Ownership of Full Auto weapons for civilians: My objective quandary.

[Miss Black Rifle Disease]

Ahh, than I agree.

I still want a FA weapon and don't want to have to get placed on any lists. Id love to enjoy practicing quick bursts. However I am sure my back account wouldn't like it lol.

Oh I want one too. And all that I posted above aside, I think law abiding responsible citizens should be able to own f/a arms is they are so inclined. But that is based on me and knowing that I would never abuse that right. As I stated in another thread we have too many stupid people that just lack a potent enough filter as to exhibiting responsible ownership and safe use of such a thing. How do we deal with that aspect? The only way I know of is via regulation. I wish we lived in the kind of world where laws such as these were not necessary. Stupid people can understand crime and punishment more so then understanding that a hay bail as a backstop for full auto fire in the middle of a suburb is not a good idea, lol.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Fair enough, but then where is the limit? Because if one wants to completely disregard any limitation to the 2A then according to such a stance a civilian should be able to own a 300 kiloton tactical nuclear warhead. Do you now see where I'm going with this discussion? I of course don't think my example above is what you had in mind. But what it demonstrates is that from a scale starting with a single shot small caliber handgun moving all the way up through the spectrum of "arms" in existence today to nuclear weapons at some point "right to bear arms" should no longer apply.

So where is it on that scale? A Phalanx point defense system? A Tomahawk cruise missile? Crew served machine guns? Full Auto rifles? I don't know..do you? Because if the 2A makes all arms a right then I want to be able to buy a B2 stealth bomber if I was rich enough to own one...

I'm trying to get people to think critically here and not just stay glued to the basic "it's my right" stance. In one regard rights need no justification, but in others..maybe they do. Just because the founding fathers did the groundwork and laid out the justification behind the original Bill of Rights does not alleviate our responsibility as a nation to continuously re-examine that document to make additions and deletions according to the times. Once again, I'm not in favor of or suggesting that gun toting law abiding America should tell legislators "Hey! F/A weapons are too dangerous for the public!". I'm just seeking some form of reasoning behind the right as it is today.

To better answer your question we must first look at where the government get's it's authority.

The government get's it authority from we the people. Now the people, in the intended republican form of government that we are supposed to have, have individual rights that are non-cumulative. In other words 10 people don't have the right to deprive 1 person of his/her rights nor do their rights out weigh the rights of the individual. Now that has been setup and explained. The government get's it's powers from the citizens. The citizens cannot give anyone any powers that they do not already have. The government cannot create powers that citizens don't already have. Since the government has the authority to have machine guns, nukes, tanks, war ships, combat aircraft etc the citizens must have those rights already in order to have licensed those powers to the government.

As for the idea of 'crazies' having nukes well it's too late. Those being elected are crazy, those put in charge of making war are not sane. Any country could launch a nuke at anytime against anyone so I fail to see how it would be any different for an individual owning one. Our government puts ships of war within striking distance of foreign shores all the time. What we would need is a set punishment for crimes that would have been committed with those weapons of which you speak.

Is killing thousands of people in the name of religion, oil, money, revenge, etc really justified if it's done on behalf of a government?

There is a sick joke that I know that goes like this, If you kill 1 man you're a murder, If you kill 100 men you're a psycho, kill 1000 and you're a hero, kill more than that, and you're a legend.

Really what is the difference between being a contract killer and a soldier? A merc and a hit man? Why is it illegal to kill when the mobs is the one to pay you and perfectly legal when uncle Sam pays you do to it?

These are open ended questions that could be argued until the end of the world and beyond but I pose them to inspire though and arguments.

 

[Miss Black Rifle Disease]

To better answer your question we must first look at where the government get's it's authority.

The government get's it authority from we the people. Now the people, in the intended republican form of government that we are supposed to have, have individual rights that are non-cumulative. In other words 10 people don't have the right to deprive 1 person of his/her rights nor do their rights out weigh the rights of the individual. Now that has been setup and explained. The government get's it's powers from the citizens. The citizens cannot give anyone any powers that they do not already have. The government cannot create powers that citizens don't already have. Since the government has the authority to have machine guns, nukes, tanks, war ships, combat aircraft etc the citizens must have those rights already in order to have licensed those powers to the government.

