Select-fire

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Update on the OP

Just an update. Mr. Hamblen (mentioned in the OP) lost his appeal. See here http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/1230/No-right-to-bear-unlicensed-machine-guns-federal-court-says.

 

[OuTcAsT]

I think today that those who choose to face off against the government with guns will end up like the Branch Davidians

Do you mean murdered at the hands of "government" ?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Do you mean murdered at the hands of "government" ?

That, is another thread I won't get into here. Sorry.

 

[Yellowfin]

OK, here's a more plausible one for you that might make a little more sense to you, TG. Consider the case of Arizona where Mexican drug violence is a documented problem, and in other places, increasing in number these days, where Hispanic gang violence is also. There you do have a paramilitary level threat where individuals really could use all the firepower possible for defensive purposes, and waiting on the police and/or military to arrive isn't a survivable option for them. Nor is it the case that LE/.mil have that under control, they clearly don't. How about that case for select fire? Sure it isn't strictly necessary, but an extra measure that would suit the circumstances.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

How about that case for select fire?

Sure it isn't strictly necessary

I think you answer yourself if necessity is what you are talking about. I am not sure that some rancher having an M-16 or a rocket launcher or a 105 MM howitzer is not just as well and better served by an AR-15. I know we are talking about select fire but I know where this rabbit trail leads.

Finally, if such a real threat emerged as you seem to imply, do you really believe that the US govenrment would just sit there, do nothing and tel people to dial 911? I think not. A real paramiltary threat would be met with considerable military force I am certain so I don't see select fire providing much benefit.

Now, my personal opinion is that for civilian self defense the "rock and roll" option is both overrated and inappropriate.

 

[maestro pistolero]

I think the activity of the cartels and it's influence on urban life in the US is as big a national security threat to the US as any middle-eastern country. There are little Mexican towns along the border with populations under 20K that have 1600 people murdered each year. The average soldier in Iraq doesn't face odds like that. I don't know what percentage of violent crime in the US is attributable to drug trafficking, but the number is unlikely to be low.

There have been numerous incursions into the US that are well coordinated, and use superior firepower, including fully automatic weapons that have leaked out of Mexican and South American military regimes. The cartels are well-known to have RPGs, grenades, SFRLs, etc.

I am not saying that the cartel activity has elevated to the point of military action, but it's not far-off, and entirely conceivable.

I am also not suggesting that select-fire is some kind of panacea to ward off ruthless gang lords, but it is certainly not difficult to imagine an escalation of drug violence that would create a vast disparity in firepower that our founders sought to prevent.

But, in such a scenario we have challenges to meet long before the question of select-fire in private hands must be answered, such as how to train a citizenry to be willing and capable of first responder duties until professional forces could arrive. This means local governments allowing trained, screened citizen to carry as a ubiquitous presence, for the purposes of their own defense, especially along the border States who are most terrorized by the criminals.

The reason the cartels operate with such impunity, is partly because of corrupt intermingling with the Mexican government at all levels, and because the Mexican people have no right to keep and bear arms. The chance of a cartel operative being shot by an armed citizen at home in Mexico is near zero. In the US, it might be 30%.

We are so blessed to have enjoyed relative safety on US soil for much of our history. But we should lapse neither into paranoia, nor a false sense of security. We are as vulnerable as we allow ourselves to be, no more and no less.

Tyranny, and terrorism, come in many forms. In Mexico, along our borders, and in our inner cities, it takes the form of Mexican drug cartels. To permanently take select-fire off the table as an option for citizens trained to assist police, in whatever limited role, is a huge mistake and it is antithetical to the original meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, which in part, sought to prevent the disparity of force which always allows a tyrant to prevail.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Maestro,

I am a little confused by your post. I realize that in Mexico there is a horrendous lack of government protection for law-abiding citizens. I also realize that the very orgnizations (the army and the Mexican LEO establishment) are quite corrupt and in some cases preying on those they would protect. However, nothing within the realm of reality is happening here in the US and the above scenario in Mexico happening here is not believable.

Now you post:

There have been numerous incursions into the US that are well coordinated, and use superior firepower, including fully automatic weapons that have leaked out of Mexican and South American military regimes. The cartels are well-known to have RPGs, grenades, SFRLs, etc. I am not saying that the cartel activity has elevated to the point of military action, but it's not far-off, and entirely conceivable.

So are you saying that hordes of drug lord gangs will invade say, El Paso shooting up the city and trying to impose some type of tryanny on it's population and our military and LEO will just stand there or be overwhelmed by the criminals? I see you sort of jumping back and forth between Mexico and the US and there is a yawning gulf of reality between the two.

To permanently take select-fire off the table as an option for citizens trained to assist police, in whatever limited role, is a huge mistake and it is antithetical to the original meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, which in part, sought to prevent the disparity of force which always allows a tyrant to prevail.

Who says we are taking it off the table? The states may raise and arm a miltia if they so choose. Congress may not interfere. Further the states may arm said miltia with any type of military weapon they could buy or obtain (maybe not nukes or chem) if they so choose. However, YOU may not arm yourself without restriction like a state militia might based on your personal desire to own certain weapons without restriction. That is off the table by law I believe.

You know we could fabricate Red Dawn scenarios endlessly but the fact remains that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right of the citizen to defend themselves personally by the use of weapons in common use by civilians for lawful purposes.

 

[maestro pistolero]

So are you saying that hordes of drug lord gangs will invade say, El Paso shooting up the city and trying to impose some type of tryanny on it's population and our military and LEO will just stand there or be overwhelmed by the criminals? I see you sort of jumping back and forth between Mexico and the US and there is a yawning gulf of reality between the two.

No. I thought my post was pretty clear that we are nowhere that scenario, although there have been border incidents where organized groups have entered the US for specific targets. The, threat in my view is in the violence that the far reaching tendrils of the of the drug trade propagates.

I agree with most of your post. There are still States that either restrict or deny 2A rights to the degree that the disparity of force creates a dangerous situation for law abiding folks. I'm not talking specifically about select-fire here.

Who says we are taking it off the table? The states may raise and arm a miltia if they so choose. Congress may not interfere. Further the states may arm said miltia with any type of military weapon they could buy or obtain (maybe not nukes or chem) if they so choose.

But they don't. Training citizens ought to be an on-going process. Perhaps not same level of training that, say, National Guard, because the role is different. Professional forces are always preferable, but can't be everywhere, all the time like citizens. That to me is the beauty of the Militia. A ubiquitous, first responding presence is a formidable deterrent to crime and terror.

However, YOU may not arm yourself without restriction like a state militia might based on your personal desire to own certain weapons without restriction. That is off the table by law I believe.

I do too. But there must be SOME path to do it legally. The Second Amendment is about preserving the balance of power between good and evil. Bans only enable the evil and restrict the good.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The, threat in my view is in the violence that the far reaching tendrils of the of the drug trade propagates.

And you think THAT violence requires full-auto? AN AR-15 or shotgun or good handgun won't stop that? Where is this stuff going on? In the barrio and what about that drug crime necessitates a civilian spraying full auto about?

But they don't. Training citizens ought to be an on-going process.

Have you wondered why that is that states don't really have trained functioning armed miltias anymore? I think it is because the common defense is not longer done by the militia and hasn't for 100 years. I think the common defense is done today by the military and LEOs. Personal defense is done by we citizens normally individually. The militia died for very practical reasons I think.

BTW as to being a "first responder form the militia", don't we have a lot of threads on here about the dangers of imposing ourselves into third party disputes and gun battles? Having the local "militiaman" intervene in some fracas with full auto no less might not be a good thing.

I do too. But there must be SOME path to do it legally.

There is. Have your state support it's miltia (good luck on that) or buy an FA and pay the tax if your state allows it and you are otherwise qualified. BTW restricted to me does not simply mean just a Brady Background Check. I am talking about the NFA and other state restritrictions and the lack thereof as unrestricted.

 

[maestro pistolero]

And you think THAT violence requires full-auto? AN AR-15 or shotgun or good handgun won't stop that?

Sure they would.

I'm not talking specifically about select-fire here.

I guess you missed that part.

Where is this stuff going on? In the barrio and what about that drug crime necessitates a civilian spraying full auto about?

Come on TG, you know I don't mean that.

Let me be candid here. It's not that I think FA is some kind of magic voodoo that sends your enemy scurrying in fear. I'm way more concerned about the public's overall diminishing knowledge or basic ability to defend themselves and community (again, until professionals arrive) than whether or not our rifles have a selector switch on them. If the the bright line were codified that every non-prohibited person could have a semi-auto AR15, AK, with full mag capacity, etc., but not FA, I could accept that, but I don't agree with it. There are elements in out society and government that would deny even that capability.

