PDA

View Full Version : What is your arguement for full auto?


exilefromhell
July 12, 2001, 09:48 PM
I was wondering what your reasoning and/or purposes for full auto were. I've always been interested and heard mostly negative things about it. Most say its spray and pray...inaccurate as all hell, etc, etc. I am going to find out more about the class III in my area.

also, what do you think of the hell fire trigger or similar products as an alternative to fullauto/class III...?


Thanks

glockten
July 12, 2001, 11:57 PM
The most fun you can have with your pants on.:D

chetchat
July 13, 2001, 03:40 AM
... and I can do it :)

Tactically, it's suppressive fire. It's "make the other guy too scared to poke his head up" fire. Select-fire allows an infantryman to temporarily assume the role of a LMG or belt fed weapon. Accuracy is subjective and dependent on training, mission, and the weapon being used.

Recreationally, full auto weapons are like big V-8 engines, large dogs, and girl friends with ample breasts : they aren't necessary, but when you got 'em they sure are a lot of fun.

4V50 Gary
July 13, 2001, 03:44 AM
Because as serious students of small arms, we should be allowed access to study them. Besides, they're fun to boot.

PreserveFreedom
July 13, 2001, 03:47 AM
Not to mention, to maintain the security of a free state, the military should not have access to any arms that the population doesn't.

exilefromhell
July 13, 2001, 06:51 AM
interesting points

i wonder if you could get an AR with tri-burst and full auto now a days

Byron
July 14, 2001, 09:47 PM
Best buy is Ruger AC556: Select fire semi, 3-rnd burst, full auto. Less than half the price of an M16A2. Long or short barrel, standard or folding stock. Ciener makes a nice .22LR conversion kit, too, for cheap shooting.

blades67
July 14, 2001, 11:14 PM
It's the most efficient way to money into noise! :D

KSFreeman
July 15, 2001, 12:17 PM
Exile, that's the joy of living in a free republic. I don't need a reason or purpose to exercise a right. But if you must have a reason, I say it's legally required that I own fully-automatic weapons. Read Miller again.

As a tactically matter, hand-held full auto is nearly worthless, but extremely fun. Full-auto with tripod and change barrels wins battles.

I am confused about your comment you are getting into "Class III." Are you getting a SOT number or do you just wish to purchase a Title II weapon?

Schmit
July 20, 2001, 08:02 AM
With proper training, discipline & trigger control FA gives the user a few more options. Single shot for "precision" work, hit your target with two or three rounds (ups the chances of instantly neutralizing the target (controlled burst)) or laying down suppressive fire during fire and maneuver.

I agree with Chet. Having a Lingenfelter (http://lingenfelter.com) (sp?) 650 HP Corvette or a Hennessey (http://www.hennesseymotorsports.com/) Venom 800 (HP) Viper isn't necessary but they give you that extra you can use if needed and I'm sure they would be a hell of a lot of fun cruising the Blvd on Fri/Sat nights. :cool:

exilefromhell
July 20, 2001, 11:01 AM
disregard last comment. i was confused on some issues and now know what it is about and what i want/am talking about.

KSF..where is this read on Miller that you speak of? URL?

thanks

Spectre
July 21, 2001, 12:25 AM
I was reading something recently (can't remember where, unfortunately) about how many hits of 9mm it took to immediately neutralize Soviet infantryment in WW II. I think 5 was the number given, except for the Siberians. They took about 9! :)

JimFromFL
July 22, 2001, 08:51 PM
There is no need for an argument.....

Just add it to the following "why" list....
Why do people buy $3K-$25K boats when they can fish from a pier?
Why do people buy 6 figure cars when they can buy an Ford Escrow?
Why do people buy $650,000 motor homes when a $35,000 one will do just fine?
Why do people own full autos?

