The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 18, 2008, 09:19 PM   #1
Lavid2002
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2007
Posts: 2,568
Why SHOULD people be allowed to own semi automatic firearms?

I was talking with a friend of my brothers who asked. Why should civilians be able to posess semi-automatic firearms.
Aside from a few answers. I basically blanked out. It was like a punch to the face. No matter how much ive learned about ballistics, or safety, or how to shoot etc...I forgot to study whats really important. I really need to bone up on our rights and the heritage of shooting. How do you feel about the subject? Especially this day and age I need to learn how I can protect my rights! Like many other people, I DO beleive im more than just a stubborn civilian clinging to my guns with no regard for the economy.
I am a teen shooter and would like to learn as much as possible.
Thanks
Dave
__________________
Math>Grammar
Lavid2002 is offline  
Old April 18, 2008, 09:34 PM   #2
WhyteP38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2005
Location: Behind a keyboard.
Posts: 1,565
Short answer: Because the 2A acknowledges that right. It mentions "arms," not swords, arrows, leather whips, clubs, or whatever. A firearm is a type of tool. A musket is one version of that type. An AR-15 is more effective and efficient than a musket, but it's still the same type of tool.

A cannon is a different type of tool known as "ordnance." The 2A doesn't give you a right to keep and bear ordnance.
WhyteP38 is offline  
Old April 18, 2008, 09:40 PM   #3
tadman
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2006
Posts: 8
Who says "they" are allowed to say what I can own?

FWIW I do not cede authority to any entity to determine what I am allowed to own or not to own.

I suggest you start by reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Don't relie on what others say, read them yourself, they are not hard to understand. These documents are are loaded with proscriptions on the actions of goverment and noteably absent are restrictions on individuals.
tadman is offline  
Old April 18, 2008, 09:41 PM   #4
armedtotheteeth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2005
Location: podunk, Texas
Posts: 1,610
It easier to shoot more with a SEMI auto! I like to apply to guns what has been done to cars. Should we drive around in 1930 Fords Model Ts because they where "sufficient"? Technology moves forward. Thats how it is. Of course more people will run from the Cops more in a sports car. They are more efficient. How many people run from the cops in a Ford Pinto? ( Probably none since they all blew up) I apply the same theory to guns. Of course more assaults are going to be done with Semis. Banning them would do nothing as the assualters would just use illegal guns anyhow. I know Im rambling. Im try to finish my thoughts so i can get up and grab another barley pop. Sorry, Ill go now.
armedtotheteeth is offline  
Old April 18, 2008, 09:47 PM   #5
MeekAndMild
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
Quote:
Why should civilians be able to posess semi-automatic firearms.
Some possible answers:

Since there are so many rapes in this country and half the people in the world seem to function entirely well without penii why should he be allowed to possess a penis? He needs to study this in context of the concept of prior restraint.

If semiautomatic guns are outlawed and all the decent folks turn theirs in just like happened in Australia...who will be left with semiautos? Does he think all the drug dealers and gang bangers will turn theirs in?

If semiautos are banned then what will stop criminals from just building their own like they do in England? Does he really want to fund the underworld with such an easily produced black market contraband?

Perhaps it might be better to turn the question around? What positive thing could be accomplished by banning them? Other than making the gun runners rich of course.
__________________
In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.
MeekAndMild is offline  
Old April 18, 2008, 10:05 PM   #6
Stiofan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2006
Location: Panhandle, Idaho
Posts: 714
Because the Constitution doesn't guarantee less rights to an American in 2008 than it did in 1908 when semi-automatics were just hitting their stride.
Stiofan is offline  
Old April 18, 2008, 10:11 PM   #7
Lavid2002
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2007
Posts: 2,568
Those were the reasons I had

Second admendment, and banning them wouldnt restrict their use on the streets.

