[popcan assasin]

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'?

Im glad Im not the only one that felt that way. I was no clearer after reading it then before. Which I have to say I felt realy clear about this topic. As Sharon said its as clear as it gets in the 2nd amendment.

 

[C-D-P]

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.

In that era well regulated meant well equipped.

So by them saying well regulated militia, they were only saying well equipped, or armed people.

"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Additionally "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

Yes I understand that the poster is banned. But maybe it can help quash any further arguments.

 

[gun guru]

full auto weapons are a blast to shoot, provided someone else is buying the ammo. otherwise unless you just won the lottery and even if you did, you're going to end up parking that bullet hose pretty fast. in a combat setting a machinegun is a valuable tool for a platoon, for a smaller unit like a squad, its far too much ammo and stuff to hump. machine guns are great mounted in boats, n jeeps and flyin machines. as a personal defense weapon its pretty much useless. as we used to say, never assume your safe from a machinegun just cause you're standing in front of it. but anyone thats been in combat knows that a machinegun is pretty much a cover fire weapon, and not something you target individuals with in general, they are set up in batteries to be most effective, with interlocking fields of fire. aimed fire is still the best. a lil food for thought, in ww1 the average doughboy had a bolt action rifle, and 60 rounds. he averaged 58 hits per those rounds. in ww2 soliders had better firepower with his m1 garand. his ammo load was increased to 80 rounds, his hit probabilty dropped to 45 hits per load. by vietnam, the average dog face had a full auto m-16, some rock an roll to listen too, all the ammo he could carry. it wasnt enough, by nam the average was 200,000 rounds expended per hit. (this was part of a DOD statistical study that determined the need to reduce the rate of fire of the m-16 to 3 shot bursts) if you want to own a class 3 weapon, knock yourself out, but you might consider a better investment like an old used shrimp boat. a really old shrimp boat, that leaks, and needs engine work, it will be cheaper in the long run.

 

[C-D-P]

Gun Guru. You do understand that ya have three machine guns employed per squad don't ya?

I would also suggest, that if you havent already done so, that you read up on project SALVO.

And the removal of full from the M16 had less to do with dumping too many rounds down range, and more to do with reducing the amount of heat suffered by the rifle during sustained fire.

 

[GregM]

That said, the civilian "need" for F/A is pretty much non-existent. You would have quite a hard time convincing me, (much less the liberal media and most "sheepeople") of the fact that you "need" a F/A for personal protection or much of anything else for that matter. Even most LEOs have no "need" for F/A. S/A patrol carbine, yes, without question, but not F/A.

I would say the people along the mexican boarder have a need for FA.

When I win the lotto I will buy a 1919A1

 

[AFPVet]

Full auto rifles are a waste; burst fire for 5.56 rifles are good though. Now machine guns like the M60, M240B are really nice when laying down suppressive fire.

 

[gun guru]

at least when i was in and by our terms, a squad was a 4 man team. i think you are confusing machineguns with automatic rifles son. no way a 4 man team could feed 3 machineguns, even fielding 1 say mounted 50 would be a job for a 4 man unit, its rare an operational squad would pack a machinegun on a mission. yes, usually 3 of us had m-16's while the 4th had mission specific stuff. these days there are some belt fed .223 stoner systems showing up in 4 man squads, usually carried by 1 man. but even an m-60 is a big load for a 4 man team to haul. i mean, you have your weapon, ammo for it, water, more water, food, a radio, some med stuff. a poncho, clean socks, special stuff for the mission, maybe some grenades, you really want to hump a tripod or a couple belts of ammo for a bullet hose ontop of all that? who wants to carry the spare barrel? who wants the spare parts an gloves? we got a couple pistols here to, now get your parachute on over your scuba tanks? sheesh you would have to be in an arnold movie or have a 6by truck to haul all that

 

[StangF150]

I would say the people along the mexican boarder have a need for FA.

When I win the lotto I will buy a 1919A1

I want my own Tommy Gun BAD when my lotto ticket wins. An then I'll even be able to afford to Feed It!!!
I got to shoot a tommygun last October when I went to a Machine Gun Shoot in SC. To say it was a blast would be an understatement. I had such a grin on my face I was annoying people at work for 3 days afterwards!! :biggrin5:

 

[gun guru]

just for the record. first, monkey is fine eatin, if they sold it at walmart i would be a happy man. now, anyone that says you can't hunt with a machine gun just don't know what they be talkin about. you get a dozen guys, with m-16's on full auto, in the jungle, and trees full of monkeys,,DUDE..sprayin trees, monkeys fallin and howlin, empty cases pilin up, runnin around firin bursts. thats huntin like you can't imagine. then later its bbq and beer, native girls takin food home to the villages. it doesnt get any better. it doesnt. you wont even want to hunt deer anymore. they just stand there.

 

[C-D-P]

at least when i was in and by our terms, a squad was a 4 man team. i think you are confusing machineguns with automatic rifles son. no way a 4 man team could feed 3 machineguns, even fielding 1 say mounted 50 would be a job for a 4 man unit, its rare an operational squad would pack a machinegun on a mission. yes, usually 3 of us had m-16's while the 4th had mission specific stuff. these days there are some belt fed .223 stoner systems showing up in 4 man squads, usually carried by 1 man.

Dont know what branch you were in, but as far as I can tell, a squad has been 13 men including the squad leader since atleast WWII. The Army dogs Ive worked with were in 14 man squads, unless they were short handed.

but even an m-60 is a big load for a 4 man team to haul. i mean, you have your weapon, ammo for it, water, more water, food, a radio, some med stuff. a poncho, clean socks, special stuff for the mission, maybe some grenades, you really want to hump a tripod or a couple belts of ammo for a bullet hose ontop of all that? who wants to carry the spare barrel? who wants the spare parts an gloves? we got a couple pistols here to, now get your parachute on over your scuba tanks? sheesh you would have to be in an arnold movie or have a 6by truck to haul all that

Now our gun teams (talking medium guns) are 3 man teams. A gunner, Team leader, and an Ammo man. How they are attached out depends on a lot of things.

Heavy guns, would be attached out in five to six man teams. But 99.999% of the time MKs and duces wouldn't do anything other than mounted or fixed site security. .

Now, iffin ya want to go talk SOF teams, that is another story.

 

[C-D-P]

I understand man. Things do differ branch to branch. And the SOF side of things can be completely different. But something just didn't smell right ya know?

 

[AFPVet]

Very true Sometimes, the higher ups are just nuts though too lol.

 

[HK91Junkie]

When i turned 16 my parents gave me 100 dollars and i convinced my dad to take me to a shooting range. When I got there they had a fully automatic IMI Uzi sub-machinegun that you could rent for 30 dollars, i was so excited. I rented it and spent the rest of my money on 9mm para ammo and 25-30 minutes later it was all gone and we left. Yes it was super fun for the 1-2 minutes of actual shooting time I had but was it worth wasting 100 dollars that i could have spent on video games or dinner with my friends, not really. I mean if you have a ton of money and are set for life it would be fun to own a class III pistol/rifle for the weekends but for middle-low class people its not very practical even for home defense a cheap and reliable 12 gauge like a mossberg 500 or ithaca 37 would easily do the job.

 

[popcan assasin]

When i turned 16 my parents gave me 100 dollars and i convinced my dad to take me to a shooting range. When I got there they had a fully automatic IMI Uzi sub-machinegun that you could rent for 30 dollars, i was so excited. I rented it and spent the rest of my money on 9mm para ammo and 25-30 minutes later it was all gone and we left. Yes it was super fun for the 1-2 minutes of actual shooting time I had but was it worth wasting 100 dollars that i could have spent on video games or dinner with my friends, not really. I mean if you have a ton of money and are set for life it would be fun to own a class III pistol/rifle for the weekends but for middle-low class people its not very practical even for home defense a cheap and reliable 12 gauge like a mossberg 500 or ithaca 37 would easily do the job.

Yes it would be exspensive but I don't care if they were legal all of my scary black rifles would be full auto. It may not work for all people but it would work for me. Also saying that some or most cant afford one shouldn't be an arguement for everyone not being able to have one.

 

[DOPELFREY]

I don't own a fully automatic but I do build 1919-A4 Brownings in semi auto.
Everytime I build one I think, "Man this is a waist".
The gun sceams full auto, that's what they were built for.
I don't have the money to pay the fine, let along a 25 year say in the Federal motel.

 

[Mears]

Want a full auto fix? Blank guns that are fully automatic. Cost as much as a hi-point, no Class III license needed, and ammo is $17 for a box of 50.

 

[On3Lov3]

Needs, wants, and rights get blurred.


I feel the need to exercise my rights, therefore i want everything!

Or at least a rifle with a removable mag and a grip:mad2:

 

[Mears]

i think they sell AKs in California with 5 round hi-cap detachable mags. The stocks always looked a little funny though.

 

[AFPVet]

Those commiefornians are funny. They think that 5 rounds is hi-cap? So in their understanding, an old WWI revolver would be considered a hi-cap assault weapon lol.

 

[GregM]

I don't own a fully automatic but I do build 1919-A4 Brownings in semi auto.
Everytime I build one I think, "Man this is a waist".
The gun sceams full auto, that's what they were built for.
I don't have the money to pay the fine, let along a 25 year say in the Federal motel.

Neat
Got any pictures?