Assault Weapons - Candidates

[sksfan777]

If a liberal/democrat gets elected and wants to place a ban back on assault rifles, how long should this take? For example, if Hillary gets elected she will almost certainly place a ban back on assault weapons. How long does this normally take?

[Unregistered]

She will not even consider a ban until after 2012. Neither will Romney or Obama. After 2012, any of those three are likely to support a new ban. I don't think any of the other candidates would be in favor of an assault weapons ban.

[Limeyfellow]

I doubt she would even do a ban. Especially after it caused them to loose the congress last time it was done. Of course I am not that confident about the candidates in either party.

[Yellowfin]

Do you mean gas or recoil inertia operated firearms of intermediate rifle caliber or politically charged pejoritive words? I find it interesting that terms associated are completely shunned by just about everyone yet too many people here use terms for various firearms that are purveyed by ignorant bigoted hopolophobes with communist inclinations. If you want to help things I would recommend ceasing to indulge their choice of terms.

[YukonKid]

Are we talking about an automatic weapons ban, the hi cap or what? I like having high cap mags (handguns), but i dont see any reason for civilians to have automatic weapons.

[MacGille]

The reason is to prevent tyranny. The police have automatic guns so the public should have them too. How else will you protect yourself from the police when they do their masters bidding and seize your guns. And take away your constitutional protections at the same time. Gestapo like troops are now serving "no knock" warrants, people are held without bail or attorneys under the "patriot" law. Search and seizure laws are voided with umpunity.

Not long ago I was faced with 17 sheriffs who pointed guns at me and demanded I get on the ground. When I did not, they threatened to shoot and to have a dog bite me. After a time, I let them handcuff me and put me in the back of a car. They then searched my car and found my SKS in the back seat where I had put it after taking it to my son's house to work on it.

Someone had seen me move the rifle from the front seat to the back and called that I was brandishing a gun. After forcing me to sign an agreement that my arrest was not an arrest they released me with no charges. The whole thing was based on the magic word "gun". I was threatened with immediate death even though I was out of the car and empty handed. We have let ourselves be branded criminals if we exercise our rights to Keep and Bear Arms. It is past time when we need to take our Constitutional Rights back and fight the oppressors, even when they are our neighbors.:mad:

[625]

If a liberal/democrat gets elected

You mean someone like McLame?:D

and wants to place a ban back on assault rifles

They weren't banned, they just couldn't be sold with certain cosmetic features like those scary flash hiders, pistol grips, etc.

if Hillary gets elected she will almost certainly place a ban back on assault weapons.

Presidents don't pass legislation in this country. You need to read the Constitution, what’s left of it, that is.

Oh, and why did you post essentially the same thing in Legal/Political?

[davlandrum]

Presidents don't pass legislation in this country.

You can't imagine how happy I am to hear someone else say that!

I closely monitor my elected representatives in Congress about their stance on gun ownership. All currently serving from my district are pro citizens rights and have voted that way consistently.

And some of them are even "D"s :eek:

The only thing I need from the Presidential candidates is their stance on Iraq, since that is a president issue.

[SpikeHead]

As Limeyfellow notes above, a resurrected ban on "assault weapons" during the next administration is unlikely for the reason that the Dems are well aware that the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (aka "Assault Weapon Ban") was an electoral disaster for them. Many analysts believe that it was Al Gore's endorsement of that law and the Brady Bill of the previous year which tipped the scales against him in 2000—in particular in his home state of Tennessee—causing him to lose to Bush. In addition, increasing numbers of "liberals" are coming to the realization that, however much they dislike guns, strict gun control laws not only cause them to lose elections, they make people less safe rather than more safe. That is, there are people on the dreaded left who are willing to accept the conceit that legal gun ownership may in fact put a damper on violent crime.

Moral of the story: Voting for what you believe in works. So…communicate with your representatives at all levels of government, and VOTE.

[Mach II Sailor]

YK, but i dont see any reason for civilians to have automatic weapons.

i can not believe you said that on this forum, are you a liberal ?

i see by your profile you are "young" and want to be a lawyer, so anyone considering you as their lawyer to defend their right to own a full auto weapon had better reconsider !

[buzz_knox]

I like having high cap mags (handguns), but i dont see any reason for civilians to have automatic weapons.

Here's a reason: the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own said weapons. Even the much abused and misunderstood Miller decision stands for that point.

[Mach II Sailor]

ASSAULT RIFLES
An assault rifle is a rifle used by militaries. It has a lever that permits it to fire like a semiautomatic rifle or as a fully automatic rifle. Some also have a lever position that causes the gun to shoot a short burst of several shots each time the trigger is pulled. Compare to what laws and gun control advocates call ASSAULT WEAPONS.

in other words ASSAULT WEAPONS are capable of FULL AUTOMATIC firing, which means that with one squeeze of the trigger and held in that position the weapon will quit firing when there is no more ammo in the feed system.

soooo, i would advise the membership here to stop using the term ASSAULT when describing theirs or my AR-15s

THANK YOU !! :D

[Enron Exec]

I wish it was legal to own and operate a full auto weapon on your own property. As long as it stays there, i dont see a real harm.

:(

[Mach II Sailor]

EE, depending on where you live, you CAN own a F.A. weapon and if your property is large enough and have a proper bullet backstop (several acres) you can pretty much own any F.A. weapon you have the money to buy one and pay $200 tax to Uncle Gvmt.

a NIB M16 runs about $18,000 <-------<<<<< that is NOT a typo error :D

[rocket12]

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

[jeo556]

Are we talking about an automatic weapons ban, the hi cap or what? I like having high cap mags (handguns), but i dont see any reason for civilians to have automatic weapons.

FUDD Alert, FUDD Alert!!!!!! Everyone hide your non-hunting firearms!!!

You gotta be kidding me.......

Jeo556

[Mach II Sailor]

NO !! he is not kidding, he wants to be a lawyer, so i believe THAT says it all !

[Ralph Allen]

Just bought a Marlin 1895cb in 45-70. Cranks out 10 rounds of that 405gr as fast as you can handle it. Can't wait till one of those liberal types knocks on my door telling me their position on whatever while I'm sitting at the table cleaning it. They will probably see it as a cop (car) killer and try to ban this one!! All this in fun, and I sure wish I would have bought a crate full of M-16s when they were less than $1000. Way better investment than the stock market.
Ralph

[High Planes Drifter]

Are we talking about an automatic weapons ban, the hi cap or what? I like having high cap mags (handguns), but i dont see any reason for civilians to have automatic weapons.


:mad: [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color], over?

[fspic]

Don't be too assured about what the pornocrats won't do. Take a look at what they're doing in the Chicago (Cook County) area as illustrated by the Illinois state rifle Ass'n. www.isra.com. A Daley stooge named Larry Suffredin (a naturally politically oily Irishman of the Daley type) is a lobbyist among whose clients is a guy connected to a likely mafia bombing in a Chicago suburb in the 80's. He is County Commissioner of the 13th district otherwise and is running for states attorney. He wants to virtually ban and register everything and have fifteen miles between gun shops.

You have to get into local representative races. Ditto for the senate. I will be voting in the Democrat primary again because that's where I can do all the damage. I'll vote for Obama (a national disaster a-borning) and for any other candidate but Suffredin. I will begin a tongue in cheek third party effort with hopes of getting my local Puerto Ricans to rebel against their masters.

