If you take the time to get a license, you can buy a fully automatic firearm, and a silencer. I have absolutely no reason to want or need one at this time. I can't imagine needing one outside of law enforcement purposes. Outside of not disturbing neighbors, what other uses are there for them?
I think that most people her would agree that legally bought firearms are not likely to be used illegally and I presume that it would be the same for FA and silenced firearms. But really, is there that big of a need for a reduced sound?
If I have to shoot someone to protect myself I want the world to know so everyone can come help me. I also want a firearm with a low enough firing rate to control properly.
You cant control a MAC-10 FA with a kajilion rounds in the mag. Do you want someone carrying that concealed in a restaurant while you are with your family and a gangster flourishes a weapon prompting them to empty their magazine "legally." Its a little easier to control a 7000 lb SUV at 70 mph.
EDIT: I would like to point out that I carry concealed and I am an advocate for everyone who can to get a license to carry/own lethal weapons. It is our right to protect ourselves, but there are some things I don't think need to be carried around by the general public like a Glock 18 or an UZI.
N Sperlo wrote:
If you take the time to get a license, you can buy a fully automatic firearm, and a silencer. I have absolutely no reason to want or need one at this time. I can't imagine needing one outside of law enforcement purposes. Outside of not disturbing neighbors, what other uses are there for them?
I think that most people her would agree that legally bought firearms are not likely to be used illegally and I presume that it would be the same for FA and silenced firearms. But really, is there that big of a need for a reduced sound?
If I have to shoot someone to protect myself I want the world to know so everyone can come help me. I also want a firearm with a low enough firing rate to control properly.
You cant control a MAC-10 FA with a kajilion rounds in the mag. Do you want someone carrying that concealed in a restaurant while you are with your family and a gangster flourishes a weapon prompting them to empty their magazine "legally." Its a little easier to control a 7000 lb SUV at 70 mph.
EDIT: I would like to point out that I carry concealed and I am an advocate for everyone who can to get a license to carry/own lethal weapons. It is our right to protect ourselves, but there are some things I don't think need to be carried around by the general public like a Glock 18 or an UZI.
And like I pointed out earlier, the ATF can search your house at any time, without any warning, if you own a FA weapon, and change the rules about owning them and storing them and they don't have to tell you.
This is what honestly disgusted me about so many people. Everyone is ok with banning and regulating firearms because of what might happen. When there are things like cars that DO kill more people every year than all firearms related deaths. It's so stupid and hypocritical.
About silencers, what if I want to put one on my rifle for home defense? Or should I have to risk losing my hearing forever to protect my family? And as I said earlier, WHY DO I HAVE TO HAVE A REASON TO OWN SOMETHING.
Why do you need a manual car, or a car with a turbo, or that can break the speed limit? You obviously just want to speed, put peoples lives in danger, and run away from the police. This is the exact same thoughts just applied about cars, and I guarantee if anyone started talking about that you would all be up in arms.
I guess I'm one of the few people that has a problem with something being so tightly regulated when there's no history of them being used for illegal purpose, AND when the laws the regulate them were never actually passed in Congress.
Drewsifer wrote:
About silencers, what if I want to put one on my rifle for home defense? Or should I have to risk losing my hearing forever to protect my family? And as I said earlier, WHY DO I HAVE TO HAVE A REASON TO OWN SOMETHING.
How often do people break into your house? Hearing damage is caused by repetitive exposure to loud noises. If people break into your house that often, may I suggest moving?
The legal weapons are rarely used illegally. I doubt that if they were legal they would be used illegally. Its the legal use that is dangerous if it is in a manner of self defense. (Speaking of FA weapons.)
N Sperlo wrote:
How often do people break into your house? Hearing damage is caused by repetitive exposure to loud noises. If people break into your house that often, may I suggest moving?
Wrong. Tinnitus can happen after a single time of not wearing ear protection.
http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/education/information-center/noise-induced-hearing-loss/
I'll even quote the exact part
A clap of thunder from a nearby storm (120 dB) or a gunshot (140-190 dB, depending on weapon), can both cause immediate damage.
N Sperlo said:
Its the legal use that is dangerous if it is in a manner of self defense. (Speaking of FA weapons.)
What makes you think people would start carrying FA weapons for self defense, or even use them in self defense? Do you have any evidence to support these fears? I'm guessing not.