The answer is... because they want to. It is their choice.

tomandnacole
July 24, 2001, 08:23 PM
easy. supresive fire!, intersecting fields of fire aim center mass and dont look the target in the eyes. 6 to 9 rd burst recomended:)

Apeach
July 25, 2001, 10:42 PM
In response to PreserveFreedom, there are some very good weapons why the military should have access to weapons that we as civilians can't have. I don't agree with making owning a full auto completely illegal, but the tough regulations and high prices it takes to get one are good. If you could go down to your local gun shop and purchase a full auto just like a bolt action rifle, there would be millions more in circulation. Now imagine if a mentally unstable person (such as a school shooter) got their hands on one. You could do many times the damage with a full auto in a crowded area (such as a school) than you could with a shotgun or a semiautomatic pistol or rifle. I know my school is so crowded that if anyone decided to shoot it up, the limiting factor in the amount of people they'd kill is the amount of bullets they could put out. So anyways, that's just my 2 cents, and I felt compelled to share it because crazy radicals like ConserveFreedom aggrivate me with their ideas that the government is always out to get you and that every law is bad. But more on topic to the thread, ownership of full autos with the current regulations is purely for fun. I would imagine that unloading a clip from an MP5 would be something every gun fan would want to experience.

Quartus
July 27, 2001, 11:59 PM
because crazy radicals like ConserveFreedom

Yeah! And you can add some names to that list of crazy radicals!

Names like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry...


That sounded like it came straight from Sarah Brady's script, Peach! "You don't NEED an AK-47 to hunt!"

The only RIGHT way to deal with school shooters, and the like, is to make it very expensive to do such a thing. Consistently, quickly, very expensive. Paying with your life expensive. By armed teachers or a criminal justice system, which we do not have now.


BTW, MP5s don't use "clips", they use magazines.



Hey, Blades, I think there may be a more efficient way to turn money into noise. At least, it's quicker.

High explosives! :D

George Helser
July 28, 2001, 01:37 AM
exile,

MY reasons for buying a full auto arm were:
a) Always thought it would be neat to have but not worth the hassle, until it was banned.
b) When the ‘86 ban was announced, it became a MUST HAVE.
c) The bun virtually guaranteed my investment would appreciate, and it really has!

Frankly, full auto shooting with my MP5 is less satisfying than my other arms but I enjoy taking out someone who has never tried it and let them run a few 30 round mags through it.
But they have to stuff the mags full of ammo.

I wonder what an MP5 will be worth in 20 years.

Regards,
George
In sunny Arizona

Quartus
July 28, 2001, 09:04 AM
I wonder what an MP5 will be worth in 20 years.

George, the way things have been going, I'd say about 20 years! :eek:

Apeach
July 28, 2001, 05:35 PM
Hey, I'm not against owning fully automatic weapons or high capacity magazines or anything of that sort. In fact, I think it'd be really cool to have one. I just don't think that they should be any easier to get, because then there'd be too many of them out there, and it'd be too easy for crazy people to get their hands on them. I think the answer is to release a small amount of full auto weapons and high capacity mags for sale every year to drop the prices some, but keep the tax and the papers you need to get signed there. Then it'd be easier for qualified and honest gun owners to get them for their enjoyment, but criminals wouldn't be able to. Also, that whole shtick about Thomas Jefferson and all those about standing for the same things as you is BS, and I'm getting tired of it. Everyone just warps their words to mean whatever they want it to, and since they're not around to say differently, it passes. There's a big difference between what they were trying to do and what you're trying to do. They were trying to set up a democratic government, and they mostly succeeded, but you're trying to overthrow a democratic government and give us total anarchy. And you'd think the government hasn't done so much for you.

Justin
July 28, 2001, 08:08 PM
APeach-

If I am not crazy, why should my rights be either
1)Suspended
2)Sold back to me at a price
3)Registered, stamped, and fine-print sanitized?

As a fully sapient individual, it is my belief that any sacrifice of my inalienable human rights for the sake of society's 'safety' are in essence a compromise with evil.

http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/whyguns.html
No, I don't agree with everything L. Neil Smith says, but the above link is a fine read, and good food for thought.

Basically, once you start registering, taxing, or deciding who is permitted to exercise a right, said right cease to be.

And once you start doing it to something sort of superfluous, or kitchy or fun, you begin to erode the basics of an individual's ability to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In other words, you begin to erode property rights, and the individual's ability to profit from them.

Besides, I would really, really, really like to have a Stechkin, but due to the laws, I doubt that I will ever be able to own one because they have driven the prices up so much.

