The question begs to be asked.

"Why would anyone need a fully automatic weapon?"

If someone breaks into my house, My 12gauge will do nicely. If I need to hunt deer to feed my family, My Remington Mod 700 30'06 will perform well.

I have lived with guns all my life. I still fail to see why anyone, with the exception of a bonded, "Bonified", collector, would need a fully automatic weapon......... Even a collector has the gun for show, or display.

If you have the need. The genuin want to fire a machine gun, stop all of the rederick, and JOIN THE ARMY. Then you will learn that the "fully auto" setting on your weapon is generally useless in a combat situation. Unless you are in a support possition. But in close quarters, semi is the only answer.

Allow me to digress, "Why would anyone need, really need a fully automatic weapon?"

 

Well lets ask the question, why does anyone need, I mean really need, a V8. You can get to the 7-11 with a 4 banger. You can pull that boat (you also don't "need") with a 300 6 cylinder. I don't "need" my Bronco but I would not suggest trying to take it away from me. BTW I retired after 20 years in the Infantry, that is part of the US ARMY. And full auto can come in damn handy in CQB. How much combat have you seen? Need it or not, you have a right to have one. I don't happen to own any, but I know people that do, and not one has robbed a liqure store yet. All have had to pass one heck of a background check, paid out the wazoo for a "RIGHT" that was written into the BOR. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

Have you lost any personal freedoms, if so, which ones?

This is basically a troll -- I will call a spade a spade.

Instead of asking shallow, accusatory questions, you are perfectly capable of ascertaining the truth of the matter through your own investigation whether at public library, the internet, book stores, etc.

Your motivation is therefore not to learn anything new. I think you've already made up your mind about this matter. Any replies to your questions will be ridiculed and mocked You already made it clear that any gun or privacy rights people are paranoid, delusional lunatics sitting in their basements, counting ammo. This is exactly how liberal media wants to portray gun owners. Weak minded, uneducated morons with a weak grasp on reality.

And here is what else I think. I think you are afraid of something. Perhaps that the "bunker boys" are right and this whole nonsense thread is your attempt to convince yourself that your fear is not valid.

 

Yes the question was a troll
I don't see it as shallow or accusatory, I ask it for what it was, I'd like to know what personal freedoms individuals have lost of have percieved to have lost.
I am a "gun person" as I have stated before I own several, and have so for many years.
Yes I view some individuals as paranoid, not just some of those who are concerned about privacy, only the "obsessive" ones, and there are plenty at the other end of the spectrum as well.
Yes, I do have some fears in life, not of any individual, but a fear of extreamists (from any group/belief/system) who manipulate information to justify their cause.
I have had to "deal with" ultra liberals and constervatives most of my adult life, sometimes it hasn't been fun.
As stated originall post, what makes them tick.

I have been very careful as not to accuse anyone here of being something, I have only asked the questions and answered what I think are question of where I stand on certain issues. As I own guns, have served over 20 years in the miltary protecting our freedoms, and another 10+ years in public service, I find some of the statements made by some as amusing to say the least.

Ya'll watch out for the Black Helicopters now.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dakejh
[B]The question begs to be asked.

"Why would anyone need a fully automatic weapon?"

If one can afford, it, wants it and completes Class 3 registration, why not? Are you confusing your personal preferences with the rights of others or making a social statement?

 

Following that "flawed(my opinion)" logic, if I could afford a nuclear weapon, I should be able to buy one. Or, some chemical weapons.

If an Item of interest is "dangerous" to the people around you, there should be limitations, if it only poses a danger to you, by all means, buy one. But, lets get real, No one has produced a good reason for a private citizen to own a Fully Automatic Weapon. Not a rifle or a hand gun, but a Fully Automatic Weapon.

