Full Auto Weapons?

[dr.j]

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!!!!

 

[jmorris]

It’s kind of an old school concept but, how about freedom for starters. Why full auto? The simple answer is its fun, no real application, other than entertainment value and it’s (currently) legal and relatively safe.

Next time you are talking to a pot head, drunk driving, liberal, remind them of that.

Anyone can own a car (and many do without a license to operate it on public roads) that is capable of breaking every driving law in the state I live in, while endangering hundreds if not thousands of lives in the process. Here is the best part, driving is a privilege not a right.

You say “Why full auto?”

I say “Why autos?”

But that’s just crazy right? Right?

 

[MrClean]

Should they be legal?

Let me be the first to vote................ "YES"

I'm quite taken aback that it's even been asked, but I'm not one to flame anyone. Only because I don't own a flamethrower. It's a joke.... nobody get upset.

I have personally never seen a need to own a full auto weapon because I was taught to make every shot hit the target.

A NEED? I personally don't see a NEED for a sports car or crotch rocket that will do over 200mph. If we had to justify a true 'need' for things, we would not own half the stuff we do. It's a choice and a right. period.

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.

I don't recall seeing any reportings of someone using a class III select fire in defense lately. Not to say they haven't, but I believe most everyone that has these probably has sense enough not to CC with it.
I don't see any real life scenarios where I would even want a full auto for actual usage. Only think close that I can think of would be civil disorder and a mob heading down my street. Perhaps a spray would help that matter? But I would still rather make the shots count and am in agreement with you on that one point. Once they see brethren dropping.... it usually deters them.

we need to come up with some better reasons for their legality

Are you kiddin me? You want us to come up with a better 'need' for other items as well? I'm not meaning to sound like I'm just slamming you but I see this as just another thing I would expect to see from 'the other side'. ... why do you "need" this item. I would venture to say that Hayabusas , GSXR's, R1's, Vipers, Corvettes, Crossfires, Mustangs... have been involved in way more deaths and collateral damage that Class III weapons in this country.

Not trying to start an 'argument' and I promise I'm not one to go back and forth. Just don't see why you would ask to justify this. My answer though...
I don't really see a situation like you are wanting me to come up with. I personally, would rather have a semi and feel I would work better with that. As far as defending against the gov't... I don't see me having a MG helping. I think the battle would be much more likely to be fought more 'covert' since they DO have and will ALWAYS have more firepower. But personally.... if I were sent in, I would be much more worried about "Bubba" with his 30-06 than someone with a MG.

 

[mskdgunman]

Two words...Fun and investments. As the fun aspect has already been covered, I'll say that while my Deferred comp at work took a beating in the whole stock market crisis, my Reising, M-11 and Stemple all continue to increase in value.

Truthfully, I don't shoot them that often as I really can't afford to feed them. I can't imagine having to feed a full auto in a rifle caliber, but like with fast cars, generally, if you can afford them, you can afford the cost of gas and upkeep that goes along with them

The true fun NFA stuff (belt fed MG's and assault rifles) are the toys of folks with more money then I've got. I've got to be happy with the few NFA firearms that I have and plan to keep them as they are a better investment then anything the banks have come up with.

There are enough hoops already in place for NFA ownership and if the original poster has done his research, they should know this. People that are willing to pay the money and jump through the hoops and be background checked to a fare thee well, are PROBABLY not going to be involved in criminal activity. Don't add more red tape to an already over burdened system.

As far as their use in concealed carry, I don't think I've ever run accross anyone with an NFA firearm who carries it for personal defense. Handguns rule the CC world as they are much more practical and easier to carry. The NFA stuff stays home in the safe

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Two words...Fun and investments.

I would never buy machineguns as an investment. Although my MGs are currently worth a total of $36,000 more than I orginally paid for them, all it takes is a bunch of politicians to send that into a negative value. In fact, I really wish they would do so by repealing 922(o).

As far as their use in concealed carry,

In the State of Florida, it is illegal to carry a machinegun as a concealed weapon, even with a CCW.

 

[RJay]

OK, you askied for opinions, heres another one. I can see no valid sporting use for fully automatic weapons. I also believe the " Tax " on AOW should be raised. No flames gentle, just my opinion and like belly buttons every one has one.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I can see no valid sporting use for fully automatic weapons.

And I can't find the word "sporting" anywhere in the Second Amendment.


BTW, please document each sporting event you have participated in with each firearm you own in the past 5 years. No competition, no reason to own that firearm. FYI, ATF had deemed that "target shooting" aka plinking is NOT a valid sporting event.

 

[dr.j]

Mr Clean:

Are you kiddin me? You want us to come up with a better 'need' for other items as well? I'm not meaning to sound like I'm just slamming you but I see this as just another thing I would expect to see from 'the other side'. ... why do you "need" this item.

You are exactly right, this is the type of argument that comes from the other side, that's the point! I can't remember the last time I argued with somebody who agreed with me. The need for a gun unfortunately does need to be shown in current times. I'll explain:

I never really thought that anybody need to justify owning any gun, but for quite some time liberals have said just that, and last time I checked democrats were in charge now. Obviously we all have the right to own guns because of the bill of rights. However, many amendments have been diluted by the government over the years. The 4th and 8th come to mind!!

My point being, it unfortunately has come time to have to justify gun rights to the liberals who are in charge, and the current argument of it's fun and Thomas Jefferson said it was alright 200 years ago isn't going to fly. Unless there are some better reasons for why we need them (I'm not saying there aren't any, they are just harder to come up with) then we can expect to see the second amendment become more bastardized than it has been already.

I really like the car analogy. That makes a great deal of sense, and is rational, but you do know that not all cars are legal in the U.S. right? Some require modification to limit their power before they can be sold in this country (sounding familiar yet?) because the government has decided that we don't need to go that fast. "It's fun" isn't going to convince anybody who really disagrees with gun rights because if they don't think it's fun they don't care if it's legal. Most of us don't passionately defend things that we don't do, don't understand, or can't afford.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Should these guns be legal and if so why?

I wonder if you ever really looked at violence problems associated with firearms prohibitions in Africa, the UK, the former Eastern Bloc and Latin America? In your studies to remediate this portion of your education I'd invite you to pay particular attention to historical information about the ease in which criminals and partisans have built machine guns, the historical patterns of illegal international arms trade, historical suppression of the disarmed classes in such nations and the rise of criminal cartels in such societies.

For a more general study, you should find sufficient historical lessons from medieval and ancient history as pertains to the sword, the bow, the horse and body armor. Of if you've a literary taste, I'm particularly touched by Shakespeare's version of the victory of British yeomanry over the elite French cavalry in the Battle of Agincourt: Henry V.

When you finish your research I think you'll find that societies where weapons, even automatic weapons, are easily available to the common citizens have a lower ratio of armed criminals versus arms available to the non-criminal population. They will have weaker organized crime and stronger working and middle classes. On the other hand, societies which have civilian arms prohibitions demonstrate a Darwinian selection process where arms are obtained in a preferential manner by violent persons. Such societies will demonstrate weaker middle and working classes relative to poor and elite classes. This is causal rather than coincidental.

Please share any good references you find on this project.

 

[dr.j]

Meek and Mild, why don't you go start your own thread since none of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about. Did you finish reading my post, or did you stop after the second sentence?

I wonder if you ever really looked at violence problems associated with firearms prohibitions in Africa, the UK, the former Eastern Bloc and Latin America?

Not this time, because this debate really only concerns the United States and our laws. It has nothing to do with other nations their situations are very different.

In your studies to remediate this portion of your education

Education is a lifelong pursuit. I don't need to remediate anything. Remediate means to correct a flaw or deficiency. I'm actually a teacher, and take great offense to the notion that something about my education if flawed because I'm trying to encourage discussion and keep learning, you should choose your words wisely my friend. Anybody who thinks they are done learning is just showing how little they know in the first place, perhaps you need to remediate your education.

For a more general study, you should find sufficient historical lessons from medieval and ancient history as pertains to the sword, the bow, the horse and body armor. Of if you've a literary taste, I'm particularly touched by Shakespeare's version of the victory of British yeomanry over the elite French cavalry in the Battle of Agincourt: Henry V.

If I thought you had any idea what you were talking about I might look into this, but I doubt I'll find it helpful, thanks though?

When you finish your research I think you'll find that societies where weapons, even automatic weapons, are easily available to the common citizens have a lower ratio of armed criminals versus arms available to the non-criminal population. They will have weaker organized crime and stronger working and middle classes. On the other hand, societies which have civilian arms prohibitions demonstrate a Darwinian selection process where arms are obtained in a preferential manner by violent persons. Such societies will demonstrate weaker middle and working classes relative to poor and elite classes. This is causal rather than coincidental.

I have never said anything about disarming a population, and couldn't agree more with you on this. My goal here is to figure out some better justification for NFA weapons than just "they are fun" or "shall not be infringed" because these points have proven ineffective at defending gun rights in the past.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

dr.j

While I applaud your courage in coming on the NFA forum and asking the question I am not sure you will get quite the same discussion you did on the Law and Civil Rights forum.

I posed this one on the old L&P forum about oh a year or so ago. I think most on this forum LOVE all types of NFA weapons and therefore would not support any real restrictions on them unless they wanted to keep their currently owned FA weapon values up.

Good luck though but whatever the position one takes on this issue I doubt any of us in our lifetime will see regular civilians having unrestricted access to military weapons, in the USA of course. IMO that's a good thing.

 

[dr.j]

I think you might be right. I was hoping to get some feedback from people who do own them and know a lot more about their applications and uses than I do. I'd hoped that I would find a civilian who owned one for a reason that went beyond, "because I have the right too, and they are fun."

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I'd hoped that I would find a civilian who owned one for a reason that went beyond, "because I have the right too, and they are fun."

This is purely anecdotal but the ones I have met who own them do so mostly for fun. And they are fun (albeit expensive) to shoot. However, I am sure they are owned for other reasons too.

 

[dr.j]

yeah they are pretty cool

 

[jmorris]

I'd hoped that I would find a civilian who owned one for a reason that went beyond, "because I have the right too, and they are fun."

I would like to hear reasons why cigarettes, alcohol, cosmetic surgery, jewelry, make up, clothing (other than to resist the elements), any recreation or sport, should be legal. None of the above are necessary, all have caused someone harm that could have been avoided if outlawed, yet they still exist.

Once you compile your list, supporting any of the above, post it so I can use your reasoning and logic you enlighten you on the subject.

 

[T. O'Heir]

"...see no valid sporting use for fully automatic weapons..." There doesn't have to be a 'sporting use'. However, shooting is a sport. What you shoot when engaged in that sport doesn't matter. In any case, 'no sporting use' is a Brady Bunch, et al argument for outlawing all kinds of firearms. .50 BMG rifles for example. Or 'sniper' rifles. Their definition is any rifle with a telescopic sight.
"...a civilian who owned one for..." 'I want one' is reason enough.

 

[MeekAndMild]

I'd hoped that I would find a civilian who owned one for a reason that went beyond, "because I have the right too, and they are fun."

Well you did but I suspect you're out of your field here and don't know the allusions. I should have realized that before posting anything so abstract. Remedial reading assignments are listed below.

A simple answer is that free societies are not stable unless the majority of common citizens have the ability to maintain a number of perquisites which in the past were thought to be generally inclusive of the rights of the natural man. One of these natural rights is the ability to maintain privately owned armament which is equal to that of the local bullies.

The American experiment in government was based on principles of natural law as defined by Aquinas, Hobbes and Locke as a replacement for the principle of the divine right of kings. However our collective twenty first century social philosophy is moving solidly in the direction of Marx's materialistic interpretation of Hegel's idealistic dialectics. Unfortunately it is also moving in the direction of theory rather than practicality, much as Bacon described in his "Horse's Teeth Parable".

This change shows the problem with your quest in that modern social scholars (using the term loosely) dismiss arguments based on natural right, tradition and understanding of human nature, goodness and evil. Instead they have embraced utilitarianism, which we all know requires empiric evidence to proceed. No matter what paradigm you use in argument the 'antis' will counter with a deconstructionist ploy so argument is useless, only illustrations from life will work.

Giving a specific example of typical 'anti' rhetoric, the Second Amendment discussion in In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights In Action by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy should adequately demonstrate the effect of a style of thought uncluttered both by any real belief in the principles of our founding fathers and real world observation of the practical effects of gun control. Better thinkers (and you'll also notice them to be a generation older) such as Carroll Quigley in The Evolution of Civilizations: An Introduction to Historical Analysis and Weapons Systems and Political Stability: A History describe both Darwinian principles of social evolution but minimize the positive effects of large numbers of armed citizens in the process of societal stabilization.

Very few modernists except for John Lott understand RKBA issues, especially as typified by NFA weapons. Which is why review of raw case studies of effects of the gun laws of such pestholes as Sudan, Zimbabwe and Somalia as well as Mexico and Los Angeles, USA, is more important to understanding a modern view of the principle than what particular brand of rhetoric happens to catch your attention. The Anatomy of Revolutionby Crane Brinton should adequately explain my 'simple answer' ...free societies are not stable unless...

Too much time wasted. Good night.

 

[dr.j]

You are absolutely correct. I am not an expert on any of this, nor did I ever claim to be. I am just a person asking a question that nobody has really been able to give a straight answer to.

At least the rest of the people who have posted on this thread are not making unsubtle jabs at my level of qualifications and education. (I'm not stupid and don't appreciate remarks like this one).

Well you did but I suspect you're out of your field here and don't know the allusions. I should have realized that before posting anything so abstract. Remedial reading assignments are listed below.

Too much time wasted. Good night.

I'm so sorry to have wasted your valuable time professor M&M. (I'll bet somebody held a machine gun to your head and forced you to enlighten me right?)

 

[dr.j]

I'm abandoning this question/experiment because this topic seems to attract an extraordinary amount of raw feelings towards me. Rather than simply answering the question I've asked, some of you (really only one of you) feel the need to be condescending. If there was something wrong with my question, then just don't answer it, very simple. Feel free to talk s*&t to me about how my ideas suck if you have nothing better to do, I won't be checking back in.

Thank you all who didn't just answer my question with another question

Peace be with all of you.

 

[teeroux]

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.

Well since police and federal agencies already field FA weapons in the civillan zones it sort of makes collateral damage in civillan zones a double standard now doesn't it.