Quartus
July 28, 2001, 08:56 PM
They were trying to set up a democratic government,

Peach, before you accuse other people of twisting the words of the Founding Fathers, you really ought to read them yourself. If you had, you'd know that they were unalterably opposed to democracy.

That's why they founded a Republic. There is a world of difference between those two, a difference they, and those who have read them more than superficially, understand very well.

Tamara
July 29, 2001, 07:32 PM
Because someone else might do something bad with something, like a full-auto weapon, I should be forced to jump through hoops and pay through the nose to buy such a device myself.

Do you know how many millions of dollars of damage are done to our economy, how many lives ruined, by computer bank theft, hacking, identity theft, credit fraud and other crimes that are only made possible by having access to an internet-connected computer. Perhaps if we made everyone who wanted an internet connection or, better yet, everyone who wanted a computer pay a $200 tax, get fingerprinted and go through a background check and a de facto six-to-eight month waiting period. That'd help protect society from the damage these machines can cause, right?:rolleyes:

Herr Walther
July 29, 2001, 08:04 PM
Our local range just aquired one of these. Man, what a blast.

Very controllable and the recoil isn't even noticable. All 31 rounds in a 12 circle at 15 yards from the shoulder. I'm hooked.

I wonder if I could cut down my G3?:eek:

I gotta get outa Illinois.

shiroikuma
July 29, 2001, 08:07 PM
I'm more or less with appeach on this one. I don't think the supply should be limited via outlawing new manufacture for civis but heck yess you should have to jump through hoops and get liscensed. Just like you do with that ooh so much more familiar deadly device the automobile. I'm against private ownership of backpack nuclear 'devices' as well.

Some of you live in caves types should read a little and you'd realize that if governments as a concept didn't greatly benifit the people their wouldn't be any governments. Same thing with laws. yea thier is abuse but it's still much much better to have them.

shiro

hkg3
July 29, 2001, 08:17 PM
PreserveFreedom,

That's exactly it.

ninenot
July 29, 2001, 09:00 PM
Well, so far Peach and his defender have demonstrated two things: they don't know history, and they cannot spell English. As to 'the government doing things for us,' which seems to be the foundation for their skepticism about full-auto possession: it's never a question of 'for us;' it' s always a question of 'to us.' Let me explain.

The Government, in a sane society, is merely a guarantor of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for its citizens. Thus, the Government's principal internal duty is to post the civilian version of the 10 Commandments, and equitably enforce them. Its principal external duty is to preserve the nation against foreign enemies.

Having said that, the citizens thus allow the Government to do certain things to them. Tax them for defense; regulate their behaviors, etc. Government should NOT do anything "for" the citizen--because most likely in doing "for" one, it is doing "to" another. In other words, this can become inequitable.

There comes a point, and we know not exactly when, when the Government's 'doing to,' equitably, becomes 'doing for,' usually INequitably. That point occurred in America around the time of FDR, and has gotten steadily more and more intrusive since, almost on a parabolic scale.

I am not an anarchist; but when in comes down to my Government or my family, there's no choice. And when Peach and his friend get old enough to have a family to provide for and defend, I hope they understand our posts.

chetchat
July 29, 2001, 10:28 PM
Owning weapons, in whatever form, is not an entitlement that the government of the United States grants us.

It is a right, specifically a right to self-defense and to insure freedom from tyrannical rule, that we have inherited from the Fathers of this Country.

All rights evolve from power, even the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When the government - or it's minions - try to dictate to free men what rights they have, then free men have the right to say no, and create a different goverment.

That's what the RKBA does : gives free men the right to say "no" and the power to back it up.

Quartus
July 30, 2001, 08:00 AM
Some of you live in caves types


There are different kinds of caves in which to live. One of the worst is that in which most of America lives - the cave of ignorance. Knowing little or nothing of history, little or nothing of political philosophy, and getting most, if not all, of their 'knowledge' of current events from the mainstream media. This is a dark cave, indeed. Many who call themselves conservative live here.


Something that rarely lives in such a dark place is logic. For example, such a cave dweller is likely to hear, "Government should be limited, as the tendency is always toward tyranny." And the cave dweller will think what has been said is, "All government is bad, and we shouldn't have any."


