends up OK.
Regarding Iraq: "Such units jump at the chance to face individuals in open combat".
Yeah...our Military is designed to face conventional forces in straight combat. We're really good at it and anyone that steps up becomes fertilizer. Asymmetrical threats are harder to fight simply because they're too small to find, fix and destroy with the tools at hand. Given the choice between a symmetrical vs. asymmetrical fight, yes we'll jump at a chance for the first fight because that's a fight on OUR terms. That doesn't mean that professional soldiers eagerly seek battle, they too do it because it's their job and they're too good to do any less.
The caliber, or even the rate of fire, isn't what frightens "evil doers in government". As long as voter apathy reigns supreme, as long as you vote based on party-line, fear and catch phrases instead of their actual voting record on issues that matter for you, as long as politicians aren't held accountable because it's just easier to vote red or blue (because that's what you always do) then "evil doers" will happily let us vote to gut our freedoms in the name of "safety" and "security". As long as we allow ourselves to be kept just afraid enough, but not so afraid that we are driven to action, we'll do the evil-doer's work for them.
Sorry. Rant over. Go ahead and start flaming...
By the way, I think everyone should HAVE to take a NRA approved gun safety and basic shooting course when they apply for a firearms permit, and that a law-abiding gun owner should be allowed to have a minigun on a pintle-mount in his bedroom if that's what he wants.
Body armor is useless if you shoot them in the head with a 30-30 or a .380 Acp they are just as dead as if you shot them in the chest with a .44 magnum that went through the body armor and into there chest.
Reasonable restrictions is BS we have 20,000 "reasonable" gun laws on the books that dont do sh*t we dont need any more restrictions we need less of them.Same with drug laws legalize marijuana and other drugs make it legal through taxation like alcohol and have it on sale at every pharmacy and you will have less drug crime involving gangs and drug dealers they will lose billions in profits because it would be cheaper to buy it legally then.If someone chooses to take drugs let them they are accountable for any damage or chaos they might do just like alcohol.Some of you gun owners still support gun control but call yourselves pro-gun what hypocrisy.I oppose all gun control and any other laws that infringe on peoples freedom of choice,rights, and lifestyle.
I want Vermont style carry throughout this country and 1934 NFA law to be struck down,and 86 Hughes ban removed, plus 1968 gun control laws including the Brady bill to be exterminated.Then buying a gun will be like pre-1934 you can go to any tool shop,gun shop, or mall and pick your gun pay for it and walk out with it the same day without filling out any forms.Internet orders will get your gun shipped directly to your door with UPS or any other shipping service within days of you ordering it whether its a Full auto Glock 18 or a Striker 12 shotgun regardless no BS to go through and its yours to have with no registration of any kind or any restrictions for use of it in lawful self defense .
Reasonable restrictions is BS we have 20,000 "reasonable" gun laws on the books that dont do sh*t we dont need any more restrictions we need less of them.Same with drug laws legalize marijuana and other drugs make it legal through taxation like alcohol and have it on sale at every pharmacy and you will have less drug crime involving gangs and drug dealers they will lose billions in profits because it would be cheaper to buy it legally then.If someone chooses to take drugs let them they are accountable for any damage or chaos they might do just like alcohol.Some of you gun owners still support gun control but call yourselves pro-gun what hypocrisy.I oppose all gun control and any other laws that infringe on peoples freedom of choice,rights, and lifestyle.
I want Vermont style carry throughout this country and 1934 NFA law to be struck down,and 86 Hughes ban removed, plus 1968 gun control laws including the Brady bill to be exterminated.Then buying a gun will be like pre-1934 you can go to any tool shop,gun shop, or mall and pick your gun pay for it and walk out with it the same day without filling out any forms.Internet orders will get your gun shipped directly to your door with UPS or any other shipping service within days of you ordering it whether its a Full auto Glock 18 or a Striker 12 shotgun regardless no BS to go through and its yours to have with no registration of any kind or any restrictions for use of it in lawful self defense .
rero360
Member
ok, here are my reasonable restrictions for FA.
1) you must first put down your beer before shooting so you don't spill.
2) anytime someone utters the phrase "hey watch this" you must have a video recorder going for youtube.
not really FA but
3) you must always insure that your sling is not obstructing the muzzle of your M203 before pulling the trigger.
4) have fun.
1) you must first put down your beer before shooting so you don't spill.
2) anytime someone utters the phrase "hey watch this" you must have a video recorder going for youtube.
not really FA but
3) you must always insure that your sling is not obstructing the muzzle of your M203 before pulling the trigger.
4) have fun.
Sam
Member
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
Reasonable restrictions for Full auto?
1. NICS criminal background check - instant
2. No Mental health issues - instant
3. Photographic Proof of Identity - instant
And that's all the 'reasonable-ness' I wish to concede to the Government bureaucrats that effectively tax us without fair or proper representation, provide for their retirement differently and better, their physical security protection differently and better, and their health benefits differently and better, all with OUR TAX DOLLARS!
