GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 09-18-2012, 03:03   #1
crimdelacrim
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 37
The Curious Case of Civil Contradictions: Full Auto and the Likes

I am currently on a study break at 3AM (so forgive any excessive stupidity and be as respectful as you can) and decided to share/get an opinion on what I have been mulling over for a while. *edit* I am talking about modern FAs and not pre1986 ban stuff.

For those who have never heard the story; on the morning of February 28, 1997, two men armed with 6 weapons (three of which were fully automatic), body armor, and over 3000 rounds of ammunition robbed a Bank of America in North Hollywood. Most of the ammunition was spent and the only lives lost ended up being the criminals. The full auto guns used were one AR-15 and two AK-47s. All were purchased by one of the criminals (who was already a felon) and converted from semi-automatic to fully automatic. Where were the California gun laws on February 28?

Before I go any further, I would like to just go ahead and say that full auto weapons being legal would not have necessarily stopped this from happening....wait nevermind...A Glock 18 or something with armor piercing rounds would have neutralized the crazies pretty quickly. The reason I bring up this story is to show how easily criminals can obtain or create fully automatic weapons. What I really want to address is why I can't buy a modern, fully automatic weapon legally.

Let's go back to the 2nd amendment and this "shall not be infringed" business. What gives? At the signing of the Bill of Rights, an American citizen had every right to own cannon. If I could own a cannon and be in good standing with the federal government in 1800 then, by God, why can't I own an RPG? Don't tell me it is more dangerous. Both of these damn things can take out the better part of a house in just a few tries. The whole point of the second amendment was to allow the citizen to POTENTIALLY be as armed as the military. Why was this so acceptable then and taboo now? As with many things, I believe Charlton Heston said it best that this violation of rights comes from "anti-gun organizations that wouldn't know a semi-automatic from a sharp stick."

The truth is that a hord of Americans own semi-automatic versions of these great firearms ("Assault Rifle" is the racial epithet of gun terminology and I am not a racist!) that can do just as much damage per round. It would appear that the automatic weapon ban functions more as a downgrade from military capabilities available to civilians rather than a criminal deterrent just by the details alone. I thought I had a CIVIL right to bear whatever type of arm I wanted? and I'm pretty sure this right was NOT to be infringed. How could a law saying otherwise be just? The Bill of Rights says nothing about the right to eat food, smoke cigarrettes, drink alcohol, but the 2nd most important thing that needed to be addressed was the freedom to have whatever kind of sick and twisted instrument of death I wanted. While I am on the subject, our right to bear arms shall not be infringed...so why do we pay sales tax on guns? Guns are the only product guaranteed for ownership withOUT infringement. ANYthing that comes in between a law-abiding citizen and an AR-15 is unconstitutional...or were Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson all smoking crack that day?? Every state ratified this. HOW can their be any gray area? How much clearer can "shall not be infringed" be?

I can think of many reasons why I should have the right to own fully automatic weapons and silencers with normal protocol but none of these reasons matter. The only thing that matters is that I have a right to own a minigun if I please. What am I going to do? Break into Cyberdyne? People may not like it or agree, but its true. The founding fathers were very smart men that witnessed advances in weaponry in their own time. They surely knew that modern warfare would continue to evolve in the future. The framers meant what they wrote, they all agreed to it, and all of the states agreed to it. It is for these reasons that I will feel that my government is wronging me until the day I could have a fully automatic weapon if I wanted. Not that I can't have one...I don't even have the choice. Gripe Over. Who is with me??

PS does anybody have an old house we can shoot with a cannon?

Last edited by crimdelacrim; 09-18-2012 at 04:36..
crimdelacrim is offline   Reply With Quote
 

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 On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:25.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,267
403 Members
864 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42