So it's not just an armed citizenry you oppose, it's an armed police and an armed military.
Can you read? Seriously...do you comprehend shit? You do this way too often for it to be just you typing too fast without reading.
I said I don't support an armed police force, as in armed beat cops. I DO support armed SWAT, or special units that are trained. For the very reason YOU gave, that cops aren't trained that well.
Now where the fuck did I say I don't support an armed military?
If a guy breaks into my house to rob and maybe kill me, and my only option is to wait for the Marines to show up (how do they even know to come?) in what possible sense am I "in control"? Even if I called the police, what use would that be except to put more unarmed people into harm's way?
So why the differentiation between automatic machine guns and semi-automatic machine guns.
It's a common misconception, I guess, that the military fights wars by spraying a million bullets all over the place with no regard for accuracy. This is the misconception that causes you to think that "according to your reasoning everyone citizen in the country should be able to strap on an uzi or carry around an M-16".
And a fully automatic machine gun or sawed off shotguns is even one step better.
Well, I guess you should write a letter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and tell them that they're fighting wars all wrong, and that we should be sending our boys and girls shotguns and hacksaws instead of M4's (which, incidentally, has replaced the M16 nearly universally in the Army, and has no fully-automatic firing mode.)
There are already restrictions on the 2nd ammendment which do not allow the average citizen to own military or military-like weaponry.
That's inaccurate, and again, the Second Amendment isn't a protection of your right to hunt or shoot trap, it's a protection of your right to pose a credible threat to an invading military or a despotic government. Or as Ice-T puts it:
As I mentioned to you over in the Colorado thread, it is legal to have fully automatic firearm but I need to have a full criminal background check, current finger prints registered and purchase a tax stamp for each firearm. I also need to agree to having the weapon kept in a safe and have the tax stamp for that firearm with it during transportation and agree to allow the BATF to enter my home for inspection and verification that the terms and conditions are being met.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
I DO support armed SWAT, or special units that are trained.
What about places that don't have SWAT, Oni? You know - most of the country? You seem to have this notion, maybe from movies or something, that SWAT is always waiting in the wings to deal with the really hairy situations. But what about the towns and even cities that don't have SWAT? Do you think Aurora, CO has its own SWAT team? Don't you think those guys have to come in from Denver? How does that help me when I'm frantically calling 911 because there's a potentially armed intruder in my home?
You're an idiot dude.
No, Oni. I'm just someone who can think things through. You don't seem to be.
It's a common misconception, I guess, that the military fights wars by spraying a million bullets all over the place with no regard for accuracy.
Having heard military types talking about combat, that's exactly what happens. From this news article:
quote:US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.
...
A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year.
I couldn't find the GAO report it was talking about, unfortunately.
So why the differentiation between automatic machine guns and semi-automatic machine guns.
It's a common misconception, I guess, that the military fights wars by spraying a million bullets all over the place with no regard for accuracy. This is the misconception that causes you to think that "according to your reasoning everyone citizen in the country should be able to strap on an uzi or carry around an M-16".
I am in the military crashfrog. I understand all too well about accuracy and precision in a firefight. However, your statement does not answer the question of why we should differentiate between fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the 2nd Ammendment.
And a fully automatic machine gun or sawed off shotguns is even one step better.
Well, I guess you should write a letter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and tell them that they're fighting wars all wrong, and that we should be sending our boys and girls shotguns and hacksaws instead of M4's (which, incidentally, has replaced the M16 nearly universally in the Army, and has no fully-automatic firing mode.)
Again, you have no understanding who you are talking to and you are speaking out of ignorance. Our standard weapons in the Navy on our ships for force protection are the M-16, M-14, M-9 (9mm) and Mossberg 500 shotgun. There are other small arms used but these are the most common. The M-16 is used on many ships now as well and for force protection watches ashore, it is also the standard weapon for the SEALS as well as the other services. It can be used in the fully auto or semi-automatic modes depending on the situation. We use the M-14 in the semi-automatic mode for quick bursts of fire in close quarters. We use the M-9 for our quarterdeck watches and as a backup on other force protection watches topside. The shotgun is use to clear rooms and small spaces at close ranges.
M-16
M14
Mossberg Shotgun
There are already restrictions on the 2nd ammendment which do not allow the average citizen to own military or military-like weaponry.
That's inaccurate,
It is not inaccurate. You are restricted from owning a fully automatic machine gun without a registration with the ATF and a background check and in 13 states automatic machine guns are illegal no matter what.
and again, the Second Amendment isn't a protection of your right to hunt or shoot trap, it's a protection of your right to pose a credible threat to an invading military or a despotic government
If you read my posts you would have realized I actually stated that.
The purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to allow the individual citizen the right to have weapons for the protection of himself and his loved ones through militias and the like against any future tyranical powers that could possibly take away his 'God-given' freedoms. That is most likely what the framers and ratifiers of the Consitition and Bill of Rights intended.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
As I mentioned to you over in the Colorado thread, it is legal to have fully automatic firearm but I need to have a full criminal background check, current finger prints registered and purchase a tax stamp for each firearm. I also need to agree to having the weapon kept in a safe and have the tax stamp for that firearm with it during transportation and agree to allow the BATF to enter my home for inspection and verification that the terms and conditions are being met.
Correct, here are all the restrictions and conditions: 1. Be a US Citizen at least 21 years old 2. Be of sane mind (hmm that is questionable 3. Not an abuser of drugs or alcohol 4. Have never been convicted of a felony 5. Pay a $200.00 Federal Transfer Tax on each weapon purchased. (This is a one-time tax, not a yearly tax) 6. Fill out BATF Form 4 and submit to ATF. This involves getting a Signature of the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" in your area signifying that he has no knowledge that you will use your weapon for anything other that lawful purposes 7. Have your fingerprints/photographs taken and submitted to BATF with the above application.
So you can own these weapons but only under certain conditions and regulations.
Also, it is illegal in 13 states to own any type of automatic machine gun no matter what (and in 6 of which unless your a licensed class arms dealer) . This seems to an issue in which states rights directly contradict the the 2nd Ammendment in the strictist letter of the law.
Now do you honestly think you can carry that machine gun around with you in public. No, I think not, no matter how much you invoke the 2nd ammendment. Is that not a restriction on your right to 'bear arms'.
Should we mention any type of arms i.e. bazookas, grenade launchers, samaria swords, and the like? The 2nd Ammendment in fact does not say 'firearms' but 'arms' which has a much broader meaning.
See how we can twist the 2nd Ammendment to our own individual interpretations. It is up to the goverment and ultimately ourselves as to how we define our own laws including our individual rights.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
Now do you honestly think you can carry that machine gun around with you in public.
Not today but during my lifetime, sure you could, and I really hope it will be true once again during my lifetime.
I'm actually a strong supporter of unlimited open carry, and wish it were legal to open carry all over the US.
The big reason that I favor open carry is that I really believe that would help change the current caricature of gun owners. In a half century, including period when I carried openly, period when I concealed carry, times when I did not carry, I have yet to shoot anyone; even those that needed shooting.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
quote:So why the differentiation between automatic machine guns and semi-automatic machine guns.
per the definition of machine gun, I think it has to be fully automatic to be a machine gun. I do not think it is possible to have a semi-automatic machine gun. Though there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" either, and that never stops the anti-gunners from pretending there is.
I understand how those ignorant about his topic could get confused in the case of a Gatlin gun (a really fast semi-auto) that is often mistaken for a fully automatic firearm.
quote:According to your reasoning everyone citizen in the country should be able to strap on an uzi or carry around an M-16, just in case they need it to protect themselves from our tyranical government.
no not everyone, I am against retards, crazy people, and felons, but most of everyone else sure. I am more in favor of enforcement of the laws we already have rather than restrict innocent law-abiding citizens.
quote:And a fully automatic machine gun or sawed off shotguns is even one step better. Why restrict one and not the other.
what do you mean by sawed-off? do you mean a shorter than 18" barrel? Or do you mean a modified shotgun with a barrel that has literally been sawed?
you can purchase a short-barreled shotgun already, one that "appears" to be sawed-off. the legal issue with sawing the barrel is the modification part, not the length of the barrel.
full autos are really restricted because 1st the NFA and then Reagan F'd us.
quote:There are already restrictions on the 2nd ammendment which do not allow the average citizen to own military or military-like weaponry. The question is what do we consider 'arms' protected by the 2nd ammendment, not should firearms be regulated at all.
well that is an intersting question, especially the part of military or military like weapons.
Take a Remmington model 700 chambered for a .300 winchester magnum round. This bolt action internal magazine rifle was designed and released in 1962. It's main use was for hunting big game at long range (Think Rocky Moutains or out West); animals like bighorn sheep, elk, moose, bear.
In 1988 the United States army regonzines this great weapons system and adopts it as the main "sniper rifle" of the US Army. (the name becomes the M24 Sniper Weapons System), same rifle, same caliber (M24A2).
Is that rifle a civilian hunting rifle or a "military-like high powered sniper rifle"?
Should I not be allowed to have one because the military uses them too?
per the definition of machine gun, I think it has to be fully automatic to be a machine gun.
You are correct, I mispoke. An automatic rifle is a machine gun and a semi-automatic rifle is not.
