.

The new (and old) machine gun thread

gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
Ok, guys. All of our work was not totally in vain. We still have a very good forum for the use and ownership of select-fire weaponry without Big Brother's permission. Keep the fire going!!!

Comments

  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hope this thread doesn't get deleted like the other.

    I think that if most of the pro-gun compromisers had read what was written in the old MG thread, most of them would be more pro-gun than they are now.

    I know that talking in these forums can make the somewhat pro-gun people more pro-gun. For example, it seems that Wounded Wolf and Tr Fox are now more pro-gun than ever.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Mnay people do not realize that they themselves are Anti-Gun...because the seductive sounds of "if just one life, or child' or whatever...is so powerful.

    The other thing that worries people is that 'punishment' is so lax, prison means little. So to conpensate for that, they think that restricting guns is actually a viable option.

    Machine guns seem to bring out the stark, raving fear in people inclined to be intimidated by events that appear to be 'out of their control'...I.E., some guy spraying the street with thousands of bullets...killing everybody for blocks around...Actually, in a free country, with the heavy boot of government off the neck of free citizens..somebody would pull a .45 and with a couple well aimed shots...end the problem.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote: Hope this thread doesn't get deleted like the other.


    It's kind of too bad that I cannot police my own thread, here. Line-iteming people who are unsavory is still better than the whole thread perishing...
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:It's kind of too bad that I cannot police my own thread, here. Line-iteming people who are unsavory is still better than the whole thread perishing...

    If there was ever a better description of the annoyance, yet necessity, of the First Amendment then I have not heard it. Thank you for that, Gunphreak.
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,391 ******
    edited November -1
    Sorry guys (and gals) can't get the old thread back. A little hard to read, with the member name and response separated by the line, this is the best I can do.
    THANKS WW.

    Page 1

    westlund_125
    Junior Member



    USA
    293 Posts
    Posted - 02/11/2005 : 3:02:02 PM

    My question is should fully automatic weapons be legal? why?

    "A good scope can end a bad situation"

    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    5280 Posts
    Posted - 02/11/2005 : 10:19:45 PM

    There is no yes or no answer needed to deal with this question.

    Regardless of how powerful the pro-gun groups are, or how much we progunners believer in the constitutions (fed and states), if the vast majority of Americans ever decide to outlaw all guns, it is gonna happen. No ifs, ands or buts about that.

    And letting every gun owner be able to easily buy, possess and use fully automatic firearms is one sure and quick way to convince the majority of Americans that now is the time to ban all guns.

    I am not saaying that gun owners should or should not have fully auto firearms. I am just recognizing the reality of the situation. It ain't ever gonna happen. Or if it does, it will be a temporary right just before all guns are banned.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    4845 Posts
    Posted - 02/11/2005 : 10:32:45 PM

    Of course they should be legal.
    The Second Amendment was written to ensure that the average citizen would be armed sufficient to restrain a tyrannical government...and for NO OTHER REASON.

    Do you really believe that the Founders...just throwing off the shackles of heavy-handed bondage...meant to ensure the freedom to hunt ?

    I not only believe that the average citizen ought to be able to buy a cheap full-auto....I believe that going down to the National Guard Armory and being trained in the use of crew served weapons,on a Sunday afternoon...ought to be a common occurance.


    D.K.
    Junior Member



    USA
    279 Posts
    Posted - 02/12/2005 : 12:51:28 AM

    You are right HIghball. And being taught to use it would ensure a properly trained militia, wouldn't it? The second amendment
    issue...like many others, is BLACK AND WHITE. Grey is a
    compromise that has no place in American society as our founders
    envisioned it.

    I view this issue a little differently than most...having a fully
    automatic weapon is consistant with the constitution. It is
    the laws banning them that are illegal! And those who made the laws,
    as well as those who enforce them, are engaged in CRIMINAL
    activity. At the very least, they have broken their oath to uphold
    the constitution and are not worthy for civil service.

    Now it is possible to raise all knds of uneducated issues in these forums as it pertains to unconstitutional laws. We can dance and paint things various shades of gray all day if that's what it takes to make us feel good.

    As for me, I'm tired of the dancing with sheeple and trying to find ways or excuses for making compromise palatable. Personally I'd rather go back to the forum questions everyone likes:

    Can God make a rock bigger than He can lift? How many fairies
    can dance on the head of a pin? My daughter is 36, should she
    be allowed out later than 10 o'clock? Are you tired of defending gun ownership? Should fishing be allowed on Sunday?

    Let's face the facts....one third of our population works for the government, participating in activities, which under the constitution, are illegal. And those who are relatives or friends of
    these people MUST, to maintain a feeling of well being, make mental and verbial COMPROMISE to keep from having to denounce this activity.

    I work with some pretty vocal and determined gun owners!! Thye too
    have the slogans. You know what I mean....pry my cold dead hand, etc.

    But if I bring up the subject of breaking an oath to uphold the constitution....Jim looks towards the ground and doesn't make eye
    contact...his cousin is a deputy sheriff and his wife is a school
    teacher. Otis just smiles and keeps quiet, which is unusual, but
    does so because his brother-in-law is a LEO. Tom doesn't say much because his wife works for the IRS. My cousin, Rick doesn't say anything because his father-in-law and brother-in-law were
    congressmen.

    So it appears the conclusion is that we will someday soon lose all
    our rights as Americans. All the sheeple will delude themselves into believing it was for the common good of SAFETY! Ever see the
    movie, Arlington Road? The government will tell you anything you need to hear to make you feel safe.

    The American way of life envisioned and set up by our forefathers
    is afflicted with a terminal cancer than cannot be cured without
    killing the patient! No one out there really believes the so-called
    checks and balances are working, do you?

    So, what do I suggest? Keep debating dumb questions. Continue
    posting on these forums, because that's going to change things, right? Do whatever it is you need to do to keep that feeling of
    well-being, after all, that's all you have left! Now that's an
    honest, unbiased reality.



    dsmith
    Member



    513 Posts
    Posted - 02/12/2005 : 01:08:38 AM

    Yes. I believe all firearms are protected by the second amendment, as well as all conventional explosives.


    pickenup
    Moderator



    USA
    10183 Posts
    Posted - 02/12/2005 : 01:36:50 AM

    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



    The gene pool needs chlorine.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    4845 Posts
    Posted - 02/12/2005 : 07:03:34 AM

    D.K.;

    quote:
    So, what do I suggest? Keep debating dumb questions. Continue
    posting on these forums, because that's going to change things, right? Do whatever it is you need to do to keep that feeling of
    well-being, after all, that's all you have left! Now that's an
    honest, unbiased reality.




    Ah,my friend...the Founders threw off the yoke of tyranny..by convincing just enough people to carry the day.There has been a few minds changed by these forum arguments and discussions...and the need is only to reach the 3% that will be enough.....enough.

    By practicing non-intervention in a corrupt political system...the juggernaut never will get the moderating influence of common sense..and will pick up speed...
    By obeying ALL laws..you stay free..able to make decisions vital to the future...
    By discussions..you ...so to speak..reproduce yourself.

    "Feelings of well-being ?"....Not since I was big enough to read and understand the Constitution...and take a good,wide eyed look around me....


    nomadictao
    Member



    888 Posts
    Posted - 02/12/2005 : 11:31:27 AM

    Most people are very comfortable now-a-days. Safety and comfort have replaced liberty as our national ideal. The machine grows everytime we feed it. Do the American people want the power to overthrow a tyrannical government? They can cannot understand that liberty does not mean comfort.


    salzo
    Advanced Member



    6807 Posts
    Posted - 02/12/2005 : 5:55:20 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by westlund_125

    My question is should fully automatic weapons be legal? why?





    Yes, because the constitution says so.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man


    ArmedwithPride
    Starting Member



    10 Posts
    Posted - 02/12/2005 : 5:55:26 PM

    I believe that all fully automatic weapons should be legal.

    The government has no right to regulate firearms. The only way the NFA is constitutional is because it is written as a tax and not a regulation of firearms.

    The ban on full-autos is not applicable to guns made prior to 1986(I forget which month). As far as the feds are concerned, if you can legally own a hangun you can own a full-auto if made before '86. They may be illegal in your state, especially if you live in the People's Republic of California or the like. See http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=14&t=158292 to learn how to transfer a full-auto. Also, the 1986 law may well be unconstitutinal. Look up the case Miller vs. United States.


    salzo
    Advanced Member



    6807 Posts
    Posted - 02/12/2005 : 5:57:40 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by ArmedwithPride

    I believe that all fully automatic weapons should be legal.

    The government has no right to regulate firearms. The only way the NFA is constitutional is because it is written as a tax and not a regulation of firearms.





    They got away with it, because the people allowed them to get away with it. Prohibiting a person from owning a firearm, UNLESS they pay a $200 tax, is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

    "Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
    -Jimmy the cheese man


    spiny
    Advanced Member



    2894 Posts
    Posted - 02/12/2005 : 7:02:59 PM

    Ask the guy who built his own and got hauled into court twice by the ATF. Now, he is suing them!!!!!
    By the way, they lost BOTH times, so he is pursuing (?) them for harassment. ATF ain't happy. But HE is!
    Yes, they should be. How can you criminalize a right?

    spiny
    'not all who wander are lost'


    ArmedwithPride
    Starting Member



    10 Posts
    Posted - 02/12/2005 : 7:31:52 PM

    quote:
    Ask the guy who built his own and got hauled into court twice by the ATF. Now, he is suing them!!!!!



    Spiny What case are you speaking of? Are you talking about the Miller case from several years ago?


    spiny
    Advanced Member



    2894 Posts
    Posted - 02/12/2005 : 8:24:25 PM

    Nope. Last year a guy built his own full-auto machine gun. ATF went after him in court, lost, tried again, and lost. He didn't sell or buy anything, so ATF tax does NOT apply. He is now sueing them for harrassment. He should win and recover his legal fees, at least in this round. They were malicious (?) in suing him a second time. Hehehe!!!! Ain't it grand? If you want, I will get the specifics the weekend of the 19th. Might be able to get some more info sooner, can't tell for sure yet. It is actually on-going right now.
    Miller case initiated the NFA of 1934. That is what started all this mess.

    spiny
    'not all who wander are lost'


    duckhunter
    Advanced Member



    2749 Posts
    Posted - 02/12/2005 : 8:47:50 PM

    They are. Move to Nebraska

    I WOULD RATHER BE DUCK HUNTING.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1429 Posts
    Posted - 02/12/2005 : 10:26:22 PM

    quote:
    They are. Move to Nebraska




    Are they untaxed and unregistered with the bureau of jack-booted thugs?

    Can they be built today and bought today with no problems?

    That's my idea of the unregulated, uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    dsmith
    Member



    513 Posts
    Posted - 02/13/2005 : 03:48:45 AM

    Once again, I'm with gunphreak.


    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    220 Posts
    Posted - 02/13/2005 : 04:44:12 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball

    Of course they should be legal.
    The Second Amendment was written to ensure that the average citizen would be armed sufficient to restrain a tyrannical government...and for NO OTHER REASON.

    You mean like the one we have now?!?!

    Shadow83
    The fanatical right only fuels the fanatical left and visa versa.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    4845 Posts
    Posted - 02/13/2005 : 09:33:05 AM

    Shadow83 Posted - 02/13/2005 : 04:44:12 AM


    quote:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball

    Of course they should be legal.
    The Second Amendment was written to ensure that the average citizen would be armed sufficient to restrain a tyrannical government...and for NO OTHER REASON.

    quote:
    You mean like the one we have now?!?!



    How about you answer your own question ?

    Full auto assault weapons were meant to be owned by average citizens,taking the Second Amendment in its context.

    We are not allowed free ownership by our government.

    What do YOU think ?

    (edited for spelling)

    Edited by - Highball on 02/13/2005 8:10:47 PM


    ArmedwithPride
    Starting Member



    10 Posts
    Posted - 02/13/2005 : 6:17:37 PM

    Spiny It'd be great if you could get the specifics of the case you are talking about. Thanks.




    Highball
    Advanced Member



    4845 Posts
    Posted - 02/13/2005 : 8:43:37 PM

    RE;
    The machine gun issue. I have found this so far...

    "Yes, indeed. The tremendously anti-gun 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the 2003 U.S. v. Stewart decision concluded that the Federal law against possession of a "home-made" machine gun was unconstitutional as it exceeded the the reach of government under the Commerce clause. Justice Alex Kozinski, who wrote the excellent dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer, was the author of the opinion.

    Posted by: Kevin Baker at March 30, 2004 10:55 AM "
    http://nashvillefiles.com/blog/archives/000081.html

    Update;Check THIS out...

    http://sierratimes.com/03/11/14/ap_bobstewart.htm
    http://www.sierratimes.com/03/11/14/ap_bobstewart.htm
    Bob Stewart: Appeals court overturns machine gun conviction
    Associated Press

    SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court Thursday overturned a Mesa man's federal conviction of possessing five machine guns.
    A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of San Francisco reversed the conviction, ruling that the congressional ban does not apply to homemade machine guns and their parts because they were never in the stream of commerce.

    The court ruled that there was neither a transfer nor sale of the weapons or their parts, so Congress did not have the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate homemade guns crafted from scratch.

    Robert Stewart was sentenced to five years imprisonment for being a felon in possession of firearms and of possessing illegal machine guns last year.

    His attorney, Thomas Haney of Phoenix, said the decision doesn't mean much for his client or for the gun movement. Few people have the skills to build a weapon from scratch, as Stewart did, Haney said.

    Haney said most states, including Arizona, also have state bans against rapidly firing machine guns that would withstand judicial scrutiny regardless of whether the weapon was homemade. "It might not be viable for anyone to think they can start making their own," Haney said.

    Stewart, meanwhile, faces about a 20-year sentence next week after being convicted this summer of soliciting a fellow prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix to kill U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver, the judge who last year sentenced him to five years on the weapons violations




    Edited by - Highball on 02/13/2005 8:48:53 PM


    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    220 Posts
    Posted - 02/17/2005 : 1:47:34 PM

    quote:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball

    How about you answer your own question ?

    Full auto assault weapons were meant to be owned by average citizens,taking the Second Amendment in its context.

    DAMN!!! I guess I didn't read Amendment 2 closely enough?!?! I didn't see any refernece to fully automatic assault weapons?!?! In fact, I didn't know that fully auto assault weapons were invented in 1774?!?!? THAT would bring a pretty penny at an auction!!!

    "Taking the Second Amendment in its context" as you do: 155 Howitzers, RPGs, stingers, cruise missiles and even nuclear weapons "were meant to be owned by average citizens". Maybe I can buy that fully loaded F-16 after all!!! Let Armageddon begin!!!

    But if you are REALLY REALLY interested in what I think (I am so flattered!!) then I'll tell you. I see no need for anyone other than LE and the military to own a fully auto weapon. I see it as an unwarranted public danger. I am a hunter. A fully auto, or even a semi-auto weapon is indicative of a poor marksman in my opinion. But remember; opinions are like rectums, everyone's got one.

    One shot, one kill.

    FYI: I have a teenager, I can easily spot bait when it is thrown in front of me.

    I tink I taw a puddy tat!?!?!?

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government


    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/18/2005 12:00:43 AM


    JamesRK
    Senior Member



    USA
    1639 Posts
    Posted - 02/17/2005 : 3:04:01 PM

    This has nothing to do with your point, but in the interest of accuracy, the U. S. Constitution was ratified 25 June 1788 and went into effect 4 march 1789.

    The Second Amendment is not in the U. S. Constitution to protect your right to hunt. If that is what you think, your daddy got ripped off when he paid for your college education.


    pickenup
    Moderator



    USA
    10183 Posts
    Posted - 02/17/2005 : 3:33:30 PM

    At one time, clubs were considered to be arms.
    At another time, bows and arrows and swords were considered to be arms.
    Farther along, black powder firearms were the "arms" of the day.
    Aren't full autos "modern day" arms?

    If you want to read it "literally" there is no mention of "fire"arms.
    So I guess it means that I can keep my LEFT arm, as well as my RIGHT arm.

    The gene pool needs chlorine.


    JamesRK
    Senior Member



    USA
    1639 Posts
    Posted - 02/17/2005 : 3:42:22 PM

    Bull's-eye


    JamesRK
    Senior Member



    USA
    1639 Posts
    Posted - 02/17/2005 : 3:45:08 PM

    pickenup, guess it means we can wear a short sleeve shirt all year.


    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    220 Posts
    Posted - 02/17/2005 : 11:37:16 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by JamesRK

    This has nothing to do with your point, but in the interest of accuracy, the U. S. Constitution was ratified 25 June 1788 and went into effect 4 march 1789.

    So are you saying that they had fully auto assault weapons back then?


    quote:
    The Second Amendment is not in the U. S. Constitution to protect your right to hunt. If that is what you think, your daddy got ripped off when he paid for your college education.


    Like I said Moe, I was asked a question:


    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball
    How about you answer your own question?

    and I answered it.

    Why must you get so angry at a contrasting opinion? Didn't YOUR college education teach YOU tolerence and diversity? And FYI, I PAID MY OWN WAY through college, not my parents, not the taxpayers, ME. Just because your Mommy and Daddy paid for yours, do not assume that others are not more self sufficient.

    Now it you WERE taught tolerence and diversity in your course of education you would have realized that in my answer to the question posed I said that I do not see the need for fully auto assault weapons, not that I wanted to see them banned. I would not support anything to ban fully assault weapons or any currently legal weapons for that matter, it's just that I personally see no need. Yes they're fun to shoot, but it would make no difference to me either way. It's like Pro-Choice v/s Anti-Abortion. Pro-Choice gives one the freedom to choose, hence the word "choice" in the title. Anti-Abortion is against abortion; nada, no way, no choice, no freedom.

    And THIS statement:
    quote:
    Full auto assault weapons were meant to be owned by average citizens,taking the Second Amendment in its context.

    ?!?!?!? Answer THIS question: "What were fully automatic weapons developed for?". From the first gattling guns every fully auto weapon was developed directly for use by the military, NOT by "average citizens". I do not know every weapon ever made, but I can think of none which were full auto and NOT developed for intent of sale for military use? This is not an arguement for or against, just a fact addressing the statement.

    And remember, "one shot, one kill", anything else is just a waste of ammo.

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government
    And I am wise enough to realize that there is nothing that I am totally sure of. Life SHOULD be a continuious question.

    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/17/2005 11:58:40 PM


    JamesRK
    Senior Member



    USA
    1639 Posts
    Posted - 02/18/2005 : 01:02:50 AM

    Shadow83, If you don't make some attempt to read and comprehend, then reply coherently, I'll waste my time with one of the other socialists on this board.

    You made the following statement:

    DAMN!!! I guess I didn't read Amendment 2 closely enough?!?! I didn't see any refernece to fully automatic assault weapons?!?! In fact, I didn't know that fully auto assault weapons were invented in 1774?!?!? THAT would bring a pretty penny at an auction!!!

    I simply brought to your attention that the Second Amendment to the Constitution didn't exist in 1774 since it wasn't ratified until 1788 and went into effect in 1789. How you extracted that I said "they had fully auto assault weapons back then?" is way beyond me.

    I said "The Second Amendment is not in the U. S. Constitution to protect your right to hunt. If that is what you think, your daddy got ripped off when he paid for your college education."

    Your reply, "Like I said Moe, I was asked a question:". Again, way beyond me.

    You are mistaken about automatic firearms being intended for military use only. The Thompson Model 1921, commonly known as the "Tommy Gun" was marketed to police and advertised for sale to civilians.

    If you are going to state things as "fact", you need to learn some facts. When you are reduced to calling me "Moe" it simply points out that you don't have a coherent argument.

    Do you know why the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution of the United States of America?


    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    220 Posts
    Posted - 02/18/2005 : 1:19:52 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by JamesRK
    You made the following statement:

    DAMN!!! I guess I didn't read Amendment 2 closely enough?!?! I didn't see any refernece to fully automatic assault weapons?!?! In fact, I didn't know that fully auto assault weapons were invented in 1774?!?!? THAT would bring a pretty penny at an auction!!!

    I simply brought to your attention that the Second Amendment to the Constitution didn't exist in 1774 since it wasn't ratified until 1788 and went into effect in 1789. How you extracted that I said "they had fully auto assault weapons back then?" is way beyond me.


    So I was off by a few years. Pretty pitiful if you gotta pick at something this petty. And what does THIS have to do with the price of eggs in China? Do you walk to work or carry your lunch? My point was that things are not the same now as in the late 1700s. Things change and we must adjust for these changes. THIS is why the dinosaurs are dead and gone.


    quote:
    I said "The Second Amendment is not in the U. S. Constitution to protect your right to hunt. If that is what you think, your daddy got ripped off when he paid for your college education."

    Your reply, "Like I said Moe, I was asked a question:". Again, way beyond me.

    You are mistaken about automatic firearms being intended for military use only. The Thompson Model 1921, commonly known as the "Tommy Gun" was marketed to police and advertised for sale to civilians.


    Like I said "I do not know every weapon ever made", this is one out or how many thousands. And how soon was the Thompson restricted from civil use and then extensively used by the military and LE? Point being that the overall intended use of fully auto weapons has been and still is intended for use by the military or LE not the general public. Now if you DO look at guns which were designed for use by the general public they look nothing like an assault rifle. If someone needs a semi or fully auto to shoot an animal then they should stay outta the woods.


    quote:
    When you are reduced to calling me "Moe" it simply points out that you don't have a coherent argument.


    And your comment "If that is what you think, your daddy got ripped off when he paid for your college education." was REAL mature?!?! When the shoe fits...,,,


    quote:
    Do you know why the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution of the United States of America?[/black]


    Nope, I wasn't there. Maybe you were?

    Now let me ask you a question. Is there ever a time when you accept another's opinion being different than your own as just a difference rather than a challenge. This ain't the Navy.

    I was asked a question and answered it honestly. It seems that you can not respect that. Should I have lied just to keep people like you happy?

    If you or anyone else wishes to persue ownership of fully auto assault rifles then more power to you. I would never stand in the way. But it seems that I am expecting too much in hoping that others would extend the same respect towards me. One CAN disagree and not be against. Just a thought.

    Daddy always said, "A person can rationalize anything". He was never more right even if he did not pay for my education.

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government

    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/18/2005 1:44:20 PM


    jack85
    Member



    725 Posts
    Posted - 02/18/2005 : 2:15:04 PM

    In the name of God Almighty!
    We, the American People and the States,
    being mindful of our responsibility towards creation,
    in renewing our alliance to strengthen liberty and democracy, independence and peace in solidarity and openness towards the world,
    determined, with mutual respect and recognition, to live and protect our diversity in unity,
    conscious of our common achievements and our responsibility towards each-other and future generations,
    certain that free is only who uses and protects his freedom, and that the strength of a people, as one nation, is measured by the ability of the weak to protect their liberty, property and themselves.
    The States shall legislate on the misuse of weapons, associated equipment, and ammunition.
    It shall NOT legislate on the production, acquisition, distribution, importation, exportation, and transit of military material.


    So help me God.




    Edited by - jack85 on 02/18/2005 2:35:11 PM


    Defender
    Junior Member



    USA
    134 Posts
    Posted - 02/18/2005 : 3:07:22 PM

    Possession and bearing of ALL firearms is Constituently protected activity in America.

    The so-called outlawing of certain firearms was only a registration and taxing scheme since the legal opinions of the time (1934) was that the government could not ban or restrict those firearms.

    Nothing has changed since except the Bozos with the black robes who are supposed to protect our rights having been sleeping on the job.

    Since we have failed to fight for our hard won freedoms we have lost them.


    Defender
    Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.


    JamesRK
    Senior Member



    USA
    1639 Posts
    Posted - 02/18/2005 : 4:49:36 PM

    Shadow83, First I don't consider the Constitution of the United States of America and United States History to be a petty thing.

    I thought about answering your post point by point, but after reading it, you summed it up with the first straight answer I have seen from you:

    Question (JamesRK): Do you know why the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution of the United States of America?

    Answer (Shadow83): Nope, I wasn't there. Maybe you were?

    That's all I need to know. Whoever came up with the bucks for your education should have put the money to better use.


    dlonewolfll
    Junior Member



    USA
    105 Posts
    Posted - 02/18/2005 : 6:34:56 PM

    To answer the original question-- yes, we should be allowed to own an automatic weapon.


    I will not debate the Constitution or bill of rights, as many good points have been made and I would just be repeating many of the topics covered.

    I hunt and I shoot for sport. I do not need an automatic weapon for hunting or for the type sport shooting and competition shooting that I do. I have many other interests that require money and would not like to give them up so that I could pay for ammo ( or the components to reload ammo). I have shot automatic weapons and found great joy in doing so and I know that I would shoot an awful lot of ammo, lol! I would however like it if friends of mine had automatic weapons and would be kind enough to let me shoot THEIR ammo!

    That being covered, I will come at the topic from a different direction. All of us that own guns for sport shooting/ hunting/ competition/ self protection/ plinking..etc, had better stop the pseudo-intellectual arguments about the aboved mentioned documents and unite to stop the continuous attacks that we all face every. It doesn't matter what the color of your skin is, what sex you are, what part of the country you are from, what your religion is, etc. WE are under attack.

    All of us need to understand that the easiest way to defeat a force is to divide and conquer it one piece at a time. That is what the anti's ( whether it be anti-gun groups, anti-hunting groups, PETA, PAWS, or any other elitist crackpot organizations) are hoping to do. Shut down hunting then you don't NEED a firearm; limit types of ammo or bullets and you won't NEED a certain type of rifle; ban high capacity magazines and shooters will loose interest in guns; teach the children in school that hunting is terrible and that owning a gun is dangerous and they win because the children not only grow up to dispise hunting and fear firearms but the children also come home and try to put a guilt trip on parents ( that does get a few of the weaker minded parents).

    So, band together and make noise ( out in the real world, because the non-hunters and non-shooters are out there---not in here!). This forum should be our gathering point to get new ideas about how to get the word out and fight the cause, not for us to argue about small insignificant things. I do believe that we all have the same basic desire--- to be able to own and shoot our firearms as we see fit.


    Go out and help the uneducated to understand our cause and that the same can happen to any special interest group, be it snowmobilers, ATVer's, cross-country skiers, horseman, etc.

    Have a great day!




    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    5280 Posts
    Posted - 02/18/2005 : 7:19:43 PM

    posted by lonewolffII:


    Go out and help the uneducated to understand our cause and that the same can happen to any special interest group, be it snowmobilers, ATVer's, cross-country skiers, horseman, etc.

    Have a great day!

    Some excellent and good points in your post, especially inthe above copied paragraph. But don't forget about motorcycle riders having to band together to keep from getting legislated to only off road riding. The AMA (Am. Motorcycle Assn) is the motorcycle rider's NRA.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"


    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    220 Posts
    Posted - 02/18/2005 : 11:54:00 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by JamesRK
    Whoever came up with the bucks for your education should have put the money to better use.

    Yes comrade. I am just so dumb for not thinking like you and agreeing with everything you say. WHAT WAS I THINKING!?!?! And answering my post point by point would only waste your time (which it seems that you have an abundance of). Believe it or not in America everyone is still entitled to their opinion. We're not being carted off to Guantanamo. But there still is four years remaining.


    quote:
    Originally posted by dlonewolfll
    All of us need to understand that the easiest way to defeat a force is to divide and conquer it one piece at a time. That is what the anti's ( whether it be anti-gun groups, anti-hunting groups, PETA, PAWS, or any other elitist crackpot organizations) are hoping to do. Shut down hunting then you don't NEED a firearm; limit types of ammo or bullets and you won't NEED a certain type of rifle; ban high capacity magazines and shooters will loose interest in guns; teach the children in school that hunting is terrible and that owning a gun is dangerous and they win because the children not only grow up to dispise hunting and fear firearms but the children also come home and try to put a guilt trip on parents ( that does get a few of the weaker minded parents).

    So, band together and make noise ( out in the real world, because the non-hunters and non-shooters are out there---not in here!). This forum should be our gathering point to get new ideas about how to get the word out and fight the cause, not for us to argue about small insignificant things. I do believe that we all have the same basic desire--- to be able to own and shoot our firearms as we see fit.

    EXACTLY!!! This is what I have been trying to say all along, especially the part about education. As hunters' and shooters' populations decrease it opens up the opportunity for the anti-gun fanatics to shock and awe these individuals with fear of guns. The ONLY way we will be able to preserve our right is to gain the confidence of those ignorant to guns and gun owners. It will take a lot of reassurance to combat that 2 minute news story of the guy who walked into the mall shooting. Unfortunately THIS is mostly how the public sees guns, not calm peaceful people at the local range on a sunny afternoon enjoying the sport and each others company. That would be too boring for CNN or FOX NEWS.

    Invite a friend to coworker to the range with you one weekend. Someone who has never shot before. I taught the owner of my company to shoot. He had never shot a gun before and he just bought a Rem 700 BDL .243 and a Glock 21. He is now looking at a CETME and I am the one helping him buy it. Now he loves shooting and knows how to responsibly handle a firearm. I am taking my son and a friend to the range tomorrow. His friend has never shot before.


    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government

    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/19/2005 12:14:49 AM


    JamesRK
    Senior Member



    USA
    1639 Posts
    Posted - 02/19/2005 : 02:07:20 AM

    Amendment II
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

    Shadow83, this is the reason for the Second Amendment.

    The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    (Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), Third President of the United States)


    gonzo1510
    Junior Member



    USA
    380 Posts
    Posted - 02/19/2005 : 11:25:49 PM

    Should full autos be legal? Yes.

    Are they fun to shoot? Absolutely.

    Do we need them ? No. Having said that, just because the need isn't always seen, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Case in point. 1997 The North Hollywood Shootout. Two bank robbers, armed with fully automatic AK- 47's rifles (which were regulated in the 1930's)
    Shot it out with police officers form the LAPD's North Hollywood division. After most of the officers had fired all of their duty ammo, they decided to go to a privatetly owned firearms shop which sold AR-15's, FAL's, and other rifles that are now outlawed by the state of California. Although the rifles were not used in the actual capture of the two gunmen, it goes to show that just because the need isn't immediate, does not mean it does not exsist. Others have mentioned that it's for protection against a tyranical system of government which will turn on its citizens and start taking away certain rights or at least monitor them in the name of "The Greater Good", will it happen? At this point, I have subscribed to Murphy's Law and say that it probably will.

    But that's just me .......

    Your thoughts...

    "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    5280 Posts
    Posted - 02/20/2005 : 10:45:09 AM

    Below posted by Shadow83:


    Invite a friend to coworker to the range with you one weekend. Someone who has never shot before. I taught the owner of my company to shoot. He had never shot a gun before and he just bought a Rem 700 BDL .243 and a Glock 21. He is now looking at a CETME and I am the one helping him buy it. Now he loves shooting and knows how to responsibly handle a firearm. I am taking my son and a friend to the range tomorrow. His friend has never shot before.


    Shawdow83, I haven't really invested the time to read and comprehend most of your posts, so I don't know if I generally agree/disagree with you or not. But the one paragraph you posted (copied above) seems to put you on the same side I am on.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"


    JamesRK
    Senior Member



    USA
    1639 Posts
    Posted - 02/20/2005 : 2:05:16 PM

    tr fox, I'll try to summarize Shadow83's position for you. If I misrepresent him or put words into his mouth, I'm sure he will correct me.

    He is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment with emphasis on "WELL REGULATED". He has stated that the First Amendment is more important than the Second Amendment.


    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    220 Posts
    Posted - 02/20/2005 : 3:07:54 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by JamesRK

    tr fox, I'll try to summarize Shadow83's position for you. If I misrepresent him or put words into his mouth, I'm sure he will correct me.

    He has stated that the First Amendment is more important than the Second Amendment.


    As usual you ONLY see what YOU want to see. You conveniently left out that it is only MY opinion. And yes, I do believe that free speech is more important than guns. Free speech disseminates information and promotes thinking and therefore educates citizens. If I had too I would choose free speech over the right to bear arms. Let's just hope that I or anyone else never has to make this choice. You act as if I am mounting an insurgency to emphasize the first amendment and quash the second. It must be difficult to live life in so much fear.

    I guess I must again apologize for having an opinion which does not agree with yours 100%. Ya know, we are ALLOWED to disagree?!?!

    BTW tr fox!! I had a great day at the range yesterday. Not only did my son's friend love shooting and now is not afraid of guns but there was a mother and her 13 yo son at the range. He wanted to learn to shoot so she bought a Marlin semi 22 and brought him. We included him in our shoot and taught him to handle and shoot a pistol and a high powered rifle. He loved it and now he and my son are friends. His Mom is single too!!

    All in all it was a GREAT day.


    quote:
    gonzo1510 wrote: Case in point. 1997 The North Hollywood Shootout. Two bank robbers, armed with fully automatic AK- 47's rifles (which were regulated in the 1930's) Shot it out with police officers form the LAPD's North Hollywood division. After most of the officers had fired all of their duty ammo, they decided to go to a privatetly owned firearms shop which sold AR-15's, FAL's, and other rifles that are now outlawed by the state of California. Although the rifles were not used in the actual capture of the two gunmen, it goes to show that just because the need isn't immediate, does not mean it does not exsist.

    I don't see where it would have made a difference if normal people owned assault weapons? Wouldn't it have been more logical AND more practical if the LE officers were armed with AR-15s? That's the first thing that I found totally rediculious about the incident. I guess that I assumed that police had additional weapons at their disposal, maybe in the trunks of theor patrol cars. My neighbor is a police officer in our city and he has an issued MP5 in his trunk and they do have fully auto AR-15s at the station. But then he did not have the MP5 prior to 9/11. The AR-15s have always been available but usually came with SWAT officers attached when put into action.

    People will never be in total agreement. Only when we can recognize and respect another's right to disagree can we start building.

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government

    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/20/2005 5:26:10 PM


    JamesRK
    Senior Member



    USA
    1639 Posts
    Posted - 02/20/2005 : 5:06:51 PM

    Shadow83, don't you understand that the Second Amendment guarantees you the First Amendment? No one of the amendments is more important than the other nine. If any one of them falls, the other nine aren't worth a warm bucket of spit.

    Another subject: You done good at the range.

    Another subject: To avoid confusion, when you use a quote, it would be appreciated if you could attribute the quote to the person you are quoting. I took the time to look back through the thread and saw it was gonzo1510 you were quoting, but your post made it appear that tr fox was quoted. When you invent a statement which you think looks like something someone would say, don't call it a quote, just call it what it is. This would avoid a good deal of confusion and misunderstanding.


    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    220 Posts
    Posted - 02/20/2005 : 5:31:12 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by JamesRK

    Shadow83, don't you understand that the Second Amendment guarantees you the First Amendment? No one of the amendments is more important than the other nine. If any one of them falls, the other nine aren't worth a warm bucket of spit.

    And you have a right to your opinion, just as I do mine. And please notice that I said "If I had too I would choose free speech over the right to bear arms."


    quote:
    Another subject: To avoid confusion, when you use a quote, it would be appreciated if you could attribute the quote to the person you are quoting. I took the time to look back through the thread and saw it was gonzo1510 you were quoting, but your post made it appear that tr fox was quoted.

    I'll remember this in the future for this board. I am on at least a dozen other boards and this is the first I have run into this. Either the posters on the other boards are astute enough with the threads to know who said what, do the searching for themselves when they see do not see the post or just don't give a rat's *.

    quote:
    When you invent a statement which you think looks like something someone would say, don't call it a quote, just call it what it is. This would avoid a good deal of confusion and misunderstanding.

    And where did I invent a quote here? It is directly from what Gonzo said.

    Infighting is what has cost the Democrats the past election and much control over the past years, the same can happen with the second amendment. Even Ted Nugent respects another's right to their opinion even if it contradicts his.

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government

    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/20/2005 5:35:06 PM


    JamesRK
    Senior Member



    USA
    1639 Posts
    Posted - 02/20/2005 : 7:48:23 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Shadow83

    And where did I invent a quote here? It is directly from what Gonzo said.



    This is where you invented a quote, but let's not start that again.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Shadow83


    quote:
    Originally posted by JamesRK

    You mean if I become a Buddhist, I get to take both sides of an issue in the same post and nobody gets to call me on it? Either talk straight or run for office .


    Please tell me WHY anyone MUST take one side or another in anything?
    quote:
    Well pardnor, yer either fer or agin us!!


    A balance can only be acheived by weighing both sides and trimming each as needed. This is also applied in the concepts of fairness and equality.

    Do you really think that America was founded without compromise and understanding?