As for the idea of 'crazies' having nukes well it's too late. Those being elected are crazy, those put in charge of making war are not sane. Any country could launch a nuke at anytime against anyone so I fail to see how it would be any different for an individual owning one. Our government puts ships of war within striking distance of foreign shores all the time. What we would need is a set punishment for crimes that would have been committed with those weapons of which you speak.

Is killing thousands of people in the name of religion, oil, money, revenge, etc really justified if it's done on behalf of a government?

There is a sick joke that I know that goes like this, If you kill 1 man you're a murder, If you kill 100 men you're a psycho, kill 1000 and you're a hero, kill more than that, and you're a legend.

Really what is the difference between being a contract killer and a soldier? A merc and a hit man? Why is it illegal to kill when the mobs is the one to pay you and perfectly legal when uncle Sam pays you do to it?

These are open ended questions that could be argued until the end of the world and beyond but I pose them to inspire though and arguments.

Though it was a very eloquent response, you dodged my question like you hold public office, lol. ...Where do you personally think the limit should lie? The 2A doesn't say "small arms" it says "arms". Both Firearms and Nuclear weapons are arms. Government possession of Nuclear weapons is another issue entirely. Answer the question I posed.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I want access to the same guns & weapons that the gov't can point at me...M16, Battleship, Tank, Bazooka etc.

And worried about gangs? Don't be, they only shoot at themselves ... like the mafia did in the 20's-30's.

Cost is high because of limited supply .. get rid of the regs & people will make them & price will go down.

He who has the guns, makes the rules.

 

[Jack House]

I agree with you..Did I ever suggest restricting this right? This is a philosophical debate only. I'm trying to avoid 2A aspects here and am looking for rational argument beyond the "just because I can" approach. I have some thoughts in my own mind but am open to new ways of thinking. Just falling back on the 2A doesn't meet my criteria for the purposes of this discussion. We can cite constitutional law all day and get nowhere or we can really dig into this topic introspectively.

Because I can is rational. Because I am an adult, because I am not hurting anyone, because I am not damaging another person's property, because I am not threatening another person's life or health, because I am not threatening their property. Because absent any of those factors, I need not justify myself to anyone. Because those that wish to control my life must justify their reasons and they can't.

I do, because I can. Because no one can put forth a valid, reasonable argument why I shouldn't. A valid and reasonable argument is nothing less than my actions bringing harm to a third party, be it to their health or property.

 

[Miss Black Rifle Disease]

Because I can is rational. Because I am an adult, because I am not hurting anyone, because I am not damaging another person's property, because I am not threatening another person's life or health, because I am not threatening their property. Because absent any of those factors, I need not justify myself to anyone. Because those that wish to control my life must justify their reasons and they can't.

I do, because I can. Because no one can put forth a valid, reasonable argument why I shouldn't. A valid and reasonable argument is nothing less than my actions bringing harm to a third party, be it to their health or property.

*Sigh* when are you going to stop arguing just to argue and actually read what people post? I said BEYOND the "because I can rationale.".Speaky English? Jeez!

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

How many of you have ever actually fired a full auto anything?
Those of you that have, what was probably the biggest problem you had? Contol, right? You "sprayed", didn't you?

When I rapid-fire off a 40 round banana on my semi-auto AK, contolling the muzzle rise and staying on target is difficult at best. I wonder how hard it is to control when you're getting kicked in the shoulder about 10 times per second!

With all that kicking, doesn't it also follow that a shooter unaccustomed to the recoil will likely put a "death grip" on the gun and blow through the magazine, unable to let go out of shock and fear? What if they turn around while doing this?

I'm sorry but I thing FA "wastes" ammo needlessly. The "3-shot burst" is better as you're more likely to stay on target, use less ammo, and be more effective.