[Silentarmy]

I am terribly confused! what do the initials AR in AR-15 mean? surely it is not ASSAULT RIFLE! It must mean something else like America is Raped? or Arnold is Ripped right? It was a sigh of relief to see the Dem's lose the congress after such an assinine attempt on our civil rights. Give us another similar ban so we can have a few yrs of decent life after they lose it again!
I do not personally worry too much about Automatics being banned. Most in their ignorance believe to this day that they are illegal and every presidency since 1934 has not been able to effectively make them truly unavailable so I can't imagine some menopausal psycho or baby kissing african american having the power either!

[cabbynate]

a NIB M16 runs about $18,000 <-------<<<<< that is NOT a typo error
Not a bad deal. I seen an HK MP5K go for $20,000 last mouth.
I wish I had that kinda cash to drop on a full auto..:(

[Buzzcook]

This should be in legal/political.

Under this administration, the president can designate any American citizen a terrorist. Hold that citizen indefinitely without charge, access to a lawyer, or any redress.
All of this without oversight by the other two branches of government.

The odds of Clinton or Obama restricting firearms are pretty darn small and would be at best cosmetic if they do happen.

Compare those two things and pick which is a greater threat to the nation.

[hksigwalther]

I am terribly confused! what do the initials AR in AR-15 mean? surely it is not ASSAULT RIFLE! It must mean something else like America is Raped? or Arnold is Ripped right?

The "AR" designation for the AR-15 refered to the original company that Eugene Stoner was employed with when he designed it (well actually the AR-10 but them was essentially scaled down to the AR-15), Fairchild ArmaLite.

[jabotinsky]

i can not believe you said that on this forum, are you a liberal ?

hmmmm....bet the poster still uses the terms "pinko" and "coloreds"....Archie Bunker lives on...

[YukonKid]

so much anger...No am in no way a lib. I am in college though and after i finish i plan on attending OCS to better serve my country.

I find it a bit strange that you guys are so ready to attack, i like to shoot to, i own a lot of guns and where i come from i opened carried when i was 17, rode my dirtbike to school and dug ditches for work. Now i am attending a very expencive lib arts college to better expand my education, and i suggest some of you do the same.

I just dont understand why you want fully automatic weapons, for zombies or dinosaurs or what? I meen seriously, who hunts with a 30 round mag in BDU's?

[YukonKid]

and i do own some non hunting weapons as well, i didnt want this to turn into an argument. My non hunting weapons include a pistol grip shotgun, semi auto handguns and revolvers.

I was simply wondering if someone could give me a few good reasons why they should be able to own a auto. And if you do own one, what do you use it for? I understand the second amendment, i have written numerous papers on it. I understand the right to bear arms and own weapons. The creators of the constitution were very smart men, they knew that technilogical progress would happen. I hate it when libs say "they had muskets back then" i just dont understand the reasoning behind full autos.

Lets not all be so ready to get into a heated argument, i like to leave my anger out on the field and i suggest you guys do the same (or sound like a close minded moron who sits infront of a computer all day drinking beer, smoking cigs in a stained shirt selling things on ebay to be able to afford new guns ;))

oh and btw, if i could have a full auto, it would definitly be the HKG36C, it feels so awesome, but i could not justify the price of it (cus i could not think of a use)

[davlandrum]

YK - People who want to own autos should be able to for the same reason people can buy cars or motorcycles that go 180 MPH, or ATVs to race over sand dunes, or personal watercraft (Jet-skis).

There is no practical reason for any of these. All of them are dangerous.

There are a lot of "hobbies" that have no practical application, but that doesn't mean they aren't fun.

I shot enough full-auto with Uncle Sam. I doubt I will ever have enough extra money or time to want to get into the full-auto game, but that doesn't mean other people can't.

Man, if I had my way, I would ban all water-ski boats because they are frivilous and ruin my fishing.:p

[SpikeHead]

The majority of your anti-gun legislation will come from local & state government. Be vigilant, let your reps know what your position is, and vote.

[jabotinsky]

I hate it when libs say "they had muskets back then" i just dont understand the reasoning behind full autos.

Yukon: I think I understand it, and I'm a liberal. Some guys say "I want an auto because I can" and that makes sense. Some go farther and believe owning an auto and fully exercising their 2nd Amendment rights will help protect those rights.

It also comes down to whether or not you believe a greater flow of autos into the marketplace will increase those that wind up in BG's hands. I personally don't mind not owning any, but don't want other folks denied their individual rights. That's a big part of what being a liberal means.

We're lucky to have a pretty good selection of presidential candidates this time, but none of them are going to try to take away gun rights as a top priority; that'll happen when heaven forbid some suicidal idiot cuts loose with an auto in a mall. Until then, the Hillary bugaboo sells lots of ARs and extra mags.

[azredhawk44]

I just dont understand why you want fully automatic weapons, for zombies or dinosaurs or what? I meen seriously, who hunts with a 30 round mag in BDU's?

I don't hunt with a magazine.

I hunt with a rifle.

My most accurate large game-capable rifle I own is my M14, and it is my hunting rifle.

I am building an AR15 right now and it will become my varminting platform.

Magazines mean squat when hunting. Shot placement does the trick. I'm left handed, and getting what I want in a turnbolt is easy for you righties, but costs me mucho dinero from a custom smith to get in a southpaw variant. So, I hunt with autoloaders.

[YukonKid]

Dave - i had a moto that went 175, didnt like it very much, it just wasnt fun. My ATV does not like sand, and i have rolled and seem to be ok.

I understand the reasoning behind things that are fun just for fun, im a kid(sort of), i get that. I dont understand extreamly deadly weapons that can get to anyone who has the cash.

Sure, racing is dangerous, when i had a jeep i almost rolled wheeling (training for rubicon trial), scared me real bad, but it was only going to hurt me. If there are lots of auto weapons people will get them that shouldnt and thats not good for America. Also, thank you for serving your country, it is a privilage to discuss these things with you. Marine OCS is where i am going.

Jab- im sorry for the liberal comment, but some of the men on here were questioning my standing. My university is full of libs. I just dont like being questioned when it comes to my political views. I chew beech, drive a beast 4x4, play college football and plan on serving my country, sorry for the ranting everyone, but i am conservative.

Mach Sailor...what pray tell do you do? you were a sailor at some point i gather, but that gives little as to what you do now. If your going to insult my choice of work kindly state your own so i can make a rude comment about it and stoop to your level.

[CraigC]

Semi-auto civillian versions of military weapons are NOT "assault weapons".

There are FAR better ways to spend your time than to give in to this baseless Chicken Little line of thought. Everybody is worred about gun bans with a new democrat in the White House but as was stated before, presidents don't pass legislation. We've been here before. The world did not end.

[Diesel1]

I personally don't mind not owning any, but don't want other folks denied their individual rights. That's a big part of what being a liberal means.

That may have been the classic definition of liberal, but the current one is
quite different. Typically those who call themselves liberals in this generation
think the average person is too stupid to decide things for themselves.
I'm sure you meant it in the classic definition. But I suppose this should
be moved to political.

[YukonKid]

hey, i didnt say [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] about semi platforms. I am picking up an M1A soon, but its not full auto, and its pretty accurate.

