Summations Only

PREFACE: I am new here, and 1st apologize if I don’t have all the technical aspects of this site down yet, I have lurked for about a week before I created an account to post. I am not sure if I should reply to individuals or one large post to many other posters, I will figure it out.

quote:

---

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.
  —DevilsAdvocate

---

Sounds like British propaganda from the late 18th century. Do you lowly colonials think you can fight the almighty British Empire with your hunting muskets and rifles, and merchant ships? We (the British) have the best Army and Navy in the world.

quote:

---

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.
  —DevilsAdvocate

---

I highly doubt the 18th century Patriots could forsee mass media in any other form that the Printed newspaper and books. Does this somehow mean that 1st Amendment should only apply to public speaking and newpapers?

quote:

---

Like it or not, the vast majority of the civilised world looks at US attitudes towards guns and shakes it's head in disgust, whilst facepalming about how massacre after massacre just get ignored, forgotten.
  —Briterican

---

Like we care what they think.
Did we care when they all had monarchies and laughed about this whole by the people for the people idea?
We’ll see who they come running and begging to when they need military help.

quote:

---

This seems logical to me. If anyone has another explanation, I'ld be glad to hear it.
  —Scientificbob

---

I think this would be a whole other thread into itself. But you basically want to compare a very large and populated, diverse land with a relatively small and homogenous land, and devise some sort of logical comparison between the two. 300 million people of 50+ cultures somehow compares with 6million Flemish and 3million Walloons, in a land the size of South Carolina?

quote:

---

Who do you think you're going up against with a couple of handguns and a Winchester 30-30, an army of Hare Krishna's?
  —Onifre

---

See Vietnam, or even more recent See Afghanistan, or even more recent look at what is happening in Syria TODAY. Then come back and explain how civilians with small arms cannot make a difference.

quote:

---

In every country there are lunatics willing to kill a massive amount of people. But, in most countries they don't have guns to carry it out.
  —onifre

---

Interesting, especially since the strictest gun control in North America is in a nation called Mexico. In Mexico it is illegal for most of the people to own firearms. Look how safe and free of mass murder Mexico is.

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?

NOTE: can someone respond with a link on how to put quotes in the blue boxes? When I use the word quote in brackets it will not apply a name, and I like how the other quotes look. {Quote help info sent via private message. - Adminnemooseus}

quote:

---

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

---

Not a problem, just making sure, I am no expert here, though I try.

quote:

---

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.

---

The original yes, and also it is irrelevant in this case because it was made before 1899 and is not covered by the NFA, you could own one as a purely historical piece, just as you can own 18th century canons if you can afford it.Modern ones like a mini-gun are in a grey area. A definition for fully automatic is one pull of the trigger multiple bullets down the barrel. Gatlin and Mini-guns have a rotating barrel so you never get more than one bullet on the same trigger pull on each barrel. It is basically one bullet then the next barrel and one bullet, and then the next barrel, and on and on. Technically its not fully automatic; the gray area is the mechanical device pulling the trigger, and the belt fed ammunition.

quote:

---

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 not trying to pin anything specifically on you, the anti-crowd knows who they are, and I am not pointing any fingers.

quote:

---

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.

---

Do to popular demand (we are sort of a democracy), that law has expired. What do you mean by loop-holes? There is no gun registration unless you are an FFL or have full auto firearms.

quote:

---

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.

---

I must disagree, but I already have a bunch or high cap magazines (I bought them a month after Obama got elected). You keep mentioning regulation, but this is the USA not Canada or Austrailia, I am not sure what you mean by registration.
Registration leads to confiscation.

quote:

---

Both. A) Again, it is a subjective matter to determine what 'arms' should the average citizen be able to "keep and bear'. B) Should they be able to carry a concealed sub-machine gun in a movie theater or the like. C) Where do we draw the line?

---

A) Arms = firearms. All of them.
B) Yes.
C) At explosives and non-firearms (C4 and grenades) Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Quote help message in red.

Except that firing bullets from a handgun is faster than firing them from a rifle. You have a false premise. Rate of Fire is greatly affected by the length of the bolt of the firearm. Firearms with shorter bolts fire faster than those with longer bolts.The AR-15 (automatic version/assault rifle) vs. 9mm Glock (handgun) vs. the Mac-10 (submachine gun)Some AR-15s (earlier ones I think) were fully automatic, their cyclic rate of fire is/was 800 rounds per minute. (source AR-15 style rifle - Wikipedia)A common mass produced stamped sub-machine gun like the Mac-10 has a cyclic automatic fire rate of 1090 — 1145 rounds per minute. (source MAC-10 - Wikipedia)A 9mm Glock specifically the G18 model (the fully automatic glock) has a cyclic rate of fire that is 1100 — 1300 rounds per minute. (source http://remtek.com/arms/glock/model/9/18/)For visual comparison
MAC-10
Glock18
NOTE: this is not really against Devilsadvocate, I have read more than once and I am not sure who all the authors are, that for some reason rifles (like the AR-15) are extra dangerous and have more damage potential due to rate of fire (ROF), when in reality the guns with the highest ROF are handguns, and submachine guns. It is really quite simple what will take longer to move something that is 2inches long or something that is 4inches long? This forum seems to be populated with mostly scientists, yet on this issue they seem to be throwing the "facts" out of the window, in favor of thier passions and faith in gun control.

to be fair the movie theater in Aurora and Virginia Tech were both gun free zones. 99% of people with a CHP/CCW are law abiding citizens, who know the consequences of breaking the law while armed (losing your ability to own firearms). I have a concealed carry permit. If I go to a business and they have posted at thier entrance, that they do not allow guns, then I HAVE TO return to my vehicle and hide my firearm, or choose to not enter that business. Unfourtunately criminals are not bound by the laws.BTW the guy (Joe Zamudio) that subdued Jared Loughner (he shot that congress woman Gabrielle Giffords), was carrying at the time he helped stop the shooter.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-3GTwalrGY&feature=relatedYou will learn what is needed in the conceled carry class. the point of my concelead permit is to defend ME, get your own firearm and defend yourself.Drawing your firearm is a serious descion to make, you have to understand that in drawing it you are probably going to have a police visit and possibly even a court date, even to clear your name. You have to consider collateral damage, and range and its it worth it. 9/10 I would still run even while carrying. most likely i would.

If you guys are this ignorant about guns and gun topics, but you think you know what you are talking about...how many other topics on here do you not have a clue about either?

All firearms. We are a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is not Syria where our President is of a certain minortiy tribe that is allied with our religious adversaries, and is recieving weapons from them to use against us.

to keep the government honest, to keep some power with the people. To live in a way that is completly oppostie to how they were living as a british colony, and to make sure that it never happened again. I think they are called RPGs in todays vernacular.My guess would be, because they did not exist at the time of the writing of the constitution, and by the time they did exist the government was already too tyrannical and the population too passive to fight for the right to have RPGs (aka Bazookas).I really enjoyed this topic it is a shame it is getting shut down. I am quite suprised that this topic would even exist on such a liberal website, but it was the pleasant sort of suprise. I find it extremely interesting that liberals fully support certain states to regulate firearms (something in the constitution), but deny those same states to regulate marriage (something that is not in the constitution), or science education, or displays of religion; I find the double standard very interesting, and quite illogical.I hope to continue to participate in interesting threads like this one, thank you EvC.cheers!

The reason I ask is because I left a summation post, and according to the rules one is not allowed to reply to a post, yet 4 people replied to my summation post.can I reply to them?what is going on here? are some posters just exempt from the guidelines and rules (I'm still trying to figure this place out)?