Something that is NEVER found in such places is TRUTH.

tire iron
July 30, 2001, 09:35 AM
shiroikuma,

As was stated above, owning cars is a PRIVILEGE granted by the government. They can legally regulate privaleges.

Owning FIREARMS of ANY variety is a RIGHT. The government cannot LEGALLY regulate a right.

There is a huge difference between rights and privileges.

cheers

tire iron

Apeach
July 30, 2001, 04:35 PM
I'm sorry. I didn't know you needed a fully automatic weapon to protect your family. You'd have to be a really bad shot to need one. But anyways, are you expecting about 10 people to break into your house anytime soon, because otherwise, there's no need for a fully automatic weapon for home defense. It's been stated numerous times that their only purpose in civilian ownership is for recreation, and recreation definetly doesn't include home defense. And hey, for all you revolutionary types, why don't you start another revolution since your rights are being trampled. Obviously our government is doing nothing for you, so it's worthless. Might as well start a new one. Now that's something I'd like to read about in the newspaper. Oh, and another thing tire iron, the government dictates what is legal and what isn't. Without a government there is no defenition of illegal and legal. Everything just is, so you might want to think about rewording that.

chetchat
July 30, 2001, 05:17 PM
And hey, for all you revolutionary types, why don't you start another revolution since your rights are being trampled. Obviously our government is doing nothing for you, so it's worthless. Might as well start a new one. Now that's something I'd like to read about in the newspaper

First, there are cases in the court system at several levels addressing exactly these rights. Rational free men use their rights as they were honestly intended. Right now, American's First Amendment rights are being exercised in an effort to preserve/re-establish the Second Amendment.

Second, starting a new government isn't necessary, IMHO. Just needs a tune-up, clean out the built up gunk that's been layered on over the years.

Third, I hope you'll always be able to read about things like this in your newspaper. When you can't, it' s too late.

As I said above, rational free men are exercising their rights. Preservation of your right to promote anarchy, as you did above, is also being defended. It's just a shame you're unable to appreciate that and what's required to preserve that right for you.

tire iron
July 30, 2001, 06:51 PM
Apeach,

IF you knew history, you would realize that the government gets its power FROM the people. At least it was set up that way over 200 years ago. As stated so well above by chetchat and CaptainHoek and others, the Government CANNOT do ANYTHING for someone WITHOUT FIRST TAKING IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE!!

As Thomas Jefferson stated "anyone that would give up a little freedom for (supposed) security - deserves neither." {The word in parathesis is part of the original statement.} You apparently fit that catagory.

So, in your world if the Government makes the laws, and it is your "duty" to obey those laws - what will you do when guns are outlawed? What about if they make it a law to turn in your gun owning friends? What about if they make it a law to discriminate against others because of race, religion, creed other some such catagory?

Apeach - the Nazi's were successful BECAUSE people in Germany had the same attitude towards government as you do.

We are supposed to "always view government with a jaundiced eye" - the advice of our founders.

So - I will NOT re-word my statement. Just because the government MAKES the laws - does not make those laws "right". We the people have the responsibility to change those laws through peaceful means. IF those means prove ineffectual, then we have the responsibility to use less savory means.

"The tree of liberty must be sprinkled from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots" - Thomas Jefferson

Believe me - I am not an advocate of armed revolution. It is mine (and should "our" collective) goal to turn this government around by any and all peaceful means. And I hope that I go to my grave, and my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren et al, go to their graves without having to use arms. But the option MUST be there - or the threat is hollow.

cheers

tire iron

Quartus
July 30, 2001, 09:14 PM
It's been stated numerous times that their only purpose in civilian

Stated by whom, and so what? What you obviously don't understand it that firearms ownership is a RIGHT, and doesn't require that any "need" be proven to justify that right.

And, for the record, the purpose of civilians owning arms, stated to be so by the Founding Fathers (whom you obviously have NOT read) is to do just what you have suggested - to carry out a revolution, should that become necessary.

As tire iron and chetchat have ably pointed out, that time is not yet, and many of us are using the system to attempt to reform the system.


As for the government "doing" something for us - the Constitution spells out clearly the duties and the limits of the Federal government. It has several legitimate functions, for example, defending from foreign attack. If it would stay within it's Constitutional boundaries, there would be no talk of revolution, for there would be no cause for it.

