- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
That should definitely be banned. :mrgreen: You'll shoot your eye out kid.
That should definitely be banned. :mrgreen: You'll shoot your eye out kid.so is this:
marlin 60 .22lr rifle.
A machine gun is known as a machine gun, it uses a belt to feed the ammunition and has a signifigantly larger range than assault rifles, which typically uses shorter load ammunition and a simple spring to create the auto effect.So... is a machinegun not an "automatic assault weapons"?
1986, and there have only been 2 murders committed with a fully automatic weapon.What do you think I have been arguing all this time anyway?!? I support keeping the law as it is because "automatic assault weapons" have been illegal since 1982.
That is not trueMachineguns are used in many crimes illegally,How do you theorize that, they aren't exactly effective for a surprise attack due to their size, criminals rely on the advantage of surprise.and if they were to become legal, then I would suspect that more people would get a hold of them.see my prior point.The price would go down for them, so more of them would be bought.My rights are not dependent on my needs, that invalidates your point completely, secondly, how does one know his house won't be under a blitzkrieg, that is, more than one invader.I don't believe citizens don't use machineguns anyway to defend themselves, so whats the use of making them legal?
They are not illegal. They are just well-regulated. As they should be.
And to your final question. Citizens don't have to use S.U.V.'s to commute to work, what's the use in making them period? The list goes on and on.
The fact is, fully automatic weapons are not illegal, they are attainable, they are possessed by citizens who have gone through the FFL3 process and paid their tax stamp. There is no reason to suggest that these weapons make life any more dangerous than any other potential weapon today.
The price doesnt matter seeing how if you wanted to get one illegally you can. And you don't pay the same price as a law abiding citzen would.
Is this making any sense? I sure hope so.
No. It is not. It is a machinegun or an assault rifle or a submachine gun, but it is NOT an 'assault weapon'.
1: There is no such things as an 'automatic assault weapon'
2: Machineguns are not illegal. I know several people that own them, and a quick search will find several dealers of same.
machine guns for sale - Google Search
Your suspicions are, obviously, wrong.
Not all cars are similar, in fact they have more differences than guns, such as horsepower differences, cornering, acceleration, torque, weight(important in an accident), etc. The point is that my rights aren't based on my needs.? What does the SUV example have to do with anything? Cars make easy for people to go places, and all of them are very simillar, so they should all be legal.
We don't care what you consider a right, and neither did the founding fathers, which is why the second amendment exists to keep those who would violate the naturally ocurring right to self defense by limiting our options in weapons.and i don't consider it a "right" for someone to have a gun. (but the second amendment makes it a right)
Why would you want to limit people's rights? Do you have a compelling reason that does not violate the necessary and proper test?Yeah, im going to have to look up how dangerous certain weapons are so I can draw the line somewhere about where I think the weapons should be illegal (if there was no second amendment). thats for the info on machineguns.
False, you are incorrectly assigning results to the law, machine guns were legal in the eighteen hundreds(Gatling gun) and the murder rate is still less than 10 people by legally owned machine guns.I thought that it was understood that illegal high lethal rating weapons are used in violent crimes. Since those crime rates are low compared to handguns, I think that regulations restricting ownership of those guns seems to work.
Not all cars are similar, in fact they have more differences than guns, such as horsepower differences, cornering, acceleration, torque, weight(important in an accident), etc. The point is that my rights aren't based on my needs.
We don't care what you consider a right, and neither did the founding fathers, which is why the second amendment exists to keep those who would violate the naturally ocurring right to self defense by limiting our options in weapons.
Why would you want to limit people's rights? Do you have a compelling reason that does not violate the necessary and proper test?
False, you are incorrectly assigning results to the law, machine guns were legal in the eighteen hundreds(Gatling gun) and the murder rate is still less than 10 people by legally owned machine guns.
Once again, I dont personally consider gun choice to be a right, so what you are saying about that doesn't really mean much to me.
and we need to take into account that crime rates have gone up all over the world naturely, and not just because of gun restrictions.
and of course gatling guns don't kill many peoplethey are f-ing huge.
Once again our rights don't depend on your personal feelings about them, but your opinion is of concern to me because you have a vote and are apparantly more than happy to surrender my rights to make yourself feel safer.Once again, I dont personally consider gun choice to be a right, so what you are saying about that doesn't really mean much to me.
Crime rates go up when people are easier targets, gun control countries see the statistically largest increases in crime.and we need to take into account that crime rates have gone up all over the world naturely, and not just because of gun restrictions.
?????????and of course gatling guns don't kill many peoplethey are f-ing huge.
Once again, I dont personally consider gun choice to be a right, so what you are saying about that doesn't really mean much to me.
and we need to take into account that crime rates have gone up all over the world naturely, and not just because of gun restrictions.
and of course gatling guns don't kill many peoplethey are f-ing huge.