Warning, meaningless rant begins here
VERY few crimes are commited by legal machine gun owners. Since they take the proper steps and obey the laws. But it seems whenever people on the daily show spit out, "I dont beleive civilians have a need for "assault" weapons such as your mac 10s or ak47s" The public applies ak47 to allah akbah and automatic weapon weilding terrorists. Saying anyone who wants that is evil! There have been very very very few registered ak-47s that have been converted to automatic. To make such aqusitions that banning the sell of ak47s because it appeals to the public and gets there vote, is assinine. Just because a select few people choose to use them for evil purposes doesnt mean everyone will. If this keeps up our casket will be nailed shut forever. But if banning the sell would truely keep innocent people from dying. Maybe our casket does need to be nailed shut. Sadly it wont though. Perhaps making the application process stricter is neccesary, rather than limiting the number of guns a certain individual can purchase at once. With modern regulations and punishments. There simply isnt someone who will put their life on the line(that much prison time) to purchase pistols and give sell them on the black market.
rant ends here
I dont even know where to start
__________________
Math>Grammar
Lavid2002 is offline  
Old April 18, 2008, 10:15 PM   #8
ndking1126
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Location: Madison, AL
Posts: 1,932
Because the government is supposed t be afraid of the people, not the other way around
ndking1126 is offline  
Old April 18, 2008, 10:55 PM   #9
TPAW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2005
Posts: 2,860
As long as your talking about semi-autos, New Yorkers listen up!

Quote:
Read and weep, our only hope is the Senate, stay on top of this! Call your political leaders and voice your opposition to these bills!.......

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=356366
TPAW is offline  
Old April 18, 2008, 11:20 PM   #10
armedtotheteeth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2005
Location: podunk, Texas
Posts: 1,610
WOW! New york Government have LOST THEIR DAMN MIND!! you gotta look at that new York crap. HOLY COW!! it would ban everything bigger than a 410 shotgun, (and they take them!!)require microstamping and and endless array of stuff just to make it more difficult and less appealing to shoot. WOW glad Im in Texas. Come and get them you wackoes!!!
armedtotheteeth is offline  
Old April 18, 2008, 11:31 PM   #11
Lavid2002
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2007
Posts: 2,568
NY is insane...

Thats madness....
__________________
Math>Grammar
Lavid2002 is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 12:03 AM   #12
DMK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2001
Location: Over the hills and far, far away
Posts: 3,206
Legal gun owning civilians should be able to arm themselves at least as well as any criminals could be. Unfortunately, by their very nature, criminals don't follow the law. So we could potentially be a bit behind the curve.

Legal gun owning civilians should also be able to arm themselves at least as well as any police would be. Do criminals normally attack police? Usually they attack everyday citizens, then the police are called in.

Hmm, why do you suppose criminals don't usually attack police?
__________________
- Homeland Security begins at home: Support your Second Amendment -
www.gunowners.org - www.saf.org - act.nraila.org - www.grnc.org
DMK is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 12:06 AM   #13
Scorch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: Washington state
Posts: 15,248
Next time your friends start asking why anyone is allowed to own weapons, ask them why anyone should be allowed to own a car that can go faster than the maximum speed limit. Or why people are allowed to keep prescription pills at home. Or why people are allowed to own or possess ANYTHING that could be misused. It is about personal responsibility. Our founding fathers felt that people should be responsible for their actions. If those actions harm others or harm society, the person should be punished individually for their individual infractions of laws, not society collectively punished because of the illegal actions of a few using the object mentioned. Can you imagine what happens when you start restricting or criminalizing object just because someone misuses it? No cars, because people drive drunk and kill people. No computers, because people use them to steal from unsuspecting people. No baseballs, because people have been injured by them. No lighters because people have been burned. The list is endless. The argument often used is "but why semiautos?", and I reply "what's the difference". The largest mass murder in American history was committed using an airplane as a weapon. Instead of taking weapons away from people, why not take away the threats they are trying to defend themselves against?
__________________
Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs.
But what do I know?
Summit Arms Services
Scorch is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 12:38 AM   #14
kozak6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 3,113
Why does he think civilians shouldn't have semiautos? Perhaps we could address his specific arguments.

