OK there you go entering logic in the situtationSeriously, though, I'm no more dangerous to society as a machine gun owner than I am as a single-shot .22 owner.
$hit
I hope semi autos are still legal in 4 years
OK there you go entering logic in the situtationSeriously, though, I'm no more dangerous to society as a machine gun owner than I am as a single-shot .22 owner.
I hope semi autos are still legal in 4 years
In my opinion, I think they are too dangerous for the everyday gun owner to own
Irrelivent, a boulder is a naturally occuring thing. You can't point a boulder and shoot people with it. You can however predict it's path and get out of it's way.Without people being involved. A ten ton boulder hanging off a cliff, ready to fall is only dangerous if a (stupid) person goes and stands underneath.
I am a psychriatric/ mental health nurse and a drug and alcohol rehab specialist. I don't think you have the credentials to recommend counseling to anyone. Espically someone with a degree in mental health.They are things, they do nothing on their own. If you infuse the idea of full auto weapons with some dark unholy ability to send good men mad to commit foul deeds, perhaps you should seek some kind of mental counciling, as you have clearly lost touch with reality. Either that or you should find a job writing for the anti gun faction or for Hollywood, as they, being already way out of touch with reality, find this idea appealling.
There should be NO restrictions on owning any inanimate object, gun, car, motorcycle, or even drug. Now, if you harm someone else with your inanimate object, then you should be punished, harshly, immediately, and permanently. No excuses (like insanity), no exceptions. If you did it (and are proven guilty), you pay for it. Up to and including your life. Exactly an eye for an eye is not practical, but the punishment sould reflect the severity of the crime. Years in jail for owning a few ounces of a proscribed plant, or a piece of metal or wood too long or too short, or shaped a certain way, these things should never happen in a free society. Yet they do, every day. As Americans, we are constantly told by politicians and pressmen and supposedly great thinkers how much Liberty and Freedom we have and enjoy. And we do have it, but only in those things the political masters deem of no real importance to them.
Not sure what you are getting at here, but freedom comes with a price and responsibilty isn't something that is given away, it is earned. How does this pertain to machine guns? I don't think 99% of people are responsible enough to own a machine gun. How much training do you think you get in the military before they cut you loose with a M-16? If you legally own machine gun good for you. I hope you have lots and lots of training. But if some idiot gets ahold of one, I don't want him or her in my neighborhood. Espically if they are on drugs.Kind of like telling the frogs that they are free because they can fly if they want to.
Well it is just one of those thing I wouldn't someone who is irresponsible getting ahold of. I could just see a neighbor's house geting peppered by an accidential burst of bullets. I would let my son shoot my SKS any day he wanted to, but I wouldn't let him touch a machine gun. Maybe you call me paranoid, but it is just a safety issue. I would hop on a Harley and go to town, but I would not hop on a Ninja 1000cc for anything. I know some people are perfectly safe on them, but not something I would do.
I would hop on a Harley and go to town, but I would not hop on a Ninja 1000cc for anything. I know some people are perfectly safe on them, but not something I would do.
I am a psychriatric/ mental health nurse and a drug and alcohol rehab specialist. I don't think you have the credentials to recommend counseling to anyone. Espically someone with a degree in mental health.
The purposes of the military and the police are entirely different, and police have no need for full-auto weapons. People who are paid to protect the public have no business "spraying and praying," especially in urban areas, and especially when semi-auto weapons like the Colt LE6920 can put out more than enough lead already while keeping it on target.MarkoPo said:They are appropriate for military operations and police use.
Not by violent criminals, but we absolutely want them outgunned by the general population. That's the reason why we have a Second Amendment!But do we really want our police out gunned?
The key word there is "false."I think they may give gangsters a false sence of immortality.
Precisely. A shotgun, especially of the semi-auto variety, puts out more lead more quickly than ANY subgun. And it's easier to hit with, too. (It seems ironic that the reason I haven't bought one yet is because there's less chance of them being banned than other weapons.)BillCA said:How is a shooter wielding a machine gun significantly more dangerous that one wielding a "tacticaL' 12-gauge? Before you answer, consider that most weapons you're discussing are magazine fed from 20-30 round mags. That's up to 30 projectiles they spew out. While a shotgun with 8 rounds of 3" 00 buck at 15 pellets each tosses out 120 projectiles in a similar time period. 30 vs. 120. What's the significant difference then, that makes you fear a full auto AK-47 or M16 but not a shotgun?
I would hop on a Harley and go to town, but I would not hop on a Ninja 1000cc for anything. I know some people are perfectly safe on them, but not something I would do.
BillCA said:For weapons like belt-fed guns that are always FA, you can burn up $70 worth of ammo in less time than it took you to setup the tripod! For a FA weapon to be useful, you really need large quantities of ammo (easily 200 or more rounds ). That ammo supply runs out quickly in full-auto mode. That's $90 in ammo to $130 in ammo just to have a minimum supply on hand. After that, it gets very expensive, very fast.
...and...I don't think 99% of people are responsible enough to own a machine gun.
Now go look up "projection." Stop projecting YOUR baseless fears on us. If YOU are not capable of handling a select fire firearms, fine, you are not required to buy one. But don't actively work out your fears on us by attempting to limit our access to the same legal product, simply because of your fears that you cannot use one safely. I have fired many select fire firearms safely, in and out of the military. I cannot afford one, but wouldn't mind have a few, mostly in the classic collectable catagory.I would not feel safe owning a machine gun.
Everyone already has the right to own automatic weapons, that right is currently being largely denied. That denial is unlawful. We intend to correct that.I guess I need to make my point a little more clear here. I would not feel safe owning a machine gun. I don't think they are something everyone should have the right to own.
By we I take it that you mean through an armed surrogate usually referred to as government. Sorry, that's an unacceptable intervention of my right to be armed.If we set some standards, like extensive training or a special class on safety then maybe. I don't think they should be on the shelf at Walmart for anyone to buy.
Those, in fact, are the last entities you want to have access to high performance weapons. At the very least, government should have NO weapons available to it that the citizen cannot buy. Your thinking appears to be based on government somehow acquiring higher moral and ethical standards than the average citizen, that's not only wrong, it's never been true.They are appropriate for military operations and police use.
Yes, we want the government to be outgunned at all times by the citizenry. If facing a heavily armed criminal, the police should have to come to the citizenry to borrow what they need.But do we really want our police out gunned? I think they may give gangsters a false sence of immortality. I know this is a slippery slope fallacy, but they should be at best highly regulated.