"Fully automatic can be damd good in CQB." OK. Lets review. Combat, thats a can of worms that does not need to be opened, IE "currently in". Next, I have been instructing soldiers in the art of CQB for at least 12 years now. In fact, my team built the CQB facility at Makua Valley, in Hawaii, in 1991. CQB is about precision, planned reaction, order and control. Not everyone in a room is the enemy......So spraying on fully automatic is just WRONG.

Hereth, ended the lesson.

 

We're back to personal opinions. You use them in your profession and see no fun, thrill or defense factor for a civilian. There are laws against citizens owning chemical and nuclear weapons while a lot of private citizens legally own fully automatic carbines and machine pistols. What may seem a reasonable rationalization or desire for owners to have them, fun or whatever that doesn't break exisiting laws, should be their own personal decision. 5000lb trucks cause more deaths than legally owned automatic weapons. Firecrackers have been banned in many places because they're 'dangerous' and fireworks exibition companies have spent large dollars convincing muncipalities of just that. I'm not being argumentive, just asking where the line is drawn between danger to those around you and what you should be able to legally possess. We seem to be legislating everything considered politically incorrect out of existance in an attempt to 'take care' of people.

 

Now some meat for discussion

Prior to 1934 (I believe), automatic (Full) weapons could be owned by the average citizen, Outlaws, bad guys, criminals, used these weapons to their advantage in spreading mayhem upon the citizens here in the good ole USA. It was deemed necessary that these weapons be removed from the bad guys firm grasp and only be allowed in the hands of those that met certain requirements. Thereby greatly reducing the mayhem that a bad guy could invoke with this type of weapon.
While not having a PHD in guns, I don't believe there were many full aitomatic, non-military derived weapons available at that time. Today there are a large number of automatic weapons availble to those so "Licenced" that have somewhat dubious heritage (IMHO) and practical use, again IMHO.

Not many years before automatic (full) weapons met the requirement to be restricted and licenced another nasty item was brought under control, and even today is continually subject to further restrictions. That most dangerous item was the automobile and the crazy individuals that operate them.
Not only must certain requirements be met before ownership, the individual operating this machine must meet regimental requirements and pay hefty fees for the privlage to operate said vehicle. It is very easy to have either the vehicle or the operator permit removed form you person, never to see it again.

 

Dick,

Do I understand you to suggest that once these machine guns were resticted for law abiding citizens their proliferation among the criminal element was largely curtailed as well?

 

GeorgeD,

My opinion on Machine Guns is a purely social one. Yes professionally I use and have used many different ones. Yes it is a thrill at a firing range. But, in civilian society, I find no use for them.

A machine gun is made for one purpose only, to suppress and kill the enemy. A soldier/marine/sailor/airman, are all trained in the use and safety of these weapons. Most civilians cannot comprenend the destructive power held in hand.

I have run into those who go out to the woods and shoot at trees. They don't understand about the effective range and max range. Its not like shooting a semi. Many stray rounds. Potential killing rounds. That is my only objection.

 

Without debating the ease criminals can and do obtain weapons of all types and that people do drive vehicles without registration, licenses or insurance, or the futility of legislation to contain those elements, a class 3 license for ownership of a fully automatic weapon is no big deal for any US Citizen without a criminal felony conviction.

The 1934 legislation requiring registration of machine guns was prompted by wars between bootlegging gangs seeking control of illegal alcohol distribution during prohibition. While it didn't stop the gangs from using primarily the Thompson submachine gun as a negotiating tool, it did look good to the masses in newspaper headlines. Government has a habit of using the media to further its cause when no solution is available. I have no objection to registration of fully automatic weapons.

Practical use of a fully automatic weapon by a private citizen is about as realistic as using a Ferrari to off-road race, but both are allowed under current laws. My question was, and still is, what is the degree our government, using 4tl8ford as a representative of government enforcement service in his viewpoint, is prepared to go to in taking care of what it considers our ability to decide between what we want and what will be allowed? Practical is not a definition to be misconstrued as personal freedoms.

