What is your arguement for full auto?

They were trying to set up a democratic government,
Click to expand...

Peach, before you accuse other people of twisting the words of the Founding Fathers, you really ought to read them yourself. If you had, you'd know that they were unalterably opposed to democracy.

That's why they founded a Republic. There is a world of difference between those two, a difference they, and those who have read them more than superficially, understand very well.
 
Let's see if I got this straight...

Because someone else might do something bad with something, like a full-auto weapon, I should be forced to jump through hoops and pay through the nose to buy such a device myself.

Do you know how many millions of dollars of damage are done to our economy, how many lives ruined, by computer bank theft, hacking, identity theft, credit fraud and other crimes that are only made possible by having access to an internet-connected computer. Perhaps if we made everyone who wanted an internet connection or, better yet, everyone who wanted a computer pay a $200 tax, get fingerprinted and go through a background check and a de facto six-to-eight month waiting period. That'd help protect society from the damage these machines can cause, right?:rolleyes:
 
MP-5K

Our local range just aquired one of these. Man, what a blast.

Very controllable and the recoil isn't even noticable. All 31 rounds in a 12 circle at 15 yards from the shoulder. I'm hooked.

I wonder if I could cut down my G3?:eek:

I gotta get outa Illinois.
 
I'm more or less with appeach on this one. I don't think the supply should be limited via outlawing new manufacture for civis but heck yess you should have to jump through hoops and get liscensed. Just like you do with that ooh so much more familiar deadly device the automobile. I'm against private ownership of backpack nuclear 'devices' as well.

Some of you live in caves types should read a little and you'd realize that if governments as a concept didn't greatly benifit the people their wouldn't be any governments. Same thing with laws. yea thier is abuse but it's still much much better to have them.

shiro
 
Well, so far Peach and his defender have demonstrated two things: they don't know history, and they cannot spell English. As to 'the government doing things for us,' which seems to be the foundation for their skepticism about full-auto possession: it's never a question of 'for us;' it' s always a question of 'to us.' Let me explain.

The Government, in a sane society, is merely a guarantor of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for its citizens. Thus, the Government's principal internal duty is to post the civilian version of the 10 Commandments, and equitably enforce them. Its principal external duty is to preserve the nation against foreign enemies.

Having said that, the citizens thus allow the Government to do certain things to them. Tax them for defense; regulate their behaviors, etc. Government should NOT do anything "for" the citizen--because most likely in doing "for" one, it is doing "to" another. In other words, this can become inequitable.

There comes a point, and we know not exactly when, when the Government's 'doing to,' equitably, becomes 'doing for,' usually INequitably. That point occurred in America around the time of FDR, and has gotten steadily more and more intrusive since, almost on a parabolic scale.

I am not an anarchist; but when in comes down to my Government or my family, there's no choice. And when Peach and his friend get old enough to have a family to provide for and defend, I hope they understand our posts.
 
Owning weapons, in whatever form, is not an entitlement that the government of the United States grants us.

It is a right, specifically a right to self-defense and to insure freedom from tyrannical rule, that we have inherited from the Fathers of this Country.

All rights evolve from power, even the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When the government - or it's minions - try to dictate to free men what rights they have, then free men have the right to say no, and create a different goverment.

That's what the RKBA does : gives free men the right to say "no" and the power to back it up.
 
Some of you live in caves types
Click to expand...


There are different kinds of caves in which to live. One of the worst is that in which most of America lives - the cave of ignorance. Knowing little or nothing of history, little or nothing of political philosophy, and getting most, if not all, of their 'knowledge' of current events from the mainstream media. This is a dark cave, indeed. Many who call themselves conservative live here.


Something that rarely lives in such a dark place is logic. For example, such a cave dweller is likely to hear, "Government should be limited, as the tendency is always toward tyranny." And the cave dweller will think what has been said is, "All government is bad, and we shouldn't have any."


