full auto, would you be for it? - Page 4 - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old 08-08-2019, 10:05 AM
Frank Vaccaro Frank Vaccaro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: S.W. Montana
Posts: 1,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
Just for funsies.

Discovered this price list a few years back, in the depths of the minutiae of gun room junk here.

Pre '86? I'm guessing late 1970s or early 1980s.

That's fun looking at.
__________________
U.S.A. RIDE FOR THE BRAND OR LEAVE!
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-08-2019, 03:45 PM
FNISHR FNISHR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Johnson City, Tennessee
Posts: 2,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoExpert View Post
I'm for repealing any laws that attempt to control human behavior. Such laws are always dismal failures. The only people who obey them are the people who don't need them.

I have never seen the words "freedom, except" in any of our founder's writings.

There are lots of people today who think we get our rights from the Constitution.

Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
Murder? Robbery? Practicing surgery without training? Embezzlement? Really?
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 08-08-2019, 05:23 PM
Mikey1911 Mikey1911 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Indiana
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by The War Wagon View Post
FOR.


And we should be allowed one of these in our backyards, too.





To keep rogue officials & their ilk, on the, "up & up."
Yeah, but it only has a 10-round magazine (i.e., warhead bus carrying 10 Mk21 MIRVs, each with a W-87 warhead yielding about 475 KT). Maybe it would have passed muster with “ICBM Control, Inc.” for the size of the “magazine”?

My father actually worked on the launch canisters for them, when he was a machinist for Westinghouse.
__________________
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Abraham Lincoln--First Inaugural Address--4 March 1861
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 08-08-2019, 08:13 PM
NoExpert NoExpert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 2,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by FNISHR View Post
Murder? Robbery? Practicing surgery without training? Embezzlement? Really?
Do you really think laws keep people from doing those things? Crime statistics certainly don't show that the laws work

Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
__________________
"If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists."

- Friedrich Hayek
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 08-08-2019, 11:00 PM
Jason D Jason D is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Keller, TX
Posts: 4,116
Criminals by definition, are criminals. They don't follow the written laws at all, and will always find a way to do bad things.

As for the OP's question.
I am for a person to have weapons on hand to protect themselves and others, that give them the firepower to meet and overwhelm a person intent on doing them harm.


So yes, I am for full auto. If a person wants an Abrams tank, I'd put my hand over my heart as the National Anthem plays in the background, bald eagles do a fly over, and shed a single tear for freedom. Cobra gunship? Yes! Anti aircraft gun? Damn right! Backpack nuke? Get two!
__________________
1911forum member #7
ACCEPT NOTHING LESS THAN FULL VICTORY!"
General Dwight D. Eisenhower June 6, 1944
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 08-09-2019, 09:16 AM
RandyP RandyP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Age: 71
Posts: 2,068
I am of the same mindset regarding full auto firearms as I am about big fishing boats. I don't want to deal with one but I DO want to have a buddy that has one - lol

Fortunately there is a gun shop about 90 minutes away in Indiana that rents many different FA firearms. You DO have to use their ammo. Great snicks & giggles for a short while to feed the need for speed with none of the Federal hassles.

Carried one in Vietnam and like anyone else who's done so, couldn't hit the inside of a barn from inside the barn when I switched to the rock-n-roll setting. lol
__________________
Several firearms in .22LR, .380ACP, 9mm, 7.62x25, 7.62 Nagant, .38/.357, 7.62x54R, .45ACP and .223. Lee reloading gear.

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 08-09-2019, 09:28 AM
Badd72 Badd72 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 134
I know people that I would not want them to have an automatic rifle. Personally I think it would be cool to shoot but buying ammo would get old and I think the novelty would wear off pretty quick.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 08-09-2019, 10:44 AM
NoExpert NoExpert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 2,764
Deciding what other people should or should not be allowed to do or what they should be allowed to possess is at the very heart of gun control, speech control, etc. It is both extremely arrogant and ignorant to decide that other people should be controlled.

Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
__________________
"If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists."

