What is your arguement for full auto? - Page 3

DAVID NANCARROW · January 1, 2002, 04:00 AM

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

striderteen · January 9, 2002, 07:14 PM

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

Quartus · January 10, 2002, 05:53 AM

Welcome to the full auto club, Stainless. A '16 is indeed a Sweet 16, but a full belt of .50 cal is hard to beat!

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

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

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

striderteen · January 10, 2002, 09:41 AM

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

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

MACMAN10 · January 10, 2002, 05:55 PM

Burp.

Ceol Mhor · January 11, 2002, 11:45 AM

My only full-auto shooting was when a friend let me play with (figuratively speaking) his Uzi. It was pretty cool...but submachine guns just don't appeal to me much. I want a WWII full-auto BAR instead.

Now THAT would be fun!

striderteen · January 11, 2002, 02:25 PM

.30-06 full auto is a good thing.

Edward429451 · January 11, 2002, 02:58 PM

When the kids would mis-speak and ask to play with a gun, I corrected them by telling them one does not 'play' with guns, one 'handles' guns. Deduct one point for terminology infraction.

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

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

striderteen · January 11, 2002, 03:33 PM

The M1918 BAR or Browning Automatic Rifle was designed by John Browning for use in World War One and was introduced in time to see limited service at the end of that confilict.

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

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

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

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

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

Edward429451 · January 11, 2002, 04:00 PM

Ha! he owes me ten bucks.

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

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

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

January 10, 2002, 05:53 AM	#53
Quartus Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2001 Location: Virginia Posts: 3,823	Welcome to the full auto club, Stainless. A '16 is indeed a Sweet 16, but a full belt of .50 cal is hard to beat! It's almost worth basic training to be able to dump a couple of hundred rounds of tracer laced 7.62 downrange at night. And capping those big .50s from the top of an APC while you rumble down a canyon road is definitely worth the price of admission. Strider, you got it right - that's what the FF had in mind for the 2A. __________________ . Better to know what you don't know than to think you know what you don't know.

January 10, 2002, 05:55 PM	#55
MACMAN10 Senior Member Join Date: June 13, 2001 Location: Remington Country Posts: 114	Burp. __________________ P1, PP, P32, P99, 1911, 1911, AB10, GP100, Hammerli Trail side, Lone Eagle .308, Powdersprings M10/.45 SMG........the list goes on. I'm a Pistol addict

January 11, 2002, 11:45 AM	#56
Ceol Mhor Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2001 Posts: 1,043	My only full-auto shooting was when a friend let me play with (figuratively speaking) his Uzi. It was pretty cool...but submachine guns just don't appeal to me much. I want a WWII full-auto BAR instead. Now THAT would be fun! __________________ "There goes as if deranged a German soldier, with burning helmet on his head, making horrible noises. A second, as though possessed, yells "Jews...weapons. Jews...weapons." - From an anonymous eyewitness' description of the first battle of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 1, 2002, 04:00 AM	#51
DAVID NANCARROW Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2000 Location: Wyoming Posts: 1,761	I just love when I hear or read people crawling out of the woodwork and think I have to justify my God given rights affirmed under the Bill of Rights. Obviously, there are those who are quite flippant about some of them. Maybe it would be a bit more clear if the BOR was renamed "Thine government shall not touch!" Not to say the language isn't clear enough to begin with. Possibly, it might be a good lesson for those who sniff at our constitutional guarrantees to give them up and then have to fight for them-I'll bet the recruiters are really busy right now, but would like to speak to them anyway at some point. I served in countries the US government supported, and they were neither democracies nor were they republics, and those who could voted with their feet. I don't blame them for being confused-seems the main issue in selecting a judge or cabinet official is whether he/she will condone murder of the unborn rather than what they pledge to defend and hold sacred. And rather than get even more flippant and dare argue that we should destroy the government, the Founding Fathers left us their greatest legacy of all: The tools written into the constitution to initiate changes needed without having to fight from our front porch like they did. In the end, there is nothing wrong with our constitution other than those who want to reinterpet what it plainly says.

January 9, 2002, 07:14 PM	#52
striderteen Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2001 Location: Pasadena, California Posts: 590	It depends on the situation, I think. Against one or two burglars, a semi-auto should suffice...when engaging military forces or when heavily outnumbered, the ability to lay down a barrage of suppressive fire is often critical.

January 10, 2002, 09:41 AM	#54
striderteen Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2001 Location: Pasadena, California Posts: 590	I certainly HOPE that the situation in the US never becomes bad enough to warrant armed revolution, but I'm also absolutely determined that I will be ready to fight -- and fight effectively -- when that happens. Vote for the best, prepare for the worst...stock up on the most powerful military-type weapons you can legally get before they ban any more of them, stockpile ammo, practice as often as you can.

January 11, 2002, 02:25 PM	#57
striderteen Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2001 Location: Pasadena, California Posts: 590	.30-06 full auto is a good thing.

January 11, 2002, 02:58 PM	#58
Edward429451 Junior member Join Date: November 12, 2000 Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado Posts: 9,494	When the kids would mis-speak and ask to play with a gun, I corrected them by telling them one does not 'play' with guns, one 'handles' guns. Deduct one point for terminology infraction. Speaking of the BAR, I've got a ten dollar bet on with a guy right now that bars are 50 cal. Now, I'm 99% positive that they were only 30/06 but he's extremely adamant that his granpa carried one in the war and told em stories about his 50 cal... The only thing I can think of (Besides he's wrong), is maybe they made a few of em that I just never heard about? None of my gun books support the 50 theory. Anyone know for sure? THX.

January 11, 2002, 03:33 PM	#59
striderteen Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2001 Location: Pasadena, California Posts: 590	The M1918 BAR or Browning Automatic Rifle was designed by John Browning for use in World War One and was introduced in time to see limited service at the end of that confilict. The BAR is chambered for the same round as the M-1 Garand, the .30-06, which it fires from twenty-round clips. The original M1918 introduced in 1917 was selective-fire, either semiauto or full-auto. The improved M1918A1 introduced in 1937 added a shoulder support plate hinged to the buttstock and a spike-type bipod. The further improved M1918A2 introduced in 1940 was full-auto-only, but could be fired at either Slow (300-450 rpm) or Fast (500-650 rpm). However, the U.S.M.C. modified most of its BARs to have semiauto fire as well as the dual-mode auto. The -A2 had a shorter shoulder support plate than the -A1, as well as a skid type bipod which was mounted on the flash hider and could be quickly removed if needed, as well as a new removable stock rest and a windage-adjustable rear sight. Later modifications included a plastic buttstock and a carrying handle. The buffer spring in the butt of this model greatly reduced felt recoil and increased accuracy. AFAIK, the only automatic .50-caliber weapon used by the U.S. Military was and still is the Browning M2 heavy machine gun.

January 11, 2002, 04:00 PM	#60
Edward429451 Junior member Join Date: November 12, 2000 Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado Posts: 9,494	Ha! he owes me ten bucks. "The second amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the Governments authority. If the second amendment is read to confer a personal right to 'keep and bear arms' , a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to possession of firearms, runs afoul of that amendments protections" Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (U.S. vs Printz..1997) Anybody care to paraphrase this for me as it may pertain to FA regulation?