What resrictions should be placed on the right to bear arms?

[JD_2B]

Should fully-automatic weapons be restricted when it comes to the general public? Should semi-automatic weapons also be restricted based upon the potential firing rate?

Hell no to both. I say that if the government has the power to own something, and use it, then so should the people, including the ownership and threat of using WMDs. Anything less is tyrannic.

That's absurd. I don't have a problem with semi-auto "assault rifles" whether they are carbines or not. However, when you start getting into machine guns that are belt feed and gas operated and can lay down a ton of rounds/minute it's insane to allow that kind of firepower to fall into the hands of the general public. Even within the military, the weaponry is locked up at all times when soldiers are not on mission.

Civilians who are not on a mission should, then, also lock their machine guns up safely. What makes this any different than a military person having a weapon, just because the "mission" involves another country or, in some cases, such as the Civil War, a specific agenda? You would be well reminded that all military was once civilian, and ends back up civilian, again, if they don't die in service.

I suspect that people who haven't dealt with military armament aren't fully aware of the carnage that a 240-Bravo could unleash on a crowd of people or how fucking lethal an M-203 grenade launcher can be.

And why on Earth would a civilian let loose on a crowd of innocent people? PS- The same thing happens when armed people, who are armed with nothing but semi automatics, even revolver types, go nutso against an unarmed populace. Take Fort Hood, Columbine, and any number of other mass shootings, for example. You don't call that carnage??
The fact is- it only takes ONE bullet to kill someone. Guns will never be safe, but we all have the right to them, and as long as the government has certain rights to them, then so should we. This is all about equality. Government serves the people, or is supposed to. When government goes bad, then there is serious carnage to those served, especially when those people do not have adequate weaponry to protect themselves.

Should ammunition be restricted based on size, penetrating power, or other factors?

No way. Fuck that "saturday night special" ban. Just because something can penetrate a bullet proof vest does not make the weapons that CANT do the same, any less lethal in potential usage. A person can be shot in an area that is not center mass, and still die, so I think that the logic behind banning certain guns or types of ammo is an epic fail here.

More absurdity. Soldiers are trained to shoot center mass, because it's the easiest place to score a hit. You have to be a damn good shot to put a round in someone's head. Shooting them anywhere else will most likely be non-lethal. That's why body armor covers center mass. It's absolutely absurd to say that armor piercing bullets are equivalent to all other bullets, because the average person could just shoot someone in the head. [/quote]

The average person does not just let loose and start shooting at people with an intent to kill them, either.
Point being- if someone WANTS to make a kill, they can do it with any gun they choose. We the people do not need LEGAL shooting ranges to practice, either. Anyone can go out into the most desolate of woods as long as they want, and target practice head shots that way.

I fully support banning armor piercing bullets. It puts our law enforcement officers at risk. Fuck that.

Law Enforcement Officers put the general public at risk every day, but I digress. I am certainly not against having a well trained, ethical police force on our side.. I just happen to know that there are plenty of things that put our law enforcement officers at risk on a daily basis, and none of that seems to really be an issue for them. Meth houses, prone to exploding at any time.. Stings gone bad... And the sheer fact that every situation can be potentially lethal, even giving a speeding ticket... And beyond that, just the amount of driving that many cops tend to do. A cop friend of mine was recently VERY fortunate to have survived a car accident in his cruiser, which crushed the back half of his car, pushing it into the front area. Maybe cops should go back to riding horses. At least that way, they can cut through fields and woods, and not have to worry about those pesky drunk drivers, who, by the way, kill more officers in the line of duty every year than guns do. It is also important to note how many LEOs drink and drive on a regular basis, and are not cited by their fellow LEOs.

Sources:

Law enforcement line-of-duty deaths rose 20 percent during first half of 2009

The number of officers shot and killed rose slightly this year, from 20 in the first half of 2008 to 22 in the first six months of 2009. This year's figure includes nine officers who were gunned down in three separate incidents that occurred within a five-week period this spring. Four Oakland (CA) Police officers were killed March 21; three officers from Pittsburgh (PA) were fatally shot April 4; and two deputies with the Okaloosa County (FL) Sheriff's Office were gunned down April 25.