I understand you hunt with a rifle :p, it would be pretty hard to knock out a deer with a mag, but maybe doable if you through like a pro pitcher :) btw, i am left handed as well.

I love to shoot and hunt. I just dont see the need for full automatic weapons in the hands of anyone who can buy one.

[Diesel1]

YK, I just dont see the need for full automatic weapons in the hands of anyone who can buy one.

See that's the problem, you say you are looking for am M1A, I don't see the need for you to own it. Who am I, who is anyone to tell you or I what we as 'law abiding citizens' should be able to buy. The key word is 'law abiding.' If I owned 1000 full auto firearms and I am a law abiding citizen, why would it matter what firearms I owned?

[Aqeous]

TERMINOLOGY & DEFINITIONS

Machine Gun (MG) - Any firearm that fires more than one bullet at a time with each pull of the trigger.

Assault Rifle (AR) - A German invention of W.W.II, the assault rifle was intended to blend features of the rifle, carbine, automatic rifle/light machine gun, and submachine gun into a single weapon for use by front line assault troops. Assault weapons are not machine guns and are not registered for purposes of transfer or ownership.

Assault Weapon - The term "assault weapon" should not be confused with assault rifle. "Assault weapon" is a recent term popularized by the news media and codified by Congress in the 1994 Crime Bill (Brady Bill). Assault weapons are defined as any new (post-94) semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine and having more than one of the following additional features: separate pistol grip, folding or collapsible shoulder stock, bayonet lug, grenade launcher, flash hider, or threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash hider or grenade launcher. Assault weapons are not machine guns and are not registered for purposes of transfer or ownership.

Automatic - This generic term refers to any firearm capable of discharging more than one shot with each pull of the trigger.

Semiautomatic - This is the correct and legal term to describe the action of any self-loading firearm that discharges a single shot with each pull of the trigger.

Just to help clear things up "legally"


Maybe someone here can help me out--I was thinking of purchasing a fully auto 1919A4. As far as I know the only real requirement (discounting the tax of course) is getting a LEO to sign that he does not feel that I will use it in anything illegal. AS long as I am living in a state that allows the ownership of full autos I should be good to go right? Regardless of where I live or what type of house I live in? Can anyone confirm this?

[Aqeous]

As far as the initial post of this thread. Unless allot of people seriously get up and start to do something in an organized fashion, eventually we are going to be seriously screwed. AND I mean in the foreseeable future. I really don't see why we should care if its two years or ten years doen the line . . .

[YukonKid]

Deisel, i see your point, but i dont think you are seeing mine. All weapons are dangerous, right?, it is an undesputed fact. Is it also true assume that full auto weapons are percived as more dangerous being they have a higher rate of fire? I could shoot 500 rounds through my model 94, it would take me a long time, you could rip that off in a minute with an Ak, most likely more.

and do you think all gun owners are law abiding like we are? and is it not true that people doing illigal acts tend to have a lot of money and want protection?

I do like guns, i like shooting, but so far not one person has stepped up and told us what they use their M-16 for, i am looking forward to it, cus if they can present a good case i want to get a G36 Compact :)

[Aqeous]

In world war II the Japanese elite got together and truly debated whether or not invasion of the U.S. was a plausible option. One of the top Generals (his name escapes me right now--its Japanese) said this. "No . . .there would be a gun hidden behind every tree and blade of grass."

Seriously this did happen. The word is Militia. That is what use an M-16 has in the hands of civilians. No militia can over throw our government as was possible in the days of our forefathers , but I assure you should a time ever arise where a hostile force visites U.S. soil they would have a hell of a time on their hands outside of the U.S. own military. Their truly would be a gun hidden behind every tree and blade of grass.

With ABSOLUTELY and I mean ABSOLUTELY ALL respect given to the people of our armed forces . . . we think being in Iraq is hard . . . someone try occupying the good old United States. A would-be invader would have a serious problem on their hands.

Also an "Assault Weapon" as Legally designated (per my previous post) IS NOT legally designated an automatic weapon. It is a semi-automatic weapon which means one pull of the trigger one bullet fired. In order to fire 500 shots thats 500 pulls of the trigger and 17 clips in succession. That would also be kind of pricey depending on the ammo your using. Just take that into consideration.

[Diesel1]

Deisel, i see your point, but i dont think you are seeing mine. All weapons are dangerous, right?, it is an undesputed fact

No, incorrect. I have several shotguns and many handguns that have not moved in a year or so, are those dangerous? I have butcher knives in my kitchen, how are those dangerous, it certainly is a disputable fact. Weapons are dangerous in the hands of those that will use them. I have been firing a 'deadly assault weapon' for years, again as a instructor who has taught hundreds of people how to shoot safely, tell me how an inanimate object is dangerous? I have been around firearms all of my life, 41 years, when a firearm gets up by it's own volition and shoots someone by itself, I'll turn mine in because they have become dangerous. In fact this is the very thing that The Violence Policy Center and other socialist gun bannnig groups say 'we must end gun violence'.
The question I have is what the hell is gun violence. This assinine phrase puts forth the idea that guns cause violence.

[CraigC]

Also an "Assault Weapon" as Legally designated in my previous post IS NOT legally designated an automatic weapon. It is a semi-automatic weapon which means one pull of the trigger one bullet fired.

And what is the source of your information? I can find no technical definition for the political term "assault weapon", other than it being derived from "assault rifle" and referencing military equipment. It is typically used as a generic, pejorative term for the uninitiated and the preferred term of our opposition. It should never be given any merit through use on a pro-gun internet forum.

"Assault rifle" is a clearly defined technical term which does NOT describe semi-auto versions of military rifles and should NOT be used to refer to them. To do so is to give in to our enemies.


No militia can over throw our government as was possible in the days of our forefathers

What makes you so sure of that?

[Aqeous]

Here's the links: http://www.paladinarmory.com/LegalTips.htm
And:http://www.paladinarmory.com/MachineGuns.htm (scroll down to the middle of the page for the complete list of technical terms and legalities)

Did you read this . . .
"Assault weapon" is a recent term popularized by the news media and codified by Congress in the 1994 Crime Bill (Brady Bill)"

I am agreeing with you . . .


Do you think a militia could??

[YukonKid]

hmm, well i think that if an assult from american happened i would not feel underarmed. If you think men need M-16 to defend their homeland then you better start giving away M-16's. I too have never seen a gun move on its own and shoot someone, i am not disuting that :confused:

What i am saying is i would like some reasons as to what the average american needs with a fully automatic combat rifle. Are you all ex-delta or clint smith? Maybe you just argue for the sake of it.

And where did attack on the homeland come from, and how is our government enslaving us?

[YukonKid]

i guess i should have said potentialy dangerous, i could kill someone by beating them (college lineman) but that doesnt meen my hands are weapons. All guns are deadly weapons. Go back to hunter safety.

[Jimro]

hmm, well i think that if an assult from american happened i would not feel underarmed. If you think men need M-16 to defend their homeland then you better start giving away M-16's. I too have never seen a gun move on its own and shoot someone, i am not disuting that

What i am saying is i would like some reasons as to what the average american needs with a fully automatic combat rifle. Are you all ex-delta or clint smith? Maybe you just argue for the sake of it.