As for tinnitus, I know people who have been harmed by extended and limited exposure. Actually one was a lightning strike.
It is not legal to carry weapons, but if it was easier to own then, my bet is, someone would try. Three or so years ago, a young boy tried firing a FA firearm at a gun show. It climbed and he shot himself in the head. He did not survive. There is a video on youtube of an adult firing a Glock 18 and before he can halt the action he had three new holes in his hand.
Not to say smarts can prevent these problems, but anyone who watches COPS knows, there are prefect examples out there of those who are lacking that.
Really I still doubt that whatever home defense rifle you use, unless it is .50 caliber, will cause immediate damage to your hearing, but I'm pretty sure you have figured out that I'm not signing that petition.
The democrats have already shown interest in expanding our gun rights. In fact, one of the first bills President Obama signed, expanded our gun rights. You're obviously a gun rights activist, so I'm sure you recognized our president for that.
BoostedBrandon wrote:
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.
Guns don't kill people, husbands who come home early do.
I am pretty sure a petition isn't going to change the position of the white house.
In reply to Otto Maddox:
I haven't read on the current opinion of the white house. Most people just assume they are anti-gun because the president is from Illinois.
Drewsifer wrote:
N Sperlo wrote:
How often do people break into your house? Hearing damage is caused by repetitive exposure to loud noises. If people break into your house that often, may I suggest moving?
Wrong. Tinnitus can happen after a single time of not wearing ear protection.
http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/education/information-center/noise-induced-hearing-loss/
I'll even quote the exact part
A clap of thunder from a nearby storm (120 dB) or a gunshot (140-190 dB, depending on weapon), can both cause immediate damage.
N Sperlo said:
Its the legal use that is dangerous if it is in a manner of self defense. (Speaking of FA weapons.)
What makes you think people would start carrying FA weapons for self defense, or even use them in self defense? Do you have any evidence to support these fears? I'm guessing not.
Do you have any evidence showing otherwise? I probably would want to carry a machine pistol if I could...
Joey
I thought it over, but while messing around on the website, I found a lot of better petitions. Here is one -
Release all known beneficial information regarding cannabis (hemp, marijuana) and its derivatives.
Surely there is a line somewhere on the right to bear arms spectrum. Some kind of weaponry needs to be illegal, right? Can I have a cannon that shoots small nuclear bombs? That has to be over the line, right?
In reply to Otto Maddox:
I've never used, but I support that one. I wont use then either. Until then, its illegal and since my job is in enforcement, I'll enforce the law.
What I would rather see than any of these is a federal CCW program.
gamby
SuperDork
10/10/11 10:31 a.m.
mad_machine wrote:
personally, I see NO need for a fully automatic weapon.
Yeah, I'll never understand that one. It's a war weapon, so I don't understand why someone would need one in the real world other than to live out some Walter Mitty/John Wayne fantasy.
Inevitably, that turns to "well, no one really needs a fast car". Well, I'm not asking to drive an F1 car on the roads.
mad_machine wrote:
personally, I see NO need for a fully automatic weapon.
What will you use to fight the government when they come for your fatty foods if not fully automatic weapons? I am ordering up an Apache helo because you can never really be safe enough. Plus, it will be a hoot at the range.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
Why not step it up to the ole AC130 gunship?
N Sperlo wrote:
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
Why not step it up to the ole AC130 gunship?
Can't. I need vertical lift-off. My development would never be able to support a runway and the jump jets are too hard to fly. The Apache is a compromised solution for sure but I'll have to make due.
I live on a pretty wide street. I'll take there gunship.
Drewsifer wrote:
...And as I said earlier, WHY DO I HAVE TO HAVE A REASON TO OWN SOMETHING...
That's EXACTLY WHAT I TELL ANYONE WHEN THEY ASK ME ABOUT MY NERVE GAS COLLECTION!!!
(for some reason I have to yell it at them also)
Strizzo
SuperDork
10/10/11 12:57 p.m.
curtis73 wrote:
My thought is this: Cars kill way more people than guns. You can get a car and drive it (with a license and insurance), and if you kill someone with it you might lose your license.
I don't think I have a right to own a gun because of any amendment, I have a right to own a gun because I haven't committed any gun crimes. If you're going to give people a license to drive a 7000-lb SUV at 70mph based on whether or not they can use their turn signal in a 5-minute driving test, I don't see any reason why we can't buy an Uzi with a silencer and 100-round clip.
