Gun Control

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Why should I not be permitted the use of an automatic weapon to defend my home?

I am responsible for that weapon's proper storage, safe use, and injuries infliceted thereby -- as I would and should be with any other weapon -- so what is the problem?

If I use a baseball bat to crush the skull of an intruder, a kitchen knife to puncture the intruder's lung, or a burst from an M-60 to take that intruder out, what is the difference?

Does possession of an automatic weapon somehow decerebrate the individual, forcing them to become a crazed killer who simply has to take the gun out for a stroll and hose down a school bus on full rock and roll?

Does the prohibition of such weapons somehow prevent, in practice, the whack-job who would commit such a horror from acquiring such a weapon?

We live in a world where you can acquire weapons of mass destruction with a trip to your local feed & seed store and a stop at Radio Shack. Zip home, download the instructions from the net and make your kill. Crazies don't run off to become hermits anymore -- they go for the media splash.

Since that is the world in which we live, I don't think gun control laws accomplish what they set out to do.

Perhaps we should go the other direction: a legal requirement for all non-felons who are physically/mentally able to own, be trained to use, and carry a firearm. I bet social politeness would be "in" real quick. Perhaps not?

[Redleg]

Why should I not be permitted the use of an automatic weapon to defend my home?

I am responsible for that weapon's proper storage, safe use, and injuries infliceted thereby -- as I would and should be with any other weapon -- so what is the problem?

If I use a baseball bat to crush the skull of an intruder, a kitchen knife to puncture the intruder's lung, or a burst from an M-60 to take that intruder out, what is the difference?

Does possession of an automatic weapon somehow decerebrate the individual, forcing them to become a crazed killer who simply has to take the gun out for a stroll and hose down a school bus on full rock and roll?

Does the prohibition of such weapons somehow prevent, in practice, the whack-job who would commit such a horror from acquiring such a weapon?

We live in a world where you can acquire weapons of mass destruction with a trip to your local feed & seed store and a stop at Radio Shack. Zip home, download the instructions from the net and make your kill. Crazies don't run off to become hermits anymore -- they go for the media splash.

Since that is the world in which we live, I don't think gun control laws accomplish what they set out to do.

Perhaps we should go the other direction: a legal requirement for all non-felons who are physically/mentally able to own, be trained to use, and carry a firearm. I bet social politeness would be "in" real quick. Perhaps not?

The question is not why should you be allowed or not allowed to own a fully automatic weapon. But what was the intent of the drafter's of the constitution? Did they intend the people to have access to every possible type of weapon, or as men of their time did the intend the people to have the ability to rightfully defend themselves with personal arms.

Think back to the 1994 Assualt weapon's ban, Why did congress place an automatic expiration date into that piece of the legislation? Was it because - unlike the Machine gun ban of 1934 - they knew that the legislation would not stand up to judicial review? Then there is the Miller case where the court also ruled in favor of government restriction on weapons.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Yes we are allow to defend ourselves with Personal Arms RedLeg, but nothing is saying that we should be given AK-47's to defend our homes and families, and end up having a half a hour gunfight with a few gangbangers that also broke into your house with M-16's.

[Redleg]

Yes we are allow to defend ourselves with Personal Arms RedLeg, but nothing is saying that we should be given AK-47's to defend our homes and families, and end up having a half a hour gunfight with a few gangbangers that also broke into your house with M-16's.

Your getting very close to what I have stated, expect your missing one key point.

There is nothing that states that an M16 nor an AK 47 is not a personal arms. In fact in the United States Military the M16 is considered a personal weapon.

If one agrees that the 2nd Amendment means personal arms, one must concede that all personal arms fall within that definition. Light Machine Guns such as the SAW do not fit within that definition, however military issued personal arms do fit within that definition. For instance are you not allowed to purchase the exact same handgun that the military issues as a personal sidearm? Are you not allowed (this is in the past) to purchase Military issued shotguns? Is not the M1 allowed to be purchased? Is not the M14 allowed to be purchased? All these weapons were considered personal issued weapons in the military.

I believe full heartly that the 2nd Amendment applies to all personal weapons - rather I like it or not, I must concede that it includes military assualt weapons and their civilian counterpart models such as the AR15. How else can you explain the automatic expiration date of the Assualt Weapons ban?

I wonder if you understand the difference given your earlier comments?

[AntiochusIII]

In all practicality, shooting an AK-47 in "self defense" would result in quite a few "collateral damage," a few limbs for that passer-by, a head shot on poor shopkeeper nearby, etc., may be also little Susie if she happens to be in the range as you "defend your house" from that rascal of a burglar.

Oh, and there's the thing about police force being armed with at most a rifle, mostly a pistol; only the specialized units have the more warlike machinery. I'm sure dealing with gangs, criminals, and the occasional some-random-dude-go-crazy would be far more serious with an M-16 assaulting the school instead of a pistol or a katana.

Just pointing out. Take it what you will.

[Kagemusha]

In all practicality, shooting an AK-47 in "self defense" would result in quite a few "collateral damage," a few limbs for that passer-by, a headshot on poor shopkeeper nearby, etc., may be also little Susie if she happens to be in the range as you "defend your house" from that rascal of a burglar.

Just pointing out. Take it what you will.

Well there is single shot mode in AK-47.Just joking.

