Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America - Page 3
Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 162

Thread: Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Aresye View Post
    If you're planning on room clearing (which I doubt), that's the only reason I see fully auto becoming useful, and only for smaller sub-machine guns.

    I'm all for 2A rights, but I don't believe that means everybody has a right to own whatever they want. A legalization of class-III weapons for the general public on a wide scale, will just make those random mass shootings even worse (I almost sound like a gun-control freak, lol!). It puts us as open and concealed carriers at a severe disadvantage, unless they decide to let everybody walk around with a full-auto rifle, and that's not the type of America I want to see in the future.
    Again, keep you sub gun on semi when room clearing. Room clearing is no place for fully auto fire - for the reasons you've already highlighted (waste of ammo, control, etc.)

    If everyone is allowed to carry whatever they want, you think there'll be a lot of random mass shootings? Really? I doubt it. And if you do decide to "go out" that way, you probably wouldn't last long, given some of the comments on here. Some sound like they're just itchin to shoot them some terrorists...

    Quote Originally Posted by MightyPirate View Post
    You don't sound like a gun control freak, and I somewhat resent the belief that any sort of gun control is unjust. I'm glad that I have to go through a waiting period, I'm glad that they do background checks, it helps keep firearms out of the hands that will misuse them. And as you've stated fully automatic weapons have no place in any situation we're bound to encounter, short of a scenario straight out of Red Dawn.
    You are glad that you have to go through things that criminals don't have to? What is a waiting period do, really? Protect the woman that has an estranged and enraged psycho a-hole abusive husband, whose only protection is a piece of paper from a court? News flash, the vast majority of those who will misuse them, are not submitting to waiting periods or background checks. You do not infringe on the rights of the masses, because of the .01%. Cars kill many more people a year here than guns, maybe we should apply waiting periods there too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Booga View Post
    He was at a hotel known for housing American journalists. Some terrorists attacked the hotel, seeking out American victims. He had purchased a full-auto AK-47 while he was there. He laid down suppressive fire allowing dozens of hotel guests to escape over a wall behind him. I'm sure that everyone who was able to escape would be thankful for his actions and acknowledge that his equipment helped enable his effectiveness in holding off the terrorists.
    And he probably, though justified, did this against the strict policies of the state dept.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by MightyPirate View Post

    Also this notion that your rights are being infringed on is ludicrous. You have the right to own a machine gun, if you can't afford it that's not the governments fault. If your don't live near a gun shop with the proper designation to sell them, not the government's fault.
    But, it IS the gov't's fault if they restrict the years of manufacture and that drives the price up. And who grants the gun shop owner the "proper designation" to sell them? These actions by the gov't are called "infringements".

  4. #23
    I've been to many FA/NFA type shoots. Personally I don't own anything other than suppressors at this point, which is an NFA regulated item also. I see no need, other than just to turn money into noise in owning a fully automatic carbine or subgun, even in Law Enforcement. I respect the right to own NFA firearms, but it's for collection and fun purposes, not tactical or home defense or Zombie work.

    I don't know of any Law Enforcement agency, in my area, that has the need for a full auto carbine or subgun. Their are use of force issues to contend with and then training on FA is a whole nother matter in of it's self. FA is for breaking contact (suppressive fire) and I surely hope that the common LEO never has to "break contact" in his entire career.

    It's difficult enough to get LEO and their agency's to actually have their deputy's and officers truely trained on the AR15 platoform let alone a full auto fun button application for any reason. Collateral damage is not minimized by spraying the living room with 5.56 round through and through into the childrens room and through and through into the nieghorhood. Controlled pairs, hammers, slow aimed fire and double taps are more effective than attemptinig to spray the room and control muzzzle rise and stay on target, just for the hell of it because you've got it. MP5's are highly controllable, especially 3 round burst mode. That may be an exception but a 5.56 Short barrel is my preference. That's just me.

    I don't have any problem with owning fully auto firearms through NFA process. You won't find any gang bangers able to spend $24,000 on an MP5SD or Colt auto lower. Let alone pass the FBI background check and give their finger prints and photos to the agency. Unless their entirely moronic.