And where did attack on the homeland come from, and how is our government enslaving us?

The average American doesn't need an assault rifle, he needs the right to own one so that he or she can use their own judgment whether to own one or not. That is what freedom is all about.

If you think that the average American isn't responsible enough to own a fully automatic weapon then you must believe that they aren't responsible enough to own semi-automatic rifles, or for that matter bolt action rifles. The gun is just a tool for mans inate capacity for violence.

I may not be "former delta" but why would a "former delta" person need a weapon any more than anyone else? Does military experience make someone more fit to own a weapon than anyone else?

And if you plan on attending OCS, pm me if you want details on Army OCS.

Jimro

[YukonKid]

Jimro, i might have to do that, i need to finish this semester, and i plan on doing the Marine OCS, did you go through the program?

a gun is a tool...a good time used analogy, but if a bolt action is a Dewalt drill then is a G36 a jackhammer? Why own a jackhammer when you could just get your pain going and use a sledgehammer :o

I support the right to choose in most cases, but not in this. Would you agree that the vast majority of the men and women here on TFL are safe gun owners. I feel safe shooting with almost everyone here and i have never met them. I know CraigC has some really nice revolver thoug ;), i never forget a pretty gun. But doing you think that a rich dealing homie is going to buy a Mac or an AK (full auto) or a bolt action? They are Americans, they get to choose as well.

I am still waiting for some practical reasons to own a full auto, if i get some good ones i might swade my mind and go buy a G36Compact :D

[CraigC]

The average American doesn't need an assault rifle, he needs the right to own one so that he or she can use their own judgment whether to own one or not. That is what freedom is all about.

Exactly! To stipulate "need" as a basis for owning a firearm is to begin along a very dangerous train of thought that can easily result in everything we don't "need" being banned from private ownership. Who gets to decide what we "need"?

I admit that I don't have a "need" for one but I'd have one if they weren't ten grand. The only added danger would be that of bankruptcy feeding the damn thing. I'm sure I could do enough shooting with a suppressed M16 wearing a Lakeside belt-fed .22LR upper to jeopardize my financial future. :D

[YukonKid]

your right, its my freedom to asssert my will over other because i am a very powerful person and like to hit stuff. Its my right to drive a truck that get 8mpg, f**k the ozone, i will be dead by the time it goes away. If your grandkids have no mountain to ski on what do i care. Its all about choice right? By allowing the sales of automatic weapons they end up in the streets, because the vast majority of "law abiding citizens" do not need a auto, but the G's sure want one.

Defending the homeland my ass, i can defend myself with a winchester model 70 or a 94. Hk USP or Sig 226. Smith 29 ruger vaquero or various shotguns. If we are invaded by canada or whatever :rolleyes: then i hope everyone with a full auto goes stright to the front to show how smart they were to buy one.

Yah Freedom, i love America, i love god, guns and 4 wheel drives but i do not love blind arguing over something that i guess i started with a simple question a few days ago.

PS. I hope Sailorman comes back and tell me what he does for a living so i can make a snide comment about it, stoop the the level of grown men playing tough online :eek:

[Tex570]

By allowing the sales of automatic weapons they end up in the streets...

No they don't. In the last 70 or so years only 1 "registered" full auto has been used in a crime. The others were converted illegally. Anyone with a dremel or rubberband can do this on various rifles. Those are already illegal. It could also be done on a M1A.

What is your basis for saying people shouldn't own these other than the disputed it kills allota people and more BGs will have them argument. That one doesn't hold water.

[Mach II Sailor]

i like to shoot to

Now i am attending a very expencive lib arts college to better expand my education, and i suggest some of you do the same.

I just dont understand why you want fully automatic weapons, for zombies or dinosaurs or what? I meen seriously,
technilogical, definitly, extreamly, privilage, undesputed, disuting, potentialy, your (you're), stright,

PS. I hope Sailorman comes back and tell me what he does for a living so i can make a snide comment about it, stoop the the level of grown men playing tough online

Mach Sailor...what pray tell do you do? you were a sailor at some point i gather, but that gives little as to what you do now. If your going to insult my choice of work kindly state your own so i can make a rude comment about it and stoop to your level.

seriously, you need remedial 3rd grade english and spelling lessons :D ;)

Mr. Wannabee lawyer, i am retired, spent nearly 30 years in the U.S.Navy, and nearly 30 years in the civilian work force, what i do now is live off my three (3) retirement incomes, two of which your tax dollar$ support ! trust me here Mr. Wannabee, you will never stand up to Marine discipline your notes here reflect a weak person with a very weak mind.., as for ""stoop to your level"", you will need several very long extension ladders to climb to my level !!

as for me owning a full auto..., it is my RIGHT, and that is all you need to know, now go back to playing with your pre-school pals !!

[yomama]

That's why I hate what colleges do to our youth. Messes up their heads.

[Mach II Sailor]

Occupation:
Going to be an attourny

yomoma,
i wonder if the ""expencive lib arts college"" will teach him how to spell ?
he sounds like one of these kids who was "advanced" in school rather than actually "passing" with acceptable grades ?? :D :eek: :D

[GeorgeF]

Actually the safest place for all those full autos is in my collection :)

Now face the economics of the whole thing - people buying full auto weapons are generally not yahoos or idiots. They commit to a purchase, fill out the paperwork, deal with the sheriff (or all the rules of setting up a corporation), shell out LOTS of money and wait for their deal to go through.

Generally, those who own full auto also own more than one and usually have a decent-sized regular collection as well. They have invested time and money into this collection - my experience has shown that they are among the most careful and law-abiding folks I know. They realize how easy it would be to lose their collection if they acted like an idiot.

Also, I'm not sure about you, but even with a AK-47 firing full auto, I cannot carry enough ammo or change magazines quick enough to come close to 500 RPM. No bad guy is going to go through the nonsense of spending thousands and thousands of dollars on a weapon when he could get 20 of a semi-automatic variety for the same price. And if he wants to sound impressive he can just squeeze that trigger as fast as he can - I guarantee it will be pretty damn quick as well (with no benefit to accuracy).

A full auto is no more dangerous than a semi-auto - its the person behind it. The DC sniper could have done just as much damage with a single-shot bolt action rifle. He generally did not fire more than once at a time.

I sure hope that your views change for the better down the road - best of luck with your studies.

[Aqeous]

Response To Mach II Sailor: LoL :D


But seriously: YukonKid

"What I am saying is i would like some reasons as to what the average american needs with a fully automatic combat rifle"

Your asking a question in manner that cannot be answered if you discount things like: freedom to bare arms, militia, people who collect, ex.). The way you are asking this question is typical of a good lawyer--which means you will probably be successful in your field. That doesn't make it right. If the right to bare arms become the right to bare some arms and not others than that is no longer the right to bare arms according to or constitution is it? Lawyers have there constitutions: the burden of proof. Doctors do to: the oath to heal. So does the United states of America. The most educated among us should and must respect that. We also in this great county have the right to practice any religion free from oppression, I would assume you are a Christian because that is just probability (maybe Jewish) but should your faith begin to influence how others practice theirs? I would submit that Patriotism in itself is a kind of faith of sorts and people believe in it. And they believe in it according to the letter of the Constitution. Fully automatic machine guns are far from a violent epidemic in this country so I am not sure why you are arguing about it so intently . . . at best just leave it alone. You will probably never see one or hear of one in the news.

