No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back? - Page 2

No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back?

This is a discussion on No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; And why cant we slip some back door legislation in that does away with the Hugh's Amendments concerning transferrability of firearms etc... in a future ...

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 123

Thread: No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back?

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    And why cant we slip some back door legislation in that does away with the Hugh's Amendments concerning transferrability of firearms etc... in a future bill when conservatives own the 2 houses again?

    Repubs did crap like that with other stuff in the past, and Dems just did with all the healtcrap bills.

    Oh wait is it NO BALL SACKS maybe. Even I ran how would I do it? Is it really that hard to do?

    With all the states sudden adding more and more rights to carry etc... could there be a glimmer of hope on the horizon?
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,758
    It could be done. Just like the lady from Florida, who started the ball rolling for shall-issue, concealed carry states.

    We just need to think of an angle to attack. Try to reverse one little thing at a time.

    I would suggest, first thing, to get rid of the stipulation that we can only purchase automatic weapons manufactured prior to '86. At least get some new weapons at better prices available.

    Take it back. One piece at a time.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  3. #18
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720
    Without very much enhanced background checks, I think the practical answer here must be, NO WAY.

    Have some mercy on our police men and women. It is dangerous enough for them as it is.

    It happens the history channel replayed the story of the horrific bank robbery in California from about 20 years back, where the police were heavily out - guned by BGs with automatic weapons and vests. For heavens sake, these men and women need an edge.

    The stuff about needing arms to protect ourselves from our own government is fantasy island stuff. Dream on.

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Without very much enhanced background checks, I think the practical answer here must be, NO WAY.
    There have been a total of 2 crimes committed with legal owners of NFA weapons since 1934, one of them was a police officer. The tens of thousands of NFA weapons currently owned and used by the populace LEGALLY are just fine. I hope there are tens of thousands more soon.

    Have some mercy on our police men and women. It is dangerous enough for them as it is.
    Police fear criminals, not law abiding gun owners. Get it straight.

    It happens the history channel replayed the story of the horrific bank robbery in California from about 20 years back, where the police were heavily out - guned by BGs with automatic weapons and vests. For heavens sake, these men and women need an edge.
    Hey, Einstein, they were using ILLEGALLY CONVERTED weapons, not lawfully obtained weapons. That's what criminals do. Use some logic sometimes. It helps out in life.

    The stuff about needing arms to protect ourselves from our own government is fantasy island stuff. Dream on.
    So our country was founded on principles of "fantasy island"? You continue to amaze me with your opinion. I just don't understand how your mind works.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  5. #20
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,979
    Without very much enhanced background checks, I think the practical answer here must be, NO WAY.
    The same background check that is used by the FBI is the same one that is used to legally purchase Full Auto weapons. It seems to do rather nicely.

    Have some mercy on our police men and women. It is dangerous enough for them as it is.
    Tubby 45 covered that one, so I wont. The statistics speak for themselves.

    It happens the history channel replayed the story of the horrific bank robbery in California from about 20 years back, where the police were heavily out - guned by BGs with automatic weapons and vests. For heavens sake, these men and women need an edge.
    The officers involved in that shootout had no rifles. They basically went into a rifle shootout using handguns, so they were destined to lose. Back then, most police did not have rifles, a few had shotguns.For the most part that has changed, mostly because of that incident. The perps weren't using the traditional kevlar vests, they had fabricated boilerplate into body armor. Those pistol rounds did nothing.

    So you would prevent legal ownership of FA weapons, which are heavily regulated, taxed, and very expensive because a couple of people used them illegally?

    There goes that liberal logic again, the same that the gun banners use. Your post is the perfect example of why we will not see the ability to own FA unhindered,restored.
    Its the gun-owners like yourself that are the gun-owners worst enemies.

    That's a good post Hopyard. It serves to remind us of how many people think.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  6. #21
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720
    Well HG, I'm really interested here in protecting your hide.

    Like it or not, almost everyone outside of a select few in the gun community are never going to approve of widespread distribution of full autos. To do so would be very unwise.

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Repubs did crap like that with other stuff in the past, and Dems just did with all the healtcrap bills.
    Bingo!!! Senator Coburn stuck carry in national parks legislation in the credit card bill. Stuff like this is pretty easy for a savvy congressman to do if he/she wants to do it.

    The best shot that we are ever going to have to roll back some gun control legislation has passed because we did not hold the Republicans feet to the fire when they ran the congress and the white house. Me thinks that the law is never going to change.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    Because the streets are filling with blood with all those evil machine guns and silencers on the market right now.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Well HG, I'm really interested here in protecting your hide.

