This is why you don't ban automatic weaponsFollow

Not enough posts.

Tell me about your experience with automatic weapons, this made me really curious. I'm sure the 50 people would be out of sight by the time you reloaded once. You might have hit a few with some luck. But even if they hung around bunched up, I'm sure it would take you 5 clips at least to "drop" them all.

The AK-47 is not know for its precision. It's very sturdy and reliable and fires a reasonably large slug, but it's not that accurate and the recoil is quite harsh. Moreso on full auto.

I've been an infantryman with months of assault rifle training. We used a modern (introduced in the 90s), high-power, light 5,56x45mm automatic rifle: the SIG-550. It is one of the most accurate assault rifles in the world (go on, google it!).

And guess what? I hardly ever used full auto, even in an open combat situation. You're better off firing quick single rounds, especially if you're not lying down and proping your gun up on something. In FIBUA you might go for 3 round burst because you want a bit of spread, but the distances are so short (1-3m) the rounds only go off a few inches. Against covered positions (machine gun nests or so), you might employ automatic bursts. Selector to auto, but only let off about 6-8 rounds because your aim is off after that.
The only time I let rip a whole mag was when we were "destroying" ammo, so the unit would get the same amount the next year. I never did a full mag burst in a combat situation, ever. I guarantee you that the second half of your mag will go nowhere near your target. And in a civilian situation, that probably means hitting innocent bystanders.

TL;DR: Automatic rifle fire has very limited use even in a military context. For civilian self-defense, it's completely useless, ineffective and dangerous to anyone within a few hundred meters.

So we should allow all kinds of arms, then? Including, say, nukes?

Who cares? The deification of the Founding Fathers is absurd. They created a document which was able (and intended) to be modified and the SCotUS was shown, under one of the primary Founding Fathers to be authority in deciding what the Constitution means. They also felt that the Constitution was unlikely to survive an exceptionally long time and assumed that others would, soon enough, be creating a new document upon which to base a government. And none seemed exceptionally disturbed by the notion that theirs wouldn't be the sole authority for centuries to come.

I think the Founding Fathers would be far more dismayed to learn that there's chuckleheads out there who think we need to stay fast to an 18th century standard in the 21st century. And who invoke their names as a banner for their desire for stagnation.

Jophed,



You just made that up. It's a fact that the founding fathers would be outraged that someone can be forced to work 6 months a year for the govn simply because they were successfull.

I doubt the author of this can see the irony oozing from his own words...


okay I bolded a part as a hint to him

Varus,

Have you ever studied the 2nd amendment and the various legal interpretations surrounding it?

That bolded part is known as a "qualifying phrase". It's not there by accident. Many legal scholars regard the second amendment as NOT guaranteeing an INDIVIDUAL's right to keep and bear arms.

The history of the amendment goes back to places like Williamsburg, Virginia where in April of 1775 the (king appointed) Governor had the arms in the magazine taken from the local colonists. It was this type of behavior that sparked the 2nd amendment, not some basic desire to ensure that every person could be armed to the teeth.



link

How they regard it is fairly irrelevant since the Supreme Court's decision in the DC gun ban case that it is an individual right. The majority didn't read it as a qualifying phrase.

You seem to think that I'm the one deifying the Founding Fathers and weeping at what they'd think of this great land.

Personally, I'd be happy to note that Jefferson (et al) had all sorts of goofy notions and shouldn't be elevated above reproach purely on account of their better notions. Regardless, it's clear that Jefferson had minimal faith in a continual and unbroken government for generations without it needing to be uprooted and shaken out. Not even in the government that he himself helped create.

The fact that we've adjusted and interpreted the boundaries of the Constitution is, in my opinion, the principle reason why we haven't had to start over instead.