Should fully auto guns be legal?

[Son of Detroit]

This is one facet when in a gun control argument that I really don't have a solid argument for.

Since the 2nd amendment was put in to protect us from a tyrannical government, shouldn't we as the civilians be able to carry the same gun that the common foot soldier carries? As in a fully automatic type gun?

How can you argue that fully-auto guns should be illegal if you truly believe that the purpose of the 2nd was to be prepared for a revolt against the military/government?

One thing that has been bugging me.

[Kotin]

of course they should be legal..


"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"


right now only criminals have access to them for the most part.. its ridiculous.

[Uriel999]

Full auto should be legal

[torchbearer]

yes.

[Son of Detroit]

Now how can you argue this without being looked at as a nut?

:)

[pcosmar]

Now how can you argue this without being looked at as a nut?

:)

I look at anyone that supports Gun Control as a Nut or as and Enemy Of the People.

[TruthisTreason]

This is one facet when in a gun control argument that I really don't have a solid argument for.

Since the 2nd amendment was put in to protect us from a tyrannical government, shouldn't we as the civilians be able to carry the same gun that the common foot soldier carries? As in a fully automatic type gun?

How can you argue that fully-auto guns should be illegal if you truly believe that the purpose of the 2nd was to be prepared for a revolt against the military/government?

One thing that has been bugging me.

They are legal in Kentucky!:cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vno0OzOFZS0

[Deborah K]

Now how can you argue this without being looked at as a nut?

:)

People who would look at you as a nut don't understand the founders' intentions with the second amendment. If it is there for us to protect ourselves against a tyrannical gov't. then shouldn't we have the weaponry needed to do that? Does anyone really believe we could fight off a military battalion (foreign or otherwise) with 22s and 38s??

[johnrocks]

yes they should be able to.

[Texan4Life]

technically full auto is still legal in many states.... its just only criminals and a few select rich can get them.

[Chosen]

Full Autos are legal. The oppression comes from the measures they use to restrict ownership.

There is a ban on purchasing new full auto weapons, you must pay for a special tax stamp, you have to be registered in many places and the market prices have been intentionally affected to make the cost of such a firearm out of the reach of most people.

[Kludge]

All weapons of every kind should be legal. Once they are used to aggress (outside of reasonable self-defense), then that action is unethical and others would be within their rights to, at least, forcefully disarm the aggressor.

[pcosmar]

People who would look at you as a nut don't understand the founders' intentions with the second amendment. If it is there for us to protect ourselves against a tyrannical gov't. then shouldn't we have the weaponry needed to do that? Does anyone really believe we could fight off a military battalion (foreign or otherwise) with 22s and 38s??

Not all at once. but one or two at a time. ;)

[GBurr]

Of course they should be legal.

[Gideon]

In accordance with BoR Article 2, access to FA is a guarantee.

However, due to "existing laws" and tyrannical restrictions, FA is not economically feasible for most folks, and quite frankly, not practical for any weaponry which was not designed and intended for sustained FA fire. The M-2, M-60 and M-249 are good examples of "publicly funded ammo burners."

According to U.S. Army standards, I am an expert machinegunner, but for the price and hassle of one M-60 and enough .308 to make it work properly, I can obtain literally ten AR-15s and enough ammo, mags and spare parts to keep them working properly.

Easy decision!

[SWATH]

Of course they should be legal, and they technically are in most states but they are heavily regulated at the Federal level, so much so that no more legal ones that can be owned by civilians can be made, they are federally banned de facto. This is why they are astronomically expensive but many many people still own them, they just gotta cough up the dough.



"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."


Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[FreedomFighter8008]

Yes. Any questions? Re-read the 2nd Amendment. You will find that it says nothing about what type of arms. It simply states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.

[brandon]

Now how can you argue this without being looked at as a nut?

:)

You really think people are going to be giving you condescending looks when you're holding this?

http://www.colt.com/mil/downloads/Colt_Automatic_Rifle_01.jpg

[torchbearer]

My screen res is 1600x1200 and i still can't see that photo.

[brandon]

My screen res is 1600x1200 and i still can't see that photo.

lol yea same here. I found it in google image search and it didn't appear that big at the time.

[Gideon]

http://hchq.biz/mia_photos/car_01.jpg

[ghengis86]

yes, they should be legal, but as others have noted elsewhere, full auto is only good for supressive fire. Although quite handy in some situations, well placed shots are much more effective for the majority of engagements.

but full auto firearms would definitely make the government fear the people, which equates to liberty.

[ihsv]

Essentially, if the 2nd amendment is in place to help us preserve liberty in the face of a tyrannical government, then it stands to reason that the 2nd amendment intends for us to be at least as well armed as the government's enforcers.

[BillyDkid]

This is one facet when in a gun control argument that I really don't have a solid argument for.

Since the 2nd amendment was put in to protect us from a tyrannical government, shouldn't we as the civilians be able to carry the same gun that the common foot soldier carries? As in a fully automatic type gun?

How can you argue that fully-auto guns should be illegal if you truly believe that the purpose of the 2nd was to be prepared for a revolt against the military/government?

One thing that has been bugging me.The onus is on those who choose to pass restrictions on the right to bear arms to justify the restrictions and not for us to have to justify why we need any particular type of weapon.

[ghengis86]

The onus is on those who choose to pass restrictions on the right to bear arms to justify the restrictions and not for us to have to justify why we need any particular type of weapon.

+1776

sometimes i foget this; it should be the first thing to come out when someone asks why you need firearms of any sort.

[agentl074]

of course they should be legal..


"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"


right now only criminals have access to them for the most part.. its ridiculous.

+1 2nd amendment says why!

[Acala]

The onus is on those who choose to pass restrictions on the right to bear arms to justify the restrictions and not for us to have to justify why we need any particular type of weapon.

This is so critically important. In a free society, freedom is its own justification. That is the END of the analysis UNLESS those who want to curtail a particular freedom have a compelling reason for needing to do so in order to protect a GREATER freedom. Once you have been tricked into the opposite view - that each and every freedom, when attacked, must be justified - you have lost the battle. Freedom must be the default position or tyranny will be.

[Toureg89]

shouldn't we as the civilians be able to carry the same gun that the common foot soldier carries? As in a fully automatic type gun?

How can you argue that fully-auto guns should be illegal if you truly believe that the purpose of the 2nd was to be prepared for a revolt against the military/government.

1. not all soldiers carry fully auto weapons.

2. yes, they werent even illegal till the 1930s, when they were being used by boose runners to off eachother.

had the gov. not created a War on Alcohol, there would have been no morally wanting people to get powerful bootlegging alky, and then seek to keep that power by using the best firepower to maintain their positions.

and if citizens want to maintain their positions over the .gov, they need the best firepower.

[Toureg89]

I look at anyone that supports Gun Control as a Nut or as and Enemy Of the People.
+1

They are legal in Kentucky!:cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vno0OzOFZS0
yeah, that place is awesome

technically full auto is still legal in many states.... its just only criminals and a few select rich can get them.
exactly.

Full Autos are legal. The oppression comes from the measures they use to restrict ownership.

There is a ban on purchasing new full auto weapons, you must pay for a special tax stamp, you have to be registered in many places and the market prices have been intentionally affected to make the cost of such a firearm out of the reach of most people.
exactly, again

All weapons of every kind should be legal. Once they are used to aggress...disarm the aggressor.
the tool is not the problem, the people seeking to infringe on the natural rights of others, are the problem.

well placed shots are much more effective for the majority of engagements.
ding ding ding.