I am only saying that there needs to be some kind path to ownership and competence with military small arms that satisfies the need for public safety, national security, and the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment. This is only an academic discussion until and unless a real disastrous emergency occurs that overwhelms the professional forces. You must think that scenario is impossible to maintain your position on this. Is that really the point at which we should begin training and equipping citizens to assist? God help us.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

needs to be some kind path to ownership to military small arms that satisfies the need for public safety, national security, and the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment. This is only an academic discussion until and unless a real disastrous emergency occurs that overwhelms the professional forces. You must think that is impossible to maintain your position on this.

I guess that is true. In this day and age the sort of world here in the US where our society would break down to the state that normal citizens would need to own and be trained in the use of military small arms would be a living hell. At least based on what I have seen in places where that type of chaos exists. The militia served a great purpose in the 18th and early 19th century. But in the 21st I don't see it. Not with professional military and LEO. So, I guess I do not buy into any real scenario where we would need to form miltias for self defense outside or even inside government control. Just my opinion on that. The skeleton (thru the COTUS) is there to flesh one out if a state so desires but I do not believe we will ever see such and the longer time goes on the less I see the possibility.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Perhaps you are correct. We'll never have such a situation for the rest of history, and what could be better? But what's the harm in training a few fundamentals: Basic arms instruction, an awareness of command structure, when to assist, how not to interfere, how to identify and make yourself available to authorities, communication skills, etc.

Basic stuff for an emergency that we hope will never happen. I hope never to need my fire extinguisher, but I by-god know how to use it.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

But what's the harm in training a few fundamentals: Basic arms instruction, an awareness of command structure, when to assist, how not to interfere, how to identify and make yourself available to authorities, communication skills, etc.

Nothing wrong with that!

 

[maestro pistolero]

Always a spirited discussion, TG! Thanks.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Though I agree that we are not anywhere close to a situation where we need to take up full auto or select fire arms to protect ourselves from an internal or external threat, I tend to look at this from a purely "politics vs. civil rights" perspective.

I personally don't believe there is a whole lot of difference between full auto and semiauto firearms, other than the mechanism that makes one pull the trigger repeatedly in the case of the semi auto. That is a tangent point. However, it has relevence to the subject of what arms the government can forbid us to have, and where that point falls on the line.

The fact that we have a virtual ban on select fire and full auto firearms led to us also having a ban on military style semi auto firearms at the national level. Thank God that law was put in place with a sunset clause and the liberal anti gun crowd couldn't get enough support to renew it for another 10 years or enact it full time with no sunset clause. There are several states which still have these bans in place; California for example.

The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto. Using this line of reasoning, the government can then ban handguns which are semi auto and can ban handguns which cost too little, as is the case with saturday night specials. The anti's believe the government can ban any sort of firearms they wish to, even though the USSC, in Heller, says that outright bans of "all" types of firearms in the home are unconstitutional. Still, the USSC doesn't say what types of firearms can be banned for home possession, or how many hurdles the government can put in place to make home possession of firearms so difficult as to "virtually" ban them.

Thus, for me, I look at the ban on full auto (at least those made or imported after 1986) as being a tool that the anti's can use in their march to banning as many firearms as is politically possible. The longer these types of bans stay in effect, the more the public accepts them as the norm, and the easier it is to move the ball down the field.

We've had some recent victories playing defense (Heller and the expiration of the AWB94), but we are still on defense in my opinion. Having a strong defense is good, but how long can we hold out without going on offense at least once in a while? That's my fear.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Well said, USAFNoDak. I maintain that there needs to be SOME path available to a law abiding, not-prohibited person from having one that doesn't include purchasing a $20k M16.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I personally don't believe there is a whole lot of difference between full auto and semiauto firearms, other than the mechanism that makes one pull the trigger repeatedly in the case of the semi auto. That is a tangent point.

