Should STY get a machine gun?

SmarterThanYou said:
really? I don't think so. 'assault' weapons were banned in britain because of one massacre. ONE. After that, it was felt that those weapons weren't 'needed'. kinda like you feeling that full auto's are not 'needed'.
.
Click to expand...
Then you made my point of post 137. Thanks. :good4u:
 
Southern Man said:
Then you made my point of post 137. Thanks. :good4u:
Click to expand...

i didn't deny your point. it's a good one. That's the problem with Americans today though. They are so afraid of losing rights, that they refuse to fight for them, even in the face of totalitarianism. we've become a nation of cowards. Britains problem now is that those folk have almost no weapons for the populace and are ruled by tyrant elitists. they didn't learn from their own history. Shall we make the same mistake?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i didn't deny your point. it's a good one. That's the problem with Americans today though. They are so afraid of losing rights, that they refuse to fight for them, even in the face of totalitarianism. we've become a nation of cowards. Britains problem now is that those folk have almost no weapons for the populace and are ruled by tyrant elitists. they didn't learn from their own history. Shall we make the same mistake?
Click to expand...
The fact is Sty is that we are moving forward in this country with gun rights. Its retarded to push too far, especially since there is no compelling need. If folks like you and Good Luck want to go to a range and experience the thrill of full auto weapons you are free to do so. I myself was invited to a "machine gun social" a few months back by a very conservative candidate. It turns out I had other plans but it would have been a hoot.
 
Southern Man said:
The fact is Sty is that we are moving forward in this country with gun rights. Its retarded to push too far, especially since there is no compelling need. If folks like you and Good Luck want to go to a range and experience the thrill of full auto weapons you are free to do so. I myself was invited to a "machine gun social" a few months back by a very conservative candidate. It turns out I had other plans but it would have been a hoot.
Click to expand...

I've trained with full autos as a marine. I don't consider them 'fun', but they can be great defense tools. As to furthering gun rights, yes we are moving forward. That doesn't mean we should stop or push harder. The main issue I have with full auto bans is that they aren't actually banned. You can still own one if it's already in the system and you can afford it. That makes it a weapon of the 'elite'. I have serious issue with that as well as it gives that standing army the advantage. One that the founders wanted to prevent.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I've trained with full autos as a marine. I don't consider them 'fun', but they can be great defense tools. As to furthering gun rights, yes we are moving forward. That doesn't mean we should stop or push harder. The main issue I have with full auto bans is that they aren't actually banned. You can still own one if it's already in the system and you can afford it. That makes it a weapon of the 'elite'. I have serious issue with that as well as it gives that standing army the advantage. One that the founders wanted to prevent.
Click to expand...
Again, based on the size of our population to the size of our all-volunteer armed forces IMO its a moot point.

I'll let you have the last word.
 
Southern Man said:
Right now The People don't need easy access to fully automatic weapons. That kook in CT who just killed 9 people would have probably killed a lot more if he had one, and then lots of folks would want to restrict all arms, pushing "the line" further back. The Right to bear arms is advancing nicely in this country at its current pace by legalization of concealed weapons. One event like in CT, or at the Virginia Tech campus a few years back, had the perpetrators had access to full auto weapons, would hurt the cause.
Click to expand...

That kook in CT went after specific targets and got them. Having a machinegun wouldn't have changed much.

The VATech might have gotten more, or he might not have. If we loosened the gun laws, the other people might have had guns as well. He would not have had several hours of unrestricted movement but might have been shot dead quickly.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, if the kook had full auto a lot more would be dead. And your British analogy is a weak one.
Click to expand...
Actually, studies show those claims to be inaccurate. Had "the kook" a full auto firearm he probably would have put more than half the rounds in the ceiling, run out of ammo sooner, and in the long run, done less harm. Full auto pistols are notoriously difficult to control. And I doubt he would have gotten far trying to carry a full auto rifle into the place. In fact, even if he had managed to control the firearm in full auto, he probably would have run out of ammo before he had swung it to his eighth victim. A 30 round clip does not last long in rock-n-roll, and the difficulty of controlling it forces one to move relatively slowly. If you ever have another chance to go to a machine gun rally, give it a shot - you'll find out that full auto is not the menace to crowds you think it is. You'll be too busy keeping it from jumping out of your hands to do much more than hang on desperately until it runs out of ammo. The scene of spraying back and forth rapidly while firing a full auto firearm only happens in the movies.

The fact is full auto firearms are mostly about making the enemy run for cover and keep their head down and that tends to interfere with their ability to shoot back at you, which is a highly desirable effect to achieve in combat. I HATE it when the fuckers shoot back.

Conversely, semi auto or even a revolver lets a shooter choose each target for each round and ends up doing more damage.
 
Southern Man said:
RThe Right to bear arms is advancing nicely in this country at its current pace by legalization of concealed weapons. One event like in CT, or at the Virginia Tech campus a few years back, had the perpetrators had access to full auto weapons, would hurt the cause.
Click to expand...
If you are saying this is not the correct time politically to advance the cause of public access to full auto firearms and other arms of the standing army soldier, I'd say you have a point. Our rights were eroded a step at a time, and the political reality is it will take a step-at-a-time approach to get them back peacefully.

But that is not what you have been saying - at least that is not the way you have been coming across. From previous posts, you don't WANT people to have access to full auto, and have thus far been practically quoting every liberal talking point on the issue to defend your stance.
 
Good Luck said:
If you are saying this is not the correct time politically to advance the cause of public access to full auto firearms and other arms of the standing army soldier, I'd say you have a point. Our rights were eroded a step at a time, and the political reality is it will take a step-at-a-time approach to get them back peacefully.