- Friedrich Hayek
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 08-09-2019, 11:23 AM
crasig crasig is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North Georgia Mountains
Posts: 2,082
I'd Sure want full auto weapons - IF there was a MOB chanting death threats outside my home - Like Senator Mitch McConnell has.
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 08-09-2019, 01:05 PM
RogueTS1 RogueTS1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Southeast TN
Posts: 331
I believe whole heartedly that the Hughes Amendment should be repealed. Full auto weapons should be available to the General Public as they once were. I would even support keeping the NFA paperwork in place as long as we could buy post '86 models. (I would prefer the NFA go away though)

Doing away with the NFA/Hughes Amendment would drastically reduce the price these items have been brought to demand. The prices for a $900.00 MP5 or Colt smg are ridiculous these days. I say this and I own more than a few Full autos.

In closing I say, the Founding Fathers intended for us to have the same weapons as the government to keep them in check and that is not the case these days. We need to get back to that.

PS: burst fire can be very accurate as well as effective with the right training.
__________________
Wounds of the flesh a surgeon's skill may heal but wounded honour is only cured with steel.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:14 PM
wv109323 wv109323 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Lenore, WV
Posts: 940
What would our founding fathers say to this question? Should the average citizen have a fully automatic firearm?
I think they would say yes because:
The 2nd Amendment allowed all current firearms/arms of that time to be owned by a citizen. That included cannons, blunderbusts(think sawed off shotguns),rifles smoothbores and handguns. With that said Thomas Jefferson realized the potential that a cannon could be pointed at Monticello. He also thought the citizen( himself) had the rights to own a cannon to point back.
The big difference between then and now is the human factor. The cowards and mentally ill that preform extreme violence today rely upon an attack where they have the advantage of surprise and destruction on their side. They pick gun free zones such as schools, nightclubs and malls where many people are concentrated in a small area. In Jefferson's time, there might be a duel where each party had as much to loose as to gain. This was a way to settle political issues and deadlocks.
Also we have far different methods to deal with mental illness. Before we institutionalized or kept them out of society. Today our treatment of the mentally ill is not what it should be.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 08-10-2019, 02:58 PM
Icecream Icecream is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 137
Yes and no. Its fun for a while to get the happy switch happy face but for actual use especially paying to feed it, its not that much fun.

Nothing like behind a 60 when I don't have to pay for the ammo.

But if I could walk into any gun shop and lay down the coin for a happy switch at current semi prices, I sure would as would everybody, mostly because, that's all that would be avail on the shelves due to demand. Ammo manufacturing would have the happiest face.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 08-11-2019, 11:15 AM
Jerry799 Jerry799 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Age: 70
Posts: 583
I've owned a number of Class 3 weapons over the years. Down to one SBR (a 1911 of course!), a couple of silencers and a Mini Uzi registered in .22/9/45. Easily the most versatile Class 3 ever made. I have the slow fire heavy bolt in 9mm, as well as the conversions for .45 & .22. The 9mm has the 3 lug barrel for a twist on Gemtech Raptor can. It's amazing how well the 9mm suppressor works on firing with the .22 conversion. For giggles I also bought the 72 rd. Vector 9mm drum too.

Accuracy is very good with all calibers. Trained shooters know to use trigger control to get great shot placement and to conserve ammo. Pulling doubles in any caliber is a snap, no 3 rd burst switch required. I did my homework on what free state to move to when I finally got sick & tired on the Marxist bull**** in New York. I've lived in the free state of Georgia for over 25 years and have loved the freedom every day since moving here.

The whole legal setup I own is obscenely expensive today, but I'd be even happier if the whole Class 3 registration disappeared and we were able to buy full auto weapons for the same cost as semi autos. In that case, losing the value of the setup I currently own wouldn't bother me in the least.

Last edited by Jerry799; 08-11-2019 at 11:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:31 PM
Rosco Shooter Rosco Shooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Michigan Woods
Age: 75
Posts: 191
Having shot M 14s and M 16s on full auto, I would not be in favor of them for civilian use. The main reason is every bullet you shoot has a lawyer attached to it.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:34 PM
Striker2237 Striker2237 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosco Shooter View Post
Having shot M 14s and M 16s on full auto, I would not be in favor of them for civilian use. The main reason is every bullet you shoot has a lawyer attached to it.
Here is a novel thought, actually practice and I don't know.......perhaps don't mag dump on a threat because you can?
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:52 PM
JerryM JerryM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 3,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoExpert View Post
Do you really think laws keep people from doing those things? Crime statistics certainly don't show that the laws work

Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
Yes, in some measure. While laws cannot change a person's depraved heart they can and do impact on thinking,and behaviour. For example, there are/were Indian tribes in the Amazon Jungles that were cannibals and headhunters. Someone raised in such tribes thought cannibalism was OK, but it is not OK.
In contrast, a person raised in our society does not think the same way. Youth raised in Nazi Germany had a different view on Jews.
I would submit that if we were raised there, without a Christian influence we might be no diffrent.

Law is an important teacher. We must, however, have laws that reflect our Constitution and Christian heritige.
Jerry
__________________
Proverbs 14:34 *śRighteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 08-11-2019, 09:48 PM
Jason D Jason D is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Keller, TX
Posts: 4,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosco Shooter View Post
Having shot M 14s and M 16s on full auto, I would not be in favor of them for civilian use. The main reason is every bullet you shoot has a lawyer attached to it.
This is why we fail. This is the type of comment that would come out of the mouth of someone that owned bolt action guns for hunting, and voted democrat in every election. You can apply that logic on a sliding scale for a good number of gun owners. I like to plink with my grandfathers .22, but am not in favor of AR15s. I like my duck gun, but am not in favor of suppressors.

I'm for the Second Amendment, but...

There are no buts! I mean zero. When you let something go, it's a slippery slope for others. 1934 saw the rise of the tax stamps from the Crown to exercise our Right to short barreled guns, and auto guns. 1968 was another unfavorable year that saw more of our Rights flushed.

1986 lead to no new auto weapons in our hands.

1994 we lost the Right to keep guns with certain cosmetic features, and magazines over 10 rounds. We were just lucky it had a sunset clause.

You are fully accountable for every round fired now, it matters little how fast the gun fires them. It's **** or get off the pot time people. The left will never rest, and never be satisfied with what items they got banned. Yesterday it was auto guns, today it's semi auto, tomorrow it will be your hunting gun under the guise of it being a sniper rifle, or a gun capable of cutting a man if half.

You cannot be a gun owner and be in favor of restrictions on certain guns because you don't like them.
__________________
1911forum member #7
ACCEPT NOTHING LESS THAN FULL VICTORY!"
General Dwight D. Eisenhower June 6, 1944

Last edited by Jason D; 08-12-2019 at 12:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:09 AM
wildphil wildphil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason D View Post
This is why we fail. This is the type of comment that would come out of the mouth of someone that owned bolt action guns for hunting, and voted democrat in every election. You can apply that logic on a sliding scale for a good number of gun owners. I like to plink with my grandfathers .22, but am not in favor of AR15s. I like my duck gun, but am not in favor of suppressors.

I'm for the Second Amendment, but...

There are no buts! I mean zero. When you let something go, it's a slippery slope for others. 1934 saw the rise of the tax stamps from the Crown to exercise our Right to short barreled guns, and auto guns. 1968 was another unfavorable year that saw more of our Rights flushed.

1986 lead to no new auto weapons in our hands.

1994 we lost the Right to keep guns with certain cosmetic features, and magazines over 10 rounds. We were just lucky it had a sunset clause.

You are fully accountable for every round fired now, it matters little how fast the gun fires them. It's **** or get off the pot time people. The left will never rest, and never be satisfied with what items they got banned. Yesterday it was auto guns, today it's semi auto, tomorrow it will be your hunting gun under the guise of it being a sniper rifle, or a gun capable of cutting a man if half.

You cannot be a gun owner and be in favor of restrictions on certain guns because you don't like them.
Well said.
__________________
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 08-12-2019, 07:40 AM
Kevin Rohrer's Avatar
Kevin Rohrer Kevin Rohrer is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Medina, Ohio USA
Posts: 2,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsk View Post
Aside from always wanting a full-auto M1 Thompson I don't think my collection would change much.
I had a 1928A1. It was ok at first, but then became pointless.
__________________
Member: Orange Gunsite Family, NRA-Life, and the American Legion.

Don't trust Cavery Grips/American Gripz. He WILL rip you off.
All my 1911s are in .45acp. Why? Because no one makes one in .46cal.--Me
The 9mm is a SD cartridge fit only for women and Europeans--Me
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:00 AM
NoExpert NoExpert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 2,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryM View Post
Yes, in some measure. While laws cannot change a person's depraved heart they can and do impact on thinking,and behaviour. For example, there are/were Indian tribes in the Amazon Jungles that were cannibals and headhunters. Someone raised in such tribes thought cannibalism was OK, but it is not OK.

In contrast, a person raised in our society does not think the same way. Youth raised in Nazi Germany had a different view on Jews.

