Machine gun or not to machine gun?

I recently got into a discussion with my CPA regarding machine guns. For the record I own a number of them. She questioned "why I needed to own them." I asker her what kind of car she drove, a Jag XK, then what the top speed was on her car. The top speed is over 150 mph. So of course I asked her why she really needed a car that she could drive at 150 mph and where she drove it that fast, certainly not on the public feeeways.

Well the discussion ended pretty quickly. After thinking a few seconds, she said she understood my point. Same with machine guns-- because they are fun, because they are historically interesting, and because I CAN!!

Life is not about just things we need. Really, all we "need" is a dry place to sleep, something to eat on a somewhat regular basis, a few clothes, and not much more. We don't "need" lots of things we own, but they make life much more interesting and enjoyable. Take a look around your home or office. Decide what you really "need" to live. Make that "to exist" and I think you will get my point.
 
I really wish the NRA/SAF/JPFO/ghost of Christmas future would start working on opening the registry for 22LR only.

I think it would be possible.
Most shooters would LOVE to be able to shoot full auto 22LR.
Incremental gun rights has worked EXTREMELY well for us in Ohio(CHL).
 
Most shooters would LOVE to be able to shoot full auto 22LR.

I don't really have any interest in .22LR machineguns. Heck, I haven't even purchased a .22 kit for my AC556. But, I'm sure some folks would love this.
 
I'd love a little palm sized .22LR SMG. Like an even more micro Micro-UZI

Take a Glock 26, give it a selector lever like a Glock 18 and chamber it in .22LR
 
I believe they could be necessary at some point in time yes and I can't see why a private citizen shouldn't be allowed to have one. Having armed citizens is a definite advantage especially when some unmentioned person wants his own private military as well equipped and trained as our U.S. military..not to sound like some crazy conspiracy theorist but you never know honestly..
 
I believe that it is my responsibility, as a US citizen, to be proficient in the operation and maintenance of a range of current US military personal arms. 250 years ago, this would have meant black powder weapons and perhaps a sword. Today, it means the anything from the M16A2, M-4 carbine, M-1014 shotgun, M-9 pistol, etc.

Owning weapons such as these makes living up to my Constitutional responsibility possible. Should the need arise for me to defend my home, my neighborhood, hometown, state or country, individual weapons training should not be necessary. Of course, I'll gladly accept ammo and spares on the taxpayers' dime.
 
lol. I always love it when I hear people yapping about how their dinky little small-arms are the last resort against tyranny. It's so cute and quaint, like the guy in the tri-corn hat with a "Keep your Government hands off my Medicare" sign at a Tea-Party rally.

Basically what they're advocating is an nascent ability for an insurgency against the evil guv'ment. Somehow they think that the said evil guv'ment didn't learn anything about counter-insurgency during our debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Apparently their AR-15s, AKs, Glocks, Sigs and what not are going to more succcesful in beating back the evil guv'ment than the IEDs, VBIEDs, RPGs, DShKs and other serious military hardware we dealt with in Iraq and continue to deal with in Afghanistan.

Somehow when the evil jack-booted thugs come to kick in your door, take your guns and lead you off to a FEMA-Death-Camp, they expect to be succesful against the MRAPs, UAVs, helicopters, Tanks, heavy weaponry and such of the American Military (as surely the evil Guv'ment will not be bound by Posse Comitatus and the full-bear of our military will be unleashed, upon the citizenry, by the son's and daughters of said citizenry. Wait, what? :confused:).

In other words, you don't stand a chance of forcible resistance against for the US government if were to become the evil guv'ment of some people's fears. Sorry buddy, I'd refer you to several Islamist jack-asses who know about the futility of resistance (in a tactical sense), I met in Iraq, but tragically they're not around to talk about it. This is especially true here in the US, where we're not trying to project our power somewhere else, on to a different culture (such as Iraq or Afghanistan), where the insurgency knows we're going home after a while. You're not going to outlast the Guv'ment's superior firepower, when you're in their backyard.

I know it's not nearly as sexy as stock-piling weapons and proclaiming "from my cold dead hands", but if you really want to guarantee your liberty, I'd look to the rule of law and keeping our government open and accountable to preserve our liberties. Yes, in the 1700's armed resistance was a viable means of protecting liberty, but that's no longer true in the modern era.
 