Is this to say it is impossible to use a FA gun effectively? Your describing what is probable to happen the first time someone shoots FA. The second time there will be more control. The 50th time you may be using it quite effectively.
I want one.
I did shot a FA gun once. I was 7 and riding on my dad's Naval Friget from Boston to Norfolk. 50 cal deck mounted. It seems the huge red balloon out on the water should be easy to hit. HA! I didn't hit anything but I got to collect the empty shells and connect them together with those little clips and make a belt out of it. I was so God darned cool.

 

[Sig229]

Except for the fact that 10 experts wouldn't let 10 novices get close enough to them for that F/A fire to be effective...

Thats not true at all.

For instance in urban combat, the enemy is usually no further away that 50-100 yards.
And in most cases, they can be across an alleyway, in the next building or even in the next room !

 

[wolfgangmob]

Isn't it in Sweden where everyone serves then you take your assault rifle home even after you have done your time on the military? I think, if I recall correctly, that even there an armorer removes the full auto capability of the weapon before it goes home with the citizen. My point is, though I believe you certainly should be able to have an F/A weapon, which you can legally in most states if you have the dollars, I don't see that military service entitles you to special consideration with this issue. A vet is no more or less likely to do evil with a machine gun then a citizen who never served. But all that being said your point is interesting and not lost on me nevertheless. Something to add to my deliberations on this topic for certain..

Yes I was in the military btw...

Sweden will allow ownership of a full auto if you are in a memeber of the military, but you still have to justify it with some need which for a competitive purpose (not legal to hunt with) requires it be used in a competition once a year.


As far as FA v. SA look at the Falklands War, the British won and were using SA version of the FAL while the Argentinians had an FA version of the FAL. A Full auto is no more deadly, if anything it is less so unless you are talking about close range where it will still pretty much be whoever fires first and best is more likely to come out on top. The use of FA in assault rifles isn't really out of need as much as to allow for temporary implementation as a suppressive fire weapon unless we figure out an effective way to delay recoil until after a burst fire. If you want to go an a shooting rampage the worst place to be doing one is in an open area where you can be engaged rapidly, if you take slow, steady shots from a concealed location, possibly use a suppressor, you would be far more devastating to the public and law enforcement. The North Hollywood shootout only had 2 deaths and 18 injuries, both deaths were the gunmen, Charles Whitman killed 16 and injured 32 before being killed, he used a 6mm Rem 700, M1 Carbine, and a Remington Model 14 in .35 Rem. A full auto is less for killing in bulk as scaring the target to get away safely or until back up arrives as long as you have the ammo to keep going.

I support the idea of new civilian legal full autos, if the current regulations stay in place then there should be even less of an issue seeing as the people legal to possess NFA items are some of the very last people to commit a violent crime. There was a case, back in the 80's I believe, where a man used an AC-556 for self defence and was meet with a case against him that boiled down to the idea that civilized people don't use a machine gun for self defense. Now there is also the idea that you need to have an association with the military to need such a weapon, that too is a bunch of bull, a true militia is not in place for the defence of the whole nation, they don't even necessarily have a tie to a government, it's in place for the defence of the local area and in the event of a true mass invasion they might assist somewhat in the national defence.

 

[Jack House]

*Sigh* when are you going to stop arguing just to argue and actually read what people post? I said BEYOND the "because I can rationale.".Speaky English? Jeez!

Because no one can put forth a valid, reasonable argument why I shouldn't.

From the post you quoted.

 

[georg jetson]

Though it was a very eloquent response, you dodged my question like you hold public office, lol. ...Where do you personally think the limit should lie? The 2A doesn't say "small arms" it says "arms". Both Firearms and Nuclear weapons are arms. Government possession of Nuclear weapons is another issue entirely. Answer the question I posed.

He answered you question. The only way to restrict the 2A is by amendment. It's a difficult process and is difficult for a reason.

There's an applicable quote that I can't find despite the power of Google. In my words...

"Tyranny is the government possesing that which the citizen is forbidden."