Something that is NEVER found in such places is TRUTH.
 
shiroikuma,

As was stated above, owning cars is a PRIVILEGE granted by the government. They can legally regulate privaleges.

Owning FIREARMS of ANY variety is a RIGHT. The government cannot LEGALLY regulate a right.

There is a huge difference between rights and privileges.

cheers

tire iron
 
I'm sorry. I didn't know you needed a fully automatic weapon to protect your family. You'd have to be a really bad shot to need one. But anyways, are you expecting about 10 people to break into your house anytime soon, because otherwise, there's no need for a fully automatic weapon for home defense. It's been stated numerous times that their only purpose in civilian ownership is for recreation, and recreation definetly doesn't include home defense. And hey, for all you revolutionary types, why don't you start another revolution since your rights are being trampled. Obviously our government is doing nothing for you, so it's worthless. Might as well start a new one. Now that's something I'd like to read about in the newspaper. Oh, and another thing tire iron, the government dictates what is legal and what isn't. Without a government there is no defenition of illegal and legal. Everything just is, so you might want to think about rewording that.
 
And hey, for all you revolutionary types, why don't you start another revolution since your rights are being trampled. Obviously our government is doing nothing for you, so it's worthless. Might as well start a new one. Now that's something I'd like to read about in the newspaper
Click to expand...

First, there are cases in the court system at several levels addressing exactly these rights. Rational free men use their rights as they were honestly intended. Right now, American's First Amendment rights are being exercised in an effort to preserve/re-establish the Second Amendment.

Second, starting a new government isn't necessary, IMHO. Just needs a tune-up, clean out the built up gunk that's been layered on over the years.

Third, I hope you'll always be able to read about things like this in your newspaper. When you can't, it' s too late.

As I said above, rational free men are exercising their rights. Preservation of your right to promote anarchy, as you did above, is also being defended. It's just a shame you're unable to appreciate that and what's required to preserve that right for you.
 
Apeach,

IF you knew history, you would realize that the government gets its power FROM the people. At least it was set up that way over 200 years ago. As stated so well above by chetchat and CaptainHoek and others, the Government CANNOT do ANYTHING for someone WITHOUT FIRST TAKING IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE!!

As Thomas Jefferson stated "anyone that would give up a little freedom for (supposed) security - deserves neither." {The word in parathesis is part of the original statement.} You apparently fit that catagory.

So, in your world if the Government makes the laws, and it is your "duty" to obey those laws - what will you do when guns are outlawed? What about if they make it a law to turn in your gun owning friends? What about if they make it a law to discriminate against others because of race, religion, creed other some such catagory?

Apeach - the Nazi's were successful BECAUSE people in Germany had the same attitude towards government as you do.

We are supposed to "always view government with a jaundiced eye" - the advice of our founders.

So - I will NOT re-word my statement. Just because the government MAKES the laws - does not make those laws "right". We the people have the responsibility to change those laws through peaceful means. IF those means prove ineffectual, then we have the responsibility to use less savory means.

"The tree of liberty must be sprinkled from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots" - Thomas Jefferson

Believe me - I am not an advocate of armed revolution. It is mine (and should "our" collective) goal to turn this government around by any and all peaceful means. And I hope that I go to my grave, and my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren et al, go to their graves without having to use arms. But the option MUST be there - or the threat is hollow.

cheers

tire iron
 
It's been stated numerous times that their only purpose in civilian
Click to expand...

Stated by whom, and so what? What you obviously don't understand it that firearms ownership is a RIGHT, and doesn't require that any "need" be proven to justify that right.

And, for the record, the purpose of civilians owning arms, stated to be so by the Founding Fathers (whom you obviously have NOT read) is to do just what you have suggested - to carry out a revolution, should that become necessary.

As tire iron and chetchat have ably pointed out, that time is not yet, and many of us are using the system to attempt to reform the system.


As for the government "doing" something for us - the Constitution spells out clearly the duties and the limits of the Federal government. It has several legitimate functions, for example, defending from foreign attack. If it would stay within it's Constitutional boundaries, there would be no talk of revolution, for there would be no cause for it.