    I am sorry if it offends you that someone would seek all information before making a decision. It must be wonderful living in half of a bubble but a bytch having to throw the baby out with the bath water so often.

    I am sure there is a fence post somewhere looking for a good arguement and you would be sure to walk away happy that you won.

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government



    Manufactured quote enlarged and highlighted by JamesRK


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    5280 Posts
    Posted - 02/20/2005 : 10:31:40 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by JamesRK

    tr fox, I'll try to summarize Shadow83's position for you. If I misrepresent him or put words into his mouth, I'm sure he will correct me.

    He is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment with emphasis on "WELL REGULATED". He has stated that the First Amendment is more important than the Second Amendment.




    Well, in my case I feel the 1st amendment is there for us so we can find out what is going on.

    The 2nd amendment is so that we can do something about it when we find out what is going on.

    Both amendments have great value to me and I don't think there is any reason to chose one over the other since they are both part and parcel of the bill of rights.

    Regardless of the defination of "milita", the US Constitutional 2nd amendment gives a federal (not necessarily a state) right to the citizens that the federal government cannot disarm the responsible citizens.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"


    dsmith
    Member



    513 Posts
    Posted - 02/21/2005 : 12:59:46 AM

    I don't mean to offend shadow85. However you do seem to be hesitant to allow anything more than a semi-auto (if that). You may approve of owning a bolt action .270, so you could probably fit in with the NRA nicely. You have done a lot of complaining about Bush, and are calling yourself a hunter.

    I always get this disturbing image of "hunters" or "gun owners" who supported Kerry and opposed most of my guns.


    JamesRK
    Senior Member



    USA
    1639 Posts
    Posted - 02/21/2005 : 01:57:09 AM

    Shadow83, just curious. Why did you edit your post at 5:26 PM after I replied to it at 5:06 PM? To the cynical among us, this might look suspicious.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    4845 Posts
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 12:06:53 AM

    Not really productive after a certain point...arguing with Socialists.

    The Founders are repugnant to many people..freedom being a foreign concept to a certain mentality.These types are comfortable wearing leg irons...if not for themselves,at least for every body else...other people not being 'trustworthy', you know...


    JamesRK
    Senior Member



    USA
    1639 Posts
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 12:14:44 AM

    You're right, of course.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1429 Posts
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 07:51:42 AM

    The right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Are full-autos specifically addressed here? No.

    Are full-autos specifically restricted here? No.

    The context of this amendment, as it may be broken down, the Right (this is an unrestricted practice of whatever is addressed.) of the people (that's us, not a select few, like the military, which is not supposed to exist, anyway, as a Standing Army is the bane of liberty, but that's another subject, nor police, because they are merely citizens, as well, and should stand equal, not superior to the regular person) to keep (own, possess, store (or sell, it that is the desire)) and bear (use, wield and carry with the intent of use which infringes on no one else's rights (but in this case, may be used against one who wishes to deprive the owner of a few rights)) Arms (wieldable weapons, which include machine guns, grenades, grenade launchers, short barrel shotguns and rifles, flamethrowers and rocket launchers (not exclusively, meaning other things may be invented), but restricting by its language artillery pieces, tanks, jet planes, and nukes, specifically because they cannot be wielded, but in theory, could be covered in the 9th Amendment, or the implied rights, just like hunting is, provided they do not infringe on bona fide rights of others) and here's the kicker, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (meaning not regulated, restricted, unnecessarily taxed, outright banned, permitted, or registered (which is also a violation of the 4th Amendment protection of invasion of privacy and unreasonable searches, as well as the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and possible loss of property without due process of law, to which they have no right)

    Class dismissed.



    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    220 Posts
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 11:56:25 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by JamesRK


    quote:
    Originally posted by Shadow83

    And where did I invent a quote here? It is directly from what Gonzo said.


    This is where you invented a quote, but let's not start that again.
    quote:
    Well pardnor, yer either fer or agin us!!





    Manufactured quote enlarged and highlighted by JamesRK



    Apparently you did not read my reply (or did and ignored it). Please go back and re-read my posts after this one.


    quote:
    Shadow83, just curious. Why did you edit your post at 5:26 PM after I replied to it at 5:06 PM? To the cynical among us, this might look suspicious.

    I don't remember exactly what I changed. It may have been a simple spelling or grameric change or possible I felt something did not convey the message I wished it to properly and changed it to avoid confusion.

    Should we add paranoia to your list too?


    quote:
    dsmith wrote: However you do seem to be hesitant to allow anything more than a semi-auto[/quote]

    Yes I am to a point. I do not believe that fully autos should be outlawed but there should be some measure of control placed on them. I would not want the alcoholic loud mouthed idiot down the street to have one. There are too many Uncle Jimbos and Neds in the world.

    But again, this is only my opinion and all are free to have theirs.

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government

    Edited just to piss off JamesRK

    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/22/2005 4:13:52 PM


    JamesRK
    Senior Member



    USA
    1639 Posts
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 3:17:01 PM

    Shadow83, since you don't recall, I'll refresh your memory. You changed gonzo1510's quote to read that it is gonzo1510's quote. I don't know what else you changed 20 minutes after I replied to your post.

    I have decided you are not an honest man, so there is not point in further communication with you.

    I have never wanted to own a machine gun. I pretty much got my fill of that when the U. S. Government was kind enough to let me use theirs. I think now I may buy one just to piss you off.
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,391 ******
    edited November -1
    Page 2

    JamesRK
    Advanced Member



    USA
    3935 Posts
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 3:33:03 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by dsmith

    I don't mean to offend shadow85. However you do seem to be hesitant to allow anything more than a semi-auto (if that). You may approve of owning a bolt action .270, so you could probably fit in with the NRA nicely. You have done a lot of complaining about Bush, and are calling yourself a hunter.

    I always get this disturbing image of "hunters" or "gun owners" who supported Kerry and opposed most of my guns.



    From my reading of Shadow83's posts, it appears he would allow us to keep an bear single shot rifles and shotguns. I haven't figured out his position on pistols and revolvers. No automatics of any kind, of course. By the way, I don't mind offending Shadow83.



    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    224 Posts
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 4:02:24 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by JamesRK
    From my reading of Shadow83's posts, it appears he would allow us to keep an bear single shot rifles and shotguns. I haven't figured out his position on pistols and revolvers. No automatics of any kind, of course. By the way, I don't mind offending Shadow83.


    And it seems that you also have no problem picking and choosing to manipulate another's posted thoughts. Someone as afraid and paranoid as you probably shouldn't be permitted to have even a butter knife within your reach.

    Do you realize that someone can have a different thought or opinion than you and NOT feel the need to shove it down everyone else's throat? Just because you see anyone who does not agree with you as the devil incarnate due to your fear and paranoia does not mean that others do the same. There's a big brave world out there with many marvelous thngs and people. Leave the security of your monitor's glow and take a drive outta Hootersville once in a while and get to know the human race. You may actually find that not everyone is out to opress you. Some people are actually nice.


    quote:
    Shadow83, since you don't recall, I'll refresh your memory. You changed gonzo1510's quote to read that it is gonzo1510's quote. I don't know what else you changed 20 minutes after I replied to your post.

    First you piss and moan that I do not properly annotate my posts with quotation ownership, then when I correct what you are pissing and moaning about you piss and moan some more that I did what you pissed and moaned about in the first place. I pity your children. Some therapist must be buying a vacation home because of you. And you call ME a Socialist?!?!? (PSSSST!! I'm really a Communist!!)

    Please DO buy a fully auto!! But,,,, "You'll shoot your eye out!!"

    And as for you deciding that I am not an honest person?!?! BWAHHHHHHH You seem to think that I or anyone else really cares what you think of them!? Thanks for the laugh!!

    To quote some very wise men, "Your father was a hampster and your mother smelled of eldeberries!!".

    Edited to make JamesRK happy to have something to piss and moan about today.

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government

    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/24/2005 12:37:48 PM


    JamesRK
    Advanced Member



    USA
    3935 Posts
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 5:20:10 PM

    The voices tell me I am not paranoid. But you are probably correct about I need to get out and about and try to see some of the world.


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13666 Posts
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 7:14:00 PM

    Of course they ARE legal, pending the state you live in allows them. Just because they are more closely monitored and taxed does not keep them from any law abiding citizen. If you want a gas guzzler pay the tax and drive it.


    JamesRK
    Advanced Member



    USA
    3935 Posts
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 7:38:32 PM

    Shadow83, I've been below 60? South and above 60? North. That makes me bi-polar. Maybe that's what you're talking about.


    dsmith
    Member



    638 Posts
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 9:49:20 PM

    select-fire, you like to say they are legal. Only if registered before 1986. If you don't have a Class III dealer's license, and a police request for demo letter, just try and legally get your hands on an MP7, manufactured only after the 1986 ban.

    As for the registered guns you'd have to pay the thousands of dollars that they cost because of the limited supply.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6367 Posts
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 10:49:07 PM

    Many people actually LIKE the ban..ensuring that THEIR weapons are steadily driven up in value.

    Thereby proving that money trumps freedom in some folks.

    God,Guts,& Guns
    Have we lost all 3 ??



    gonzo1510
    Member



    USA
    728 Posts
    Posted - 02/23/2005 : 12:05:30 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Shadow83


    quote:
    gonzo1510 wrote: Case in point. 1997 The North Hollywood Shootout. Two bank robbers, armed with fully automatic AK- 47's rifles (which were regulated in the 1930's) Shot it out with police officers form the LAPD's North Hollywood division. After most of the officers had fired all of their duty ammo, they decided to go to a privatetly owned firearms shop which sold AR-15's, FAL's, and other rifles that are now outlawed by the state of California. Although the rifles were not used in the actual capture of the two gunmen, it goes to show that just because the need isn't immediate, does not mean it does not exsist.

    I don't see where it would have made a difference if normal people owned assault weapons? Wouldn't it have been more logical AND more practical if the LE officers were armed with AR-15s? That's the first thing that I found totally rediculious about the incident. I guess that I assumed that police had additional weapons at their disposal, maybe in the trunks of theor patrol cars. My neighbor is a police officer in our city and he has an issued MP5 in his trunk and they do have fully auto AR-15s at the station. But then he did not have the MP5 prior to 9/11. The AR-15s have always been available but usually came with SWAT officers attached when put into action.






    You missed my point. My point was that at the time of the incident, the rifles were available to the general non law enforcement type public. At the time of the shooting the police did not have the right equipment and were forced to turn to the privately owned gun store for the right equipment. Fortunately SWAT arrived when it did and the situation was resolved. The police did not have to use those rifles. Had they not arrived when they did, the officers would have used the rifles that they borrowed from the gun store. Had those rifles not been available,Well, I'm sure that the cops are thankful that they were. You say that it would be logical and practical if L/E had the AR-15's. Well , lets face it, with the exception of some of the more forward thinking police agencies that take care of their officers, most police departments don't think that way. They like to close the barn door after the horse has left. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    your thoughts .....

    "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1809 Posts
    Posted - 02/23/2005 : 03:33:18 AM

    quote:
    Of course they ARE legal, pending the state you live in allows them. Just because they are more closely monitored and taxed does not keep them from any law abiding citizen. If you want a gas guzzler pay the tax and drive it.



    They are permitted, and banned from manufacture to us as of right now. As far as I'm concerned, if I want a gas guzzler, I expect to pay the same price for a similar model as everyone else, not 10 to 15 times more than it is worth.

    THAT IS INFRINGEMENT.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    224 Posts
    Posted - 02/23/2005 : 11:06:39 AM

    My gun shop is 95% full auto. I have been to the range with the owners many times on machine gun night and had lots of fun shooting with them. I even got to shoot their tripod mounted Ma-Deuce one night. I'm just glad that it was THEIR ammo and that I didn't have to pay for it all. Never saw so much brass in my life.

    We have talked extensively on the subject in the shop and over a few beers and they tend to agree with the process a potential owner must go through. Not 100% but not against either. They are intimate with what a weapon can do. They have said that even if there were no such laws that they would be VERY cautious of who they sold a full auto to. I know for a fact that they have refused to sell a gun to certain customers for good reason, not assumptions. Face it, would you sell as AK to an obvious gang-banger who walked in to your shop? They would not want to find out that innocent people were murdered because of their lack of diligence.

    I have found that Highball is correct. Take large mags. They cost 4 times as much before the ban. The shop is buying up all that they can and storing them for when the ban is reinstated. They'll make a fortune. I even have purchased quite a lot over the internet and am storing them in my attic for the same reason.

    I am not thoroughly versed in the Federal full auto ownership process since I have never applied for ownership of one, but I understand it to be more of a financial burden than anything. Maybe look at it like when a teenager gets something they want, they appreciate it much more when they earn the monies and pay for it themselves as opposed to Mommy and Daddy giving it to them. Could be that if someone pays bookoo bucks to own and possess a fully auto they would be less likely to do something stoopid to lose it. Just food for thought.

    Now please allow me to repeat my personal position which has been so badly twisted out of context. I would not support any legislation which would make ANY firearm illegal, but I would support any reasonable legislation which was common sense. And yes, I realize that "common sense" is a subjective term. but isn't most of life subjective? On the same note, if I ever saw any gun owner using any gun irresponsibly (I.E. Drunk with a gun in their hand) I would not hesitate for a second in reporting them.

    And as stated over and over again, this is my personal opinion and anyone else is free to agree or disagree.

    And Gonzo, I do see your point and agree that I am glad for the LAPD's sake that assault weapons were not completely outlawed. But after 9/11 I think that most police departments have changed a lot of their thinking. Our city police are armed to the teeth now. I would hate to give them cause to subdue me with deadly force. Can you say Swiss Cheese?

    Edited to make JamesRK happy to have something to piss and moan about today.

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government


    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/24/2005 12:38:21 PM


    gonzo1510
    Member



    USA
    728 Posts
    Posted - 02/23/2005 : 2:43:47 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Shadow83
    And Gonzo, I do see your point and agree that I am glad for the LAPD's sake that assault weapons were not completely outlawed. But after 9/11 I think that most police departments have changed a lot of their thinking. Our city police are armed to the teeth now. I would hate to give them cause to subdue me with deadly force. Can you say Swiss Cheese?



    Come down to Lost Angeles sometime. with the exception of Metro Division(S.W.A.T) only supervisors have AR's try finding them anywhere other than Denny's, The local coffee house, or back at the station.

    "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke


    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    224 Posts
    Posted - 02/23/2005 : 4:09:17 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by gonzo1510
    Come down to Lost Angeles sometime. with the exception of Metro Division(S.W.A.T) only supervisors have AR's try finding them anywhere other than Denny's, The local coffee house, or back at the station.

    Shoot!! I would have thought that after the bank incident alone they would have made ARs standard issue?!? Maybe they're waiting for the P90 to become affordable?

    Edited to make JamesRK happy to have something to piss and moan about today.

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government

    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/24/2005 12:38:44 PM


    JamesRK
    Advanced Member



    USA
    3935 Posts
    Posted - 02/23/2005 : 6:24:10 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Shadow83

    We have talked extensively on the subject in the shop and over a few beers and they tend to agree with the process a potential owner must go through. Not 100% but not against either. They are intimate with what a weapon can do. They have said that even if there were no such laws that they would be VERY cautious of who they sold a full auto to. I know for a fact that they have refused to sell a gun to certain customers for good reason, not assumptions. Face it, would you sell as AK to an obvious gang-banger who walked in to your shop? They would not want to find out that innocent people were murdered because of their lack of diligence.



    That makes a lot of sense, especially in view of the fact that you can kill someone much deader with a machinegun than you can with a .22LR.

    Your usual ration of logic.



    nomadictao
    Senior Member



    1589 Posts
    Posted - 02/23/2005 : 6:46:31 PM

    The thing is that gun ownership is a constitutional right-so ownership cannot be licensed. It is not a priveledge like driving, a convicted felon can have this rights taken away, but the government cannot deny ownership to any law-abiding citizen. Therfore, a licence of OWNERSHIP is not constiutional. Anyone who is not a convict or certified crazy should be able to buy any weapon.

    It would not be a good thing to sell a firearm-automatic or not if you reasonalbly think it will be used in a crime. I guess I will start a new thread.






    gonzo1510
    Member



    USA
    728 Posts
    Posted - 02/23/2005 : 8:18:04 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Shadow83


    quote:
    Originally posted by gonzo1510
    Come down to Lost Angeles sometime. with the exception of Metro Division(S.W.A.T) only supervisors have AR's try finding them anywhere other than Denny's, The local coffee house, or back at the station.

    Shoot!! I would have thought that after the bank incident alone they would have made ARs standard issue?!? Maybe they're waiting for the P90 to become affordable?



    Nope... they aren't. They are just waiting for the next major incident to happen. Then the city of Los Angeles will raise taxes and have a study on what they should do with all of this newfound
    money and realize that they spent all of it on the study ooops

    And as for "I am glad for the LAPD's sake that assault weapons were not completely outlawed." Well, let's face it, assault weapons will never be outlawed because they are a government agency. As for the rest of us.... good luck!

    "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13666 Posts
    Posted - 02/24/2005 : 07:26:28 AM

    dsmith, all of us who have MG's know the laws. If you want a legal owned one buy it... I have found out that most people complaining about MG's couldn't purchase one financially ( afford them )or pass the background check to get one. I have never heard an owner complain... man this is costing me a fortune to shoot..


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1809 Posts
    Posted - 02/24/2005 : 09:13:52 AM

    That's not the point. If all of us are to be able to stand equal before the law, then why are we paying 10-15 times more than something is really worth, and begging for permission to exercise a God given right, something they have no business interfering with?

    Because the whole permission and regulate, and register process is pure evil. It is meant to keep these firearms out of normal people's hands, and there is no good justification for that.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13666 Posts
    Posted - 02/24/2005 : 09:30:13 AM

    That is exactly the point... Supply and demand. Not enough guns to go around will continue to drive the price of guns UP. Buy now before they go higher. I truely believe the system works well on regulation. The Federal background check weeds out the possible losers who don't need a gun of the like in their hands. I know some who did not qualify to have a MG. Too bad..Too sad... So if you decide to possible get one or two someday.. Note to self.. don't act ignorant to others, have a bad reputation ect. ect. ect. It will come back to haunt you...

    Edited by - select-fire on 02/24/2005 09:38:42 AM


    dsmith
    Member



    638 Posts
    Posted - 02/24/2005 : 12:17:07 PM

    Select-fire, are you saying that you agree with the 1986 cut off date? Supply and demand. There is a huge supply of MP5s that I could never have simply because they were not made before 1986. That's not supply and demand. The fact that only a few MP5s were registered before that date is why they are so expensive.

    As of right now, all I could afford is a $3,000 MAC.

    It will be years before I am able to afford an NRA priced ($16,000) MP5, and by then they will probably be in the $20,000 range.


    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    224 Posts
    Posted - 02/24/2005 : 12:18:27 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by JamesRK


    quote:
    Originally posted by Shadow83

    We have talked extensively on the subject in the shop and over a few beers and they tend to agree with the process a potential owner must go through. Not 100% but not against either. They are intimate with what a weapon can do. They have said that even if there were no such laws that they would be VERY cautious of who they sold a full auto to. I know for a fact that they have refused to sell a gun to certain customers for good reason, not assumptions. Face it, would you sell as AK to an obvious gang-banger who walked in to your shop? They would not want to find out that innocent people were murdered because of their lack of diligence.



    That makes a lot of sense, especially in view of the fact that you can kill someone much deader with a machinegun than you can with a .22LR.

    Your usual ration of logic.

    Well, you ARE as dumb as you look aren't you!! Not MY logic fartknocker, the shop owners and his partners. Sorry my opinion doesn't agree with yours. I will throw myself offa a cliff now for being so evil!! But I'll first eliminate the entire class 3 shop since they also have a different opinion than lil Napolean. How have you survived in the real world being so afraid of anyone who does not agree with you?!?! OH, That's right!! You were career military where you can be a dictator.

    It's clear that I cAnnot fart in the right key for you so let's just agree to disagree and ignore each other. Better yet, I'll ignore you from now on like one would ignore a irritating small child. As momma always said, "To argue with a fool makes one a fool. Later fool.

    And to put it in a language that you will be able to understand, "TH TH TH TH THATS ALL FOLKS!!"

    Edited to make JamesRK happy to have something to piss and moan about today.

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government

    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/24/2005 12:41:55 PM


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13666 Posts
    Posted - 02/24/2005 : 12:46:01 PM

    dsmith.. I don't agree with the May 86 cut off date BUT... I am not *itchin' an Moanin' about it. It is the law. IF you want a gun that is unobtainable get over it and get something else. The longer you wait the more the $$$$. Just imagine buying MG's in the early 80's

    Macs 500 Now 3k
    Uzi's 1000 Now 6k
    M-16 1500 Now 13k+
    M-60 3000 Now 25k



    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    224 Posts
    Posted - 02/24/2005 : 1:15:35 PM

    We have all been arguing the RIGHT here. I believe the one main factor we are all missing is the almighty $. Face it, 99.9% of legislation is passed due to $. Lobbyists fight for their biggest $ for them. All of the gun restrictions, laws, licensing, regulation has served to provide financial benefits. That dealer that can get $8000 for that MP5 is NOT going to want laws to be changed so he can only get $1000 for it. The dealers who were charging $85 for a $25 clip because it is high capacity would rather the bans come back so they could again charge 4 times what it is worth.

    As much as we would like to believe that legislation is based on the will of the people we must realize that it is not for the most part. It is based on who's palm can get greased the most. Look at the oil industry. There are many alternate fuels which are environmentally friendly and less costly, but where are they? Bio-Diesel is an incredible fuel which would greatly reduce America's dependency on foreign oil, decrease pollution dramatically as well as put many American farmers back in the black. But there is only ONE place in all of America where it is available and that is because Willie Nelson spent his own money with no Government help. Why? The Oil Lobby, nothing else.

    The best phrase I have heard was one made by Ricky Gujral, the CEO of Hydrogen Power Inc (that is if I remember correctly) when asked why the Hydrogen Power industry could not get more support from the US Government. He said basically, "What do you expect when you have milti-million $ companies (hydro power) going up against multi-BILLION $ companies (the oil industry)".

    Point being is that if we want to do more than just sit on this board debating the spirit of issues, we need to include real world factors. Expounding on the hows and whys using perceived interpretations is nothing more than fantasy.

    As the voices whisper, "Make it lucrative and they will come"

    Edited to give JamesRK something to piss and moan about today. He has nothing better to do now that he is retired.

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government

    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/25/2005 01:45:43 AM


    JamesRK
    Advanced Member



    USA
    3935 Posts
    Posted - 02/24/2005 : 7:44:55 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Shadow83

    Well, you ARE as dumb as you look aren't you!! Not MY logic fartknocker, the shop owners and his partners. Sorry my opinion doesn't agree with yours. I will throw myself offa a cliff now for being so evil!! But I'll first eliminate the entire class 3 shop since they also have a different opinion than lil Napolean. How have you survived in the real world being so afraid of anyone who does not agree with you?!?! OH, That's right!! You were career military where you can be a dictator.

    It's clear that I cAnnot fart in the right key for you so let's just agree to disagree and ignore each other. Better yet, I'll ignore you from now on like one would ignore a irritating small child. As momma always said, "To argue with a fool makes one a fool. Later fool.

    And to put it in a language that you will be able to understand, "TH TH TH TH THATS ALL FOLKS!!"

    Edited to make JamesRK happy to have something to piss and moan about today.



    Now that's a well thought out and reasoned argument. You don't take divergent opinions well, do you?

    I argued that each individual should be allowed to exercise his constitutionally guaranteed rights without infringement unless his rights have been legally forfeited. In your opinion that makes me a fartknocker, Napoleon, dictator and fool. Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

    As I mentioned to you once before, the name calling starts when you don't have a reasonable, logical argument. Thanks for proving that point, at least.


    Hokkmike
    Member



    USA
    604 Posts
    Posted - 02/24/2005 : 11:28:14 PM

    If I wouldn't trust a person with a fully automatic rifle, then I wouldn't trust him with a single shot either. The problem is to decide who belongs in what category, isn't it? hmmmmmmm? The fact is that fully automatic weapons ARE legal so your question is moot. Sorry.

    Sako Fan


    JamesRK
    Advanced Member



    USA
    3935 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2005 : 12:47:13 AM

    Hokkmike, depends on what you mean by legal.


    JamesRK
    Advanced Member



    USA
    3935 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2005 : 01:06:59 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by tr fox

    Below posted by Shadow83:


    Invite a friend to coworker to the range with you one weekend. Someone who has never shot before. I taught the owner of my company to shoot. He had never shot a gun before and he just bought a Rem 700 BDL .243 and a Glock 21. He is now looking at a CETME and I am the one helping him buy it. Now he loves shooting and knows how to responsibly handle a firearm. I am taking my son and a friend to the range tomorrow. His friend has never shot before.


    Shawdow83, I haven't really invested the time to read and comprehend most of your posts, so I don't know if I generally agree/disagree with you or not. But the one paragraph you posted (copied above) seems to put you on the same side I am on.



    tr fox, Shadow83 didn't like my last summary of his position, so this time I'm just posting some of his quotes.

    Any good arguments against Gun-Control? (Gun Rights)
    Posted - 02/01/2005 : 12:14:36 PM by Shadow83

    I have always been against gun control, but for gun licensing. Few have disagreed with this concept no matter how they felt on gun control.

    I truly believe that no one should be permitted to own a gun unless they prove some level of responsibility and proficiency. I am in no way in favor of gun registration but licensing, yes!
    * your heads out of your rear (Gun Rights)
    Posted - 02/01/2005 : 4:15:49 PM by Shadow83

    I have a problem with irresponsible people owning ANY firearm. Some idiot buys a full auto and goes out in the woods and lets some fly. Lead goes many different ways and one finds it's way through the woods to your house and kills your child, wife or even you. Say this idiot just lets them fly and strays make it through the woods and into a structure, or a propane tank. Either way it just makes the public more afraid of guns and adds more support for stronger gun control.
    Any good arguments against Gun-Control? (Gun Rights)
    Posted - 02/03/2005 : 3:33:41 PM by Shadow83

    And to explain to those who can not grasp: A license is just that. Does everyone who has a driver's license own a car? And even IF the stormtroopers come marchin down our streets they will not know how many guns the licensed own. Hand them your crappy one and hide the rest.
    Any good arguments against Gun-Control? (Gun Rights)
    Posted - 02/10/2005 : 4:43:41 PM by Shadow83

    The needs of the whole outweigh the needs of the few.
    Any good arguments against Gun-Control? (Gun Rights)
    Posted - 02/11/2005 : 3:54:31 PM by Shadow83

    I still will support one's right to responsibly own a gun for personal protection within reason. But some semblance of common sense should be applied.

    The US Constitution guarantees many rights. This is what America is all about. But should ALL of these rights go without responsibility? Should not some need to be earned? Haven't our ancestors earned these rights with their blood over the past 229 years? Isn't it our responsibility to preserve and protect these rights by using common sense and good judgment?
    Should fully autos be legal? (Gun Rights)
    Posted - 02/17/2005 : 1:47:34 PM by Shadow83

    I see no need for anyone other than LE and the military to own a fully auto weapon. I see it as an unwarranted public danger. I am a hunter. A fully auto, or even a semi-auto weapon is indicative of a poor marksman in my opinion. But remember; opinions are like rectums, everyone's got one.
    Should fully autos be legal? (Gun Rights)
    Posted - 02/17/2005 : 11:37:16 PM by Shadow83

    I would not support anything to ban fully assault weapons or any currently legal weapons for that matter, it's just that I personally see no need. Yes they're fun to shoot, but it would make no difference to me either way. It's like Pro-Choice v/s Anti-Abortion. Pro-Choice gives one the freedom to choose, hence the word "choice" in the title. Anti-Abortion is against abortion; nada, no way, no choice, no freedom.
    Should fully autos be legal? (Gun Rights)
    Posted - 02/18/2005 : 1:19:52 PM by Shadow83

    Now if you DO look at guns which were designed for use by the general public they look nothing like an assault rifle. If someone needs a semi or fully auto to shoot an animal then they should stay outta the woods.
    Should fully autos be legal? (Gun Rights)
    Posted - 02/20/2005 : 3:07:54 PM by Shadow83

    If I had too I would choose free speech over the right to bear arms. Let's just hope that I or anyone else never has to make this choice.
    Should fully autos be legal? (Gun Rights)
    Posted - 02/20/2005 : 5:31:12 PM by Shadow83

    And please notice that I said "If I had too I would choose free speech over the right to bear arms."
    Should fully autos be legal? (Gun Rights)
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 11:56:25 AM by Shadow83

    Yes I am to a point. I do not believe that fully autos should be outlawed but there should be some measure of control placed on them. I would not want the alcoholic loud mouthed idiot down the street to have one. There are too many Uncle Jimbos and Neds in the world.
    Should fully autos be legal? (Gun Rights)
    Posted - 02/22/2005 : 4:02:24 PM by Shadow83

    To quote some very wise men, "Your father was a hampster and your mother smelled of eldeberries!!".

    Edited to make JamesRK happy to have something to piss and moan about today.
    Should fully autos be legal? (Gun Rights)
    Posted - 02/23/2005 : 11:06:39 AM by Shadow83

    Could be that if someone pays bookoo bucks to own and possess a fully auto they would be less likely to do something stoopid to lose it. Just food for thought.

    Now please allow me to repeat my personal position which has been so badly twisted out of context. I would not support any legislation which would make ANY firearm illegal, but I would support any reasonable legislation which was common sense. And yes, I realize that "common sense" is a subjective term. but isn't most of life subjective? On the same note, if I ever saw any gun owner using any gun irresponsibly (I.E. Drunk with a gun in their hand) I would not hesitate for a second in reporting them.

    Edited to make JamesRK happy to have something to piss and moan about today.



    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    224 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2005 : 01:19:34 AM

    Someone needs to get a life.

    I see the paranoia and fear is working overtime today. Funny how Nappy only includes bits and pieces but ignores the entire statements. And he calls ME dishonest?!?!? What a maroon.

    JamesRk is like Herpes, a nuisance and can't get rid of it.

    Edited to give JamesRK something to piss and moan about today. He has nothing better to do now that he's too old for the Navy.

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government

    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/25/2005 01:49:24 AM


    JamesRK
    Advanced Member



    USA
    3935 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2005 : 01:26:56 AM

    Which one is out of context?


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6367 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2005 : 07:12:34 AM

    JamesRK;
    Nice bit of wrapping up a Socialist.
    I only use that word because it is the nicest I can manage,for people willing to give up the Constitution and Bill of Rights for their own failings....

    Anti-gun people are no stranger to GB...One I well remember hailed from Alaska.He announced his position clearly...with no room for doubt.
    Running into a bit of flack for his stupid position...he started giving away rifles and shotguns on GB...and MANY regulars lined up to get them.
    I purely could not understand that...accepting gifts from a man that hates freedom.

    Perhaps Shadow might wish to emulate this other guy...?

    God,Guts,& Guns
    Have we lost all 3 ??



    Hokkmike
    Member



    USA
    604 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2005 : 08:56:00 AM

    JamesRK. By legal I simply mean that desiring to do so I can go out now and buy one for personal use pending background check and payment of tax. (these may be excessive but that is another matter)

    By the way, if I understand correctly from your other postings that you are in favor of the licensing of shooters (much like drivers) without the registration of individual weapons then you have my FULL support. I have seen too many buffoons in the woods who shouldn't be carrying a flashlight.

    With rights come responsibilities.

    Sako Fan


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1809 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2005 : 08:59:56 AM

    quote:
    That dealer that can get $8000 for that MP5 is NOT going to want laws to be changed so he can only get $1000 for it



    He would if he could sell them hand over fist, but that isn't the case, now, is it?

    If he found 20 prospective buyers who could pay $1000.00 for an MP-5, vs. that one guy who was able to pay $8000.00 for the same gun, what do you think he would prefer?



    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13666 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2005 : 11:27:53 AM

    The only ones complaining about the law are the guys who can't afford to buy a MG. Go to subguns.com plenty of toys for sale.


    JamesRK
    Advanced Member



    USA
    3935 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2005 : 12:34:36 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Hokkmike

    By the way, if I understand correctly from your other postings that you are in favor of the licensing of shooters (much like drivers) without the registration of individual weapons then you have my FULL support. I have seen too many buffoons in the woods who shouldn't be carrying a flashlight.



    No Sir. You do not understand me correctly. I would be interested to know where you got that idea.


    JamesRK
    Advanced Member



    USA
    3935 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2005 : 12:44:08 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Shadow83

    JamesRk is like Herpes, a nuisance and can't get rid of it.

    Edited to give JamesRK something to piss and moan about today. He has nothing better to do now that he's too old for the Navy.



    You might as well get used to it. Like herpes, I'll stay with you.

    No need to edit. I said what I meant the first time.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6367 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2005 : 2:46:08 PM

    In spite of the attempt by phoney elites to equate having lots of money to being a better citizen....

    Many of us could suck on a gov.nipple enough....and afford..a machine gun.

    Many of us choose not to.
    A MG is a nice toy.Very fitting for the diletante rich.

    That does not,however,preclude those of us having a basic understanding of freedom decrying the wholesale giving away of rights by other 'citizens'...those 'other citizens' being Somewhat like Judas goats,leading the herd over the cliff.

    God,Guts,& Guns
    Have we lost all 3 ??



    Hokkmike
    Member



    USA
    604 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2005 : 3:32:34 PM

    JamesRK...my apologies sir. I see you were quoting someone else. My bad.

    Sako Fan


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7778 Posts
    Posted - 02/25/2005 : 4:28:25 PM

    JamesRK: thanks for taking the time to summerize Shadow83's various posts. Interesting reading.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"


    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    224 Posts
    Posted - 02/26/2005 : 01:10:58 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by gunphreak


    quote:
    That dealer that can get $8000 for that MP5 is NOT going to want laws to be changed so he can only get $1000 for it

    If he found 20 prospective buyers who could pay $1000.00 for an MP-5, vs. that one guy who was able to pay $8000.00 for the same gun, what do you think he would prefer?

    A few for $8k, he would make a bigger profit and less work. He would lose money on 20 at $1k each after expenses. Have you ever managed a retail business?

    Which is more appealing: You buy a few cars for $500 each and turn them for $2500 each, or buy 20 or more cars for $500 each and turn them for $800 each?

    I have two good friends and a few acquaintences that I have done work for who own shops which sell class 3, all have said that they would like to see the ban come back (but modified) so they could make more $. They have had to drop their prices since the ban expired.

    Shadow83
    Love My Country,
    Fear My Government

    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/26/2005 01:38:10 AM


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13666 Posts
    Posted - 02/26/2005 : 08:19:12 AM

    Well for those who choose not to suck on the government nipple.. Stop complaining... IF those people are bellyaching about the law and their governmemt for no reason ( not wanting a MG ) what are you complaining about? Are you jealous of the machine gun owners and want their guns removed just cause you can't afford a MG at todays prices? Did you miss the bandwagon on purchasing one in the past when prices were low?


    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    224 Posts
    Posted - 02/26/2005 : 4:26:04 PM

    Remember, just because one has an opinion does not mean that they MUST thrust it down other's throats.

    What a concept. I think that it's called "freedom".

    Shadow83


    Edited by - pickenup on 02/27/2005 01:04:27 AM


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6367 Posts
    Posted - 02/26/2005 : 8:09:07 PM

    I feel charitable this evening...so will rephrase myself...just for you,shadow...

    Some people believe in freedom.

    Some people..(you will not understand this at all)..place the Constitution and Bill of Rights above profit motives.

    Some people hold in contempt those willing to abridge those documents ....so they can make even MORE profit.

    Some people have the cojones to actually call tyranny...that which is tyranny.Those that make the choice to support and defend tyranny for personal gain I am sure have no trouble looking in the mirror...exactly as those supporting Brittan a couple hundred years ago didn't.

    God,Guts,& Guns
    Have we lost all 3 ??



    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    224 Posts
    Posted - 02/27/2005 : 12:13:28 AM

    Sounds like fellon's guilt to me since I did not direct my post at any one else's post.

    And Highball, thanks for proving my point. You gave a clear example of how some cannot allow another to have a different opinion thus not respecting their freedom.

    And FYI, I also believe that freedom, ALL freedoms are the most important basis for America. But to quote another, "you will not understand this at all".

    And thanks for a fine example of an "arogass", charity not withstanding.

