February 15, 2009, 04:05 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2008
Location: tennessee
Posts: 55
|
Full Auto Weapons?
I was talking about the subject of full auto guns and their legality and got to thinking about something. Should these guns be legal and if so why? They are legalish in most parts of the country, but not all, and last I checked the Bill of Rights wasn't regionally biased.
There are two main points that dominate each side. While there are many great reasons to support either side, most of what I encountered was people quoting the second amendment. Since we can all recite it in our sleep, it isn't an effective tool to convince anybody of anything. Those in favor of full auto supply typically cite the insurrection theory. This theory is that we are given the right to bear arms to resist government tyranny. We should be allowed access to the same types of weapons used by the government to level the playing field. The biggest problem I have with this is that it is pretty grim and fatalistic. This type of thinking really scares liberals and their fear is the reason for their concern. Not to mention revolutions are highly illegal and it will be next to impossible to get the government to think this is a good idea. Those against it usually claim that the collateral damage that can be caused by the full auto rate of fire is not appropriate for a civilian zone, but rather for a free fire war zone where area suppression is needed. There are plenty of good arguments for both sides, but unfortunately I must admit that the collateral damage theory makes a good deal of sense to most everybody, myself included. I have personally never seen a need to own a full auto weapon because I was taught to make every shot hit the target. I do not feel confident enough in my shooting to control a full auto gun. I shot one once. As an experiment I gave myself 30 seconds to shoot at a target with a full auto AR. I then gave myself the same amount of time to shoot the same rifle on single shot mode. Needless to say I was far more successful with single shot. I would have killed whatever it was on the first shot anyway, so who needs the next 29? What I would like to do on this thread is come up with some practical situations in the civilian arena that would be best suited to a FA weapon. Please let's try and keep it realistic (no zombies attacks please). I also welcome statistics that show that very few gun crimes are committed with NFA weapons. Or, if you have some really good reasons why they don't need to be around that is fine too. I want to clarify that I'm not trying to show that FA weapons have no practical use, I just think that we need to come up with some better reasons for their legality. I think that we could all benefit from coming up with some really new and unique ideas for why FA weapons should be more legal than they are. This would help us escape the gridlocked debate dominated by these three arguments. I want to get some new and fresh ideas that we can all bring to the table when engaging in political discussion. Please do not bring up the second amendment, we all know it trust me!!!! Last edited by dr.j; February 15, 2009 at 06:22 AM. |
February 15, 2009, 09:47 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 22, 2006
Posts: 3,076
|
It’s kind of an old school concept but, how about freedom for starters. Why full auto? The simple answer is its fun, no real application, other than entertainment value and it’s (currently) legal and relatively safe.
Next time you are talking to a pot head, drunk driving, liberal, remind them of that. Anyone can own a car (and many do without a license to operate it on public roads) that is capable of breaking every driving law in the state I live in, while endangering hundreds if not thousands of lives in the process. Here is the best part, driving is a privilege not a right. You say “Why full auto?” I say “Why autos?” But that’s just crazy right? Right? |
February 15, 2009, 09:50 AM | #3 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 31, 2008
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 336
|
Should they be legal?
Let me be the first to vote................ "YES"
I'm quite taken aback that it's even been asked, but I'm not one to flame anyone. Only because I don't own a flamethrower. It's a joke.... nobody get upset. Quote:
Quote:
I don't see any real life scenarios where I would even want a full auto for actual usage. Only think close that I can think of would be civil disorder and a mob heading down my street. Perhaps a spray would help that matter? But I would still rather make the shots count and am in agreement with you on that one point. Once they see brethren dropping.... it usually deters them. Quote:
Not trying to start an 'argument' and I promise I'm not one to go back and forth. Just don't see why you would ask to justify this. My answer though... I don't really see a situation like you are wanting me to come up with. I personally, would rather have a semi and feel I would work better with that. As far as defending against the gov't... I don't see me having a MG helping. I think the battle would be much more likely to be fought more 'covert' since they DO have and will ALWAYS have more firepower. But personally.... if I were sent in, I would be much more worried about "Bubba" with his 30-06 than someone with a MG.
__________________
I'm like a Fat Kid on a Playground..... " I ain't Playin' " Lifetime NRA, USPSA, HCSO, CRS Club |
|||
February 15, 2009, 12:32 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2008
Posts: 127
|
Two words...Fun and investments. As the fun aspect has already been covered, I'll say that while my Deferred comp at work took a beating in the whole stock market crisis, my Reising, M-11 and Stemple all continue to increase in value.
Truthfully, I don't shoot them that often as I really can't afford to feed them. I can't imagine having to feed a full auto in a rifle caliber, but like with fast cars, generally, if you can afford them, you can afford the cost of gas and upkeep that goes along with them The true fun NFA stuff (belt fed MG's and assault rifles) are the toys of folks with more money then I've got. I've got to be happy with the few NFA firearms that I have and plan to keep them as they are a better investment then anything the banks have come up with. There are enough hoops already in place for NFA ownership and if the original poster has done his research, they should know this. People that are willing to pay the money and jump through the hoops and be background checked to a fare thee well, are PROBABLY not going to be involved in criminal activity. Don't add more red tape to an already over burdened system. As far as their use in concealed carry, I don't think I've ever run accross anyone with an NFA firearm who carries it for personal defense. Handguns rule the CC world as they are much more practical and easier to carry. The NFA stuff stays home in the safe |
February 15, 2009, 12:35 PM | #5 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
||
February 15, 2009, 02:24 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,936
|
OK, you askied for opinions, heres another one. I can see no valid sporting use for fully automatic weapons. I also believe the " Tax " on AOW should be raised. No flames gentle, just my opinion and like belly buttons every one has one.
|
February 15, 2009, 02:26 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
BTW, please document each sporting event you have participated in with each firearm you own in the past 5 years. No competition, no reason to own that firearm. FYI, ATF had deemed that "target shooting" aka plinking is NOT a valid sporting event.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
|
February 15, 2009, 02:46 PM | #8 | |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2008
Location: tennessee
Posts: 55
|
Mr Clean:
Quote:
I never really thought that anybody need to justify owning any gun, but for quite some time liberals have said just that, and last time I checked democrats were in charge now. Obviously we all have the right to own guns because of the bill of rights. However, many amendments have been diluted by the government over the years. The 4th and 8th come to mind!! My point being, it unfortunately has come time to have to justify gun rights to the liberals who are in charge, and the current argument of it's fun and Thomas Jefferson said it was alright 200 years ago isn't going to fly. Unless there are some better reasons for why we need them (I'm not saying there aren't any, they are just harder to come up with) then we can expect to see the second amendment become more bastardized than it has been already. I really like the car analogy. That makes a great deal of sense, and is rational, but you do know that not all cars are legal in the U.S. right? Some require modification to limit their power before they can be sold in this country (sounding familiar yet?) because the government has decided that we don't need to go that fast. "It's fun" isn't going to convince anybody who really disagrees with gun rights because if they don't think it's fun they don't care if it's legal. Most of us don't passionately defend things that we don't do, don't understand, or can't afford. Last edited by dr.j; February 15, 2009 at 07:27 PM. |
|
February 15, 2009, 04:02 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
|
Quote:
For a more general study, you should find sufficient historical lessons from medieval and ancient history as pertains to the sword, the bow, the horse and body armor. Of if you've a literary taste, I'm particularly touched by Shakespeare's version of the victory of British yeomanry over the elite French cavalry in the Battle of Agincourt: Henry V. When you finish your research I think you'll find that societies where weapons, even automatic weapons, are easily available to the common citizens have a lower ratio of armed criminals versus arms available to the non-criminal population. They will have weaker organized crime and stronger working and middle classes. On the other hand, societies which have civilian arms prohibitions demonstrate a Darwinian selection process where arms are obtained in a preferential manner by violent persons. Such societies will demonstrate weaker middle and working classes relative to poor and elite classes. This is causal rather than coincidental. Please share any good references you find on this project.