Also I am not sure if you are aware of 1.) how expensive they are or 2.) how many legal hoops you have to jump through in order to acquire one.

[Diesel1]

Removed by me, my fault. Didn't mean it as an insult. I work with 350 attorney's and just saw the post as somewhat typical.

[jabotinsky]

Well said Aqua...Aque...Aquaman! ;-)

Two more nuggets for thought:

1) Laws always have restricted right to bear arms to some extent, but where do you draw the line? Should my wife-beater next door neighbor be able to own a light anti-tank weapon, or tank for that matter? Under what conditions? Right now the goal post has been moved to autos, which is ironic to me because...

2) Young idiots rocking and rolling their M16s will miss and overheat, guys here with lever guns and scoped rifles can mess you up worse. What's more dangerous over distance, a rocking M16, or M14?

Much of the current law on autos is derived from a couple of high-profile tragic shootings. There has never been a link established between legal guns winding up in great numbers with criminals. As has been pointed out, they can modify, or import illegally.

So as a future lawyer, the OP should realize that in absence of significant numbers of illegal auto use incidents, in balance, why deny the rights of millions to collect autos and take them to the range and use them responsibly? We balance the rights of the individual against rights/risks to society.

[YukonKid]

hmm, prehaps Marines will be too difficult, but i doubt it, i have seen some seriously lacking people in our armed forces. Not to put down any soldier, i hold them all in the highest regard, but i have 100 percent faith in my physical abilities. Now to end the stupid insulting. Mach II Sailor, if you provide me with a ladder to see it at your level i will be glad to, but until that time, you have fun on your high horse, because you have nowhere to go but down, well you said you are old so enjoy your later years and have fun shooting while you can, i still have roughly 60 years to shoot.

I do not see what you have against lawyers. As for your dislike of learning, prehaps you never made it to college and are therefore bitter towards me. As to my grades; though they are no business of yours, i earned a 3.57 while playing a varsity sport (football - OL) and a non varsity sport (rugby #3)

As far as weak minded goes, sure i dont have great spelling, so what? Does a persons ability to spell show their how smart they are all around? If you think that then you sir should go back to school and maybe learn some things.

Thank your for showing some common courtesy George, it is is much easier to talk with someone who does not work insults into everything. I might change me views down the line, i would just like some sound reasoning.

Aqueous, thanks for not being so mean ;) I am very aware of how expencive they are, i thought about buying one for a while. I just could not find a good enough reason in my head (economics - weak mind :rolleyes:) to justify it.

In the end, it all comes down to us arguing over something stupid on an internet gun forum. Maybe it would be a little different if we were all in a conference room in suites making speachs to prove our points infront of a board of mixed shooters and non shooters of all sorts, and let them decide who makes a better point.

and i am not the original poster, i asked a one sentence question on the first page, i was not trying to stir things up.

[Aqeous]

"Aquaman!" LOL! That's pretty funny.


Yukonkid: Not a problem. If we cannot debate in a manner that is civil how can we hope to come to an understanding. When we talk in defense, we are ignoring the subject at hand.

"I thought about buying one for a while. I just could not find a good enough reason in my head (economics - weak mind ) to justify it."

I tell you what, all else aside, there are few things in this world more fun than getting your hands on one of these things and firing one even if it is just once :) Most everyone in this world that don't run at the very sight of a gun ends up smiling.

[GeorgeF]

I sense a lock from Admin coming! Straying off the topic ....

Back to 'Assault Weapons' and any ban. One huge benefit of the last attempted national ban was that a lot of publicity got out showing how ridiculous the standards were. People got to see an 'Assault Rifle' next to a legal firearm - with the only difference being something like a flash hider or bayonet lug.

BUT, let us not grow complacent. The anti's learned something valuable last time as well. They will try one of three tactics:
- Go after the ammo. They are trying multiple tactics such as getting environmental groups to say lead is dangerous, outlawing certain calibers, putting taxes on ammo, and requiring special ammo restrictions (serial numbers on the ammo).
- Outright ban on whole gun instead of certain parts. It will be harder to push through, but they saw that a limited ban did not do anything. It just drove up demand for people to buy these things before the hammer fell.
- Enforce a national registration. If they can implement some type of 'license system' (the typical 'you need a license to drive a car' nonsense) they can throttle you any time they want. Make it a $5 a year renewal at first. Then crank up the price. Then make it based on a per gun cost ($5 per gun). Then limit it in any way their creative little minds can churn.

In short, ANY limit on firearms ownership is a potential step towards further bans. That's why you should fight tooth and nail to knock back any new legislation. Remember always - the power to tax is the power to destroy. Any casual gun owner who says 'Oh, there's no reason why someone needs 30 round magazines and that nonsense' is lulling themselves into thinking that they arent the next target. Remember that the folks in Britain and Australia were SHOCKED when the government finally came after their muzzle loaders and rabbit guns - but by that time there was no one left to stand up for them.

Either hang together or hang separately.

[Aqeous]

You have just spoken my new mantra . . .

[243Ben]

It "could" happen by July 1st 2009, or January 1st 2010, if a Democrat is elected and they retain control of the House and Senate. I pick those two days because it seems like those are the days when newly passed legislation is enacted. That would of course require that the first peice of legislation that the new President pushes would be a new ban on assault rifles.

I don't think we need to worry too much about this type of legislation passing, there are a number of so-called "blue dog" Democrats that would not likely support such a move. Also, the Democrat control of both the House and Senate is slim (could change more in their favor come Nov), but even still, what Republicans (more importantly, what conservatives) are left will fight any gun-ban bill in an effort to retain and regain popularity among gun owners and libertarians.

[SteelCore]

I just dont understand why you want fully automatic weapons, for zombies or dinosaurs or what? I meen seriously, who hunts with a 30 round mag in BDU's?Why do some police use them, then?

As others have already explained, the point of the Second Amendment is not hunting, target shooting, or killing zombies. It's to overthrow a tyrannical government, presumably through guerrilla warfare (so that stealth and hit-and-run attacks take the place of air power, tanks, etc.).

Having said that, full-auto weapons are no more dangerous to public safety than semi-auto weapons. There is very little difference in "massacre capability" between a weapon that can fire 12 rounds per second and one that can fire 6 rounds per second. Either type of shooting is "spray and pray," and both will add up to a lot of misses in a short time if used at anything but very close range. To kill a person, you generally have to aim your shot.

You don't have anything against shotguns, do you? Each trigger pull can release 9 .33 caliber projectiles. Such weapons are probably better suited for close-range murders or massacres than just about anything else, yet we rarely hear anyone call for them to be banned.

