This place slowed down so lets talk about..

hybrid · 02-01-2007, 04:16 PM

why shouldnt the average citizen be allowed guns that have "burst" or full auto fire selection?

Isnt a gun that requires the squeeze of the trigger a little more accurate?

Its common knowledge that most people cant fucking hit shit with a semi automatic or any gun for that matter...........

Its common knowledge that full auto is for suppression fire.........its more about just lobbing lead at the enemy and hopping to out fire him than it is about precision shooting.

So if you have a guy that has to squeeze off 15 rounds manually........is he any less or more dangerous than a guy who burps off 30 in a second?

Im in favor of us having the rights to at least BURST fire..........but Id like to have full auto machine guns as well.

Discuss.

RugbyCanada · 02-01-2007, 04:17 PM

my ass burst fires after Taco Bell. Other than that, guns are for pussies.

Except when I'm hunting. Then there cool.

hybrid · 02-01-2007, 04:20 PM

your ass burst fires cause I reamed it.

Seriously...............you know if youre a hunter..........if you use automatic fire.......how many bullets actually hit the target? Maybe 10% on a still target.....less on a moving target.

Why shouldnt I have access to burst fire?

bumblebee · 02-01-2007, 04:26 PM

Full auto weapons were banned for civilian use because criminals used weapons like the M1918A2...the BAR...Talk about an awesome assualt rifle...

hybrid · 02-01-2007, 04:32 PM

Im aware of that.............the tommy gun and the like were the basis for the machine gun ban.

What I want to know is why a machine gun is any more dangerous than semi automatic pistol

With a machine gun dumping its "load" in a second or two..........the amount of direct and precise fire is far less than any semi auto weapon. A weapon being reloaded is not a threat..........

I mean, I can have a new barrett m107 10 round semi auto 50 cal rifle.........which is FAR more dangerous than say a M-16........

I dont know of any M-16s that can precisely kill at 2000 yards and be ready to fire immediately...........oh and penetrate most armor.

Choco · 02-01-2007, 04:33 PM

bonnie was clutch with the BAR

killernoodle · 02-01-2007, 04:46 PM

An automatic weapon is definitely more dangerous in the hands of a criminal than a semi auto one: If you actually use something like, say, an m249 correctly, bipod and all, you can fire accurately and have a devistating effect on just about anything. So if you were, say, robbing a bank and you were trying to escape, your buddy was driving the car and you were firing an m249 out the back window, you'd basically be an unstoppable cop killing machine.

And do people really need people riding around with Dillon Mini-Guns attached to their H2s?

I'm pro-gun, but automatic weapons should have some limitations as to capacity and should be approved on an individual basis.

On a side note, I just found this cool website:

Worlds smalles double action revolver:

Chambered for a 2.34mm round

RugbyCanada · 02-01-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hybrid

your ass burst fires cause I reamed it.

Seriously...............you know if youre a hunter..........if you use automatic fire.......how many bullets actually hit the target? Maybe 10% on a still target.....less on a moving target.

Why shouldnt I have access to burst fire?

no REAL hunter uses a fully automatic gun.

Why dont people have the right to fish with dynamite?

malik ross · 02-01-2007, 04:49 PM

the average citizen shouldn't have full auto weapons because they can't hit shit. the difference is 30 bullets scattered across the neighborhhood as opposed to 5 or 6 bullets.

thread hijack. the constitutions says we have the right to bear arms. its not very specific. most people who are against gun control use the constitution. my question is where is the line drawn? why can't the average citizen have a grenade laucher or surface to air missles or even nuclear weapons? don't we have the right, per the constitution?

malik ross · 02-01-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killernoodle

I'm pro-gun, but automatic weapons should have some limitations as to capacity and should be approved on an individual basis.

i'm not pro-gun or pro-gun control. i think there should be reasonable restrictions on the types of weapons available to the public and the amount of rounds a weapon should hold. the problem is my version of reasonable is different than someone elses and so on and so on. i see no problem with a citizen having a shotgun in thier house. i see no problem with a semi auto rifle either. i see no problem with a handgun. i look at that example as home protection, hunting/sport shooting, personal protection/sport shooting. 7 rounds for the shotty, 20 rounds for the semi and 12 for the handgun. can i see the want/desire for someoen to have more weapons or ammo? sure. i'm a reasonable guy. can i see the need for someone to have a full auto AK with a 120 round magazine? not so much but i wouldn't begrudge him/her.

the average person can't shot with a damn. when my mother had problems in her neighborhood i told her to get a shotgun. you don't have to do more than point in the general direction and pull and while there is plenty of stopping and knock down power you don't have to worry too much about the bullet traveling across the street and killing someone else. how is, "i was protecting myself." going to hold up in court when you missed the person robbing you but cut down 3 kids playing across the street.

DIS-TURBED · 02-01-2007, 05:11 PM

bah. they even go so far as to say no 30 round mags for semi auto
pistols. i see no logical reasoning.

hybrid · 02-01-2007, 05:41 PM

You can buy 29 round mags for any glock made...........50 dollars each.

I see what youre saying Malik.............Im on the side of why cant I have a full auto M-16...........a gun is a gun is a gun.

Id even be willing to agree that it should be something that people need to be checked on.

Little known fact is that you can buy "PRE-BAN" fully auto ak or ar..........all you have to do is buy the "stamp" for it and that requires nothing more than passing a background check and a couple hundred dollars.

If you have a preban ar15 with full auto.........you pay for a tax stamp, and if you want a silencer you pay for another stamp and if you want a bayonette lug you pay for another stamp.

Speaking of bayonettes................does anyone else find it absurd that its illegal to even have a lug for one on your rifle? What the fuck is a bayonette good for if people have weapons pointed at you...........the bayonette is only usefull as a last ditch effort to kill or be killed in close combat.

Grenades are classified as "weapons of mass destruction" and are touchy........but sure some people should be allowed to have them.

Hell the gub makes it so any civilian jet cant pass the sound barrier........you can by a civi version of the F5E tiger but its detuned so it cant break the sound barrier..........and its not outfitted with guns.

bush · 02-01-2007, 06:10 PM

I fail to see how a gun in the hands of a deranged idiot is any more dangerous than an automobile.

And we're all aware that there's enough deranged idiots on the streets to put us in danger every second of every day. But we're not banning citizend from owning automobiles.

If I want a fully auto AK-47 with a 50 round mag, I should be able to have it. The simple act of ownership does not encroach on the rights of somebody else. And god damn, a fully auto AK would be a blast at the range.

Now, if I were to use it in a manner that would violate your right to life, then my ability to own an automatic should be limited.