But that is not what you have been saying - at least that is not the way you have been coming across. From previous posts, you don't WANT people to have access to full auto, and have thus far been practically quoting every liberal talking point on the issue to defend your stance.
Click to expand...
You are not the first here to misrepresent my positions.
 
Southern Man said:
You are not the first here to misrepresent my positions.
Click to expand...
Misrepresent, or misinterpret? When a die-hard liberal like MidCan states the people do not NEED certain types of firearms and defends unconstitutional gun control laws based on that premise, how are we supposed to take your statement "we do not NEED full auto firearms."?

Now it seems to me you are saying "now is not a proper time politically to press that issue", which I can, in part, agree with. But that is NOT what you have been saying until the last couple posts.

You also argued, quite clearly, that access to things like full auto firearms was not intended in the 2nd Amendment because they could not have been anticipated. This argument, too, is straight out of the liberal anti-gun playbook. You even go so far to argue Coxe is not a founder and his writings had minimal impact on the times (an incorrect assessment as any historian knows) and try to maintain that Hamilton and Henry did not fully agree with Coxe. How did you EXPECT those statements to be read?

And finally, you argue that ffull auto firearms would be harmful to the issue based on what some cretin did with a firearm. How is that argument different than any other liberal anti-gun argument that gun control is necessary to control gun violence? How is that any different from the standard liberal argument that government has the right to limit MY freedom based on a small minority abusing their freedoms?

So, let's put it on the bottom line. Do you think the people should have the right to full auto firearms, and all the other implement s available to the common soldier of a standing army, ordo you not? Make it clear. No hiding behind whether it is a proper time to push the issue in the current political environment. Is it a right being improperly denied us or not?
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
Misrepresent, or misinterpret? When a die-hard liberal like MidCan states the people do not NEED certain types of firearms and defends unconstitutional gun control laws based on that premise, how are we supposed to take your statement "we do not NEED full auto firearms."?

Now it seems to me you are saying "now is not a proper time politically to press that issue", which I can, in part, agree with. But that is NOT what you have been saying until the last couple posts.

You also argued, quite clearly, that access to things like full auto firearms was not intended in the 2nd Amendment because they could not have been anticipated. This argument, too, is straight out of the liberal anti-gun playbook. You even go so far to argue Coxe is not a founder and his writings had minimal impact on the times (an incorrect assessment as any historian knows) and try to maintain that Hamilton and Henry did not fully agree with Coxe. How did you EXPECT those statements to be read?

And finally, you argue that ffull auto firearms would be harmful to the issue based on what some cretin did with a firearm. How is that argument different than any other liberal anti-gun argument that gun control is necessary to control gun violence? How is that any different from the standard liberal argument that government has the right to limit MY freedom based on a small minority abusing their freedoms?

So, let's put it on the bottom line. Do you think the people should have the right to full auto firearms, and all the other implement s available to the common soldier of a standing army, ordo you not? Make it clear. No hiding behind whether it is a proper time to push the issue in the current political environment. Is it a right being improperly denied us or not?
Click to expand...

Again, it is where to draw the line. If full auto were common in the streets, or necessary to subdue the military, then they should be freely available. I am simply being pragmatic.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, it is where to draw the line. If full auto were common in the streets, or necessary to subdue the military, then they should be freely available. I am simply being pragmatic.
Click to expand...
So answer the question - straight out. Should the people have access to full auto firearms or not? In short WHERE are you drawing your line against liberty?
 
Soul Searching for libs

This must be a trying times for the democratic big tent as they all figure out how to react to promnent dems talking about busting the unions and taking back pensions and seniority systems. Or them wanting to fire all the teachers and then rehire scabs and stuff.

What are democrats? Are they really pro working class? Or are they pro internationlist fascism?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I don't see a straw man. He's pointing out, quite rightfully, that you appear to believe that 'rights' must be justified by 'need'. So where do you draw that line to ensure that if a 'need' ever came about, the people could still exercise that 'right'?
Click to expand...
New weapons are being developed by the military all the time. That doesn't mean that should all be available at Wal-Mart.
 
Southern Man said:
New weapons are being developed by the military all the time. That doesn't mean that should all be available at Wal-Mart.
Click to expand...

and again, there's this little thing in the 2nd Amendment that says 'shall not be infringed'. If the government develops light sabres, they should be available to the general public. WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereign power of this country, not the government.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and again, there's this little thing in the 2nd Amendment that says 'shall not be infringed'. If the government develops light sabres, they should be available to the general public. WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereign power of this country, not the government.
Click to expand...
Yeah but we have nutsoids who would use WMDs or Dissolve-A-Matics just for the fun of it. I see that as an infringement on my right to live a peaceful existence.
 
Southern Man said:
Yeah but we have nutsoids who would use WMDs or Dissolve-A-Matics just for the fun of it. I see that as an infringement on my right to live a peaceful existence.
Click to expand...

And as soon as someone infringes on your rights they will (or should) be prosecuted.

Living in a free society is never a safe proposition.
 
Southern Man said:
Yeah but we have nutsoids who would use WMDs or Dissolve-A-Matics just for the fun of it. I see that as an infringement on my right to live a peaceful existence.
Click to expand...

this was, and is, the price of freedom that the founders envisioned. they left it up to us, as we the people, to police our own. as you are fond of saying, your right to swing your fist ends right before my nose. in other words, you consider your rights more important than anyone elses. we call this elitism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top