The number of officers killed in traffic-related incidents increased 17 percent during the first six months of 2009, from 30 to 35. Traffic-related incidents -- automobile and motorcycle crashes and instances in which officers are struck while outside their police vehicles -- remain the leading cause of death among law enforcement officers in the United States, a trend that began 12 years ago. At least six traffic-related deaths this year have involved drunk drivers.* Eight officers succumbed to job-related physical ailments during the first half of 2009, double the number during the first six months of 2008. In addition, one officer died in a helicopter crash this year.
* Twenty-four states experienced at least one law enforcement fatality during the first six months of 2009. Florida had seven fatalities; California, Pennsylvania and Texas had six each. Three federal law enforcement officers also died this year.
* All 66 officers killed during the first half of 2009 were men. By contrast, nearly 10 percent of the officers killed in all of 2008 were women, the highest percentage in history.

The "big brotherhood" babysitter crowd:

Possum cops [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

Since you are in law school, you might be interested in this little bit of criminality in which the criminals had armor piercing bullets and automatic weapons.

CNN - Botched L.A bank heist turns into bloody shootout - Feb. 28, 1997

It does not make a difference whether they wore armor or not, or how strong or pointy the ammo is. A person can get shot in the leg and die. People tend to have more leg mass than they have chest mass, and then there are heads that can be shot at also.
It should also be noted that those officers were indeed shot, but not killed.

I also think it is pretty pathetic when 200 cops (who were all involved) can't tell the media straight that they are sure that they caught all of the criminals involved with something like this. However, you have to give all involved credit- The criminals, for being so organized in their psychopathic killing spree for money, and the cops, for going to civilian owned GUN shops for more powerful guns (which would not be available to police at all if powerful guns were banned) and putting forth as much effort and man power as possible. I also commend them on the way they informed the public and kept as many bystanders as safe as possible.
The thing to remember is, this was a VERY masterfully minded, well organized attack on a bank, and had the police had bazookas and tanks, those criminals would surely have organized themselves to be capable of withstanding and overcoming such force. As sick and fucked up as those criminals were, they were absolutely brilliant in the way that they executed their plan. (Til they died, anyways, LMAO!!) Since this was a case of a well thought out, planned and executed attack, using black market merchandise, then it stands to reason that the better armed the cops are, the better armed smart criminals will also attempt to be. Cops could wear three inch thick Iron armor, and criminals will still find a way to take them out, if that is a part of their master plan. I hate that, but it is just reality.

Also, I am not in law school, but I plan on going to law school, in a couple years. Thanks for the compliment, by the way!!

 

[geauxtohell]

Civilians who are not on a mission should, then, also lock their machine guns up safely. What makes this any different than a military person having a weapon, just because the "mission" involves another country or, in some cases, such as the Civil War, a specific agenda? You would be well reminded that all military was once civilian, and ends back up civilian, again, if they don't die in service.

What civilians should do and what they actually do are two separate things. The UCMJ governs the arms room with an iron fist. If you ever want to see a hootenanny, watch what happens when a unit loses a weapon or NVGs and the entire post is locked down.

Thanks for the reminder about the military coming from the citizenry. Most of us who were in the military and are now common citizens have witnessed the destruction that military armament can cause and know that it should be controlled.

What makes this different are soldiers who are trying to match the firepower of another Army on the field of battle versus the actual safety needs of Bubba and his fishing buddies.

The larger issue here, that was not anticipated by the founding fathers, was the evolution of weaponry. We have to balance safety with rights. I think we do a pretty good job of that.

And why on Earth would a civilian let loose on a crowd of innocent people?

Are you serious? You asked this question and then just referenced examples of this occurring. Why would civilians do something like that? I am going to put my money on them being psychopathic or maybe not. Do you remember the Jonesboro Arkansas shootings? When a couple of eight year olds opened up on their school during recess with hunting rifles? They still never figured out why the hell they did that.

What could they have done with a crew served weapon? The kind where you aim with tracer rounds.

PS- The same thing happens when armed people, who are armed with nothing but semi automatics, even revolver types, go nutso against an unarmed populace. Take Fort Hood, Columbine, and any number of other mass shootings, for example. You don't call that carnage??