But the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that power corrupts, and that the tendency of government is always towards tyranny. They therefore recognized (not granted) the right of the people to take up arms to counter such tendencies. Obviously, then, they intended the ordinary citizens to have arms of military significance, not merely for recreation or personal self defence.


May I suggest you begin getting aquainted with American history? You could start by reading the Declaration of Independence. (That was the document that formally declared the independence of the American colonies from England.) Then you might read the Constitution, then perhaps the Federalist Papers. (The Fed Papers were political tracts written by some of the Founding Fathers. In them they expressed their views on why the Constitution should be ratified by the States. They carefully explain the reasons for setting up the Federal government in the manner specified in Constitution.)

Who knows? You might even come to appreciate freedom, and learn to value our Constitution for the freedom it provides, rather than valuing our bloated, criminal central government for what it can "do" for you.


"Ask not what your country can do for you, aks what you can do for your country." And that, from a Democrat.




"Tire Iron". I like that. A different kind of weapon. Not much range, though. :D

Justin
July 30, 2001, 10:22 PM
I'm sorry. I didn't know you needed a fully automatic weapon to protect your family.

This sort of statement is becoming so commonplace in our society that it's nearly cliche.
Far too often I hear people say that 'No one needs X, that's just excessive.'

Where X refers to V-8 engines, SUV's, cargo pants with 37 pockets, standard capacity magazines, dual-processor computers, full-auto weapons, or 6-figure incomes.

The thing is, that rights are not based upon what another individual's perception of your needs are.

As soon as you start limiting things based on what you think another person needs, you begin to encroach on their freedom.
(I strongly suggest you go read some Ayn Rand, she cuts right to the chase in this matter. Start off with 'Atlas Shrugged.')
After all, the only basic right one has is to his or her life. But the means to that basic right is inexorably tied to property rights, or the ability for an individual to decide what is best for him/herself.

Without property rights, no other rights are possible, as they are the means to owning oneself and insuring one's life, liberty, and happiness.

tire iron
July 31, 2001, 09:17 AM
Thanks CaptainHoek,

My monicker comes from my USMC days. I was a recon marine (2nd Force) from '85-'89. I know that makes me "old" now, but our platoom commander gave us all nicknames from a vehicle (he was really into cars). So the biggest, strongest guy that usually carried more than anybody else was "trunk", the smartest guy was "computer chip", the pack rat of the outfit was "glove box", the fastest runner was "speedometer" etc. I happened to excell at the combative skills (armed and unarmed) - so I was named "tire iron". Kinda stuck.

cheers

tire iron

Quartus
July 31, 2001, 08:09 PM
I was a recon marine (2nd Force) from '85-'89. I know that makes me "old"

Ha! Yer just a kid! :D


I did my time (Army) from 74-78.



Say, think we need a troll graphic for ole Peach?

tire iron
August 1, 2001, 12:05 AM
CaptianHoek,

LOL!!!

Hey, were you at the shoot on Friday? Maybe we met and did not know it. After reading your post I thought, that would be cool to meet this guy sometime. Then I noticed you live in the same great patriotic state I do. Cool. BTW, where does "CaptainHoek" come from?

cheers

tire iron

Quartus
August 1, 2001, 09:43 PM
Taken offline.

OF
August 5, 2001, 06:21 PM
Apeach & friend,

You have a lot to learn.

I suggest you both open your ears and your minds and close your mouths for a while. It is patently obvious from your posts that you are young and have either not been exposed to this information before, have been exposed and are terminally closed-minded, or are simply incapable of understanding the argument. I doubt the latter two. Not because of the fact that you disagree, but how you disagree and that the type of 'arguments' you are presenting are cliche and very much entry-level as far as understanding this subject goes. There is quite a bit to learn at TFL, read the archives and respectfully enter into polite discussion with the members here and you can learn quite a bit. At the end of it, if you still think we're wrong, then so be it. But lay off the attitude, it's annoying and will keep people from taking you seriously.

- Gabe

Jamie Young
December 28, 2001, 10:35 PM
I took my time going from Semi to three round bursts, then Full Auto. I think for CQB 3rd burst are all you need. I now know how fast you can empty a 30rd mag and how much ammo you would waste with F/A. I would love to own an MP5 or AC556 but I don't think I would feel under gunned in 95% of Combat situations with just a plain old Semi Auto.