I would submit that if we were raised there, without a Christian influence we might be no diffrent.



Law is an important teacher. We must, however, have laws that reflect our Constitution and Christian heritige.

Jerry
Thank you, Jerry, for providing some great examples. Laws are used by the lawmakers in attempts to control the actions of those with whom the lawmakers disagree.

Right and wrong should be taught at home. Laws are not about right and wrong, they are about legal and illegal - the state versus the individual.

If one needs laws to tell him how to behave, then he has no moral compass.


Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
__________________
"If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists."

- Friedrich Hayek
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:01 AM
drail drail is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15,154
It is incredible to me how many fudds we have on this forum.......
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:45 AM
Dddrees Dddrees is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason D View Post
This is why we fail. This is the type of comment that would come out of the mouth of someone that owned bolt action guns for hunting, and voted democrat in every election. You can apply that logic on a sliding scale for a good number of gun owners. I like to plink with my grandfathers .22, but am not in favor of AR15s. I like my duck gun, but am not in favor of suppressors.

I'm for the Second Amendment, but...

There are no buts! I mean zero. When you let something go, it's a slippery slope for others. 1934 saw the rise of the tax stamps from the Crown to exercise our Right to short barreled guns, and auto guns. 1968 was another unfavorable year that saw more of our Rights flushed.

1986 lead to no new auto weapons in our hands.

1994 we lost the Right to keep guns with certain cosmetic features, and magazines over 10 rounds. We were just lucky it had a sunset clause.

You are fully accountable for every round fired now, it matters little how fast the gun fires them. It's **** or get off the pot time people. The left will never rest, and never be satisfied with what items they got banned. Yesterday it was auto guns, today it's semi auto, tomorrow it will be your hunting gun under the guise of it being a sniper rifle, or a gun capable of cutting a man if half.

You cannot be a gun owner and be in favor of restrictions on certain guns because you don't like them.

Why, because you say so?

Sorry, but there are those out there who don't have to believe what you say is gospel.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:00 AM
TRSOtto TRSOtto is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dddrees View Post
Why, because you say so?

Sorry, but there are those out there who don't have to believe what you say is gospel.
Exactly.

And while there are plenty of law abiding gun owners who have every right to own whatever type of firearm they desire, and wouldn't hurt a fly if it walked across their dentures in the morning, one only needs to take a walk through Walmart or the local License Bureau and thank God Almighty that John Q. Public has minimal access to full auto weapons.

Sorry, there are those who just have no business handling a gun. Any gun. Period.
__________________
Ed Browns are the classy brunette on your arm at a cocktail party. Les Baers are the blonde nympho who goes with you to see Nugent in concert.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-12-2019, 02:34 PM
Jerry799 Jerry799 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Age: 70
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRSOtto View Post
Exactly.

And while there are plenty of law abiding gun owners who have every right to own whatever type of firearm they desire, and wouldn't hurt a fly if it walked across their dentures in the morning, one only needs to take a walk through Walmart or the local License Bureau and thank God Almighty that John Q. Public has minimal access to full auto weapons.

Sorry, there are those who just have no business handling a gun. Any gun. Period.
Agreed, but the real problem is...who gets to decide, and how do you prevent it from being weaponized and used to deny law abiding citizens their Rights? There are always dangers in people having "freedom", as freedom assumes people with a conscience and morals. With no shared conscience and morals, anarchy takes over. Ask the 100 million people killed by governments over the past century who denied their citizens the right to own arms for self defense.

Last edited by Jerry799; 08-12-2019 at 03:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-12-2019, 02:34 PM
JerryM JerryM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 3,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoExpert View Post
Thank you, Jerry, for providing some great examples. Laws are used by the lawmakers in attempts to control the actions of those with whom the lawmakers disagree.

Right and wrong should be taught at home. Laws are not about right and wrong, they are about legal and illegal - the state versus the individual.

If one needs laws to tell him how to behave, then he has no moral compass.


Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
From where does the moral compass come? Right and wrong should be taught across the whole nation; schools,laws, church.
Man does not have a natural correct moral compass. Who has the authority to establish right and wrong in the absolute? Only God has that authority, and this nation was established upon Judeo/Christian values, but we have departed from them.
That is what is natural with mankind who wants no restraints on himself.

Actually laws are used to try to insure that a society will be an orderly one.
Jerry
__________________
Proverbs 14:34 *śRighteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 PM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved