Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-21-2009, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
37,188 posts, read 19,200,869 times
Reputation: 14902

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Semi-autos are required to not be readily converted to full auto. But it matters little since any machinist could build a full auto sten or ak47 from scratch without buying a single part. Oh, you admitted to a federal felony you know...
You mean "not readily converted" like a kit for the M1 carbine?

Any competent machinist with a set of mechanical drawings for a semi-automatic weapon can alter it to allow it to fire in fully automatic mode.

The action of the receiver may not allow it to operate in continuous fire mode, however.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2009, 04:53 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,495,840 times
Reputation: 11351
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
You mean "not readily converted" like a kit for the M1 carbine?

Any competent machinist with a set of mechanical drawings for a semi-automatic weapon can alter it to allow it to fire in fully automatic mode.

The action of the receiver may not allow it to operate in continuous fire mode, however.
Most semi-auto guns are not really safe if made full-auto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 05:01 PM
 
117 posts, read 152,114 times
Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
You mean "not readily converted" like a kit for the M1 carbine?

Any competent machinist with a set of mechanical drawings for a semi-automatic weapon can alter it to allow it to fire in fully automatic mode.

The action of the receiver may not allow it to operate in continuous fire mode, however.
Well any competent nuclear physicist with raw materials can make a Nuke. We better ban that field of study.
Seriously. A good Machinist doesn't need a gun to modify he would make it from scratch. Get real on this one.
For another, NO not all semi's can be easily modified. In fact many like a mini 14 are down right difficult. You would be better of building an action for it from scratch. You read too many liberal magazines I think.
I would like to see how many violent crimes are committed using an M-1, a mini-14, HK91, 93 or 94. Pretty sure not to many. No compare that to how many crimes are done with a baseball bat, a kitchen knife or a car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
37,188 posts, read 19,200,869 times
Reputation: 14902
Quote:
Originally Posted by leatherhead View Post
Well any competent nuclear physicist with raw materials can make a Nuke. We better ban that field of study.
Seriously. A good Machinist doesn't need a gun to modify he would make it from scratch. Get real on this one.
For another, NO not all semi's can be easily modified. In fact many like a mini 14 are down right difficult. You would be better of building an action for it from scratch. You read too many liberal magazines I think.
I would like to see how many violent crimes are committed using an M-1, a mini-14, HK91, 93 or 94. Pretty sure not to many. No compare that to how many crimes are done with a baseball bat, a kitchen knife or a car.
I worked as a gunsmith for nearly four years in the 1960s. I am not up to date on the newer guns and their design, but the older ones were a snap.

Where did you get the idea that liberals are against guns? I currently own 17, reload my own ammo, and am looking for a Ruger in .45 LC. There are plenty of us out here like me. You shouldn't generalize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 05:12 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 10,278,203 times
Reputation: 1893
The governments of most civilized nations do not allow their citizens to arm themselves with weapons like this. What's the big deal? The 1776 Revolutionary War is over. It's absurd for Americans to have stockpiles of these kinds of weapons. This is just a case of a bunch of man-boys, who are angry that their man-toys will be taken from them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
37,188 posts, read 19,200,869 times
Reputation: 14902
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward View Post
The governments of most civilized nations do not allow their citizens to arm themselves with weapons like this. What's the big deal? The 1776 Revolutionary War is over. It's absurd for Americans to have stockpiles of these kinds of weapons. This is just a case of a bunch of man-boys, who are angry that their man-toys will be taken from them.

Which brings up an excellent point.

Every home should have a flintlock available with at least two pounds of FFg black powder and two hundred round balls in case of insurrection, attack, or an attempt by the government to enslave the citizenry.

That probably was the intent of the Second Amendment as written.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 05:17 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 10,278,203 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
Which brings up an excellent point.

Every home should have a flintlock available with at least two pounds of FFg black powder and two hundred round balls in case of insurrection, attack, or an attempt by the government to enslave the citizenry.
Like I said. Man-boys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 05:21 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,495,840 times
Reputation: 11351
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward View Post
The governments of most civilized nations do not allow their citizens to arm themselves with weapons like this. What's the big deal? The 1776 Revolutionary War is over. It's absurd for Americans to have stockpiles of these kinds of weapons. This is just a case of a bunch of man-boys, who are angry that their man-toys will be taken from them.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson


The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” -Thomas Jefferson


I don't care one bit about other governments and how they treat citizens like children. I desire to live in a free country. History has shown the people must be armed to resist tyranny. Besides, Switzerland arms its people with machineguns...not an issue. Oh and guns are quite popular with women too...including the top-selling AR15's...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 05:59 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,232 posts, read 8,415,423 times
Reputation: 2583
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
Which brings up an excellent point.

Every home should have a flintlock available with at least two pounds of FFg black powder and two hundred round balls in case of insurrection, attack, or an attempt by the government to enslave the citizenry.

That probably was the intent of the Second Amendment as written.
The truth of the matter is that the weapons you mention were the equivalent of todays assault weapons. & it was the intent as written.
They, for the most part wanted nothing to do with an elite military class, everyone was equal & the arms suitable for modern war were what they wanted every citizen free acess to. That is indisputable really.

In todays world that would mean every male needs a M4 & 200 rounds of ammo.

There were plenty of arms inferior to the flintlock of the period. They could have said that commoners were allowed to have fowling pieces or match locks or crossbows. They said "Arms" simply because you were free to arm yourself as you saw fit.

There is NO justification for any federal gun bans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 06:01 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,495,840 times
Reputation: 11351
The British found the flintlock rifle used by Americans terrifying: people could be shot from unheard of distances, officers targeted...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:15 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top