If it's about rate of fire, point out that revolvers are every bit as fast, and that pump actions and lever actions are fast enough so that it doesn't make a significant difference. Heck, I think I can fire my Ithaca 37 quicker than I could a semiauto .

If it's about capacity, perhaps you could could compare the pellet count of shotgun shells in a pump action shotgun to the magazine capacity of submachineguns, and then there are also the edge cases, such as Remington's pump action that takes AR-15 magazines (including drum magazines?), and pump action AK's with drums.
kozak6 is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 12:46 AM   #15
MD_Willington
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2005
Location: SE WA State.
Posts: 563
Why should people be allowed to own sports cars or SUVs... :barf:
Same mentality...


BTW the Remi 7615 will take a beta c mag... but I wouldn't do it unless you want a really sore arm
MD_Willington is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 12:49 AM   #16
homefires
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 8, 2007
Location: Deming New Mexico
Posts: 1,495
BECAUSE I WANT TO AND IT IS WHAT I NEED. :barf:



"Heck, I think I can fire my Ithaca 37 quicker than I could a semiauto ." Owe man , I gave mine to my grand dad!








Thank You My Creator who ever you are, for leaving me with out a job, in a falling down mobile home, on five acres, in the middle of the New Mexico desert. You have No Idea How good you did.
homefires is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 12:57 AM   #17
theberettaman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2001
Location: N.E. Oklahoma
Posts: 496
Quote:
I was talking with a friend of my brothers who asked. Why should civilians be able to posess semi-automatic firearms.
Answer:"For the same reason you can ask stupid questions".

Seriously though,you can't talk to people like that.No answer will be good enough for them.They weren't asking to get a reasoned response,they were making a personal statement that civilians shouldn't own semi-auto weapons.It's their little passive-aggressive way of trying to make themselves feel superior.
theberettaman is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 01:14 AM   #18
homefires
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 8, 2007
Location: Deming New Mexico
Posts: 1,495
Civilian? If your called up are you a civilian?



The Militia is alive!


Tin Foil hat set aside!
homefires is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 01:56 AM   #19
Yithian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
I was talking with a friend of my brothers who asked. Why should civilians be able to posess semi-automatic firearms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yithian
No tool has ever killed a human of its own will. (a weapon being a tool)
It makes for good reading in Stephen King novels, but it isn't reality.
People kill people. Accidentally or otherwise.

Outlawing a tool just removes a citizens ability to defend themselves from criminal acts.

Someone here said it better but...
Laws do not apply to criminals.
Because the shear nature of being a criminal is to ignore the law.
If he wants to live someplace where guns are illegal, he can move there.
If he was born and raised American, he can still move away.
We are here, with our Bill of Rights, and no Pansie is going to remove those rights from me because he's scared.
__________________
Pondering the differences, terminally, between the V-Max and the A-Max.
Yithian is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 02:26 AM   #20
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Why should civilians be able to possess semi-automatic firearms?

There are two basic tacks you can take on this one. One (and the least likely to be understood by non-gun owners) is the fact that we, the people, are the unorganized militia. By law. It is an old law, but it is still on the books. All men, ages 18-45, except for certain government officials are the unorganized militia. Check your constitutional history, it is in there. That is your basic 2nd Amendment argument. True, and righteous, but not well understood (and often dismissed) by anti-gunners, and those leaning that way.

The other argument is a bit more basic. It boils down to the basic nature of man and freedom. Whenever they ask "why should" whatever be allowed, they are assuming someone else (usually govt) has the moral authority to determine what is best for the individual. One way to frustrate them is to use their own question against them, repeatedly. Because for everything you can think of, and ask "why should it be allowed" you can come up with a perfectly reasonable sounding answer why it shouldn't be allowed. For example,
"why should you be allowed to own a car?"
"I need it to get to work!"
"No, you don't. Take the bus"

The whole concept of what "should be allowed" assumes that we are neither adults nor free citizens. It presupposes that we are all mentally incompetent of deciding for our selves what we should have, and what we should not.

Ask them why they should be allowed to have a job that pays more than minimum wage. Or a house. Or read a book (assuming they can), or, more constitutionally, why they should be allowed freedom of speech. Or religion.
Or why they should be allowed to have children. Or marry who they wish.
Or vote for the candidate of their choice. Pick anything and everything. Pick something they like to do. And be sure to also pick something that has a personal value for them.
Ask them why they should be allowed to do anything besides pay taxes and die!

IF they are somewhat intelligent, they may come back with the argument about the benefits to society of certain dangerous things being banned, like certain (illegal) drugs. And you may reply "oh, like Prohibition?", or you can go with the argument about how illegal drugs in the US are legal in Europe (where basically guns are not legal) or any number of other approaches, but it boils down to who has the right to make choices for you, you? or someone else? The bottom line is that it isn't about what is the right choice for you, it is about whether you get to make the choice. When you give anyone (especially some government bureaucrat) the moral authority to make choices for you, they will take it. And you will never get it back. And your children won't even have that much. They won't even be allowed to give up their right to choose, because by giving up yours, you have taken theirs from them.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. I care not what course others may take, but as for me, semi-automatics fall under the "pursuit of happiness", as does all other physical property.

After the part about not quartering soldiers in people's homes, the most ignored part of the US Constitution reads "shall not be infringed."!!!!!

Or you could take the (emotionally satisfying) Low Road, and when they ask,
"Why should civilians be allowed to posess semi-automatic firearms?"
Look 'em in the eye and ask "Why should someone as ignorant of history as you are be allowed to keep breathing?"
"Does the word Holocaust mean anything to ya?"

I wouldn't take that approach (at least not without removing the implied threat), but oh, it is tempting sometimes.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 02:33 AM   #21
mellow_c
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,862
This is why

One of my Uncles told me he thinks all hand guns should be outlawed. I should have asked him if he would like to add baseball bats, axes, hatchets, knives, darts, spikes, spears, swords, bottles, can openers, pens, pencils, and rocks to that list. People like to play with things. As long as they do it safely, there is no problem. Anyone can murder anyone else with anything.

If Americans were to turn in all their semi automatic firearms, what do you think would be next? Pump and lever action's, then after that, they would just take all our guns, and we'd no longer be America. We'd be a country of slaves. Freedom is a great and wonderful thing. and The Government and alot of the American people have been willingly chipping away at our Freedoms to add to the illusion of safety. I mean for God's sake, just look at the new mandatory seat belt law. Thats my choice if I want to risk dying in a car accident, not the Governments. But they think they need to protect us from our selves. And most people think the Government needs to protect us from other people. No one seams to understand the idea of protecting our selves from the Government And/Or other people.

I've read many places before that the Police have no legal responsibility to protect someone from a crime in progress. They have the option to if they would like. But they dont have to. And even if they decided to try and save you from a guy with a knife (which they probably would) they will usually not be there in time to do so. So, what are you gona do. Hope that your not scared and that you are a better fighter than the guy with the knife? Or do you want the option to have a real and legal means of protecting yourself.

People always have this idea that if everyone caries a gun that there will be shoot outs going on all the time. This is obviously not true since there are not shoot outs all the time, and anyone who qualifies can already carry a gun. (Besides, most of the shoot outs that I have heard of in my life time have not been shoot outs at all, they have been one sided massicers that have taken place in "GUN FREE" zones) The only place there is to go is down. People voting away their own freedoms, and politicians telling them it will make them safer.

Criminals will always have guns, and if guns were outlawed, and you obey the law, then your already screwed. Imagine living in a world where only the government and criminals owned guns. We'd all be a bunch of sheep surrounded by wolves.

If by some amazing feat, the Government was able to collect mostly all of the guns from civilians AND criminals (over a long long time) the criminals would sill be happy, because they would have nothing to fear from the civilians. I heard that in Australia a man came in an old ladies house, she hid in her bedroom, he came in and smothered her with a pillow and got away. If she was able to keep a pistol in her night stand, Australia would have been without one more murdering criminal and still had their sweet old lady. Sadly this was not the case.

