“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

a reply to: FyreByrd
Yeah, because I totally see the US Govt laying waste to US citizens on US soil in a Massive blast situation.

Now who is delusional.

originally posted by: starheart

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: starheart

Assuming you're talking about AK-47 semi-auto rifles and similar firearms that are NOT automatic, you should probably realize that these types of rifles are used commonly in the US for self defense in the home.

I am talking about the military-grade guns that a teenager used to kill ten to twenty childrens last year. For some reason, his mom had military guns in her house, and the teenager used them. That is what we're trying to ban. Even AK-47 rifles are completely unnecessary against burglars. A simple 1-shot manual hunting gun can do the trick. Or a Taser.

How many gun fights have you been in to make this determination?

You know so little about guns, how in the hell can you lecture anyone on the defensive use of them?

Say so the man who has an avatar holding a military-grade rifle. What are you gonna do? Put 30 bullets in the chest of a burglar? That's your idea of self-defense?

Starhart, an AK-47 shoots 7.62 NATO ammo. Arguably not a strong enough round for deer hunting. A hunting rifle like a 30 ought 6 would be more powerful inside 200 yards. Also, just like these hunting rifles you keep referencing they both fire one bullet per trigger pull. Also known as semi-automatic. For you to want me to shoot a burglar with a hunting rifle instead of an ak is like you saying stabbing an intruder with a ten inch blade is too much; I should use foot-long blades because they're safer

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So the solution is to give everyone machine guns, including those who are not yet criminals.

Could you please provide me with links and resources where anyone is trying to provide the general populace with machine guns. I will hold my breath so please hurry

originally posted by: starheart

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: starheart


Those weapons were not "military grade". They were civilian legal semi-automatic weapons that Adam Lanza stole from his mother that he murdered to get.

All right, then. Do you really need a semi-automatic gun to stop a burglar? More importantly, have YOU been in such a fight? If no, let me tell you that 1 shot, and you don't move for awhile. No need for 4 to 5 bullets.

You do realize that burglars work together, right? It's more common for two or three people to rob your house than for a lone robber. Don't forget about gang violence either. I guess you would want to defend yourself with a muzzleloader against a gang initiation?

originally posted by: swanne
Many ATSers are rubbing their hands at the prospect of putting these said hands unto heavy machine guns, like little children in front of water guns. “We need it”, they tell me. “We really do - it’s so that we can defend against the military." To such people I am here to show that your logic is full of holes.


I don't believe that you know the difference between a heavy machine gun and and a semi auto rifle.

You guys keep on citing the Second Amendment in the hope to justify this ammunophiliac madness. I saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having automatic weapons, I saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having bazooka at their home, I saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having a tank at their home, and I even saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having bombs.

The Second Amendment says "arms", I personally believe that means firearms and small cannons because that's what they had at the time it was written. I also believe that the "intent" of the amendment was to say the militia had the right to the same "arms" that the government (military) had access to. When you people throw tanks, bazookas, Apache attack helicopters missle's and other crazy stuff in the argument it just makes you look ignorant. Yeah, I am sure you can find people out there who think we should have those too but their ignorant also in my opinion. Those items are not "arms"


When the Second Amendment was drafted almost three centuries ago, guns were at the stage of revolvers and muskets. Limited quantity of bullets, and often slow to re-charge - basically, you had to think twice before shooting someone. Today one automatic gun can turn a peaceful school yard into a horror crime scene. Hundred of children were killed - why? Because someone went crazy with an automatic, most of which fire more than one bullet per seconds. That's more than one can do with a three-hundred years-old musket, I can tell you that.

What you say is true BUT, "Automatic firearms" are not used in crimes. There have been 2 (TWO) murders with automatic weapons in this country since 1968...2 murders in 46 years! Let me say that again.....2 murders in 46 years by automatic weapons! (FBI statistics, look it up)


Similarly, your argument implies that to protect themselves from the shooters, schoolchildren should all carry an equally dangerous automatic weapon than the shooter. To me this is not logic, it is a recipe for disaster.


Who has the argument that school children should carry an automatic weapon?!?!!? I have never seen ANYBODY who believes that a 5 year old should carry an automatic weapon, now your being ignorant. Should teachers be TRAINED and armed? Yes, I believe they should.