I think there is a much larger spectrum there than you are acknowledging. What I find in many of these debates is that those who want full access to FA tend to exhibit in their case the "lowest common denominator" meaning the 3 round burst M-16 as opposed to say a M2 .50 cal., SAW or minigun because the 3-round burst M-16 seems a lot tamer than the others. All are FA and they are quite different from one another and are quite different than the semi-auto rifles in common use today. Then we get the "all except crew-served" reply. However, the term crew-served is a military term and does not mean that it takes two of more people to fire it. It just means that in a military organization more than one person may be assigned to it in operation mostly to help carry the ammo. Then it is no exploding ordinance but that too may be successfully carried and fired by a single person. On and on we go so I find it a better criteria to draw the bright line at FA.

The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto. Using this line of reasoning, the government can then ban handguns which are semi auto and can ban handguns which cost too little, as is the case with saturday night specials.

Disagree. I don't think antis believe such. They wish to ban guns because they think they are dangerous to public safety. Just because they ban FA is just another step in the process. They would ban them all if they could and the NFA has not helped them ban other guns in any way I can see. They just say "we should ban these guns because" (take your pick) they are too small, too big, too ugly, too effcient, too whatever.

I think Heller when incorporated will prohibit states from banning weapons in common use by civilians for lawful purposes. That definitely include handguns and may or may not include AR-15 types or .50 BMG. We'll see.

but how long can we hold out without going on offense at least once in a while?

I would say Heller and McDonald are pretty offensive to the antis. CCW too. However, IMHO you can forget about FA, ain't happening either in the court or Congress or public opinion.

 

[maestro pistolero]

However, IMHO you can forget about FA, ain't happening either in the court or Congress or public opinion.

Let's not forget that they are legal RIGHT NOW, in most states. For the rich. The closing of the registration was a back-door, underhanded way to avoid appearing like they created a gun ban, which, in practical terms, they did. It's the difference between chopping off the frogs head, and slowly turning up the heat on the water pot. In the end the result is the same.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto. Using this line of reasoning, the government can then ban handguns which are semi auto and can ban handguns which cost too little, as is the case with saturday night specials.

Disagree. I don't think antis believe such. They wish to ban guns because they think they are dangerous to public safety. Just because they ban FA is just another step in the process. They would ban them all if they could and the NFA has not helped them ban other guns in any way I can see. They just say "we should ban these guns because" (take your pick) they are too small, too big, too ugly, too effcient, too whatever.

They wish to ban guns because they don't like them or they think they are dangerous, etc. I agree. However, they consistently bring up the issue of machine guns when they discuss banning other types of firearms. As an example, they purposely tried to confuse the issue over semiautos vs. machine guns because they knew that the general public is "scared" of machine guns. Thus, if they could fool people into thinking that a semi auto is a "machine gun", it would help to ban the semi autos as well. That is a stated agenda by a notable anti gunner. I can provide the details if you'd like.

Also, look at things that John Kerry said when they were trying to renew the assault weapons ban. He said something to the effect that those are weapons of war and do not belong anywhere outside of a battlefield and certainly not on the streets of america. He said that if americans wanted to use assault weapons, which are weapons of war, there is a place for them, and it's called the US military, and we'd welcome you.

So, the facts and the statements by well known antis would seem to refute your claims that the antis don't try to use the issue of machine guns in their efforts to ban even more types of firearms.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Tennessee Gentleman posted:

I think there is a much larger spectrum there than you are acknowledging. What I find in many of these debates is that those who want full access to FA tend to exhibit in their case the "lowest common denominator" meaning the 3 round burst M-16 as opposed to say a M2 .50 cal., SAW or minigun because the 3-round burst M-16 seems a lot tamer than the others. All are FA and they are quite different from one another and are quite different than the semi-auto rifles in common use today.

I don't see a lot of difference between a Barrett (sp?) .50 cal and a .50 cal machine gun, except that you can fire more rounds in a shorter amount of time with the machine gun. The minigun is a different story because there is no semiauto or other action style similar to it and it would seem very hard to handle by one individual, despite Jesse the Body Ventura in Predator. He was my former governor by the way, but I didn't think he was a top notch governor.

I agree that there is a broad spectrum of firearms available to the military, and whether civilians should have unlimited access to any and all of those is open for debate, due to the issue of the public safety involved. For instance, if you had live grenades and kept them in your highrise appartment complex, what is the collateral damage if one or more were to go off? We can take that debate into many avenues. I was more specifically referring to the difference between non ordnance, hand carriable, or portable firearms. Something as one might see a common infantry soldier carrying. I know that modern infantry soldiers can carry all sorts of things like mortars and such, but again, I was hoping to keep the debate on rifles and handguns.