ahahahahaha ujkhnsdkjfhb
werd, that swype keyboard F-s me up sometimes.
ahahahahaha ujkhnsdkjfhb
I if can't count my shots ? Ha pleasE quit talking. And you dont know jack about military weapons.
, but I don't think you "need" full auto. That still does not mean you should not have the option for it if you want it.
Did YOU serve any time in the armed forces, G-Shock?
No-one needs it, that's not the point, it's illogical to legislate that as well.I'm trying to figure out, at what point in home defense, real home defense, not sensationalized hollywood media home defense, you would ever, ever have a need for going full auto.
I'm trying to figure out, at what point in home defense, real home defense, not sensationalized hollywood media home defense, you would ever, ever have a need for going full auto.
Yes they do, I don't give a crap what GCA '68 spews out about that.There is no reason for the average citizen to have full auto weapons. Recreation and desire don't fall under reasonable freedom, either.
No-one needs it, that's not the point, it's illogical to legislate that as well.
No-one needs it, that's not the point, it's illogical to legislate that as well.
Where do you draw that line at sarcasmo? Should semi autos be illegal too? double action triggers on revolvers? Anything beyond a musket?
No. I'm all for public ownership of firearms, but I do believe in a few limits. Fully auto. Why? Really, more trouble than it's worth to let that loose. Large Mag's, this ban I don't get but some people needed to get re-elected after Columbine so that's how this got pushed. SBR's, mostly a method put in place to have MORE charges to throw at drug importers than just 'bringing dope over the border'.
You act like full-auto is somehow difficult to acheive, it wouldn't take a moderately determined criminal more than 10 minutes to make most semi-auto firearms "full auto" (Unsafely of course, but hey, they're criminals, who cares".Well, going with that train of thought, legislating the control of nuclear weapons is also illogical to legislate. Or high explosives. I mean, fuck, let's just open up the entire possibility of whatever is in the arsenal is okay for public use.
No. I'm all for public ownership of firearms, but I do believe in a few limits. Fully auto. Why? Really, more trouble than it's worth to let that loose. Large Mag's, this ban I don't get but some people needed to get re-elected after Columbine so that's how this got pushed. SBR's, mostly a method put in place to have MORE charges to throw at drug importers than just 'bringing dope over the border'.
The thing is, though, just because you 'want' something, doesn't mean it should be fine to have it. I want to have a fully functional M1A1 abrahms tank. Do I need it? Nope. I just want one. And I want to blow things up with it. Trust me when I say society is much better off with my not being able to get one of these than being able to plunk down the AMEX Black and drive one off the lot.
And that's the point. The legislation for these is happening because people have abused the right to bare arms, many many times. To just let it continue isn't responsible. You can blame government for gun control, but really the blame lays on those who pull shit with their guns that forced the public to demand something be done, and a mildly retarded group of public servants to doing something about it.
SBR was put in place when they made handguns illegal. That way you could not cut down a rifle into a pistol. They lifted the handgun ban, and left the SBR ban. Just lame.