Anyway, my point about all of this is that, if the Government is aloud to put enough fear into people about Scary guns and how the only way we will be safe is to get ride of all of them, they will start with semi auto, high capacity magazine, "assault" (they love that word, they would never say defensive, it's always gota be assault) type firearms. Claiming we have no need for them. Once people were used to that, then they would say we need to get ride of all the hand guns, Pistols and Revolvers alike. Claiming we dont need them, and that they will protect us, and that places are only more dangerous when such things are allowed, when really it's our only means of Absolute protection from someone who wished to have their way with us. Then they would say, we dont need any type of rifles either, and would attack the hunting community by saying "no one needs to hunt to survive, we all have supermarkets" And that the hunters are only making the world unsafe for "the rest of us" and before a full generation had gone by, the American people would have been striped of their guns and become completely controlled by their government, and at the mercy of criminals everywhere.

That's why Civilians need Semi Automatic Fire Arms.

Thanx Spread the word!

Last edited by mellow_c; April 19, 2008 at 02:49 AM. Reason: grammer
mellow_c is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 03:16 AM   #22
RockyMtnTactical
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,961
Because the constitution guarantees that right. There's a good reason they were quick to add it in there. They know that the revolutionary war would have ended before it started if the colonists were disarmed.

It protects military style firearms too. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting.

As someone else said too, the govt is supposed to fear the people. The people are not supposed to fear the govt.
__________________
https://battlebornreview.com/
RockyMtnTactical is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 04:48 AM   #23
Baba Louie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Posts: 1,552
Quote:
Why should civilians be able to posess semi-automatic firearms.
For a fast followup shot of course.
The energy used to self load the next round also reduces felt recoil to some degree, so there's that. But those are silly (but truthful) answers to a serious question.
SLR's (self loading rifle) have been around since 1883 (Maxim's 1st machine gun) and 1885 (Mannlicher SLR design), handguns same time frame. Browning's designs came a tad bit later.

They are reliable, reasonably accurate, easy to operate, can be handy in some self defense situations (see Rodney King Riots, L.A. when police withdrew from certain hotspots to regroup... "Ya'll on your own for a while now. Stay safe, we'll be right back").

Should the question come up again, counter with "Why should "law-abiding" Citizens NOT be allowed to possess semi-automatic firearms?" (full auto as well for that matter, but that's another topic all together)

You've read the other responses posted here. Click on the TFL Library link (top bar, each page) do some serious reading, arming yourself with facts, preparing yourself for future encounters. It's not as much fun as going shooting, but you might very well end up introducing others to the sport/culture with your well reasoned responses especially if you invite them to go shooting.

Or at least make them 'think' for a moment or two. ('think' as opposed to 'feel'... painful for some)

I've taken the 'sarcastic' approach more than once and agreed with naysayers telling them that they are right, we should all only be allowed to own black powder flintlock fired muskets, no TV's, radio, computers, autos, aircraft, etc. since they weren't around when the founding fathers wrote the constitution/BOR's. It did give them pause to wonder for a second, then they usually snap back to their 'feelings' wanting to limit or curtail my legal hobby/activity.

Not that your friend is a naysayer, he (or she) may seriously want to know a logic based reason for permission to own or act. Which is kinda sad unto itself.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address
Baba Louie is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 07:14 AM   #24
wayne in boca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2005
Posts: 345
Over 100 million people were murdered by their own governments in the last century.None of them had the right to own semi-automatic firearms.Their governments denied them that right to protect them.Sound familiar.
wayne in boca is offline  
Old April 19, 2008, 09:21 AM   #25
TheManHimself
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2008
Posts: 730
"Why should violent criminals have the right to a fair trial and no cruel and unusual punishments? If the penalty for all violence was being taken to a concentration camp and tortured to death it wouldn't matter who has guns because everyone but the mentally ill would be too afraid to commit crimes. Let's just go ahead and get rid of those Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments while we're ignoring the Constitution here."
TheManHimself is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 10:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09462 seconds with 7 queries