    Shadow83


    Edited by - pickenup on 02/27/2005 01:05:32 AM


    dsmith
    Member



    638 Posts
    Posted - 02/27/2005 : 12:14:08 AM

    Select-fire says we shouldn't be complaining because we can't afford the 16k for a full auto. If we are law abiding citizens, we should be complaining about paying 10+ times what the gun is worth, just because of the date of manufacture.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1809 Posts
    Posted - 02/27/2005 : 04:02:08 AM

    That's right, we should have no problem with the price, if the price matches the product.

    The so-called "lessons in economics" are laughable. Cutting off supply to drive up prices is simply evil, plain and simple. So far, none of the dealers I've ever talked to (and we're talking between 40-50 of them, including 3 class III dealers) seem to find the concept of selling $8000 weapons with hoops unlike any other thing on the market today, a good way to conduct business, simply because they aren't paying $800.00 for them from the get-go, they're paying so much, that sometimes, the mark-up the dealers have to put on it to cover lost business is so much, many don't wish to complete the transaction.

    As one told me a long time ago, would I rather have a $300.00 profit for an $800.00 product, or dream about a $2000,00 profitfor the same product, they would take the $300.00, and in this business, I hardly have to apply a thing out of my profits to cover the license, vs. most of my profits being eaten to secure the license to distribute to the public. Tough call.

    In our country after the Civil War, low-end guns were banned in the South, and only certain (expensive) models were for sale, as a way to keep them out of Blacks' hands in order to keep them disarmed. JPFO is reporting that nearly 4,000 defenseless blacks were killed by white folk in that area because of these types of laws. What we face today is no different. NO DIFFERENT!!! If there is any difference, it is that it targets a much broader range of people than the Saturday Night Special bans of those days, but is in place to do nothing except control those in question.

    And to answer the question, "Have I ever run a business?" No, I'm not interested in licensing procedures and tax laws (both of which are regulatory and unconstitutional, not to mention counter-productive), but I have a much greater knowledge of them than what you think, which is why I opted out of business. If I did, I would do it free market (underground market to all you PC fools out there, or so it is called by those of such description). No hoops, and no tax laws. To me, the risk doesn't justify the rewards, though).

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13666 Posts
    Posted - 02/27/2005 : 09:52:21 AM

    dsmith.. if you know something I am not aware of spit it out. Got any MG's that are at long ago prices ? I am not complaining of the cost of any at todays prices. In fact I may be in the mood to buy another one shortly. Heck, I would love to purchase a new Ford GT-40 for $200K + but I ain't bellyaching cause they are 4 times more than a new Corvette. You pay what the market dictates. Tomorrow GT-40's may be worth 100K but don't bet on it cause Ford only makes limited numbers of them. Machine guns are the same way. Only so many pre 86 guns out there for sale. If you see something and want to pay fair market value for it .. purchase it.. IF you snooze you lose. Prices are not going down.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1809 Posts
    Posted - 02/27/2005 : 10:18:51 AM

    That is not fair-market value. Fair-market value is what everyone else pays for any product. In principle, if police pay the same for an M-16 as I do for an AR-15, but with the addition of two holes and 10 other small parts, I have an M-16, you're going to tell me that those parts are worth $7,000.00? I could pick them all up for around $200.00, and have an empty bolt carrier I could sell for $100.00.

    That is present market value, not fair market value.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13666 Posts
    Posted - 02/27/2005 : 7:13:48 PM

    gunphreak, It is fair market value of the MG's to Citizens on guns made prior to May 1986. New manufactured MG's or others made past that date does not apply to citizens only government entities. You can call it what you want but Citizens pay fair market value whatever the market dictates.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6367 Posts
    Posted - 02/27/2005 : 7:44:37 PM

    Opinions I have NO TROUBLE WITH AT ALL.

    When those opinions become law..directly countravening the Constitution....and the citizens support such insane laws..WITHOUT amending the Constitution....That is the bane of a freedom loving individual.

    You cannot argue on a Constitutional basis..your desiring the cheap thrill of.." I got mine "..(Cause I got money)...

    So just keep on arguing that money is more important then freedom.You support your side as well as it could be done... however..the white glare of the Constitution reveals the thinness of it.


    JamesRK
    Advanced Member



    USA
    3935 Posts
    Posted - 02/27/2005 : 8:06:09 PM

    Highball, you're right again. I don't even want an MG by the way.



    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13666 Posts
    Posted - 02/28/2005 : 06:45:37 AM

    I am only stating the facts.. The law was passed and what guns cost now.. One can complain all they want about either, but that is not going to change anything. If you don't like the law, don't buy a gun. IF you do want to comply, get your wallet out and go thru the process and buy a MG... AS far as should they be legal... They are already legal !!
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,391 ******
    edited November -1
    Page 3

    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1815 Posts
    Posted - 02/28/2005 : 12:31:36 PM

    quote:
    It is fair market value of the MG's to Citizens on guns made prior to May 1986.



    Wrong.

    That only works on comic books, baseball cards, and cars... things that the manufacturers are not going to make year after year, simply because if they did, they would begin losing the market to others with new, inventive ideas.

    It never applies to products that have been coerced out of the mainstream by any force other than the manufacturers.

    Fact or not, don't call it "fair", because it is anything but fair.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1815 Posts
    Posted - 02/28/2005 : 12:33:06 PM

    They are not legal everywhere. 15 states don't allow them.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1815 Posts
    Posted - 02/28/2005 : 12:34:11 PM

    Perhaps this thread should have been entitled, "Should full-autos be unrestricted?"

    And my answer to that is, "Absolutely!!"

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    224 Posts
    Posted - 02/28/2005 : 12:48:45 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball

    So just keep on arguing that money is more important then freedom. You support your side as well as it could be done... however..the white glare of the Constitution reveals the thinness of it.

    You are 100% correct!! I don't think that anyone here is arguing that money is more important to them than freedom, just that it is a real controlling factor no matter how you slice it. It SHOULD be as you state and I think most wish that it was. But we cannot avoid the reality of the almighty $. When most things are boiled down, few are not dependant on the $. The majority of legislation passes for financial not philosophical reasons. Sad but true.

    Take the current Social Security waltz. If the current proposal does pass and SSI is privatized as described it will accomplish little if anything to avert the inevitable SS crash (as claimed). In fact many analysts believe that it will hasten it. But since it will benefit the private business sector with a strong lobby (namely large investment firms) it is being pushed. And why do you think that we have not taken a more aggressive stance with the Saudis? Could it be because they own the majority of America's debt? Look at the diamond cartels. They control the amount of diamonds released into the marketplace to maintain their value.

    It would be great if our country could be run purely on ideals, but unfortunately the reality is that this has not been so since it's inception. And America is not the exception. If there were some way that MG ownership could prove lucrative to the proper entities with changes in the fees, then it would happen even with public opposition. Granted it would not happen over night, but it would grease the skids tremendously.

    And as for fair. I would love things to be fair, but I learned a long time ago that life is not fair.


    Edited by - Shadow83 on 02/28/2005 12:52:01 PM


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13755 Posts
    Posted - 02/28/2005 : 12:49:05 PM

    gunphreak... your in a legal state Ohio. heres a link to get you started on the process.. http://www.davesworld-oh.com/#instructions

    See if Dave can hook you up with a fair market value gun.




    Looks like I just dumped a 36 rd clip of smiles...

    Edited by - pickenup on 02/28/2005 5:24:17 PM


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6412 Posts
    Posted - 02/28/2005 : 9:57:32 PM

    Shadow;
    You speak often about 'the law'....realize that one of these days,a sweeping gun ban law will be 'the law', here in America...

    Will you be so willing to obey that 'law'..??

    One must obey the laws as given..until they become untenable.

    The MG 'laws' mean nothing to me...I have no desire to own one.However..I despise those making/enforcing/maintaining/upholding such 'laws'..because they abridge the Constitution...the BEDROCK that America was founded upon.

    Those 'ideals' you mentioned..they are what is responsible for the freedom we enjoyed for a hundred years or so in this country..until the rich and powerful subverted the entire structure for their personal gain.

    I can respect a man reaping profits on UnConstitutional 'laws'...somewhat..if he is honest.not a hyprocrite..about it.


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13755 Posts
    Posted - 02/28/2005 : 10:33:21 PM

    Sorry Highball that leaves me out of your grouping. I only ABIDE by the laws passed by the government. But it is interesting your another one envolved in the discussion that has NO interest in MG's.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6412 Posts
    Posted - 02/28/2005 : 11:03:06 PM

    I also have little interest in so-called 'black guns'....I operate under a banner of.."Only accurate guns are interesting.."..

    Here of late,I have been forced to eat some words about 'junk military style weapons"...but still find a single shot Ruger or good bolt gun fasinating...

    However,,the Second Amendment really only applies to those guns most heavily regulated...i.e.,semi/full auto rifles..and pistols....
    And believe me,there is absolutely no conincidence to this occurance....
    '

    God,Guts,& Guns
    Have we lost all 3 ??



    JamesRK
    Advanced Member



    USA
    3992 Posts
    Posted - 02/28/2005 : 11:52:40 PM

    select-fire, I don't want a trial by jury either, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to give up my right to one.


    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    224 Posts
    Posted - 03/01/2005 : 01:37:29 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball

    Shadow;
    You speak often about 'the law'....realize that one of these days,a sweeping gun ban law will be 'the law', here in America...

    Will you be so willing to obey that 'law'..??

    If I do not I will also accept any consequences since I knew the score going in.

    I believe in ideals and will fight for what I believe is fair and just and have taught my son the same. But I am also am realist. As an engineer the one most important lesson I have learned is that we can only work with the available factors. We cannot manufacture ones which do not exist or make one more than it is. Some times this means accepting things I do not particularly want to. I don't particularly enjoy tilting at windmills either.

    Shadow83
    I have great love for humanity, it's the people I can't stand.


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13755 Posts
    Posted - 03/01/2005 : 06:26:58 AM

    JamesRK, You are also allowed to have MG's in Virginia. State registration is also required.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1815 Posts
    Posted - 03/01/2005 : 07:16:36 AM

    quote:
    gunphreak... your in a legal state Ohio. heres a link to get you started on the process..



    I already know how it's done, but I have no intention of paying that kind of money for something that isn't worth it.

    If I thought it so importnt to have one, I'd consider building one myself, and hide it. I don't find it to be that important, but in practice, this is NOT the way this process should be.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13755 Posts
    Posted - 03/01/2005 : 09:17:01 AM

    gunphreak , So cost is the only thing keeping you from getting one. You would rather break the law and build your own ..hide it... than abide by the law.... You sound like an outstanding citizen.


    dsmith
    Member



    644 Posts
    Posted - 03/01/2005 : 7:00:44 PM

    Just because gunphreak would make his own gun that is protected by the second amendment, instead of paying the thousands of dollars that the elite demands, does not mean he is a bad citizen. It is nice to see there are some real Americans left.


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13755 Posts
    Posted - 03/01/2005 : 10:20:26 PM

    Dream on

    Edited by - select-fire on 03/01/2005 10:34:13 PM


    JamesRK
    Advanced Member



    USA
    3992 Posts
    Posted - 03/01/2005 : 10:43:43 PM

    select-fire, I am fairly familiar with the laws and prices. That's not why I don't want a machinegun. As I said in an earlier post, I got all the machinegun shooting I need when the government was kind enough to let me shoot theirs. However, I don't like giving up a right, whether I use it or not. Any way you look at it, machinegun ownership is no longer a right, it is now a privilege. Just because I still qualify for the privilege doesn't make it right.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6412 Posts
    Posted - 03/01/2005 : 11:38:15 PM

    A supurb place for jury nullification.

    While my personal freedom is more important then a machine gun..Were I asked to sit on a jury deciding the guilt or innocence of a man that built a machine gum..(assuming he had not shot or threatened someone with it)...
    No judge on earth could force me to convict said exerciser of his Second Amnedment Rights..That man is NOT GUILTY..and I have the Constitution to back me up.

    Prohibition was destroyed in this country..because the average citizen still had an I.Q. somewhat above a turnip...unlike today.

    Jury nullification ended Prohibition..because fedgov officials started losing EVERY CASE dragged before the bench..because juries REFUSED to convict their neighbors.

    Today..no guts left in the average citizen.

    God,Guts,& Guns
    Have we lost all 3 ??



    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1815 Posts
    Posted - 03/02/2005 : 01:41:45 AM

    I might point out to the ones who give presence to laws that are contradictory and arbitrary, rather than absolute, as was placed in the premise of the Bill of Rights, had our founding fathers obeyed England's laws, to the T, we would all be speaking with an english accent, and undoubtedly all be slaves right now.

    They instead, opted to follow God's Laws, instead, and we were free from the iron hand of England.

    That's all for my history lesson.

    Actually, if you want to know, I am opposed to the principle of paying 10 times something is truly worth, but the biggest part of why I won't be going through the process is because I'm not interested in being first on the JBT'* list when it comes to weapon confiscation. Nor am I interested in the invasion of privacy and regulatory taxing of the gun (in principle, every time it's transferred, it gets double taxed), and I sure as fooey am not going to purchase a gun like that so it can go up in value, only to be confiscated later, to which I take a heavy hit.

    You don't think it's coming? You don't know your history very well.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1815 Posts
    Posted - 03/02/2005 : 02:09:40 AM

    So, tell me, any of you.

    Would any of you be willing to follow the laws if they allowed any group of people (for this example, we'll use government officials) to enter your home and be quartered in it without your permission during peacetime, to which they are not able to be held responsible for your property, and proceed to rape your wife and daughters for their own pleasure and entertainment, and physically abuse you for protesting the acts, I bet there isn't a single person here that would go along with that, is there?

    If suddenly, the 3rd Amendment is repealed, history WILL repeat itself, and troops WILL use your home without your permission, they WILL plunder your goods, they WILL rape your wife and daughters, and they WILL physically abuse you in the process.

    That being said, that is my stand on laws that conflict with the writings of the Bill of Rights. Bear in mind, I don't give a damn what law gets passed, only God can take away the first 10 Amendments from us, and those rights are all absolute. God doesn't hold us as sinners for following His Laws over the world's laws, unless they are one in the same.

    These infringements are clearly not Godly laws.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13755 Posts
    Posted - 03/02/2005 : 05:35:10 AM

    JamesRK.. it has been 19 years + since the 86 ban went into effect. One of the effects of the act is that guns have got more expensive. There have been NO govermental crackdown of guns and terrible things occurring. In fact my State of South Carolina opened up the door for Class 3 firearms in 2001... a positive thing along with concealed carry a few years back. Even though MG's have cost have risen, so has everything else. I can only say thank you to the political people of SC since my gun was in lockup in another state for 10 yr. and I finally got to bring it here. For the rest of your replies is in theory.. what if.. what if.. what if the sky fell tomorrow Chicken Little.. are not worth a response.



    Edited by - select-fire on 03/02/2005 05:36:03 AM


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6412 Posts
    Posted - 03/02/2005 : 08:56:08 AM

    Those that refuse to learn about History..are doomed to repeat it.

    I don't give a damn about people like Selectfire repeating history....I merely regret them dragging down freedom loving folks with him.
    That too is a repeat of history..and I purely hope that the 3% are still able to wrest away the reins of power and bring back the Constitution,after the sell=outs and elites take that step too far...

    God,Guts,& Guns
    Have we lost all 3 ??



    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13755 Posts
    Posted - 03/02/2005 : 09:57:06 AM

    Highball, your just peeved cause the government did something you don't approve...And jealous as all get out at all us folk who have MG's and are allowed to possess them. Maybe you can't pass a Federal background check ?? The sky ain't falling and the government ain't doing evil things and I ain't dragging down anyone. Get over it... OR go see a mental health specialist.. Paranoid people do have problems.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1815 Posts
    Posted - 03/02/2005 : 1:11:15 PM

    That's pretty funny, right there.

    Our country has people doing everything in their power to strip gun rights, and every other right away from us.

    There is ever only one reason why. To control us.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    Shadow83
    Junior Member



    Kyrgyzstan
    224 Posts
    Posted - 03/04/2005 : 4:50:55 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by JamesRK

    Shadow83, since you don't recall, I'll refresh your memory. You changed gonzo1510's quote to read that it is gonzo1510's quote.

    HUH?!?!?!?!

    Shadow83
    I have great love for humanity, it's the people I can't stand.


    mixontour
    Junior Member



    USA
    218 Posts
    Posted - 03/04/2005 : 6:53:48 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by westlund_125

    My question is should fully automatic weapons be legal? why?

    "A good scope can end a bad situation"




    Absolutely, Like everyone else is saying here, it says so in the constitution.

    Just cause it should be legal doesn't mean that I am going to get one. (unless it is a .45 1927 M1)

    "Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being." -Kahlil Gibran


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/10/2005 : 11:37:02 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by select-fire

    Highball, your just peeved cause the government did something you don't approve...And jealous as all get out at all us folk who have MG's and are allowed to possess them. Maybe you can't pass a Federal background check ?? The sky ain't falling and the government ain't doing evil things and I ain't dragging down anyone. Get over it... OR go see a mental health specialist.. Paranoid people do have problems.




    Wow! No, the skyis falling and the government is doing evil things. If you think Highball is about owning a machine gun, I'm affraid you have severely missed his point. Hey, I wanted a machine gun too but that's not my reasoning behind why the government is evil, they're evil because they are passing law after unconstitutional law in order to pre-empt any kind of insurrection that they know is coming. The sad part is even though you are one of the machine gun owners out there, I doubt you fall into Highball's 3% and therefor your machine gun is useless. I'd like to see the machine guns and all NFA weapons in the hands of the 3%. It's too bad too, because freedom will need all of them but I'm sure we'll come up with a replacement and when it's all over and thousands of us are dead, you will still be able to have your precious machine gun.

    I know the date of the posts and I know we have done this before but I don't care, your comments really pissed me off. You are one of those that will rest easily all snug in your bed at night under the blanket of protection that we will provide and then you will question the manner in which we provide it, all the while clinging to your machine guns begging for the authorities to leave you and yours alone.

    It's a damn shame that these kind of folks get to live as Americans no matter how bad that may seem today, history repeats itself and our future is scripted. We will be forced to take physical action against our tyrannical government in the beginning we will be overmatched and many of us in the first wave will die, then the people will begin to see the truth and masses will show up with guns and bows and knives and rocks and whatever they can find and then we will be free. It will take another twenty years before we are once again a world power. It will happen, call me paranoid and I shall call you naive. We will both wear monickers but I will fight for mine, you will not. Therefore, when freedom comes around again, know that you are not deserved of such rewards although you will receive it and wear the blood of our patriots in your soul.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    280 Posts
    Posted - 11/11/2005 : 02:14:43 AM

    YESYES YES
    Like the Swiss


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1815 Posts
    Posted - 11/11/2005 : 09:45:10 AM

    Wow.... several months later, this topic rises from its ashes.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    jaflowers
    Member



    USA
    625 Posts
    Posted - 11/11/2005 : 8:37:00 PM

    ABSOLUTELY and my belief is that, just like the Swiss, all citizen households should be GIVEN a full auto and be trained on its use by the government as well as required to practice with it periodically. It works well over there, are Americans less trustworthy? I'm sorry if this offends all those rich individuals who've paid tens of thousands for their guns that should have only cost 1/10 that but ALL Americans should have access to inexpensive, reliable full autos without the ATF nosing around.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6412 Posts
    Posted - 11/11/2005 : 9:35:39 PM

    Wonderful responses, the last couple three...

    A country truly FREE...and trusting of its CITIZENS..would issue a full auto to every head of household. Enough ammo to qualify with every year...and the expection of doing so every year.

    Only TYRANTS disarm their citizens. Aided and abeted by those expecting to PROFIT from the situation....


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/11/2005 : 11:33:42 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball

    Wonderful responses, the last couple three...



    Well then I guess I can take that as you didn't approve of my bit of soap box banter.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?

    Edited by - Comengetit on 11/11/2005 11:34:26 PM


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    280 Posts
    Posted - 11/12/2005 : 12:00:49 AM

    What I can't figure out is why the Swiss banned
    HP ammo . The only place I read it was in Guns & Ammo .
    No one else any were said a thing about it.
    The only other place that did this is NJ.
    In NJ it's a $10,000.00 fine if you get picked
    up with even one round of it.I wonder what it
    would be for a MG.
    Must have let in some commies libs.

    Edited by - shootstright on 11/12/2005 12:02:17 AM


    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    877 Posts
    Posted - 11/12/2005 : 12:14:50 AM

    quote:
    What I can't figure out is why the Swiss banned HP ammo



    Maybe the Swiss did it because it is not Geneva Convention compliant.

    Anybody catch the Switzerland article a few months back in 1st Freedom? Or might have been American Rifleman. Anyway, sounded like a pretty nice place. Supposedly gun shops and availability are very similar to America. The author even went to some kind of family marksmanship gathering. Apparently they have a holiday or something where basically the whole country goes shooting for the day.

    -Wolf



    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    280 Posts
    Posted - 11/12/2005 : 12:20:37 AM

    This is good ,why won't the media report
    on things like that.

    Edited by - shootstright on 11/12/2005 12:21:15 AM


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6412 Posts
    Posted - 11/12/2005 : 06:53:03 AM

    Comengetit;
    Actually, your blast at the past was a wonderful broadside at those willing to trade freedom for money...just so long as they can pass the hoops put forth by their masters, and reap the "benefits" thereof...

    Discussing 'freedom' with that type is an exercise in futility...I myself do so hoping that people on the edge will read the differing opinions...and make the right choices....

    You appear to believe that I am quick to critize you...and such is not so. Rarely do I find much to disagree with, in your posts..and then merely the minor stuff that folks often discuss.
    After all...if two people agree on EVERYTHING...one of them is redundunt...


    Red223
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7136 Posts
    Posted - 11/12/2005 : 10:31:36 AM

    Shadow83,

    During the Civil War a bright American invented the lever action rifle. These were considered to be 'deadly weapons' with their quick rate of fire as they allowed a single person to fire off 8 shots immediately versus a muzzle loader or single shot rifle firing 1 shot.

    Some men and one unit in the Civil War bought their own lever action rifle and survived because of their own investment.

    Move on over to the 21st Century, oil isn't going to last forever, countries will battle over the last 50% remaining of the worlds oil supply, hundreds of millions will die from starvation, freeze, unemployment, civil war, global war. Our govt. refuses to get off of foreign oil in our people's interest due to corporate control of the government.

    You can sit in your house with a single shot bird gun if you wish but when the city folk pilfer the countryside for food and homes you won't last but a minute. Yes there is sadly a day coming where Americans will have to shoot Americans to survive. Not believing so is naive.

    Thinking America's govt. will always protect you is naive.

    The world will be going thru some drastic changes this century and there will be two classes of people, dead and survivors. It took 100 years to suck up 50% of the worlds oil supply, it will only take 20 years to deplete the 50% we have left.

    The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional Right, not a privelege. You are going to see the Govt. drastically try to remove your right in order to prevent the destruction of the US Federal Govt. when the people finally get mad for being led like sheeple to their holocaust.



    http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/No_Justice.htm


    Red223
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7136 Posts
    Posted - 11/12/2005 : 10:40:26 AM

    You used to be able to buy a double barrel shotgun and remember the old saying 'give 'em both barrels'?

    Well a double barrel shotgun capable of firing both barrels at once is now considered a MACHINE GUN under Federal Law and you can no longer buy those new.

    Silly unneccessary firepower? I don't think so.

    Silly law? Yes, unconstitutional.



    http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/No_Justice.htm


    KYfatboy
    Senior Member



    USA
    1783 Posts
    Posted - 11/12/2005 : 1:48:19 PM

    ye sully auto's should be legal, and unrestricted. I rember during the klinton years, how the nra was always yelling about the hunter's. Well the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about we the people having the right to defend ourselve from opression. useing the latest in military arms. the founders new there was no way the populace armed with matchlocks, could take on any kind of force armed with flintlocks.

    parabellem molone lahveh


    amsptcds
    Senior Member



    USA
    1205 Posts
    Posted - 11/13/2005 : 12:16:01 AM

    Yes.

    Some are part of our history.
    They can be very usefull when really needed in a variety of ways.

    Granted one doesn't need one every day, any more than I need any of my guns on any given day. But the non compliant out there have them, and it would be nice to meet firepower with firepower in case of actual event.

    Just because they are machine guns and somehow scary in the public's view, doesn't mean that they need to be outlawed. The "scary" factor drives that opinion, I believe. And what is "scary", but some emotional state?

    I remember camping in AZ and hearing mgs in the distance. I didn't find it scary one bit. Those folks will be better prepared to defend their area should it ever become necessary.

    The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.




    Neo-Jedi Order

    Member

    What? ME worry?






    codenamepaul
    Senior Member



    2170 Posts
    Posted - 11/13/2005 : 7:55:46 PM

    The 2nd amendment dictates that the populace have available to them the same instruments available to the common infantryman. Does this guarantee the right to rockets, mortars, and bombs? No. But it does guarantee the right to have the means to aquire those instruments.

    When the meekest of men raise their fist at you in defiance, you have lost. It is just a matter then of admitting it to yourself.


    warriorsfan
    Junior Member



    USA
    285 Posts
    Posted - 11/13/2005 : 11:33:42 PM

    What about some kind of licensing similar to CCWs, would you guys support that? It would be set up identical to the CCW laws in states like Michigan. You'd have to be 21 to buy a fully-auto firearm. You'd have to take a class that teaches how to safely handle the weapons, the legalities of owning the weapons (where you can and can't shoot, not being able to hunt with them, transporting the weapons, etc), and all of that stuff. Once you complete the class, you'd apply for a license and it goes before a local gun board, which approves it as long as you meet the requirements (pass background check, training, etc.). You'd also have to have your fingerprints on file with local LEO. I'd assume the govt would also set some type of limit as to how many of these weapons you would be able to purchase in one year, to prevent cults and militias from stockpiling weapons.

    Would some type of situation like this meet your approval? It would be almost identical to the CCW permit process. I'd imagine it would also accompany some easing of the restrictions regarding the manufacture and sale of new fully-autos, either domestic or imports (probably with very high tariffs).



    Edited by - warriorsfan on 11/14/2005 3:44:50 PM


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6412 Posts
    Posted - 11/13/2005 : 11:50:14 PM

    Jeeze.
    What is so mystical about owning a full-auto ? Is owning one expected to instantly make a murdering lunatic out of a citizen ?

    How about the GOVERNMENT proving that they have a right to exist, instead ?

    We as citizens have been taught by a corrupt, out of control government to distrust other citizens....instead of distrusting those that have EARNED that distrust. Namely..those who control every facet of our lives.

    The PROPER method to handle homicidal criminals...is to ENSURE that they get a speedy trial...and a sudden drop.

    You DO NOT...in a free country...ASSUME that EVERY BODY is a criminal..and punish EVERY BODY for the sins of the few.

    Unless, of course...you have an agenda in mind that doesn't include freedom for the masses.


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    280 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 12:06:06 AM

    warriorsfan
    No , never .
    A CC permit is a backdoor reg.
    Govnment should never have the abillity
    to take away a 2 amendment right from
    anyone.


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 12:59:03 AM

    Should be able to walk into Sears or Western Auto or K-Mart and buy a fully automatic weapon filling out no paperwork. It is my God give right and if that wasn't good enough the Forefathers enumerated it right behind freedom of speech in order of importance.
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Shall not be infringed! Anything beyond an open market for all types of weaponry is unacceptable. If the military or police or alphabet gang can have it, so can we. It doesn't get any clearer than that.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    codenamepaul
    Senior Member



    2170 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 01:29:16 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by warriorsfan

    What about some kind of licensing similar to CCWs, would you guys support that? It would be set up identical to the CCW laws in states like Michigan. You'd have to be 21 to buy a fully-auto firearm. You'd have to take a class that teaches how to safely handle the weapons, the legalities of owning the weapons (where you can and can't shoot, not being able to hunt with them, transporting the weapons, etc), and all of that stuff. Once you complete the class, you'd apply for a license and it goes before a local gun board, which approves it as long as you meet the requirements (pass background check, training, etc.). You'd also have to have your fingerprints on file with local LEO. I'd assume the govt would also set some type of limit as to how many of these weapons you would be able to purchase in one year, to prevent cults and militias from stockpiling weapons.

    Would some type of situation like this meet your approval? It would be almost identical to the CCW permit process. I'd imagine it would also accompany some restrictions regarding the manufacture and sale of new fully-autos, either domestic or imports (probably with very high tariffs).






    What are you smoking mister?

    When the meekest of men raise their fist at you in defiance, you have lost. It is just a matter then of admitting it to yourself.


    Wagon Wheel
    Junior Member



    USA
    126 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 09:40:54 AM

    codenamepaul

    Read This!!!!

    http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=30

    Don't wimp out and not read this in it's entirety. Use the referenced material and then come back and discuss the topic from a more informed position.
    Proud to be an American!

    Edited by - Wagon Wheel on 11/14/2005 10:03:41 AM


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6412 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 12:43:15 PM

    quote:
    some type of limit as to how many of these weapons you would be able to purchase in one year, to prevent cults and militias from stockpiling weapons.


    The above large letter word is PRECISELY the people the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment..not you duck hunters.

    Amazing how well the fedgov propaganda machine clouds mens minds.


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 1:33:18 PM

    It truly is amazing but if they listen to what the government tells them...
    At least he's not anti-machine gun, just pro-regulation of machine guns. It's a start.

    WWII- I read the article above linked and all of the others at the bottom of the story. I'm not at all certain what the significance of these stories were, I guess the history of the militia, but surely you knew that already? All of the information there was stuff we've been pounding home for, in my case, months. In most others here, years. Please clue me in as to what it is that I am missing, I just fail to see it. Must be that Alzheimers kicking in again, damn thing can't comprehend diddley.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    Wagon Wheel
    Junior Member



    USA
    126 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 1:55:48 PM

    Comengetit

    That was not directed at you. It looked to me as if codenamepaul needed a refresher course.

    Edit Comment: I do hope that you will read it as well.
    2nd edit: Sorry codenamepaul-- the target should have been warriorsfan

    Proud to be an American!

    Edited by - Wagon Wheel on 11/14/2005 4:22:02 PM



    warriorsfan
    Junior Member



    USA
    285 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 3:44:21 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball
    The above large letter word is PRECISELY the people the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment..not you duck hunters.

    Amazing how well the fedgov propaganda machine clouds mens minds.





    I doubt the white supremicists and nazi skinheads and Tim McVeigh types who label themselves today's "militias" are who the Founding Fathers had in mind when they used the term "militia."

    I consider the militia to be every adult citizen in the United States who is not a felon or mentally ill, not the collection of white zealot Christian males who have an extreme hatred and fear of all those who aren't white zealot Christian males and therefore band together in groups and call themselves "militias" and go play soldier in the forest so they can prepare for the upcoming "race war" or their next abortion clinic bombing.
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,391 ******
    edited November -1
    Page 4

    Wagon Wheel
    Junior Member



    USA
    126 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 5:57:54 PM

    This thread seems to be on a roll. For maximum exposer I add::

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/9/171953.shtml

    Proud to be an American!


    CommissarRob
    Starting Member



    USA
    34 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 6:50:09 PM

    Holy slime! I was pro MG before but now it looks like were are going to really need 'em.

    "The peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." Well I wonder what the hell that could mean!?

    Edited by - pickenup on 11/14/2005 8:15:05 PM


    codenamepaul
    Senior Member



    2172 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 6:58:18 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by warriorsfan


    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball
    The above large letter word is PRECISELY the people the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment..not you duck hunters.

    Amazing how well the fedgov propaganda machine clouds mens minds.





    I doubt the white supremicists and nazi skinheads and Tim McVeigh types who label themselves today's "militias" are who the Founding Fathers had in mind when they used the term "militia."

    I consider the militia to be every adult citizen in the United States who is not a felon or mentally ill, not the collection of white zealot Christian males who have an extreme hatred and fear of all those who aren't white zealot Christian males and therefore band together in groups and call themselves "militias" and go play soldier in the forest so they can prepare for the upcoming "race war" or their next abortion clinic bombing.







    You sir, need to get off the post and review your history. This is precisely why we have a second amendment and a first. I (or you) may not agree with the skinheads and such but they have the right to 1) say what they want without retribution and 2) take a fair shot at overthrowing the governmenmt if they feel they have the support. I don't remember which founding father said it but the paraphrase would be "don't be too hard on punishing revolutionaries" I believe it was over the Whiskey Rebellion. The point being is that if you totally crush a rebellion then you will totally discourage dissent.

    When the meekest of men raise their fist at you in defiance, you have lost. It is just a matter then of admitting it to yourself.


    Wagon Wheel
    Junior Member



    USA
    126 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 7:25:21 PM

    CommissarRob:

    Go back to whatever rock you crawled out from under.

    Proud to be an American!


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 9:33:30 PM

    Warriorfan;
    The striking depth of your confusion is apparent within the text of your one post..the one dealing with the Militia.
    First you call them Skinheads..then "All adult citizens"....gosh. I am unable to help you much.

    However,,it is obvious you consider me to be one of the "Skinhead racist white supremists" ...by your instant assumption that these were the people I was talking about.
    Just because YOU meanieise words..please don't assume I do so.

    The Militia of America is no part of what you so obviously have garnered off the evening news.

    Oh..by the way...where would you have the Militia train...anyway ? Since "Running around in the woods" is so ludicrous..?


    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    884 Posts
    Posted - 11/14/2005 : 10:55:25 PM

    Wagon Wheel, what did Commisar Rob say to piss you off? Sounds to me like he is very Pro-MG.

    Codenamepaul, instead of telling people to just get off the post and educate themselves, why don't we all try to educate each other together? Maybe you will find that you don't have all the answers you thought you did.

    I think the question is simple... does the volume of fire of a firearm determine how dangerous it is???

    Is 30 rounds of rapid fire with a semi-auto AR-15 less lethal than full-auto with an M-16? I think Highball has hit it on the head, "What is so mystical about owning a full-auto? Is owning one expected to instantly make a murdering lunatic out of a citizen?"

    -Wolf




    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    Red223
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7181 Posts
    Posted - 11/15/2005 : 05:08:28 AM

    No, Full autos are not more deadly than pump actions, lever actions, or single shots.

    Matter of fact, out of all the firearms out there...the ones involved in crime were NOT assault weapons nor machine guns that are lawfully possessed by Americans.

    Sure those Los Angeles bank robbers used their firearms in crime...but those were illegally made machine guns that NO LAW stopped from being used/made.

    While the sheeple will avoid making machine guns post 1986....criminals are not heald back by mere LAWS.

    The 2nd Amendment was meant for Americans to be able to defend themselves, keep criminals from attempting crime, and to ensure our govt. complies with the American people. Unfortuneatly all of the above no longer applies.

    http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/No_Justice.htm


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/15/2005 : 07:38:16 AM

    Then I suggest we make it apply. Pay no more taxes and civil disobediencen will be good for starters. What we need to do is pick a date when we are going to take our country back and advertise it to the masses via email and word of mouth. Each Capitol city should be overthrown at the same time, take over the governorship and immediately declare martial law. Submit the demands to the federal government to step down. Once they have done so, and they will eventually, get rid of the whole slew of 'em. Allow the people to go to work and to go shopping for food. The country could be kept running if done right. You have to get the capitol buildings in each state, then you can go to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 11/15/2005 : 09:42:37 AM

    quote:
    I doubt the white supremicists and nazi skinheads and Tim McVeigh types who label themselves today's "militias" are who the Founding Fathers had in mind when they used the term "militia."

    I consider the militia to be every adult citizen in the United States who is not a felon or mentally ill, not the collection of white zealot Christian males who have an extreme hatred and fear of all those who aren't white zealot Christian males and therefore band together in groups and call themselves "militias" and go play soldier in the forest so they can prepare for the upcoming "race war" or their next abortion clinic bombing.




    Ok, let's look at this comment in context with the topic.


    quote:
    I doubt the white supremicists and nazi skinheads and Tim McVeigh types who label themselves today's "militias" are who the Founding Fathers had in mind when they used the term "militia."



    They didn't. But you have been brainwashed into believing that they are. They do not call themselves "militias". Our establishment began reauthoring the meaning of the word "militia" to mean "those with an anti-government or politically incorrect agenda." rather than "An organized body of armed citizens that can be assembled to fight encroachments upon the communities of those said citizens."


    quote:
    I consider the militia to be every adult citizen in the United States who is not a felon or mentally ill,



    I am not so concerned about felon status, simply because there are many victimless felonies to which any of us could be convicted of, and should not exist in the first place. True menaces to society should never be let out to do their deed again. Mental illness is another gray area to me, though not as easy to define. Like any illness, they can be treated, and should not be released until they are ready to function in society once more. These two statuses should be removed from those who are not incarcerated/committed, and when they are, those who willingly release them from prison/hospitals may be less likely to do so, knowing they will infect the populace once more.


    quote:
    not the collection of white zealot Christian males who have an extreme hatred and fear of all those who aren't white zealot Christian males and therefore band together in groups and call themselves "militias" and go play soldier in the forest so they can prepare for the upcoming "race war" or their next abortion clinic bombing.



    Couldn't help yourself from labeling those people "Christians", I see. Well, get your foot out of your mouth and pay close attention. Other religious extremists have made it their business to kill as many Americans, regardless of their composition where religions or ethnical backgrounds are concerned, as possible. Americans, even Christian Americans, have a right to feel indignation and distrust toward those people. They have a right to arm themselves against those same people, to prevent these occurences, and the minute our gov't quits trying to revoke that right, those same said extremists will not be so willing to attack us.

    And of course, the establishment is the ones calling them "militias", not the extremists you have described. The word "militia" has been perverted the exact same way self-loading paramilitary rifles have now been given the misnomer "Assault weapon".

    Time to flush your brain and rethink your position on this topic, preferrably without all the indoctrinated BS in it.



    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    Wagon Wheel
    Junior Member



    USA
    126 Posts
    Posted - 11/15/2005 : 10:20:44 AM

    WoundedWolf

    It's not just one thing he has said. It is the conglomeration of his posts that make ME sure he is not what he says he is.

    Proud to be an American!


    KYfatboy
    Senior Member



    USA
    1791 Posts
    Posted - 11/15/2005 : 2:43:58 PM

    I am somewhat in agreement with ww2. When I look att all of cr's post, something just don't add up.
    quote:
    Originally posted by WoundedWolf

    Wagon Wheel, what did Commisar Rob say to piss you off? Sounds to me like he is very Pro-MG.

    Codenamepaul, instead of telling people to just get off the post and educate themselves, why don't we all try to educate each other together? Maybe you will find that you don't have all the answers you thought you did.

    I think the question is simple... does the volume of fire of a firearm determine how dangerous it is???

    Is 30 rounds of rapid fire with a semi-auto AR-15 less lethal than full-auto with an M-16? I think Highball has hit it on the head, "What is so mystical about owning a full-auto? Is owning one expected to instantly make a murdering lunatic out of a citizen?"

    -Wolf




    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.





    parabellem molone lahveh


    warriorsfan
    Junior Member



    USA
    304 Posts
    Posted - 11/15/2005 : 5:21:50 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball

    Warriorfan;
    The striking depth of your confusion is apparent within the text of your one post..the one dealing with the Militia.
    First you call them Skinheads..then "All adult citizens"....gosh. I am unable to help you much.

    However,,it is obvious you consider me to be one of the "Skinhead racist white supremists" ...by your instant assumption that these were the people I was talking about.
    Just because YOU meanieise words..please don't assume I do so.

    The Militia of America is no part of what you so obviously have garnered off the evening news.

    Oh..by the way...where would you have the Militia train...anyway ? Since "Running around in the woods" is so ludicrous..?





    What the true definition of milita is (all law-abiding adult citizens) and the specific groups that label themselves "militias" are two different things. I am basing my observations on the Michigan Militia, since that is the state in which I live. First off, they were founded by a raving racist lunatic who believes that the Japanese mafia destroyed the Oklahoma City Federal Building in response to the Sarin gas attack on the Japanese subways. Secondly, while they might not exactly be a racist organization, many of their members spout off racist rhetoric and extreme Christian rhetoric (i.e. all non-believers are going to hell, homosexuals are evil and need to be destroyed, etc). All of this I didn't need to get from the news, the MM's own websites seem to be a sufficient source.

    And don't tell me that groups like the Branch Davidians were stockpiling weapons for benevolent purposes. Groups like them and many of these self-styled "militias" aren't so much for defending freedom and democracy, which is what the Founding Fathers intended by writing the second amendment, but for IMPOSING their own rule of law on everyone else, whether it be some type of hardline Christian theocracy or some type of whites-only homeland, like Robert Jay Matthews and the Aryan Republican Army were robbing banks to fund back in the 80's. Don't tell me those guys were fighting for "freedom and justice for all", don't tell me that's who the Founding Fathers meant to empower. Believe it or not, some people do stockpile weapons for the wrong reasons.

    And my original suggestion was simply a realistic alternative to the current ban on fully-autos. I was simply being realistic in my approach, you can't remove gun control all at once just like you can't ban all guns at once. You take steps in the right direction. I think any step that lets regular people own fully-autos again is a step in the right direction, and you can advance from there. Expecting to be able to go from no fully-autos to being able to buy one at the hardware store overnight is unrealistic. I'm simply trying to think within the confines of what could actually be accomplished in the current political climate if the country could become more gun-friendly through education and the election of gun-friendly politicians.

    And just so you know, I never meant to include you nor do I consider you a racist or a skinhead or any of those things.




    KYfatboy
    Senior Member



    USA
    1791 Posts
    Posted - 11/15/2005 : 7:00:04 PM

    I started to, but naw I'm not even going to reply to such crap.
    quote:
    Originally posted by warriorsfan


    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball

    Warriorfan;
    The striking depth of your confusion is apparent within the text of your one post..the one dealing with the Militia.
    First you call them Skinheads..then "All adult citizens"....gosh. I am unable to help you much.

    However,,it is obvious you consider me to be one of the "Skinhead racist white supremists" ...by your instant assumption that these were the people I was talking about.
    Just because YOU meanieise words..please don't assume I do so.

    The Militia of America is no part of what you so obviously have garnered off the evening news.

    Oh..by the way...where would you have the Militia train...anyway ? Since "Running around in the woods" is so ludicrous..?





    What the true definition of milita is (all law-abiding adult citizens) and the specific groups that label themselves "militias" are two different things. I am basing my observations on the Michigan Militia, since that is the state in which I live. First off, they were founded by a raving racist lunatic who believes that the Japanese mafia destroyed the Oklahoma City Federal Building in response to the Sarin gas attack on the Japanese subways. Secondly, while they might not exactly be a racist organization, many of their members spout off racist rhetoric and extreme Christian rhetoric (i.e. all non-believers are going to hell, homosexuals are evil and need to be destroyed, etc). All of this I didn't need to get from the news, the MM's own websites seem to be a sufficient source.

    And don't tell me that groups like the Branch Davidians were stockpiling weapons for benevolent purposes. Groups like them and many of these self-styled "militias" aren't so much for defending freedom and democracy, which is what the Founding Fathers intended by writing the second amendment, but for IMPOSING their own rule of law on everyone else, whether it be some type of hardline Christian theocracy or some type of whites-only homeland, like Robert Jay Matthews and the Aryan Republican Army were robbing banks to fund back in the 80's. Don't tell me those guys were fighting for "freedom and justice for all", don't tell me that's who the Founding Fathers meant to empower. Believe it or not, some people do stockpile weapons for the wrong reasons.

    And my original suggestion was simply a realistic alternative to the current ban on fully-autos. I was simply being realistic in my approach, you can't remove gun control all at once just like you can't ban all guns at once. You take steps in the right direction. I think any step that lets regular people own fully-autos again is a step in the right direction, and you can advance from there. Expecting to be able to go from no fully-autos to being able to buy one at the hardware store overnight is unrealistic. I'm simply trying to think within the confines of what could actually be accomplished in the current political climate if the country could become more gun-friendly through education and the election of gun-friendly politicians.

    And just so you know, I never meant to include you nor do I consider you a racist or a skinhead or any of those things.






    parabellem molone lahveh


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/15/2005 : 7:15:35 PM

    OK, well that was fun. Let's try not to run off all the newbies, at least until we understand them and their thoughts. Warriors Fan, I understand where you're coming from you just have to choose those words a little better. CR, I asked you 5 purposeful questions and you failed all five, I think it's safe to say that you sir/madam are a member of the alphabet gang. Either that or the smartest 17 year old or the dumbest 30+ year old on the planet.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    Wagon Wheel
    Junior Member



    USA
    126 Posts
    Posted - 11/15/2005 : 7:31:19 PM

    Finally, total agreement here concerning CR.

    Proud to be an American!


    warriorsfan
    Junior Member



    USA
    304 Posts
    Posted - 11/15/2005 : 9:48:21 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Comengetit

    OK, well that was fun. Let's try not to run off all the newbies, at least until we understand them and their thoughts. Warriors Fan, I understand where you're coming from you just have to choose those words a little better.



    I think people misinterpreted my first suggestion regarding a CCW-style legalization of fully-autos. I live in Michigan, we have a CCW law and I hated having to shell out $175 for a class to have an insturctor give tell me common sense that I already knew, and inform me about the CCW laws which I was already familiar with, and then having to shell out $105 for the permit itself, and THEN having to go to the Sheriff to be fingerprinted, which takes FOREVER to schedule and THEN having to wait for the damn permit. I would much prefer a Vermont-style right to carry law, but I understand that such a thing will take time and patience. Once people see that concealed weapons are nothing to fear, then maybe Michigan can adopt a Vermont-style system. I think the same could be true of fully-autos. Just impose a system where people can own them again even if they have to jump through a few hoops, like with the CCW laws. Then you can take it from there. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a few small steps.

    And in regards to the militias, I will say that the Michigan militia has improved leaps and bounds since they ended their affiliation with Norm Olson. It has splintered into several groups, but the Southeast Michigan militia seems to be what a "true" militia should be, they focus on survival training and emergency response in the event of some type of national catastrophe and they welcome individuals of all races, both genders, and any religion. Unfortunately, I have come across other individuals throughout the state who have less than honorable motives, groups of individuals who stockpile weapons and they are more than anxious to use them, almost as if they are giddy with idea of someday killing people. Stop off at a few bait shops or bars in rural Michigan and just talk to people, it's not hard to get these guys to open up with their TRUE motivations, and it's not "liberty and justice for all." Some VERY scary people out there.


    It just seems that people seem TOO eager to run to the hills and wage guerilla war against the government. Someone in an earlier response to me actually said that white supremicists and anti-government extremists have the right to try and violently overthrow the government. Excuse me if I don't agree with that assessment. I think armed revolution should be the absolute LAST resort, employed only after trying every available method of peaceful protest and political change. I'm sorry, but I don't think that is the situation we find ourselves in. I don't think armed revolution is a proportional response to the government not letting us own fully-autos. Can you imagine if every time some segment of the population became disinfranchised they would wage guerilla war? We would be living in Somalia or Iraq. I think recent events like the AW ban sunset and the "Stand your ground laws" and the increase in the number of states allowing CCWs shows that we are making progress. I don't think we need to be calling for armed revolution if political change can still be made at the ballot box. Unfortunatley, I think there are a few people in here who would prefer armed revolution instead.




    KYfatboy
    Senior Member



    USA
    1791 Posts
    Posted - 11/15/2005 : 10:06:25 PM

    having read every post here in this forum, I really don't believe that anyone here is wanting to try and wage war against our goverment. I do believe that some are fed up with the enchroaments on our rights that do continue, even though we are makeing some progress in the political arena. All it takes is some liberal wiene in the white house, and a liberal wiene majority in the senate, to havu the U.N. treaty on small arms control a reality in this country. To believe that our goverment on A national level supports our right to keep and bear arms, is somewhat foolish. All these ccw laws are coming from state level. There should be no law concerning ccw anyway. To me it seem's that ccw is A right that goes along with the second amedment. It really makes more sense to allow people to ccw, rather than open carry in public.
    quote:
    Originally posted by warriorsfan


    quote:
    Originally posted by Comengetit

    OK, well that was fun. Let's try not to run off all the newbies, at least until we understand them and their thoughts. Warriors Fan, I understand where you're coming from you just have to choose those words a little better.



    I think people misinterpreted my first suggestion regarding a CCW-style legalization of fully-autos. I live in Michigan, we have a CCW law and I hated having to shell out $175 for a class to have an insturctor give tell me common sense that I already knew, and inform me about the CCW laws which I was already familiar with, and then having to shell out $105 for the permit itself, and THEN having to go to the Sheriff to be fingerprinted, which takes FOREVER to schedule and THEN having to wait for the damn permit. I would much prefer a Vermont-style right to carry law, but I understand that such a thing will take time and patience. Once people see that concealed weapons are nothing to fear, then maybe Michigan can adopt a Vermont-style system. I think the same could be true of fully-autos. Just impose a system where people can own them again even if they have to jump through a few hoops, like with the CCW laws. Then you can take it from there. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a few small steps.

    And in regards to the militias, I will say that the Michigan militia has improved leaps and bounds since they ended their affiliation with Norm Olson. It has splintered into several groups, but the Southeast Michigan militia seems to be what a "true" militia should be, they focus on survival training and emergency response in the event of some type of national catastrophe and they welcome individuals of all races, both genders, and any religion. Unfortunately, I have come across other individuals throughout the state who have less than honorable motives, groups of individuals who stockpile weapons and they are more than anxious to use them, almost as if they are giddy with idea of someday killing people. Stop off at a few bait shops or bars in rural Michigan and just talk to people, it's not hard to get these guys to open up with their TRUE motivations, and it's not "liberty and justice for all." Some VERY scary people out there.


    It just seems that people seem TOO eager to run to the hills and wage guerilla war against the government. Someone in an earlier response to me actually said that white supremicists and anti-government extremists have the right to try and violently overthrow the government. Excuse me if I don't agree with that assessment. I think armed revolution should be the absolute LAST resort, employed only after trying every available method of peaceful protest and political change. I'm sorry, but I don't think that is the situation we find ourselves in. I don't think armed revolution is a proportional response to the government not letting us own fully-autos. Can you imagine if every time some segment of the population became disinfranchised they would wage guerilla war? We would be living in Somalia or Iraq. I think recent events like the AW ban sunset and the "Stand your ground laws" and the increase in the number of states allowing CCWs shows that we are making progress. I don't think we need to be calling for armed revolution if political change can still be made at the ballot box. Unfortunatley, I think there are a few people in here who would prefer armed revolution instead.






    parabellem molone lahveh


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13801 Posts
    Posted - 11/15/2005 : 10:10:11 PM

    I still love to read a good thread...

    GW.. the Machinegun owner.


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 12:27:17 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by warriorsfan


    quote:
    Originally posted by Comengetit

    OK, well that was fun. Let's try not to run off all the newbies, at least until we understand them and their thoughts. Warriors Fan, I understand where you're coming from you just have to choose those words a little better.



    I think people misinterpreted my first suggestion regarding a CCW-style legalization of fully-autos. I live in Michigan, we have a CCW law and I hated having to shell out $175 for a class to have an insturctor give tell me common sense that I already knew, and inform me about the CCW laws which I was already familiar with, and then having to shell out $105 for the permit itself, and THEN having to go to the Sheriff to be fingerprinted, which takes FOREVER to schedule and THEN having to wait for the damn permit. I would much prefer a Vermont-style right to carry law, but I understand that such a thing will take time and patience. Once people see that concealed weapons are nothing to fear, then maybe Michigan can adopt a Vermont-style system. I think the same could be true of fully-autos. Just impose a system where people can own them again even if they have to jump through a few hoops, like with the CCW laws. Then you can take it from there. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a few small steps.

    And in regards to the militias, I will say that the Michigan militia has improved leaps and bounds since they ended their affiliation with Norm Olson. It has splintered into several groups, but the Southeast Michigan militia seems to be what a "true" militia should be, they focus on survival training and emergency response in the event of some type of national catastrophe and they welcome individuals of all races, both genders, and any religion. Unfortunately, I have come across other individuals throughout the state who have less than honorable motives, groups of individuals who stockpile weapons and they are more than anxious to use them, almost as if they are giddy with idea of someday killing people. Stop off at a few bait shops or bars in rural Michigan and just talk to people, it's not hard to get these guys to open up with their TRUE motivations, and it's not "liberty and justice for all." Some VERY scary people out there.


    It just seems that people seem TOO eager to run to the hills and wage guerilla war against the government. Someone in an earlier response to me actually said that white supremicists and anti-government extremists have the right to try and violently overthrow the government. Excuse me if I don't agree with that assessment. I think armed revolution should be the absolute LAST resort, employed only after trying every available method of peaceful protest and political change. I'm sorry, but I don't think that is the situation we find ourselves in. I don't think armed revolution is a proportional response to the government not letting us own fully-autos. Can you imagine if every time some segment of the population became disinfranchised they would wage guerilla war? We would be living in Somalia or Iraq. I think recent events like the AW ban sunset and the "Stand your ground laws" and the increase in the number of states allowing CCWs shows that we are making progress. I don't think we need to be calling for armed revolution if political change can still be made at the ballot box. Unfortunatley, I think there are a few people in here who would prefer armed revolution instead.






    I would imagine that I would be one of those that you refer to as wanting to fight the government. I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. You'd have to be a serious nutcase to WANT to go to war with the U.S. on any level and I haven't depreciated to that point yet. No, on the contrary, I have no interest in fighting this government, but I will in a heartbeat if that is what it takes. You know we've asked the question of whether military would be able to fire on us, they never asked how we could fire on them. I've given that some thought recently and I've come to the conclusion that should a battle take place and the military does fire on us , I will have no problem firing back. I will not fire on my brethren first. We could have the longest standoff in history with everyone staring down the barrel of a gun waiting on the other guy.

    As far as machine guns go, we can buy them now except for some states. We do have to jump through hoops and it's not worth it. You can put a trigger pack on your AK alot cheaper and faster than buying a fully auto. If that time ever comes I won't care about breaking the law, there will be no law. Nice post keep it up!



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    46270
    Senior Member



    USA
    1942 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 01:14:27 AM

    yes they should be legal. not everyone can get
    their hands on auto weapons. thats the reason
    for background checks.
    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to
    the security of a free state, the right of
    the people to keep and bear arms, shall not
    be infringed.

    it is in red for one reason, the day they
    outlaw legal ownership, that day we will be outlaws,
    pry my gun from my cold dead fingers!

    NRA LIFETIME MEMBER/DISABLED VETERAN



    SHOOT OR BE SHOT! WHICH ONE ARE YOU? DONT BE LEFT UNARMED!


    pickenup
    Moderator



    USA
    12047 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 03:10:12 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by warriorsfan

    Unfortunatley, I think there are a few people in here who would prefer armed revolution instead


    I have seen some nut cases pass through here, but I do not remember any that WANT to go to war with our government. There are some that have become disheartened with changing things at the ballot box. Some that see an inevitability of fighting, as the only viable alternative, if one wants to win back any of the "rights" we have lost. But none that are NUTS enough to WANT to go to war, with the resulting carnage on "both" sides.

    If you would please, tell me who it is, that you think would prefer an armed revolution. I would like to check it out. Email me with the list (or their quotes, that make you think this) if you do not want to post it here.

    The gene pool needs chlorine.


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13801 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 06:39:24 AM

    I like it... hellraisers that wear skirts.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 08:16:01 AM

    Well...in my experience, I have met more then a FEW women...with more balls then most of what we call "men', today....

    Now as to whom exactly "hellraisers wearing skirts" refers to...wouldn't it be a shame to have your azs kicked by somebody wearing a skirt ?


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 1:27:20 PM

    I haven't got one but I'll get a skirt if I get to kick someones @$$.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13801 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 6:17:24 PM

    You poor souls.. women with balls and skirts,, that is totally bizarre.. I saw something on Jerry Springer once that these people were called Shemales?? Looked like freaks to me.


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 7:01:51 PM

    What exactly are you doing, Select-Fire? You just came over here and started popping off, what gives? We don't have any room for nor do we take kindly to TROLLS. I never had you classified as one but you are walking the line right now. Nobody asked for your opinion but when I do I'll let you know what it is. We did this once before remember, you didn't fare so well. Do you really want to do it again? What are you like some kind of masochist. Don't go away mad, just go away.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13801 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 9:13:39 PM

    Comeandgetit, you act as if this whole forum is yours. I can spout what I want , when I want , as long as I abide by the forum rules. Who the heck do you think you are telling me what I can do and what I can't do ? You might need to chill out. Calling another member a troll is not cool.NO comments I made were directed at any members on GB. Your skin may need another layer on it. Yesh..

    GW.. the machinegun owner


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 9:16:45 PM

    Select-Fire is easy.
    One of those that crawled on his belly to get a full-auto...then attempts to promote the idea that makes him better then the rest.

    The main concern of his is to make damn sure full-auto's remain scarce...so as to protect his "investment".

    From that position...he hates anyone promoting the Second Amendment, except in the perverted form he prefers.


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13801 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 9:32:17 PM

    Highball, I didn't crawl anywhere. I got the MG thru a circumstance, and Uncle Sam didn't balk a bit . Would love to tell you someday but it would have to be face to face. I don't promote myself as being better than anyone. As I have said before if anyone wants one go buy one. What is the big deal? I like almost all firearms.. single shot muzzleloaders to full autos

    GW.. the multi gun owner.


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 9:39:15 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by select-fire

    Comeandgetit, you act as if this whole forum is yours. I can spout what I want , when I want , as long as I abide by the forum rules. Who the heck do you think you are telling me what I can do and what I can't do ? You might need to chill out. Calling another member a troll is not cool.NO comments I made were directed at any members on GB. Your skin may need another layer on it. Yesh..

    GW.. the machinegun owner





    quote:
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 6:17:24 PM

    You poor souls.. women with balls and skirts,, that is totally bizarre.. I saw something on Jerry Springer once that these people were called Shemales?? Looked like freaks to me.




    Explain how this doesn't point to a GB member. If you can somehow explain your way out of it then end of discussion, if not then I guess what I said stands. Read my post again, it clearly says that I did not think you were a TROLL but that you were walking the line. As far as being able to say what you want, of course you can and so can I. Isn't America wonderful? If I don't like what you said I can tell you about it. What a concept, I must use this more often.

    If you go look at the politics forum you will see exactly why I jump on that kind of post. We have a TROLL free zone and want to keep it that way. You tried to camouflage your comment by being vague, but you started off with the word "You". How can one not think that was directed here? Who do I think I am? A member who cares about the quality of this board. There are a lot of excellent topics and threads here, I'd hate to see it turn into a "politics" board. If you feel the need to blow off some steam, do it in the politics forum. Please. There now I was nice about it, see if you can as well.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13801 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 9:46:51 PM

    Your not bucking for a moderator job??? Your not my boss and I am not yours...As I said before, post what you want stay within the guidelines and bingo.. Heck I am staying over here in the gun rights forum for awhile now . I like it.


    CommissarRob
    Starting Member



    USA
    34 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 10:04:55 PM

    Okay, what about me does not add up?

    "The peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." Well I wonder what the hell that could mean!?


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 10:05:33 PM

    HaHaHa stay as long as you want. So, it was aimed at a GB member after all. Are you taking to lying now too. Oh yeah, grow up. Don't you think "I think I'll stay awhile now" is just a bit childish? I suppose next you'll type "nana.na.na..nana."

    If you had a bad day and want to take it out on anyone here, I'm your huckleberry.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 10:07:38 PM

    Select fire;
    Adults reside here.

    Statements are accepted..even critical ones. Childish behaviour is not welcome.
    You can conduct yourself as an adult...or you will be ostracized.
    That means....nobody here will interact with you.

    You have gotten a couple responses..enjoy them.


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 10:26:17 PM

    Done.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    kingjoey
    Starting Member



    USA
    9 Posts
    Posted - 11/16/2005 : 10:38:37 PM

    C'mon Select-fire, man up a little and contribute or pipe down. This forum doesn't need a troll to disrupt already sensitive and volatile topics. There is plenty of legitimate arguments for and against this subject so there is no need for childish behavior. You of all people should have some helpful input on this subject being a ClassIII owner

    Neo-Jedi Council

    Member
    MWC '05



    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13801 Posts
    Posted - 11/17/2005 : 06:43:43 AM

    Ya'll look at only one side of the fence. My opinion of the gun rights board is simple. Quit complaining about whether a full auto should be in the hands of private citizens. Just go buy one or two and prove the system wrong. Since 1935 only one citizen has killed another with a LEGALLY owned machine gun. Is that enough facts for ya'll to prove they are not illegal and monitored correctly by our government? BTW.. it was a Police Officer that did the killing with his privately owned Mac 11 (.380 ) .. I do know a few people who applied and were denied getting a MG. All goes to them checking former employer's, teachers, etc, etc. etc. They did the same on me. Maybe some on here wanting to stir the pot are just downright jeolous they don't qualify and want the others to give theirs up also. Just speculatory but my gut says I am pretty close to the truth.

    GW.. the legal MG owner

    Edited by - select-fire on 11/17/2005 06:46:22 AM


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/17/2005 : 10:16:03 AM

    What you are dealing with here are strict Constitutionalist Views. I can say with the utmost confidence that nobody here is jealous of your machine gun, well maybe anyone new who doesn't know that machine guns are perfecly legal, if you jump through hoops. We're not looking at things from one side of the fence unless you consider the difference between right and wrong, a fence. Our goal is to see all gun laws wiped from this country, it can be done. It will be done because the laws are unconstitutional. I know you're going to argue that, so if you'd like I'll show my proof, you show yours.

    Nothing in the Constitution says anything about hunting, it does, however, make a clear statement in more than one place that the people are to be armed and since one of the duties of the armed citizenry is to throw out a tyrannical government, we would obviously be entitled to the very same weapons they have. Yes, that includes everything. The military has it but not every soldier has access to them, same would be true for us.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    Wagon Wheel
    Junior Member



    USA
    126 Posts
    Posted - 11/17/2005 : 11:43:44 AM

    Comengetit

    I found it peculiar with CR's eminent demise here that another country showed back up. I do believe I owe you an apology. I researched that particular country and found that nowhere has it been supportive or offered anything constructive to the conversations/debates. Everything coming out is a one liner intended to:
    1). Divide or;
    2). What appears to be intelligence gathering

    We can't keep em' from monitoring this forum but, I do think any further cross talk is useless. Just ignore the posts. Don't let em' suck you down to their level. It is evident this forum was making progress so, its not surprising to me to see this element show up to tear that down. (Or at least try.)


    Proud to be an American!


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13801 Posts
    Posted - 11/17/2005 : 12:21:12 PM

    You've got to be kidding.. to reverse the 1935 MG and 1986 MG acts ..And the 68' gun control laws.. That is a mighty tall mountain your trying to climb.


    Wagon Wheel
    Junior Member



    USA
    126 Posts
    Posted - 11/17/2005 : 3:44:37 PM

    select-fire

    A tall order indead. Got any suggestions to achieve that aim???

    Proud to be an American!


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 11/17/2005 : 9:46:39 PM

    quote:
    LEGALLY owned machine gun. Is that enough facts for ya'll to prove they are not illegal and monitored correctly by our government

    ?

    SHOCKED...I tell you ...I am SHOCKED !!

    Decent, law abiding citizens actuallY OBEY THE LAWS...even the freedom destroying,force 'em to belly crawl laws...this is simply unbelievable.
    What exactly have we proved...except citizens will allow themselves to be emasculated by those in 'authority'..?


    select-fire
    Advanced Member



    Egypt
    13801 Posts
    Posted - 11/17/2005 : 10:16:44 PM

    For those who have applied to get a MG on the BATF form they will know exactly what I am speaking about. For those who haven't pay attention.. There is an area to fill out on the application certification that the transferee has a reasonable necessity to possess the device or weapon described on this application for the following reason:____________________ and my possession of the device or weapon would be consistant with public safety ( 18 U.S.C. 922(b)...... For those who want to possess one put your reason as Collection..
    Ask yourself a few questions... Are you going to hunt with it?
    What purpose is a MG ?
    If you answered NO to the first you would be correct. In fact it is Illegal. Purpose... to collect but everyone knows what MG's are capable of doing and the real purpose.
    My reason again was to collect and invest..


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/18/2005 : 12:37:04 AM

    My reasons have been collect and invest each time I've submited a form 4. I have yet to be denied. My class III out here is awesome, he does everything and therefor earns his $100 transfer fee. Even if you can only afford a couple grand, get a SMG like an M 11-9 or a mac 10 get an Ingram though the other one suck, like Cobray. If you can find a semi with an open bolt that's good too. With as little as $4500 you can own a Machine Gun or for $2000-2500 you can own a sub-gun. You owe it to yourself. If you can own a handgun you can own a machine gun. No problem just plan on your funds being tied up for about 120 days by the time you actually get your gun. Make sure you have a friendly CLEO that will sign your form 4 BEFORE YOU BUY. You'll lose your money and the gun if you can't get it signed. However, if you attempt to have it signed by everyone the BATFE suggests and you can't, you prove your criminal record and they will forgo the CLEO signature. Good Luck.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    884 Posts
    Posted - 11/18/2005 : 01:05:54 AM

    From just about everything I read, semi-auto is far more practical in combat than full-auto. I think the only advantage of full-auto is the shock and awe of charging into battle spitting 12 rounds a second, and maybe providing cover fire. For any practical marksmanship, semi-auto has been proven as tactically superior, with the possible exception of the large caliber stuff, like a Ma Deuce.

    Can be yours for only $1,400:
    http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=40160387

    I'm gonna save my dough and stick with a nice semi.

    -Wolf



    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 11/18/2005 : 02:30:17 AM

    I like the AR-15 M4 this is a great gun and very tactical, I have several and want more. Go with a Bushmaster, one in .223 and one in .308. I like the AK-47 also but the AR is better, IMHO.



    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 11/18/2005 : 11:13:00 AM

    quote:
    From just about everything I read, semi-auto is far more practical in combat than full-auto. I think the only advantage of full-auto is the shock and awe of charging into battle spitting 12 rounds a second, and maybe providing cover fire.



    This is correct, WW.

    But still, a machine gun can still fire semi. It would be nice to have the choice of which you think you need, though.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."



    SLING BLADE
    Member



    USA
    743 Posts
    Posted - 11/21/2005 : 10:50:54 AM

    Law breaking bad guys got them,we should have the right to return fire. Proper training, even my wife could rip off a few rounds now and then.
    New years comes to mind right away,this country is not to be confused with irac and or other tolets in the world.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 11/21/2005 : 12:20:22 PM

    quote:
    What the true definition of milita is (all law-abiding adult citizens) and the specific groups that label themselves "militias" are two different things. I am basing my observations on the Michigan Militia, since that is the state in which I live. First off, they were founded by a raving racist lunatic who believes that the Japanese mafia destroyed the Oklahoma City Federal Building in response to the Sarin gas attack on the Japanese subways. Secondly, while they might not exactly be a racist organization, many of their members spout off racist rhetoric and extreme Christian rhetoric (i.e. all non-believers are going to hell, homosexuals are evil and need to be destroyed, etc). All of this I didn't need to get from the news, the MM's own websites seem to be a sufficient source.

    And don't tell me that groups like the Branch Davidians were stockpiling weapons for benevolent purposes. Groups like them and many of these self-styled "militias" aren't so much for defending freedom and democracy, which is what the Founding Fathers intended by writing the second amendment, but for IMPOSING their own rule of law on everyone else, whether it be some type of hardline Christian theocracy or some type of whites-only homeland, like Robert Jay Matthews and the Aryan Republican Army were robbing banks to fund back in the 80's. Don't tell me those guys were fighting for "freedom and justice for all", don't tell me that's who the Founding Fathers meant to empower. Believe it or not, some people do stockpile weapons for the wrong reasons.

    And my original suggestion was simply a realistic alternative to the current ban on fully-autos. I was simply being realistic in my approach, you can't remove gun control all at once just like you can't ban all guns at once. You take steps in the right direction. I think any step that lets regular people own fully-autos again is a step in the right direction, and you can advance from there. Expecting to be able to go from no fully-autos to being able to buy one at the hardware store overnight is unrealistic. I'm simply trying to think within the confines of what could actually be accomplished in the current political climate if the country could become more gun-friendly through education and the election of gun-friendly politicians.

    And just so you know, I never meant to include you nor do I consider you a racist or a skinhead or any of those things.




    Ok, from the top...


    quote:
    What the true definition of milita is (all law-abiding adult citizens) and the specific groups that label themselves "militias" are two different things.



    Uhh, specific groups? Don't you mean "Groups the gov't considers terrorists?"


    quote:
    I am basing my observations on the Michigan Militia, since that is the state in which I live.



    And I assume you have spoken directly with the Michigan Militia to create your so-called "observations", or are you parroting Newspeak concerning the MM?


    quote:
    First off, they were founded by a raving racist lunatic who believes that the Japanese mafia destroyed the Oklahoma City Federal Building in response to the Sarin gas attack on the Japanese subways.



    Well, that's the first time I've heard that. I know that I am still not impressed with Big Brother's story on it, myself, and I would be willing to bet you have never talked to this leader to find out from him why he thinks that (if he even does believe that).


    quote:
    Secondly, while they might not exactly be a racist organization, many of their members spout off racist rhetoric and extreme Christian rhetoric (i.e. all non-believers are going to hell, homosexuals are evil and need to be destroyed, etc).



    I know many members of other militias. Do you know what their biggest concern is? I doubt it. It is that they are white males, and have realized they are so discriminated against, every single time some hate crime legislation is created, it makes their blood boil, because it makes them feel like they are less important to in society, and that they will not stand as equals before the law or society, and in that sense, they are absolutely correct. As for that so-called "Christian rhetoric, it's not rhetoric. Those things are in the Bible, as are many other things. That you do not believe is your viewpoint.


    quote:
    All of this I didn't need to get from the news, the MM's own websites seem to be a sufficient source.



    And I suppose you never asked why?


    quote:
    And don't tell me that groups like the Branch Davidians were stockpiling weapons for benevolent purposes.



    They weren't stockpiling weapons, and the minute they figured that out, they burned all the evidence to the ground. Why were there no munitions detonating in the fire?


    quote:
    Groups like them and many of these self-styled "militias" aren't so much for defending freedom and democracy, which is what the Founding Fathers intended by writing the second amendment, but for IMPOSING their own rule of law on everyone else, whether it be some type of hardline Christian theocracy or some type of whites-only homeland, like Robert Jay Matthews and the Aryan Republican Army were robbing banks to fund back in the 80's.



    You have a problem with the Branch Davidians being isolationists? You have a problem with groups that believe the law is a huge net of entrapment against the people? I don't. I understand their point of view quite well, considering I find the gov't on
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,391 ******
    edited November -1
    Page 5

    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 12/14/2005 : 02:36:58 AM

    What this country needs is a national
    referendum , so we the people will have
    a way to put an end to the trashing of the
    constitution . If you think that your
    government will let this happen , forget
    it . It would take away the power they
    have over us . If you want to work for a
    worthwhile endeavor this would be it.
    This might even get the other 50% of the
    eligible voters off there * to vote.
    The way most of them feel is that there
    votes don't count and they can't make
    a difference no mater what they do.
    What do you guys think about that?
    A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
    Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will
    eat you.





    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/17/2005 : 01:46:44 AM

    One of the few things I give Bush credit for -and my primary reason for voting for him- is the chance to nominate a supreme court judge. While his early picks seemed very bad, he did justify himself by nominating Samuel Alito Jr. The following is a comment that the GOA emailed to me:

    --Begin GOA Comment--

    As you know, Judge Alito (from the Third Circuit) has a strong record
    in support of the Constitution. Gun Owners Foundation was involved
    in the Rybar machine gun case which we ultimately lost in the courts.
    But Judge Alito offered a strong dissenting opinion to the majority
    report and argued that Congress has no right to regulate the private
    possession of machine guns.

    --End GOA Comment


    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/18/2005 : 09:40:44 AM

    I guess this message has got more attention since it was originally posted. I'd just like to give a further comment.

    TR said in the second post for this topic that most Americans would be upset if machine guns were legalized, and would call for a ban on all guns. I don't think this is the case.

    For example, if somebody thought that the most "evil" gun somebody should be able to own was a semi-auto handgun, and laws against all guns were repealed, he may oppose full autos being legal, but would still support people owning semi-auto handguns. Just because the far right gets more power, don't expect the ordinary right wing people to become left wingers.


    nunn
    Administrator



    USA
    11723 Posts
    Posted - 12/20/2005 : 9:44:38 PM

    Yes.

    Repeal NICS/Brady.

    Repeal Lautenberg.

    Repeal the 1986 machine gun ban.

    Repeal the 1968 Gun Control Act.

    Repeal the 1934 National Firearms Act.

    We don't need laws controlling THINGS. We need enforcement of laws against people who harm others and take their things.