    And, I'm not impressed by some 400 pound fat guy with a pre-86 MA Duece .50 Caliber machine gun mounted on a tripod blowing up someones hillside with armor piercing incendiary rounds and starting a brush fire. (insert the moron emoticon)
    "When a government robs Peter to pay Paul it will alway's have the support of Paul" George Bernard Shaw

  5. Provocative Post!

    Hmmm. It seems that back in '34 (is that correct?), automatics were banned from general circulation precisely because they had become a public health hazard - the gangsters were using them to mow down opposition,G-men, anyone they wanted to rub out.

    Use of a fully-automatic weapon today in a crime in the US is not just uncommon, it is almost unheard of. So, i submit that is ONE ban that has actually worked as intended. Right or wrong. The same is true for hand grenades, bazookas, RPGs, lots of neat toys that the public has no business owning, wouldn't know how to use without prior military experience, and that would be prone to certain misuse if acquired by criminals - as they surely would be. Do you also think that every citizen ought to be able to buy a tank with a full ammo load? Where should the line be drawn? Personally i'd like to have a couple of CIWS stations around the perimeter of my home, just in case those pesky Jehovah's Witnesses come back again but alas, can't buy those at Cabelas.

    Someone said 34 states still allow ownership of automatic weapons - after jumping through a bunch of hoops for sure. My state (CT) is one of them, but it is (from my quick reading of those particular statutes) illegal to shoot them, illegal to load them, and illegal to have ammo in near proximity to them, illegal to transport them. So basically, they are collectors items here.

    Either way, i personally don't feel this is an unnecessary, or unreasonable, restriction of the 2nd amendment, just like libel laws are not unreasonable restrictions of the 1A. Certainly the founding fathers couldn't envision automatic weaponry when they wrote 2A. Back then it was shoot, pour, pack, load, seat, prime, then if you still weren't dead, shoot again.

    Yes, it is perversely true that law-abiding citizens have to go through a vetting process before being ALLOWED to buy, let alone carry, a weapon, as opposed to criminals who just do what they like. But it is the rule of law that separates us from the criminals, a distinction i would not want to change. I am certainly NOT a supporter of gun control as it is currently conceived by the libs, but neither do i recommend open-market unrestricted sales of armaments. The current trend in gun control has NOTHING to do with controlling crime, and has EVERYTHING to do with eroding our liberty one nudge at a time until guns are essentially red-taped and legislated out of existence. We absolutely cannot allow that to happen in this country.

    That said, i think the (effective) ban on automatic weapons had EVERYTHING to do with crime reduction, and NOTHING to do with eroding our liberty. Just my opinion, as is all of the above. I certainly understand and respect the purist perspective, that says "shall not be infringed" means just that.
    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants ... for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Daugherty16 View Post
    Yes, it is perversely true that law-abiding citizens have to go through a vetting process before being ALLOWED to buy, let alone carry, a weapon, as opposed to criminals who just do what they like. But it is the rule of law that separates us from the criminals, a distinction i would not want to change. I am certainly NOT a supporter of gun control as it is currently conceived by the libs, but neither do i recommend open-market unrestricted sales of armaments. The current trend in gun control has NOTHING to do with controlling crime, and has EVERYTHING to do with eroding our liberty one nudge at a time until guns are essentially red-taped and legislated out of existence. We absolutely cannot allow that to happen in this country.

    That said, i think the (effective) ban on automatic weapons had EVERYTHING to do with crime reduction, and NOTHING to do with eroding our liberty. Just my opinion, as is all of the above. I certainly understand and respect the purist perspective, that says "shall not be infringed" means just that.
    Well said.

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Daugherty16 View Post

    Either way, i personally don't feel this is an unnecessary, or unreasonable, restriction of the 2nd amendment, just like libel laws are not unreasonable restrictions of the 1A. Certainly the founding fathers couldn't envision automatic weaponry when they wrote 2A. Back then it was shoot, pour, pack, load, seat, prime, then if you still weren't dead, shoot again.
    With all respect, you need to be careful with this argument as it is one used by the antis all the time. The Founding Fathers didn't have 30-round ARs, or 14-round semi-atuo handguns, either. Where does one "draw the line"?

