Let me add that I admire your ideological opposition to guns and that I actually share some of it. Sadly I realize how dangerous this world is and ideology will not keep me or my family safe from truly evil people.
I'm not sure we need more, new MGs because the cartels are invading and have all the high grade weapons. Seems to me gun owners can protect themselves with rifles, shotguns, and handguns. If you want an MG cause there's one already out there in circulation to be purchased, good for you. Not too sure we need post-86 manufacturing though.
From a tactical standpoint machine guns are generally useless but there are exceptions. Farmers in Texas have been overrun and murdered by cartels. If I was a farmer with 1,000 acres a couple truckloads of drug traffickers pull up I’d like to have a machine gun, a big one, belt fed. In my quiet neighborhood it’s probably not a good idea when you’re responsible for every round that leaves your weapon.
You're the one who missed the comments- go back and re-read.
Let me guess- you live in a hut without any other people nearby, am I right?
You think rifles, shotguns and handguns can compete with a machine gun? You really are a wanker.
I think farmers who are being overrun by feral hogs could use them, too.
Again, THIS EFFING THREAD IS NOT ABOUT MACHINE GUNS! START YOUR OWN IF YOU WANT TO BLATHER ON ABOUT THEM!
Not as long as there's post-86 anyway.
First of all, machine guns are not that cool. A good semi automatic rifle like an AR is much more effective most of the time. Secondly, you can get all the parts to convert most semi automatic rifles to full automatic very easily, and the parts alone are completely legal, the only part that is illegal is if you assemble it or show intent to assemble. Gangs have already figured this out and they’re making full autos all the time, you can’t put Jack back in the box at this point so you may as well level the playing field and let law abiding citizens have them as well.
OK, how many military grade weapons existed during the years surrounding the Revolutionary War? I'm not sure cannon were considerd for civilian use or possession. Muskets, rifles and other long guns, pistols, bayonnets, knives and tomahawks were the main weapons used in that war, so they had a limited group to consider and there would have been no way to imagine what would come later. If they had been able to see the sick world this would become, they may have limited the weapons allowed to some kind of short stick. OTOH, a short, metal stick is called a 'knife' and even that limitation would have been pushed.
And in the meantime, we have this crap-
Actually canons were civilian owned. The first Navy was comprised of cargo ships that were already armed with cannons for self defense and were civilian owned. At the time of the revolution, there were no laws banning civilians for owning cannons and some wealthy people did on them for protecting their personal homes. The second amendment was written to make sure that civilians owned military hardware specifically so that if they were called to service, they already owned the equipment necessary.
Hadn't seen civilian ownership but commercial makes sense, considering the piracy/privateering at the time.
I dunno what you're talking about. Very clear sentences by gun owners above who think, but also think quite a few of their peers believe the goal is to have more firepower.
Agreed, many do but the gist of 2A isn't to ensure that people have their own armory. Again, the Founding Fathers could never imagine how far this has gone off the rails or the idiotic things people do, while claiming that they have the right.