I now believe that our government already has too much power, is too big, and is too self-serving so that at every turn we need to fight for more individual rights, less socialism, more individual responsibilities and greater civil liberties.
OK rant over, back to logical discourse ...
1. NICS criminal background check - instant
2. No Mental health issues - instant
3. Photographic Proof of Identity - instant
And that's all the 'reasonable-ness' I wish to concede to the Government bureaucrats that effectively tax us without fair or proper representation, provide for their retirement differently and better, their physical security protection differently and better, and their health benefits differently and better, all with OUR TAX DOLLARS!
I now believe that our government already has too much power, is too big, and is too self-serving so that at every turn we need to fight for more individual rights, less socialism, more individual responsibilities and greater civil liberties.
OK rant over, back to logical discourse ...
MinnMooney
Member
I watched that video, and it's deplorable... national guard breaking into houses with their M4s shouldered. Those people are without honor.
The N.Guard soldiers were "doing what they were told and trained to do" and even they thought it was deplorable while they were doing it but that's why gun confiscation works - at first. A tyranical gov't can order it's armies to turn on their own people and they will - for a while.
--night
Member
None.
dave_pro2a
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 447
None.
IA_farmboy
Member
Full autos should be treated like any other firearm. Well, I suppose a firmer grip than on a semi is called for.
Since we are treating full autos as any other firearm the only restriction I think reasonable is showing proof of age before a purchase. Even that I'm torn about since "proof of age" can too easily be abused. There will be people requiring IDs issued within some arbitrary time period. (Come on, people!! It's still my picture and height, weight, eye color, hair color, etc. My college ID is still recognizable as me even though I have shorter hair and a few more pounds. Why should anyone actually care about the age of the ID?) Some stores may require a specific form of ID whether or not the law requires it.
Another problem is "papers please" LEOs that want to see ID even though none is required to carry. If there is an ID requirement to purchase then some keystone cops might think that gives them carte blanche to check ID for anyone that carries a weapon. (If you are under the illusion that this will not happen then you haven't been reading THR for very long.) So, yes, I advocate Vermont carry for even full auto weapons.
Originally I was of the stance that firearms should be sold in vending machines on street corners. I'll compromise with a showing proof of age before purchase. That's about as far as I will go since a legal person, under the definition of the founders, was anyone of competent mind. Children are not legal persons. People unfit to own a firearm should be under supervision. Serious criminals in jail, children with their parent/guardian, mentally incapable in a suitable facility and/or under the care of a responsible person.
Since we are treating full autos as any other firearm the only restriction I think reasonable is showing proof of age before a purchase. Even that I'm torn about since "proof of age" can too easily be abused. There will be people requiring IDs issued within some arbitrary time period. (Come on, people!! It's still my picture and height, weight, eye color, hair color, etc. My college ID is still recognizable as me even though I have shorter hair and a few more pounds. Why should anyone actually care about the age of the ID?) Some stores may require a specific form of ID whether or not the law requires it.
Another problem is "papers please" LEOs that want to see ID even though none is required to carry. If there is an ID requirement to purchase then some keystone cops might think that gives them carte blanche to check ID for anyone that carries a weapon. (If you are under the illusion that this will not happen then you haven't been reading THR for very long.) So, yes, I advocate Vermont carry for even full auto weapons.
Originally I was of the stance that firearms should be sold in vending machines on street corners. I'll compromise with a showing proof of age before purchase. That's about as far as I will go since a legal person, under the definition of the founders, was anyone of competent mind. Children are not legal persons. People unfit to own a firearm should be under supervision. Serious criminals in jail, children with their parent/guardian, mentally incapable in a suitable facility and/or under the care of a responsible person.
Vibe
Member
I'd go just one step farther. I'd have EVERYONE take the basic shooting and safety course as part of the mandated educational curriculum in order to graduate high school. In fact I'd like to see the safety portion begin in the 1st or 2nd grade. And Permits are just a way to convert a right into "gracious" permission. You have the Right to own and carry ANYTHING short of crew served weapons - you do not necessarily have the right, however, to USE it indiscriminately.Scoutsout2645 said:
LongRider
Member
Reasonable Restrictions of fire arms is an oxymoron
Scoutsout2645
Member
I understand why you'd prefer no permits. I'd prefer it if everyone was always responsible, even-tempered, rational, honest and law abiding. I'd prefer it if everyone was always law-abiding, honest and respected each other's rights and property so that we wouldn't NEED guns for self-defense. I'd also like a pony, but that's not happening either.
I agree that limiting your ability to own, purchase or keep firearms due to where you live, or any other superficial quality is wrong. However, are some of you honestly saying that a 10 yr old should be allowed to purchse a full auto AK out of "a vending machine on the corner"? That an untreated paranoid schizophrenic with a violent history should be allowed a firearm since he hasn't killed anyone so far? That a gang-banger with a history of homicide, robbery and assault convictions since he was in grade school should be allowed to carry a Tec-9 down the street because that last stint obviously must have reformed him? We don't allow uncontrolled epileptics or the blind to drive a car because they will endanger others, and chronic drunk drivers prove through their irresponsibility that they don't deserve the rights and public trust that we give to others.