    FFL Dealer/Full time Peace Officer, Moderator of General Discussion Board on Gunbroker. Visit www.gunbroker.com the best gun auction site on the Net! Email [email protected]


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 12/20/2005 : 9:50:56 PM

    I sure do enjoy reading the words of a GOOD Peace Officer.....


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 12/20/2005 : 11:04:00 PM

    Nullify all gun laws and make states or other local gov't bodies unable to ratify gun laws, with a mandatory 20 year prison term for any governor/mayor signing a gun law into law, and give a mandatory 10 year prison term to any official who supported a gun law.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/21/2005 : 02:56:45 AM

    Nunn, you are one of a few police officers I have respect for. I lost most of my respect for law enforcement a year or so back when the cops in a nearby town arrested a man for converting his firearms to fire full auto. He said he wanted to have some "terrorism response unit." The cops arrested him, and I know that these same cops would arrest me if there was ever a law passes against any of the guns I own. That is why I am wary. No offence intended towards any police officer who isn't one of the JBTs.


    One shot
    Senior Member



    USA
    1447 Posts
    Posted - 12/21/2005 : 6:41:15 PM

    Here is where the interpitation gets interesting. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it refer to the type of weapon owned. Where does it state how many you can own. Who is right and who is wrong in the interpitation. This is the question that fuels the battle. Did the authors of this amendment foresee every home having a vast arsenal or a few firearms to provide a defense. When that document was developed the "Machinegun" or "Fully Automatic" weapon was not even an idea. There world included nothing but "muzzle stuffers". I am one for the peoples freedom of choice in the matter but this does raise some interesting questions.

    "The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums."
    Arthur Koestler, UK


    KYfatboy
    Senior Member



    USA
    1791 Posts
    Posted - 12/21/2005 : 7:48:10 PM

    THe amendment refers to military arms of the day. Ergo the word arms. At one time, A broadsword was the military arm of the day. At one time, the hand cannon. At one time bow, and arrow. The word arms says it all.
    quote:
    Originally posted by One shot

    Here is where the interpitation gets interesting. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it refer to the type of weapon owned. Where does it state how many you can own. Who is right and who is wrong in the interpitation. This is the question that fuels the battle. Did the authors of this amendment foresee every home having a vast arsenal or a few firearms to provide a defense. When that document was developed the "Machinegun" or "Fully Automatic" weapon was not even an idea. There world included nothing but "muzzle stuffers". I am one for the peoples freedom of choice in the matter but this does raise some interesting questions.

    "The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums."
    Arthur Koestler, UK




    In hoc signo vinces


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 12/21/2005 : 8:22:01 PM

    quote:
    Here is where the interpitation gets interesting. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it refer to the type of weapon owned.



    It doesn't. And it doesn't restrict, either. Therefore it must mean all arms, without restriction.


    quote:
    Where does it state how many you can own.



    It doesn't. And it doesn't restrict, either. Therefore it must mean any number, without restriction.


    quote:
    When that document was developed the "Machinegun" or "Fully Automatic" weapon was not even an idea. There world included nothing but "muzzle stuffers". I am one for the peoples freedom of choice in the matter but this does raise some interesting questions.




    Shouldn't matter, for they are all wieldable by individuals, and all used by our military, and we are supposed to be armed with identical or similar arms, so that would mean they are all good to go.


    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    One shot
    Senior Member



    USA
    1447 Posts
    Posted - 12/22/2005 : 01:18:33 AM

    Is there anyone that can give a educated answer to my question. I am a firm believer in the second amendment. The question I put forth here is one that I was asked once. I deal in regulations and policies every week day of my life and interpitation is a funny thing. I can give a document to three people and ask for thier interpitation. What do you think I will get, Three varied answers.

    "The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums."
    Arthur Koestler, UK


    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    884 Posts
    Posted - 12/22/2005 : 01:29:48 AM

    Oneshot, you can interpret until the cows come home. I learned in statistics that you can make numbers and facts support just about any viewpoint.

    Anyway, I personally believe that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to insure the ability of the citizenry to defend themselves and the nation against tyranny, both foreign and domestic. If that is the intent, then gunphreak is correct by saying that we should have equal access to all arms used by a modern military. The phrase that catches me everytime is "well regulated". "Regulated" can mean a lot of different things. You could create a lot of laws based off of that one phrase, maybe even justify military conscription. I think that this is the constitutional * that could justify laws like CCW, background checks, class 3 licensing, etc.

    To me, the battle is between "well regulated" and "shall not be infriged". How do you regulate without infringing, or vice versa?

    -Wolf



    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    pickenup
    Moderator



    USA
    12047 Posts
    Posted - 12/22/2005 : 2:14:23 PM

    Actually no interpretation is necessary.
    "to keep and bear arms"
    I can keep my left arm, as well as my right arm.
    And I can wear a sleeveless shirt.

    Well.....that IS what it says.

    The gene pool needs chlorine.


    One shot
    Senior Member



    USA
    1447 Posts
    Posted - 12/22/2005 : 6:02:27 PM

    Woundedwolf: good start. there seems to be a few key words in the second amendment that seem to get twisted to suit one views. Another term that seems to get twisted is "Militia". Many believe this refers to a military body. I disagree. It is my understanding that a true Militia has no recruiting body, no uniform, and do not recieve pay for services. Basically an armed citizen. The military, to include the national guard, have a recruiting body, recieve a pay check for thier service, and wear a uniform. In the Webster's dictionary the definition is "an emergecy citezen army". I also take into acount the original authors intent considering where they came from and the type of rule imposed on them.
    pickenup: Is that the best you can come up with. I would bet you are smarter than what your post would lead one to believe.

    "The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums."
    Arthur Koestler, UK


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/23/2005 : 02:47:33 AM

    Doesn't matter if full autos are made legal or not. After the first few times that some nut case that purchased his full auto as easily as purchasing a 6 shot .22 revolver wipes out a Wal-Mart full of shoppers, all by himself then public opinion will quickly outlaw full autos again.

    The public might even over react and even outlaw all semi-autos. With the power of 90% of the public fighting it, the 2nd Amendment won't mean one damn thing in this regard.




    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/23/2005 : 06:23:01 AM

    fox, I think it is highly unlikely that somebody will buy a full auto legally and then shoot up a wal-mart. Random stuff like that didn't happen in the 1920s when you could get a Thompson from a hardware store.


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/23/2005 : 10:46:24 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by dsmith

    fox, I think it is highly unlikely that somebody will buy a full auto legally and then shoot up a wal-mart. Random stuff like that didn't happen in the 1920s when you could get a Thompson from a hardware store.




    Things have changed for the worse since the 1920's. The small percentage of our population who are willing to do violence to innocent citizens have ramped up what they consider a desirable level of violence. The newspapers of the 1920's don't have any stories about car loads of armed violent criminals driving through residential neighborhoods and committing driveby shootings. Shooting into a house occupied by an entire innocent family and thereby risking killing innocent children, babies, grandmothers, etc. just in the hopes that the shooters might hit that one person in that house who may have insulted one of the shooters by giving them the wrong "look".

    If and when full autos are legalized, and the first couple of shootings I have described occur and the public learns that the pickup truck mounted .50 cal belt fed machine gun was orginally purchased as easily as if the orginal purchaserer (regards of who and how aquired the gun for the driveby shooting) bought the .50 as easily as purchasing a single shot .22, then public pressure will insure that machine guns and probably even semi-autos are outlawed even if the constitution has to be amended to do that. This is especially true if the driveby shooters kill all the family members not just in the target house but on both sides as well.





    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 12/23/2005 : 11:03:52 AM

    I get so entirely sick of the average persons' inability to confront facts.
    The FACTS being;
    Indiscriminate shooting happen because the average person is too entirely STUPID to DEMAND the immediate termination of the shooter...and those in the car with him.
    Part of the decriminalization process of gun would come the full court press of EDUCATING the stupid masses that GUNS do not cause crime...PEOPLE do.

    Standing around blaming the GUNS gives aid and comfort to the enemy..no matter how you cut it.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 12/23/2005 : 12:44:49 PM

    Hey fox,

    You are giving entirely too much credit to the law. If a bad guy really wants a full-auto to do his deed, he'll do it. It would be happening, now, regardless of the so-called "law". In a sick way, I wish more of them were doing this full-auto thing, so that enough of us would become frightened and demand equal weaponry to fight them with, and then the problem will definitely be a thing of the past ON ALL LEVELS!

    And that's the way that it is!!!

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    KYfatboy
    Senior Member



    USA
    1791 Posts
    Posted - 12/23/2005 : 1:49:44 PM

    The problem is we are all to civilized. No one wants to kill A criminal, because it's not his fault, it's society's fault. If more people were to grow A pair, as Highball says, then you wouldn't have to worry about some nut takeing out all the customers as walmart with A full auto. We have become A society that relies on the goverment for protection. I would be willing to say, that even most who carry A weapon, would hesitate to pull their gun, to stop A crime that was not happening to them. More folks need to get involved.

    In hoc signo vinces


    One shot
    Senior Member



    USA
    1447 Posts
    Posted - 12/23/2005 : 4:09:15 PM

    Fact # 1, Fully automatic weapons are not against the law to own by federal law. Some states have outlawed ownership such as Washington state.
    Fact #2 Only one violent crime has been committed using a LEAGALLY attained fully automatic firearm and that crime was committed by a peace officer.

    "The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums."
    Arthur Koestler, UK


    Stealth
    Starting Member



    USA
    26 Posts
    Posted - 12/23/2005 : 7:39:16 PM

    Should fully automatic weapons be legal?
    YES!
    Because of the simple reason that I am a tax paying ,law abiding citizen of this country and I really want one.
    I hate this idea that you cant own one unless you PAY THE TAX, money can make it legal, Think of it as a government buy off .


    Raptor


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/23/2005 : 7:52:11 PM

    Have it your way, because we probably will never find out for sure. And I am NOT blaming the gun.

    In the below story, the illegal shooter had a semi-auto AK-47. he probably was able to illegally get one because semi-auto AK's are common in America. Had fully autos been common, he probably would have made sure he had one of those.

    The other night America's Most Wanted re-acted a bar revenge shooting. Several Latino men had a argument in a bar. Two of the trouble-making group came back in their car and waited in the parking lot for the four other innocent Latino men to come out of the bar. When the four did come out and start driving off, the two trouble-makers followed. A short way down the road, the trouble makers grabbed an AK-47 with a high cap mag out of the trunk and pulled up next to the four peaceful Latino men and the AK man started shooting into the car of the four peaceful men. This was done in plain view of a police car and two police officers. When the 3 peaceful men drove off in desperate effort to flee from the non-stop shooting coming from the AK, the men with the AK followed and kept on shooting. This chasing and non-stop shooting continued on for a LONG time, unlike most gang type shootings which are over quickly. It ended with the 4 peaceful men wrecking their car and the AK car stopping long enough to do some more non-stop shooting into the car before fleeing themselves and getting away. Of the four peaceful men, three were killed and one seriously wounded.

    AK shooter was a worthless Mexican illegal immergrent who broke NUMEROUS laws. #1, shouldn't have been in the USA. #2 shouldn't have had his therefore illegal gun. #3 shouldn't have fired thegun inside the city limits. #4 Shouldn't have pointed and thereby threatened any innocent person #5. Shouldn't have fired the gun from inside a vehicle. #6 shouldn't have shot innocent people #7 shouldn't have killed innocent people.

    Now I am blaming the shooter, not the gun. Almost the same scene could have happened with the shooter using a pump action or lever action shotgun or rifle and a belt bag of loose ammo. Or a six shot revolver with numerous speed loaders available. And luckily for us gunners, that great and powerful group of Americans who, if they so choose, can force the constitution to be amended so as to totally remove our second amendment, are so far willing to tolerate a certain level of sensless gun violence becasue so far they seem to realize that the violence is caused by the user, not by the gun all by itself.

    But if you start seeing reinactments of something like the above using fully automatic guns, I predict the great, passive and undecided group of Americans will cause us to lose our second amendment and most, if not all of our guns.

    This is just my opinion. But I know human nature. I have no way to "document" it so we will never know until it is too late.



    Edited by - tr fox on 12/23/2005 7:56:05 PM


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 12/23/2005 : 9:21:17 PM

    Let us discuss Israel for a moment.

    A few years back, terrorists started coming across with full auto weapons...killing at will. Schools, stores, anywhere people were gathered.

    Have you heard about any such in years...? They very nearly ceased...
    WHY ??
    The common citizen over there armed themselves with ASSUALT WEAPONS AND KILLED THE meanieS....
    I prefer their system to the NRA's..and the Anti-gun pukes in this country. Futhermore...my Constitution DEMANDS it.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 12/23/2005 : 10:15:13 PM

    I don't think we are taking this out into full conclusion.

    Machine guns are already "legal" for criminals. I say that, meaning they will use them, regardless of the law, but oddly have not all that often.

    If everyone has access to machine guns, criminals will be outgunned by the law abiding, and they know it. And as far as I'm concerned, let a few POS's step out of line and be eliminated from the gene pool. It will make this world a better place, in a lot of ways.

    We keep talking about this like the only thing it will do is give criminals a license to kill without looking at the consequences those same people will have once they confront well-armed individuals, and the message will not get out, and we will continue to be disarmed and outgunned.

    Your choice....

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 12/23/2005 : 11:05:20 PM

    Gunphreak;
    The utterly frustrating, hair pulling out, garment rending truth of the matter is...we cannot even get GUN PEOPLE to understand that simple truth....ONLY HONEST PEOPLE OBEY THE LAWS.

    Some time back, I finally woke up to the fact...OUR camp..over here, the GUN camp...is eaten up with gun control promoters.

    The day that got thru to me..is the day I stated the campaign to bring that to the attention to ANYONE who will listen.

    The choice is clear. Trust America and Americans...OR trust the government. I know EXACTLY where I stand....


    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    884 Posts
    Posted - 12/24/2005 : 12:00:46 AM

    quote:
    Machine guns are already "legal" for criminals. I say that, meaning they will use them, regardless of the law, but oddly have not all that often.



    Excellent point, gunphreak.

    -Wolf



    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    Stealth
    Starting Member



    USA
    26 Posts
    Posted - 12/24/2005 : 12:16:39 AM

    With what I know about guns there is no doubt in my mind that if I wanted to be a criminal I could have a fully automatic weapon in less than 2 days, The only reason I wont is it is illegal and I don't want to do time in the slammer when I have a family that depends on me.
    I say that they have only been kept from law abiding citizens this whole time not criminals.

    Raptor


    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/24/2005 : 09:17:33 AM

    So lemme get this straight:

    The mexican we are talking about committed 7 felonies, and was using an illegally obtained AK. Therefore we must stop the law-abiding citizens who legally own their AKs?


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/24/2005 : 10:05:40 AM

    I would like to own at least one fully auto gun. Maybe a .22 so that I could afford to shoot it. I feel that most of you here should be able to own a fully auto gun. I also realize if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. But in some aspects, there are subtle nuances to be considered in this situation.

    Non-fully auto guns are legal for the lawful citizen. Therefore there are many guns in society. This makes it very easy for the violent criminals to locate and illegally obtain a non-auto gun. The rabid, never-gonna-change anti-gunners want to outlaw all guns because of this. Part of their faulty reasoning is that by outlawing all guns, even though they would be totally disarming the lawful citizens, the restricted supply of guns in society caused by the total ban would make it somewhat more difficult for the unlawful criminals to illegal obtain a gun.

    We pro-gunners know better as does the one group that can do us gunners more harm than the rabid anti-gunners; the huge class of middle-of-the-road, neither pro nor anti gun citizens. Luckily for us that large group seems to know that outlawing the gun rights of the lawful citizens will do very little good in disarming the violent criminals; since by their very nature criminals don't obey laws anyway . Just as with illegal aliens and illegal drugs finding their way into American society, illegal guns will also always find their way into the hands of the unlawful. And because the middle of the road group knows this, they seem willing to accept the occasional outbreak of mass shootings (schools, wal-mart, etc) without marching on Washington by the MILLIONS demanding that ALL gun ownership be outlawed.

    But in my unproven opinion if buying a fully auto becomes as easy as buying a single shot .22, the shootings that take place will turn that great middle class against gun ownership for us average gun owners. Reason being that with full auto's becoming common (I already said I'd buy one) that means full autos will become common in the hands of the violent criminals. Therefore full auto shootings will start getting on the 6:00 news.

    IN My Humble Opinion, this will turn the great middle class against ALL gun ownership; or at the very least against full auto AND semi auto guns. When and if that happens, that great middle class will march on Washington in the millions of citizens and demand that the 2nd amendment be removed from the constitution and all guns for civilian use be outlawed.

    I can't explain the situation in Israel since I am not close to that situation enough to have any insite. But I am close enough to the gun rights situation here in the USA to form an opinion. And if you want to label me as in favor of gun control, that is your choice. But if what I predict comes true, it won't really matter BECAUSE NONE OF US WILL BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS.

    This is only my personal theory and just as trying to debate evolution it cannot be proven at this time.






    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/24/2005 : 10:29:18 AM

    Tr, I gotta say, that is a well thought out response. You do come up with some things that I wouldn't even consider thinking of.

    I am not saying you are wrong by any means, and I think that most people on these forums are smart enough to think for themselves on these issues. Indeed, we can't really know for sure how close any of our speculations come to the truth until the situations we discuss become real.

    I would just like to throw in one comment for you to analyse, and offer your opinion on. If we were to compare the statements you made about legalising full autos making for criminals using them as their weapon of choice, consider the following: the liberal media claimed that the newly relegalised "assault weapons" would quickly become the criminal's choice weapons. I said before the ban expired that this wouldn't happen. And it didn't. AW crime is still very low. If it were truly happening, the media would be having a field day, and many "I told you so" speeches. They can't make this claim, so they are just trying to ignore what they said in the past. Likewise, there shouldn't be an increase in full auto crime. The criminals generally want to carry small handguns, that are easily concealed. Most full autos, save for the micro-uzi and the mac-10 are just too big to conceal. Also, keep in mind that these 2 guns have an extremely high rate of fire (mac-10 fires 18 rounds per second, micro-uze fires 20 rounds per second) so they are hard to control and aim on full auto.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 12/24/2005 : 11:26:17 AM

    OK, fox. I see your point, and it looks like you have thought this out somewhat, but what you probably do not realize is that you have been proven wrong. It isn't a well-known fact, but let me tell you how and where full-autos have made a more civil society out of a barbaric society.

    Recently, in Israel, a thought to make schools there gun-free, had successively went very bad. A Columbine occured on a regular basis, where Palestinians would target the most likely thing to get Israel's citizens' attention: Killing their children....

    ...and it did get their attention. The parents began escorting their children to school, and the rash of attacks against children came to a screeching halt. Why, because a few of the terrorists were killed.... by M-16's wielded by the parents and the teachers.

    Now, that number has went to ZERO!!!! Not has been decreased by half, or 80%... completely irradicated. No more have occured since the parents wised up. At first, the possession of these rifles was illegal, but not now.

    So, in conclusion, the biggest difference between the highwaymen of this country and the terrorists of Israel is this: Terrorists are willing to die to achieve a politically motivated goal, but you will not find our rogues here so willing to die for selfish gains. Criminals will learn... don't &*(^ with the populace, if MG's become easily purchased.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/24/2005 : 1:08:58 PM

    Thanks for the thoughtful response you guys gave me. I can see that you were kind enough to carefully read my post and to think about what I said. Just as I did to your posts.

    Just as with any important issue, it is impossible to determine in advance which of our predictions are correct. Comparing what has happened in the past or in other countries is a sound and logical way to try and determine what might happen if full-autos were made easily available. However, you can NEVER find two situations that are the exact same. Even if you have the same starting point (i.e. debating full autos citizen ownship) from there you have numerous variables that can change the final outcome even if something similar has happened in another location (country, etc) and you know the outcome there. There is no guarantee that you will get the same outcome here.

    So I hope the prediction made by you guys are correct. But if I am correct then say goodbye to all your guns if and when full autos become common in America.




    pickenup
    Moderator



    USA
    12047 Posts
    Posted - 12/24/2005 : 3:02:00 PM

    Want to bet that we will NOT be given the chance to find out?
    I will put up $100 that full auto laws will not change (for the better) in my lifetime.
    Any takers?

    Predictions that the streets would run with blood, happened in every state, that has passed a "shall issue" concealed carry law, or a "make my day" law.

    Those same predictions came with the sunset of the AWB.

    Where are the streets filled with blood?

    The gene pool needs chlorine.


    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/24/2005 : 10:44:44 PM

    One more point:
    The criminals in TR's post had semi-auto AKs. Anybody with a saw and internet access can learn how to convert a semi-auto to fire full auto. Just need to slot the bolt.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 12/26/2005 : 01:31:04 AM

    Here are some modern-day variables to think about:

    1. If you misuse any gun, the cops will not forget about you, and you will be caught, possibly killed.
    2. Criminals already have major firepower, but yet, something keep them from using it. Take one guess what.
    3. Before these laws, guns kept by the citizens had not proven they need banned. All of them were preventative... I don't care what history books tell you.
    4. Semi-auto versions of these guns are not used to kill mass amounts of people. Little can be aimed to the fact that these guns won't be used any more often.
    5. Making the carrying of arms a fashion statement like a cell phone will keep the highwayman in awe, and in fear for his life and safety.
    6. The reason we have the problems we do now is NOT because there are too many guns in the hands of criminals, it is because there are too many targets of opportunity wandering the streets.
    7. No amount of laws keep those bent on breaking laws from adhering to laws. Never forget this.
    8. Arms in the hands of the citizenry do have one very predictable outcome.... tyrants and highwaymen in the millions are kept in check, and fear opposing the citizens, for they would be just in killing those who would seek to disrupt the peace.

    Predictions do have statistical relevance when 38 out of 50 states have passed CHL laws and there is a drop in crime in all of those states; not an increase. When semiautomatic rifles are suddenly unbanned and there is a continued drop in crime, that is predictability.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 12/27/2005 : 03:49:31 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by WoundedWolf


    quote:
    Machine guns are already "legal" for criminals. I say that, meaning they will use them, regardless of the law, but oddly have not all that often.



    Excellent point, gunphreak.

    -Wolf



    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.





    You know who has them? The gang bangers, I'm not guessing, I've seen it first hand. These guys can convert a Mac 10 in about an hour. That's start to finish. The gang that I was fortunate enough to be able to see their lair is in Los Angeles, for obvious reasons I'll keep their identity to myself, they were surprisingly easy to communicate with and were actually pretty intelligent. Not book smart but these guys know the streets. When I used to think of gangs I pictured gold toothed, huge necklace wearing, graffiti writing, artists with a spray can, wacked out on drugs, anti-social misfits with a terrible attitude. I don't condone their activities by any stretch of the imagination but listening to why they became a gang member was enlightening to say the least and really made sense.

    I say "fortunate" because it was probably the most terrifying and exillerating experience of my life and these guys welcomed me into their world. (I was doing a thesis at ASU) My point is that they do exist predominately in the hands of gang bangers and thay are used quite often in drive-by shootings. That is how they are associated by the unenlightened as being in the hands of maniacs. Criminals will NEVER have a difficult time obtaining full-auto weapons especially now that the internet tells you how to convert just about anything.




    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/27/2005 : 12:12:20 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Comengetit


    quote:
    Originally posted by WoundedWolf


    quote:
    Machine guns are already "legal" for criminals. I say that, meaning they will use them, regardless of the law, but oddly have not all that often.



    Excellent point, gunphreak.

    -Wolf



    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.





    You know who has them? The gang bangers, I'm not guessing, I've seen it first hand. These guys can convert a Mac 10 in about an hour. That's start to finish. The gang that I was fortunate enough to be able to see their lair is in Los Angeles, for obvious reasons I'll keep their identity to myself, they were surprisingly easy to communicate with and were actually pretty intelligent. Not book smart but these guys know the streets. When I used to think of gangs I pictured gold toothed, huge necklace wearing, graffiti writing, artists with a spray can, wacked out on drugs, anti-social misfits with a terrible attitude. I don't condone their activities by any stretch of the imagination but listening to why they became a gang member was enlightening to say the least and really made sense.

    I say "fortunate" because it was probably the most terrifying and exillerating experience of my life and these guys welcomed me into their world. (I was doing a thesis at ASU) My point is that they do exist predominately in the hands of gang bangers and thay are used quite often in drive-by shootings. That is how they are associated by the unenlightened as being in the hands of maniacs. Criminals will NEVER have a difficult time obtaining full-auto weapons especially now that the internet tells you how to convert just about anything.




    Good solid and first-hand info posted above. My counter point would be that I won't consider the criminal element to have easy access to machine guns until I start noticing some of the K.C. gang/driveby shooting as using machine guns. And believe me, as much as the local newspaper hates guns, the first time a machine gun is used in KC, it will be front page news.

    Besides, those gangs as described above aren't so smart. Granted that most criminals are quite willing to ignore the law, the ones with even half a brain probably at least pay a little attention to the law. If you have a plan or a goal, even one that involves crime, the criminals with even half a brain will structure their crime so as to get what they want with a minimum risk to them. A minimum risk to them not only in regards to avoiding failure of their crime, avoiding arrest or injury to themselves, but to also avoid unnecessary prison time if caught (yeah, I KNOW many do not think like this. But MANY probably do). Thus the reason that few car-jackings involve the lawful owner getting shot; the car jacker wants the car, not the additional prison time for shooting the car's owner. Same with armed robberies; robbers want the money, not the victim's life and the extra prison time that goes with committing murder. In addition, in both cases, if the criminal had unnecessarily esclated his crime to killing his victim, the system will put out a little more effort to catch that criminal. The criminals that have half a brain don't want that.

    If I was a criminal I would be quite happy with my semi-auto AK-47 with the 40 round mag and would feel no need to try and alter it or to otherwise be in possession of an illegal machine gun as that would do little to help me with my criminal acts, but would give me automatic extra prison time WHEN I am caught.

    And no, this does NOT apply to ALL cases. But it surely does apply to many (half?) of the cases.




    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/27/2005 : 9:45:12 PM

    So then by that logic, TR, if we made all guns as illegal as full autos, then the violent criminals would be too worried to use them? Didn't work for England, I'm afraid.


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/27/2005 : 10:53:41 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by dsmith

    So then by that logic, TR, if we made all guns as illegal as full autos, then the violent criminals would be too worried to use them? Didn't work for England, I'm afraid.




    There is a crucial difference that you are missing. Whatever is made common in society will be commonly used not only by the lawful citizens but also by the criminals.

    Non-fully autoguns are just that. Plain ol' guns. Fully auto guns are machine guns (I'd like to have one). If machine guns become as commonly found found in society as are .22 handguns, then machine gun shootings by violent criminals will go up. That extra gun crime just might be the tipping point in which that vast sea of middle-of-the road citizens, who are neither pro nor anti gun, into deciding that all guns should be outlawed.

    When and if that happens, if necessary that vast sea of citizens, in order to legally accomplish their goal of outlawing all guns, will * and easily abolish the second amendment.

    For decades that vast sea of undecided citizens seem to have accepted the fact that, just as we pro-gun people already know, it is the criminal and his/her actions that cause the unlawful killing; it is not the gun. Because of that there have not been millions of average citziens marching on Washington demanding that ALL guns be outlawed. But if Mr. and Mrs. undecided citizen start seeing numerous police stand-offs, with the criminals shooting fully auto, that might just be all that is needed to make the majority of Americans decide that it is time to ban ALL guns.

    Maybe not, but I don't value owning a machine gun enough to find out.




    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 12/27/2005 : 10:57:29 PM

    quote:
    If I was a criminal I would be quite happy with my semi-auto AK-47 with the 40 round mag and would feel no need to try and alter it or to otherwise be in possession of an illegal machine gun as that would do little to help me with my criminal acts, but would give me automatic extra prison time WHEN I am caught.




    TR Fox:

    This is why you would not make a good criminal, and I say that with respect, too. (Like you would want to be known as a good criminal, anyway...) However, criminologists do not agree with you, here. A criminal wants every advantage they can bolster. A full auto is a very powerful advantage. Most criminals are illegally in possession of a firearm, no matter what it is, anyway, as they tend to be repeat offenders, but want a way to get away if things go bad. One big reason why a drive by doesn't link up to a full auto is because the weapons are not seized, and no one is arrested, so therefore, no news broadcaster is willing to be proven wrong at a later time when the truth comes out that there were six shooters in the car lighting up a target, not one guy with a MAC-10 doing it, but just because they aren't reported in the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Full auto can do a lot to help criminals pull off criminal acts. If they weren't useful, terrorists would not have them, and our military forces wouldn't have to return fire with them, either.

    Here's the kicker:


    quote:
    but would give me automatic extra prison time WHEN I am caught.




    Criminals do not expect to be caught. If they were, they wouldn't do it in the first place. Therefore, they'll use whatever the hell they want, because they won't get caught, anyway.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    KYfatboy
    Senior Member



    USA
    1791 Posts
    Posted - 12/27/2005 : 11:16:55 PM

    OK TR, lets say hypothetically I would agree with some version of A small license fee for A full Auto. What about the 1986 act, also what is wrong with A silencer.

    http://www.darklordofconservatism.com/phpBB2/
    http://www.darklordofconservatism.com/PostNuke-0.762/html/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=index

    If guns kill people, then I can blame bad spelling on my pencil.

    Was mich nur nicht t?tet, mache mich st?rker.


    http://www.frozen-freedom.com/phpBB2/index.php


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/28/2005 : 11:44:36 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by KYfatboy

    OK TR, lets say hypothetically I would agree with some version of A small license fee for A full Auto. What about the 1986 act, also what is wrong with A silencer.




    I don't know enough about the 1986 act to tell anyone what is right or wrong with it. If that act is also known as the "firearm owners protection act" then one of the main reasons for that act is that it was SUPPOSED to give protection to firearm owners when transporting their firearms across various state lines (going hunting, moving, military transfer, etc) and what had been happening is that even though that firearm owner was careful and therefore legal in the majority of states, they still got in trouble with the law in those few states that hate guns and gun owners and almost totally outlaw the transporting of any and all guns in vehicles. However, and this is why we need the NRA and GOA, etc., some state governments STILL won't recognize and obey that federal "firearms owners protection act" and still arrest honest, innocent citizens for merrely transportating their unloaded rifle locked in the trunk of their car.

    Hope you and I ar talking about the same law/act. If not, sorry.

    I like the idea of firearm noise suppressors as it would make it easier to not annoy the non-shooters in a nearby campground, neighbors living near a gunrange who otherwise might try to get the range closed, etc. But I am against an almost total silencer.

    Heck, with that you could be walking down the street, someone could pull a driveby shooting on you and you and the other bystanders would actually have to see the shooter to know which direction the shots were coming from or maybe even know that shots WERE being fired at you.

    Surely most of us here take some comfort knowing that if in the unlikely event we are shot at from a distance, and missed, the sound of the shot will alert us to take cover and maybe even which direction to go to take that cover. I for one do not want to be walking down the street and have to wonder why and where that car window next to me just shattered for no reason. I want to hear the gunshot if indeed there is one.




    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/28/2005 : 2:22:21 PM

    TR, the machinegun ban is a part of the Firearms Owners Protection Act. It was introduced at the last minute as a poison pill from the Demonkrats.

    The NRA continued to support the bill even after the ban was included.

    What the ban means is this: The NFA of 1934 required law abiding citizens to go through paperwork to register a full auto. Name, address, fingerprint cards, passport photos, waiting for government approval, etc. Then the GCA of 1968 comes along and says that you can't register any more full autos that were imported from foreign countries, but you could still register domestic ones. So if a machinegun was made in this country, or imported as a semi-auto and converted here, it could still be registered. Then in 1986, the FOPA came along, and the poison pill declared that no more full autos could be registered. So the number of transferable full autos is fixed to the number registered in 1986. Many of us, myself included blame the NRA for this. After all it was their bill that did this to us.


    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/28/2005 : 2:26:54 PM

    I also forgot to mention that the NFA placed a $200 transfer tax on full autos.

    One more point: If the machine gun provision of the FOPA would be repealed, we would still have the registration requirements. However, we would be able to get a new MP5K for $900 plus the $200 transfer or making tax, instead of $17,000 plus the $200 transfer tax. All the FOPA did was prohibit new manufacturing, and raise the prices of existing guns to obscene levels.


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 12/28/2005 : 2:55:59 PM

    tr- I think you would be surprised to find out the reality of what goes on in the streets of Kansas City. I spent 19 years in Overland Park, those being my first 19, and once again I have first hand accounting of machine guns in use. I recall two instances rather clearly, although 22 years ago or so, First my buddies and I had decided to take in a show at the Bijou theater, I hope you know what that place was all about, let's just say it had to do with one hell of a stage show and then movies, anyway, the place was very shady and on this night two 'brothers' got into a shouting match which of course escalated into much more. The young men were escorted out of the building and were followed by their 'homies' to the parking lot. Turns out they are all gang members and wanted nothing more than to get to their vehicles where they had 'Bertha' stored. About 10 minutes after things settled down inside we heard what must have been 300 rounds going off in the parking lot, three were killed and around sven injured quite badly. They were using machine guns, I saw one of them laying next to a dead guy and it was definitely an UZI.

    The second happened a few years earlier at the River Quey, I don't remember exactly how to spell it but I remember it was weird, we were, my friends and I, trying to get into some of the bars when we heard screeching tires and loud yelling followed by a single machine gun with, I would guess, around a thirty or forty round mag being emptied in a matter of maybe 2.5 seconds. The pimp that was being shot at received 16 bullet wounds and died on location. In order to hit anything sixteen times with one clip in a fully auto gun is phenominal. The muzzle rise is enough to cause you to miss almost all of the shots, unless you have had ample practice. This guy must have had practice.

    Neither of the stories made the news or the newspapers, we looked for a solid week and the only thing we found was next to the 'obits' which said something about a gang banger being killed on the River Quey.

    They're out there and there are plenty of them, don't kid yourself into thinking that the criminals that have them are afraid of extra jail time, they are not. For some, having full-auto is a matter of survival. They have theirs, you better have yours. Not being sufficiently armed in the gang world is an open invitation for the rivals to take pot shots at them. It is a status symbol as well, if you don't have a full-auto and are in a gang you will not be around long. Maybe the reason we don't hear about this stuff is because most cops are pro-gun and they may not add that bit of information to their 'public' report.




    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 12/28/2005 : 4:30:05 PM

    We keep going in circles, here:

    One side declares that, because MG's are banned, criminals won't break the law by getting them, while the other side indicates that they are there, law or not, and they are used, law or not, by criminals.

    Time to break the circle. Cops have them for good reason. Criminals have them for other reasons, but we are not so fortunate, meaning we are at a major disadvantage to those other groups. This is why banning MG's is just evil.

    Oh, and I word on silencers, the shot can still be heard, because, of the four types of sound produced by firearms, only one is suppressed, but not completely drowned out, and that is the sound of the boom at the end of the muzzle. The sound of the bullet in flight, the action of the gun, and the discharge from the back pressure as the shell ejects are not suppressed in any way. Don't believe what you see in the movies.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/28/2005 : 4:37:01 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by dsmith

    TR, the machinegun ban is a part of the Firearms Owners Protection Act. It was introduced at the last minute as a poison pill from the Demonkrats.

    The NRA continued to support the bill even after the ban was included.

    What the ban means is this: The NFA of 1934 required law abiding citizens to go through paperwork to register a full auto. Name, address, fingerprint cards, passport photos, waiting for government approval, etc. Then the GCA of 1968 comes along and says that you can't register any more full autos that were imported from foreign countries, but you could still register domestic ones. So if a machinegun was made in this country, or imported as a semi-auto and converted here, it could still be registered. Then in 1986, the FOPA came along, and the poison pill declared that no more full autos could be registered. So the number of transferable full autos is fixed to the number registered in 1986. Many of us, myself included blame the NRA for this. After all it was their bill that did this to us.




    A more accurate way to describe the NRA's role in the above, using your own words since I really don't know as much about it as you, is that apparently the NRA introduced a good gun rights, generally helpful bill and the Democrats partially spoiled it. So when complaining that the hated bill was "their bill" all the blame should not be thrown on the back of the NRA. That let's the Democrats off the hook.

    And maybe the NRA leaders thought that continuing to support the bill was still going to be a big help for the great majority of gun owners and even perhaps they thought they could go back later and pass legislation to correct the one defect in the bill. Maybe if the NRA had heard from thousands of NRA members wanting the continued machine gun rights that the 1968 bill was going to eliminate, maybe the NRA would have agreed to kill the bill and try again.

    I just know I am better off with the NRA than I would be without it.




    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/28/2005 : 4:42:38 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by gunphreak

    We keep going in circles, here:

    One side declares that, because MG's are banned, criminals won't break the law by getting them, while the other side indicates that they are there, law or not, and they are used, law or not, by criminals.

    Time to break the circle. Cops have them for good reason. Criminals have them for other reasons, but we are not so fortunate, meaning we are at a major disadvantage to those other groups. This is why banning MG's is just evil.

    Oh, and I word on silencers, the shot can still be heard, because, of the four types of sound produced by firearms, only one is suppressed, but not completely drowned out, and that is the sound of the boom at the end of the muzzle. The sound of the bullet in flight, the action of the gun, and the discharge from the back pressure as the shell ejects are not suppressed in any way. Don't believe what you see in the movies.




    I am saying because machine guns are rare, criminals don't seem to put out the time or effort to try and make/acquire them. If machine guns become common in the hands of lawful civilians, they will become common in the hands of criminals.

    In regards to the silencer, with your discription what is the use for a silencer if it does not "silence". Most of the sounds you describe that can be heard probably cannot be heard 100 yards away. If someone shoots at me I want to hear a clear and reasonably loud report so I wil instantly know what is happening and which way to go to take cover and which way to shoot back.





    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/28/2005 : 4:54:22 PM

    So, tr, by that logic, wouldn't you be worries about somebody owning a bow? After all, no need for a silencer.

    And BTW, you can register them. You can get brand new ones by filling out paperwork like the machine gun paperwork to make/buy. You can also get approval to make/buy rocket launchers, grenades, short shotguns, and short rifles. However, you don't hear about these being used in crime do you?
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,391 ******
    edited November -1
    Page 6

    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/28/2005 : 4:57:11 PM

    TR, one more point. The NRA fought their own Firearm Makers law after the AWB was attached to it. Why couldn't they fight their own bill when it had a MG ban attached to it?


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 12/28/2005 : 11:51:42 PM

    quote:
    I am saying because machine guns are rare, criminals don't seem to put out the time or effort to try and make/acquire them. If machine guns become common in the hands of lawful civilians, they will become common in the hands of criminals.

    In regards to the silencer, with your discription what is the use for a silencer if it does not "silence". Most of the sounds you describe that can be heard probably cannot be heard 100 yards away. If someone shoots at me I want to hear a clear and reasonably loud report so I wil instantly know what is happening and which way to go to take cover and which way to shoot back.



    And I am telling you that they are more common than you realize. I've seen them, before, and could have bought a few of them. The reason we do not see them in the news is because the people shooting /at others don't manage to get caught. Cops don't want any part of machine guns, and don't go right away to investigate these sorts of crimes, and thus, no one ever gets busted for using them, and no one sees them in the news, because no suspect = no weapon.

    Silencers suppress sound down to managable levels from the shooter, but still make noise. Physics makes it impossible for a self-loading gun to not have sound from the action, and most rifles fire supersonic ammo, so that sound is present, no matter how much suppressing is done on the gun.

    Using a bow or crossbow is several times quieter than a silenced handgun. Not only that, an arrow will penetrate further than a handgun bullet, and will cause more damage. And silencers are another more common thing than you might realize. They are fairly easy to manufacture, if you know how, and can be made disposable, as well.

    False is the idea of utility that would sacrifice a thousand real advantages for a few trifling or imagined inconveniences. We don't ban fire because it burns, or water because one might drown in it, but either of these things manage to kill more people than other methods. Automobiles aren't banned, but they kill astronomically more people than firearms.

    So what should we ban next, with the hopes that criminals won't get them, body armor? These are also used more often than the law abiding would like them to, but no such crusade exists to keep them out of everyone else's hands....yet. Incremental destruction of civil rights, and the right to defend ones self. the way I have it figured, I cannot control the acts of others. If someone was to shoot me with a suppressed full auto MAC 10, I would want 20 nearby citizens to light his @$$ up with similar things. I fully believe a person bent on doing this will do this regardless of what the law says.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.

    Edited by - gunphreak on 12/28/2005 11:54:30 PM


    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/29/2005 : 12:03:18 AM

    Nice rant gunphreak!!!

    Maybe this has some importance to the whole debate, so think of this:

    There are no laws whatsoever regarding black powder firearms. You don't have to be 18 to buy one. You can buy one if convicted of a felony. The only requirement is that you be 18 to buy the powder. In theory, they could be sold out of vending machines. However, they are almost never used in crime. I drug dealer who is convicted of a felony is released from prison and can only legally buy a black powder handgun. He doesn't. He illegally buys a semi-auto. Why then would I suspect that it would matter to him at all whether or not he could get caught with a machine gun if he chose the semi-auto over the flint lock he could have legitimatly bought?


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 12/29/2005 : 12:27:58 AM

    Back at ya' smithy

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 12/29/2005 : 12:50:33 PM

    I wouldn't say we're going around in circles, more like beating the dead horse with everything we've got at our disposal. I own a silencer and body armor and have an automatic MP-5 on the way, does this make me a criminal? No, as a matter of fact that I have these items is a reason for my neighbors to rest a little easier. Should there be trouble in our neck of the woods, I'll have firepower and semi-stealthness on our side. Will I use them in the commission of a crime? Hell no, I'm not a criminal but if I were I would not hesitste to use anything and everything I could get my hands on in order to accomplish the goals of my illegal activities.

    Criminals are all the same, they want something without having to work for it and they want it now. They don't care what they have to do to get it. Do you realize there were 68 murders in the town of Compton in Kalifornia and 90% of those involved guns? Yet pretty much all guns are banned in Kalifornia, I know, not all but a good percentage. Of those 60.8 murders how many do you think used LEGAL guns? Maybe 1 or 2 tops, murderers don't go around shooting people with their registered handgun and very few use a rifle so their weapon must be illegal and I'd bet you a month of car washes, by hand, that 80% or more were illegal guns.

    If they decide that we are incapable of controlling ourselves and ban guns, do you think that there won't be machine shops all over this country making and selling on the black market all kinds of guns? With the right equipment, and most machine shops have them, you can make guns every bit as well as the manufacturers do now. The ONLY people that will LEGALLY own firearms will be the criminals. This is the message that we must get out there. As tr has said, the majority of folks that will ultimately make the decision on whether we all keep our guns or not are those that are on the fence on the issue. They have no opinion on the matter and I would like to see that the message they receive is on OUR terms not the anti's. It needs to be pointed out to them in terms they understand and the fact that the only people that own firearms would be Police and criminals should a ban be passed. Then they need to be reminded of NOLA. 20,000,000 new NRA member would pretty much put to rest all of the ban talk as well. I can't see the gov't or any other group going up against an armed group of 20,000,000 that are all for the same issue, As it is the 4,000,000 do a pretty decent job at holding the wolves at bay but not always and this is where the danger lies, they keep chipping away and eventually the 'on the fencers' will be swayed towards the anti side if we don't get them first. We really need to garner support for the gun groups. I don't like the way the NRA handles these issues either but they are by far the most powerful of the pro-gun groups and I say we all get in that corner and start doing something to improve the way the issues are handled not run from the NRA. Encourage those you know to become paying members for the sake of keeping their gun in order to keep their families safe. When confronted with the reality of not being allowed to own a gun you will see these people infuriated and willing to do anything to stop the madness. Sign 'em up. How much clout and money would be at the NRA's disposal then? Far more than all the anti's put together times 10 and no way do they continue to exist in the face of 20,000,000 NRA members all pent on the destruction of all anti groups and all gun legislation. It's really quite simple, get those people to join and we will win! I've done all the bashing I'm going to do, it's counter-productive and self-defeating.

    You here people saying all the time on this board, if you don't like it, get active and do something. Most will see this as an overwhelming task and pass on the activity due to the vastness of being active, however, if all you have to do to be 'active' is to get people to join the NRA and write letters to the NRA with your complaints, you can make a difference. Just do it!




    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/29/2005 : 1:55:00 PM

    Comengetit, do you really believe the NRA can be fixed? When I was a member, and I complained about their support for the machine gun ban, I got a canned response. Typical "we don't support gun control," and "we have more important things," etc. I tried to let my thoughts be known to the NRA when I was a member, but their reply amounts to more or less, "we know what we are doing. We need FOPA; the gun ban is acceptable", etc.


    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    884 Posts
    Posted - 12/29/2005 : 6:40:38 PM

    Amen to you, brother Comengetit.

    I have two words, "Gift Membership". How many people do you buy a birthday present for each year? 25 bucks is pretty much the going rate these days for a birthday or Chritsmas gift, so just sign them up for the NRA or GOA instead. Or hell, do one for Christmas and the other for a birthday. They may hate you for it, but I bet some of them will renew their membership after a year. You can even play it off to your Liberal friends (if there is such a thing) as a joke. You know, "Ha ha, I signed you up for the NRA, next year it will be the Focus on the Family newsletter, or Rush 24/7." Play it off as a joke, meanwhile they will be swamped with the NRA brainwashing. That's called beating them at their own game.

    I was gonna buy Highball an NRA membership for Christmas, but he is already a life member.

    In fact, any of you NRA bashers that are not a member anymore, or have never been a member, the first one that sends me a personal message with their name and address (and former member# if you have one) I will BUY YOU A 1-YEAR NRA MEMBERSHIP!

    My only terms are that you must have been an active poster here in Gun Rights for at least the past couple of months (I don't want any newbie GD trash taking my money), and have voiced your anti-NRA venom. I reserve the right to publicize the recipient of the gift membership here in the GR forum (only by screen name, no personal info will be revealed).

    I also would like to challenge my fellow pro-NRA friends here to make similar offers.

    -Wolf



    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/29/2005 : 9:14:01 PM


    while I respect and admire your actions WoundedWolf, it will take more than me taking $25.00-$35.00 out of my family money and buying an anti-NRA person an NRA membership to change the attitude of most of them. It just seems to be human nature for a certain percentage to be against some things. People complain about the high costd of gas, butd I truly believe some people would complain if the Gas companies gave away free gas.




    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/29/2005 : 9:18:47 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by dsmith

    So, tr, by that logic, wouldn't you be worries about somebody owning a bow? After all, no need for a silencer.

    And BTW, you can register them. You can get brand new ones by filling out paperwork like the machine gun paperwork to make/buy. You can also get approval to make/buy rocket launchers, grenades, short shotguns, and short rifles. However, you don't hear about these being used in crime do you?



    If there was some way to make the arrow fired from a bow "invisible" just as the report from a sub-sonic .22 is "invisible", then yes I would be worried about someone owning/using a bow. Or if a bow could fire multiple arrows quickly and easily and was accurate and deadly at 100 yards I might also worry about bows.




    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 12/29/2005 : 9:58:40 PM

    I think we should worry less about what may happen because of weapon technology, and more about what lack of weapon technology might mean for us at the hands of criminals and rogue gov'ts. Even subsonic ammo can be traced, and chances are, if you were shot at by someone using silencers and subsonic ammo, you won't be worrying about returning fire or taking cover, because you'll be wasted.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 12/30/2005 : 12:13:50 AM

    dsmith
    There are no laws whatsoever regarding black powder firearms. You don't have to be 18 to buy one. You can buy one if convicted of a felony.

    THIS IS NOT SO.
    All of the new inline black power guns are same as any other modern
    firearm and need a 4473 and NICS check must be sold by an FFL.

    I am glad to see this topic has a long life.

    What about we start a peoples veto of all of the anti-gun laws and make MG's legal again at the same time.
    With the power of the internet we would have no problem getting names on it.




    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/30/2005 : 12:52:00 AM

    I didn't think of the inlines. I was referring to the "cap and ball" type guns.


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 12/30/2005 : 01:13:29 AM

    dsmith
    I didn't want you to give any of the fellons that
    may read this any bad info.

    Edited by - shootstright on 12/30/2005 01:14:15 AM


    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/30/2005 : 01:17:20 AM

    Isn't it true about having no laws against "cap and ball" guns?


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 12/30/2005 : 03:35:31 AM

    18 years old for cap and ball.
    Felons can't have weapons , knife or firearms.


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/30/2005 : 09:40:16 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by gunphreak

    I think we should worry less about what may happen because of weapon technology, and more about what lack of weapon technology might mean for us at the hands of criminals and rogue gov'ts. Even subsonic ammo can be traced, and chances are, if you were shot at by someone using silencers and subsonic ammo, you won't be worrying about returning fire or taking cover, because you'll be wasted.




    Many of the anti-gunners basically use that in their argument about why the average citizen doesn't need to carry a gun. Because if the criminal wants to get you he will just surprise you and therefore you own gun will be no good to you.




    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 12/30/2005 : 5:29:10 PM

    Perhaps, but I would want witnesses equipped to waste him right back. Besides, antigunners' arguments are always based on fear of what might, but probably won't happen. To me, it shows extreme paranioa on their part, and who wants to listen to a paranoid?

    The January 1st, 2006 issue of Shotgun Newspage 20 had an interesting excerpt from Clayton Cramer I think falls into this category quite nicely.

    "As much as we in America may focus on the danger of armed criminals, in much of the world, the biggest danger isn't free enterprise thuggery, but criminals carrying government ID cards."

    The only thing that separates us from them is a little time. We've already seen our gov't overstep this with Waco and Ruby Ridge, so don't tell me it can't happen here, too. None of us are special just because we are Americans.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/30/2005 : 8:30:34 PM

    Well I know I sure don't trust ANY government. I truly believe that even if the desire to serve the public motivates a career politican, in "most" cases the desire to become very, very powerful lurks also.




    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 12/31/2005 : 8:40:16 PM

    Here is what I'm saying:

    1. It is not the gov't's job to make us safe. Whenever we give up something to the feds, it is forever gone. Whenever we get anything from them, we had to give something up to get it, usually more than what we wanted. This is unacceptable.

    2. Removing firearms is impossible, and the feasibility of removing all of them will not work. That isn't the point, because I do not believe we are better off without firearms, anyway. It would institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. It gives violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. This is unacceptable.

    3. Concerning the whole "sporting purposes" crap, the claim that 'they're only for killing people' is wrong. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. More specifically, a high-capacity, military-type rifle or handgun is designed for conflict. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible, and suppressed and select-fire fit into this category nicely. These are available to everyone except for who they should be available to. This is unacceptable.

    4. No state has experienced what antis are describing where gun rights are concerned. But even if it were the truth, what is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important than the Constitution, why don't we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound? How about suspending the Fourth Amendment? Yearly searches of your property, and registration of your guns and property. How about that? This whole idea is unacceptable.

    5. The Founders discussed in the Federalist Papers that they wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 each had muskets, but not the artillery pieces that fired exploding shells. In the present, soldiers are each individually issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not atomic bombs. Furthermore, the laws governing free speech and freedom of the press are not only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. By comparison, no one in 1776 foresaw the printing technology that exists today, let alone TV, satellite transmission, FAXes, and the Internet. It is unreasonable to expect that the Founders expected this nation to technologically stagnate in any respect, especially where the Constitutionally protected aspects are concerned. This is unacceptable.

    So what I am saying is this. It is unacceptable!!!!


    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 12/31/2005 : 9:21:29 PM

    Excellent rant gunphreak. Lots of truth there.


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 12/31/2005 : 10:17:43 PM

    Well, for anyone who wants to be armed like the average US Military footd soldier, I strongly believe that that soldier is NOT generally issued a full auto M-16. He/she is instead issued a three round burst M-16 and only one or two members of his/her squad is issued a full auto rifle knowns as a "SAW" or "Squad Automatic Weapon".

    No particular point being made here, just for everyone's information if it is even generally true or not.




    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 01/01/2006 : 12:06:48 AM

    Yeah. 3 round burst M16A2. I'm not a fan of neutered guns.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 01/01/2006 : 12:09:52 AM

    I'd like to be the one making that decision, not some anticonstitutional politician/political entity.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 01/07/2006 : 03:15:16 AM

    Yes this is a good idea. I could get in alot
    more time at the reloading bench.


    ccddbb95448
    Junior Member



    458 Posts
    Posted - 01/07/2006 : 9:37:30 PM

    The rights given in the constitution were written by man but given by
    God.


    Red223
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7181 Posts
    Posted - 01/07/2006 : 9:41:03 PM

    TR, the Air Force still has some of the old M16A1 fully automatics. They yanked some out of the armories and converted them to 3 shot burst with carbine stocks and uppers for the Iraqi War.



    The Federal Machine Gun ban was able to be enacted because the Federal Govt. has the authority to control Interstate Commerce. The Federal Govt. has no authority to tell you what you can or can not make for yourself or possess if it was not obtained in Interstate Commerce.

    What would the Federal Govt. do if they conducted a poll with the next census asking who owns a machine gun...legal or not. Completely anonymous. Let's say they find out 5 Million of us have them. Would they build more prisons and do home to home searches in the name of Homeland Security? These are the people paying taxes and not suckling the social system/not even taking them out of their homes...the loss of 5 million tax payers and adding 5 million to the prison population would bankrupt the country. It would cost $275 Billion just to incarcerate 5 million of us plus court costs, new LEO's hired on for the raids...plus the loss of Govt. revenue from 5 million law abiding tax payers.

    I'm not saying go out and make yourself a machine gun and risk losing your life and going to jail for a piece of steel that was never used....but sitting in your home and thinking the oil supply will last forever, gas will always be affordable, food will always be available, Yellowstone will never erupt, a metoer will never effect the Earth, Our economy will never collapse, a foreign country will never invade our soil to get our coal/natural gas/oil wells, mankind will never face an extinction type event.....would make you an animal and not a human being. An animal does not have the capability of looking at the Earth's history, their breeds history, and contemplate if history will repeat itself.

    Human beings on the other hand have the capability to realize the easy life we are living now can all stop any second and has the capability to be prepared to protect his country, state, family, home, and self.

    Machine gun possession merely is mankinds ability to bear a tool that could be used to protect the above from: PEOPLE whom chose to live in cities and attack rural america when city life can not be sustained(animals since they do not have the capability to forsee a catastrophic event and prepare for it), foreign enemies attacking after our economy collapses, or scavengers roaming the countryside (animals) that weren't prepared and are feeding off of those that WERE prepared.

    If anyone were truly Homeland Security minded they would see a Machine Gun is the best tool to secure your home and mankinds existence. Unfortuneatly the Govt. is not thinking 'survival of the fittest'...they are thinking 'survival of the richest'.

    Those that can afford to hire people like BlackwaterUSA to use machine guns to protect them...people like Senator Feinstein that have to hire machine gun toting body guards to keep American's from getting to her...after she goes to Congress and lies under oath completely free from any persecution.

    We are merely following the demise of Rome, history is repeating itself and we are losing our capability to defend ourself and our nation.

    Japan never landed on the beaches of California because they "feared a rifle behind every blade of grass". China doesn't have that fear. Our country is less secure and with one thermonuclear detonation over America our military will be sent back to the stone age incapable of starting their trucks, tanks, aircraft, or launching ICBM's since our communications and satellites will be non-operational.

    IT IS NO ONE'S JOB to defend you as an individual, but your own. Police and the Federal Govt. are responsible for protecting society as a whole...when they fail we are back to the 1700's. Armed American citizens protecting each other and their country.




    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 01/07/2006 : 10:41:48 PM

    Good points all, Red223 but with one question. The way I read the ATF rules posted by Pickenup it is not legal to make your own machine gun or even a so-called semi-auto "assualt weapon" if Clinton's AWB had not expired.




    dsmith
    Member



    647 Posts
    Posted - 01/08/2006 : 12:09:38 AM

    Exactly, tr. You can't legally manufacture one yourself. If you could, why would somebody pay upwards of $10,000 for a full auto AK, when he could legally slot the bolt on his semi-auto?

    Regulating firearms with obscenely high taxes, and declaring you a criminal if you possess one without the tax, is blatantly unconstitutional.


    Red223
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7181 Posts
    Posted - 01/08/2006 : 04:43:37 AM

    You could not ever ever ever take a semi automatic AK and modify that to fire full auto. That rifle has been controlled by the Federal Govt. in interstate commerce. Modifying it to do such is in violation of Federal Law. Making your own receiver and getting a few parts here and there...now that is building your own firearm. It needs not a serial number because it is not subject to Federal Control under Interstate Commerce.

    ATF could NOT get a convicted felon, (Bob Stewart of Maadi Griffin Firearms) convicted of possessing machine guns he had manufactured himself. The 9th Circuit Court ruled he could only be charged for the firearms he possessed that he did not make.

    Taking that ruling into account it could be assumed you could make your own silencer as long as it stays at home also....but that would be another thread.

    Homemade Fully Automatic firearms are legal, and thank god the new nominee for the Supreme Court agrees with me.


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 01/08/2006 : 09:09:38 AM

    I'll probably be accused by somebody of being a weak sister, but as long as the BATFE publishes statements stating that, while it is legal to home manufacture certain firearms, it is still illegal to manufacture certain other firearms (machineguns for example) I do not want to be the one to find out if they will try and enforce that on me.

    Read the thread by LocustFork where her own father wasted close to $300,000.00 and 10 years fighting an apparently bogus charge from the ATF and then the ATF simply dropped charges. Her father still came out as being badly victimized by the ATF.

    In this case, let those who strongly believe that making a machine gun for personal use is legal test the law. And has the money and lawyers to keep them out of jail while they are testing the law. I can't/don't/won't.



    Edited by - tr fox on 01/08/2006 09:12:57 AM


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 01/08/2006 : 11:46:26 AM

    It is unconstitutional but the JBT's don't give a snit. They've been thumbing their noses at the constitution for 72 years, why stop now. I'm afraid Highball and some of the boys are correct in their statements of the constitution being nothing more than a very old piece of paper with writing on it, better known as an artifact. It no longer serves to protect us from a tyrannical government it has, in fact, better served the government than we, the people. Those seeking total domination and power over each and every Amerikan have been circumventing the constitution since it's inactment in 1791 (Bill of Rights). To say that anything is unconstitutional anymore has about as mych meaning as killing in "self defense". It just doesn't hold water and we have to spend our life's savings to defend ourselves in the courts in the hopes that the constitution will be upheld and serve to protect us. Hell, the unPatriot Act circumvents no less than five of the ten enumerated rights that we once possessed. These are sad, sad days indeed, as we are the generation most affected as our rights are stripped away. Our children will know no better as they have been dumbed down by the education system and television and our parents were able to enjoy "most" of their rights in full. We are the unlucky group that will ultimately be responsible for this countries demise as we are the only ones that can stop the unravelling going on before our eyes. Slot the bolt in an otherwise semi-automatic weapon in order to make it an automatic seems to not carry as much weight in importance to me anymore at least not as important in my ability to speak my mind and not have to worry about retributions. I'll tell you what, the day, and it's not far away, that I can no longer speak my mind freely, some will say that day has come, will be the day that I slot the bolt as caring about what may happen if I am caught will no longer serve to instill some form of fear in that execution of the act. Therefore, I will slot my bolt making my firearms fully automatic and not give a rats * what the government says I can and can't do for as the constitution goes so go any respect I or any of us should have for the law because the laws that have been written are themselves no longer carrying merit due to the fact that all are based on the foundation of the constitution. If this document is no longer valid than neither are the laws written in it's name. This is the primary reason you and I will never see the constitution officially declared null and void. As we farm away our lives in the corn-belt of today's high-tech world, our very existence is being threatened from within and we are to wrapped up in how we are going to cut back on our spending in order to purchase that new SUV to see the truth in this statement. The Federal Government has declared war on it's people and we appear to have tossed that "memo" into the trash as we go about our ant-like lives in a manner that supports this atrocity. Due to our inactivity in aggressively fighting for our own existence, we have allowed a once proud nation to become nothing more than sheep being led by the shepherd to slaughter. "Aloha, slavery" we have been enslaved for around 72 years and nobody has been the wiser for being an Amerikan is no longer a label to cherish, no, more like a label to abhor. Sorry for the highjacking but you no how I love to make speaches.




    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 01/08/2006 : 2:22:12 PM

    I see this all too often in these posts. The subject strayed from its path. It went from "Should C3's be legal?" to "What happens if C3's are found in your possession?" to "How can we get around these laws?"to...

    Look, this one point is made for reasons that we should stick to the subject matter. I understand you guys are in some degree of fear from JBT's and all, but the key is not to try to get around it. It is to confront it head on. I really don't have any other advice, other than look into history and try to learn what others have done while facing these forms of trouble, and duplicate it. To my knowledge, gun laws are not repealable, historically. It isn't impossible, for sure, but it would not be unprecedented in American History, because many of them were repealed by the Courts during post Civil War era judges. Should Samuel Alito end up a justice, we may see MG bans swept away.

    You never know.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Red223
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7181 Posts
    Posted - 01/08/2006 : 4:32:43 PM


    Gritz told WorldNetDaily the Stewarts were living in Utah about six years ago when Bob Stewart was featured on two magazine covers with his self-designed rifle. The BATF subsequently raided his store and asked him to stop building the Maadi-Griffin. He refused to comply, based on the Second Amendment.

    A couple of days later, according to Gritz, two men entered Stewart's shop with an AR-15 and asked him to "tighten the scope." As soon as Stewart applied a screwdriver to the weapon, the two men pulled out their ATF badges and arrested him because the AR-15 had been modified to fire fully automatically.

    "Now they had him working on an illegal machine gun," said Gritz. "His wife told me they didn't have a lawyer, and the government talked them into plea bargaining."


    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17532

    That is how they busted Bob Stewart the first time.





    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17536


    OPINION
    KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge:
    ""We decide whether Congress can, under its Commerce
    Clause power, prohibit the mere possession of homemade
    machineguns.""

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf

    The 9th Circuit Court was ordered by the Supreme Court to review their ruling (where they said it is legal to make your own machine guns) of US-vs-Stewart:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_v._Stewart


    This guy was busted for turning a semi into a fully auto and tried to use the Stewart ruling as a defense....Court's opinion....Stewart made his firearms..You didn't!

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/memdispo.nsf/pdfview/111504/$File/03-30406.PDF

    Anyone remember the "Machine Gun Minister"? He made his own machine guns but they weren't quite 100% home made and he got jailtime:

    http://nashvillefiles.com/blog/archives/000074.html









    Edited by - Red223 on 01/08/2006 4:40:30 PM


    Jeb Stuart
    New Member



    USA
    59 Posts
    Posted - 01/13/2006 : 01:22:59 AM

    two things. When first put into effect the $200 transfer tax was meant to be cost prohibitive. It was no secret that its only purpose was infringe on Second Amendment rights.
    And no matter what laws are passed, and what questions are asked about whether people should be "allowed" to legally own full auto weapons, it is a fact that criminals will ALWAYS have access to these guns because they ALWAYS buy them illegally.
    okay, three things. I can also safely state that if the restrictions on machine gun ownership were lifted or at least relaxed, this would not cause in increase in gun crimes or gun s in the US. What has CA's outlawing of machine guns accomplished?

    JS


    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    884 Posts
    Posted - 01/13/2006 : 2:47:26 PM

    Amen, Jeb. The full-auto arguement continues to rage.

    However, folks, keep in mind that Californians can't even buy an AR-15 or semi-auto AK. Heck, they can't even buy a 13 round mag for a Glock. Hell, they can't even buy ANY handgun that the DOJ hasn't put on its special list!

    I have said this before, it is hard for me to get worked up about the full-auto restrictions when there are folks that can't even buy a 15 round magazine for their 10/22 or buy a WW2 vintage gun because it has a "mean" looking bayonette. I know many of you may say "that's their problem", but the Californians are spilling over the border by the thousands, and they are NOT leaving their politics behind. In a war of attrition WE WILL LOSE. We need to win over the hearts and minds, then the rest will fall into place.

    -Wolf



    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 01/13/2006 : 9:05:11 PM

    I know you're right to some degree, WW. I seem to believe that enough violence and victim disarmament is required to make those in denial come to their senses, or at least kill enough disarmed victims, hopefully the antigun ones (yeah, I have a nihilistic streak in me), and then the attrition will truly begin. Since 9-11, fewer and fewer are taking the bait. This trend will continue.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 01/17/2006 : 02:07:17 AM


    This is ground that needs to be plowed daily .
    The VP Chainey is a machine gun guy, why can't we
    have them to.

    A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.

    Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
    Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.


    NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
    http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
    GOA
    http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm


    Red223
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7181 Posts
    Posted - 01/17/2006 : 10:36:24 AM

    Ready to poop your pants?

    The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 is what prohibits you from buying or making a machine gun (according to some of the govt....not the 9th Circuit Court).

    It was the House that even threw the words 'machine gun' into the bill....not the Senate.

    The Bill was introduced into the Senate in 1985. Senate Bill 49.

    It became Public Law 99-308 when Ronnie Reagan signed it.

    It was House Resolution 4332 that put controls/taxes on silencers on 4/10/1986.


    The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 Summary only states this:

    ""Makes it unlawful, with certain exceptions, for any individual to transfer or possess a machinegun.""

    Where is the complete text?????????????!!!!!!!!!!

    It ain't no where's on the internet. I want to read more than a summary.



    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 01/17/2006 : 6:04:53 PM

    Not news to me.

    None of it is. Reagan signed it, which was a backstab to the people. I was too young to even know anything about it, then.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Jeb Stuart
    New Member



    USA
    59 Posts
    Posted - 01/17/2006 : 6:24:57 PM

    I was too young to really know what was going on then too, but I think i had first fired a machine gun about a year or two before then. My dad had to jump through all the ATF's hoops back then to keep his machine guns.

    JS


    Zulu7
    Member



    USA
    746 Posts
    Posted - 01/18/2006 : 03:35:59 AM

    Should Fully-automatic weapons be legal? Yes.

    As a soldier in the US Army, I've been trained on various full-auto weapons and I know how to use them properly and safely. I feel there should be shooting competitions and leagues just for full-auto weapons. For any other purpose, I can't really think of a reason to have them.

    Let's look at the different reasons why people own weapons in the first place, and then throw full-autos into the mix.

    Hunting:

    What would someone need a full auto for in a hunting situation? For one thing, hunting is a sport. A level of skill with firearms is required. With full autos, all you have to do is spray and pray. Where's the skill? ANYONE can pick up a full auto, point it in a general direction, and pull the trigger. There's also the issue of ruining any meat on the animal, if that's what your after. Or, if you're going for a trophy, the chance of destroying your prey beyond the point of displaying it.

    Self-defence/home defence:

    Full-autos really aren't useful for self-defence. The whole point of firearms for self defence is to protect yourself from harm by stoping any threat. Full autos were designed to kill. Plain and simple. In the vast majority of self-defence cases, killing is just not nessisary. The sound of a weapon being fired, in most cases, is enough to attract assistance, or to scare off an attacker. You can do this just as easily with a 1911 .45 cal pistol as you can with, say, an MP5K. Personally, I'd feel more threatened by the .45 than the MP5K because there's body armor avaliable to the public to stop 9mm sub-machinegun or lesser threats.

    Home defence is in the same boat. It's better to use a slow rate of fire and aimed shots than throwing lead downrange hoping to hit a general area. The chance of colateral damage to your home is greater when using a full auto. I can almost promise you that if someone's breaking into your home, that the sound of a 12-ga shell being chambered would be enough to stop them in their tracks.

    Competition:

    Really the only practical purpose for the average person to own a full auto. Competition shooting can be exhilerating. It's a good excuse to get your friends together and tap the keg afterwards and share stories. There's countless shooting tournements and leagues out there already, why not add one more?

    Law Enforcement:

    SWAT teams already use full autos. Some larger police departments do, too. Why? Because they're trained professionals and they actually have a need for them.

    Bragging Rights:

    The other reason why the average person would have a full auto. Gun nuts like myself often talk about and show our arsenals to our close friends and family. I feel that to eliminate gun issues at home, you need to be open with your weapon collection, but also teach SAFETY. I was raised to never touch any of my dad's guns without him being there, even though we all knew that they were unloaded and safe to handle. But, always treat every weapon as if it's loaded. Now, I pull my firearms out at least once a month just to be sure that they're truely safe, and stored properly. It's just good practice to inspect weapons regularly. It also reduces your fear of them, which some (myself included) would say increases your confidence and safe handling of them.

    Should full autos be legal? Yes, under certain conditions. Ownership just to say you have one is not neccisarily a good reason. Ownership for use in competitions is a good reason, and probibly the best reason for the average person to own one.


    codenamepaul
    Senior Member



    2172 Posts
    Posted - 01/18/2006 : 03:52:06 AM

    Zulu-welcome to the table, pull up a chair. I think anyone should be able to own a full auto if they want to have one for whatever legal reason they like. Period

    Molon Labe !-Come and Get them. I will get them back from my oppressor using stick and stone. Then, I will have mine and more for others.


    Zulu7
    Member



    USA
    746 Posts
    Posted - 01/18/2006 : 04:42:56 AM

    I don't disagree with you, but I feel that people should have a reason to own something like a full auto.

    My brother bought parts for and built a fully functional Sten Mk 3 last year. I think that it's a bit absurd, but I don't oppose his owning it. I think that it's quite a triumph on his part to take pieces of several different weapons and a steel tube and make a functional submachinegun out of them. I know that he only has it to say that he has it and that he built it, but I keep asking him one question: why? (That's the same question he asked me after he fired one of my 3 1/2 in 12-ga magnums, by the way.)

    I'm not opposed to owning any type of firearm. It's just that some have a practical purpose, and others really don't. If you can find a legitimate and practical reason to own, say, an MP5, go right ahead and get one.

    If I were to get a full auto, it would only be for bragging rights and "plinking" when I got bored. But, even plinking can bring unwanted attention if you're using a full auto. I.E.: One of my first National Guard drill weekends, we were practicing assulting a fixed, defended position. The first firefight that broke out between the defenders and attackers scared an old lady that lived in the area, and she called 911. If my company hadn't informed the county police that we were going to be on manuvers that day, we would've been swamped by the cops.

    My point is, if you want to go plinking with a full auto, you're running a big risk because you never know who'll get scared and call the cops.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 01/18/2006 : 08:08:14 AM

    Well,Zulu7..welcome ABOARD.

    You make the common mistake in listing the reasons to own guns.The mistake even the NRA makes.

    NONE of the reasons you gave save for home defense is the PRIMARY reason the Second Amendment ....

    The PRIMARY REASON for the Second Amendment is to resist tyrannical governments.
    Not hunting, not target shooting, not to admire your vast stores of guns and ammo,not bird shooting.....RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY.

    Unless and until you understand THAT basic logic..your whole treatice is flawed.
    That is precisely the reason the NRA will NEVER be an effective organization fighting gun laws..the unwillingness to publicly admit the truth of the above statement.

    God,Guts,& Guns
    Have we lost all 3 ??



    Zulu7
    Member



    USA
    746 Posts
    Posted - 01/18/2006 : 08:27:14 AM

    I see your point... I guess I'm a misguided gun-enthusiast. Either that or I didn't pay as close of attention in history class as I thought I did.

    However, that still doesn't explain anything about why ordinary citizens need to own fully automatic weapons for anything but target/comp shooting or as colletion pieces.

    Where the 2nd Amendment is concerned, I'm all for it. But what I want to know is do ordinary citizens, like myself, have a practical use to warrent owning a full auto? I'm just throwing this out there to get people to think about it. If you have a practical reason to own one, I'd love to hear it. I'm just saying that I don't, but I still support the fact that citizens should be able to own full autos if they have a legitimate and practical application for such weapons.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 01/18/2006 : 1:34:49 PM

    quote:
    However, that still doesn't explain anything about why ordinary citizens need to own fully automatic weapons for anything but target/comp shooting or as colletion pieces.




    Allow me to introduce myself, Zulu 7. I am gunphreak. I have read many posts from several like you, and, for the most part, misguided you may be, but I think you have been deceived, more than misguided. The difference: Misguided means YOU did not follow the steps to understanding, and that may have occured for reasons like lack of desire to question (my guess) or lack of understanding. Deceived is when OTHERS have brought you to that conclusion and imposed their will on you subconsciously.

    I've heard liberals say for years, "Assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer--they're only for killing people." This is similar to what you had said about machine guns. The flaw in logic is right here, though. You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use, which is in direct opposition to the 2nd Amendment's meaning, and God's desire to help you with self-preservation. This is what I have to say about it. The claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. More specifically, a high-capacity, military-type rifle or handgun is designed for conflict. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I WANT the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. I should not have to justify needing something of this nature anymore than I have to justify buying whatever car I want, or computers or DVD players or widescreen TV's. The justification set by hunting is also fraudulent. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice.