 

[georg jetson]

Is this to say it is impossible to use a FA gun effectively? Your describing what is probable to happen the first time someone shoots FA. The second time there will be more control. The 50th time you may be using it quite effectively.
I want one.
I did shot a FA gun once. I was 7 and riding on my dad's Naval Friget from Boston to Norfolk. 50 cal deck mounted. It seems the huge red balloon out on the water should be easy to hit. HA! I didn't hit anything but I got to collect the empty shells and connect them together with those little clips and make a belt out of it. I was so God darned cool.

An exhaustive discussion of the advantages of a FA weapon is beyond the scope of a forum. However, there are some basic considerations...

Acuracy is affected by:

Caliber
Mounting
Practice
The rate of fire
Tracers
Ability to see where the rounds are hitting (walking your point of impact)
Control systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

Also, the way the FA is used (suppresion fire, etc)

I've fired a FA M1919 chambered in 30 06 into a heavily wooded area. The amount of lead crashing into other material(wooden shrapnel) provided an environment less than ideal fof human existance.

The biggest disadvantage is see to FA is carrying (buying ) enough ammo.

Edit - The ideal "hide out" defense system would not be a semi auto weapon. It would be a computer controlled fixed mounted select fire system. BY select fire, I mean the rate of fire can be incrementally software-controlled from single shot to the maximum capable by the hardware.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

Semi-weapons in trained hands are every bit as effective for self-defense as an F/A one so the self-defense issue really doesn't justify the need right? Or does it?

I don't believe in the government telling me what is or is not effective for self-defense. I'd rather decide that for myself.

My local government officials at the university are telling me carrying my car keys in my hands for self defense and carrying a whistle to blow is more likely to save my life than granting me the right to carry a firearm.

If I believe I would be better served by a suppressed full auto MP5 with a 10 inch barrel in my house than a semi-auto Ruger PC9, I should be able to choose the MP5.

If semi-auto weapons are just as useful, why is that SWAT teams use submachineguns? I think they use submachineguns because they know in close quarters battle, the ability to put as many rounds as possible as fast as possible into an opponent armed with a gun can make the difference between them being shot by the person or the person being neutralized before they get shot.

I know I'm going to get blasted by people telling me full auto is useless and what not, and I don't care. I should be able to choose. If I want to use something you consider useless, I should be able to.

If full autos are illegal, why are shotguns legal? Only because the hunters would cry out in horror if the politicians went for their bird guns.

A 12 gauge shotgun with 3" magnum shells can fire 15 .32 acp sized projectiles, each with the same amount of energy as a .32 auto projectile, in a single pull of the trigger.

Yet, I cannot easily own a Vz 61 Skorpion Submachinegun in .32 auto? I could put more projectiles down range faster with a shotgun.

The "full auto guns are evil uncontrollable bullet hoses" argument is useless unless you want to ban shotguns too.

A lot of people think shotguns are great for self-defense. But I would rather have A Vz 61 skorpion with a suppressor because I want to save my ears and I don't care much for the massive recoil of the shotgun. Also, the skorpion would be much shorter and handier.

I fail to see how short bursts with a subgun are supposedly useless when something equivalent to firing an entire magazine with a single boom is considered useful.

On another comparison, consider a bad guy wearing armor. Your shotgun won't penetrate his armor. If you had something like an M16 set to 3 shot burst mode, the rounds would go through the armor like it wasn't there. Another potential win for full autos over shotguns for self defense.

As always, the military guys will jump on me saying I never shot a full auto and therefore I am wrong. Once again, it basically boils down to the argument that people should not be able to decide for themselves what is best and should have to rely on the wisdom of the government. If full autos are so useless, give me one so I can try it out for myself and decide for myself if they are useless. I won't take your word for it, especially as you continue to use your full auto gun because you claim you needed it for suppressive fire (while at the same time claiming regular civilians would never benefit from suppressive fire.)

Obviously a villain armed with a F/A weapon would pose a larger threat to LEO lives than with a semi auto weapon.