__________________
In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL. |
|
February 15, 2009, 05:37 PM | #10 | ||||
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2008
Location: tennessee
Posts: 55
|
Meek and Mild, why don't you go start your own thread since none of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about. Did you finish reading my post, or did you stop after the second sentence?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by dr.j; February 15, 2009 at 06:27 PM. |
||||
February 15, 2009, 06:48 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
dr.j
While I applaud your courage in coming on the NFA forum and asking the question I am not sure you will get quite the same discussion you did on the Law and Civil Rights forum. I posed this one on the old L&P forum about oh a year or so ago. I think most on this forum LOVE all types of NFA weapons and therefore would not support any real restrictions on them unless they wanted to keep their currently owned FA weapon values up. Good luck though but whatever the position one takes on this issue I doubt any of us in our lifetime will see regular civilians having unrestricted access to military weapons, in the USA of course. IMO that's a good thing.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
February 15, 2009, 07:20 PM | #12 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2008
Location: tennessee
Posts: 55
|
I think you might be right. I was hoping to get some feedback from people who do own them and know a lot more about their applications and uses than I do. I'd hoped that I would find a civilian who owned one for a reason that went beyond, "because I have the right too, and they are fun."
|
February 15, 2009, 08:12 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
February 15, 2009, 09:14 PM | #14 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2008
Location: tennessee
Posts: 55
|
yeah they are pretty cool
|
February 15, 2009, 10:54 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 22, 2006
Posts: 3,076
|
Quote:
Once you compile your list, supporting any of the above, post it so I can use your reasoning and logic you enlighten you on the subject. |
|
February 15, 2009, 11:32 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,453
|
"...see no valid sporting use for fully automatic weapons..." There doesn't have to be a 'sporting use'. However, shooting is a sport. What you shoot when engaged in that sport doesn't matter. In any case, 'no sporting use' is a Brady Bunch, et al argument for outlawing all kinds of firearms. .50 BMG rifles for example. Or 'sniper' rifles. Their definition is any rifle with a telescopic sight.
"...a civilian who owned one for..." 'I want one' is reason enough.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count! |
February 15, 2009, 11:42 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
|
Quote:
A simple answer is that free societies are not stable unless the majority of common citizens have the ability to maintain a number of perquisites which in the past were thought to be generally inclusive of the rights of the natural man. One of these natural rights is the ability to maintain privately owned armament which is equal to that of the local bullies. The American experiment in government was based on principles of natural law as defined by Aquinas, Hobbes and Locke as a replacement for the principle of the divine right of kings. However our collective twenty first century social philosophy is moving solidly in the direction of Marx's materialistic interpretation of Hegel's idealistic dialectics. Unfortunately it is also moving in the direction of theory rather than practicality, much as Bacon described in his "Horse's Teeth Parable". This change shows the problem with your quest in that modern social scholars (using the term loosely) dismiss arguments based on natural right, tradition and understanding of human nature, goodness and evil. Instead they have embraced utilitarianism, which we all know requires empiric evidence to proceed. No matter what paradigm you use in argument the 'antis' will counter with a deconstructionist ploy so argument is useless, only illustrations from life will work. Giving a specific example of typical 'anti' rhetoric, the Second Amendment discussion in In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights In Action by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy should adequately demonstrate the effect of a style of thought uncluttered both by any real belief in the principles of our founding fathers and real world observation of the practical effects of gun control. Better thinkers (and you'll also notice them to be a generation older) such as Carroll Quigley in The Evolution of Civilizations: An Introduction to Historical Analysis and Weapons Systems and Political Stability: A History describe both Darwinian principles of social evolution but minimize the positive effects of large numbers of armed citizens in the process of societal stabilization. Very few modernists except for John Lott understand RKBA issues, especially as typified by NFA weapons. Which is why review of raw case studies of effects of the gun laws of such pestholes as Sudan, Zimbabwe and Somalia as well as Mexico and Los Angeles, USA, is more important to understanding a modern view of the principle than what particular brand of rhetoric happens to catch your attention. The Anatomy of Revolutionby Crane Brinton should adequately explain my 'simple answer' ...free societies are not stable unless... Too much time wasted. Good night.