Last edited:
Beretta, did they learn how to operate with no secure rear training and supply facilities? Huge portions of our military bases are within rifle range of civilian neighborhoods. Most base personnel now live off base. besides, if you didn't notice we haven't exactly "won" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Far from it. All we really accomplished was destroying the infrastructure in Iraq and pretending to raise the price of Heroin for a few years. Taliban is now becoming one of our key allies in Afghanistan.
Not that FA plays into that argument much at all. FA just isn't very useful for insurgents. You have to have supply like the US military to use full auto in a military situation. Imagine the craziest, err uhhh, most prepared person you know who has 20,000 rounds of 223 stashed away. How long does that last if distributed to a platoon in actual combat?

50 full auto items might force the deployment of an attack helicopter. Once you start deploying attack helicopters you find yourself in a bad political position. Of course THAT lesson does seem to have been missed.

Look at the financial expense, human resources cost, and image costs of things like Waco. Sure you can roll over the place with tanks and save a little money, but that isn't going to go over any better in the news.

There was a time when it was thought an insurgency without heavy cavalry(Knights) was impossible.

Most people who think limiting the sale of full autos is such a great idea don't realize that most any amateur machinist can convert a gun to FA and making a full auto SMG with a smooth barrel from plumbing supplies is not a challenge for a handyman with a ten page booklet of instructions.

Anyways, the 22LR suggestion was not to limit it to that in the long term, but rather to make an incremental step. From there pushing other rimfires is a simple thing after a few years. Then maybe other 22s, etc. In the meantime the registry is vastly expanded eliminating the primary "legitimate" legal argument against machine guns. The only way I see any progress being made on this front without a few thousand people putting themselves in legal jeopardy.
 
Last edited:
Beretta, did they learn how to operate with no secure rear training and supply facilities? Huge portions of our military bases are within rifle range of civilian neighborhoods. Most base personnel now live off base.

lol, so in other words, you're going to ambush me and other soldiers on the way to work? :eek: Nice.

besides, if you didn't notice we haven't exactly "won" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Far from it. All we really accomplished was destroying the infrastructure in Iraq and pretending to raise the price of Heroin for a few years. Taliban is now becoming one of our key allies in Afghanistan.

Let's call a spade a spade. We suffered (and are going to suffer) a strategic defeat in both conflicts, even though we tactically win most everytime. But that's only because we were playing in someone else's backyard. If the supposed evil guv'ment takes over, they're doing it on their home-tuff and time is on their side, unlike in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But because I'm bored let's see how your American insurgency will play out:
Firstly you'll need to organize via some form of electronic communication, which will be easily intercepted and compromised. The evil guv'ment will utilize both ground and aerial assets to do Signals Intelligence and monitor all communications of the insurgency, just as we did in Iraq (but with the advantage of analysts being native speakers, able to immediately analyze raw data). When they find a cell-phone, they'll dump the data off it and find out who called who, to gain an understanding of the network opposing it. This will glean actionable intelligence which the evil guv'ment will use to launch raids against those opposing it.

Suppose you want to ambush the evil guv'ment on the way to raid your insurgent place. Enroute they'll use aerial assets from UAVs to helicopters to do a route reconnaissance. It'll happen at night, as that's where their tactical advantage is. Your ambush be easily spotted as you can't hide from a FLIR very well. At that point, they'll either destroy your ambush in-place with other assets (say the Apache which can engage targets well beyond the max effective range of a .50), route around it or choose to do a counter-ambush, either by directly assualting your ambush or waiting for you to leave & getting you enroute. Either way, you're toast. Or maybe they'll just assign a UAV to watch were you head off to and raid you later.

Once they're at your insurgent place, depending on the Rules Of Engagemet, they may initiate the raid with suppressive fire from a variety of belt-fed weapon systems (or just blow it up with a 120mm HEAT round or Mk19 40mm automatic grenade launcher) before the assualt element moves in. Or they may do a "tactical callout" and allow you the chance to surrender.

Should you choose not to surrender, the assault element of decisive size (at least a 3-to-1 ratio) will move in, under cover of suppressive-fire and possibly smoke too. Once in the building, they'll methodically move room-to-room clearing & searching the building and engaging targets as required. Should you barricade yourself in a room, there is a wide-variety of weapons dig you out from fragmentation grenades, flash-bangs to CS gas. But at the end of the day you die.

But if for some reason some elements of your insurgency survive, they still need logistical support & training. In Iraq they had Syria and Iran to provide them training & logistical support once their on-hand supplies of were exhausted. In Afghanistan the Taliban has the Pakistani Tribal Areas as sanctuaries and training/logistical support areas. In the US, I doubt Mexico and Canada are going to provide your insurgency much support, much less sanctuary.