Yes. And I see no reason to make it easier for such people to get their hands on better weaponry.

The fact is- it only takes ONE bullet to kill someone.

Yeah, and a well trained shooter can do that. The rest of the world greatly increases their odds of killing people by sending a thousand bullets down range.

Guns will never be safe, but we all have the right to them, and as long as the government has certain rights to them, then so should we. This is all about equality. Government serves the people, or is supposed to. When government goes bad, then there is serious carnage to those served, especially when those people do not have adequate weaponry to protect themselves.

Please. It was a lopsided fight in 1863 when the firepower was about on par between a citizen and a federal infantryman. Throw tactics, logistics, artillery, CAS, and Armor in on top of that and it's not even an academic exercise anymore.

The average person does not just let loose and start shooting at people with an intent to kill them, either.
Point being- if someone WANTS to make a kill, they can do it with any gun they choose. We the people do not need LEGAL shooting ranges to practice, either. Anyone can go out into the most desolate of woods as long as they want, and target practice head shots that way.

It's a lot easier to kill a lot more people with a machine gun as opposed to a semi-auto rifle.

Law Enforcement Officers put the general public at risk every day, but I digress. I am certainly not against having a well trained, ethical police force on our side.. I just happen to know that there are plenty of things that put our law enforcement officers at risk on a daily basis, and none of that seems to really be an issue for them.

LAPD CHIEF ENDORSES BAN ON ARMOR-PIERCING AMMO. - Free Online Library

It does not make a difference whether they wore armor or not, or how strong or pointy the ammo is. A person can get shot in the leg and die. People tend to have more leg mass than they have chest mass, and then there are heads that can be shot at also.
It should also be noted that those officers were indeed shot, but not killed.

Two officers were killed. Also, yes, you can die if you are shot in the leg, but your odds are a lot lower than if you are shot center mass.

I also think it is pretty pathetic when 200 cops (who were all involved) can't tell the media straight that they are sure that they caught all of the criminals involved with something like this. However, you have to give all involved credit- The criminals, for being so organized in their psychopathic killing spree for money

I am loath to give white separatists credit for anything.

Since this was a case of a well thought out, planned and executed attack, using black market merchandise, then it stands to reason that the better armed the cops are, the better armed smart criminals will also attempt to be. Cops could wear three inch thick Iron armor, and criminals will still find a way to take them out, if that is a part of their master plan. I hate that, but it is just reality.

And you want to take these items off the black market?

 

[Zander]

An armed society is a polite society. I like the idea of every person carrying a concealed weapon at all times, even when having sex. Anything worth doing is worth overdoing, right?

 

[uscitizen]

But Claymores are so much fun on haloween.

I know I know... My motto is "There is no problem that cannot be solved with the proper application of high explosives."

So many just don't get the "proper application" part and freak out. LOL

Buncha Nervous Nellys.

And nothing more fun than a roll of primacord.

 

[JD_2B]

It's confusing because she's confused, unable to segregate out and make distinctions. That leads her to make absurd points like someone who has a few a drinks a day is in the same category as Jeffrey Dahmer.

I smell the stench of Libertarianism afoot.....

Well, we had a lot of things change recently, in our state, but there did used to be a statute that said that someone who "habitually used alcohol", which could be defined as broadly or narrowly as the judge wants.

This is not about ME being unable to differentiate between what is rational and what is not. The Judicial system is the branch that defines the laws. The legislation starts out vague, and the judges make decisions based on whatever bias they might or might not have, in any case, which is how we end up with the more specific laws.

In my state, it is now illegal to use a firearm if you blow anything higher than a 0.05 on a breathalyzer, with certain exceptions. Being 5'2", that would be a "few" drinks for me. However, I assume that you are a male, and a "few" drinks is probably more like 4 or 5, which would also give you a 0.05 or higher on the breathalyzer. In any event, it is up to the judge.

Just sayin...

 

[Toronado3800]

The assault rifle ban and similar laws are lip service given by Democrats to the single issue "anti-gun" voters who show up at the poles and vote Democrat every election. Practically the Clinton ban didn't accomplish much.