    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 01/18/2006 : 1:39:57 PM

    quote:
    TR, one more point. The NRA fought their own Firearm Makers law after the AWB was attached to it. Why couldn't they fight their own bill when it had a MG ban attached to it?



    I think there are two reasons why this occured. The first was that the NRA learned a lesson from the first one, which is why they didn't repeat it a second time. the second was because the people were not affected by September 11th, or other implicit dangers of living.

    Those are not meant to be defenses of the NRA, merely logical rationalization of the events leading up to that point in history. One thing the NRA needs to quit doing is slapping its members in the face by calling the FOPA'86 to our attention as "victorious landmark legislation". Most people see that and think "MG ban", not gun owner protection.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 01/18/2006 : 9:25:10 PM

    One would want a full auto..because the military and police carry them today.
    Just that simple. The Founders INTENDED we the people be armed as well as or better then the military.
    See..every Armory ought to be kept full of heavy arms..and training carried out by old Gunny's..training of the average citizen.
    The Founders expected us to protect what they bled for...Freedom. They intended for US to keep the government in line.

    We have failed them...and ourselves.

    God,Guts,& Guns
    Have we lost all 3 ??



    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 01/20/2006 : 02:16:49 AM

    Let's keep it simple, highball. I know what you're saying is correct from an ethical standpoint, but this may summarize it all very nicely and simply:


    quote:
    More specifically, a high-capacity, military-type rifle or handgun is designed for conflict. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I WANT the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. I should not have to justify needing something of this nature anymore than I have to justify buying whatever car I want, or computers or DVD players or widescreen TV's.



    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.



    Red223
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7181 Posts
    Posted - 01/20/2006 : 09:15:10 AM

    Another reason full auto's should be legal:

    http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=185662


    Our government is broke....outta money. We haven't put the brightest minds in top positions of our govt. in a long long time. Money gets people in charge of our government or as we all know the other word 'royalty'. Look at how they are running it. The US has no gold, no value in it's monetary sytem, and they gave all our jobs away to foreign countries.

    With leaders like these who needs enemies?
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,391 ******
    edited November -1
    Page 7

    Jeb Stuart
    New Member



    USA
    59 Posts
    Posted - 01/20/2006 : 3:54:16 PM

    As a machine gun owner, i'd like to add my 2 cents to Zulu7's comments. First off:

    ZULU7 said:

    quote:
    Hunting:

    What would someone need a full auto for in a hunting situation? For one thing, hunting is a sport. A level of skill with firearms is required. With full autos, all you have to do is spray and pray. Where's the skill? ANYONE can pick up a full auto, point it in a general direction, and pull the trigger. There's also the issue of ruining any meat on the animal, if that's what your after. Or, if you're going for a trophy, the chance of destroying your prey beyond the point of displaying it.



    He makes it seem as though hunting with a machine gun is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. In fact, spraying and praying would be a p poor strategy for putting food on the table, and although it would be possible to hunt with a machine gun that fires a rifle round, the range on any submachine gun such as an MP5 is way to close for hunting. Can you imagine any hunter in his deer stand choosing to use a 9mm (even 30 rounds of full auto) over a 30-06, 7mm, or .308?? And don't think you'll get a chance to reload that machine gun if hunting with it. That deer will be long gone by the time you reload. Even if your machine gun is firing a round powerful enough for hunting (.308, .30-06, maybe .223) you still would need some skill to control the muzzle rise on any large caliber mg. And that muzzle rise and lack of control in full auto will only be multiplied over a distance of 100-200+ yards. Good luck getting enough rounds on target to "ruin any meat on the animal" or "destroying your prey beyond the point of displaying it." Zulu7 says he has experience shooting machine guns in the army. I suggest he try shooting something other than the M-16 in full auto before he decides he is an expert on machine guns.
    I have a Remington 870 for bird hunting, and a Sako .308 bolt action rifle that I'm using for deer hunting. Even if it were completely legal today, I would take my bolt action rifle over my HK 91 for deer hunting every day. They both fire .308, but I gaurantee that, in the real world, it is easier to kill a deer with a Sako than an HK.
    Zulu7, have you ever heard the saying, "Use the right tool for the right job"? There is a reason why there are so many different types of guns out there. Ok, enough about the absurd idea that you can just take a machine gun into the woods and destroy game left and right.

    I am SO tired of people telling me there is no good reason for me to own a machine gun. More than anything else I'm tired of their ASSUMPTION that I have to justify owning a machine gun with a reason that satisfies them. Do they ask the same of people who own dangerous, gas guzzling, sports cars with 500hp engines and top speeds of over 200mph?? Maybe those cars should be illegal if you aren't going to actually race them on a track. I'll bet Corvettes, Mustangs, GTs, and other sports cars kill many more people than machine guns every year. Maybe we should make them justify themselves.

    For the record here are MY reasons for owning machine guns.
    1. The most important and only important one. the 2nd amendment. I want to keep my freedom, and i care about it enough to be ready to fight for it. Unlike the blind sheep out there like Zulu7 who find it unthinkable that the gov't could ever turn against the people, that we live in a place where the lessons of history don't apply. I equate those people to the villagers who live in the shadow of Mt. Vesuvius. They don't remember it ever erupting, so they think it will never happen. I bet many of you out there didn't realize that Heckler and Koch sells insurance against government collapse or dictatorship. If i had lived still lived on the gulf coast during Katrina, I can assure you my family and I would have been safe from looters and robbers.

    2. They are fun as s**t to shoot. My grandfather has parked or towed every vehicle he has owned in the last 40 years out into the woods on his farm. These rusted hunks have made some of the funnest target you'd ever want.

    3. This goes along with the fun part, but I enjoy the history behind weapons and also the science behind the ballistics and the mechanics of the working of the action. Zulu7, that is pretty cool that your brother built a STEN. I plan to build a MK II someday, but it won't be full auto, because I only own legal machine guns. I feel that gun owners have to prove every day that we are MORE responsible than every one else, and give them NO excuses to try to take away more of our rights. And there is just something about the craftsmanship, about something so perfect in design and function that is admirable and I like to collect them so I can admire them up close. Replicas just don't measure up, it has to be the real thing.

    4. Investment. Over time Machine guns have proven to be a very good investment. Come to think of it I can't think of any that have lost value. In the late 70's when my father first began collecting machine guns he thought they would be a good investment, but they've increased more than he could have imagined then.

    And how about this from Zulu7:

    quote:
    Full-autos really aren't useful for self-defence. The whole point of firearms for self defence is to protect yourself from harm by stoping any threat. Full autos were designed to kill. Plain and simple. In the vast majority of self-defence cases, killing is just not nessisary. The sound of a weapon being fired, in most cases, is enough to attract assistance, or to scare off an attacker. You can do this just as easily with a 1911 .45 cal pistol as you can with, say, an MP5K. Personally, I'd feel more threatened by the .45 than the MP5K because there's body armor avaliable to the public to stop 9mm sub-machinegun or lesser threats.
    Home defence is in the same boat. It's better to use a slow rate of fire and aimed shots than throwing lead downrange hoping to hit a general area. The chance of colateral damage to your home is greater when using a full auto. I can almost promise you that if someone's breaking into your home, that the sound of a 12-ga shell being chambered would be enough to stop them in their tracks.



    If all it takes is a loud noise maybe a string of Black Cats would be enough for home defense. And if a 1911 is better than an MP5K then why don't the SWAT teams trade in the subguns for .45's exclusively? And a case could also be made that using an MP5 could be safer in your home than a 1911 because the .45 could penetrate more walls than a 9mm. Personally, i'm more likely to use a handgun for self defence, but if there were more than one attacker or robber I would probably feel more comfortable using my MP5 to defend my home. And i bet that once I take out the first bad guy with a 3-5 round burst and his buddies hear the machine gun fire, they will want to get out of there in a hurry.

    And now I've rambled on enough.



    JS


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 01/20/2006 : 8:10:53 PM

    quote:
    He makes it seem as though hunting with a machine gun is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.



    Clearly, Jeb, you are right here. Full autos were never designed for long-range hunting. But hunting is not a justification for the 2nd Amendment, because although hunting can aid in self preservation, the real underlying principle behind it is defense.


    quote:
    I am SO tired of people telling me there is no good reason for me to own a machine gun. More than anything else I'm tired of their ASSUMPTION that I have to justify owning a machine gun with a reason that satisfies them. Do they ask the same of people who own dangerous, gas guzzling, sports cars with 500hp engines and top speeds of over 200mph?? Maybe those cars should be illegal if you aren't going to actually race them on a track. I'll bet Corvettes, Mustangs, GTs, and other sports cars kill many more people than machine guns every year. Maybe we should make them justify themselves.




    Ok, let me give you a few incontrovertible reasons that are not philosophies:

    1. In the instance you must shoot multiple intruders quickly.
    2. In the instance you must battle others armed with full-autos.
    3. In the instance you must battle an armed assailant in low light, heavy cover areas.
    4. To provide suppressive fire for others of a well-regulated militia.
    5. Because it is always better to have more than you need than not enough of what you need.
    6. Because using military firearms for defensive purposes provides you with more of an advantage than using your keys between your fingers or some other lame improvised weapon.

    None of this stuff is based on necessity, but on wants and desires of the user, or soe other philosophical reason, like "because it is my right". So what! If you can't express your right in a quick soundbit that others will understand, you might as well concede that no one will respect that right.

    Ask them this rigged question:

    "Is your life worth using a machine gun to defend?"

    Yes= Argument over. You won. If they want to say their life is worth more than yours, and say "But your life isn't that important, and you don't need to defend it, punch them as hard as you can and tell them you will regardless of whether they think it's ok or not.

    No= Then they are absolutely right. their life isn't worth defending, and it renders them useless. What an insult, but all you are doing is calling the obvious to their attention.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 01/21/2006 : 10:02:11 AM

    For the love of Pete, will people quit making a connection between the 2nd amendment and hunting, there is not one, never was one and never will be one. Both are rights that are God given believe in the spirit or not, it is an expression to define your rights as a human being. You have the right to put food in your stomach, therefore you have the right to hunt and with whatever weapon you see fit, regulating what weapons can and can't be used to hunt is ludicrous. It's like saying you have the right to live and breath but you can't breath certain types of air. There is a reason why everyone in the old west carried a gun, same reason we need to carry them today, people wish to take your possessions and sometimes even your life, there is no amendment necessary to any piece of paper that is going to keep me from defending me andd mine and with WHATEVER weapon I see fit. You can not regulate self-defense although our government has been doing it for years, I am a 4th degree black belt and my hands are registered with every police station in the state but don't think for one second that I would hesitate to snap the neck of someone threatening my life or that of my wifes, the problem with that method is you have to be in close contact and your assailant must not have a gun, knife, OK, gun no. If they have a gun, I want a gun and I want a better one that they. Should machine guns be legal? Doesn't really matter, I'll defend my family with whatever means I see fit not some bureaucratic windbag's idea of governmental regulation over how and when I may defend. I wouldn't hesitate to convert an AR-15 to full-auto if I felt I were in any danger or that my family was, I think it is a matter of comfort. I like my AR-15 for middle distance fighting, my .308 and 7mm mag for distance and a sub-gun for CQB, right now in lieu of a sub-gun I like the Baretta CX-4 or my .500 mag. either way I'm defending my life with whatever I have to be damned the law. comengetit, out!





    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    884 Posts
    Posted - 01/21/2006 : 12:36:49 PM

    Amen, Brother Comengetit.



    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 01/21/2006 : 6:18:10 PM

    Finally!! Someone who gets it!!!

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Zulu7
    Member



    USA
    745 Posts
    Posted - 01/22/2006 : 01:20:36 AM

    Finally my original question has been answered. Basically, all of you want to legally own full autos just because you can. I'm totally cool with that.

    I've NEVER been against owning them, I just wanted to hear everyone elses reasons.

    My stance on this is very similar to a statement made by one of our FFs. "I don't agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

    I don't share YOUR viewpoints on being full auto owners, but I WILL defend your RIGHT to own them. All you have to do is tell me WHY you own them, and you've done that.

    By the way, in my short time in the Army I've done the following jobs in relation to use of full autos: Rifleman, Assistant Gunner to the M-60, M-249 SAW gunner, Assistant Gunner to the M-240B, M-240B gunner. I have more experience than an M16 on burst.

    Zulu7,
    32nd Seperate Infantry Brigade, Wisconsin
    United States Army

    "My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country." Nathan Hale




    KYfatboy
    Senior Member



    USA
    1791 Posts
    Posted - 01/22/2006 : 07:27:19 AM

    Comengetit, 4th degree black belt in what system? I'm A 3rd brown in Mr Parkers Kempo system.

    http://www.darklordofconservatism.com/phpBB2/
    http://www.darklordofconservatism.com/PostNuke-0.762/html/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=index

    If guns kill people, then I can blame bad spelling on my pencil.

    Was mich nur nicht t?tet, mache mich st?rker.


    http://www.frozen-freedom.com/phpBB2/index.php


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 01/22/2006 : 09:12:18 AM

    quote:
    Basically, all of you want to legally own full autos just because you can. Finally my original question has been answered.


    Actually, NOT "because we can"....Because it is our DUTY as an American Citizen.
    It is our DUTY to protect the Republic..and that means having the means to do so.

    The unfortunate thing being...an out of control government has no interest in our help any more...just our dollars and instant obedience to the latest dictate.

    The EXACT reasons for the Second Amendment are hard upon us here in the old U. S. of A....


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7815 Posts
    Posted - 01/22/2006 : 10:39:26 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by WoundedWolf

    Amen, Brother Comengetit.








    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 01/22/2006 : 11:55:18 AM

    "Because I can" is no justification. Many of us here would be willing to say, "There should not have to be justification", but let's face it, some degree of justification is what will be needed to get others to understanding the way things are, and maybe even bring a few over to us.

    We will see major changes in American society the minute the following things are understood:

    1. We are not better off without guns, for a multitude of reasons, all stemming from criminals to rogue gov'ts, and all points in between.
    2. Lack of guns is what caused this problem.
    3. Killing in itself is not an act of evil. Religious doctrines in almost every single religion suggest this.
    4. Holding value to the life of a murderer is unwise, bordering on the height of stupidity, all while giving place to evil-doers in society, that should be otherwise not suggested.
    5. Laws meant to punish others for doing things that are otherwise harmless to anyone else are victimless crimes, and should be eradicated from the books.
    6. Any gov't interested in gun kontrol does not have the best interests of its people in mind. Only themselves.
    7. Any non-gov't person supporting gun kontrol is a paranoid. And I mean ALL of them!!!
    8. Statistics should not justify the right to use a weapon of any sort. If the statistics went the other way, we would still have the right to use a firearm to defend ourselves.
    9. Viktim disarmament has led to millions of deaths throughout the 20th century and every other century, as well. On average, 4800 disarmed men, women and children were machine gunned, gassed, starved to death, tortured, raped, maimed and flung naked in mass graves PER EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE 20th CENTURY. This right here is reason enough to disregard all gun laws.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    884 Posts
    Posted - 01/22/2006 : 3:36:59 PM

    Amen, Brother Gunphreak.

    It is unfortunate that we only require naturalized citizens to take this oath. Perhaps we should require it of all citizens on their 18th birthday. If they refuse then they should be deported to their most recent ancestor's home country, or sent to an Indian reservation if they choose:

    The Oath of Citizenship

    I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.




    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 01/23/2006 : 11:55:47 PM

    I'm a little surprised, actually, that there isn't more people out there willing to defy the so-called "law". Believe it or not, Kalifornicate is a lot more heavily armed than what we have all been led to believe, and there is no doubt that many have weapons buried in the lands of Kalifornistan, no doubt, which are not just their so-called "assault weapons", but are truly assault rifles... that's right, fully automatic rifles.

    Look at all the gun "crime", in that region. I'm not suggesting that Kali is heavily armed because of the criminal element, either. My point is, those megalomaniac "servants" do not have any more a handle on the guns in that region than they do on crime. Normal people have their real stuff hidden.

    Perhaps p!$$!ng them off would benefit us, in the long run.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 01/30/2006 : 04:35:15 AM

    Yes and Waco TX was the best example of why we need them.
    The BATFE showed up so the Clinton's AW ban would have merit in congress. They invited the media and went in in the daylight hours ( witch they never do) so all could see. When it backfired they moved the media back so they could not find out what they really do. If David really had what they said he did, and the guts to use them a great many Feds would be dead . The only way the Clinton's could cover up what they did was to kill all of the witnesses an lie to the people.
    As for the lady in charge of barbequing children , falling on the sword for that Clinton Bas%#@* and his ilk, that's another story.
    You bet we need them , just like the Swiss.




    Edited by - shootstright on 01/30/2006 04:38:10 AM


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 01/30/2006 : 2:19:21 PM

    In order to facilitate a police state the state REQUIRES enemies.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 02/01/2006 : 01:12:21 AM

    "The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
    --Ayn Rand



    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 02/01/2006 : 10:58:16 AM

    Suffice to say, topics like gun kontrol, socialism, protection, and in the past, slavery or indentured servitude all have one thing in common. The elitists never consider this to be something they are affected by, and that they are things for other people.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Comengetit
    Senior Member



    Wallis and Futuna Islands
    1652 Posts
    Posted - 02/01/2006 : 11:44:06 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by shootstright

    "The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
    --Ayn Rand





    I Think Ayn pretty much sums it up! And as far as the topic goes, I think this is reason enough for me to kepp and bear fully-auto weapons, 1939 Germany does not appeal to me. It was the Jews then but it could easily be white Christian Men next, who knows, we are the minority. They come lookin' to put me on a rail car, they are going to know fear first hand as I will light them up like a Christmas tree. They will get me eventually, sure, but not befors i get a whole slew of them. These are the views I have and the tenet by which I live. I seldom leave the house without my Glock on side with 17 rd. clip and 2 33 rnders in my Escalade and my .25 auto around my ankle. Paranoid? Probably. Justified? Hell yes! Coming to my house for me would be suicidal. I have enough guns and ammo to start a small war. None of my guns are full-auto but I can make them full-auto within a day. 6 different weapons I own can easily be converted. I had an MP-5 fully auto but had to sell it just this last month. I think it is only prudent to examine the real possibility of some kind of war on our soil be it civil or an invading force, either way being prepared never hurt anyone, well except those upon Ruby Ridge. comengetit- out!





    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 02/02/2006 : 01:55:22 AM

    Me too..

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    AIMSML_MSSML
    Starting Member



    USA
    33 Posts
    Posted - 02/13/2006 : 12:35:26 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by westlund_125

    My question is should fully automatic weapons be legal? why?

    "A good scope can end a bad situation"




    ANSWER= HELL YES!!!
    REASON= A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



    1. Aim small, miss small.
    2. Speed is fine, but accuracy is final.
    3. Slow is smooth; smooth is fast.


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 02/23/2006 : 8:29:05 PM

    yES ~ because taser stun guns are to dangerous and we are better off with MG than tasers.


    ..... ONLY A GUY WOULD DO THIS.


    Pocket Taser Stun Gun, a great gift for the wife. This was submitted by a guy who purchased his lovely wife a "pocket Taser" for their anniversary.

    Last weekend I saw something at Larry's Pistol & Pawn Shop that sparked my interest. The occasion was our 22nd anniversary and I was looking for a little something extra for my wife Toni. What I came across was a 100,000-volt, pocket/purse-sized taser. The effects of the taser were suppose to be short lived, with no long-term adverse affect on your assailant, allowing her adequate time to retreat to safety.... WAY TOO COOL!

    Long story short, I bought the device and brought it home. I loaded two triple-a batteries in the darn thing and pushed the button. Nothing! I was disappointed. I learned, however, that if I pushed the button AND pressed it against a metal surface at the same time; I'd get the blue arch of electricity darting back and forth between the prongs. Awesome!!! Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to Toni what that burn spot is on the face of her microwave.

    Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to myself that it couldn't be all that bad with only two triple-a batteries,... right?

    There I sat in my recliner, my cat Gracie looking on intently (trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and thinking that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh & blood moving target. I must admit I thought about zapping Gracie (for a fraction of a second) and thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat. But, if I was going to give this thing to my wife to protect herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that it would work as advertised. Am I wrong?

    So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my reading glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose, directions in one hand, taser in another. The directions said that a one-second burst would shock and disorient your assailant; a two-second burst was supposed to cause muscle spasms and a major loss of * control; a three-second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop on the ground like a fish out of water. Any burst longer than three seconds would be wasting the batteries.

    All the while I'm looking at this little device measuring about 5" long, less than 3/4 inch in circumference; pretty cute really and loaded with two itsy, bitsy triple-a batteries) thinking to myself, "no possible way!"

    What happened next is almost beyond description, but I'll do my best.....

    I'm sitting there alone, Gracie looking on with her head cocked to one side as to say, "don't do it master," reasoning that a one-second burst from such a tiny little ole thing couldn't hurt all that bad.... I decided to give myself a one-second burst just for the heck of it. I touched the prongs to my naked thigh, pushed the button, and HOLY MOTHER, WEAPONS OF MASS [email protected]!@$$!%!@*!!!

    I'm pretty sure Jessie Ventura ran in through the side door, picked me up in the recliner, then body slammed us both on the carpet, over and over and over again. I vaguely recall waking up on my side in the fetal position, with tears in my eyes, body soaking wet, both nipples on fire, testicles nowhere to be found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest position, and tingling in my legs. The cat was standing over me making meowing sounds I had never heard before, licking my face, undoubtedly thinking to herself, "do it again, do it again!"

    Note: If you ever feel compelled to "mug" yourself with a taser, one note of caution: there is no such thing as a one-second burst when you zap yourself. You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor. A three second burst would be considered conservative.

    SON-OF-A-.... that hurt like hell!!! A minute or so later (I can't be sure, as time was a relative thing at that point), collected my wits (what little I had left), sat up and surveyed the landscape. My bent reading glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace. How did they up get there??? My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still twitching. My face felt like it had been shot up with Novocain, and my bottom lip weighed 88 lbs. I'm still looking for my testicles? I'm offering a significant reward for their safe return.

    Still in shock,
    Tommy


    jaflowers
    Member



    USA
    625 Posts
    Posted - 02/23/2006 : 9:04:24 PM

    ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
    Shootstraight,
    I can't believe you did that and really, you should never tell anyone else that you did. Hope your "boys" find you again.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 02/23/2006 : 9:22:15 PM

    Helpless..../..over here....helpless.....air.....gasppppppppp...gotta have air........BRETHHHHHHHH C=DAMN ITL,LL!!!!!!!!!


    GOTTAAA BE THE FUNNIEST THING i HAVE READ FIR A NUNDRED YEARS...!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 02/24/2006 : 1:52:40 PM

    I once read in a gun magazine about stupid things people do. This one guy took a .30-06 and shot himself in the shoulder to see if it really hurt. After being treated, he want to test out whether or not that was a fluke, so he shot his other shoulder to see if it hurt as much as the first one.... it did.

    Or a guy who robbed a bank with a gun, left the scene of the crime, and the bag opened, and the money was fluttering away. once the perp caught the attention of some people watching, a couple of people ran after him, as he approached his getaway car, only to learn that he locked the keys in his car. The perp was grabbed behind by one of the people chasing him, and the robber pulled a gun from his pocket, and it discharged, hitting the perp in the leg. It's not over, yet. After the shot occured, one of the guys, a CHL holder, thinking he was being fired on, pulled his own gun and shot him in the shoulder. After that, the perp was bought into custody.

    I hope you've learned something about testing out things like stun guns. You don't want to spray yourself in the face with pepper spray or CN. That stuff is rough, and that's coming from a guy who sprayed that stuff at a perp too close, and having some of it redirect at me. It wasn't much, but it still burned like hell. I don't advise it.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    usmc vet
    Starting Member



    3 Posts
    Posted - 02/24/2006 : 8:04:40 PM

    TRFOX said:
    "Regardless of the defination of "milita", the US Constitutional 2nd amendment gives a federal (not necessarily a state) right to the citizens that the federal government cannot disarm the responsible citizens."

    As per the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    The Constitution does not "give us" anything. It guarantees the God given rights we have as free men. One has to remember that the Constitution is not a document which limits individual freedom, rather it proscribes the authority, which the federal government is allowed to have, by the sovereign people. This is why the Kelo vs. New London was so egregious. The SCOTUS made an unConstitutional ruling regarding eminent domain, thereby nullifying the 5th Amendment. It now becomes "precedent" for future unConstitutional rulings by an activist court. Witness what is happening around the country as result of this outrageous ruling. Congress should impeach the five ( Kennedy, Souter, Ginzberg, Stevens, and Breyer). Instead what ARE they doing?? Passing more legislation which is what they do. Make work. Look busy. Pat yourself on the back. Impeach judges?? Oh golly, I don't have the nads to do thaaaaat. The fact that nothing is being done is all the more reason for the 2nd Amendment. We are no longer living in a Constitutional republic. It has turned into judicial oligarchy with an imperial executive. Congress is no longer responsive to the people and has abrogated their responsibility. All one has to do is observe the millions of invaders coming across our southern border to realize Congress is not doing squat to honor their oath to protect and defend . This includes Article IV, Section 4. The part about invasion and guaranteeing a republican form of government???? We are not a republic if illegal aliens can fraudulently vote. I guess so that the gutless wonders that they are, will not be able to be held as responsible since they have given it away. Those gutless plutocrats are in need of replacement. Repeal the 17th Amendment and make the Senators beholden to the people of their state and maybe this crap will start turning around. At some point in our not too distant police state future, it may become necessary to be heaviliy armed. Yes, machine guns are legal to own (thank you State), and all other serious military firepower as well. Remember that the 2nd Amendment was written to guarantee that the people would be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. They just finished doing that very thing, didn't they? My 2c.
    Semper Fi


    Lover your family, buy ammo, buy gold


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 02/24/2006 : 11:24:12 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by jaflowers

    ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
    Shootstraight,
    I can't believe you did that and really, you should never tell anyone else that you did. Hope your "boys" find you again.




    jaflowers
    I am not a liberal or a fool and my name is not Tommy
    This was passed on to me by a friend , it wasn't him that
    did it. I don't know anyone that stupid but I thought you
    guys could have sum fun with it. Sometimes it gets to up tite
    here.


    Blazerdog
    Starting Member



    USA
    17 Posts
    Posted - 02/28/2006 : 12:56:10 PM

    Talk about a Loooooooooooooong thread! Sheesh!

    I've been reading for so long I can't think well enough to reply to the less-than-correct. But as far as owning a machine gun is concerned: I am allowed. I drew breath in America 30+ years ago (almost 40 ), and when that happened, I got permission, from God. Period.

    BTW, I don't leave the house without the G-22, and I didn't ask permission from anyone, either. The AK will ride with me once I make the vehicle more secure.

    'dog.

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of Patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson.

    Edited by - Blazerdog on 02/28/2006 12:56:28 PM


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 03/01/2006 : 12:24:33 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Blazerdog

    Talk about a Loooooooooooooong thread! Sheesh!

    I've been reading for so long I can't think well enough to reply to the less-than-correct. But as far as owning a machine gun is concerned: I am allowed. I drew breath in America 30+ years ago (almost 40 ), and when that happened, I got permission, from God. Period.

    BTW, I don't leave the house without the G-22, and I didn't ask permission from anyone, either. The AK will ride with me once I make the vehicle more secure.

    'dog.






    blazerdog
    You should come back when you are rested and read the whole thing.
    Before 1968 it was a free country and I do remember it, what freedom was like. What we have today is not freedom.
    Welcome

    A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.

    Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
    Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.


    NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
    http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
    GOA
    http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm




    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 03/06/2006 : 11:55:42 PM

    OK


    Blazerdog
    Starting Member



    USA
    17 Posts
    Posted - 03/07/2006 : 06:37:38 AM


    While I still haven't read every post here, it seems there are a few different schools of thought within this thread:

    1.) Those who feel that self-defense is a natural, God-given right, which cannot be taken away.

    2.) Those who feel that, while self-defense is a natural right, there are times when infringing upon it is necessary (for the good of the whole).

    3.) Those who feel that a "need" to own/use such a device should be proven prior to "permission" being granted (usually based on "sporting purposes".).

    Since my reply time is limited this morning, I'll be brief.

    The first school of thought is correct, the other two are irrelevant.

    Natural Rights are those we possess upon the very moment of our conception. No piece of paper, nor any man "grants" them to anyone, therefore, no piece of paper, nor any man, can ever take them away.

    Some may argue that Supreme Court cases (Case Law) and legislation trump this. Our Founding Fathers would argue that vehemently, I'd think. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land. ANY LAW WHICH CONTRADICTS IT IS NULL AND VOID, AND IS TO BE TREATED AS THOUGH IT DID NOT EXIST. The Constitution itslef proclaims this, as well as Marbury v. Madison and a few other instances of Case Law.

    So, for the government to say I can't own this or that type of firearm without jumping through this or that hoop...is nonsense. NONE of us have to do any of it, period. Anything which restricts anyone from having the means to defend themselves is, in fact, infringement upon that natural right. Anyone who attempts this is a CRIMINAL, plain and simple. Which means that NFA '34 is Unconstitutional, as are any other firearms laws which resctrict, in any way, one's RIGHT to own and carry any weapon which they see fit for self defense, period.

    What I want to know, is why every single firearms case in the country isn't argued on these grounds. Why haven't the NRA, GOA, PRO and everyone else compiled resources and argued/appealed this thing to death?

    It seems that these days, if an attorney mentions the Constitution in court and it has anything to do with firearms laws...somebody "important" eventually rolls their eyes and wipes their * with it, just before passing a life-changing judgement.

    These kind of people need to be taught to RESPECT THE LAW OF THE LAND!

    'dog out.



    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of Patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 03/07/2006 : 08:38:47 AM

    Well.
    A rather well put together statement of fact.

    quote:
    1.) Those who feel that self-defense is a natural, God-given right, which cannot be taken away.
    The first school of thought is correct, the other two are irrelevant.


    Thank you, Dog.

    The biggest argument I have these days is convincing gun owners that supporting this or that gun law is like being 'a little bit pregnant'...either you are a gun banner..or you are NOT..
    That is why I no longer support the NRA...

    The Shumers/Kennedys'/Fiendstein are NOT THE THREAT to our rights in this country that I fear.
    No...I fear the guy owning a gun that believes that gun control is necessary to control the citizens' abuse of firearms. These people refuse to demand that the criminal justice system hold criminals to account...preferring to hold THEMSELVES.(and me) to account for others misdeeds.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 03/07/2006 : 10:54:18 AM

    quote:
    What I want to know, is why every single firearms case in the country isn't argued on these grounds. Why haven't the NRA, GOA, PRO and everyone else compiled resources and argued/appealed this thing to death?




    Let me point out the obvious to you, Blazerdog. We're on the verge of seeing why with a different topic: abortion. In 1973, when this diabolic edict was created from the judiciary, an unconstitutional act in itself, the people were sure this would be an area where the justices would correctly rule that infanticide holds the same weight as murder and render the act a capital crime. Now, with a differently stacked SCOTUS, South Dakota is in the process of passing the first law in contradiction to it, basically picking a fight with the US Supreme Court, with different members, hoping to have this "law" sent straight to hell where it belongs.

    A hypothesis of mine would be that, should any of these groups argue on the grounds of the 2nd Amendment, this could turn out to be against what everyone else expects, just like Roe v. Wade, and make for the dismantling of the 2nd Amendment, rather than ending unconstitutional laws surrounding it. The NRA/GOA/SAF may be getting a lot braver with the SCOTUS justices changing as they are.

    Personally, I'd rather just let them have the ball and see where it goes, that way we can deal with it, whatever the outcome.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Blazerdog
    Starting Member



    USA
    17 Posts
    Posted - 03/07/2006 : 5:11:42 PM

    Honestly? I never thought of it that way. Excellent point.

    I also see your point about letting them do what they want, so we can do what we must. Good man.

    Good thread, too.

    'dog.

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of Patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 03/08/2006 : 12:16:40 PM

    I have spent a lot of time comtemplating that, as well as other topics. Since this is relevant, here's my take on background checks.

    The requirement for an automatic background check violates the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, as well as the same amendment's protection of an innocent assumption until proven guilty. That's the constitutional aspect of it. The real-time aspect is that the demand for a background check is an inadvertent admission of justice system impotence, simply for the reason that if these people were unable to be trusted with firearms in society, they should never have been released in the first place. That any felony automatically strips a person of their right to self defense, rather than only violent felonies is a violation of the 8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment, as well as the 14th Amendment, stating that the right of any free person (which is my understanding that a person who paid his/her debt to society is a free person) cannot have his/her rights suspended.

    What do you think of that???

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    884 Posts
    Posted - 03/08/2006 : 11:07:07 PM

    quote:
    The requirement for an automatic background check violates the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination



    That's an interesting approach, very clever. The actual wording is "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". I suppose the argument to this would be that a background check is outside the context of a criminal charge or case. So the 5th Amendment could probably be used to reject such a background check as admissable evidence in a criminal trial (which probably wouldn't matter because if your background was flagged then it is probably due to other evidence). However, if it used to research a felony conviction then the trial and conviction has already taken place. I think if you are convicted of that felony then you have already lost your 5th Amendment right to not bear witness to that crime via due process of law.


    quote:
    as well as the same amendment's protection of an innocent assumption until proven guilty.



    Again, since no criminal charges are being claimed, you are not under trial during a background check. Either you have already been convicted of a felony in the past or you have not. However, I do think the domestic violence and restraining order preclusions are totally out-of-line since they are basically stripping your rights without any criminal conviction whatsoever.


    quote:
    The real-time aspect is that the demand for a background check is an inadvertent admission of justice system impotence, simply for the reason that if these people were unable to be trusted with firearms in society, they should never have been released in the first place.



    Okay, I'll go along with that. Of course that means we would have to have mandatory life sentences in place for a single violent felony conviction. I don't buy into the "rehabilitation" racket, so we must assume that every violent felon is a habitual criminal.


    quote:
    That any felony automatically strips a person of their right to self defense, rather than only violent felonies is a violation of the 8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment



    I think that one is a stretch.


    quote:
    as well as the 14th Amendment, stating that the right of any free person (which is my understanding that a person who paid his/her debt to society is a free person) cannot have his/her rights suspended.



    "...without due process of law"

    If they convict you in court for the crime, then they can take away your rights. Doesn't say you have to be in jail either. I'm not saying it is right, but it is the way it is written. If we don't like it then we should change it.

    -Wolf




    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 03/09/2006 : 12:58:36 PM

    quote:
    That's an interesting approach, very clever. The actual wording is "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". I suppose the argument to this would be that a background check is outside the context of a criminal charge or case. So the 5th Amendment could probably be used to reject such a background check as admissable evidence in a criminal trial (which probably wouldn't matter because if your background was flagged then it is probably due to other evidence). However, if it used to research a felony conviction then the trial and conviction has already taken place. I think if you are convicted of that felony then you have already lost your 5th Amendment right to not bear witness to that crime via due process of law.




    Shall we add in the fact that it violates the 2nd and 4th Amendment, as well???


    quote:
    Again, since no criminal charges are being claimed, you are not under trial during a background check. Either you have already been convicted of a felony in the past or you have not. However, I do think the domestic violence and restraining order preclusions are totally out-of-line since they are basically stripping your rights without any criminal conviction whatsoever.




    It doesn't really matter, if you are already assumed to be breaking the law and are required to prove otherwise. You would be assumed to be in the commission of a crime. Same difference. The burden of proof should be with them, not us.


    quote:
    Okay, I'll go along with that. Of course that means we would have to have mandatory life sentences in place for a single violent felony conviction. I don't buy into the "rehabilitation" racket, so we must assume that every violent felon is a habitual criminal.




    Oh, I believe in rehabilitation, but you don't get rehabilitation by making prison attractive. You put irons on their legs and put their sorry @$$e$ to hard labor 12 hours each day, 6 days out of the week, and you'll see good productive citizens turn up from their old, former selfs. (the 6 day each week being made like that simply because we don't need to be breaking God's Commandment, either).


    quote:
    I think that one is a stretch.




    Why? Personally, any malum prohibitum violation shouldn't exist in this country, to begin with, because these are victimless crimes. Ownership of any contraband item, for example, should not be a crime, simply because ownership does not prove ill intent, and drug laws are completely Bravo Sierra. I can't see sticking people in jail if they are not violating another's rights, plain and simple.


    quote:
    "...without due process of law"

    If they convict you in court for the crime, then they can take away your rights. Doesn't say you have to be in jail either. I'm not saying it is right, but it is the way it is written. If we don't like it then we should change it.




    Upon being freed, your rights are supposed to be restored... all of them. Used in conjunction with the 13th Amendment, which frees all slaves, but has an insert to which can be applied to imprisoned persons, states will be released and considered equal.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 03/23/2006 : 01:37:00 AM




    shootstright
    Junior Member



    282 Posts
    Posted - 06/20/2006 : 01:10:03 AM

    Any new machinegun owner out there that would like to share there thoughts with us.
    I would like to see everyone apply for a class III gun buy this year . It would be neat if every able body would apply within say the next 12 month .
    And by the way help to keep the two longest run threads on this forum going but keep it about machineguns.



    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    884 Posts
    Posted - 06/20/2006 : 9:39:32 PM

    Personally, I don't have the time, money, or interest.

    But I will defend the right of those who do.

    -Wolf



    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 06/20/2006 : 11:38:01 PM

    Personally, I have the time, the money..and absolutely no interest in crawling on my belly to lick the hand of my masters to exercise a privilege such as 'full-auto'.
    Those that wish to do so should please stop refering to their 'right' to do so.
    They are exercising a 'privilege'...and paying handsomely to do so.

    Many of them feel a distinct sense of superiority over those not chosing to go thru the hoops necessary to have one...feeling that the unwashed masses without one are either criminal (cannot pass the checks)or broke.
    Please don't bother flaming me over this...I have read these arguments presented by several full-auto fans on this very site.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1819 Posts
    Posted - 06/21/2006 : 12:46:24 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball

    Personally, I have the time, the money..and absolutely no interest in crawling on my belly to lick the hand of my masters to exercise a privilege such as 'full-auto'.
    Those that wish to do so should please stop refering to their 'right' to do so.
    They are exercising a 'privilege'...and paying handsomely to do so.

    Many of them feel a distinct sense of superiority over those not chosing to go thru the hoops necessary to have one...feeling that the unwashed masses without one are either criminal (cannot pass the checks)or broke.
    Please don't bother flaming me over this...I have read these arguments presented by several full-auto fans on this very site.




    Pretty much....

    ...I've never understood how those of us who claim to be freedom lovers would condemn someone for exercising a true right, such as owning a machine gun without paying the unconstitutional tax or undergoing the unconstitutional background check involved with it.

    I do not condemn one for going this route, myself, I just don't want to know about it.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6443 Posts
    Posted - 06/21/2006 : 12:01:51 PM

    The other side of the coin is...Uncle Sam 'allowed ' me to play with his toys for awhile. That sorta cured me of the need to have one. I have no desire to own one today.
    Don't get me wrong. If we lived in a free country, I would have one on the wall...just to point at it. But the idea of blasting 100 rounds down range in one glorious burst is sorta like putting a 100 bucks on the table and burning it. Good enough for you, if you enjoy it...just not for me.


    codenamepaul
    Senior Member



    2172 Posts
    Posted - 06/21/2006 : 12:36:22 PM
  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,391 ******
    edited November -1
    Page 8

    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    877 Posts
    Posted - 06/23/2006 : 12:46:30 AM

    I view the Class 3 issue no different than the CCW issue. Yes, these restrictions are BS, we shouldn't have to jump through these hoops to exercise our inherent right as human beings. But, the point is that after jumping through the hoops, I'm the one with the frickin gun in the end.

    MOLON LABE!!!

    As for full-autos in general, I don't find them to be practical or cost effective. I would rather invest in several semi-auto battle rifles, a nice sniper rifle, or training to be a much better shooter. I think these are much higher priorities than laying down an immense amount of lead for covering fire.

    -Wolf



    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6415 Posts
    Posted - 06/23/2006 : 09:10:10 AM

    WW;
    Don't get your feathers in a fluff..please

    I bait the full-auto guys that view the process of getting a FA as somehow affirming that they are Super Citizens..that THEIR sh** don't stink. That the rest of us unwashed masses are lessor being..too criminal, too poor...just 'lessor'.
    The fact remains...THEY must do LOTS more crawling to get their piece then those of us merely getting the back-ground check.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1817 Posts
    Posted - 06/23/2006 : 11:33:31 AM

    quote:
    As for full-autos in general, I don't find them to be practical or cost effective. I would rather invest in several semi-auto battle rifles, a nice sniper rifle, or training to be a much better shooter. I think these are much higher priorities than laying down an immense amount of lead for covering fire.




    WW-

    Consider this point as criticism, or maybe just something to think about.

    1. What rifle is more effective a battle rifle? A high capacity, lightweight reliable semiautomatic rifle, or a rifle that has all of these features, plus it can be fired both semiautomatically and fully automatically? Don't confuse the issues of a select-fire rifle. Just because it can doesn't mean it has to be used that way. The option would be nice, though, without any of the paperwork.

    2. If the price of an M4 select-fire rifle costs exactly the same as a CAR-15, or even maybe $20.00-$30.00 more, what would you seriously buy?

    3. Regardless of your battle plan, having a select-fire rifle is no different that any other rifle, save one additional feature: You now have to consider what position your selector lever is in. We are capable of making this decision on our own without Big Brother telling us what we can and cannot do.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    dsmith
    Member



    644 Posts
    Posted - 06/23/2006 : 11:54:31 AM

    I plan of getting a transferable full auto registered to me. The reason I am going for the legal route is quite simply that I don't want to risk getting arrested.

    I do support average citizens being able to own Class III toys without the paperwork. Just because I'd submit to the registration doesn't mean I agree with it.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6415 Posts
    Posted - 06/23/2006 : 12:11:42 PM

    Dsmith;
    GO for it. I don't necessarily object to people doing so...even the CCW's..or the background check.

    I merely would like people to KNOW the difference between a free country...and one laboring under the boot of tyranny.
    One MUST obey ALL laws under tyranny..until condititons become so bad as to dictate action....but if the KNOWLEGE of freedom becomes lost...no hope of redress is possible.

    The "Right To Carry" boys drive me crazy..as if taking an INALIENABLE RIGHT...and having us crawl to exercise it is a GOOD thing....sheeeze.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1817 Posts
    Posted - 06/24/2006 : 1:03:15 PM

    It always amazed me, too, how a C3 victim looks down on everyone else who does not have that, when they should keep in mind that crawling on one's belly lower than others are willing to does not make them superior, and when the ball drops, who do you think will be the first to feel the weight of gov't???

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Slow_Hand
    Junior Member



    USA
    238 Posts
    Posted - 06/25/2006 : 01:22:57 AM

    This is my "black letter" analysis for whatever it's worth.

    Given the wording of the 2nd Amendment, specifically the word "infringed" and given the universally accepted definition of the word "infringed", then it logically follows that fully automatic weapons would be legal.

    That said, I don't believe that I'd want to see them in the hands of people - myself included - who have not had the proper training required to understand and operate the weapon safely.

    Before anyone jumps "butt ugly" with me, I'm not espousing that another government agency be created to handle that. It could be a short, simpe straightforward half-hour session given by a local shooting range or private association or organization BEFORE the weapon could be purchased.

    I just wouldn't want to see a soccer mommy, a store owner or a newbie like myself fumbling around with a loaded fully auto weapon.

    "If you're gonna dance to the music, you gotta help pay the band at the end of the night."


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6415 Posts
    Posted - 06/25/2006 : 09:07:50 AM

    Slow Hand;
    I partly agree with you. Allowing ANY weapon to fall into untrained hands is dangerous.

    Perhaps a school project ? EVERY child will get a certain mandatory training period..taught by a grizzled old Marine gunner...
    Naturally, this is not possible in this insane culture we presently have...but perhaps in Reconstruction ?


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1817 Posts
    Posted - 06/25/2006 : 10:59:09 AM

    Oddly enough, members of the armed forces have told me the use of a fully automatic rifle does not require any special Jedi powers to master or understand.

    Secondly, the assumption that a person interested in a full auto would not seek training is retarded!! Ingrain in them that if they misude their firearm, it's their rear end; they will exercise caution.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Slow_Hand
    Junior Member



    USA
    238 Posts
    Posted - 06/25/2006 : 11:58:14 AM

    Actually, I was referring to the rudimentary - or mundane - exercises associated with operating a full auto weapon such as loading, clearing, unloading, carrying safely, cleaning, storing safely, etc.

    From what I read, numerous gun accidents result from people NOT knowing even the simple basics.

    You may laugh at me - go right ahead if you wish - but having never shot a handgun until I was in my 50's, I spent around 20 hours at the local range renting different handguns and practicing with them BEFORE I bought my first gun.

    I opted for a revolver as my first gun because it was reasonably "idiot proof" and because I was not yet comfortable with the idea of carrying a gun, let alone a semi-auto like the Glocks, Springfields or others I practiced with. It was a major learning curve for me to get past.

    I can hear the laughter out there as I type.

    Out at the shooting range, if a round goes off accidentally while the gun's aimed downrange, presumably no one gets hurt. However, take that same scenario in a house on Main Street and a blast from any gun, especially a full auto, could have tragic consequences.

    As gun owners, we have to accept that a certain group of people - although appearing to be reasonably intelligent - will generally behave stupidly at the expense of others. And we've all seen it.

    No one has the right to endanger another individual even if only out of ignorance.

    Unfortunately, it's these same morons who get on the evening news and make their stupidity just one more selling point for gun control.

    And it's not much different with power tools and the neophytes who buy them either. Or with blenders or lawn mowers or snowblowers. We read about avoidable serious mishaps all the time.

    Enjoy your Sunday, folks!

    "If you're gonna dance to the music, you gotta help pay the band at the end of the night."


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1817 Posts
    Posted - 06/25/2006 : 1:36:11 PM

    quote:
    Actually, I was referring to the rudimentary - or mundane - exercises associated with operating a full auto weapon such as loading, clearing, unloading, carrying safely, cleaning, storing safely, etc.




    I'm not being a sart @$$ when I say this, but for an example, let's compare an AR-15 to an M16. They load the exact same way, no special instructions needed for loading an M16. They clear the same way, too. They unload the same way. Neither should be carried any different. With the exception of three additional parts in the lower and 5 parts that are modified, they are maintained and cleaned the exact same way. Storage should not be skimped on with any firearm, either.

    As far as employing a rifle or pistol on full-auto, one must overcome the recoil from the rifle in order to keep it from becoming a runaway gun. Practice is the key, but knowing to tap the trigger instead of emptying the magazine is helpful. There is no extensive training involved with these classes of firearms, regardless of what we're led to believe.


    quote:
    From what I read, numerous gun accidents result from people NOT knowing even the simple basics.




    A staggering majority occuring from normal firearms.


    quote:
    You may laugh at me - go right ahead if you wish - but having never shot a handgun until I was in my 50's, I spent around 20 hours at the local range renting different handguns and practicing with them BEFORE I bought my first gun.




    No, I will not laugh at you. I will commend you for doing it at some point. It's too bad you haven't done this all along, though.


    quote:
    I opted for a revolver as my first gun because it was reasonably "idiot proof" and because I was not yet comfortable with the idea of carrying a gun, let alone a semi-auto like the Glocks, Springfields or others I practiced with. It was a major learning curve for me to get past.



    Strangely enough, you may have been better off learning on a semiauto pistol, like a Glock. I have never owned a sigle revolver, and I admit, although I've shot them, I would be highly disadvantaged by carrying one.


    quote:
    I can hear the laughter out there as I type.




    If you're hearing any laughter, it is not coming from me.


    quote:
    Out at the shooting range, if a round goes off accidentally while the gun's aimed downrange, presumably no one gets hurt. However, take that same scenario in a house on Main Street and a blast from any gun, especially a full auto, could have tragic consequences.




    Seriously, a majority of accidents occur with "unloaded" guns that "had the safety on". Lack of adherance to standard gun safety rules, like assuming a gun is loaded, or not pointing a firearm at something you do not plan on utterly destroying are the main culprit.



    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.

    Edited by - gunphreak on 06/25/2006 3:04:13 PM


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6415 Posts
    Posted - 06/25/2006 : 1:51:38 PM

    quote:
    You may laugh at me - go right ahead if you wish - but having never shot a handgun until I was in my 50's, I spent around 20 hours at the local range renting different handguns and practicing with them BEFORE I bought my first gun.

    I opted for a revolver as my first gun because it was reasonably "idiot proof" and because I was not yet comfortable with the idea of carrying a gun, let alone a semi-auto like the Glocks, Springfields or others I practiced with. It was a major learning curve for me to get past.

    I can hear the laughter out there as I type.


    Laughter...LAUGHTER ??
    Sir..the sound you hear is whistles of amazment. Profound respect for a man willing to admit the limits of his knowlege and also willing to retify that limit with proper training and dilligence. No scorn from this quarter what so ever.
    I venture to say that NO gun man worthy of that name would EVER 'put you down' for your path to skill and ability with a firearm. Perhaps some of the fringe element out there...people just barely functioning..but they are the few, the lost, the ugly.

    I do not like the idea of a government sponcered training course...nor a dealer required one. These acts mean that firearms are channeled thru bottlenecks...and free trade is MY ideal.

    Punishment MAY be enough..but I doubt it. Punishment alone has done NOTHING to the drug trade...save increase it.




    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1817 Posts
    Posted - 06/25/2006 : 3:07:49 PM

    quote:
    Unfortunately, it's these same morons who get on the evening news and make their stupidity just one more selling point for gun control.




    This, of course, is done on purpose by the biased media. It is sensationalized to the point that it looks like it is epidemic in proportion, when it really is not, and nothing good on it, simply because it goes against the news they want to report, and for much the same reason that a plane crash is on the nightly news but successful take-offs are not.

    Besides, gun grabbers don't need any selling points. They'll just make them up if they aren't available.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    codenamepaul
    Senior Member



    2170 Posts
    Posted - 06/25/2006 : 3:09:13 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball


    quote:
    You may laugh at me - go right ahead if you wish - but having never shot a handgun until I was in my 50's, I spent around 20 hours at the local range renting different handguns and practicing with them BEFORE I bought my first gun.

    I opted for a revolver as my first gun because it was reasonably "idiot proof" and because I was not yet comfortable with the idea of carrying a gun, let alone a semi-auto like the Glocks, Springfields or others I practiced with. It was a major learning curve for me to get past.

    I can hear the laughter out there as I type.


    Laughter...LAUGHTER ??
    Sir..the sound you hear is whistles of amazment. Profound respect for a man willing to admit the limits of his knowlege and also willing to retify that limit with proper training and dilligence. No scorn from this quarter what so ever.
    I venture to say that NO gun man worthy of that name would EVER 'put you down' for your path to skill and ability with a firearm. Perhaps some of the fringe element out there...people just barely functioning..but they are the few, the lost, the ugly.

    I do not like the idea of a government sponcered training course...nor a dealer required one. These acts mean that firearms are channeled thru bottlenecks...and free trade is MY ideal.

    Punishment MAY be enough..but I doubt it. Punishment alone has done NOTHING to the drug trade...save increase it.





    10X.

    Molon Labe !-Come and Get them. I will get them back from my oppressor using stick and stone. Then, I will have mine and more for others.


    pickenup
    Moderator



    USA
    12030 Posts
    Posted - 06/25/2006 : 4:12:09 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Slow_Hand

    I can hear the laughter out there as I type.


    No laughter coming from here.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Slow_Hand

    but having never shot a handgun until I was in my 50's


    Glad to see your on this side of the fence, but I have to ask, why did it take you so long?



    The gene pool needs chlorine.


    Slow_Hand
    Junior Member



    USA
    238 Posts
    Posted - 06/25/2006 : 7:44:37 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by pickenup


    quote:
    Originally posted by Slow_Hand

    I can hear the laughter out there as I type.


    No laughter coming from here.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Slow_Hand

    but having never shot a handgun until I was in my 50's


    Glad to see your on this side of the fence, but I have to ask, why did it take you so long?




    Up until a few years ago, I lived in NYC and as I had stated in a different thread, it was not consciously thought of as an issue since guns, switchbaldes, knives over 3 fingers wide, crossbows, BB guns and rifle, air pistols and rifles, slingshots and even starter pistols were pretty much taboo for the average law-abiding "joe".

    I'd like to see many of our ex-military folks and experienced, law-abiding gun owners and enthusiasts give more short courses to guys like me who want to learn properly and safely. Not government or dealer sponsored. I'd pay money to sit with them in a strucured class given at say a VFW Hall or Masonic Lodge or fraternal lodge and learn more about a specific topic that I was interested in. Many of them can probably teach the average person more useful and real-world stuff in one hour than that same person could learn on their own in six months or a year.

    As an example, the CCW class I attended was excellent - informative, real-life and no-nonsense. It was conducted by three men - two ex-cops, one of whom was a military vet and also a criminal attorney who himself was a gun enthusiast and 2nd Amendment supporter. I learned a lot in those 8 hours and they didn't BS us with fluff or gratuitous gun jargon or make us "newbies" look foolish.

    When I was practicing prior to buying my first gun, I enjoyed shooting semi-autos a lot, especially the Glock 19 and 26. My concern was that I felt much like a klutz trying to reach around my gut handle the thumb break and holster or unholster the gun safely and efficiently. Since I didn't want an accidental discharge of the gun, I opted for the revolver with the heavier trigger pull figuring that once I got comfortable with wearing or concealing my gun, I would graduate to buying a semi-auto.


    "If you're gonna dance to the music, you gotta help pay the band at the end of the night."


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6415 Posts
    Posted - 06/25/2006 : 10:17:14 PM

    In a free country...One interested in preserving our Heritage...every National Guard unit would have a shooting range available to the public. Full Auto weapons could be checked out for use on the range...and that old Gunny would keep a watchful eye on things... instructing those needing it.
    Once cleared by old gunny, shooting check-in becomes a mere formality..

    The government destroys untold billions of rounds of small arms ammunition...and you and I pay for that. Damn shame tyranny has such a foothold here in old America....


    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    877 Posts
    Posted - 06/25/2006 : 10:42:06 PM

    I haven't had a chance to review this thread in a few days. I spent the weekend taking the 10-hour CCW class. Cost me $150 and I still have to submit the paperwork to the sheriff with another $100. So I have had my fill of belly crawling for the week.

    Just want to throw a few responses out there:


    quote:
    Don't get your feathers in a fluff..please



    Not in the least, Highball. I totally understand and appreciate your tactic. The mentality of some C3's is no different than their Liberal leash holders. In other words, they believe what is good for the goose is not good for the rest of the gaggle. This is epitomized by Dianne Feinstien's acquisition of a California CCW.

    Gunphreak, in response to your machine gun points... yes, if a select-fire option was the same price as a semi-auto then I would most likely go for it. But tactically I would probably find full-auto seldom useful and economically prohibitive. However, it is always nice to keep your options open.


    quote:
    I merely would like people to KNOW the difference between a free country...and one laboring under the boot of tyranny.
    One MUST obey ALL laws under tyranny..until condititons become so bad as to dictate action....but if the KNOWLEGE of freedom becomes lost...no hope of redress is possible.



    Highball, dead on, as usual.

    Slow Hand, I sure ain't laughing either. Sounds like you are being cautious and intelligent. I think you made a good choice on starting with a revolver. My first gun instructor highly recommended a double-action revolver because it teaches excellent trigger control. If you learn consistent aim and trigger control on a double-action revolver then you will have no problem switching to semi-autos.

    Lastly... some of you may have seen me post about this last year in the Experts forum... About a year ago my neighbor across the street shot my house. He is a Class 3 and had just received his .45 Thompson that he had waited months for. He was in his bedroom cycling live rounds through the action, but did not realize that a Thompson is an open-bolt machine gun. As soon as the bolt closes, the firing pin is going to hit the primer... and it did. The bullet passed through the exterior wall of his house, traveled about 80 feet across our suburban street, and lodged itself in the frame of my front door. My wife was home at the time in our upstairs bedroom. If the angle had been just a few degrees higher then the bullet could have easily busted through our bedroom window and killed her. Needless to say if there had been a pedestrian or vehicle passing by... Anyway, I contemplated calling the cops, but after a long chat, I decided to cut him a break. I know what it is like to make dumb mistakes, and fortunately this one turned out to be relatively harmless.

    My point is, yes, infringment is infringment. But stupidity is also stupidity. When you all figure out how to educate people about firearms without infriging upon their rights, let me know. I got a guy I want to refer to you... meanwhile anybody got a deal on kevlar wallpaper?

    -Wolf



    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6415 Posts
    Posted - 06/25/2006 : 11:07:40 PM

    Wounded Wolf;
    Congrats on the CCW business...does my old heart good to know that an AWARE gun owner is packing....

    Cops have more AD's then the general public...at least according to a couple ex-cops I work with...Highly trained, accustomed to handling firearms...
    No power on earth can make every citizen safe always and forever. I don't pretend to know the answer.


    pickenup
    Moderator



    USA
    12030 Posts
    Posted - 06/26/2006 : 01:20:26 AM

    Slow Hand, please forgive me. Growing up where I did (Colorado) hunting was a way of life. Guns were part of our everyday life. When one comes of age to DO the hunting (12-16 for most kids) a trip to the Army Surplus store was in order. Lots of kids went "camping " with dad at a younger age, while dad hunted. Some even hunted then.

    At the Army Surplus store, they had cardboard 55 gallon drums full of old military rifles. The first drum held the $19.95 ones, the second $29.95, and the third had the REAL nice ones for $39.95. Of course no one I knew could afford the third barrel, it took quite a while back then to save up $20, the ones in the first barrel shot just fine.

    Never did I even hear of anyone being asked for ID to show their age. The conversations drifted more toward this being the "first" hunt for the young shooter, or "where" you were going to hunt, than anything else. You handed them your money, you took the rifle home. No fuss, no muss, no papers. Proud as a peacock with your very own "new" old rifle.

    Personal responsibility was taught at a young age. Ingrained into us, it was. The same SHOULD hold true today.

    I relate this little story to show the difference in cultures regarding "where" one grows up. Before the internet, I didn't even know what a FOID card was, much less, what it was for. One gun a month? What kind of craziness is that? The internet opened my eyes to how much (and how LONG) they have been infringing on our rights, in other parts of the country. I was in for a RUDE awakening.

    So, as I said, please forgive me. There are still times when I forget, that in other parts of the country, the JBT's have been standing on the necks of decent law abiding citizens for as LONG as they have. I'm still a little shell shocked at times, trying to imagine what it must have been like, for people like you to grow up in such a gun hating environment.

    Whether the firearm is semi or full auto. The government has no right (BECAUSE it's against the Constitution) to limit which ones we can, or can not own. Either you fully believe in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, or you don't. For me, it really is that simple. NO, it is NOT a perfect world.


    P.S.

    WW,
    Go ahead and get your feathers in a fluff.
    Just make sure you post pictures.


    The gene pool needs chlorine.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1817 Posts
    Posted - 06/26/2006 : 11:57:27 AM

    quote:
    Gunphreak, in response to your machine gun points... yes, if a select-fire option was the same price as a semi-auto then I would most likely go for it. But tactically I would probably find full-auto seldom useful and economically prohibitive. However, it is always nice to keep your options open.



    If all taxes, restrictions and paperwork were done away with them, they would be not much different in price.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6415 Posts
    Posted - 06/26/2006 : 8:03:29 PM

    quote:
    P.S.

    WW,
    Go ahead and get your feathers in a fluff.
    Just make sure you post pictures.


    Ever seen an Eagle pissed ? Let me tell you..it AIN'T pretty...for whatever he's looking at....


    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    877 Posts
    Posted - 06/27/2006 : 07:33:51 AM





    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.

    Edited by - pickenup on 06/29/2006 6:44:13 PM


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6415 Posts
    Posted - 06/27/2006 : 08:07:39 AM


    Damn sure easy to see how a rabbit will freeze in terror.....


    dsmith
    Member



    644 Posts
    Posted - 06/27/2006 : 08:59:15 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball


    quote:
    You may laugh at me - go right ahead if you wish - but having never shot a handgun until I was in my 50's, I spent around 20 hours at the local range renting different handguns and practicing with them BEFORE I bought my first gun.

    I opted for a revolver as my first gun because it was reasonably "idiot proof" and because I was not yet comfortable with the idea of carrying a gun, let alone a semi-auto like the Glocks, Springfields or others I practiced with. It was a major learning curve for me to get past.

    I can hear the laughter out there as I type.


    Laughter...LAUGHTER ??
    Sir..the sound you hear is whistles of amazment. Profound respect for a man willing to admit the limits of his knowlege and also willing to retify that limit with proper training and dilligence. No scorn from this quarter what so ever.
    I venture to say that NO gun man worthy of that name would EVER 'put you down' for your path to skill and ability with a firearm. Perhaps some of the fringe element out there...people just barely functioning..but they are the few, the lost, the ugly.

    I do not like the idea of a government sponcered training course...nor a dealer required one. These acts mean that firearms are channeled thru bottlenecks...and free trade is MY ideal.

    Punishment MAY be enough..but I doubt it. Punishment alone has done NOTHING to the drug trade...save increase it.




    I agree with Highball 100%. You came from an anti-gun area, and were still freedom oriented enough to be interested in the topics of self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Like many of the other pro-gun "regulars", was raised with guns, and always knew that gun ownership was a good and important thing. I highly respect that some people are raised in anti-gun areas but manage to be as pro-gun as yourself.

    Absolutely nothing wrong with taking a training course and getting lots of practice shooting before you decide on a gun to buy. We all have to learn how to shoot from somebody, whether it is our dad, or a professional instructor.

    The first gun that I ever bought was a semi-auto handgun. However the first handgun I ever shot was my dad's single action revolver. It's good to get practice on a single action revolver IMHO. That way you have to manually pull back the hammer before EACH shot, and can get good practice in without worrying about accidentally double tapping a semi-auto.

    As for the comments about training for full autos: I do agree that some kind of training is a good idea for ANY type of gun ownership, but shouldn't be mandated by the government. I think that it would be a great idea if they encouraged the gun dealers to give at least a brief explanation on how to use the particular firearm they are purchasing. I know that most gun dealers already do this, and their explanation of correct firearms use is very much appreciated.

    As per routine, Highball has some good comments. No reasonable gun owner can laugh at a gun newbie. We were all clueless when we started out with guns, even if we may have only been five or six when our dads first took us out shooting.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1817 Posts
    Posted - 06/28/2006 : 10:35:44 AM

    I kinda wish slow hand was in my neck of the woods right now. I could show him and introduce him to stuff that would catch his attention and he would learn a lot from it. I have two people in my tutelage right now, and they're having a good time learning the AR and the Glock.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6415 Posts
    Posted - 06/28/2006 : 9:02:11 PM

    I don't mean to knock Slow Hand here.....but the world is FULL of Slow Hands..many DO NOT EVEN KNOW IT...that they too, are capable of dancing a can at 30 yards with a .45....
    Our job is to find them..introduce them to that .22..then on up...Change their mindset one at a time.

    It is slow...but the NRA isn't teaching the Second Amendment...that is YOUR job....


    WoundedWolf
    Member



    USA
    877 Posts
    Posted - 06/28/2006 : 9:44:31 PM

    Some of dsmith's comments reminded me of this thread from a while back:

    http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=185492

    Slow Hand, if you read the above thread you may be surprised how some of us grew up and our relationship with firearms.

    -Wolf



    MOLON LABE






    The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.


    Slow_Hand
    Junior Member



    USA
    238 Posts
    Posted - 06/29/2006 : 12:56:14 AM

    Your thoughts and suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thank you.

    I'm a relatively fast learner and I enjoy reading many of the posts here, especially those from the senior posters.

    I've always believed that there are two types of intelligence. One is learned from listening and watching others or from reading what others have written. The other is discovered from one's own life experiences.

    At 50+, I've had to accelerate the learning curve a bit. I picked the name Slow_Hand because my draw and presentation needs work. And so I continue to practice.

    I've adapted my stance and grip to accomodate an injured and slow-healing strongside elbow and I'm happy to say that I'm pretty accurate and pretty consistant, at least for self-defense purposes up to 35 feet. But, a marksmanship trophy I'll probably never win.

    More than anything, I've come to realize, albeit gradually, that the 2nd Amendment is in need of all of our support as we go forward.

    I'm happy that many of the gun "fears" I acquired from my years in NYC have proven to be unfounded. In fact, the men and women (gunowners and shooters) I've met have been mature, responsible, friendly and safety-conscious. No horseplay, no wisecracks, no aggressive behavior.

    If I may, many years ago - several days after graduation from grammar school - one of my classmates shot and killed a fellow classmate with one of his father's hunting rifles. It was a tragic occurence that was the result of alcohol and possibly too much testosterone in a newbie teenager. Suffice to say that in the neighborhood I grew up in, that very tragic incident left very deep scars about guns and gun control.

    I now realize that guns don't kill people - people kill people. And with or without a loaded gun in hand, people will stab, bludgeon, poison, beat or strangle another to death. But that epiphany alone took 50+ years.

    I'm trying. I'm reading what you folks post. I'm learning.


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6415 Posts
    Posted - 06/29/2006 : 08:23:40 AM

    You have come a LOOONG way....friend.

    I stand in amazement, as your story continues to unfold.


    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1817 Posts
    Posted - 06/30/2006 : 09:27:19 AM

    The machine gun is the equalizer when facing down multiple aggressors in small space, with nowhere to run, and no one to come to your aid.

    I know accuracy is no longer on your side, but what can be deduced when enemies are so close you don't even really have to aim???

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.


    Slow_Hand
    Junior Member



    USA
    238 Posts
    Posted - 06/30/2006 : 9:06:17 PM

    Exactly what is the technical difference between a western "Tommy" gun and a Russian "burp" gun? They're both fully automatic - right? Similar or not?

    And while we're on the subject, exactly where in between these two does the Uzi fit in? Better? Not so?

    Yes, you can see I clearly need additional education on this topic.


    quikdraw67
    Advanced Member



    Burkina Faso (Upper Volta)
    4728 Posts
    Posted - 06/30/2006 : 9:21:53 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Slow_Hand

    Exactly what is the technical difference between a western "Tommy" gun and a Russian "burp" gun? They're both fully automatic - right? Similar or not?

    And while we're on the subject, exactly where in between these two does the Uzi fit in? Better? Not so?

    Yes, you can see I clearly need additional education on this topic.




    Technical difference..besides calibers...not much.

    US M1A1 Thompson .45ACP submachine gun, recoil operated, metal and wood, orig design dates back to 1919

    Soviet PPSh41 7.62x25 submachine gun, recoil operated, metal and wood, dates to early WWII

    Israeli UZI 9mm Para submachine gun, recoil operated, metal, plastic grips, folding stock on some, wooden buttstock on others, dates to 1950's

    basically all the same, Uzi is the most compact or the 3



    ***************
    "It is what it is"


    Highball
    Advanced Member



    6415 Posts
    Posted - 06/30/2006 : 10:28:15 PM

    The Tommy gun cyclic rate of fire...600/700 r.p.m.
    The PPD/ ect. rate 900/100 R.P.M.


    dsmith
    Member



    644 Posts
    Posted - 07/04/2006 : 7:06:37 PM

    The only major differences between most subguns is the caliber and the rate of fire. Sure they look different, and have different internal workings, but the idea is the same. I'm sure you already knew this, but a lot of people like to throw around the terms "AK-47" "M-16" "Uzi" "MAC-10", etc. without even being able to tell them apart. It's like they use the word "Uzi" to describe every subgun they see. The manufactures may be different, the accuracy may be different, they will look different, but one isn't "better" than the other in every situation.


    dsmith
    Member



    644 Posts
    Posted - 07/04/2006 : 7:41:50 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Slow_Hand

    Your thoughts and suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thank you.



    Glad to help. It's great to see people new to guns show up on this forum. Even with as upset as some of us here seem sometimes (no offence to Highball) I believe that the best thing for us (myself, Highball, gunphreak, Wounded Wolf, TR Fox) is to be able to help others learn about guns and responsible ownership. Helping new people take interest in guns helps our cause much more than just voting and joining a gun group. It helps us expand our ranks. It also can give more of a positive outlook on the situation, knowing that you are helping the cause, and seeing somebody new take interest.

    quote:

    I'm a relatively fast learner and I enjoy reading many of the posts here, especially those from the senior posters.


    That's what we are here for. The true "serious" gun owners will always be glad to help.

    quote:

    I've always believed that there are two types of intelligence. One is learned from listening and watching others or from reading what others have written. The other is discovered from one's own life experiences.



    Very true.

    quote:

    At 50+, I've had to accelerate the learning curve a bit. I picked the name Slow_Hand because my draw and presentation needs work. And so I continue to practice.

    I've adapted my stance and grip to accomodate an injured and slow-healing strongside elbow and I'm happy to say that I'm pretty accurate and pretty consistant, at least for self-defense purposes up to 35 feet. But, a marksmanship trophy I'll probably never win.



    Keep practicing. You'll get good at it. Hope the injury is nothing serious.

    quote:

    More than anything, I've come to realize, albeit gradually, that the 2nd Amendment is in need of all of our support as we go forward.



    I agree. Even though some of us are cynical about the groups (most especially NRA), I would like you to check out the GOA (gunowners.org), and the JPFO (jpfo.org). They are the best gun groups.

    quote:

    I'm happy that many of the gun "fears" I acquired from my years in NYC have proven to be unfounded. In fact, the men and women (gunowners and shooters) I've met have been mature, responsible, friendly and safety-conscious. No horseplay, no wisecracks, no aggressive behavior.

    If I may, many years ago - several days after graduation from grammar school - one of my classmates shot and killed a fellow classmate with one of his father's hunting rifles. It was a tragic occurence that was the result of alcohol and possibly too much testosterone in a newbie teenager. Suffice to say that in the neighborhood I grew up in, that very tragic incident left very deep scars about guns and gun control.

    I now realize that guns don't kill people - people kill people. And with or without a loaded gun in hand, people will stab, bludgeon, poison, beat or strangle another to death. But that epiphany alone took 50+ years.



    It's always great to see new people opening their eyes. Congratulations!

    quote:

    I'm trying. I'm reading what you folks post. I'm learning.



    You're doing great. Just keep at it. We need all the members we can get here at the Gun Rights forum.



    dsmith
    Member



    644 Posts
    Posted - 07/04/2006 : 8:21:32 PM

    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball

    I don't mean to knock Slow Hand here.....but the world is FULL of Slow Hands..many DO NOT EVEN KNOW IT...that they too, are capable of dancing a can at 30 yards with a .45....
    Our job is to find them..introduce them to that .22..then on up...Change their mindset one at a time.

    It is slow...but the NRA isn't teaching the Second Amendment...that is YOUR job....




    When I meet new people, within the first few days of getting to know each other, I will always find a casual way to bring up firearms. I believe that there are a lot of people out there who can easily be turned into "gun nuts" but just haven't pursued it on their own, and never really had much opportunity.

    Also, it seems that there are a vast number of women out there who would easily be interested in shooting. It is just that they were never into male dominated sports like hunting, and nobody ever considered taking them shooting.


    Son of Norway
    Starting Member



    USA
    5 Posts
    Posted - 07/08/2006 : 11:31:28 PM

    What could be more fun than full auto? And they are obviously not too complicated:

    http://www.jokaroo.com/funnyvideos/machine_gun_granny.html

    I say make 'em legal.

    Steve


    tr fox
    Advanced Member



    USA
    7813 Posts
    Posted - 07/09/2006 : 12:29:33 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by dsmith


    quote:
    Originally posted by Highball

    I don't mean to knock Slow Hand here.....but the world is FULL of Slow Hands..many DO NOT EVEN KNOW IT...that they too, are capable of dancing a can at 30 yards with a .45....
    Our job is to find them..introduce them to that .22..then on up...Change their mindset one at a time.

    It is slow...but the NRA isn't teaching the Second Amendment...that is YOUR job....




    When I meet new people, within the first few days of getting to know each other, I will always find a casual way to bring up firearms. I believe that there are a lot of people out there who can easily be turned into "gun nuts" but just haven't pursued it on their own, and never really had much opportunity.

    Also, it seems that there are a vast number of women out there who would easily be interested in shooting. It is just that they were never into male dominated sports like hunting, and nobody ever considered taking them shooting.




    You are a wise and thoughtful man.




    NJCRaider
    Starting Member



    40 Posts
    Posted - 07/09/2006 : 01:05:01 AM

    FA should be available by mail order.



    gunphreak
    Senior Member



    USA
    1817 Posts
    Posted - 07/09/2006 : 01:36:35 AM

    quote:
    Originally posted by NJCRaider

    FA should be available by mail order.




    I'll drink to that!!!

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.
Sign In or Register to comment.