Nerv14...this is going to sound like a personal attack on the surface, but I don't mean it that way.
To all available evidence you are extremely (one is tempted to say utterly) ignorant on all aspects of firearms, both the technical, the practical, the political, the criminology (use of, deterrence effect, and defensive use), and the historical.
Yet, you esteem your own personal opinion on firearms so highly you place it above the Founders and the Constitution.
An apt comparison, would be if I wanted to regulate and oversee all brain surgery in the USA, determining what proceedures were necessary and desireable, which would be covered under insurance and which wouldn't, etc...when I am not an M.D. and know virtually nothing about brain surgery.
To be perfectly honest, having such a strong opinion on a subject, upon which your lack of knowlege seems all but infinite, is quite incredible (and not in a good way).
I suggest you return to square 1: discard all your opinions first, then proceed to get educated on the subject. Learn the difference between a Remington 700, an AR15, a SAW and a HMG. Read several books on the subject, written from both pro- and anti- positions. Study the statistics, from multiple sources... the Kleck study may prove very intresting, when you realize that every study on the subject reveals that guns are used many times more often to prevent crimes than in any sort of homicide. Go to a range that rents out firearms and shoot a few...I'd suggest starting with a 22 rifle and working up to Glocks and AR's.
Visit a gun store several times and talk to the people there. Get some direct personal knowlege about people who own guns instead of what the news media says.
Finally, take a walk after dark through the worst part of a major city... and ask yourself if you wouldn't feel better if you were armed.
Then your opinion will have something behind it, rather than being based on a near-total lack of understanding.
Again, I apologize if this seemed like a personal attack, it isn't intended as such... but I simply could not go on without pointing out how unwise it is to have such an extreme opinion on a subject of which you appear to know nothing.
G.
Nerv14...this is going to sound like a personal attack on the surface, but I don't mean it that way.
To all available evidence you are extremely (one is tempted to say utterly) ignorant on all aspects of firearms, both the technical, the practical, the political, the criminology (use of, deterrence effect, and defensive use), and the historical.
Yet, you esteem your own personal opinion on firearms so highly you place it above the Founders and the Constitution.
An apt comparison, would be if I wanted to regulate and oversee all brain surgery in the USA, determining what proceedures were necessary and desireable, which would be covered under insurance and which wouldn't, etc...when I am not an M.D. and know virtually nothing about brain surgery.
To be perfectly honest, having such a strong opinion on a subject, upon which your lack of knowlege seems all but infinite, is quite incredible (and not in a good way).
I suggest you return to square 1: discard all your opinions first, then proceed to get educated on the subject. Learn the difference between a Remington 700, an AR15, a SAW and a HMG. Read several books on the subject, written from both pro- and anti- positions. Study the statistics, from multiple sources... the Kleck study may prove very intresting, when you realize that every study on the subject reveals that guns are used many times more often to prevent crimes than in any sort of homicide. Go to a range that rents out firearms and shoot a few...I'd suggest starting with a 22 rifle and working up to Glocks and AR's.
Visit a gun store several times and talk to the people there. Get some direct personal knowlege about people who own guns instead of what the news media says.
Finally, take a walk after dark through the worst part of a major city... and ask yourself if you wouldn't feel better if you were armed.
Then your opinion will have something behind it, rather than being based on a near-total lack of understanding.
Again, I apologize if this seemed like a personal attack, it isn't intended as such... but I simply could not go on without pointing out how unwise it is to have such an extreme opinion on a subject of which you appear to know nothing.
G.
Its fine, but you should look at my last post. I said I need to look at how dangerous certain firearms are.
I do understand that people would want a handgun to protect themselves. This is why I am fine with people owning handguns.
I thought that it was understood that illegal high lethal rating weapons are used in violent crimes. Since those crime rates are low compared to handguns, I think that regulations restricting ownership of those guns seems to work.
Its fine, but you should look at my last post. I said I need to look at how dangerous certain firearms are.
I do understand that people would want a handgun to protect themselves. This is why I am fine with people owning handguns.
Its fine, but you should look at my last post. I said I need to look at how dangerous certain firearms are.
I do understand that people would want a handgun to protect themselves. This is why I am fine with people owning handguns.
Okay, we really really need to start at square one.
People are dangerous. Everything else is an accessory.
A very determined man with some common household chemicals and a little knowlege can kill far more people than any one man with an automatic firearm. Case in point: Timothy McVeigh.
In the Phillipines, there was (maybe still is) a practice called amok. This is when someone, typically but not always a Philipino Muslim, often but not always a skilled exponent of the island's blade-arts of escrima/kali/arnis, runs into a crowd of people with a machete, chopping off body parts. They are said to be in a state of killing frenzy such that they have to be shot repeatedly to stop them. Some have racked up body counts the Columbine killers would envy before being gunned down.... with just a machete, which for them is a tool for cutting cane.