I don't understand how full auto weapons could possibly be more dangerous to a police officer yet at the same time less dangerous to a criminal trying to kill me.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

I'm torn on unrestricted FA. The Libertarian in me says Heck Yeah, and let the free market determine the price. My prudence says gangbangers and terrorists should have a couple walls between themselves and FA. My primary reason for thinking this is that criminals could deploy FA weapons against even a heavily populated CCW crowd with police presence and still hold a strategic advantage, and the police would have that much more incentive to militarize.

I think a proper solution would be to alter the existing registration procedure for FA weapons to make it more user friendly, while maintaining accountability. Further restoration of FA freedom could be implemented in stages as long as there are no systemic problems.

I think for all intents and purposes, the criminals, especially the organized criminals like gangbangers and terrorists, already have full access to full auto weapons. Just look at Mexico, or even some well publicized shootings in the United States. To a criminal, a full auto weapon I doubt is much more expensive than a semi-auto weapon. A full auto weapon does not cost more to manufacture and mob machinists don't pay tax stamps on their parts.

As for the typical street thugs using guns, the reason they use handguns instead of full auto assault rifles has little to do with the regulations designed to make assault rifles harder to get... Instead, they use handguns because they want something they can hide easily.

Most military arms are NOT full auto. Three round burst but not FA.

As far as government regulation is concerned, 3 shot burst and full auto is the same thing.

 

[Xulld]

I have shot FA, your not wrong.

 

[CO-Joe]

I have to ask myself if when these wise men that founded this nation and wrote that magnificent document had lived during a time where the range of weaponry that is available today with all of it's destructive firepower been available, would they have envisioned an unrestricted "right to bear arms"?

Well, the founders certianly had cannons during their lifetimes, during the war for independence. A cannon of the day was fearsome weapon, and even now you really wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of the cannons they had way back then--but they did not see to restrict these. Many of the founders lived into their 80s and 90s. A few of them probably lived to see the invention of the metallic cartridge (surely the paper cartridge), and perhaps the repeating flintlock revolver, which I believe first came about in the very early 1800s. I'm not aware of any writings of a founder which later decided a more limited approach would be justified, though you're right in that none really lived to see things like the lever action rifle or Gatling gun.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Though it was a very eloquent response, you dodged my question like you hold public office, lol. ...Where do you personally think the limit should lie? The 2A doesn't say "small arms" it says "arms". Both Firearms and Nuclear weapons are arms. Government possession of Nuclear weapons is another issue entirely. Answer the question I posed.

I thought I had, I was not trying to dodge the question at all.

If you as a REAL (real being flesh and blood) person or as a group of REAL people can afford to buy any sort of arms then it is your right to do so. Nukes, biological, chemical, etc.

The purpose of the 2A was about being able to destroy not only an invading force but destroy any corrupt government that had managed to establish it self with in our borders.

That is why we are not supposed to have a standing army. The citizens are supposed to be so well armed that it would be suicide for any country to invade.

Now as for 'crew weapons' (eg tanks, war ships, machine guns) there should some sort of standardized load/charge size only for the purposes of supply lines if you want be supplied in the event of a war.

 

[Freedom1Man]

How many of you have ever actually fired a full auto anything?
Those of you that have, what was probably the biggest problem you had? Contol, right? You "sprayed", didn't you?

When I rapid-fire off a 40 round banana on my semi-auto AK, contolling the muzzle rise and staying on target is difficult at best. I wonder how hard it is to control when you're getting kicked in the shoulder about 10 times per second!

With all that kicking, doesn't it also follow that a shooter unaccustomed to the recoil will likely put a "death grip" on the gun and blow through the magazine, unable to let go out of shock and fear? What if they turn around while doing this?

I'm sorry but I thing FA "wastes" ammo needlessly. The "3-shot burst" is better as you're more likely to stay on target, use less ammo, and be more effective.

M60, M246, and burst on M16.

Both machine guns were not hard to control at all. The M16 with the correct muzzle break is not hard to control.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I should be able to choose. If I want to use something you consider useless, I should be able to.

+1