__________________
In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL. Last edited by MeekAndMild; February 16, 2009 at 07:57 PM. Reason: wording |
|
February 16, 2009, 02:17 AM | #18 | ||
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2008
Location: tennessee
Posts: 55
|
You are absolutely correct. I am not an expert on any of this, nor did I ever claim to be. I am just a person asking a question that nobody has really been able to give a straight answer to.
At least the rest of the people who have posted on this thread are not making unsubtle jabs at my level of qualifications and education. (I'm not stupid and don't appreciate remarks like this one). Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 16, 2009, 02:48 AM | #19 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2008
Location: tennessee
Posts: 55
|
I'm abandoning this question/experiment because this topic seems to attract an extraordinary amount of raw feelings towards me. Rather than simply answering the question I've asked, some of you (really only one of you) feel the need to be condescending. If there was something wrong with my question, then just don't answer it, very simple. Feel free to talk s*&t to me about how my ideas suck if you have nothing better to do, I won't be checking back in.
Thank you all who didn't just answer my question with another question Peace be with all of you. Last edited by dr.j; February 16, 2009 at 02:28 PM. |
February 16, 2009, 02:52 AM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,512
|
Quote:
|
|
February 16, 2009, 09:38 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 22, 2006
Posts: 3,076
|
Quote:
No one ever reads the stickys, it's the 2nd from the top as you enter this forum. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=195028 |
|
February 16, 2009, 10:28 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
Reasons for Civilian ownership of Full Auto Weapons:
1. Because the 2nd Amendment guaranties us that right, in the even that our government is overrun by facist tyrants and civilians need firepower to fight back. 2. Hunting - Why not be able to use a "two-round burst" feature? 3. Home protection. 4. Protection of Business 5. Self Defense in the case of anarchy and riots - see LA riots and Katrina. |
February 16, 2009, 02:37 PM | #23 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 3,668
|
When one agrees that f.a. firearms "aren't needed," then one is probably equally prepared to agree that semi-auto firearms also "aren't needed." The act of '86 should be unconstitutional. I don't know whether it is or not, but it's tantamount to the poll tax that was so prevalent several decades ago, in that only idiots or wealthy people own f.a. firearms now.
|
February 16, 2009, 07:54 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
|
Funny, I thought I was answering the question by elaborating an uncommon but true reason, apologies for any offense taken. No condescension intended either. I don't take offense when a ballistics expert explains things in a challenging way because that is not my field.
The subject is too deep to just answer with sound bytes. The private ownership of machine guns by a large number of common citizens satisfies a collective survival need of society and not just an individual need of the individuals and I was trying to explain my take on it. Good day.
__________________
In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL. |
February 17, 2009, 12:02 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Location: Haslet,Texas(DFW area)
Posts: 1,506
|
NFA owners are the least troublesome group of all gun owners, as they have had to jump through so many hoops to even own thier toy....you are far more likely to find a weapon with a "sporting purpose" being used to shoot stop signs and mail boxes and make it bad on the rest of us...not a machine gun owners and thier guns.....but its the "sporting gun" owners that would be the first to throw the NFA owners out to the wolves to save thier nice O/U shotguns , heavy game rifles, etc. (because nobody needs a gun like that...and it has no sporting purpose)
Sporting purpose...now that is a term that should be abolished from any gun legislation past or future...The second amendment had nothing to do with sporting purpose, and it had everything to do with the populas having enough equil footing in a battle that no standing army including our own would want to do battle. Our founding fathers came from a world that historically most gov'ts eventually turned on its own people, and treated them rather badly. Even in the 21st century, shock of shocks they are still doing this...as power mongers never change(they just change from horse drawn coaches to BMW's) Full auto weapons are part of this countries history, and many a brave man stepped forth to wear the uniform of this counties armed forces and carried them into battle...our dads carried them, our grandads carried them and they were honorable men. No one should have to be ashamed to own the very objects they won battles with, and consequintly the continueing right of weak minded whiners to whine about everything . The present level of wussification instilled into the western male these days shall be thier and our downfall. I'm quite frankly ashamed when I hear fellow gun owners singling out others to chuck into the fire...because they "feel" its just the right thing to do. A M16 is just as legitimate as a M1903 Springfield in all ways.
__________________
Lighten up Francis!.....;Actor Warren Oats, in the movie "Stripes" |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|