To be "fair and balanced" or non biased I will point out it's a similar political strategy to what the Republicans do for their anti-abortion single issue voters. 20 of the last 28 years Republicans have been President and have done similarly little to stop abortion yet the single issue voters still turn out.

My personal views are mostly in line with the "no grenade launcher or auto weapon" posts. What are the regulations on maximum caliber or range of single shot weapons? Can I buy or build a gun that will shoot xxx feet but not xxxxx feet?

 

[uscitizen]

Anyone caught out hunting while drunk should be beaten severely.

 

[JD_2B]

Civilians who are not on a mission should, then, also lock their machine guns up safely. What makes this any different than a military person having a weapon, just because the "mission" involves another country or, in some cases, such as the Civil War, a specific agenda? You would be well reminded that all military was once civilian, and ends back up civilian, again, if they don't die in service.

What civilians should do and what they actually do are two separate things. The UCMJ governs the arms room with an iron fist. If you ever want to see a hootenanny, watch what happens when a unit loses a weapon or NVGs and the entire post is locked down.

You underestimate my knowledge of military dealings. I am a veteran, my dear, and it is a lucky day to have the whole post locked down, much less informed of something like that in time TO lock it down.

Thanks for the reminder about the military coming from the citizenry. Most of us who were in the military and are now common citizens have witnessed the destruction that military armament can cause and know that it should be controlled.

I was Base Security, asshole. Dont fucking talk downto me like some kind of civilian who doesn't know how full of shit you are, when it comes to being INSIDE OF THE BORDERS OF the UNITED STATES.

What makes this different are soldiers who are trying to match the firepower of another Army on the field of battle versus the actual safety needs of Bubba and his fishing buddies.

You are AGAIN making a PATHETIC attempt at trying to veil the actual reality of the US Constitution's Jurisdiction covering ONLY friendly grounds, and is mainly for the purpose of protecting the rights of the people who actually live right here, in the US of A. This IS about Bubba and his fishing buddies, not you and your PTSD comrades who just washed up from years of war.
Thanks by the way.

The larger issue here, that was not anticipated by the founding fathers, was the evolution of weaponry. We have to balance safety with rights. I think we do a pretty good job of that.

No we have never had to balance safety with rights. That is a Brady Campaign propaganda statement, nothing more.

And why on Earth would a civilian let loose on a crowd of innocent people?

Are you serious? You asked this question and then just referenced examples of this occurring. Why would civilians do something like that? I am going to put my money on them being psychopathic or maybe not. Do you remember the Jonesboro Arkansas shootings? When a couple of eight year olds opened up on their school during recess with hunting rifles? They still never figured out why the hell they did that.

Arrgh. You were comparing civilians doing this with machine guns versus automatic weapons, and the carnage you associate with machine guns, VERSUS the latter. Now you are totally anti gun?? WTF??
I could also describe a hundred events in which someone stabbed someone or some kids drowned in their parent's pool.. but we aren't looking at banning pools, now are we.

And I see no reason to make it easier for such people to get their hands on better weaponry.

The thing is- criminals do not OBEY the law. Shocker, right?
Actually, law abiding citizens DO obey the law. Gee..
Sooooo.. when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns. The cases we both mentioned are proof enough of this, that I do not need to clarify this point any further. If law abiding citizens were allowed to have better guns, then they would have a better chance at taking out malicious criminals, before their own lives are taken. Golly gee.

The fact is- it only takes ONE bullet to kill someone.

Yeah, and a well trained shooter can do that. The rest of the world greatly increases their odds of killing people by sending a thousand bullets down range.

Like I just said.. And again- if someone has planned something like this, as long as these criminals did, then they, too, will spend the time and money on the ammo to get their aim down pat. In this situation, I have no doubt that those bank robbers could have easily shot a bunch of cops in the face. They didn't because they were already at an advantage with their ALREADY ILLEGAL armor piercing bullets. It is already illegal- you can't make something any more illegal, once it is already outlawed. See??
If the cops had thicker armor, then the criminals would of course know this, and simply buy black market bombs and such, and do their damage a different way. Name your criminal act/ merchandise that can be made illegal- Criminals tend to think they are above the law, and will inevitably get their hands on it, if they want it badly enough.