Quartus
December 29, 2001, 12:00 AM
Ho, Soda Pop, talk about resurrecting a dead thread!

Fun shooting full auto, though, ain't it? Try an old grease gun - you'll feel like you ARE shooting a semi-auto! Very slow cyclic rate, ifn' you're used to an M-16. Ka-Chugga ka-chugga ka-chugga!

Jamie Young
December 29, 2001, 12:11 AM
There wasn't enough kick. I want to try something in .308 next.

Edward429451
December 29, 2001, 01:29 PM
APeach & co., :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Maybe you should try a more appropriate board for yourself.

Note to self: High road, high road, high road

Quartus
December 29, 2001, 07:24 PM
Note to Edward: old thread, old thread, old thread...

:D

Check the dates, dude! BTW, if you really want to, uh, be displeased (high road, high road, high road) do a search and read Ole Peachy's other posts. You'll find a 15 year old kid lecturing combat veterans.


SodaPop, whatever prompted you to resurrect this thing, anyway? But I sincerely hope you get to rock and roll with an M-60 (or other 7.62 squad automatic) someday.

Talk about a kick! :D:D:D

Edward429451
December 29, 2001, 09:14 PM
Yea, it blows my mind to hear people talk like that. I read the thread and you guys laid down real basic sense to him and its like, he's oblivious to the truth. I guess he didnt pay attention in elementary school...and the sad part is he sounds like he's adamently sincere that he believes that tripe.

I guess I should thank the lord for what brains I've got, it could've been alot worse.;)

-Yo-
December 29, 2001, 09:39 PM
Someone posted that one doesn't need full-auto to defend ones family. Well, yes, I suppose, if you're talking about burglers, though I wouldn't mind having a legal 14" barrel or "street-sweeper" style rotary shotgun.

But, the more important question is "will full auto help ensure that America does not sink into a totalitarian police state?" You betcha. We are already in a situation where people work from January through early May "for the government." This means that the average citizen give up more of his work product to the government than did serfs in the middle ages. California tells me I cannot sleep, smoke or drink wine in a public park, or walk my dog on certain beaches. I can be thrown in jail for insulting a "protected class" (i.e. women), and the government can, under existing executive orders, seize my property or displace me from my domicile without a court order.

But for the good fortune that our leaders haven't entirely abused the powers they hold, we haven't become a totalitarian society...yet. But, historically speaking, we are becoming more and more like the Soviet Union under Stalin. If the Russian people had access to machine guns and bazookas, perhaps 10-15 million of them would not have been slaughtered by their own government.

Can't happen here? Are you really so sure?

The government maintains the edge in power through a standing army (something the founders feared), and now a vast centralized network controlling our financial resources. The people need all the tools available to resist tyranny.

Quartus
December 30, 2001, 06:02 AM
Yo! You nailed it, Yo!

Edward429451
December 30, 2001, 11:46 AM
All except for the Streetsweeper. Stay away from them, they're junk!

MeekAndMild
December 31, 2001, 10:15 PM
I was wondering what your reasoning and/or purposes for full auto were.

On the government form I just put something to the effect that I thought the gun was collectable.

Stainless
December 31, 2001, 10:44 PM
I recently had my first experience with Dad's M16... I must say, it was a blast. And the oft-repeated phrase 'full-auto is the most fun you can have with your pants on' rings true.

DAVID NANCARROW
January 1, 2002, 04:00 AM
I just love when I hear or read people crawling out of the woodwork and think I have to justify my God given rights affirmed under the Bill of Rights. Obviously, there are those who are quite flippant about some of them. Maybe it would be a bit more clear if the BOR was renamed "Thine government shall not touch!" Not to say the language isn't clear enough to begin with.
Possibly, it might be a good lesson for those who sniff at our constitutional guarrantees to give them up and then have to fight for them-I'll bet the recruiters are really busy right now, but would like to speak to them anyway at some point. I served in countries the US government supported, and they were neither democracies nor were they republics, and those who could voted with their feet.
I don't blame them for being confused-seems the main issue in selecting a judge or cabinet official is whether he/she will condone murder of the unborn rather than what they pledge to defend and hold sacred. And rather than get even more flippant and dare argue that we should destroy the government, the Founding Fathers left us their greatest legacy of all: The tools written into the constitution to initiate changes needed without having to fight from our front porch like they did. In the end, there is nothing wrong with our constitution other than those who want to reinterpet what it plainly says.