But the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that power corrupts, and that the tendency of government is always towards tyranny. They therefore recognized (not granted) the right of the people to take up arms to counter such tendencies. Obviously, then, they intended the ordinary citizens to have arms of military significance, not merely for recreation or personal self defence.


May I suggest you begin getting aquainted with American history? You could start by reading the Declaration of Independence. (That was the document that formally declared the independence of the American colonies from England.) Then you might read the Constitution, then perhaps the Federalist Papers. (The Fed Papers were political tracts written by some of the Founding Fathers. In them they expressed their views on why the Constitution should be ratified by the States. They carefully explain the reasons for setting up the Federal government in the manner specified in Constitution.)

Who knows? You might even come to appreciate freedom, and learn to value our Constitution for the freedom it provides, rather than valuing our bloated, criminal central government for what it can "do" for you.


"Ask not what your country can do for you, aks what you can do for your country." And that, from a Democrat.




"Tire Iron". I like that. A different kind of weapon. Not much range, though. :D
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry. I didn't know you needed a fully automatic weapon to protect your family.
Click to expand...

This sort of statement is becoming so commonplace in our society that it's nearly cliche.
Far too often I hear people say that 'No one needs X, that's just excessive.'

Where X refers to V-8 engines, SUV's, cargo pants with 37 pockets, standard capacity magazines, dual-processor computers, full-auto weapons, or 6-figure incomes.

The thing is, that rights are not based upon what another individual's perception of your needs are.

As soon as you start limiting things based on what you think another person needs, you begin to encroach on their freedom.
(I strongly suggest you go read some Ayn Rand, she cuts right to the chase in this matter. Start off with 'Atlas Shrugged.')
After all, the only basic right one has is to his or her life. But the means to that basic right is inexorably tied to property rights, or the ability for an individual to decide what is best for him/herself.

Without property rights, no other rights are possible, as they are the means to owning oneself and insuring one's life, liberty, and happiness.
 
Thanks CaptainHoek,

My monicker comes from my USMC days. I was a recon marine (2nd Force) from '85-'89. I know that makes me "old" now, but our platoom commander gave us all nicknames from a vehicle (he was really into cars). So the biggest, strongest guy that usually carried more than anybody else was "trunk", the smartest guy was "computer chip", the pack rat of the outfit was "glove box", the fastest runner was "speedometer" etc. I happened to excell at the combative skills (armed and unarmed) - so I was named "tire iron". Kinda stuck.

cheers

tire iron
 
CaptianHoek,

LOL!!!

Hey, were you at the shoot on Friday? Maybe we met and did not know it. After reading your post I thought, that would be cool to meet this guy sometime. Then I noticed you live in the same great patriotic state I do. Cool. BTW, where does "CaptainHoek" come from?

cheers

tire iron
 
Apeach & friend,

You have a lot to learn.

I suggest you both open your ears and your minds and close your mouths for a while. It is patently obvious from your posts that you are young and have either not been exposed to this information before, have been exposed and are terminally closed-minded, or are simply incapable of understanding the argument. I doubt the latter two. Not because of the fact that you disagree, but how you disagree and that the type of 'arguments' you are presenting are cliche and very much entry-level as far as understanding this subject goes. There is quite a bit to learn at TFL, read the archives and respectfully enter into polite discussion with the members here and you can learn quite a bit. At the end of it, if you still think we're wrong, then so be it. But lay off the attitude, it's annoying and will keep people from taking you seriously.

- Gabe
 
I just fired my first Full Auto an MP5

I took my time going from Semi to three round bursts, then Full Auto. I think for CQB 3rd burst are all you need. I now know how fast you can empty a 30rd mag and how much ammo you would waste with F/A. I would love to own an MP5 or AC556 but I don't think I would feel under gunned in 95% of Combat situations with just a plain old Semi Auto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top