Aum Shin Ryo (a Japanese extremist cult) unleashed homebrew sarin nerve gas in a subway, attempting to kill hundreds of people. They killed a few and sickened many, as they didn't quite have all their ducks in a row.
People are dangerous. Everything else is an accessory.
In the hands of a person determined to kill, a brick is a very lethal weapon.
In the hands of someone unwilling to kill, a .50 machine gun is a steel paperweight.
G.
In the hands of someone unwilling to kill, a .50 machine gun is a steel paperweight.
G.
OR a very fun toy/tool. Much like a Dirt-bike, or a fast car, or a video game console, or a computer or aXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Okay, we really really need to start at square one.
People are dangerous. Everything else is an accessory.
A very determined man with some common household chemicals and a little knowlege can kill far more people than any one man with an automatic firearm. Case in point: Timothy McVeigh.
In the Phillipines, there was (maybe still is) a practice called amok. This is when someone, typically but not always a Philipino Muslim, often but not always a skilled exponent of the island's blade-arts of escrima/kali/arnis, runs into a crowd of people with a machete, chopping off body parts. They are said to be in a state of killing frenzy such that they have to be shot repeatedly to stop them. Some have racked up body counts the Columbine killers would envy before being gunned down.... with just a machete, which for them is a tool for cutting cane.
Aum Shin Ryo (a Japanese extremist cult) unleashed homebrew sarin nerve gas in a subway, attempting to kill hundreds of people. They killed a few and sickened many, as they didn't quite have all their ducks in a row.
People are dangerous. Everything else is an accessory.
In the hands of a person determined to kill, a brick is a very lethal weapon.
In the hands of someone unwilling to kill, a .50 machine gun is a steel paperweight.
G.
Your example with the machete attack isn't something that any normal crazy person can do to murder. Most people would collapse after a few shots when they start swinging with the sword. Also, many people who would possibly kill with an automatic weapon may not be able to actually use some sword for the same mass murder.
I really hate to repeat myself, but I have said countless times that I don't want to ban all guns (and possibly I won't want to ban any if I get more info on the subject). If someone wants to kill someone else, then they will find a way to do that.
However, my main view is that specifically, weapons that allow someone who is deranged to kill many people at once should possibly be outlawed.
Sure, if someone is insane they can use a car to kill many people. However, that doesn't allow them to kill any large group of people that they want, and cars also have a huge benefit to society.
Some automatic guns though, allow people to kill many individuals anywhere that they want. Those guns also don't seem to have any other benefits to society that other guns may be able to provide.
Please just respond to that so we can not repeat discussions...
I do need to get more information about how dangerous certain weapons are and the effects of gun control though.
Some automatic guns though, allow people to kill many individuals anywhere that they want. Those guns also don't seem to have any other benefits to society that other guns may be able to provide.
Your example with the machete attack isn't something that any normal crazy person can do to murder. Most people would collapse after a few shots when they start swinging with the sword. Also, many people who would possibly kill with an automatic weapon may not be able to actually use some sword for the same mass murder.
However, my main view is that specifically, weapons that allow someone who is deranged to kill many people at once should possibly be outlawed.
Sure, if someone is insane they can use a car to kill many people. However, that doesn't allow them to kill any large group of people that they want, and cars also have a huge benefit to society.
Some automatic guns though, allow people to kill many individuals anywhere that they want. Those guns also don't seem to have any other benefits to society that other guns may be able to provide.
I do need to get more information about how dangerous certain weapons are and the effects of gun control though.
How about the Tim McVeigh example? Shall we ban fertilizer and diesel fuel?
Some automatic guns though, allow people to kill many individuals anywhere that they want.
When I buy certain photo chemicals I have to register with the FBI and DHS. I really have no problem with this.
When I buy certain photo chemicals I have to register with the FBI and DHS. I really have no problem with this.
This is exactly correct.I'm probably paranoid, but my Boy Scout training taught me to be prepared.
I figure 500 or so rounds for anything chambered in a standard US military round (9mm 45ACP .223 .308 .30-06) and 12 gauge, as this will always be the most common ammo. Chances are, before you go through that 500 rounds, you will either have captured more, or you will be dead.My only dilemma now is how much ammo I need to have.
This is exactly correct.
It is always better to have and not need than to need and not have.
I figure 500 or so rounds for anything chambered in a standard US military round (9mm 45ACP .223 .308 .30-06) and 12 gauge, as this will always be the most common ammo. Chances are, before you go through that 500 rounds, you will either have captured more, or you will be dead.
Never mind that there IS no 'match grade' ammo for an AK...Now, if we're talking match-grade ammo that's a different kettle of fish...but then again match-grade is pretty much a waste in an AK anyway. :mrgreen:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?