If you are a law-abiding citizen, the prospect of a background check to make sure you aren't an obvious candidate to harm others shouldn't intimidate you. If you are a responsible gun owner, the prospect of giving firearms--weapons whose PRIMARY purpose is to kill--to the irresponsible, insane and criminal people in our society should disturb you.
As I've said, I have no problem with law-abiding citizens having firearms of any caliber, style or cyclic rate, I think that punishments for criminal acts involving firearms should be swift and severe, but handing out firearms willy-nilly without the most basic precautions violates the State's responsibility to protect it's citizens.
Or, let's just disband all police, military, courts and government offices, let's hand out an M-4 to every man, woman and child and trust in humanity's inherent good nature and co-operative spirit to keep the country going.
I agree that limiting your ability to own, purchase or keep firearms due to where you live, or any other superficial quality is wrong. However, are some of you honestly saying that a 10 yr old should be allowed to purchse a full auto AK out of "a vending machine on the corner"? That an untreated paranoid schizophrenic with a violent history should be allowed a firearm since he hasn't killed anyone so far? That a gang-banger with a history of homicide, robbery and assault convictions since he was in grade school should be allowed to carry a Tec-9 down the street because that last stint obviously must have reformed him? We don't allow uncontrolled epileptics or the blind to drive a car because they will endanger others, and chronic drunk drivers prove through their irresponsibility that they don't deserve the rights and public trust that we give to others.
If you are a law-abiding citizen, the prospect of a background check to make sure you aren't an obvious candidate to harm others shouldn't intimidate you. If you are a responsible gun owner, the prospect of giving firearms--weapons whose PRIMARY purpose is to kill--to the irresponsible, insane and criminal people in our society should disturb you.
As I've said, I have no problem with law-abiding citizens having firearms of any caliber, style or cyclic rate, I think that punishments for criminal acts involving firearms should be swift and severe, but handing out firearms willy-nilly without the most basic precautions violates the State's responsibility to protect it's citizens.
Or, let's just disband all police, military, courts and government offices, let's hand out an M-4 to every man, woman and child and trust in humanity's inherent good nature and co-operative spirit to keep the country going.
ctdonath
Member
Proponents of "shall not be infringed" are not saying "hand 'em out willy-nilly". They're expensive precision tools that cost a LOT to operate. Cost alone is usually a factor in preventing criminals & crazies from getting 'em.
"Taking precautions" presumes those officially disallowed will cooperate with their designated prohibition, which criminals & crazies are notorious for not doing.
Scoutsout2645
Member
Yes, SOME weapons are highly expensive precision tools, but many are not. The career criminal looking to knock over a liquor store isn't going to use a $10,000 O/U, but he will use the cheap .25 or 9mm that you and I would never consider wasting money on. Then again, responsible people won't look at guns as a disposable item.
You're right that criminals and crazies will break the prohibitions--I know that from years of practical experience. But lets take that line of reasoning out--If act A is illegal, but some people will break the law and do act A anyway, then we should just allow people to do act A. That's your arguement here--now fill in drunk driving, rape, murder for act A and see where it takes us.
I agree that ridiculous "feel good" bans on weapons by politicians who don't know what they're talking about do no good (look up NJ's recent attempts to ban any weapon of .50 cal or larger. Historical re-enactors and black powder hunters helped shoot it down--no pun intended--because they were essentially the only ones effected by this law). But providing unrestricted access to weapons for the irresponsible and criminal is, itself, irresponsible and criminal. And again I will repeat that I have no problems with ANY type of weapon owned by any sane, law-abiding citizen.
Oh, and if your arguement is that we need no restrictions except economic ones, what will your response be when class 3 firearms become legal for anyone to own and carry, but now ALL guns have a $100,000 sales tax applied to "prevent criminals & crazies from getting 'em"?
Overhead cover in place, sandbags in place...OK, flame away.
You're right that criminals and crazies will break the prohibitions--I know that from years of practical experience. But lets take that line of reasoning out--If act A is illegal, but some people will break the law and do act A anyway, then we should just allow people to do act A. That's your arguement here--now fill in drunk driving, rape, murder for act A and see where it takes us.
I agree that ridiculous "feel good" bans on weapons by politicians who don't know what they're talking about do no good (look up NJ's recent attempts to ban any weapon of .50 cal or larger. Historical re-enactors and black powder hunters helped shoot it down--no pun intended--because they were essentially the only ones effected by this law). But providing unrestricted access to weapons for the irresponsible and criminal is, itself, irresponsible and criminal. And again I will repeat that I have no problems with ANY type of weapon owned by any sane, law-abiding citizen.
Oh, and if your arguement is that we need no restrictions except economic ones, what will your response be when class 3 firearms become legal for anyone to own and carry, but now ALL guns have a $100,000 sales tax applied to "prevent criminals & crazies from getting 'em"?
Overhead cover in place, sandbags in place...OK, flame away.
- Status