So you're basically stuck with whatever caches have already been established. They'll be a time where ammo is plenty, but soon that will be exhausted, as fire-fights consume quite a bit of ammo. Also, the evil guv'ment will be using all it's available assets to secure these caches, and trust me, they're pretty good at it.

Basically your insurgency will be unable to safely communicate and gain strenght in numbers. They'll have limited supplies of ammo and unable to get meaningful resupplies. And they'll quickly be killed off by a trained professional military adept at the tactics of counter-insurgency.

So in other words, the idea of meaningful armed resistance against the evil guv'ment is futile and is best reserved for internet forums, where ideas can run wild and free without reality creeping in.

For some strange reason people seem to view their guns in this strange quasi-religious sense, instead of as merely enjoyable tools. It's as though these inanimate pieces of steel are somehow the ultimate guaranteers of liberty, rather than the rule-of-law and people playing by a common set of rules.
 
Last edited:
And by the tim e what you outlined is over, how many non-combatants are dead? This time US citizens instead of people who's names we couldn't remember if we wanted to b/c we can't pronounce them.

a strategic defeat in both conflicts
You see that, but not the big picture? Insurgencies are long drawn out things that almost always rely on bankrupting the government.

I didn't say I would be organizing anything. I didn't say I would be ambushing anyone "on their way to work." One thing people seem to miss in these discussions is our government is quite fluid. If this all came to pass and I was put in the place of picking a side it would likely rely heavily on the results of the previous election cycle. Previous to a rebellion politics would have to be EXTREMELY polarized even in comparison to what we see today. The parties would look nothing like they do now.
The reality of the government situation is simple though. I live next to a very large base. Almost all of the officers live off base. There really isn't permanent housing on base to even hold them in the long term, and certainly not their families. At one time there was but at this point it is all replaced with labs. It would likely be possible to convert several neighborhoods close to the base, cordon them off and try to beef up security, but even that would cause immense problems and still leave vulnerabilities. When things get ugly they get dirty. Did you think people would call each other out and duel at ten paces with distinguished honor?
Being home turf is no advantage at all. It is a logistical and psychological nightmare, especially once desertion kicks in and given the tactics the US currently deploys, which are VERY dependent on a secure supply chain. Try PTSD when there is no rotation out of country and you are killing people who cry out in your native language. US military has huge problems now with diversion of material stores for profit, wait until that mixes with ideology. I can't think of a single insurgency in world history where the insurgents had close to the military power of the government they opposed. They don't need it. They just need to hang on and keep embarrassing the government maintaining an environment of insecurity..


All pretty much irrelevant though. As noted, no insurgent is going to have sufficient supply to take advantage of full auto all that much and if it comes to that converting semi auto weapons to full or just making new full autos will be much simpler than anyone making the laws seems to realize. Criminals certainly do it with little trouble whatsoever.
 
And Beretta is assuming the military will go along with any scheme the guv'ment, as he calls it, comes up with. I served over 24 years with active, National Guard, and Reserve components, and I can pretty comfortably say that few, if any, military personnel will act militarily against segments of the US population.
 
If the supposed evil guv'ment takes over, they're doing it on their home-tuff and time is on their side, unlike in Iraq or Afghanistan.

While it would be quite unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, I believe you are making the wrong assumption about the "ebil guvmint" having time. Unlike the rest of the world, we, as a people have held the idea for a long time that govt serves at our pleasure. We expect elections, and all our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Any "evil guv'mint" actually oppressing our liberties by force of arms is going to be on borrowed time. The longer it goes on, the more resistance there will be. IN all kinds of ways, not just resitance by force.

While clearly, the same military tactics (overwhelming firepower, tanks, jets, etc.) will work in combat, doing that, particularly on a prolonged basis, and over a wide area in the US will NOT go the same way it does in third world pestholes.

Muslim terrorists have a very, very, very narrow window of sympathy in our military. Hundreds of thousands of troops, and you maybe find one, or two willing to give information to the "rebels" or toss a grenade into a tent.

Active combat ops, against the general US population? Don't make me laugh. Our troops are OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS! While you will have a certain number of people willing to just follow ANY order, until you create special units made only of people like that, your combat efficiency is going to be waaayy down. And, when you DO make units of "loyal" troops, you are going to find them to be the "enemy" to not just the US population, but a significant portion of the rest of the military.