[Kagemusha]

Why should I not be permitted the use of an automatic weapon to defend my home?

I am responsible for that weapon's proper storage, safe use, and injuries infliceted thereby -- as I would and should be with any other weapon -- so what is the problem?

If I use a baseball bat to crush the skull of an intruder, a kitchen knife to puncture the intruder's lung, or a burst from an M-60 to take that intruder out, what is the difference?

Does possession of an automatic weapon somehow decerebrate the individual, forcing them to become a crazed killer who simply has to take the gun out for a stroll and hose down a school bus on full rock and roll?

Does the prohibition of such weapons somehow prevent, in practice, the whack-job who would commit such a horror from acquiring such a weapon?

We live in a world where you can acquire weapons of mass destruction with a trip to your local feed & seed store and a stop at Radio Shack. Zip home, download the instructions from the net and make your kill. Crazies don't run off to become hermits anymore -- they go for the media splash.

Since that is the world in which we live, I don't think gun control laws accomplish what they set out to do.

Perhaps we should go the other direction: a legal requirement for all non-felons who are physically/mentally able to own, be trained to use, and carry a firearm. I bet social politeness would be "in" real quick. Perhaps not?

How about a fact that a light machine gun like M-60 shoots bursts. When a trained machine gunner shoots a short burts he fires 2- 6 bullets per burst. Now when someone breaks into your home and in panic you start firing with your M-60,which have no single shot mode, how many rounds do you think mostly likely shoot? 10,15, half of the ammo belt? Would it be possible that after the few first rounds hit the intruder the rest how many you ever may happen to release start hitting walls,neighbours walls and windows and maybe one of the neighbours kids or your family members head,torso or limb?
Now if you had lets say shotgun or that baseball bat you could have stopped the intruder without endangering others. So machine gun for self defence is not only unpractical becouse its heavier then normal rifle,shotgun or pistol, but also unpractical and dangerous, becouse its ment to be platoon,squadron or team support weapon not a self defence weapon.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

How about a fact that a light machine gun like M-60 shoots bursts. When a trained machine gunner shoots a short burts he fires 2- 6 bullets per burst. Now when someone breaks into your home and in panic you start firing with your M-60,which have no single shot mode, how many rounds do you think mostly likely shoot? 10,15, half of the ammo belt? Would it be possible that after the few first rounds hit the intruder the rest how many you ever may happen to release start hitting walls,neighbours walls and windows and maybe one of the neighbours kids or your family members head,torso or limb?
Now if you had lets say shotgun or that baseball bat you could have stopped the intruder without endangering others. So machine gun for self defence is not only unpractical becouse its heavier then normal rifle,shotgun or pistol, but also unpractical and dangerous, becouse its ment to be platoon,squadron or team support weapon not a self defence weapon.

Very Much Argeed, I don't feel like getting off with Self-Defense after killing someone who breaks into my house, but then get a mansualghuter charge for killng the next door neghbior's kid

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There is no birth right to ordance in the constitution only arms. I am addressing what I believe to be the orginal intent of the drafters. Arms primarily dealt with the weapons that were available for individual use. Cannons were often refered to as ordance in the time period that the constitution was drafted.

Can you tell me one weapon of that era that was used by the Army that was forbbiden to american citizens? I dont know of any.

The second was never about self defense. That was a side benefit. The Founders valued freedom - why in hell would they want the right of the people to be limited by the state? The purpose was to overthrow tyranny - and this purpose and right is infringed upon when any arms are banned.

Not only that the purpose of the bill of rights is to limit the power of the government not the people. If we read it as many here suggest, even Redleg we get just the opposite result.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Many Gawain, We can name many that are banned, or was banned anyhow..

[Crazed Rabbit]

Really? You know he was talking of the era right after the Revolutionary War?

So machine gun for self defence is not only unpractical becouse its heavier then normal rifle,shotgun or pistol, but also unpractical and dangerous, becouse its ment to be platoon,squadron or team support weapon not a self defence weapon.

And what if you've got an angry mob headed towards your house, in the middle of widespread riots?

Crazed Rabbit

[Aenlic]

Really? You know he was talking of the era right after the Revolutionary War?



And what if you've got an angry mob headed towards your house, in the middle of widespread riots?

Crazed Rabbit

That's what the claymore mines, razor wire, bunker and chain gun are for!

(sorry couldn't resist!) wink:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Really? You know he was talking of the era right after the Revolutionary War?



And what if you've got an angry mob headed towards your house, in the middle of widespread riots?

Crazed Rabbit

SO What. What is the chances of that happening?? If SO, go ask ym grandfather, he got so many bullets and guns, he could Give a gun and 40 rounds out to everyone on page 9 of this fourm

But Really, That what Claymores,Landmines and barbred/Razor wire is for....


and AK-47's
you buy on the Blackmarket

[Redleg]

Really? You know he was talking of the era right after the Revolutionary War?

Really, I guess you rather ignore the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that happened. Care to guess how many drafts were debated concerning what became the final version of the 2nd Amendment?

Then it seems some are missing the interpations that have stood up to court review.

And what if you've got an angry mob headed towards your house, in the middle of widespread riots?

Crazed Rabbit

One does not need a machine gun to handle an angry riot. There are several effective means to handle an angry mob that does not involve using machine guns.