    Like it or not, almost everyone outside of a select few in the gun community are never going to approve of widespread distribution of full autos. To do so would be very unwise.
    That's a bunch of crap. I agree with the others. It's people like you who will prevent us from getting our freedoms back that never should have been taken in the first place. You surely think that if YOU had a FA weapon, you would be responsible with it, but most anyone else wouldn't. All those terrible things that "might" happen is the same kind of crap the anti-gunners spew out as their argument. The fact is, new FA weapons were legal until 1986 and it wasn't a problem. But of course, everything has changed now and society would break down if we allowed people to get them now! Oh wait...

  10. #25
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,979
    Well HG, I'm really interested here in protecting your hide.
    I appreciate the thought...I really do.

    Fact of the matter is, its not the lawabiding people that are the issue. They never are. Since the thugs dont follow the law, making it more difficult for those that do follow the law serves absolutley no purpose.

    The odds of me facing a machine gun, statistically are astronomical. The cops that do face them are facing the ones that are illegal to begin with or illegally converted.


    Like it or not, almost everyone outside of a select few in the gun community are never going to approve of widespread distribution of full autos.
    I agree. There have been so much lies and disinformation put on society in the last few decades that the average Joe already thinks they are illegal, even though they are legal to own in some 30 something states.

    To do so would be very unwise.
    I dont think so.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  11. #26
    Senior Member Array AlexHassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    the North East
    Posts
    552
    To answer the original question about why they are heavily controlled and few people care. Well itís because few people care. Personally why do I want to buy an expensive rifle that is not used for hunting and is probably not as good a home defense weapon as a shotgun? Yes they sound like fun, however knowing the way things work it would get played with twice and then kept in the safe. Maybe if people had more interest and thought them more desirable there would be more pressure to change the laws.

  12. #27
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    I agree. There have been so much lies and disinformation put on society in the last few decades that the average Joe already thinks they are illegal, even though they are legal to own in some 30 something states.
    Sadly, that's true. I just posted over in the MG poll thread (should they be merged?) to the same effect.

    Machine guns are not death rays. They're effective weapons, but so are the non-FA guns. I'd even venture to say that the sad events of the North Hollywood shootout would have played out exactly the same way had the bad guys been armed with a semi-auto AR and AK. Like HotGuns pointed out, the cops were going up against bad guys with body armor and rifles, while all they had were pistols and a shotgun or two. That's not good odds whether we're talking about semi-auto rifles or full-auto.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    Sadly, that's true. I just posted over in the MG poll thread (should they be merged?) to the same effect.

    Machine guns are not death rays. They're effective weapons, but so are the non-FA guns. I'd even venture to say that the sad events of the North Hollywood shootout would have played out exactly the same way had the bad guys been armed with a semi-auto AR and AK. Like HotGuns pointed out, the cops were going up against bad guys with body armor and rifles, while all they had were pistols and a shotgun or two. That's not good odds whether we're talking about semi-auto rifles or full-auto.

    I didn't want to hijack this thread, so I started the poll in response to Hopyard's opinion that
    Like it or not, almost everyone outside of a select few in the gun community are never going to approve of widespread distribution of full autos.
    .


    I don't think that removing the restrictions on Class III weapons would have any adverse affect on the general populations. Select fire weapons, suppressors, etc. They just don't perform in real life like they do on the movies
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  14. #29
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720

    re: Hot Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    I appreciate the thought...I really do.

    Fact of the matter is, its not the law abiding people that are the issue. They never are. Since the thugs dont follow the law, making it more difficult for those that do follow the law serves absolutley no purpose.

    The odds of me facing a machine gun, statistically are astronomical. The cops that do face them are facing the ones that are illegal to begin with or illegally converted.
    Right now the odds of you having such an encounter are very limited. If you got what you wanted, there would be many more in circulation, many more on the black market, and many more stolen.

    Moreover, your job is already too darn dangerous and would become even more so. And, where do we as a society draw the line? What weaponry will we not allow everyone to have? Grenades? TNT? 100 lb. bomb deliverable from a 4 seater?

    Just as 1A has some limits, there is a point at which 2A needs some limits as well.

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    See, the black market doesn't care. They will just make their own, not buy new guns. That's the point you and other liberals just don't get.

    Legally owned NFA weapons are simply not used in crimes. Period. No argument.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Dont argue but ... this is why we need 2a fully opened and select fire.
    By tangoseal in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: September 8th, 2010, 02:09 AM
  2. Dont argue but ... this is why we need 2a fully opened and select fire.
    By tangoseal in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: September 6th, 2010, 01:26 PM
  3. Gun Control: The Ultimate Human Rights Violation
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2010, 07:23 PM
  4. Rules Against City of New York for Violation of Constitutional Rights
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 16th, 2009, 09:28 PM
  5. Lou Dobbs: Rights under fire
    By BlackPR in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 23rd, 2009, 04:57 AM

Search tags for this page

bearable arms

,

register select fire weapons

Click on a term to search for related topics.