No, FA arms in civilian hands don't equalize against tanks and airpower, but tanks and airpower can only destroy things, not control or administer. That can only be done by individuals on the ground. And that is where the "evil guvmint" will fail, ultimately.

Why deny us something that is both a constituional right, and in your view irrelevant anyway? IF civilian ownership of FA arms won't save us from the "evil guvmint" why would that same guv'mint be worried about it?

I think your argument is flawed, you haven't thought things through enough.
 
So what I get out of this is Beretta and the military(according to him) will go against their sworn oaths to up hold the Constition of the United States of America first and formost and chose to obey the unlawful orders. Well I for one will hold to my SWORN of to uphold the Constition first and formost and I think the majorty of the U.S. miltary will chose to. So I see most of the tanks, aircraft, supplies, and weapons being in the hands of the "rebels"!
 
lol. Ya'll have spectaculalry missed my point that Red Dawn fantasies of forcibly resisting a supposed evil guv'ment with your dinky small-arms, are just that: a fantasy.

The idea that privately owned weapons are a last resort against an evil tyrannical guv'ment is absurd (which is the point of my describing what an American insurgent would look like), when said evil guv'ment can bring the full weight and bear of modern warfare against it's enemies.

Back to as I said before, it must be sexy to imagine yourself as a 21st century Minute Man with your little AR-15, ready to resist the black-helicopters and such at a moment's notice. But any armed efforts you do would be futile and easily crushed by a truly tyrannical regime.

Therefore if you really want to preserve your liberty, try rule-of-law, an educated populace, critical thinking and such, not stockpiling weapons and key-board jockying about your plan to fight off the evil guv'ment with your drinking buddies.

It's a bit like nation-building, where everyone loves lofty platitudes of knocking off dictators, bringing freedom to oppressed masses and fancy talk. But really running a country is figuring out where the sewage will go, bringing in power, disposing trash and creating a civil society.
 
And where is that regime getting the forces in the U.S.?
lol, so in other words, you're going to ambush me and other soldiers on the way to work? Nice.
There is you're answer. And if you are fighting on the side of a tyrannical gooberment what would you expect someone to do let you get to work? I don't get it?

And I guess there have NEVER been any successful rebellions where a ill-equipped population have over thrown a military power house huh?
 
Last edited:
The UK does not lag behind us by that much and things like attack helicopters were available in the 80's, although they now have some more toys attached. The IRA kept going without much problem until the political situation lead to loss of support. US is using much more aggressive tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan than they could in continental US with other large advantages, such as having secure supply, and US isn't winning. I don't see how an insurgency in the US could possibly be easier.

We tried Afghanistan with "no troops" on the ground if you remember. It didn't work at all. At the end of the day someone has to WALK down the street in plain view of every window if you want to control an area.

I think the majority of soldiers would go along with the government. Look at units that are involved in war crimes. One or two push the whole unit to do it. There are instances in recent history where US soldiers executed unconstitutional orders. There is a very strong case that deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan is unconstitutional as war was not constitutionally declared. No one cares.
Some would defect though. Some would sabotage & spy. Some would just stop working hard. The military engine would be knocking hard.

I think most people fail to realize how few people it takes to affect a revolution. About 5% of the population will push things to the point where everyone has to choose a side and at that point most revolutions eventually win or at least reform the government to the extent that they are an indirect success.

People said exactly what Beretta is saying when the colonies went to war, when the French Peasant rose, When the Russian Serfs Rose, etc. Heck I have an acquaintance who was involved in Romania not so long ago and most said the same about them defeating the Soviets(who had plenty of Hinds, RPG, mortars, MG, artillery, ICBMS, ruthless special forces and secret police, etc.)

What happens to the US economy if you set off a single fairly large sized car bomb HERE? And that isn't even a GREAT infrastructure target. This is what an insurgency in the US would look like. People thought Jesse Ventura was off his rocker when he said he and a few SEAL friends could drop the US to its knees, but that was because they live in a delusional world where beef magically shows up at their grocery store without an animal having been harmed.
 
Last edited:
Afghanistan took everything the Russians could throw at them and gave in gave it right back. They had surface to air missiles and anti armor weapons that we supplied them, but so would the "rebels". Supply lines and depots are soft targets you cant wast you armor, and aircraft to protect everything.


5% also would out number the military by at least 5 to 1. I have been in for 12 years I think you would see the majority the military defenant;y the guard and reserve units oppose the tyranny(fight for home).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top