Additionally: you guys often claim that having military grade equipment at home will protect you from an ever-elusive FEMA invasion. Let me simply point out to you that if the military really wanted to kill you all, they would have done it long ago, using a special modern technology which we call the Bomb. In case you've never seen one in your life:

If you really think that an organized military will be scared by your machine guns, then I’m sorry but you live in a fairy tale. The minute a zone is declared hostile territory, they won't bother gently knocking at every wannabe-Rambo redneck's doors. If they judge the place too hostile, then they'll simply blast the place sky high.



Ok, your implying that they would just use a nuke on anyone they feel threatened. This shows me you know about as much about bombs and tactics as you know about firearms. You believe they would just irradiate the whole country to get rid of "trouble makers? Kinda defeats the purpose if they render the whole country unlivable don't ya think?



Now you understand why I conclude that in modern, everyday life, automatic guns are only a promise of death at worst, and a promise of chaos at best.

In the end, this "ammunophilia" will have profited but the same, old industries: the Big Corporations which are selling the guns and the bullets.

You are entitled to your opinion....even if it is mis-informed and wrong.

I personally love it when people spout off using wrong terminology, made up facts and argue with points that show they don't have the slightest idea what they are trying to promote. Makes them look ignorant and the other side more sensible.

Riffraff, you do realize that the 30-06 is a 7.62x63 round, right? The 7.62x39 of the AK could take down a deer just like the Mosin's 7.62x54r and the M14's 7.62x51.

Not trying to slam you but just thought there should be some clarification.

a reply to: riffraff

a reply to: riffraffThe ak-47 fires 7.62x39 Russian, not 7.62x51 N.A.T.O., they both work great on deer sized game, with the right bullet. 7.62 N.A.T.O. is quite a bit hotter than 7.62 Russian. Not to shot down your post, we are on the same side.

Feltrick and Chopperswolf are right, but Riffraff's message is still valid. Basically some people are advocating using more powerful cartridges for self defense, not realizing that despite not shooting as quickly, have the potential to cause way more collateral damage. That's why so many police departments are going with 5.56 ar-15s for their entry guns. 5.56 loses velocity a lot quicker than even 9mm after penetrating a hard object like a wall or door to the point of being safer indoors from a collateral damage perspective.

Every person has a right to defend themselves against threats to their personal safety, the safety of their family and property.

If history repeats itself, then be careful.

Be the Boy Scout: "Always be prepared".

IMHO, an armed society, is a polite one. When criminals and politicians that have their backs wield more rights and power than the law abiding citizen (read, not the crazy, uber-violent skin-head types mentioned in the OP, then it's not only the *right*, but it's every citizens *duty* to prepare and protect themselves against what threats may arise.

One small example:

Supreme court ruled that police are *not* there for yours, mine or anyone else's protection. They are there to keep 'order'.
In the ruling, police are *not* required to put themselves in harms way to protect myself, you or anyone else.

Besides, police are called *after* there's a problem. They are reactive at best, and cannot be everywhere, all the time even if they *were* required to protect our personal safety.

I hope that I never need to use my firearms to protect my life or the lives of my family members in a deadly way. But if it's between my life, or one of my family members lives (or friends) - we aren't the ones breaking the law, it's the criminals and I have the right to defend myself *with* a firearm (should be of my choosing) with deadly force if needed.

I don't care if you don't agree, you don't need to. But do us all a favor; for all those who don't like guns, just don't buy or use them. Let those of us who care about not only our own rights and personal safety but yours as well, prepare for the day *if* its' ever needed.

Our rights trump yours or anyone else's preferences.

Closing thought: If you don't believe in rights for those whom you disagree with, do you really believe in rights at all?

If there were no second amendment, there wouldn't be anything telling anyone what they could and couldn't have. Personally, I don't think I need someone else's contract to tell me what objects I can own. If tanks exist, and I want to have one, what natural law is there that says I can't have it?

The constitution does not guarantee freedom, it only describes what freedom is, and it is extremely limited in it's scope. If the press is free, why does the press wear press badges? If speech is free, why do people get fired for what they might post on facebook? If the right to assemble peaceably is free, then why can you do it in one place and not another?

