The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 10, 2013, 05:00 PM   #76
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
It goes for ANY firearm, so I don't see your argument being more valid whether it's a Ruger LCP or a grenade launcher.
I know. You must have led a sheltered life. I'd really rather people not have that capability for no extra discernable freedoms. It is a risk/ reward thing. I would be all for banning the LCP too if they could take down a street of large office building with a few pulls of the trigger.

I hear stories of legal ones but I know of no owners. Getting ammo would be a nigh impossible too under current laws.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 05:13 PM   #77
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinner666 View Post
Automatic weapons are heavily regulated. And tracked. Registered, and taxed. Believe me, there are hoops to jump through to get and keep one legally.
This whole issue is moot as Tinner has pointed out. The media refuses to acknowledge this and reports as if it is not the case. So people think the AR 15 is a full auto.
mayosligo is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 07:02 PM   #78
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,928
Quote:
Once again, I am not making an argument that Full auto weapons should be legal/illegal. My personal feeling on the subject is that they should be legal, but regulated more heavily than semi-auto firearms. They are, in fact, inherently more destructive than semi-auto firearms, which is why our troops tend to use select-fire/ automatic weapons.
They already are more heavily regulated. While not outright illegal, their regulation is so stringent that it represents a de-facto ban and that's been the intention all along. When the NFA was passed in 1934, $200 was a heck of a lot more money than it is today (adjusted for inflation, it'd be equivalent to over $3000). Furthermore, the Hughes Amendment served only to artificially inflate the price of full auto to the point that only the very wealthy could afford them. I fail to understand how being wealthy equates to a greater degree of responsibility. The manner in which many wealthy celebrities choose to behave certainly doesn't leave me with the impression that all their money makes them more responsible that I am.

Also, how exactly are full auto firearms more destructive? I can yank the trigger of most semi-auto firearms fast enough that many people would have a difficult time telling the difference between it and a full auto though any degree of accuracy goes to pot when I do so. I fail to see how a fully automatic weapon represents any greater danger of collateral damage than some idiot with one of those idiotic crank mechanisms or a rubber band used to bump fire.

Would a full auto be more destructive in the hands of a violent criminal? Perhaps but the law certainly didn't stop the North Hollywood bank robbers or any of the numerous other violent criminals that have used fully automatic weapons since 1934. As I stated earlier, the law only matters to the law abiding and a fully automatic firearm is not all that difficult to acquire through the black market or illegal fabrication. The only people that are prevented from acquiring fully automatic weapons by the NFA are people who respect the law, and they were never the problem in the first place.

Quote:
Every time a discussion begins like the OP started, people take it way too far, because they are sure that the individual's right to keep and bear arms is without any limitation whatsoever. This is incorrect, and it's not an opinion, it's a fact. None of your rights are unlimited. The freedom of speech is not unlimited. Libel is illegal. The freedom of the press is not unlimited: slander is illegal. The freedom of religion is not unlimited: human sacrifice is illegal.

Your individual rights end where another's individual rights begin. This gets complicated, but we have the legal system to sort it out. It isn't a perfect system, and you may not agree with where current firearm regulations stand, on a national, state or local level. But if the basis of your thinking is, "I was born with the right to bear arms, which is limitless, and therefore no regulation whatsoever is justifiable" you are beginning your argument from a position that is fundamentally flawed.
So how would I be infringing on the rights of someone else by owning a fully automatic firearm? Unless I choose to use said gun in an unsafe, irresponsible, or criminal manner it poses no greater risk to my neighbor than a teddy bear does. The current level of regulation on fully automatic firearms punishes people not for anything they've done, but for what an extremely small percentage of the population, most of which isn't supposed to have any guns at all, might do.

As I said before, the benefit of regulation must be weighed against the amount of liberty it deprives. In my opinion, the benefit of the current regulations on fully automatic firearms is too small to justify the amount of liberty that it deprives.

As to other gun regulation, some are certainly necessary though it is regrettable that our society has made them so. While I'd like to see some changes to the definition of a prohibited person (felonies are too loose a definition due to the large number of non-violent crimes which have become classified as felonies), NICS is probably a necessary evil since our society insists on letting dangerous people who cannot be rehabilitated back on our streets. Prohibiting children (and by children I mean people under 18, not 21) from owning guns is likewise regrettable but probably necessary since so many parents are unable or, more likely, unwilling to raise their children responsibly. As I already mentioned, regulation of explosives and WMD's are necessary since their destructive ability makes it so that there is almost no way to use such "arms" in a safe and responsible manner.

Beyond that, however, I do not see justification for much more regulation. Things like fully automatic firearms, silencers/suppressors, short barrel rifles/shotguns, firearms with bore diameters larger than 50 caliber, "high capacity" magazines, "assault weapons", and the so-called "gunshow loophole" (code-word for private-party sales) do not represent a great enough threat to public safety in my estimation to justify the loss of liberty that restricting or banning them would place upon the law-abiding citizenry.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 08:25 PM   #79
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
High grade explosives and such are where I begin to agree with one's rights infringing on another's.

begin to
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 09:16 PM   #80
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,599
Quote:
High grade explosives and such are where I begin to agree with one's rights infringing on another's.
High grade explosives aren't in the same category as the 2A. I'd have to agree with you on that, though.

Quote:
I know. You must have led a sheltered life. I'd really rather people not have that capability for no extra discernable freedoms. It is a risk/ reward thing. I would be all for banning the LCP too if they could take down a street of large office building with a few pulls of the trigger.
Not really. Tougher than some, not as tough as others.

You sure you're not saying you'd rather give up a little freedom for a little safety?

Regardless, you're postulating IF your neighbor had a grenade launcher he'd definitely would cause grievous harm to you or others. Since I don't think high explosives should be included in ones' rights without due process and you posed that concern, that point is moot in itself.

Granted, I see your point between the destructive nature between a HE grenade and a .380ACP. I also see your point on the likelyhood of harm of said munitions are greatly different. But my point is grave consequences are in effect for that person no matter if it's a 95gr piece of lead or shrapnel.

Now, I'm at fault for digressing the thread. Future posters please help us out by focusing on the OP's intent.
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 09:40 PM   #81
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Granted, I see your point between the destructive nature between a HE grenade and a .380ACP. I also see your point on the likelyhood of harm of said munitions are greatly different.
That is all I am saying.

IME most full auto machine guns are much less effective in causing the type of catastrophic loss of life we see in school shootings. There are a few exceptions but most of the exceptions are highly situational. In truth well aimed shots with a rifle are nearly always more effective than well aimed shots with a machine gun (with a few exceptions).
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 09:30 AM   #82
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,132
It's been quite a while since I've seen an RPG or even a 60 mike mike knee mortar in the LGS. These are single shots I'd prefer to full auto. But then, this isn't Syria, is it.
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 11:25 AM   #83
tgreening
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2011
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 246
When I was in the Corp full auto use was always taught as a more or less last ditch effort. You're being overrun to the point that you pretty much couldn't help but hit something when holding the trigger down. Called "final protective fire" back then, don't know what they might call it now.

If I recall the 3-shot burst was a direct response to the fact that full auto use by most soldiers was not only ineffective, but wasteful of their ammunition. Three round burst being determined as the max amount of sustained fire that could be controlled with any degree of effectiveness by the average soldier.

Personally, it's fun, but given a choice between a full auto only firearm and a semi-auto only, I'd take the semi. My preference.


Another issue....

If you've done your time full fire arm rights should be restored. Hmmm. I have mixed feelings. As pointed out, some felonies are more serious than others so I could see my way to cutting some slack in that regard. Tax evasion is a bit less threatening to the general population than say, armed robbery using deadly force resulting in the death of 1 or more.

The problem is if someone does something once, their likelihood of doing it again bears thinking about. Repeat offenders abound. I know that sounds like convicting someone based on what they might do, but think about it like this, and be honest with yourself.

Would you send your kid to a preschool where a known, convicted child sex offender worked? He's done his time, but still.

I would not.
tgreening is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07952 seconds with 9 queries