 

"Fully automatic can be damd good in CQB." OK. Lets review. Combat, thats a can of worms that does not need to be opened, IE "currently in". Next, I have been instructing soldiers in the art of CQB for at least 12 years now. In fact, my team built the CQB facility at Makua Valley, in Hawaii, in 1991. CQB is about precision, planned reaction, order and control. Not everyone in a room is the enemy......So spraying on fully automatic is just WRONG.

Hereth, ended the lesson. [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh, I see, so the old toss in a granade, then two through the door is out of vouge now? Everybody in the bunkers we cleared in Kuwait was the enemy, since the M16A2's 3 round burst was a bit slow, AKMs and firing port weapons form our Bradleys got used a lot. I was not a cop. My guys did not go in to rescue anybody. But I'm retired now, do it your way.

Also I still don't see a reason why anybody "needs" a V8.

 

I could not efficiently pull my camper and boat in tandem without a powerful engine. But my engine is not designed to kill anyone either.

What do bunkers have to do with CQB in an urban area. Common sense tells us that a bunker is a MILITARY target. Going from room to room in an appartment building, or office building in an urban setting is very different than assaulting a bunker or bunker complex.

We cannot confuse CQB in an urban setting with engaging a bunker or bunker complex.

If I remember right, In Iraq and Quwait, all the bunkers we delt with were in the open and on the outskirts of towns. Yes I agree. In that case we operated the same as your unit. We used our A2's not the firing port weapons. We were short of firing port weapons.

 

anything about CQB in an urban area. Again I am not and never have been a cop. I was a career infantryman. By the time you start sending me and mine in, we are not going in to arrest anyone, rescue anyone and take very few POWs. I was never trained as a peace keeper and would have made a bad one. But as you said, a can of worms.

The engine you use to pull your camper and boat (more things you don't really "need") be it gas or disel evolved from a military design thet was ment to cause the death of people. Since 1934 there has been one legal FA weapon used to commit a murder, it was owned by a police officer. For something that was designed to do nothing but kill people, they appear to have an excellent safty record. How many people have been killed in trucks that were never intended to kill people?

 

"Gandhi and his followers were able to overcome well armed tyranny with no weapons at all. "


A couple of quotes for you, first off.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."-- .MAHATMA GANDHI


"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall." -- ADOLPH HITLER


All of the people are part of a "well regulated militia". Well regulated means that "the people" are equipped well to be able to battle the troops of a foreign or domestic enemy. Well regulated doesn't necessarily mean well controlled or restricted. To regulate, one makes sure that all is functioning well and that fully auto and even larger weapons must be regulated among the people, in order to be as strong as an opposing force. We have the right, no ...the duty... to overthrow a government that has become too strong, distrustful of or invasive of its own citizens.

And in order to be strong enough to do so, there should be a percentage of the "general public" that owns these weapons. Your comment about taking on an army is kind of ridiculous in itself..... how many million gun owners in the US? How many military troops? I agree that a single shot is a great one shot one kill thing... but there is a time and a need for everything.

No, I'm not a "bunker boy", as you so insultingly put it. I don't worry probably enough about what is going on around me. I do carry concealed for self defense and I pray to God that I never have to use that right. I don't trot around in camos and look over my shoulder every day. I don't even have a bunker.

It isn't a matter of "need" all the time. But the "need" still remains. Look at all the disarmed countries you see in Europe and the middle east. The civilians there have a grand ole time protesting and fighting their corrupt governments..... by throwing rocks at them. Blah at your request for proof of need. God gave us all a "right" to defend ourselves, from whom ever necessary and by whatever means. That "right" is not negotiable.

Now, I know you will respond, again, saying BS, we could never defeat an army.... but I think we could. Guerrilla warfare, one shot one kill, and the right weaponry for the appropriate battle... yea.. we, in order to maintain a free nation, have a need. A government that fears its people is a good government.

End of my part of the discussion.