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Lines are already drawn, we are just arguing about redrawing them or drawing new ones.

    It's an ongoing political process. The problem is extremeists on both sides want to make radical changes.

  9. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    Lines are already drawn, we are just arguing about redrawing them or drawing new ones.

    It's an ongoing political process. The problem is extremeists on both sides want to make radical changes.
    Hmmm...I don't consider following the Constitution to be "radical", but I suppose it could be viewed that way these days.

  10. #29
    The rational that no one needs automatic weapons today becomes the excuse that no one needs semi automatics tomorrow. Then when everyone is convinced that no one needs semi automatics the next step is no one needs bolt action or lever action rifles. Every inch you give the gun grabbers they will take a mile. We either learn to draw a line in the sand and say we are giving up no more rights or we might as well just open our doors and let them come and take all our guns. Then when that happens the rest of our rights will soon be gone.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  11. #30
    Educate yourselves...

    The 1934 NFA DID NOT BAN ANY FIREARM OR WEAPON FROM PRIVATE OWNERSHIP...
    http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.htm

    IT TAXED THE OWNERSHIP & CLASSIFIED THEM AS LUXURY ITEMS SO TO SPEAK...

    1968 GCA BANNED THE IMPORT OF FOREIGN MADE FULL AUTOS...

    1986 FOPA, Ronald Reagan & the NRA are to thank for the first de facto gun ban of an entire class of weapon in U.S. History...

    Ok folks...

    Just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?
    THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT:
    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

    AND after retiring in 2007 after 27 years in the USMC, I can tell you numerous state-side situations for the average citizen to require the ability to fire full auto...
    Everybody forget about Hurricane Katrina, Watts Riots, Rodney King/OJ Riots already?
    After law-abiding citizens were unconstitutionally disarmed by the national guard & state police, gangs of 20-30 individuals were kicking in doors well armed...
    I don't care who you are, a 12 gauge or any semi-auto is not going to be sufficient in at least that scenario...

    How about Phoenix being the kidnapping capitol of the Country right now and Mexican gangs doing home invasions in Phoenix and all along the U.S. Mexico border WITH FULL AUTO'S, ROCKET LAUNCHERS, ETC...
    American Citizens are being kidnapped and taken to Mexico from the U.S. IN PHOENIX and elsewhere and held for ransom or sold as slaves...

    The inherit principal behind the Second Amendment is that WE THE PEOPLE (common folk) have the unalienable right to defend ourselves using equal or greater force then may be brought against us, from all enemies foreign or domestic anyplace, anytime, including the Tyranny of our own Government...

    NOWHERE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT, THE CONSTITUTION OR THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS, IS THE FEDERAL, STATE OR GOVERNMENT OF ANY OTHER MUNICIPALITY GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO PLACE LIMITS OR CONSTRAIN THE SECOND AMENDMENT, "WE THE PEOPLE" HAVE ALLOWED THEM THESE CONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENTS...

    Something we need to cease, desist, and repeal before its too late...

    The skinny on Federal Machine Gun Ban - Thank You so-called uber conservative "Ronald Reagan" and the NRA...

    And why a pre-1986 M-16 will cost in the rage of 20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars) vs. the 2,000.00 (or less) for a AR-15 of just about any age...
    Or what a Post-1986 LEO only M-16 will cost today...

    Can be found at the following USACARRY Threads...

    Moreover, what we need to do to Amend or Repeal the FOPA of May 19th, 1986...

    AKA: 18 USC 922(o)...

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...fiscation.html

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...pen-watch.html

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...-criteria.html

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...raise-b-s.html

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. America as the Last Man Standing Against Islam
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 01:37 PM
  2. Obama & The Progressives Planned Destruction of America...
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 04:57 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-08-2010, 06:32 PM
  4. The Communist Takeover of America
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-01-2009, 09:05 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 08:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast