Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DCBryan1

Why would you want to indiscriminately throw 200+ rounds/minute around? I say 'indiscriminately' because if you have ever fired a fully automatic weapon; you would know that after the first 5-10 rounds leave the rifle, you have little control over where the rest of the clip goes.

Contrast this against your 9mm, .357, .45, .22 ect. One shot, and you have a really good idea where that bullet went. And with semi-automatics; we still have idiots spraying the neighborhood with bullets. Now, instead of maybe having 2-5 people getting sprayed in a crowd; the entire crowd can be cut in half.

Restricting purely offensive weaponry such as machine guns protects society as a whole, which is probably pretty close to the origonal intent of the founding fathers. I wonder how the founding fathers would felt about farmers with cannon?


61 posted on 07/26/2006 5:38:50 PM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: Hodar
"if you have ever fired a fully automatic weapon; you would know that after the first 5-10 rounds leave the rifle, you have little control over where the rest of the clip goes. "

You are showing your ignorance on a subject that I handle everyday. I have over 100 machine guns in my house, most are WWI and WW2 watercooled and beltfeds...you obviously don't know a thing about automatic weapons and get your information from TV and Hollywierd. I can draw my name in a target with certain machine guns. Some are VERY VERY accurate on every shot.

67 posted on 07/26/2006 5:43:21 PM PDT by DCBryan1 ( HeadOFF Apply directly to the neck! HeadOFF Apply directly to the neck !(Avail. only from Muslims))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

To: Hodar
Restricting purely offensive weaponry such as machine guns protects society as a whole, which is probably pretty close to the origonal intent of the founding fathers. I wonder how the founding fathers would felt about farmers with cannon?

Wow...two ignorant statements in one post (Not trying to insult you, but you are severely lacking in facts). Pick up a history book. FARMERS WITH CANNONS WERE ON THE CONFISCATION LIST WHEN THE BRITS LEFT BOSTON.

69 posted on 07/26/2006 5:44:40 PM PDT by DCBryan1 ( HeadOFF Apply directly to the neck! HeadOFF Apply directly to the neck !(Avail. only from Muslims))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

To: Hodar
Restricting purely offensive weaponry such as machine guns protects society as a whole, which is probably pretty close to the origonal intent of the founding fathers.

This is totally incorrect. The word "arms" meant weapons of offense when the Constitution was written.

183 posted on 07/27/2006 1:37:27 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

To: Hodar
I say 'indiscriminately' because if you have ever fired a fully automatic weapon; you would know that after the first 5-10 rounds leave the rifle, you have little control over where the rest of the clip goes.

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.

194 posted on 07/27/2006 4:06:13 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

To: Hodar

"I wonder how the founding fathers would felt about farmers with cannon?"

Well considering that cannons were around when they wrote that little ditty and they didn't say except cannons, seems to me that they didn't have an issue with that.

What defines an offensive weapon? Any weapon can be an offensive weapon.

BTW, I have yet to see a person cut in half by full auto fire (except in Hollywood), after all as you pointed out the bullets are indiscriminately thrown out and to cut someone (let alone a crowd) in half would require the bullets to form a virtual knife by being thrown out in a controlled succession.


244 posted on 07/27/2006 1:54:50 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

To: Hodar
I wonder how the founding fathers would felt about farmers with cannon?

The Founding Fathers WERE farmers with cannon!!!

you have little control over where the rest of the clip goes.

Some of us are trained in their correct, safe & effective use. Leave us alone.

247 posted on 07/27/2006 2:14:05 PM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

To: Hodar

One more thing about the indiscriminately throwing rounds, a shotgun does the same thing. Should we restrict/ban them?


284 posted on 07/27/2006 5:34:32 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson