I was talking about the subject of full auto guns and their legality and got to thinking about something. Should these guns be legal and if so why? They are legalish in most parts of the country, but not all, and last I checked the Bill of Rights wasn't regionally biased.
There are two main points that dominate each side. While there are many great reasons to support either side, most of what I encountered was people quoting the second amendment. Since we can all recite it in our sleep, it isn't an effective tool to convince anybody of anything.
Those in favor of full auto supply typically cite the insurrection theory. This theory is that we are given the right to bear arms to resist government tyranny. We should be allowed access to the same types of weapons used by the government to level the playing field. The biggest problem I have with this is that it is pretty grim and fatalistic. This type of thinking really scares liberals and their fear is the reason for their concern. Not to mention revolutions are highly illegal and it will be next to impossible to get the government to think this is a good idea.
Those against it usually claim that the collateral damage that can be caused by the full auto rate of fire is not appropriate for a civilian zone, but rather for a free fire war zone where area suppression is needed.
There are plenty of good arguments for both sides, but unfortunately I must admit that the collateral damage theory makes a good deal of sense to most everybody, myself included.
I have personally never seen a need to own a full auto weapon because I was taught to make every shot hit the target. I do not feel confident enough in my shooting to control a full auto gun. I shot one once. As an experiment I gave myself 30 seconds to shoot at a target with a full auto AR. I then gave myself the same amount of time to shoot the same rifle on single shot mode. Needless to say I was far more successful with single shot. I would have killed whatever it was on the first shot anyway, so who needs the next 29?
What I would like to do on this thread is come up with some practical situations in the civilian arena that would be best suited to a FA weapon. Please let's try and keep it realistic (no zombies attacks please). I also welcome statistics that show that very few gun crimes are committed with NFA weapons. Or, if you have some really good reasons why they don't need to be around that is fine too.
I want to clarify that I'm not trying to show that FA weapons have no practical use, I just think that we need to come up with some better reasons for their legality. I think that we could all benefit from coming up with some really new and unique ideas for why FA weapons should be more legal than they are. This would help us escape the gridlocked debate dominated by these three arguments. I want to get some new and fresh ideas that we can all bring to the table when engaging in political discussion.
Please do not bring up the second amendment, we all know it trust me!!!!
There are two main points that dominate each side. While there are many great reasons to support either side, most of what I encountered was people quoting the second amendment. Since we can all recite it in our sleep, it isn't an effective tool to convince anybody of anything.
Those in favor of full auto supply typically cite the insurrection theory. This theory is that we are given the right to bear arms to resist government tyranny. We should be allowed access to the same types of weapons used by the government to level the playing field. The biggest problem I have with this is that it is pretty grim and fatalistic. This type of thinking really scares liberals and their fear is the reason for their concern. Not to mention revolutions are highly illegal and it will be next to impossible to get the government to think this is a good idea.
Those against it usually claim that the collateral damage that can be caused by the full auto rate of fire is not appropriate for a civilian zone, but rather for a free fire war zone where area suppression is needed.
There are plenty of good arguments for both sides, but unfortunately I must admit that the collateral damage theory makes a good deal of sense to most everybody, myself included.
I have personally never seen a need to own a full auto weapon because I was taught to make every shot hit the target. I do not feel confident enough in my shooting to control a full auto gun. I shot one once. As an experiment I gave myself 30 seconds to shoot at a target with a full auto AR. I then gave myself the same amount of time to shoot the same rifle on single shot mode. Needless to say I was far more successful with single shot. I would have killed whatever it was on the first shot anyway, so who needs the next 29?
What I would like to do on this thread is come up with some practical situations in the civilian arena that would be best suited to a FA weapon. Please let's try and keep it realistic (no zombies attacks please). I also welcome statistics that show that very few gun crimes are committed with NFA weapons. Or, if you have some really good reasons why they don't need to be around that is fine too.
I want to clarify that I'm not trying to show that FA weapons have no practical use, I just think that we need to come up with some better reasons for their legality. I think that we could all benefit from coming up with some really new and unique ideas for why FA weapons should be more legal than they are. This would help us escape the gridlocked debate dominated by these three arguments. I want to get some new and fresh ideas that we can all bring to the table when engaging in political discussion.
Please do not bring up the second amendment, we all know it trust me!!!!
Last edited: