No one ever reads the stickys, it's the 2nd from the top as you enter this forum.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195028
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Full Auto Weapons?
- Thread starter dr.j
- Start date
No one ever reads the stickys, it's the 2nd from the top as you enter this forum.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195028
Reasons for Civilian ownership of Full Auto Weapons:
1. Because the 2nd Amendment guaranties us that right, in the even that our government is overrun by facist tyrants and civilians need firepower to fight back.
2. Hunting - Why not be able to use a "two-round burst" feature?
3. Home protection.
4. Protection of Business
5. Self Defense in the case of anarchy and riots - see LA riots and Katrina.
1. Because the 2nd Amendment guaranties us that right, in the even that our government is overrun by facist tyrants and civilians need firepower to fight back.
2. Hunting - Why not be able to use a "two-round burst" feature?
3. Home protection.
4. Protection of Business
5. Self Defense in the case of anarchy and riots - see LA riots and Katrina.
When one agrees that f.a. firearms "aren't needed," then one is probably equally prepared to agree that semi-auto firearms also "aren't needed." The act of '86 should be unconstitutional. I don't know whether it is or not, but it's tantamount to the poll tax that was so prevalent several decades ago, in that only idiots or wealthy people own f.a. firearms now.
MeekAndMild
New member
Funny, I thought I was answering the question by elaborating an uncommon but true reason, apologies for any offense taken. No condescension intended either. I don't take offense when a ballistics expert explains things in a challenging way because that is not my field.
The subject is too deep to just answer with sound bytes. The private ownership of machine guns by a large number of common citizens satisfies a collective survival need of society and not just an individual need of the individuals and I was trying to explain my take on it. Good day.
The subject is too deep to just answer with sound bytes. The private ownership of machine guns by a large number of common citizens satisfies a collective survival need of society and not just an individual need of the individuals and I was trying to explain my take on it. Good day.
NFA owners are the least troublesome group of all gun owners, as they have had to jump through so many hoops to even own thier toy....you are far more likely to find a weapon with a "sporting purpose" being used to shoot stop signs and mail boxes and make it bad on the rest of us...not a machine gun owners and thier guns.....but its the "sporting gun" owners that would be the first to throw the NFA owners out to the wolves to save thier nice O/U shotguns , heavy game rifles, etc. (because nobody needs a gun like that...and it has no sporting purpose)
Sporting purpose...now that is a term that should be abolished from any gun legislation past or future...The second amendment had nothing to do with sporting purpose, and it had everything to do with the populas having enough
equil footing in a battle that no standing army including our own would want to do battle. Our founding fathers came from a world that historically most gov'ts eventually turned on its own people, and treated them rather badly.
Even in the 21st century, shock of shocks they are still doing this...as power mongers never change(they just change from horse drawn coaches to BMW's)
Full auto weapons are part of this countries history, and many a brave man
stepped forth to wear the uniform of this counties armed forces and carried them into battle...our dads carried them, our grandads carried them and they were honorable men. No one should have to be ashamed to own the very objects they won battles with, and consequintly the continueing right of weak minded whiners to whine about everything . The present level of wussification instilled into the western male these days shall be thier and our downfall. I'm quite frankly ashamed when I hear fellow gun owners singling out others to chuck into the fire...because they "feel" its just the right thing to do. A M16 is just as legitimate as a M1903 Springfield in all ways.
Sporting purpose...now that is a term that should be abolished from any gun legislation past or future...The second amendment had nothing to do with sporting purpose, and it had everything to do with the populas having enough
equil footing in a battle that no standing army including our own would want to do battle. Our founding fathers came from a world that historically most gov'ts eventually turned on its own people, and treated them rather badly.
Even in the 21st century, shock of shocks they are still doing this...as power mongers never change(they just change from horse drawn coaches to BMW's)
Full auto weapons are part of this countries history, and many a brave man
stepped forth to wear the uniform of this counties armed forces and carried them into battle...our dads carried them, our grandads carried them and they were honorable men. No one should have to be ashamed to own the very objects they won battles with, and consequintly the continueing right of weak minded whiners to whine about everything . The present level of wussification instilled into the western male these days shall be thier and our downfall. I'm quite frankly ashamed when I hear fellow gun owners singling out others to chuck into the fire...because they "feel" its just the right thing to do. A M16 is just as legitimate as a M1903 Springfield in all ways.
freakintoguns
New member
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.
seems to me meek was answerign your question with valid points.
first thing dictators do is disarm the populace, then "reducate" children about the evils of guns etc. then blame all social ills on one group of citizenry and kills them off. our forefathers saw this and realized that in order to keep the government in check the populace of america needed to be well armed. we are here to check the government and keep them in balance. kind of the same concept as the 3 branches of government to keep each other in check and balance.
