Summations Only

Do you think it is going to make a hill of beans difference what the 2nd Amendment states if individual citizens are defending themselves against the National Guard or the US Military. At that point federal and even state legislation is a moot point. Not that I think this will ever happen.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.Certain gun enthusiasts have taken this freedom to a whole new extreme wanting very few if any restrictions on highly lethal weaponry (automatic and semi-automtic machine guns, unlimited ammo and weapon stashing, high capacity magazines, etc) that no 18th century patriot could dare imagine much less advocate.Regulation of firearms does not mean taking away your right to bear arms any more than restricting people from incite fear and violence without just cause (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded room when there is no fire or saying there is a bomb on a plane or bus when there isn't one) takes away from your freedom of speach. All inalienable rights require a certain amount of qualifiers and controls to protect other people's freedoms and allow for public safety.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

So why the differentiation between automatic machine guns and semi-automatic machine guns. 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. And a fully automatic machine gun or sawed off shotguns is even one step better. Why restrict one and not the other. Your reasoning for discreminating between the two does not make any sense. 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.

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. 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 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. If you read my posts you would have realized I actually stated that. Message 9Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

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.

You are correct, I mispoke. An automatic rifle is a machine gun and a semi-automatic rifle is not. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

My point exactly. I have been alluding to this entire thread. I think we were just speaking past each other. So the question is should we or should we not restrict semi-automatic weapons in any way. I am kind of wavering on this issue.I definately think they should be more regulated in that the gun-show loopholes should be closed and all gun ownership should require background checks and registrations. To me I do not think that in any way restricts your right to own guns, but just to reduce the chance they fall into the wrong hands. It just seemed to me that you were preaching to me about how I should contact the JCOS about how we are not using shotguns and other non-machine gun weaponry. Maybe I just missed your point. This thread and the preceding one have led down a long and windy path.Besides I enjoyed posting pictures of the Navy firing weaponry. Sorry a little service envy as it seems everyone only equates the Army and Marines with small caliber weapons and forgets about the Navy Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

We are taught in the military about the 3 sides of the deadly force triangle : opportunity, capability and intent. In force protection cases we use this to determine whether we should use deadly force in a situation (this was adopted from law enforcement sources). In the case above all that is missing is the 'intent'. Both capability and opportunity already exist. However, with more powerful weaponry, the capacity to kill many more people than with a non-machine gun exists. Therefore, public safety outweighs the neccessity for a person to carry a machine gun. Again the rights of one person do not outweigh the rights (the right to live) of anyone else. Just a point to ponder.

That is not actually true in the Navy, at least. We recieve deadly force training as part of our force protection training. Nearly every duty day (about once a week) we go over some form of force protection training. But you are correct in that you can't train for every possible scenario. We do train in the different types of situations we can possibly encounter, low flying aircraft, approaching boats with weapons embarked, mobs on the pier, etc. We are trained on when deadly force triggers are reached.

I am not equating capability to intent. I specifically dilleneated in my last post the three sides: capability, intent and opportunity. What I am saying is there is a greater capacity (not intent) to do harm to more people with a machine gun than with a pistol in one incident. The issue here is increased ability to cause more harm at one whak so to speak. If thousands are carrying machine guns or submachine guns (both are fully automatic, just difference in size) than there is an increased chance that a mass shooting can take place, simply by the increased capacity to do harm (shooting hundreds of rds per minute vice 20-30 at the most with a manual or semi-auto).

And if Jare Lee Loughner was shooting a fully automatic machine gun in a stadium. How much easier and faster would it be for him to take out say 50 people than it would for a manual firearm or even a semi-automatic before someone or a group of people could 'possibly' take him out so to speak. Only because there is an increased speed of successively firing rounds out of the chamber thus making it more difficult for someone to overcome that person. Agreed. When I said having a greater 'capacity', I meant a greater 'capacity' to hurt more people in one incident not the actual round capacity of the gun. Agreed. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Yes, see the below maps and you tell me what these statisitics tell you.-The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer — 54.8 per 100 people The US is at the top of the rank of number of homicides per 100,000 people in developed (first-world) countries, as high as 5.52 cases, or almost doubled the second follower Finland and and the 21st of all the 196 countries of the world just slightly lower than Mexico and the Philippines . Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

I apologize, should have labled them better. Thanks.

Correct, I cannot provide causation but can make a strong claim that as the per capita rate of gun ownership increases so does the homicide rate . Developed countries with low gun ownership generally have lower homicide rates and vice versa. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.