I don't feel the need for a full auto weapon.
41 - 60 of 90 Posts
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
Why cant I take my Ak to the range? I mean I do it all the time and no one has ever said anything to me about it. Cant take a deer with it? are you serios? An Ak would take a deer with out any problem what so ever, and if your talking about acuracy well I can only speak for my own AK and it is very accurate. Since most game is taken at 50 yards or less it would be no problem. Of course over 100 yards I would not take the shot but I have never had to shoot a deer over 30 yards away. Maybe Im just a good hunter but honestly I dont think thats it. Also the gun would be on semi auto setting for hunting (not that mine is a class 3 and I have a choice).
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
In my state and in at least two others I know (and probably more), it is perfectly legal to carry a full-auto AK concealed. Or any AK. Or any other firearm (my state is among those which issue a concealed FIREARMS permit, as opposed to a concealed HANDGUN permit).
So his "can't carry it concealed" point is wrong, too.
So his "can't carry it concealed" point is wrong, too.
Joined
·
450 Posts
I can't see shooting $20 in ammo in 10 sec. The fun would be over way too soon. I like to think about my shots. (although it would be fun once.)
Joined
·
2,326 Posts
there is no "NEED" clause in the Second Amendment. I will not purchase an automatic firearm because I cannot justify the outrageous purchase price, brought about by an illegal law, or the cost of ammunition. HOWEVER, if I ever win a lottery, you bet your sweet bippy that I will own automatics, and a shitload of them too!! THEY ARE FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as people being injured or killed, in the USA, NO ONE has ever been injured or killed by a LEGALLY OWNED automatic. Since all automatics used to commit crime are illegal to begin with, no law will change that. The ONLY instance of a crime being committed with a legally purchased automatic firearm, was committed by a SHERIFF DEPUTY! But wait! I hear it is ok for law enforcement to have automatics. But the only crime committed with a legally purchased one was by a police officer, well, wait, um, uh, hmm, the confusion.
As far as people being injured or killed, in the USA, NO ONE has ever been injured or killed by a LEGALLY OWNED automatic. Since all automatics used to commit crime are illegal to begin with, no law will change that. The ONLY instance of a crime being committed with a legally purchased automatic firearm, was committed by a SHERIFF DEPUTY! But wait! I hear it is ok for law enforcement to have automatics. But the only crime committed with a legally purchased one was by a police officer, well, wait, um, uh, hmm, the confusion.
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
Other than in Massachusetts. Let's not forget the tard who let his kid shoot a full auto micro-Uzi, and is lucky only his kid got it.
Joined
·
2,326 Posts
that was negligence, not a premeditated crime.
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
That was pure retartedness and why should I be punished for it?
G
Guest
·That is the point that started this whole thread:
A full auto has little practical use, but is not inherently evil- it's the person firing it.
If someone can pay mega bucks for a licensed full auto and more mega bucks to burn expensive ammo,why should they be prevented from having fun? I don't have the $$ so it's out of the question for me.
If a Ted Turner gets off blazing away then Merry Christmas to him and all the rest.:biggrin5:
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
I have nothing against full-auto weapons in private hands. It's a bit of a silly extravagance, but I've been known to have those myself.
I have to say, however, that I am struck by the sheer pointlessness of it. What I mean is, full-auto weapons were intended for military use, and have definite military applications. Soldiers in our Army are often trained on multiple full-auto weapons, including light, medium and heavy machineguns, submachineguns, and assault rifles, for battlefield uses. That sort of training and practice is unavailable to most civilian shooters, and their intended use -- in battle against organized enemy forces -- is unavailable to almost any civilian shooter.
I would compare full-auto firearms ownership to owning a Ferrari on a two acre island. Yes, it starts up, drives, and can probably get up a little speed. But it's pointless. A golf cart is overkill in that situation.
So, while I have nothing against it, I have to wonder about the priorities and common sense of many of the owners. Still, as I say, I have many of my own eccentricities and do not begrudge them theirs.
I have to say, however, that I am struck by the sheer pointlessness of it. What I mean is, full-auto weapons were intended for military use, and have definite military applications. Soldiers in our Army are often trained on multiple full-auto weapons, including light, medium and heavy machineguns, submachineguns, and assault rifles, for battlefield uses. That sort of training and practice is unavailable to most civilian shooters, and their intended use -- in battle against organized enemy forces -- is unavailable to almost any civilian shooter.
I would compare full-auto firearms ownership to owning a Ferrari on a two acre island. Yes, it starts up, drives, and can probably get up a little speed. But it's pointless. A golf cart is overkill in that situation.
So, while I have nothing against it, I have to wonder about the priorities and common sense of many of the owners. Still, as I say, I have many of my own eccentricities and do not begrudge them theirs.
Joined
·
485 Posts
I'm pretty well in agreement with Frank here, it seems a little wasteful (full auto), but there are plenty of wasteful things we enjoy that aren't restricted, like owning a Ferrari.
I don't think owning a suppressor is even that big of a deal and has really been blown out of proportion. I'd like to have one for backyard shooting if they didn't cost so much + the class III tax; there's room to do it safely into a bank but I know the noise can be annoying on a Sunday afternoon.
To the military folks here, how useful is the full auto selection on the lighter weaponry, I'm thinking about the M16 here but any example would do. I'm probably answering my own question by saying every situation is different..but to those of you who have been in service, what percentage of the time did you have the switch set to full auto?
I don't think owning a suppressor is even that big of a deal and has really been blown out of proportion. I'd like to have one for backyard shooting if they didn't cost so much + the class III tax; there's room to do it safely into a bank but I know the noise can be annoying on a Sunday afternoon.
To the military folks here, how useful is the full auto selection on the lighter weaponry, I'm thinking about the M16 here but any example would do. I'm probably answering my own question by saying every situation is different..but to those of you who have been in service, what percentage of the time did you have the switch set to full auto?
G
Guest
·Seems like full-autos are like high-priced call girls. Very attractive, and expensive. Some fun, a little dangerous, but not the type you'd bring home. Great for story-telling, however! LOL
Joined
·
14,424 Posts
To the last three posts, I say: "Right, Right and Right". And with my next breath I ask, "How does that comport with the Second Amendment?"
My right to keep and bear arms is not tied to a specific notion as to size, color, nationality, sexual orientation (I like to flip my selector lever both ways) or whether my “arm” was born with or without an automatic sear. A Kentucky Long Rifle may have been considered the “assault weapon” of the day when our Framers made sure to enumerate an individual’s right to arms.
Antis may say, “The Founding Fathers never envisioned a machine gun or many of the firearms used today.”
I say, “Well, the Founding Fathers (a-hem…and Mothers) understood that technology is a progressing process. Many inventions and innovations had occurred during their lifetime. Think of the discoveries and inventions attributed just to Benjamin Franklin, alone. In any society, weapons are some of the first things to be improved using the technology of the day. They are strengthened, made more accurate, more lethal, easier to use, easier to carry, capable of greater power, and so on. Why would some of the best minds of the 18th Century NOT think of that. “
It makes absolutely no difference whether a person’s intention is recreational or defensive. As long a person’s intention is not to commit mayhem, the restriction intrudes upon the spirit and I think the intent of the Second Amendment.
My right to keep and bear arms is not tied to a specific notion as to size, color, nationality, sexual orientation (I like to flip my selector lever both ways) or whether my “arm” was born with or without an automatic sear. A Kentucky Long Rifle may have been considered the “assault weapon” of the day when our Framers made sure to enumerate an individual’s right to arms.
Antis may say, “The Founding Fathers never envisioned a machine gun or many of the firearms used today.”
I say, “Well, the Founding Fathers (a-hem…and Mothers) understood that technology is a progressing process. Many inventions and innovations had occurred during their lifetime. Think of the discoveries and inventions attributed just to Benjamin Franklin, alone. In any society, weapons are some of the first things to be improved using the technology of the day. They are strengthened, made more accurate, more lethal, easier to use, easier to carry, capable of greater power, and so on. Why would some of the best minds of the 18th Century NOT think of that. “
It makes absolutely no difference whether a person’s intention is recreational or defensive. As long a person’s intention is not to commit mayhem, the restriction intrudes upon the spirit and I think the intent of the Second Amendment.
Joined
·
1,400 Posts
When you open the door on restrictions of what can be owned you don't just open the door a crack. You swing it wide open. If you don't see a need for so an so to own a F/A gun, sumone else might not see a need for YOU to own a gun that holds more than ONE Bullet. Its a slippery slope you can not tread without sliding all the way down. Me personally, i'd LOVE to own a sherman tank like in the movie Tank :biggrin5:
Joined
·
6,002 Posts
Luckily, I've never had to use burst at all, minus at the range. HOWEVER I also have never had a bunch of hajis overrunning my position either. Like all things, it is something that I would rather have and not need, than need and not have.
Joined
·
101 Posts
All I know is that the one Uncle Sam allowed me to use way back in the South-East Asia "Heart's & Minds" year long fun run came in handy a few times on full auto. And if the checkbook allowed me to buy one now, I'd have it as quick as I could get it. I might not have enough to buy ammo for daily mad minutes, but a few moments of fun every few months would be pretty cool.
Hell, I own a Nissan 300ZX as well, hardly a real practical car, but it's loads of fun to drive, even if I can't push down that right side peddle as far as I'd like to. Ran around with a lot of really fast (and expensive) women through my life too, that wasn't real practical either.
Maybe that dude who got so huffy about FA's was Sarah Brady's kid?
Hell, I own a Nissan 300ZX as well, hardly a real practical car, but it's loads of fun to drive, even if I can't push down that right side peddle as far as I'd like to. Ran around with a lot of really fast (and expensive) women through my life too, that wasn't real practical either.
Maybe that dude who got so huffy about FA's was Sarah Brady's kid?
Joined
·
165 Posts
As one who owns F/A firearms, I have to agree that the actual need for them is negligible.
But they make me happy. :biggrin5:
But they make me happy. :biggrin5:
G
Guest
·The second amendment provides for a defense against the standing army becoming a tool of a tyrannical government. Let's break it down. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,". This is not a statement that the people are expected to provide that security. the "well regulated militia" refers to a standing army. the founding fathers had just fought a war against a standing army and were wary of having one on our soil, but realized they needed it for defense against outside threats. To them, a "well-regulated militia" was a necessary evil. So to keep this necessary evil from being used as a tool of opression, they put in the solution, which is why the comma is there. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The best example of why the people and the well-regulated militia are not one and the same can be found written by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Paper 29. I'll let the interested find that rather than pasting it to an already lengthy post. And by the way, a 500 round burst from a M240 is FUN!!!
Joined
·
2,326 Posts
I just read said paper and I can barely make head nor tail of what Hamilton is writing about. His writing is so filled with ruffles and flourishes that it is most difficult to understand what point he is making. I certainly saw nothing to clarify the placement of the first comma in the Second Amendment since that comma separates it from " being necessary to the security of a free state".
Whatever the punctuation, the Second Amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. This part of the Amendment only confuses things.
It would better have been stated " The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Regardless of the reason, that is the functional part. As so many of us have said, ' which part of "infringed" don't you understand'?
Whatever the punctuation, the Second Amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. This part of the Amendment only confuses things.
It would better have been stated " The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Regardless of the reason, that is the functional part. As so many of us have said, ' which part of "infringed" don't you understand'?
41 - 60 of 90 Posts