Firepower!
New member
Yes they should be legal with special permit (training course etc required) and two per person limit, with option to get more for after paying increasing tax on each additional.
But yes they should be legal.
But yes they should be legal.
Wow, I am amazed at the people who want you to jump through MORE hoops to get an automatic weapon. Please stop already - its legal to own (in most civilized states) so its done. Look at the track record on civilian ownership of automatic weapons - despite the very sad incident of the 8 year old shooting himself, that could not be prevented by any legislation or 'training'. It was the adults there that should have exercised more common sense.
Taxes of any kind to own seems to be unconstitutional to me to begin with. You start down this path and next thing you know we are back at limitations because certain firearms LOOK scary. You guys are just enabling the gun grabbers. You already have to file paperwork and do some legwork to get automatic weapons - enough already.
Taxes of any kind to own seems to be unconstitutional to me to begin with. You start down this path and next thing you know we are back at limitations because certain firearms LOOK scary. You guys are just enabling the gun grabbers. You already have to file paperwork and do some legwork to get automatic weapons - enough already.
Yes they should be legal with special permit (training course etc required) and two per person limit, with option to get more for after paying increasing tax on each additional.
But yes they should be legal.
A 99.999999% near perfect record since 1934 and you want more restrictions? :barf:
Of course, some people think Barney Fife had too many bullets. To each his own.
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.
OK, lets try this.
I have had a long fascination with the history of the M16. Eugene Stoner combined many design details and ideas into one design which led to the M16. That was the good part. About the only criticism (hindsight) was that Stoner did not feel the need to chrome plate the barrel and chamber even though post WW II Army research had shown the benefits of this for full auto fire. Perhaps this was because ArmaLite lacked the capability to plate the barrel. Be that as it may, Stoner developed the prototypes with cartridges loaded with IMR powder. The prototypes were very reliable with this powder. Leaving out most of the story, by the time the M16 was adopted and placed in the field (Vietnam) the Army had converted to a ball powder and the 5.56mm M193 Ball cartridge powder formulation contained a shelf life extender (Calcium Carbonate - CaCO3) at levels far above those necessary to clog the rifle's gas tube. The early combat history of the M16 in Vietnam was marred by this problem. The gas system Stoner employed, while very simple and direct, allowed for contaminates from the powder to be blown back into the reciever/bolt area.
From external source: (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/archive/index.php/t-88840.html)
The use of ball gunpowder left a very sticky residue in the barrel and the gas tube of the M16. Since the barrel wasn't chrome-plated and no cleaning equipment and/or lubricants were available, it hardened quickly and soon made the rifle inoperable. The residue also caused spent casings to become stuck in the chamber and the rifle suffered a rim shear extraction failure, where the bolt's extractor tore off a portion of the end of the spent casing, leaving the rest of the case stuck in the chamber.
In retrospect, the "forward assist" of the M16 may have been less than necessary.
If you made it this far, I had a desire to personally examine the historical M16 problem but not necessarily reproduce it. Thus, I went through the hoops to acquire an M16A1 (But I wanted the chrome bore version because of the first paragraph above.) After going to all that trouble, I am certainly not going to abuse the "test item". Instead, noting that IMR powders were the design basis for the M16, I made various tests to verify the reliability claims versus the IMR powder claim. My test results were very satisfying and may one day make a good "historical editorial piece" somewhere. The most notable result is that loading for semi-auto function and full-auto function in this gas gun is not the same thing at all.
The answer is actually quite simple; No reason is required.
People do or take similar or different actions for similar or different reasons. We do what we will, because who we are, while we are allowed. Period.
DMV allows us to drive our cars - we are not then asked where we're driving to or why.
mh
People do or take similar or different actions for similar or different reasons. We do what we will, because who we are, while we are allowed. Period.
DMV allows us to drive our cars - we are not then asked where we're driving to or why.
mh
TexasRedneck
New member
Please do not bring up the second amendment, we all know it trust me!!!!
No, sir - it's obvious that some - including you - do NOT.
There is no place for your question - period. The RTKBA is one written in the blood of our founding fathers, and replenished by those who came after them - and dammit I am sick and tired of trying to "justify" those rights to ANYone. This isn't a flame aimed at you specifically - but since you asked, yeah - enjoy the singed feathers. Tell you what - next time you want to ask such a self-serving question, be prepared to FIRST answer what gives you the right to ask it - then you'll have the answer to both, and won't need to.
I AM AN AMERICAN. I HAVE RIGHTS. LEAVE THEM - AND ME - ALONE.
Willie Lowman
New member
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.
Can you people read? He didn't say "How can we restrict them more?" Didn't ask "How does some mall ninja think we should strengthen our NFA regulatory system?"
Why should they be MORE legal? I dunno. Overturn the '86 Hughes amendment. If we don't, in another generation they will be to expensive for anyone to own.
Now I will bring up the fact that only ONE murder has been committed with a NFA registered firearm in my lifetime. An Ohio cop (Cinci, I think.) murdered an informant with a registered Mac 10. He didn't catch his wife in bed with someone else as people like to say.
People that go through the fingerprints, signature, waiting waiting waiting and pay so much for a toy aren't likely to misuse it. but what do I know about anything.
I've used both full auto and semi auto weapons and I find full auto is of very limited use. Even military studies show it has limited value.
The point? I don't find full auto guns to be any more of a threat to the public than semi auto guns. I think the restictions on full auto weapons are useless. These laws are in place just to make people feel better.
The original NFA of 1932 was not aimed at shutting down the use of full auto weapons. It was intended to make posession of any number of weapons a federal offense if you were already a criminal or had criminal intent.
This gave the federal government tools it wanted to attack orginized crime across the country.
While the current laws on the books are clearly unconstitutional, they will remain in force as long as the general puplic supports them. Unfortunatly, there are either crazzies or crooks that go on shooting binges all to frequently. This scares the hell out of the general puplic and only increases their support of these types of gun laws.
What I find funny is that cars kill 10 times more people than guns do and no one is ready to outlaw cars!
The point? I don't find full auto guns to be any more of a threat to the public than semi auto guns. I think the restictions on full auto weapons are useless. These laws are in place just to make people feel better.
The original NFA of 1932 was not aimed at shutting down the use of full auto weapons. It was intended to make posession of any number of weapons a federal offense if you were already a criminal or had criminal intent.
This gave the federal government tools it wanted to attack orginized crime across the country.
While the current laws on the books are clearly unconstitutional, they will remain in force as long as the general puplic supports them. Unfortunatly, there are either crazzies or crooks that go on shooting binges all to frequently. This scares the hell out of the general puplic and only increases their support of these types of gun laws.
What I find funny is that cars kill 10 times more people than guns do and no one is ready to outlaw cars!
What I find funny is that cars kill 10 times more people than guns do and no one is ready to outlaw cars!
What I find more amusing is that while cars do serve a useful function, there is absolutely no reason for cigarettes and they kill a few hundred thousand people each year. The only reason they are not illegal is because the federal and state governments make too much money from them to let them go away.
On the other hand, we have the NFA, where the government could be making a fortune from newly registered machineguns, yet they prohibit accepting our money because of 922(o).
Hey! Take it easy with the cigarette tax. I smoke. Yes, I know it's not good for me. How about a sugar tax? Being fat isn't good either. How about a risk tax for bungy jumping, sky diving, mountain climbing or even motorcycle rideing? Just because you don't like something does not mean you should outlaw it for everyone else.
This is the whole point of this thread. When does the majority have the right to restrain the minority from some activity? Where do your rights end and mine start? When is it in the puplic interest to justifiably curtail the constitution?
This is the whole point of this thread. When does the majority have the right to restrain the minority from some activity? Where do your rights end and mine start? When is it in the puplic interest to justifiably curtail the constitution?
DanRHeller
Inactive
I personally see no need for an automatic weapon, but...there sure isn't a need to have them be illegal. Many more things need to be fixed before the idea of full auto weapons being illegal should have came into play.