Please. It was a lopsided fight in 1863 when the firepower was about on par between a citizen and a federal infantryman. Throw tactics, logistics, artillery, CAS, and Armor in on top of that and it's not even an academic exercise anymore.

The mission was different, though. It was local, and in any local war, civilians can, should, and DO fight for their lives, or just out of fear for their lifes. I believe that you have personal knowledge of this.

It's a lot easier to kill a lot more people with a machine gun as opposed to a semi-auto rifle.

Yet, machine guns are not the main cause of death in gun crimes. And yes, they ARE legal to obtain, and you REALLY don't see owners going around shooting up the cops or civilians with them. Good grief!! Get a grip.

LAPD CHIEF ENDORSES BAN ON ARMOR-PIERCING AMMO. - Free Online Library

Duh. I don't have to read it to believe it. California as a whole is notoriously liberal and anti gun. I would guess that at least 75% of all Brady Campaigners live there.

Two officers were killed. Also, yes, you can die if you are shot in the leg, but your odds are a lot lower than if you are shot center mass.

No- two officers were injured, as per your article, dude. Also, you need to understand the study of ballistics and bullet construction to really understand that arms and legs are just as deadly to shoot at as the heart itself, and even the brain. 66% of people who were shot in the head, and treated at Cook County Hospital, in Chicago, lived. Also, artificial hearts are available, and people have been known to survive hits to the heart. In fact, bullet proof vests are really quite stupid to use as a protection against piercing bullets. The longer the bullet stays close, the more damage it can inflict. I would venture a guess that the officers who have died in the line of duty as a result of being shot WITH body armor on, more than likely died as a result of having more damage done to them as a RESULT of the body armor either disrupting the bullet's integrity, or absorbing more of the shock from the bullet, and causing more trauma to their body, than would have happened if the bullet just gone straight through. (Assuming that it fragmented, whether or not it did any severe damage to any vital organs, or crush any ribs or other bones along the way)

HowStuffWorks "Where's the best place on your body to get shot?"

The Bullet Wound Ballistics

I am loath to give white separatists credit for anything.

I did not mean we should give them a medal.. Stop dodging the questions and issues please.

And you want to take these items off the black market?

Obviously not. <sigh>

 

[geauxtohell]

I was Base Security, asshole. Dont fucking talk downto me like some kind of civilian who doesn't know how full of shit you are, when it comes to being INSIDE OF THE BORDERS OF the UNITED STATES.

How "full of shit" am I?

You are AGAIN making a PATHETIC attempt at trying to veil the actual reality of the US Constitution's Jurisdiction covering ONLY friendly grounds, and is mainly for the purpose of protecting the rights of the people who actually live right here, in the US of A. This IS about Bubba and his fishing buddies, not you and your PTSD comrades who just washed up from years of war.
Thanks by the way.

That was un-necessary. I'd take offense if anything on here truly offended me and you weren't a REMF.

Thanks for guarding the base.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's confusing because she's confused, unable to segregate out and make distinctions. That leads her to make absurd points like someone who has a few a drinks a day is in the same category as Jeffrey Dahmer.

I smell the stench of Libertarianism afoot.....

Well, we had a lot of things change recently, in our state, but there did used to be a statute that said that someone who "habitually used alcohol", which could be defined as broadly or narrowly as the judge wants.

This is not about ME being unable to differentiate between what is rational and what is not. The Judicial system is the branch that defines the laws. The legislation starts out vague, and the judges make decisions based on whatever bias they might or might not have, in any case, which is how we end up with the more specific laws.

In my state, it is now illegal to use a firearm if you blow anything higher than a 0.05 on a breathalyzer, with certain exceptions. Being 5'2", that would be a "few" drinks for me. However, I assume that you are a male, and a "few" drinks is probably more like 4 or 5, which would also give you a 0.05 or higher on the breathalyzer. In any event, it is up to the judge.

Just sayin...