[Mach II Sailor]

Mr. Wannabee, i am not speaking of physical abilities, most young men are fit and can handle the rigors of the physical training. ""provide me with a ladder to see it at your level"", that would take way too many ladders :D ""you said you are old"", no ! just experienced and aged like fine wine :D ""I do not see what you have against lawyers"", see, that is where EXPERIENCE comes in handy ""As for your dislike of learning, prehaps you never made it to college"", reading comprehension is another of your weak points, i am all in favor of learning, that is why i urge you to learn to spell, and i am not ""bitter"" towards you at all , that is where the reading comprehension comes in ""As far as weak minded goes, sure i dont have great spelling, so what?"", so what ? if you were to turn in a job resume to me, i would round file it the first misspelled word i read ""Does a persons ability to spell show their how smart they are all around?"" no ! just their level of basic education, read the above quote once more, sentence structure is another of your weak points :D ""If you think that then you sir should go back to school and maybe learn some things."", sorry sonny but if i went into the present days schools, i would be dummed down to your level and i just ain't going for that :D

now !! back to assault weapons which ARE, by strict deffinition any full auto weapon, your hate for them in the hands of civilians is not reasonable, as one member pointed out, the second amendment is for the purpose of preventing a tyrannical gvmt. from taking us down the road to a dictatorship, which BTW is what the democrats/liberals want, they.., like you, want to dictate what guns the general population is allowed to own, now, my young friend, to regain some credibility here please post a seperate topic stating that you believe pesponsible gun owners have the right to own full auto weapons and even a Bradley fighting vehicle if their finances allow for it :D

have a great life and become a great lawyer who will defend any responsible gun owners RIGHT to keep and bear a fullauto/assault rifle OK ?? :D

[Aqeous]

O.K seriously . . . maybe someone can give me a hand here. Putting aside for a moment how "We are not supposed to give credit to our opponents demonization of fire arms and hence not use terms like assault weapons" that some had told me in a prior post. As far as I am aware, and I am pretty sure about this, the term Assault Weapon is and always has been reserved for fire-arms of Semi-Automatic variety that possess a certain number of physical features? As far as I know it has absolutely (and never has) had anything to do with fully automatic weapons that are both highly expensive and regulated enough as it is.

Correct me if I am wrong . . .




Also:
I might add that if you visit some anti-gun websites, one of the arguments they have to make both us and the NRA look stupid, is to say we are playing word games. "That peace of metal we put at the end of the barrel was never called a "suppressor" or "thats not and "Assault Weapon" its and "Assault Rifle". I am not sure how this venue of thought is supposed to help the cause as a whole. People in general aren't going to buy it, pro-gun or not, anyone who watches t.v. knows that a suppressor looks like a silencer for instance and so they believe they have a general grasp of what it does (though in truth they have no idea). If our opposition is going to be so specific in legal terminology, shouldn't we have to be just as specific when referring to different varieties of firearms. As to say: an "Assault-weapon" is not an "Assault-weapon"--that is a bias new legal term used to demonize Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines? As oppose to beating around the bush. For it is these types of rifles that would be banned under such new legislation . . . machine guns wont be touched.

Correct me if I am wrong . . .

[Mach II Sailor]

i do not have the time to correct you right now.., but rest assured i WILL :D

[jabotinsky]

the second amendment is for the purpose of preventing a tyrannical gvmt. from taking us down the road to a dictatorship, which BTW is what the democrats/liberals want

George Bush has taken us closer to dictatorship than any "democrat" or "liberal." That's why I'll be voting for Hillary, but working through the party to keep gun rights for Americans. The labels don't mean crap anymore.

[Aqeous]

Good :D I love when new information comes to my attention . . .

Fire away, after all this is the FiringLine . . .

However if it is the standard argument that once one type goes more will follow . . . I am aware and I do agree. I am referring directly to the main topic of the new legislation in question and its direct effect should it be enacted. What it will lead too was not included in my prior statement at this time . . . just thought I'd clear that up.

[Aqeous]

I totally understand what your saying . . . but Hillary may not be the best Idea . . .
Without turning this into a political debate and getting this thread closed down, besides her own highly conservative views having her as president would make Bill Clinton our first lady. Being that Clinton looks a little like the whipped kind, that would be repeating the conditions that got the first less-restrictive ban passed in the first place.

Taking into account the fact that by now the Clintons must have realized that gun legislation doesn't bode well for the long term goals of their party will only matter for so long. Second term, they probably wont care . . . Thats a hell of a chance to be taking to "work through the party" as you suggest, they are not going to be listening to you.

[Yellowfin]

As far as I am aware, and I am pretty sure about this, the term Assault Weapon is and always has been reserved for fire-arms of Semi-Automatic variety that possess a certain number of physical features? As far as I know it has absolutely (and never has) had anything to do with fully automatic weapons that are both highly expensive and regulated enough as it is. 100% wrong. The term originated with a German rifle called the StG44, the Sturmgewer which means "storm rifle," which has been morphed somewhat into "assault" rifle. What it implied was a rifle for moving ground forces, particularly for charging bunkers where something handier than the Mauser at the time was required and packing more punch than the commonly available MP40 SMG. The AK47 was directly inspired by the StG44 and since then the vast majority of military arms have in some way kept it in mind. The term is correctly applied to select fire (that is, full auto) rifles of intermediate (more powerful than a pistol, less powerful than a .30-06 or 8mm Mauser) caliber and dimensions larger than a submachine gun but more compact than a traditional battle rifle like the Garand. It has been misappropriated by the hopolphobes to mean anything they want to label with it, particularly rifles categorized as quoted. It is total nonsense on their part and negligence on our part to acknowledge it as a valid term when it is clearly not.

[Aqeous]

So is this link completely full of crap?

http://www.paladinarmory.com/MachineGuns.htm


Site Quotes:

"Assault Rifle (AR) - A German invention of W.W.II, the assault rifle was intended to blend features of the rifle, carbine, automatic rifle/light machine gun, and submachine gun into a single weapon for use by front line assault troops. They accomplished this in their select-fire MP-43/MP-44/StG-44 series of weapons by reducing the standard 8 mm rifle cartridge to one of intermediate size and power, somewhere between that of their submachine gun round and rifle round. The concept has dominated military rifle development since W.W.II. The Soviet AK and U.S. M-16 series of assault rifles are the most common and successful examples to date."

"Assault Weapon - The term "assault weapon" should not be confused with assault rifle. "Assault weapon" is a recent term popularized by the news media and codified by Congress in the 1994 Crime Bill (Brady Bill). The Brady Bill prohibits civilian ownership of certain rifles, pistols, and shotguns built after the enactment of the 1994 law. Assault weapons are defined as any new (post-94) semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine and having more than one of the following additional features: separate pistol grip, folding or collapsible shoulder stock, bayonet lug, grenade launcher, flash hider, or threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash hider or grenade launcher. Assault weapons are not machine guns and are not registered for purposes of transfer or ownership."

I know its a load of crap, but if its legally codified in this manner then it is not pertaining to fully automatic machine guns. This is not correct????:confused:

[Yellowfin]

Ah yes, the second part does clarify the usage of it and the terms that they use. That law has expired; it should never have been allowed in the first place, and it did for that time codify their propaganda. It may have substantiated it but it is still wrong. What is needed is punishment for those responsible for it and prevention of it being brought up again.

[Aqeous]

I see. Has the term fully expired with the sunset of the first ban?

[Yellowfin]

We need to see to it that it does by not using it ourselves, correcting others who do use it, and act to make sure that there is no other ban and that anyone who tries is ousted from office immediately.

