Posted on 07/26/2006 4:47:07 PM PDT by bad company
An M-16 is barely state-of-the-art as individual battle arms go.
They hyperbole of Nuclear weapons or other WMDs in private hands (the equivalent of a Ship of the Line in colonial times) does not change the fact that currently permissable arms without special permit and fees, are well behind the curve of the average infantry battle rifle today. Some weapons, by their economic demands become primarily the equipment of governments--private individuals can neither afford to feed nor maintain them.
"Glad to hear that the Illinois boys got tangled up in their own state laws."
From the article:
Illinois State Police trooper Gregory Mugge pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing an unregistered machine gun in federal court on Tuesday, according to an announcement from the U.S. attorney's office.
This is totally incorrect. The word "arms" meant weapons of offense when the Constitution was written.
When the Constitution was written cannon and warships were privately owned. If the equivalent were true today I'd have a couple of GE mini-guns and a Howitzer or two laying around the house and Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would have a couple of Carrier Batttle Groups between them.
Now if I could just get my CongressCritter to tell me how I could get my hands on some Letters of Marque and Reprisal....
Nice to see you about the board, ma'am.
L
LOL. That would keep the trustbusters at bay, I'd bet.
Lots of guys went to Viet Nam with their own Ithaca Deerslayer Pump.
If your full auto is jammed, you get zero rds/min whereas there is 12 projectiles in each 12 gauge shot . That times 5 shots is 60 pcs of lethal buckshot in 3 seconds.
"Anyone that has the beliefs of you two, which are entirely contrary to our Bill of Rights has no business considering themselves "Conservatives". Shame, shame shame!"
If you're lumping me in with him you OBVIOUSLY haven't read beyond that post. Shame shame shame!!!
"There's no need for them to import automatic weapons when they can buy semis and convert them to full-auto. Arms like the SKS and AR-15 are legal to buy, and are adapted to semi-auto from full-auto designs. With a drill press and a modicum of skill, it wouldn't take a Manhattan Project to set up a basement or garage to convert a few a day."
And converting these weapons is just as illegal as smuggling them in.
And exactly what credentials do you possess that grant you authority to speak as subject matter expert about "what most Americans think"?
First, you attack all weapons capable of full auto fire as "offensive" weapons. Then, when proven wrong, instead of admitting it, you reply with the argument that "most Americans don't want their neighbors to own defensive weapons". So which is it? You can't have it both ways. You have contradicted yourself into a corner. At least one of your statements has to be false. Personally, I happen to believe that both of them are false, something that you either pulled out of your anal cavity or from some Brady Center misinformation piece.
I hate to break it to you, but you really should take a look around you. Considering the area where you live, I can promise you that many of your neighbors own the types of defensive weapons that you seem to think nobody should have, and that you think most Americans don't want anybody to have.
Maybe you would be happier living somewhere like England, where they have legislated private ownership of defensive weapons into extinction?
The problem is that while I'm OK with preventing felons and those suffering from mental illness being prohibited from owning them, I think someone like me, a law abiding responsible adult, should be able to walk into a shop and buy one. The political reality is, as soon as you allow any sort of restriction whatsoever, the gun banners will use it as an excuse to never let anyone have one.
When was the last time a concealed carry permit was issued to a private citizen in the state of NJ?
Well technically speaking, if it were full auto it would have been an M-16
Shows what you know. Machine guns - particularly heavy machine guns are much more defensive weapons than offensive (unless mounted on a vehicle)
You really are showing a lack of knowledge. Shotguns are commonly issued weapons in all branches of the military. Granted, they aren't as common as the M-16, but they are common. In my compnay's armory, we had about a 6 to 1 ratio of M-16s to shotguns. We actually had more shotguns than we had 9mm handguns.
As far as your semi auto argument, starting with the M-16A2 model, the standard issue rifle in the U.S. military doesn't even go full auto. They are capable of firing in 3 shot burst mode. During my 14 months in Iraq, I never once even had my weapon on burst mode. When I used it, it was ALWAYS in semi auto mode. Even in burst mode, the accuracy wasn't what I wanted. In semi auto mode, I had much better control of my shot groups. I didn't have a problem with rapidly pulling the trigger when I needed to, and was able to lay down a pretty heavy curtain of fire when the occasion required it.
True machine guns (that is belt fed) rather than assault rifles with full auto capability are very easy to control. If it didn't violate operating procedures and common sense you could keep a full belt from a ma deuce in pretty much the same beaten zone.
Restricting purely offensive weaponry such as machine guns protects society as a whole
Who died and left you and the BATF as the determiners of what constitutes an "offensive" weapon?. If you had an knowledge of history, you'd know that machine guns serve a defensive role more often than not.
Yes, but they are all pre-ban, the newest like the FN are not available at any proce, and the existing ones are both very expensive and all showing signs of wear.
Works for me.
At 1st glance that sounds reasonable...but by simply casting an eye to almost every terrorist, one notices that they all have full-auto AK47s.
With this in mind, one day we may require matching firepower....and I am NOT speaking accuracy or quality...of the firearm.
I do wonder how many full-auto truckloads of AKs have been smuggled to the enemy within?
"At 1st glance that sounds reasonable...but by simply casting an eye to almost every terrorist, one notices that they all have full-auto AK47s."
I was responding to a poster who feels the current gun laws regarding automatic weapons are a good thing. I was replying somewhat sarcastically.
I wonder how long it will be before a church, a mall, or some other heavily populated area is again attacked by these pigs. And like you say if they attack with the weapons they most likely have what would the average person do?
Its really only a matter of time until this happens. If the libs gain control of the white house it will be sooner and more frequent.
Why does that sound reasonable? If they were restricted from the police I might think it's reasonable.
I just have no problem with UNITED STATES CITIZENS in good standing, owning automatic firearms....
I do have extreme views of an enemy having greater firepower than I. If the enemy has them...I want them too...plus a TOW or two....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.