I'm glad you're just sayin it because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In my state as well it is illegal to use a firearm while intoxicated. That has nothing to do with owning one. But being in possession of one while impaired is a no no.
What is "impaired"? The law provides something like an objective standard. Laws are intentionally vague because you cannot foresee every circumstance. That is where judges are supposed to use their discretion.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

If you defend the 2nd amendment on the grounds upon which is was originally justified, you must admit that we'd need heavy weapons to stop the US army.

And a lot of wishful thinking.

What're you babbling about?

The reason for the 2nd amendment was so the People could kill the politicians of the Fed and the armies serving it if things turned oppressive.

If one seeks to defend it on those original grounds, then the question arises of what would be needed to allow the people to do that-- and the defense of the 2nd amendment non those grounds necessitates supporting the legal possession of weapons sufficient to defend against the US Army.

 

[FA_Q2]

Many states have no restrictions on insane people posessing guns.

How do you think the NRA exists?

LOL.

The thing to remember is, this was a VERY masterfully minded, well organized attack on a bank, and had the police had bazookas and tanks, those criminals would surely have organized themselves to be capable of withstanding and overcoming such force. As sick and fucked up as those criminals were, they were absolutely brilliant in the way that they executed their plan.

That is completely untrue. If 302&#8217;s and Gatling guns were at their disposal they would have went with those weapons instead of settling for simple armor piercing rounds as they would have likely succeeded. Short of military, there is no need of weapons of that form in public. The difference between the death that a 302 can cause and a rifle is insane. I am not against fully automatic weapons. I am against weapons that have the explicit intentions of destroying large amounts of things very quickly.

Unfortunately, this is not completely honest with the intent of the second amendment. I agree with the sentiment posted earlier though, war between civilians and the military is not an issue as weaponry has advanced to a point as to be impossible. A civil war would have to be assisted by elements within the military.

Please. It was a lopsided fight in 1863 when the firepower was about on par between a citizen and a federal infantryman. Throw tactics, logistics, artillery, CAS, and Armor in on top of that and it's not even an academic exercise anymore.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The assault rifle ban and similar laws are lip service given by Democrats to the single issue "anti-gun" voters who show up at the poles and vote Democrat every election. Practically the Clinton ban didn't accomplish much.

To be "fair and balanced" or non biased I will point out it's a similar political strategy to what the Republicans do for their anti-abortion single issue voters. 20 of the last 28 years Republicans have been President and have done similarly little to stop abortion yet the single issue voters still turn out.

My personal views are mostly in line with the "no grenade launcher or auto weapon" posts. What are the regulations on maximum caliber or range of single shot weapons? Can I buy or build a gun that will shoot xxx feet but not xxxxx feet?

Currently the federal laws all concern automatic weapons versus non automatic. There are no laws banning or restricting semi automatic weapons or single shot, lever action or bolt action. No matter the caliber. There are laws about barrel length for firearms but they are very lax. ANd apply to only a few narrow cases.

Federal law does not even ban fully automatic weapons. It simply requires that one must aplly for and obtain a permit/license to own each individual weapon that is capable of fully automatic weapons fire. Last time I checked only something like 13 States have out right bans on fully automatic weapons.

One has to understand where these bans and license requirements came from as well. During the 20's and 30's thompson submachine guns became a weapon of choice of gangsters and small gangs that robbed banks and other establishments. It was a real problem.

My personal opinion is that a fully automatic weapon is no longer a single user weapon but a support weapon. A squad weapon designed to assist a GROUP of troops. This is borne out by how they are employed in the military. With the exception of the early M-16A1 the military did not issue fully automatic weapons to all soldiers. The weapons were employed by one man in a fireteam or squad. Even with the M16a1 the use of full auto was discouraged and only one member of a team was expected to use it except in final defensive fire situations.

Keep the license requirement for full auto and keep reasonable restrictions on none rifle pistol weapons. I am opposed to ANY more restrictions on firearms though. We have enough.

I am also opposed to the blanket removal of rights to people that have finished any criminal punishment requirements. If the Government has no reason to hold or monitor them they have no reason to take away their rights.

Just for information purposes, one can petition to have their right to bear arms returned to them if it is removed legally. The petition is sent to the Secretary of the Treasury. Of course we all know that such a request is going to be ignored.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is specious reasoning.
First, as of July 1986 no full auto weapons could be manufactured for transfer to private individuals. That is a severe restriction on supply, and prices have gone accordingly.
Second, a full auto weapon is no more or less deadly than any other weapon. It is certainly less deadly than a car or airplane. If anyone saw the St Valentine's Day Massacre where George Segal sprays down a restaurant with his Thompson, let me tell you it doesn't happen that way. Full autos are almost universally uncontrollable after the second shot.

But most of the full auto weapons around were designed for single person carry, like the Thompson (issued WW2 and Korea, some on Vietnam), the Uzi, the MP5, etc.
Since there has been one incidence of an NFA weapon used in a crime since 1936 it seems these arent used that much. No reason to ban or restrict them.

 

[FA_Q2]

Second, a full auto weapon is no more or less deadly than any other weapon. It is certainly less deadly than a car or airplane. If anyone saw the St Valentine's Day Massacre where George Segal sprays down a restaurant with his Thompson, let me tell you it doesn't happen that way. Full autos are almost universally uncontrollable after the second shot.

That is only true if there is an intended target. A full auto would be far more dangerous in a crowded aria. Though, as you said, that is an extreme and rare case and does not warrant banning.

 

[The Rabbi]

Second, a full auto weapon is no more or less deadly than any other weapon. It is certainly less deadly than a car or airplane. If anyone saw the St Valentine's Day Massacre where George Segal sprays down a restaurant with his Thompson, let me tell you it doesn't happen that way. Full autos are almost universally uncontrollable after the second shot.

That is only true if there is an intended target. A full auto would be far more dangerous in a crowded aria. Though, as you said, that is an extreme and rare case and does not warrant banning.

Why would it be more dangerous than, say a molotov cocktail, which anyone with a whiskey bottle and a rag can make?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I still say NO

 

[GHook93]

You underestimate my knowledge of military dealings. I am a veteran, my dear, and it is a lucky day to have the whole post locked down, much less informed of something like that in time TO lock it down.

I was Base Security, asshole.

I didn't know this!

The thing is- criminals do not OBEY the law. Shocker, right?
Actually, law abiding citizens DO obey the law. Gee..
Sooooo.. when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns. The cases we both mentioned are proof enough of this, that I do not need to clarify this point any further. If law abiding citizens were allowed to have better guns, then they would have a better chance at taking out malicious criminals, before their own lives are taken. Golly gee.

Exactly the vast majority of gun violence comes from criminals and gang-bangers, who 99 times out of 100 are using illegal guns. Criminals do not obey the law, civilians do. Take away civilian's rights to defend themselves, then you empower criminals. If it was up to the extreme gun control crowd they would want the liquor store clerk to have nothing when the robber comes in with an illegal 45!

 

[geauxtohell]

If you defend the 2nd amendment on the grounds upon which is was originally justified, you must admit that we'd need heavy weapons to stop the US army.

And a lot of wishful thinking.

What're you babbling about?

The reason for the 2nd amendment was so the People could kill the politicians of the Fed and the armies serving it if things turned oppressive.

If one seeks to defend it on those original grounds, then the question arises of what would be needed to allow the people to do that-- and the defense of the 2nd amendment non those grounds necessitates supporting the legal possession of weapons sufficient to defend against the US Army.

A weapon is just a tool. It is useless without the skill and desire to use it.

But if you think a bunch of citizens are going to stand up to a mechanized infantry company, have at it.

 

[geauxtohell]

My personal opinion is that a fully automatic weapon is no longer a single user weapon but a support weapon. A squad weapon designed to assist a GROUP of troops. This is borne out by how they are employed in the military. With the exception of the early M-16A1 the military did not issue fully automatic weapons to all soldiers. The weapons were employed by one man in a fireteam or squad. Even with the M16a1 the use of full auto was discouraged and only one member of a team was expected to use it except in final defensive fire situations.

Yeah, that was the whole reason for the M249 SAW, to augment the firepower lost by taking the full auto M-16's away. Now we have three round burst, but we never trained to use it.