I understand how those ignorant about his topic could get confused in the case of a Gatlin gun (a really fast semi-auto) that is often mistaken for a fully automatic firearm.
I believe the original gatling gun was semi-automatic as it required a human to hand crank it. However, modern military gatling guns are fully automatic as they do not require manual actions to refire once the trigger is pulled.
Though there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" either, and that never stops the anti-gunners from pretending there is.
Agreed. "Assault Weapon" is an ambiguous term. And no I am not an anti-gunner. Just a realist. I believe in the right to bear arms but am concerned about how much and what type of 'arms' we need to bear.
I am more in favor of enforcement of the laws we already have rather than restrict innocent law-abiding citizens.
Agreed. However we did have a law that restricted large capacity magazine and the like. I also believe that we need to close loop-holes in gun registration and background checks.
what do you mean by sawed-off? do you mean a shorter than 18" barrel? Or do you mean a modified shotgun with a barrel that has literally been sawed?
My point is that why do we regulate some firearms and not others. I am not advocating an outright ban on semi-automatic weapons. I do though advocate a restrictions on high-capacity magazines and the like. The whole gun regulation is issue is chalk full of problems that need to be fixed.
Is that rifle a civilian hunting rifle or a "military-like high powered sniper rifle"?
Both. Again, it is a subjective matter to determine what 'arms' should the average citizen be able to "keep and bear'. Should they be able to carry a concealed sub-machine gun in a movie theater or the like. Where do we draw the line?
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
However, your statement does not answer the question of why we should differentiate between fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the 2nd Ammendment.
Because there's a public safety interest in doing so, and merely differentiating between different types of weapons does not infringe the Second Amendment. Why would it?
The shotgun is use to clear rooms and small spaces at close ranges.
I never said that it wasn't. In all honesty, DA, I don't see why you even bothered to post. What do you think you actually contradicted me about?
Now do you honestly think you can carry that machine gun around with you in public.
Not today but during my lifetime, sure you could, and I really hope it will be true once again during my lifetime.
I'm actually a strong supporter of unlimited open carry, and wish it were legal to open carry all over the US.
The big reason that I favor open carry is that I really believe that would help change the current caricature of gun owners. In a half century, including period when I carried openly, period when I concealed carry, times when I did not carry, I have yet to shoot anyone; even those that needed shooting.
That is all we need is everyone carrying around there personal uzis.
Can you really speak for everyone and say that anyone should be able to carry a machine gun. How do you when the next average citizen is going to snap. And with a machine gun in there hands that could potentially be a blood bath. We have enough problems with handguns and rifles without bringing in machine guns into the mix.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
I'm not against some restrictions but I have nothing against everyone openly carrying even an Uzi (not all that reliable) and I have no idea now when the next average citizen is gonna snap and drive a car into a crowd.
I personally would favor stronger training and certification for carrying a firearm (even an Uzi) but even stronger training and certification before being allowed to drive a car.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
I believe in the right to bear arms but am concerned about how much and what type of 'arms' we need to bear.
That's fair, and I have the same concern - I'm not reflexively "pro-gun", I'm pro-"constitutional rights" - but the role of our government is not to determine what type of arms we need; it's to determine what the minimum level of regulation of arms is necessary to serve the public interest without infringing constitutional rights.
If the government put itself in the position of saying "well, how many printing presses does the American public actually need? How many newspapers, max, do there even need to be? How many reporters should they be allowed to have?" I think everybody would recognize the terrible precedent of allowing the government to circumscribe the maximum permissible rights of the people, instead of the way it's supposed to work, where the people circumscribe the maximum permissible encroachment of the government on universal rights. Everybody would understand that even if the government wasn't controlling the content of those presses, simply the act of construing the freedom of the press as something that the government gets to draw a limit around is an incredibly dangerous infringement on our First Amendment rights.
The Second Amendment is no less important than the first. Thanks for serving in the Navy, DA, but have a little faith that we, the American people, can handle the rights and freedoms that you defended for us.
Should they be able to carry a concealed sub-machine gun in a movie theater or the like.
Why should I be concerned if someone is carrying a concealed submachine gun in a movie theater if they have no intent to use it? If they intend to use it there, that's already against the law. How is the public safety served by restricting the rights of gun owners who won't ever commit mass murder with their firearms?
I'm not against some restrictions but I have nothing against everyone openly carrying even an Uzi (not all that reliable) and I have no idea now when the next average citizen is gonna snap and drive a car into a crowd. I personally would favor stronger training and certification for carrying a firearm (even an Uzi) but even stronger training and certification before being allowed to drive a car.
Good point about the car. Maybe I am just a little wary and nervous about the average joe blow carrying a machine gun into Walmart. Of course Israel military members and police wear there rifles everywhere on and off duty.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
™ Version 4.2