[garyl43]

This is what scares me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U. These people are writing up legislation to ban parts of guns that they don't even have a clue what the parts are or do. Banning a barrel shroud? Gee I can hear the cops now "OMG! He's got a barrel shroud on that gun! we're all dead men!" :rolleyes: If you're going to ban bayonet lugs, maybe you should know what one is and show statistics of all the people killed by them in the U.S.. Pistol grips? I can aim and shoot my rifle just fine without them thanks! But they look cool to me (scary and evil to the uninformed I guess)! Why do I need a pistol grip if it doesn't really make my gun more accurate or dangerous? For the same reason I need a 4wd when I don't do any 4 wheeling, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! :D There are those who might say "well if you don't need it, why not ban it?" Well, to be honest, most of the stuff I own I don't "need", so I'd hate to see what that might lead to.

[Limeyfellow]

Don't be too assured about what the pornocrats won't do. Take a look at what they're doing in the Chicago (Cook County) area as illustrated by the Illinois state rifle Ass'n.

Sure you could say that but you would also have to look at howmany pro gunrights Democrats got elected in the 2006 election and the lifting of the ban on full automatic weaponary in the state amongst other things.

In world war II the Japanese elite got together and truly debated whether or not invasion of the U.S. was a plausible option. One of the top Generals (his name escapes me right now--its Japanese) said this. "No . . .there would be a gun hidden behind every tree and blade of grass."

This is a myth created about 30 years ago. The same with the "Waked a sleeping tiger" and many others that plays into patriotic feelings.

Some people have really weird ideas of what conservative and what liberal means is the big problem I found. They been turned into insult words that have little to do with the meaning of the word or the philosophies they are related too.

[Aqeous]

I hate quoting urban myths. I dedicate a great deal of my time NOT doing that.

So are you certain this is a myth . . . Can you site a source of some kind?



As for "Waking a sleeping Tiger" that is a part of a very ancient proverb. Kind of like saying "the grass is greener on the other side" or "don't cry wolf" in the good old U.S.A. It stands to reason that someone may have muttered that before the H-bomb fell . . . but since I wasn't there I guess I don't really know.

That's the problem with urban myths isn't it . . .:rolleyes:

[YukonKid]

wow, four pages of stuff over one small comment.

Mach Sailor, im not much into wine and alcahol, it tends to degrade people and make them fat and out of shape. Weighing in at 255 6'1 with 8 percent body fat i do not think i want to get out of shape and blow my shot at the marines away. If the recruiter has wrestling mat or a bench bar handy i will be glad to show him my skills :cool:

I would like to be done arguing with you, though you never told me the college you graduated from, so i still believe you might be a tad bitter. I am willing to accept the fact that you think i am a stupid kid. Thats fine, we are on an internet gun forum, i dont care if you think i am a gay albino midget jew. But you need to to know that you to are being narrow minded, as i can be swayed by a good argument, and you obviously cannot, since i have not provided a good argument, just pondered a civilians useage of a fully automatic battle rifle prehaps you will never get a good argument on the subject. i will be glad to discuss it further if you would kind enough to send me a PM. I will indeed be an excelent lawyer after i am through leading a platoon of marines, thank you for your support ;) Were you a sailor during vietman?

As far as semis being just as dangerous as autos, i dont see this being true but i am done arguing about it as it is close to pointless.

YK

[jabotinsky]

Hillary may not be the best Idea . . .

I salute you Aquaman, and your denizens of the deep! :D

But if not Billary, who? Obama?

Truth is I'm a closet McCain admirer. Whether or not you vote for the guy, who's got bigger onions than him? Nobody.

[YukonKid]

Hillary is a terrible idea, and she wont make it....i hope :( She is distrusted by too many people i believe and because of that she will lose to Barak.

If i could have anyone be pres right now it would colin powell :D but since he isnt an option i guess i will have to make do with someone else.

this needs to be related to guns or else it will be closed.

[cxg231]

...i dont see any reason for civilians to have automatic weapons.

I agree with that. I realize that is an unpopular stance on this forum, but that is my opinion, and I hope everyone respects it. You don't have to agree with me.

Not to start anything here, but to those people that say the "public needs automatic weapons because the police and military have them"...I have news for you. If the you-know-what ever really hits the fan in this country it would be against military/police units that will be far better equipped than with "just" automatic weapons. Think armored personnel carriers, tanks, assault helicopters, etc...

What now? Should we make it legal to go buy an M1A1 at wally world? ;)

Again, just my $0.02.

[Aqeous]

My denizens of the deep thank you . . .


I'll say one thing about Obama, he one of the few candidates that don't seem to exude the effervescence of fermenting cow-patties when I see him talk. Got to respect a guy for that.

But now I'll stop posting politics . . .

[Aqeous]

Bottom line, full-automatics are too expensive and difficult to procure to become a violent epidemic. Even if the worst of this new ban sees the light of day full-autos are not likely going anywhere in your lifetime . . .

But don't worry about it . . . because like I said before you will most likely never EVER see one in real life.

And yes, I would think if you had the money and you were a collector, you should legally be able to collect and acquire rare war relics like an old Sherman tank. If that's what a millionaire wanted to do with his time, and if he had the money to blow . . . why the heck not . . .

[The Lovemaster]

I don't see any reason for civilians to have alcohol.

I don't see any reason for civilians to have tobacco.

I don't see any reason for civilians to have cars that go faster than 75 mph.

I don't see any reason for civilians to have motorcycles.

I could go on and on, but my point is, what's the difference between the above items and NFA guns? My list above kills more Americans than all NFA guns, yet it's legal.

Please explain the difference.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't differentiate, it merely says "arms". For someone to tell someone else what they can and can't have smacks of control.

As Americans we are fortunate that we can choose what we can and cannot own. It's up to us to use our toys safely.

[YukonKid]

your opinion will not be respected, and neither will your job choice or spelling ability ;). but hey, who cares, its just people online.

hmm, well being that alcahol, motos and tabaco have nothing to do with the military i dont see your point. Being that motos tabaco and alcahol are hard to use to kill someone else i guess i dont see your point. I could bean someone with a churchhil turbo i suppose, but i really prefure macanudo portafinos.

YK

[garyl43]

I could kill someone with a tire iron, monkey wrench, kitchen knife, baseball bat, piano string..............:confused:

[The Lovemaster]

I weep for our future.

Does anyone else find it hilarious that our illustrious young friend Mr. Kid edited his last post for spelling?

[YukonKid]

ha yes, its so ironic...wow :rolleyes:. I cant spell, who cares. Whats more important is the content, which you seemed to overlook for my spelling mistakes, which is fine, i really dont care what you think of my spelling.

Sure, i could kill someone by hitting them with my fist, a textbook, a stick of deodorant or with 2 inches of water. I think that fully automatic battle rifles are a bit more dangerous. And everyone needs to stop saying that they are not able to get. Thats bull, if you have a job and make money you can buy a gun. If you have a good job and a clean record you can buy a full auto.

[YukonKid]

Don't spend your time crying over the future, because your not in it...

Do you believe that because you a grown man and i am young man you shoot better than me, are more traveled than and just all round better than me?

I would really like to keep talking about all this, i feel like me and Mach Sailor are just starting to get along :eek:. But if this insulting keeps up continous its going to get locked.

So instead of crying about the future and insulting my spelling why dont you use your huge brain and try to make me see things your way. I can be swayed by a good argument, and a good logical well thought out argument has not been provided yet as to why civilians should own full auto weapons.