striderteen
January 9, 2002, 07:14 PM
It depends on the situation, I think. Against one or two burglars, a semi-auto should suffice...when engaging military forces or when heavily outnumbered, the ability to lay down a barrage of suppressive fire is often critical.

Quartus
January 10, 2002, 05:53 AM
Welcome to the full auto club, Stainless. A '16 is indeed a Sweet 16, but a full belt of .50 cal is hard to beat!

It's almost worth basic training to be able to dump a couple of hundred rounds of tracer laced 7.62 downrange at night.

And capping those big .50s from the top of an APC while you rumble down a canyon road is definitely worth the price of admission.


Strider, you got it right - that's what the FF had in mind for the 2A.

striderteen
January 10, 2002, 09:41 AM
I certainly HOPE that the situation in the US never becomes bad enough to warrant armed revolution, but I'm also absolutely determined that I will be ready to fight -- and fight effectively -- when that happens.

Vote for the best, prepare for the worst...stock up on the most powerful military-type weapons you can legally get before they ban any more of them, stockpile ammo, practice as often as you can.

MACMAN10
January 10, 2002, 05:55 PM
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid28/p766777c7af1992500d67dc3fea2992d1/fe02e1e2.jpg.orig.jpg
Burp.

Ceol Mhor
January 11, 2002, 11:45 AM
My only full-auto shooting was when a friend let me play with (figuratively speaking) his Uzi. It was pretty cool...but submachine guns just don't appeal to me much. I want a WWII full-auto BAR instead. :p Now THAT would be fun!

striderteen
January 11, 2002, 02:25 PM
.30-06 full auto is a good thing.

Edward429451
January 11, 2002, 02:58 PM
When the kids would mis-speak and ask to play with a gun, I corrected them by telling them one does not 'play' with guns, one 'handles' guns. Deduct one point for terminology infraction.:D

Speaking of the BAR, I've got a ten dollar bet on with a guy right now that bars are 50 cal. Now, I'm 99% positive that they were only 30/06 but he's extremely adamant that his granpa carried one in the war and told em stories about his 50 cal...

The only thing I can think of (Besides he's wrong), is maybe they made a few of em that I just never heard about? None of my gun books support the 50 theory. Anyone know for sure? THX.

striderteen
January 11, 2002, 03:33 PM
The M1918 BAR or Browning Automatic Rifle was designed by John Browning for use in World War One and was introduced in time to see limited service at the end of that confilict.

The BAR is chambered for the same round as the M-1 Garand, the .30-06, which it fires from twenty-round clips.

The original M1918 introduced in 1917 was selective-fire, either semiauto or full-auto.

The improved M1918A1 introduced in 1937 added a shoulder support plate hinged to the buttstock and a spike-type bipod.

The further improved M1918A2 introduced in 1940 was full-auto-only, but could be fired at either Slow (300-450 rpm) or Fast (500-650 rpm). However, the U.S.M.C. modified most of its BARs to have semiauto fire as well as the dual-mode auto. The -A2 had a shorter shoulder support plate than the -A1, as well as a skid type bipod which was mounted on the flash hider and could be quickly removed if needed, as well as a new removable stock rest and a windage-adjustable rear sight. Later modifications included a plastic buttstock and a carrying handle. The buffer spring in the butt of this model greatly reduced felt recoil and increased accuracy.


AFAIK, the only automatic .50-caliber weapon used by the U.S. Military was and still is the Browning M2 heavy machine gun.

Edward429451
January 11, 2002, 04:00 PM
Ha! he owes me ten bucks.

"The second amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the Governments authority. If the second amendment is read to confer a personal right to 'keep and bear arms' , a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to possession of firearms, runs afoul of that amendments protections"

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. vs Printz..1997)

Anybody care to paraphrase this for me as it may pertain to FA regulation?