The legislation gives people a license to drive until they prove that they are incompetent at driving... and how often does that actually happen? Why can't it be the same for guns? They're less lethal than cars.
persons who have been convicted of any felony or domestic abuse charge are not legally allowed to buy/own guns
aircooled wrote:
Drewsifer wrote:
...And as I said earlier, WHY DO I HAVE TO HAVE A REASON TO OWN SOMETHING...
That's EXACTLY WHAT I TELL ANYONE WHEN THEY ASK ME ABOUT MY NERVE GAS COLLECTION!!!
(for some reason I have to yell it at them also)
I'll show you how to make heavy water if you give me a few cans.
Rufledt
HalfDork
10/10/11 1:03 p.m.
N Sperlo wrote:
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
Why not step it up to the ole AC130 gunship?
Where do I sign up?
I don't personally own any guns. I wouldn't mind having one, I just haven't gotten around to really wanting one enough to save up the money. I do have some of these, though:
I can make them myself from easy to acquire materials (the cheapest one I made from a $3 home depot maple board in a few hours with hand tools) and the best part is that the quiet shot doesn't attract any zombies. They are a bit hard to conceal and whip out to stop a mugging/oppresive governement (it didn't work in the past), and the reload time ain't great, but the arrows can be used to set zombies on fire.
Failing that, everyone should learn the magic of Atlatl technology, also known as throwing a big stick with another stick. if those become illegal, we're in BIG trouble.
gamby wrote:
mad_machine wrote:
personally, I see NO need for a fully automatic weapon.
Yeah, I'll never understand that one. It's a war weapon, so I don't understand
No, a FA weapon is a weapon that fires automatically. Full stop. Single shot and semi-automatic weapons are also used in military operations, so the "war weapon" doesn't actually fit. None of those are exclusive to the military- nor should they be. Because of the current laws, most people have never fired a FA weapon or one with a silencer and the only exposure to such items is in movies and video games. Of course you don't get it. Those situations have no basis in reality.
It's not surprising that so many people "don't understand" the appeal of Fa weapons. Many people don't understand the appeal of torque. It's fun - that's enough.
What I don't understand is why the desire to own a silencer, a FA weapon, or a Ford V8 must be justified to make it OK. The problem is most law makers have no idea what they are regulating. and if they "don't understand" either, then it must not be necessary.
Apis_Mellifera wrote:
...What I don't understand is why the desire to own a silencer, a FA weapon, or a Ford V8 must be justified to make it OK...
I agree, most people don't understand the pure joy of nerve agents. I mean really, this is fun stuff, who is to say I can't have it!
I read this and it gave me a headache.
I don't see the need to have fully automatic weapons as a regular citizen, but I should be able to own one if I want to.
However, I understand that since they got outgunned a few times, police forces are very, very worried about it happening again. This has led to the militarization of our police organizations and the restriction of firearms rights as private citizens.
The way I see it, that the general populace should be trained in the use of firearms, be allowed to carry one and be prepared to use it. Open carry should be the norm. That way, if some jack-a-napes with a weapon (fully auto or otherwise) decides to go on a murder binge, the people he is going to try to murder can shoot back. When specific individuals use their weapon in a situation that does not warrant the use of deadly force, they become criminals and should be dealt with as such.
An expert marksman with a bolt action rifle, a defensible position and a desire for malice can cause a whole lot a damage if they wanted to.
Rufledt wrote:
N Sperlo wrote:
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
Why not step it up to the ole AC130 gunship?
Where do I sign up?
I don't personally own any guns. I wouldn't mind having one, I just haven't gotten around to really wanting one enough to save up the money. I do have some of these, though:
I can make them myself from easy to acquire materials (the cheapest one I made from a $3 home depot maple board in a few hours with hand tools) and the best part is that the quiet shot doesn't attract any zombies. They are a bit hard to conceal and whip out to stop a mugging/oppresive governement (it didn't work in the past), and the reload time ain't great, but the arrows can be used to set zombies on fire.
Failing that, everyone should learn the magic of Atlatl technology, also known as throwing a big stick with another stick. if those become illegal, we're in BIG trouble.
The atl atl is illegal in Michigan, a game warden told me