[G21NE]

"If you have a good job and a clean record you can buy a full auto."

Yes, but only one that was manufactured and registered (which means one that is legally transferable) before some date in 1986. Look up the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (ironically named, don't you think?).

Which means no G36C for you! (that is, even if one of us is able to make a good argument and convince you of the "necessity" for one. I'm working on that, organizing my thoughts. I'll get back to you when I can.)

[garyl43]

Yukon, I'm curious as to what you thought of the Youtube video I posted?

[YukonKid]

gary, im confused, what youtube video?

[garyl43]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

[The Lovemaster]

Here's something even a law student should understand.

There's only one reason why civilians should be allowed to own automatic weapons, and that reason is..........drum roll, please........

THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!!!

The arguments of civilians don't need them, they're solely for killing people, only the military needs them, etc. do not wash in the harsh light of the 2nd Amendment. The word in question is "arms". There are no qualifiers to that word given in that simple yet brilliant Amendment.

I weep for our future when I contemplate the university graduates of today compared to the Founding Fathers. Come on man, my 4th grader exhibits greater spelling ability.

You will find as you get older and gain experience that people respect and listen to you much more when you can effectively deliver the message. As Mr. Mach II said, if your resume was spelled this bad, it'd get tossed.

The Constitution is brilliant in its thoroughness, genius, and simplicity, yet many today do not understand it.

[Aqeous]

This thread is hilarious . . . we should charge admission. :D

[YukonKid]

hmm, well i hate to admit this, but i do have really bad spelling, thats what i use spell check for, and i have a websters sitting here on my desk.

I get the second amendment dude, i like guns and i like to shoot just like the rest of you. Dont act like i am some commie or gun hater. I chew, drive a lifted 4x4, wear a stetson and stand behind my country, i will be going through OCS soon. I am a patriotic person, i just dont see the need for civilians to own full autos. G21 is making a good argument, he is working on one.

this is a fun thread aqueous, i am will to be here though because i feel like there is still some learning to be had here.

as long as there is stuff about guns and not my spelling ;) it will remain open i think :)

[YukonKid]

and full auto battle rifles are solely for killing people, not animals or target pratice, you might have a metal retardation if you think otherwise.

haha, that was a funny youtube clip...she is obviously uneducated. i fail to see how that pertains to my question "why do average people need full auto battle rifles"

[The Lovemaster]

That's cool, we can agree to disagree.

I'm a chewin', truck-drivin', gun-totin', patriotic red-blooded American boy like yourself.

I must apologize in advance - I can't resist. The following is meant tongue in cheek -

My truck is 4x2 and isn't lifted. Actually, it's not even mine, but that's beside the point. I see no reason why a civilian would need a lifted truck. They should be only for the military.

Told ya I was a dick! Ha!

p.s. regarding your last post - that's true, you're right. But they're funner than [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]! And I'm not metally retarded, I'm differently abled.

[YukonKid]

I wish more people could agree to disagree. But if that were the case then we would not have a fun thread where people are saying things in round about ways.

[Aqeous]

I just checked out that youtube clip . . . we are fighting a loosing battle against fear and ignorance.

[garyl43]

Here's another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM7dy7JbsX8&feature=related

Gee, no one ever told me you can't fire a hunting rifle from the hip!:rolleyes:. The ignorance of our lawmakers makes me want to :barf:. I'm afraid we are fighting a losing battle against fear, ignorance and emotion. :(

[YukonKid]

isn't there still a reason to right a loseing battle.

"this is sparta" comes to mind

and all it takes to make a stupid scared person smart and confertable is to take the time to explain things to them and show them that most gun owners are intelligent responcible men and women.

[The Lovemaster]

Just make sure you don't spell anything while you're showing them!

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Vincent
Dick

[deathshead]

mach II
I agree with you about the term "assult weapon" being used for u.s. ar15's and ak47's but "ar" means "assult rifle" so the clear answer would be to allow us to convert our ar15's to full auto in order to conform to the law that clearly states thay are assult weapons :D

[YukonKid]

Ha ha very funny...yes, bad spelling seems to plauge me, well...like the plauge i guess.

I feel bad for hi-jacking the OPs thread, although i did not meen to. I just made a statement.

on a side note, has anyone been here long enough to remeber prettyboy? if you dont know about this guy use the serch function and look at some of the threads he started, they are really funny.

I am ordering 10 " extenda" ladders Mach II Sailor, i am determind to climb up to your level with a giant websters strapped to my back so you can teach me spelling and show the good things about those sweet cuddly auto weapons ;)

[Aqeous]

"Assault Weapon - The term "assault weapon" should not be confused with assault rifle. "

" Assault weapons are not machine guns and are not registered for purposes of transfer or ownership."


I am finding it very hard to believe that we have not cleared up this point yet. Machine guns (THAT IS FULL Automatics) were never classified as Assault Weapons. The term Assault weapon was coined by the Brady bill and included ONLY semi-automatics with detachable magazines. If it were a machine gun it would be exempt from the ban . . .

[deathshead]

it was a joke, relax. its not the end of the world

[Aqeous]

Chilled . . .

[carguychris]

I agree with you about the term "assult weapon" being used for u.s. ar15's and ak47's but "ar" means "assult rifle"...

AR is simply the first 2 letters of the company name Armalite, refer to page 1 of this thread.

Is the Armalite AR-24 semi-auto pistol an "assault rifle"? :rolleyes:

[YukonKid]

what was thread about again? i meen before it was about my spelling, job choice, political stance and education ;)?

It should be renamed

By the way, wasnt the M-16 designed my Eugene Stoner?

[The Lovemaster]

Yeah, the M-16 was designed by your Eugene Stoner of the Armalite Corporation. Carguychris is correct, that's where the letters AR came from. The M-16 started life as the AR-10 if memory serves, and the AR-10 was designed by Mr. Stoner.

[YukonKid]

sorry, vince...it was supposed to say "by Eugene Stoner" my mistake again :o

YK

[billindenver]

I was simply wondering if someone could give me a few good reasons why they should be able to own a auto.

Because I am a wounded American Marine, medically retired and forced to live in pain for the rest of my life. And because if I could carry that rifle defending your right to be as liberal as you like, then I should be able to carry it in defense of myself. How is it that defending you and the rest of this country, that rifle is needed...but defending myself it is a sin and rediculous to own?

Does that clear it up for you?

[YukonKid]

I do not want to sound ungreatful for your service to our country, but with all due respect, what do you need to protect yourself from in Colorado. I didnt know that Americas enemies were so close. You are at home now, and if you believe there are still people you need to kill here that require a full auto to dispatch then i suggest you seek help.

I will be joining the marines when i am finished with college, because i to believe in serving my country and all the inhabit it, even the liberals ;)

Your country thanks you for your service and mourns your loss

Yukonkid

[Johnny Guest]

I should have caught this thread and either moved it to L&P or just closed it a week ago..

This entire discussion is off topic for Art of the Rifle forum. It has progressed too far downslope to move it at this late date.

People are beginning to repeat themselves and the entire thing wasn't too illuminating to start with. I'm shutting this one down. If anyone has something really vital to the discussion, you can start another thread - - In Legal & Political forum.

CLOSED