Freedom is conditional, and the conditions are set by those who 'provide' you the freedom. People's ideas of what freedom and liberty mean have conformed to the ideas set forth by the providers.

The constitution begins with "We The People." Unfortunately, this is the most important and overlooked idea that the constitution provides. Don't like the brand of freedom you are allowed to have? DO SOMETHING!

Whether someone has an AR-15 in their closet is irrelevant to freedom. It is only relevant to the Constitution, and people's ideas about what it says. More than that, this argument about gun control is about fear. The reason that people are 'up in arms' about it is because they've been trained to be up in arms about it.

Is it wrong to think that automatic weapons are bad? No it isn't. But they exist, and nothing can be done to make them not exist. Guns have the right to exist. But gun control advocates don't have the right to say what objects another person may own, regardless of purpose or intent.

If you say take away the guns, you limit freedom. If you say everyone should have a gun, you limit freedom. If you say, sure, you can have a gun if you want one, and you can do whatever you want with your own genitalia, you can pray in the mosque, or the temple, or the church, or not at all, if you want to stare into the sun until you're blind, go ahead you're free! That's the way.

The result of such freedom is anarchy, the most natural form of governance there is.

originally posted by: chopperswolf
a reply to: riffraffThe ak-47 fires 7.62x39 Russian, not 7.62x51 N.A.T.O., they both work great on deer sized game, with the right bullet. 7.62 N.A.T.O. is quite a bit hotter than 7.62 Russian. Not to shot down your post, we are on the same side.

Yeah I was going off of memory and got my numbers mixed up. Thanks for the clarification!

originally posted by: Galvatron


Regardless of what they think, the law isn't on their side regarding that

Don't look at me, tell that to the man who posted this just below your own reply:

originally posted by: seabag
It does apply to those!!

Always has!!

People do think that the Second amendment applies also to heavy machine guns and tanks, and the count on act on it. IMO it is important what they think, because this mean they may break the law even though they don't even know it.

Galvatron, definitely agree with your statement on the 5.56! I'd hate to have to fire my Mosin indoors to stop a home invader. That round would wind up in the next town over and I probably would lose my hearing to boot!

The AR, when set up correctly, is a heck of a home defense weapon. People just don't think sometimes...

a reply to: Galvatron

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So the solution is to give everyone machine guns, including those who are not yet criminals.

Could you please provide me with links and resources where anyone is trying to provide the general populace with machine guns. I will hold my breath so please hurry

Where did you live last days? It's all over ATS: people are requesting that machine guns and tanks be made legal in households. Why do you think I made the thread? 'cause I got bored?

a reply to: swanne

The only law against the having a machine gun is you have to follow the correct process.

So how would this be concerning. Shouldn't you be more concerned about people acquiring them illegally?

I've never understood the cerebral disconnect with people being more worried about those following the law. Then those who acquire guns by nefarious means....

Does not compute

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

A gun is okay to defend a family. That's not the OP point. But a tank? And a bazooka? A bomb? I think that's just going too far, and not knowing when to stop.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
So how would this be concerning. Shouldn't you be more concerned about people acquiring them illegally?

There are many ass*oles who can acquire thing legally. Legality is not a guarantee of the sanity of the one behind the trigger. Or the gun owner's drunken friends. Or kids.

Although legality of ownership does help, it's not the cure. Just a few seconds of thoughts is needed to see why.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: FyreByrd
Yeah, because I totally see the US Govt laying waste to US citizens on US soil in a Massive blast situation.

Now who is delusional.

You believe that US Military is incapable of harming citizens, yet you claim that all citizens must defend against the military invasion. Isn't this a wee bit contradictory?

originally posted by: swanne
...
People do think that the Second amendment applies also to heavy machine guns and tanks, and the count on act on it. IMO it is important what they think, because this mean they may break the law even though they don't even know it.
...

Did you miss my post that deals with your entire thread. I'm sure you would have replied had you seen it. Top of page 6?

a reply to: swanne

I said lay waste to a large area.

You have tried to turn it into something that was not stated.

Try again??